ML20149M345

From kanterella
Revision as of 11:03, 11 December 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
OIG Event Inquiry - Implementation of Recommendations to Improve NRC Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation - Case 96-01S - 960305
ML20149M345
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/05/1996
From: Watkins R
NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG)
To:
Shared Package
ML20149M327 List:
References
FOIA-96-491 96-01S, 96-1S, NUDOCS 9612160225
Download: ML20149M345 (21)
v • d • e


Text

~- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~~

_ ____ . . . _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ' ' - - - - - - ~ ' ^ - ~ -

.' e:,

.',,+;,.f.  ::; ,*gr'. f,

,;.....';* .s, ,

...,s,,- 4,,,...:..,

' ' ' .q .. f:...i ' ,..*^. ::

. ;,,,. f 'f.

-' . ' ' , t- l',. .: 'y s , _ : ...;f.'.

-. , . , -  ;,, p : ..e,. J

~;i . . - ,

Q.,, :'.U,  ; * . f . ,; .. .,t  ;

',. -'.,...:._l,.,...  !'g * ,' _ g:;' ,~.

-

  • y. .g.',,.s:-, 3.,(, . .,,,'.,,h ...  %, t'
  • ._'f' .;...,, ' ., .s.ro ; ,..,*...,;,L,.,'r

.g.,,

.< l. W' , .e.;f

'f* - : . *g'-

_ .. j

. . ;C',= ,Q.,..~ , ,f ' . t ' *4f. .l; n v:',.:. i- .;

i' ' ' . .**; b ' .".'.;'o*

l

. . ' ' * ; .[: . g . ,,, an.; eG .c^.;' 9.1 :,. .i ..'_;,.

, . ' ' q:n. . . : .*,.'.;'.l'?g..,

.,*w'?...>s..=.it,,.~ .r'< , > *._I'.'.*..'..n.s:*;':. '

A.-s

' ' ;j.'?  ;. o .-* '.  ;..;.. ;;;

.r y( ;.I.2;p.: *

'.y'

. , '*= .

': '?. ' . ' '"  : ' :s.

  • V

.- . .' x - ~ ......q.-?,....:h .; y: - M' ". .:g. s.:.'.'lO'c*3}' ' 1 .'

1 . ?' .  : ' ..y .'n..'. ,

... '- % 1

9.n
,.
p e . : . ' m;', :, .] w, .

t ~ .

.' , 9' ., -!

,.:.,..-','s'.'

. . ' . :s :

' ^

_ .  ! , .,'; l . =. , _ , . ' ., *

~ : ' '

a..,.; c.,_. . ,6- c!,W

.f.  : -*, . .J . .. .. '.. : . - ; '.r)...;. .. .. . . . .

.';., . ; ' .. .:., .. s. .' ..j,._%':o..,'-

. .~. ,. ' .;;', .:- .: .*. . .. . ;,3_

.i. . . , ,

, . , l .

...b*... . , ,'g~. ~.;. . ,,..e

3 e

. . _ . .' .. l ,, , , - ' _, . . . _ ,, . _ ,,- . ., ,..,,.uv  :

4.s

  • 4,*

t.

' ') , .;,',_', ..'_'.'.'.',:\, .y,..., ': { o ['

-r

  • ll,'._., , ' *; . * : : ;..,;'...- "-

.,t.,

  • ..! *'.'.,;,.:,'...? . ,

..s t'. ,; ;=* l'_;..,.

s. , y . <-.,. ,, ,

+-

s. : .. ..

,;'*..a '. }) q f_ ;; y . '_ ', _ ' ;'J .l. fy j  ; -%' : '. . ; .

[ ." ,, . , ; ;

,.,s.

, #, *3._ [;U ,

. .. ' . , ' '^

p .: .9 4J- .. ../.

  • .. 9.*f,.,., e. ; / .

".'f

. .i

' . ' , ,, : ,t,, s. , f'* ;;,.,y.,..g. "'_.,.' . .* .;. : ;

.*y'7,.,,- . +,'

p , .c . . , . , , ;, ,,,' ...'.,c.-.,  ; 5

.~% ..- .r* . , . . . , . , . , ,
,- < , . . . , , . 9
,, ,'

E'.,, ; .,r:a,1..._._,,.,.,.,lN.' , .' .e., f ,, 9. -. . /,, ,i , .; y* .../. ,.

.,(...

l'; ,- .., .: .i

.-.'.' ),

, > . , ,\ - :. . ',4 . , v::c

+.s.,* '._ .?

' . - _ . ,*_: :',y.'. - .,.

'-),*t 4' - :.,.,'.'%:y

~_,i

. . l -_G,..s..:

v',-,.};. . *,q, ' . ". -. ej - .;. f,'s,. ,*

,.e',

.,'_$'..,..L'??... . ' ; , ' . c .,(.._... ' _ .< :f,, " y, . ; r "'1

-_ , , * <  ?

.' " ,M.J ~ a :'l,'s (% *"9

.' '4.
. . :, :. . ,s .

< y . e. .z . .' Y. '..e5 ,. :it.

  • ...7....- ,,

" : _:. ,..^s;,- ...:- '. ,y,'-

*l .

. y;...A _* s .-s

.; "p N : .. "

.ld'.,,F

'.s..l * ;'-

i, )

,,c , . , . ,,.. f'. :

,.
.*j...*..  ;, ,.

% .f;; -c.'%

  • n. :

. *:s:-, . . 'y; -r . . :v,.~ v. , <'; . ; \ ' j .;-. .' .:.n. . . ' . v'f,.n' ..*._ . y

y. .'..'. .. . ..;-k.:  : . e.

.. ..:..u.f.G

.' g

_":,.\.,..'_.*s..m,..-

..~,'

. : 's i , . - ..:, ,. : w

.. . . .
- : .v....

.7: ; v. : ' .;., ~;. : g -

. .:s , , ..,.i-? 7.;; : ...;.<..?...

.'...'^ . . 3

;,'. .,r, ~a.
.',,.r..,.s.. .+i...,.i..;...

,. ,*t

. : , , : .8 : i s'*

.t n..' .;..',...' .._.;,y_e.

.. . ;. . $. ,( ';J, .

,1 '- -

';" m

...,uQ ' 'L e.,. . / ..

_; , A. '
, , -,, .;._ q :[A' ,
. , ;;' s _ ,. ': v.,,, , _.- . _ .. _', - ... '.)  ? ' " l- .:.. . i. .. ' %' ;

.v,,

.s . ;_ .. _

',, . . J p _' ,. f ',

,]4 'l .; i..,;.'.,. ..-q,.

f.,' . ;. s .' ' .,: e, n.

,.:. ' . j 3 , y '.;h. ' ' / .,. . . . . . . , . ,,

,V' 2 'I'$ .' , ' .

. . . , , . ' ...' .()', ,~...W.j 'l. .1 h. , ' .'.A;,,."

. ' V ^ : *." .. ,,. Y., ..' . .. W.Y.'. j . ' b "!::.(.,

., ...[', M S

...e. -

. .,3.;.,,

. - . ' - ,o I .' .h. ' ' . . ' ' . . . -'t,... . , . , ~W',.'.,.r'. .

e.

a , . * . ~c .,...,,... T'..,

' ,i .. . . _ ,. . s.} Q. . '.h...'~. ,o 4,

- e

- y. . .

' ' . , / , / . ', . q, ; , . f. :. '..'.,"',';;,s.. -..p e^- ,,:,- .., y .:,(",..m

'y

. .*,- ' )..y; r. l, .. ,. ' . ,. .:,* y

' 3

.A - ' .;,, T n * -

. ,,..I,' .. ',

..,;,,"'.','.J' 'l.;..> -l

. _ - *- ' .'; o

. ,w . .i ,s .: s,:.

. . t,

',' .*q .

'..i . - . . ' , ' ,. , l .:' _,..;.,

..e e- .' . . ". ;, )

g..;: .'. . ..'...q.'._..,,..g,%.  ;

,1.

.e,...-

, ...v o .

,.a.L....v..q...;.-:.u...... ......c... . . .. .

. ... .,.-f.9..,. . .. - w.; .,. ...:.,

. p .4,., .. . .:..~

.,e,. ' .-

.s,.. <.. . , , .'. ..* .3 1 . - ;

...g .g.

j..:.,. - f i

....4.f--

+ .i.

.,.1,.;y.,.,.5,

, .A ' ; , '. , ' ; f.: .; .; s, * ; - l. ls i* ; ;

, L ,,~ ' , i, q i

.,7 g ,,. , , . . ,,s t.

^  :;' ; .: w - ) ,e ; .! {. '. : . P ; .',' .;,,

l,}

. . . :..:' . ' .D .{J .j . 'f ' : ; 6 i. M . ': ' ," ' ' \ . , j. ' .4: .4

, G. s .,,3 ; f i: '. j

. * ..  ;
'? Ji; l i._ ' . .; *::l.i ' l - '?: _

.- t , .- . -t t m,l . ,( g' : .-.f.7 ,._ . , , , , . . '. ;:; g .. 3. 3):t. -, - .... ,.,.';,. ,. if. !y, N y.;";, . ;.n. g ' : j;..

I,5 . .:' *[..7,_ ' l,". '_ I \:_ .y 4

.'l*- . - . , , .

^

,: t

' , . ' , . - N ... ... . ,; ..

. ;. _ .. s f. *
i ; K '. ..; ::: 1 + ;i, ;;,'.  ; : y.;;* , _.-

_ .':._ V :.: _.

  • i l _ ; ; , j , ._ _ .l.'.'.,'.,')- *

,'r.'_, ,*, lI h.'?:

-: .a

'.,,l.

_ Q;f..:f. .

, _;o-  ?, [ ~.. ' . ..n-?',l,.. . .,

?

.[ ; , *,.; . ' . .:;,, ' j.'_:,.s*.>'. ';. '@ fry; '* *, _,_'\',q __. l- .\ *

.Y,; , *. ., A:: l

' ; }9 ; , ; -: ; ; _ _.,; c ' ,,:: / '., l; . s;. ,' '.

,e,,.>.

_ g;;,- ,;,, y ,_ ..:.. .;

'_;{ r

{ r . ..* ,. . .

, ,, , . ;. ; - '-<_..a,. i. *\. .;.,. .' . I':

. , ,/l' ;. ,, '*3.' h , ' b .+ " . Nj : }f }' . },..'. ,

'.'.l /.I.

.-[.s ' ; ; j,.j. V., . g,. .. , - w

,,,.' .~
r,,,..,., . j. ,;g : + -,,.._, y,_ ' ,,, , , . _ . . .[

. , , ,_ 'f, _ , [:,1,1 ; 3 . .g.., ',' y ,1. . ;.c , 7'. . p ' 1 g [l j 7.{ , . N [.! ' ( . } ' , ~ ,

.[ f. ...@ N'- .c3 h gh. In \ [, .

_ ' . . .; . : .. p . } .. .., ,'. , - ,, ., . . . , . . . . . .* ^*: <
  • ,.. ..* .<. ', , . , ' ., *-, y*

q

'. .; ..-. . .. . _ . .".,.,..., .cs.. ' . . . . .i,..*'$.,, ;; -,,.*..;. -

.,{ ,. .) d,I h,;U.h [.0

...,.'..j..

.~ y - -

'+ .6, . . . - ,s, - . ..

n_

.- ,; : . . ' . . . ;, - ,....i..o... 3- L .' ,,: - ; '  :. .: ,r  :

7.. .G '.,,. s e.

e . ,, . ' , . , ..,o r,,*.'.,';., . . . . . . . ..,.;*.5',..,,..','.:r...n.f,,._,'...,.,.......

.: s. .- -- -

' . ' . '. s . .'. ;,v. 3 ' .;.. , . , . . .. ..,;',,,','o;- . , '...'..p.....,

A :

. . -:,. c s-

..* ' . - ,,. . ' ,. '.; ~.. . . . C, .: .

s'.

, 2-

.c W *. &

,. ..,..",e....-

.. s .

, g .

^

'..,'-..,,;;;:.:'..s.;,

s. .'..

.,...:. . . . %, . ..;

  • pr L . ' .:,_ ~ . . . . ;, . . . L{y.,.. .q,' ;* ...;.

.s s L

, +,:...d,:,....' ' ... . , . ,:. L? ~. i . n " ' .'.,, '

.c

, ::. , ;;. ..;s .." .-  : . . , .-. < ,

..:,......J'.

A' . =

.~.,4.. - .:.  ?

r* s. .

y :. . - '- ;

. , , . . , , . ,,;: ,-'.i.

, ,g,j ;; .e..r.. s~,;;,., ' - e ;

. ' . ;3 W  ; . . , >:

'..s.. y,; v,,.,:.,..': .j . . $ . ; . . . , ......:, .,

,o,- .,.,.,,.,i:....g,~,  ; : .;,.,  :, , ..-

3. .;  : ,:...._ .. ,, ',.,:,.,  : . t. , .f e -

.,y,..,.. , , . .. . , , - . ;. .

',..m,

[ \)
l~,:

l '[k. h c'

,,2

.h, . . . . , , . . -

. ~ - . ... e. . p: , . ,;; . .: . , . . ~ . . . . ..x.1.,,u.. , ,..n . . .: . . . .. .. . .. ~. . : . :... .., :1 .,.......:

c

, . . , ... . :.u  : ,, . . ..

~ . . ' ~; .. 2 . ,  ; . :. s . . ' .;;: . ., . .

._  ; . . .;,;. . :. t,:. *

+.

. ,  : . 1 . .', ,. ; . .

. . .... . :, _ : . s

.  : p..lg% b.

. c . .~. ,, .... ~.- . .

..r....:. .

3'..:,-l, ,; ..; .

O:,,,. ..,  !.;..% ..;, . , 1;  : ..',. , . }?.3 ) , -....,;- :' g . ,. . , . .. ;: 1, ,;. c .  : : .w: r

~

.,'.'M.,..,.' . ' :. : . .- . . :. .: ,;> .::..n..,

.. g:;~. '..:. .,.;;;".,.3 ., ,,v., #...<_.:,; ...,.-. _. .:- z. .: ....-y.~... . .. -

.. a.....:.,,

. .. - . . . , , , . , .. . . . ,. , : .., ,:.. <,..-(..- . .: . s  ;. ......:.,.

. .. n.,

...n.

... g% r  ;*;;' :i:Yc'p v

.. 2.[s , ; a ':::: ~V :. ,i b .'. :-', " s - -

s

  • ;' . . , '...: ::' g , ., ..- .~. .: . . .,

'H

. . .. s..

l. . .. . 77

- . , :- . . , e,i.'O'^ ' '" "i: '.WU:

...r.,.,.,

. .q

" " (;'t ... ..Y".<'.l: . . ' -Il Q 1,!-

. i.. ,

^ e . ; '. . ,

. . ~

. . ..:,~....-\.~c..'.':w..._'

m. ., -

i31' l , , ; ' . -. c::::

-.n  ?

.,..z;..?..'.'.,~..'.{_,.',\;

?

e

' ~ ,_:n - Q '- n . . ., . :.Q

.n  : r ' . .

  • n 31. . '. '

1

. . . ...: ::..,'?._s_i' : .; ,' ' Y' m,'.- <

. . ;, 4:. 'e.. l. Q:~ . . ;;?'

s

..g ,-'n . Y .'  ;.:' . - ,

.' .-;.. .: f,.'z' .^. :.;%' -:.

n-

'Y 1. . l l ' <.. ' 'i. } , 4. ..'c:e

' z ;,l. '2j t 'v. . 'j , . '!:;' 7, ' '. '. y, ' '.@* ll/ ,',','. ' ,.,'" $.$l

.. .( ,f ,'_ _.: . Q ^ Q. .. .f. :'.; .

.' :?? *L .I: ' .:?' c ;e' "., . ,,g' ' +,

'.',g'. \ '.,.- . [ij'. ' .N,',. ' ; , . '.',; n,:. . . !:' J. g 'rM ' ,. . -

.l l -

. .g.-' ' r 7 ;V. . n" . . :

' . V.;

c. s - .y <

p .J 4  %'is*..

,S.

.e . ,, ' , , .

6. .

. ., ': . ' , m . ,: ~ ' ; ' r . ;w' - sW

?. . ,? i ' . , 'y:' J. + , ' . ,. , j . .'ly

,a; .

a",:.

. .? ',. 't. . . lmy' . N.2 l.jf_llt;s' ).s '

.{' ." - , '2 -; .

, l E. 3,p;b  :% Y&  ?.>\ .  :' f. <t .:=' '.

' c. 'n.%e: I .),? ' ' *s' ;t',Wl?;i . . . . . '.,.* ... ?. p; ,',{,* %l, .?. ' " l' ].>? .l '; q ' ' ' ;.'..T c:' ' :h.'??,';:.*;' Y

~.,

. % ',wU a. E. s, '.:h %. z

.>- "s. 's t k .' 'l.,';.

.",n.). -

.> .-:'t.. ;(*:% D. QiQA '{n; . ,,, y:. -' ,A' ;; '- @:' ' '

k,l6 . '. .':, . '.x.%. . *..n' :q'p . .y".$. ..

.i..*

,,E &':.' Y.. . .

c' ^

. .. >.iQ. A.%l. .'. ,&;? &  %}'. ' t ,: s, . , - ., . -

Qo' U.  : ; '_U.'"D'll:c].'. l+(?j.f,vl V - - :W. .'f. ,'.;, dl

._n.

.l,f.'.,.g'  ; 5:l'. '- ' M' ..'., fi.,:. I., f . ',' :.$ '{ ' i. :, A. :. .p,' r $. . . .s)h . ';' _ d. :. ,'.',.l,

]',. '. . ;.

. .I .. c ..-s r.,. , . . ,

. . , . /. .. +, ..

0l.'*[.<, . .: ., 4

' + . . .' 5. *{-;h. .

, . .. YQ.()

w; .L c ,.. i.;e,i

}.'{'.*.? .- fy ',, s.

.e,'. .. ,; ;s- . . , ..,.A..

.* .al1.. ,'.

, *'u.y..; l' -l>}, y,:L .

l'..,.*'...'.Qt'of_~l**'N. y . .

y :,. l', , '.;g : . { Q h h.j& ' ;). ':p.',p.'

. . :,b,. , . V ^._: ,* ':i.* l .t . ',;';

.' y;9;,, +

s.. - 3,g . s.. .T.

.t t e:"

6.c.,.. u..,,a~,<w.,t. - q* . +~ . , 4 . . %., 3:

, ..::y)-- t. ^ ? ,:,;.'...f...1.,,..g e,. 4...- .v.4 +p......a S '. T ,/, ,,S. '.

.. Y,. . .s'..'y

.e ., , _

,. ".: V .' :,f, . .yIU idt. ;,F ;g . . U:..,

b:.;

t j V:{).,...Ch 'i.'io'$"l.;:, ..- . .:'

-N.j * . . ;. ":l#  :.., l 4 ' 4 N.],

  • L , ..: *. h:

... . ;,:,'t, _l,L,' ,

.';[ . ,- l- ,

.s'.,"

_ "( ; . ,;.;,., Cf 'fs}. :), i' :j;;c : ?, .:

'v ,_ . .f. ..li','}.; ' .;':Q w k. ..

'.. 'n. ,.3. .,j.;.lA s"l ._

. .;.. , ;., , m ,_ y

'; t _i  ;'9: ';. ilf.T'.j';*, . e _ .a-+ o';lC- 4_ [:, ;j. :e. l, Y.g

-Q ;j *);[Y~;~,.

.n [;, j 9. : . .n:s

, . m. .,N ';)]

. ( . ), y *. , * . ,t. .- .. , ;w u. '. . . >

, - .I: . y ', , . -' l l 'Lb ( .,. f,Y .M, f

._ .I,,},.?.l l f T;i.e;,_ l ,y(:'.(' 'y, }lW^' fl. ,*Q.'_:lll.[-'. . :Y.l, .; ' %'. l.y. ' - .(; ,i, ';; , l" ',:l.: ' .*J , ./. * . . O . _; ' *

., ,l' ),[',u n ;,';;f

'Why '. , ,.

.- _' (f_ f.,, '?. ;: .,:- L:l_ ~ l.}Q';_  ? '.O. :y. :f.;'.

?,,  : W .,

[., ;! . i.'.

  • l'.', ';.f: 'l ' Of

.i >^,.: x l G *l %:? ,_f.l ,;.: {. , : '._;,:h..},  ;( 'j. g.. s y" :f,

. . l:, I;f.;.,?;r,r;N 3 ) b ' R:f .:,

s  :

f '.t';f

.h._f , ,_

q'...:: .!:l.,'Q;.%. . . yc

  • 3Q.' y.{j;,),f:.'i'lJ.h, jl "., Q. , '-: };& ,. :_ G ' n; :) . ..! ~g'; . ,< ? ': ... f,'fl,', 'lfj ;,.,i ' .;. f ; '
.3.b y;j J;'y%l> \.: _. .:  : g _ :j.M) f_ :.;, 3

. _ u  :. , .  ; . . .;, -  ;~.y ,.

,s

,p }3 L .% . 's . . . _ u,o . . . .e..s...'e,. ,

  • $ , . c:4 T V, n+.. -

. ..g !;, c3. yV: : .: ;,y ;.f ',. :s,:;_ f,;!.[. .;y ::p ;_ ,* a

, .:, * . e.3 ,' c__ p' :._,c _:'4:  :. _

t

- ,',.:,, ,g. , ._ h y.

9 s .. .<,-(- .L,3..f f.f.;. ,aq q: c,

  • F.* . *t, ; ,- ,te. o-'

s  ;

.> . 1. ,: ,;;, ..,. ;,.,;. p . .3+p 4- .y. .

  • ' e t y h. . , .W:'..',,.',,'.::-
.? - ., b.

s:. ..  : .

i,.' ,I.' ,5 j .',., ,. , ', " ' .,' ;: ,[ t f '. . .. ' ,[  : ' . ;. , *','

,) I je[} . , ; ,[ .'.a,

,I '*, ' ..

r. [,,[  ;' . .-, -.'8. '. ..y ..e.

, 7

-h

.f ..'4.;; . /g . '%Y s,.'M,- [ {." c. .. .: [ ".i _. ,  ;

,n . .{ . { 2, . f ,,.. ~.).,' . ',

g.g*.. . k f q[ .6,k.,l

  • n . . .. , . , w . .['.c . .$. ... .. ,): . . [.' !, '.#...(f ., [.' {. .j. t' D. '*f -':,

j.'.sg.,,',,l.,*

..... c ., - .

6

?,,..,-,qI.o.,. ..' ...1.,p/. ,r

. , . n. ..y g.. c,..., . - . . .' r..  ;

, , %, ,.. u.., , .c,.. ? - t.

  • .i

.t'. .

  • . .. .:r -.,

.g ...

,,.r",..,

_,.:+.,,s..,,......;:

j.. . ' . - , .

,y ..'., s +'

,f,. .4,,.,...6 s i,. t

  • g_
  • -y :gy ~...'4.L.

i , ,

.: ..,. n...L..,s.',. y

.,,._.,.s.,..;'a_1,  ;>_. n'

, . . , .i.'.  :,.., ,y _,,r;.~,

. ,y,,,....

+ .,,,-,.f.S.
,,,

, s . _ ,..,..;., . , ;,;,. .-

.y.,-  ; R,, , ,,,,; .: ,,p':[. . ;, t, : u. 9: ; ;;; y ;;&;&,, ,.~,* , , , <; s .

...:b,,.'.

,g

^

y l; Y .f;;)q1;n,9,,,

., ' y, _.

. :e . . . ;;., . , , ,;,ye; k., ., ,g.. , , : ,Q: * : : ' i a , y i . . ,.. ; .

e,

"? .f ,.l;jy,  :

,. ., b:;,f ,':,,f%.g . . ,:,.'..~g... .f :. *.l*0 Is'.,_; .IQ, :- ,_y,._:: ._'.;i. ,

f..;,.Q .9* ',.l. .;.?:\'l ;j n.,-  :

l 3.,,:

- , ^

m.,-  :

.s L,

/J.'; '. . ,'l; ,\  ; "9;,j;<M .,,:t  ; N, 'a. ..l;,j[ Q.G w...

.. ;, y l . ,~'?<.'.:- ;f;,c:.'s . e.s ,':; , ';,  ;;;~- - , , :

.., '...: e, c ,. ' .

,*.,':;.. , , n; ,'*,,;. -..*:.' :,'...:, ::y z _. . l, { ,. . } '

.'. , ..\.' ','. :. , ' , ' ' , ; ...: .*'.; k  :. ; % 'm

'._ l.'f. ._.?',  ::,y- f.:}' .. . ' '"..i;,.. '.: ., .:Q. .. .. .;;*f:s. -L..' ) . .

. ".:"..- : . sa :

., . : < * . . .c . . < *'l*__ ._- '..;;, . ll :

.s . ..

_?.

_V,.,.s..,i. . .. ' ' ' . ,., . , : .l . . . ;. n .. u ; ,.

.:v- _

..,,,'.9.'q...l.% N.,? ,_.; ; .%.',' *T**',...",r',. >

..,.t.['I,

y ' r.>l_', c * , ,.?' .:.,

.n.

.q,

..,.,-f. , ' :'.g,'{...'.'s",

' . ' ....,..k.Y...I',.

., . s.

  • g'

,  :,N s, *. *-- .- ' , ' . .. .;

.*7,- j ] s,,'. [r - ,. , . ., S f*.* . ;

o.<.'

\

...,n* ..:. =.;.- . ' . -

. , , , ,'y ' . ' . . ,

,; .: i.:. ';- ... .'-. 'a' / ,.1.,,,, 1,,

,' i;,

,.g,',

qa

,-r'.l'.

..,; , . , . . ': o..,..-.

9

. ' . , . . . . . , . . . ,.._',i/..,sL..",-'s.,

. ' . , . A

','._ , .; + . . [.v

,,,.,f.'".. r t .' [.. .-'i  :, ' .'.;.s.;' '

P,

.  ?{  ;

  • g'
-. . , . ' ' . ' , .s.'m,,'.
  • / I

..,;.., ,a... s'1

' . .',. , ", n.:.,.'s.,',,'*,; . .4 4k','a..,.'.' .*: *, ' _/, ' . . . A. , .;:@,; ': ..'. ' . '. . " ' .& ' ' ... .. , '.' *::- ; . , * .

'g. -

,..'4

...,? , ,.,,;, ,.,:, . ,

/ ~ , 'th c

. . . .i ,,.

.',.,,.a.'.*

  • I ,, ,.

..?. *.? I ,.,s t

.i.:..:;,;.,.:~'.,.,....s;.,

.'*2,*:~~ ' '

.l.,(,si.'.?',..,.~.'...,:'..,,'.'.

.i... -s'..

.  ?

--  : ' - ^.  :- .*

, ,. . Q ' {g. ',,g d 'm?,*; {:.{.Q.s s

gl;y.s.,:.?'a..

t .

.l' ~.;^. :. o'" j ' i , Y.'.:*

., ..,',.; - . , ,*' '~. .-. Y',: '-9,'*i.. . ,*y'.,'b'..

' , ' ,., .rf.5 ,-. . " . . ' ;. .',','.,r'

, '.(*:. V;

.~l ' ,

,.*:, e

'
:: :'^ *; ,:

^s-.. '.' '8.:s

, . : . * . 'L,

. .. y .?!' ,g

,_ ., g ,e,

g. .*}'.."e..

^

'; * ~ >; . : la . .' [. . f; .: e ,; . - ;< ; . . . ;f..:*.. ,y ' .,,. .

N;

. . . .c

,[ :. ;;, .. y

  • s ,.

. '.. .. , %} . ;f " :. r;., p; ,:: y ,. , g,.h y',g f m p. .:.c.+ ,.

. . n. ' " .b *j [ .: _ , , ; ,

.a

' .. . !s . ; g, 7. L. . ..~ ., .

_, ' ....t H . * '~ ' f..>'.-.ns. L ?. '-. .:' . ... - '.

.,t

  • .. ;. '"d.,..-*; . . . . . .. .. ' : e .:.- .' ,...,,. ,.,' .*-.' .' ,. .- "'.!'.,,'- i .

.[.;,; .% . - ( ..

a t.- -

.C:?.g /.;,n.%.A ll_ lj.Q[$ &,.

5 9612160225 961204 2 ::' G.:%.:.>..? :; .*; . .:

P PDR FOIA  : .i D W

c. # ' . A. '

l-::&:;M ?:b.W .% Y:llM.L GK%#.c.l4'/b,Y%;;$.a i r MW 4 ?: 4': o BERCH96-491 -

PDR -. ..

. i Q* ' ; - _ . .l ..n .y. y,  :

,../.,, _ . , ,, , . , ,g, .,.,,.,;.. . , , , ' ,y ., , - . g . -

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. NUCLEAR

~

4 REGULATOR COMMISSION.

~

I31PLE31ENTATION OF RECO3131ENDATIONS TO ISIPROVE NRC'S PROGRA31 FOR PROTECTING ALLEGERS AGAINST RETALIATION CASE NO.96-01S Starch 5,1996 a < .

s. ,

' EVENT. INQUIRY I -

I E . ** * -

i s

t

~

i t

21 5 961204 BERGH 96-491 PI)R i

a. I l

4 I

i* l 1

i= l IMPLEMENTATIONOF RECOMMENDATIONS 4

TO IMPROVE NRC'S PROGRAM FOR i PROTECTING ALLEGERS AGAINST RETALIATION CASE NO.96-01S March 5,1996

{

1

)

i 4

i

.c l

l l

l l'

D 1

1 I'

4 l .

! :0FFICE OFtTHERINSPECTORLGENERALL

. EVENTRINQUIRYd i.

i 4

AR R e g (./

4

\ Ab 4

a@ v ,

4,

! l" l IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE NRC's PROGRAM FOR PROTECTING 1

i ALLEGERS AGAINST RETALIATION

!, M 1 M j;1 ME01%

kW -~- *%. 3/5/96 l S g)ial Agent Date Ssctij5n thie'f Date l

Yt!dW

~

Assistant Inspector 31s1 %

Date j General for Investigations s

I l

l TABLE OF CONTENTS i

! Eane j

. BACKGROUND ....................... 1 1 1

! ISSUE 1. THE REPORT OF THE REVIEW TEAM FOR REASSESSMENT

!- 0F THE NRC'S PROGRAM FOR PROTECTING ALLEGERS j AGAINST RETALIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

The Review Team Report and Implementation Plan .3 l NRC's Implementation of Recommendations Made .4 i

i A. Management Directive 8.8,

" Management of Allegations" ...... 5 i B. Draft Policy Statement: " Freedom of i

i Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety and Compliance j Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation" .7 '

C. NRC Enforcement Policy and the i Enforcement Manual . . . . . . . . . . . 8 J m

D. Revision of 10 CFR Part 19 . . . . . . . 8 I '

E. Other Recommendations ......... 9 ISSUE 2: INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGERS' l IDENTITIES BY THE NRC TO THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 0FFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (TVA-0IG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 OIG Examination of the Recommendations Made in Response to the TVA-0IG Case . . . . . . . . 9 NRC Headcuarter's Implementation of Recommencations Made ............. 11 NRC Region II's Implementation of Recommendations Made ............. 11 OBSERVATIONS ...................... 14 APPENDIX A: Matrix of Implementation

, a.

BACKGROUND 1 l

l l l Alleg5r protection has been an issue of longstanding concern to the Office of the Inspector l

!~ General (OIG), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In a 1992 Inspection Report, "NRC Response to Whistleblower Retaliation Complaints," (Case No.92-01N), OIG found

. that the agency's process for handling allegations of retaliation against allegers did not i provide an adequate level of protection.

l l On July 15, 1993, the Inspector General, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), j appeared before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation to l discuss the NRC's process for handling allegations of retaliation against whistleblowers who report health and safety issues to their management or to the NRC. His testunony focused on findings made in the OIG inspection report.

As the Impmor General testified, the inspection was initiated in 1992 based on the receipt of  !

serious comp 1 mints from current and fonner nuclear licensee employees. The purpose of the l OIG inanedon was to ernmine and better understand the nature of the complamts and the i magnitude of the problem. The inspection disclosed substantini dissatisfaction among the allegers as well as many NRC staff involved in the process. The NRC practice of delaying action until the Department of Labor (DOL) concluded its proceedings contributed to the untunely resolution of whistleblowers' complaints. This process left the whistleblowers with 1 a feeling of being left "out in the cold," and could result in a " chilling effect" for both j whistleblowers and co-workers who may have additional safety concerns to report. The  !

inspection findings suggested the need for substantint additional work to attempt to improve the manner in which the agency addressed whistleblower retaliation complaints in the nuclear industry.

The Chairman of the NRC also provided testimony to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee. The  !

Chairman explained that the Commission had already taken steps to establish a senior staff panel to review the inspection report, an April 1992 OIG report on allegation management, and other issues associated with allegers to determine if changes to regulations, policies, or practices were warranted. Then Chairman Ivan SELIN emphasized that the NRC has placed a high value on employees in the nuclear industry being free to raise potential safety issues to their management. According to Chairman SELIN, over the years the NRC, the regulated industry, and the public have benefitted from the issues raised by employees of licensees and their contractors.

One week before Chairman SELIN testified to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO) established a review team to reassess the NRC's program for protecting allegers against retaliation (hereafter referred to as Review Team). The Review Team Charter, dated July 6,1993, instructed the team to consider whether the Commission had taken sufficient steps to create an environment within the regulated community in which employees felt free to raise concerns.

l w - ~, ,r-

f ..

i l On January 7,1994, the Review Team issued its report as NU. REG-1499 entitled, " Report of the Review Team for Reassessment of the NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation." The Review Team, led by the Director of the NRC's Office of Enforcement (OE),' concluded that "the NRC had not taken sufficient steps within its authority to create and promote an environment within the regulated community in which employees feel free to raise concerns without fearing retaliation." The Review Team made 47 specific

. recommendations addressing how the agency could improve its program for protecting allegers against retaliation.

In July 1994, OIG issued its Report of Investigation for Case No.93-85H entitled,

" Investigation of Improper Disclosure of Allegers' Identities By the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) to the Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of the Inspector General (TVA-OIG)." The' investigation revealed several additional deficiencies with the NRC's program for protecting allegers against retaliation. After review of the OIG report, the staff proffered recommendations to resolve those deficiencies.

As recently as December 12,1995, the NRC staff has been forced to address problems with its handling of allegations. On that date, the Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) announced the formation of a senior-level review group to conduct an independent evaluation of the handling of employee concerns and allegations by Northeast Utilities Services Company (NU) and the NRC staff related to licensed activities at NU's Millstone station. OIG will also address this matter in a separate upcoming Report of Investigation.

Because problems persist.with respect to the staff's handling of allegations, OIG initiated this event inquiry to determine the extent to which the NRC has implemented the recommendations made in response to the previous reports.

d 2

~

__q

, ISSUE 1. THE REPORT OF THE REVIEW TEAM FOR REASSESSMENT OF l

THE NRC'S PROGRAM FOR PROTECTING ALLEGERS AGAINST RETALIATION i .

[

The Review Team Report and Implementation Plan i

. The January 1994 Review Team report proposed 47 recommendations to improve the environment for employees to raise concerns within the regulated community.

Recommendations addressed strengthening the NRC allegstion program (19 recommendations), modifying NRC enforcement policy for more effective deterrents against violations (11 recommendations), issuing Commission policy statements to encourage licensing action (6 recommendations), prioritizing and supporting investigations to minimize the impact of retaliation (6 recommendations), and increasing NRC investigations and involvement in the DOL process (5 recommendations).

The NRC staff then analyzed the Review Team's report. On March 29,1994, the EDO provided the Commimmion the results of the staff review along with a plan for implementing the recommendations in a commimmion paper entitled, " Response to the Report of the Review Team for Reassessment of the NRC's Program for Psiiug Allegers Against Retaliation" (SECY-94-089). The NRC staff analyzed each recommendation and provided the Commission an expected implementation date for each recommendation, which ranged anywhere between 30 and 180 days. In addition, the EDO la'oded 11 recommendations as "High Priority" for the staff.

Full implementation of numerous recommendations required both modification of existing policy or procedure and publication of the revision in a formal agency document. In fact, resolution of at least 30 of the Review Team recommendations required the agency to revise one or more of its policy statements, management directives, or manuals. For example, full implementation of 11 recommendations relied solely on publication of revised Management Directive (MD) 8.8, " Management of Allegations," 5 recommendations required revision of a commission policy statement entitled " Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety and Compliance Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation," and 9 recommendations required revision to NRC's Enforcement Policy or Manual.

In its Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated June 2,1994, the Commission informed the EDO that it was in general agreement with the plan for implementing the Review Team's recommendations. However, the Commission provided the staff with specific guidance and comment on several of the recommendations. The SRM further directed the staff to keep the Commission informed of the progress in implementing the Review Team's recommendations.

l In response to the Commission's SRM, the EDO provided the Commission a status report in a memorandum dated November 16,1994. The EDO informed the Commission of the NRC's progress in implementing the Review Team's recommendations, providing both the 3

,,w , _ - . - . - . - ,

, - . - . - - . - - - - -. . - _ ~ . - ~.- - - .- - . - - - -

I status of staff actions and estimated dates of implementation. (That information is discussed l in detail later in this report.) All of the Review Team recommendations were expected to be f

implemented by December 31,1995. The EDO further advised the Commission that the staff would inform them if there was .1 change or delay in the plan for implementation.

As the December 31,1995 deadline passed, the Commission inquired as to the EDO's

. progress on implementation. On February 23,1996, the EDO provided the Commission an updated report. The status report stated that 23 of the original 47 recommendations have

been implemented and that implementation of the remaining 24 recommendations has been i delayed beyond the originally scheduled completion date.

NRC's Implementation of Recommendations Made As noted above, the Review Team report proposed 47 recommendations to improve the environment for employees to raise concerns within the regulated community. The EDO's Febmary 23,1996 status report to the Commission reported that 23 of the original 47 l recommendations have been impler:;rned. Uowe".:r, OIG found that 3 of the 23 recommendations charactenzed as " implemented" were not adopted by the staff (with l Comminion approval) and required no staff action. Based upon the staff's own assessment, j l tt has fully implemented less than ue-half of the Review Team's recommendations.

l l The staff's implementation of the ELO's 11 "High Priority" recommcodations fared even l worse. According to the " Status of Review Team Recommendations" attached to the EDO's l February 23,1996 memorandum to tl e Comminion, only 3 of the "High Priority" items have been fully implemented. The 3 i:nplemented reccimoeiwiations involved the appointment of the Agency Allegation Advisor (AAA) position (Recommendation II.B-9), a

![ change to the NRC Enforcement Policy with respect to the issuance of citations (II.D-6), and  ;

consideration given to using the deliberate misconduct rule in enforcement actions involving discrimination (II.D-7). Table A below illustrates where the agency stands with respect to l implementing the 11 recommendations designated as a "High Priority" by the EDO in March

1994. A full account of the staff's impiementation of all 47 Review Team recommendations l is provided at Appendix A.

Overall, OIG found that the staff has made substantial progress in revising the agency policy

,. or procedure at the heart of the 47 Review Team recommendations. These revisions have been made through the issuance of interim guidance. However, while the staff has been able to revise its procedures through piecemeal guidance, the staff has had difficulty publishing that guidance in a comprehensive form within its own established schedule. Below is a separate discussion of the staff's progress on revising Management Directive (MD 8.8),

" Management of Allegations," and other activities embarked upon in order to fulfill the

- Review Team recommendations. As the staff reports, MD 8.8, the commission policy I statement on confidentiality, and other relevant formal agency documents are currently in their final stages of preparation and/or awaiting senior management or Commission approval prior to issuance.

4

!I

l l

Staff Implementation of "High Priority" Recommendations Recomm.mdarion: Intenm Recomm-tation Action Taken Fully Implemented II.A-1: Issue Policy Statement on No - Pending Policy Statement Allegations due 3/29/96 i

II.A-2: Suggested Language for the No - Pendtog Policy Statement

. Policy Statement due 3/29/%

l l II.A-4: Suggested Language for the No - Pendmg Policy Statement Policy Statement due 3/29/96 l

! II.B-9: Assignment of Agency Yes - AAA Position filled 2/6/95 l Allegation Advisor II.C-1: Transfer DOL Cases to OSHA DOL trial program No - Discussions with DOL from Wage & Hour Division began 1/18/95 ongoing II.C-2: Support Iegislative Change to No - Discussions with DOL Section 211. ongoing l II.C-7: Develop Criteria for PiivdG4.;ug Gnidance issued in . No - Pendmg revision to l NRC Investigations memo dated 10/12/9$ MD 8.8 due 3/29/96 II.D-6: Guidance on NRC Yes - Enfon=nent Policy Investigations and Citations revised 11/28/94 II.D-7: Use of Deliberate Misconduct Yes - Enforcement Manual Rule revised 12/31/94 II.E-3: Suggested I.anguage for the No - Pendmg Policy Statement Policy Statement due 3/29/%

II.E-4: Suggested language for Policy No - Pending Policy Statement Statement and Pica dws and MD 8.8 due 3/29/96 Table A.

A. Management Directive 8.8, " Management of Allegations" The staff decided early on that many of the Review Team recommendations were to be addressed in the revision of Management Directive (MD) 8.8, " Management of Allegations."

- On July 14, 1994, OIG issued its Falv tt of Investigation for Case No.93-85H, j

" Investigation of Improper Disclosure of Allegers' Identities By the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) to the Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of the Inspector General F (TVA-OIG)." Among its findings, the investigation determined that some NRC employees were misleading allegers as to the degree they could expect their identities to be protected.

This action was based upon a regional office instruction.

l 5

,7

1

! In response to findings made in the OIG report as well as recommendation (s) made by the l Review Team, the EDO issued interim guidance to the staff on informing allegers of NRC procedures and practices for protecting the identity of allegers and confidential sources. The

guidance was issued on August 22,1994. The guidance was to remain in effect until incorporation in MD 8.8, expected to be published soon thereafter.

1 i . On October 21,1994, a final draft of MD 8.8 was issued to the Regions and program offices i l for comment. An Office Allegation Coordinator counterpart meeting was scheduled for i November 8 and 9,1994, to resolve comments on the final draft. At that time, the estimated  ;

date for the publishing MD 8.8 was February 1995.

~

On March 14,1995, the EDO informed the Commission that it was prepared to issue MD l i 8.8. That version would have incorporated interim guidance the EDO had disseminated l relating to confidentiality. One week later, the Commission approved the revised MD 8.8.

Later, the staff recognized that certain provisions within MD 8.8 were inconsistent with the Commission's policy statement ou " Confidentiality" published in 1985 (50 FR 48506). The 4

policy statement provides the public with background on the development of the policy, the circumstances under which confidentiality is granted, the manner in which it would be granted, and the circumstances under which the identity of a confidential source would be i revealed. MD 8.8, as drafted, contained a comprehensive statement of the agency's handling

, of allegations, including all aspects of granting and revocation of confidentiality, the handling j of allegations by confidential sources, and the circumstances under which the NRC may i release the identity of a confidential source. Because MD 8.8 provided a more thorough and up-to-date statement of the Commission's practice in handling confidentiality than the 1985 policy statement, the staff sought to withdraw the 1985 policy statement.

l In a Commission Paper dated September 29,1995, the EDO requested approval to withdraw l the Commission's policy statement on confidentiality. The paper noted that the

! Commission's policy statement on confidentiality had not been updated since 1985. Since

! that time, changes in the organizational structure of the NRC and staff practices concerning 4

confidentiality have occurred. As these changes are not reflected in the existing policy l statement, the policy statement had become inaccurate and obsolete.

l The EDO emphacizM that the staff had extensive experience implementing the NRC's policy regarding confidentiality, and had established practices in dealing with allegations and in

protecting the identity of all allegers, whether or not they were granted formal 4

confidentiality. In addition, the agency's current practice in dealing with confidentiality is contained in a pending revision of MD 8.8, " Management of Allegations," which was expected to be published soon. The issuance of the revision was being held in abeyance

pending the Commission's decision on the revised policy staterrent.
On November 21,1995, the Commission disapproved the staff's recommendation to withdraw the 1985 policy statement on Confidentiality. NRC staff told OIG the Commission i

i i 6 4

was concerned that withdrawal of the policy statement would send the wrong message to the public. Instead, the Commission directed the staff to draft a new policy statement containing current information about the granting of confidentiality and which discusses the broader issue of the NRC's protection of the identity of all allegers. This action has held up the planned publication of MD 8.8. MD 8.8 is currently scheduled to be issued by March 29, 1996, following Commimmion approval. The schedule presumes the Commission's approval

. of a revised policy state nent on Confidentiality. The revised policy statement was provided to the EDO by the end of February 1996. The resolution of eleven Review Team tecommendations is dependent on issuing MD 8.8.

B. Draft Policy Statement: " Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety and Compliance Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation"- t The Review Team made five recommendations pertainmg to the Commission's issuance of a policy statement on raising employee concerns (Recommendations II.A-1 to II.A-3, H.E-3,

II.E-4). In the EDO's Commimmion Paper responding to the report, he informed the l Commission of his intention to draft such a policy statement. The EDO considered these
five reevuuueixiations "High Priority."

The Commission by SRM, dated June 2,1994, approved the staff's recommendation in SECY-94-089 to develop a policy statement. The Commission suggested that the policy statement contain general principles to guide licensees in maintaining a " quality' conscious workplace" which encourages employees to identify and report safety problems and where they do not fear retaliation from doing so. By Commimmion Paper dated December 19,1994, the staff provided the Cornminion a draft policy statement for consideration. The Commission informed the staff in its SRM dated January 24,1995, that it approved l publication of the draft policy statement for public comment incorporating modifications l made in a correction notice dated January 4,1995, and changes made by the Commission.

l The Commission's recommendations were incorporated into the draft policy statement l published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, February 8,1995. The fmal policy statement has not been issued as of March 1,1996.

The Director, OE, and the AAA told OIG that much of the delay in fmalizing the policy statement is due to concern on behalf of the U.S. Department oflabor. The original policy statement took a stronger position than the DOL had wanted with respect to an employee's responsibility to take safety concerns to the employer. Negotiations with DOL over appropriate language for the policy statement has been a long process, frustrated further by I

. factors affecting DOL (e.g., the recent government shut-down). They informed OIG that, while this is a "High Priority" matter at the NRC, it appears to have low priority with DOL.

According to the " Status of Review Team Recommendations" attached to the EDO's February 1996 status report, the staff developed the fmal policy statement and is awaiting concurrence from DOL, and intends to provide the final policy statement to the EDO by March 29,1996.

l i

\ q l

i ,m. , _ . . , _ , .

j..

I C. NRC Enforcement Policy and the Enforcement Manual  ;

Resolution of nine Review Team recommendations were linked to revising the NRC

. Enforcement Policy and the Enforcement Manual. (Recommendations II.D-1, II.D-2, II.D-5 to II.D-7, and II.E-5 to II.E-8). Two of these recommendations were labeled "High

! Priority" by the EDO.

~

i On October 4,1994, the staff submitted its final proposed revisions to the Enforcement Policy for the Conunission's review and approval in Commission Paper SECY 94-251,

" Proposed Revision to the General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C." The revision incorporated changes involving severity level (II D-2), and corrective action (II.D-5), and the exercise of enforcement discretion (II.D-6). The Enforcement Policy was approved by the Commission on November 8,1994, and published on November 28,1994 (59 FR 60697). The NRC Office of Enforcement ,

(OE), which is responsible for the management of the NRC Enforcement Program, issued guidance to Regions and program offices which was later incorporated into the revised NRC Enforcement Manunt (NUREG/BR-0195), issued December 31,1994. In doing so, all nine ,

recommendations were resolved.

1 D. Revision of 10 CFR Part 19 1 OIG looked into the NRC's implementation of Recommendation II.A-3. Prs mintion II.A-3 required revision of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 19 to ensure its consistency with the Commission's employee protection regulations. In a memorandum from the Director of NRR to the EDO, dated November 17,1994, the Director stated that the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) would handle the rulemaking. On February 15, 1995, the AAA formally requested RES to initiate the rulemaking. Actual work on the miemaking begon sometime in August 1995. On January 29,1996, the staff provided to the EDO the fmal rule package for approval.

OIG found notable delay in initiating the 10 CFR Part 19 revision. RES staff members told OIG that they were required to work on higher priority rulemakings before turning their attention to the Part 19 revision. This decision was made with the knowledge and concurrence of other program offices (including NRR, which requested the ruleninking).

RES staff members told OIG that their prioritization of the Part 19 revision did not mean that ,

the revision was not important, but only that other rulemakings took precedent. l RES staff provided OIG some explanation for delays it experienced revising Part 19. For the first time, RES used the direct fmal rule process to implement the rulemaking. Use of this process appeared to cause some delay in effecting the Part 19 revision. However, NRC staff has now developed some degree of expertise in this area. When used properly, the direct i final rule process is intended to significantly speed up the rulemaking process. In addition, RES pointed out that it was forced to await action by other NRC offices prior to finalizing 8

5 i

i the miemaking package. Upon publication of the revised mie, one more Review Team i

recommendation will have been fully implemented.  :

1 l ' E. Other Recommendations f i

l Recommendation H.B-4 required that allegation " sensitivity and responsiveness" be included 2

, as elements and standards in performance appraisals for employees involved in the allegation l process. On October 21,1994, the Director, Office of Personnel (OP), NRC, forwarded to l l

Office Directors and Regional Administrators specific language to be incorporated into j performance appraisals. Subsequent correspondence directed that similar language be j

included in elements and standards for Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior level System (SLS) employees. OIG sampling of elements and standards found that this recommendation has been implemented both at Headquarters and Regional levels.

, OIG also found that the AAA conducted regularly scheduled counterpart meetings with

Regional Allegation Coordinators and their support staff. In addition, the AAA has i conducted periodic audits of the quality and consistency of Allegation Review Board (ARB)

, decisions, allegation referrals, and allegation case files. These actions implement l recommendations H.B-10 and H.B-11, respectively.

Recommendations H.C-1 through H.C-3 involve changes to DOL's programs for l implementing i 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.

l Recommendation D.C-1 suggested that the Commission support the transfer of i 211 responsibility from DOL's Wage and Hour Division to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). On January 18,1995, DOL instituted a trial program in four states i to do just that. The program runs through March 1996, at which time it will be reevaluated.

As for recommendations H.C-2 (which recommends statutory changes to i 211) and H.C-3 (which recommends DOL report its adjudicatory decisions), the staff began discussing these  ;

issues and others with DOL in 1994. Meetings between the staff and DOL took place  ;

periodically during 1995, and are scheduled to continue into 1996. Both the Director, OE, and the AAA told OIG they believed that these matters were not issues of high importance to DOL. The NRC staff has not initiated unilateral action to implement these two recommendations. The Director, OE, told OIG that the staff is reluctant to seek legisla ion

, unilaterally that would solely affect the programs and resources of another Federal agency.

ISSUE 2: INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGERS' IDENTITIES BY THE NRC TO THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (TVA-OIG)

Recommendations Made in Response to the TVA-OIG Case i On July 14, 1994, the NRC OIG issued its Report of Investigation for Case No.93-85H,

" Investigation of Improper Disclosure of Allegers' Identities By the NRC Office of 3

2 9

l i

Investigations (OI) to the Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of the Inspector General (TVA-

OIG)." OIG investigated allegations raised by TVA employees that they believed NRC

! granted them " confidentiality" when they reported safety concerns but subsequently disclosed l their names to the TVA-OIG without their consent. These individuals also alleged that these 4 disclosures were facilitated by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into by the TVA-OIG and the NRC Office of Investigations (OI). The OIG investigation determined:

1. OI disclosed to the TVA-OIG without the individuals' consent or knowledge the identities of allegers who believed their identities would be held confidential.

?

l 2. OI did not have an adequate system in place to track referrals made to the

TVA-OIG.

1

! 3. Based upon a regional office instruction, Region II employees were misleading l allegers as to the degree they could expect their identities to be protected.

j ,

4. The interpretation of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions by OI i was contrary to the general NRC practice until revised at the direction of the j Deputy Executive Director for Operations in May 1991, thus allowing the

! release of allegers' names who had not signed confidentiality agreements.

On July 25,1994, the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards &

! Operations Support (Deputy EDO), requested the Acting Director, OI, to respond to the

!- findings made in the OIG Report of Investigation. The Acting Director, OI, responded on August 24,1994, informing the Deputy EDO that OI agreed with the OIG findings. Further, l ^

be stated that corrective action had been taken with the assignment of a new Field Office

.' Director to OI in Region H, NRC. He also explained that other corrective action was i j unnecessary, as the Comminion had decided to terminate the MOU with the TVA-OIG. 1

1

. i

On September 9,1994,'the Acting Director, OI, supplemented his August 24,1994 response l

! to the Deputy EDO. He advised the Deputy EDO tnat the OIG report correctly found that i OI's interpretation of FOIA exemptions was " contrary to the general NRC practice until l l revised" at the Deputy EDO's direction in May 1991. However, the Acting Director stated '

! that OI has not revealed initial source identities since the guidance was issued.

By memorandum, the Regional Administrator, Region II, NRC, informed the Deputy EDO of his review of the OIG Report ofInvestigation. He agreed with the OIG f'mdings that allegers were being misled based on regional guidance and policy. 'Ibe Regional Administrator identified several corrective actions to be made at the regional level.

On September 20,1994, the EDO informed the Commission that the staff agreed with OIG's findings. He also advised that corrective action had been initiated and/or implemented.

10 f

5

e.

NRC Headquarters' Implementation of Recommendations Made 4

The NRC advised the Inspector General, Tennessee Valley Authority, that the MOU between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Investigations and the Tennessee Valley Authority's Office of the Inspector General was terminated. The termination was done in writing on August 30,1994. This action resolved the first two findings made in OIG Case 4

. No.93-85H.

On August 22,1994, the EDO issued interim guidance to the staff addressing the degree to which the NRC can protect an alleger's identity. The guidance recognized that some allegers could assume incorrectly that the NRC would protect their identities under all circumstances.

The EDO's memorandum outlined specific information to be provided to all allegers, regardless of whether the alleger obtained a written confidentiality agreement from the NRC.

The memorandum directed that the guidance remain in effect until it is incorporated in a revision to Management Directive (MD) 8.8, " Management of Allegations."

The EDO also told the Commission that Regional Office Instmetion (ROI) No.1030 (Revision 6), " Processing Allegations, Complaints, and Concerns," and MD 8.8 would be revised by November 1994, and the staff would be instincted on the new guidance.

Though the staff implemented the EDO's interim guidance on protecting alleger identity, and has initiated extensive training to reinforce the new guidance, neither the ROI nor MD 8.8 (which were to incorporate the interim guidance) have yet been issued. As a result, staff implementation of corrective action in response to the third finding of OIG Case No.93-85H remains pending.

l' The EDO's interim guidance also directed that allegers be told that information provided under the FOIA would, to the extent consistent with that Act, be purged of names and other potential identifiers. This guidance was prompted both by the recommendations made by the Review Team (II.B-10) as well as the findings made by OIG in its investigation. The EDO's interim guidance, along with the Deputy EDO's guidance in May of 1991, resolved the issue identified in the fourth finding of OIG Case No.93-85H.

In addition to the above, the EDO informed the Commission that the OI staff member

! involved in the disclosure of the alleger identities was counseled on his failure to follow established guidelines in this area.

NRC Region II's Implementation of Recommendations Made The Regional Administrator, Region II, NRC, made several recommendations to address problems identified in the OIG Report. First, he assured the EDO that training on the EDO's interim guidance of August 22,1994, would be completed before September 15, 1994.

11 I

~ - - - - - . - - - _ - - . . - - . - - - - --.-- - - - - -.

l ..

I In addition, to resolve potential confusion some allegers may have had about the extent to which their confidentiality would be protected, the Regional Administrator stated that the Regional Counsel would prepare a "Miranda-type" statement for use in discussing the policy  ;

with allegers and a more-detailed explanation of the policy to be included with the Agency's '

response to an alleger.

. The Regional Administrator also recommended revision to the ROI to incorporate omissions in the policy and to make it consistent with expected revisions to MD 8.8. With respect to i training, the Regional Administrator recommended that Region H's " Fundamentals of l Inspection Course" be updated to incorporate changes resulting from MD 8.8 and the revised l ROI, and that all staff involved in allegations management receive mandatory refresher training on an annual basis.

OIG reviewed Region II's allegation training records. Region II Allegation Coordinators j received training on the EDO's interim guidance on September 2 and 13,1994. Region II l also conducted mandatory refresher training in February and March 1995 for all staff

~

involved in allegation management. In addition, Region H modified the curriculum of its

" Fundamentals of Inspection Course" to address prior weaknesses.

On August 30,1994, the Regional Administrator directed the Regional Counsel to prepare a j "Miranda-type" statement to be read to each alleger on initial contact, as well as a one-page

! explanation of Agency policy to be sent to each alleger with the staff's acknowledgment letter. The statement and explanation were developed shortly thereafter.

Region II's commitment to revise Regional Office Instruction 1030 (Revision 6) has not been finalized. While substantial revisions to Instruction 1030 have been made, it remains in draft

[ form. However, all substantive recommendations raised in response to the OIG Report relating to Instruction 1030 have been implemented through interim guidance or simply i placed into practice.

Several factors influenced Region H's decision not to immediately issue Revision 7 to the ROI. Because the revised ROI was intended to incorporate policy and procedures established l in updated MD 8.8, Region H staff waited for the planned release of the revised MD 8.8, which was originally scheduled for November 1994. In addition, Revision 6 of the ROI was

i published on June 30,1994, only two weeks before the OIG issued its Report on Case No.93-85H. Region II management, therefore, decided to issue interim guidance as a temporary measure until MD 8.8 was issued and all changes to the ROI could be incorporated at the same time.

l Region II staff expressed strong concern that MD 8.8 may undergo further modification j- before it is issued. Region H management told OIG that the draft ROI (Revision 7) is l' consistent with the Headquarters staff's current draft version of MD 8.8 and can be issued shortly after MD 8.8 is released, provided that no further substantial changes are made.

i However, there is no plan to issue the ROI before MD 8.8 is issued.

l*

t

12 l i

[

.. .- ~ . . . . _ _ . . -- .- .

O.

Region II has implemented all of the recommendations made following OIG Report of Investigation for Case No.93-85H, except for issuing the revised ROI. Despite this, Region Il senior managers are still concerned over the handling of allegations. Their concern was not f6cused on the procedures established, but on ensuring that their staff followed those procedures. For example, management noted that the Regional staff often failed to provide allegers with semi-annual feedback on the status of the allegation or notification that the

, allegation had been closed. These requirements have long been established procedure, but errors persist. The Regional Administrator is considering a range of corrective actions to ensure his staff's compliance with the NRC's allegation management program.

l l

t.

1 i

)

i ln i

13 l

- - - - - . .- --._-. - .- --- - - ~- - .- - -- -

+

4 OBSERVATIONS

! 1. As of January 1996, about one-half (23) of the Review Team's 47 recommendations i 1

' have been fully implemented. Three of the recommendations credited as fully )

" implemented" were not adopted and required no action. As for the 11 Review Team l recommendations the EDO designated as "High Priority," less than 30 percent have  !

. been fully implemented.

! 2. Resolution of at least 30 of the Review Team recommendations is tied to the agency's

revision of one or more formal documents (i.e., MD 8.8, Policy Statement on

, Confidentiality). In most cases, these documents remain unissued despite earlier

' ~ ~

scheduled publication dates.

l l 3. OIG found an 8 month delay within RES between the time the need for rulemaking 1 i was identified and the time work on the rulemaking was initiated. RES' low prioritization of the rulemaking, with no objection by NRR, resulted in the delay.

. 4. Though the staff implemented the EDO's interim guidance on protecting alleger

. identity, and has initiated extensive trainmg to reinforce the new guidance, neither the i Region II ROI nor MD 8.8 (which were to incorporate the interim guidance) have yet been issued. The staff is currently 16 months behind the original schedule for j publication of MD 8.8.

! 5. Region II advised that it continues to experience problems with allegation i management. Those problems are attributed to personnel failures rather than i

procedural ones. Region II is considering appropriate corrective action at this time.

6. The staff and DOL have participated in protracted discussions regarding DOL's l implementation of f 211. Despite the lack of progress, the NRC staff is reluctant to j initiate legislative changes for the protection of allegers.

i i 7. The Commission's 1985 policy statement on Confidentiality has not been updated on a l continuing basis to reflect changes in the NRC's organizational stmeture and staff

practices. Had changes to the policy statement been made regularly, the staff may

. have avoided some of the present delay in publishing MD 8.8.

l j ,

1

?

14 a

l

_ . _ _ . . . . . . . . _ . ..~ __. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . ._... _ . _ _ . . ..._ . .. _ . _ _ _ _ _

}c.

i 4

l

APPENDIX A MATRIX OF IMPLEMENTATION i

d

. Recommendation: EDO Interim Recommendation Designation Action Taken Fully Implernented II.A-1 High No - Pendmg Policy Statement duc j Priority 3/29/96 II.A-2 High No - Pendmg Policy Statement due Priority 3/29/96 II.A-3 No - Rule Pending Issuance due 2/%

II.A-4 High No - Rule Pendmg Policy Statement Priority due 3/29/96  ;

i II.B-1 Yes - MD 8.6 revised 1/27/95 i II.B-2 Yes - IP 40500 revised 10/3/94 II.B-3 Recommendanan Deferred and Not Implemented i II.B-4 Yes - Elements / Standards revised per OP memos on 10/21/94 & 6/2/95 II.B-5 Trammg implemented No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8 due 3/29/%

II.B-6 No - Pending revision to MD 8.8 duc 3/29/%

i II.B-7 In part; RUSSELL No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8 due memo dated 11/29/93 3/29/%

II.B-8 Surveys distributed in No - Survey distribution ongoing

, 1995 through 1997 II.B-9 . High Yes - AAA Position filled 2/6/95 Priority II.B-10 Counterpart meetings Yes - Meetings scheduled regularly held II.B-11 Audits conducted Yes - Audits scheduled regularly i regularly

, II.B-12 No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8 duc 3/29/96 A-1 l

e.

Reconunendation: EDO Interim Recommendation (cont.) Designation Action Taken Fully Implemented II.B-13 No - Pendmg system installation due

. 3/96 and revision to MD 8.8 II.B-14 AAA has provided No - Pendmg system installation due

, trendmg data 3/96 II.B-15 No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8; AEOD to publish raw data 4/96 II.B-16 RUSSELL / HAYES & No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8 due EDO memos 3/29/96 II.B-17 ' Yes - Toll free service implemented 10/1/95 II.C-1 High DOL trial program No - Discussions with DOL ongoing Priority began 1/18/95 II.C-2 High No - Discussions with DOL ongoing Priority II.C-3 No - Discussions with DOL ongoing II.C-4 No - Fendmg revision to MD 8.8 due 3/29/96 II.C-5 AAA assigned duties No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8 due 3/29/96 II.C-6 No - Discussions with DOL ongoing l"

II.C-7 High Prioritization guidance No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8 due Priority issued 10/12/95 3/29/96 II.C-8 Intenm guidace No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8 due issued 3/29/96 II.C-9 EDO issued interim No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8 due j

guidance 8/22/94 3/29/96 II.C-10 Interim guidance No - Pending rrvision to MD 8.8 due issued 3/29/96 II.C-11 Yes - TVA-MOU termmated 8/30/94 II.D-1 Yes - Enforcement Manual revised

[ 12/31/94 II.D-2 Yes - Enforcement Policy revised 11/28/94 A-2 l~

1 i

4

. Recommendation: EDO Interim Recommendation (cont.) Designation Action Taken Fully Implemented '

II.D-3 Not Recommended nor Implemented l

II.D-4 Not Recommended nor Implemented '

4 l II.D-5 Yes - Enforcement Policy revised  :

11/28/94 i II.D-6 High Yes - Enforcement Policy revised l

Priority 11/28/94 II.D High Yes - Enfomt Manual revised Priority 12/31/94 II.E-1 Implemented by No - Pendm3 revision to MD 8.8 due Region (s) 3/29/96  !

II.E-2 None issued, but No - Pendmg revision to MD 8.8 due implemented 3/29/96 II.E-3 High No - Pendmg Policy Statement due Priority 3/29/96 II.E-4 High No - Pendmg Policy Statement and Priority MD 8.8 due 3/29/%

II.E-5 Yes - Enforcement Manual revised 12/31/94 II.E-6 Yes - Enforcement Manual revised 12/31/94 II.E-7 Yes - Enforcement Manual revised 12/31/94 II.E-8 Yes - Enforcement Manual revised 12/31/94 1

I' A-3 f

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20149M345&oldid=3359224"