Junk NRC Allegation Program

This is a extremely secretive department. I consider they are washing the risk these people are trying to telegraph to the rest of US.

A sign of the health of the industry would be zero complaints and everything done out in the open. We should at least have a list of the complaints without names. 

Alarms bell should be going on with the number of complaints in the construction side of the game.    

ALLEGATION PROGRAM ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

Calendar Year 2015

For 2015, the median number of allegations per operating reactor site was three. The following reactor sites met these criteria: Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 (15), Salem Units 1 and 2/Hope Creek Unit 1 (14), Watts Bar Unit 1 (12), Wolf Creek (12), and Pilgrim (10). The criteria were also applied to non-operating (e.g., pre-operating license) sites and Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (39) and Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3 (30) also met these criteria. The staff’s analyses of the SCWE at these reactor sites are discussed below.

Each allegation can include multiple concerns. Over the past 5 years, the trend in the total number of concerns has generally paralleled the trend in total allegations (i.e., as the number of allegations has increased or decreased, the number of concerns has increased or decreased correspondingly). In 2015, coinciding with the overall increase in allegations received, the total volume of allegation concerns received increased as well. More specifically, the number of allegations received in three of the four regional offices increased. In addition, in Region II, with oversight responsibility for the new reactors under construction there was a 63-percent increase in allegation concerns received. The largest percentage of concerns in allegations received nationwide was discrimination concerns, which increased from the number received in 2014. Contractor employees, both current and former, made a significant number of these concerns at reactor and vendor sites associated with new reactor construction. Chilling effect concerns constituted the second highest percentage of concerns received nationwide and also increased in 2015. About 40 percent of the chilling effect concerns involved sites associated with the construction of new reactors, including the related vendor sites. The most often mentioned behaviors perceived by allegers to cause the chilling effect involved negative treatment, such as harassment or discrimination, after the individual or others raised a concern; supervisors that discouraged using the Corrective Action Program to document concerns; and verbally abusive comments about delays caused by concerns.