AUDIT REPORT

Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

OIG-14-A-12 March 18, 2014

All publicly available OIG reports (including this report) are accessible through

NRC’s Web site at: 

http:/www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

OFFICE OF THE 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

March 18, 2014

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius

Executive Director for Operations

Eric Leeds

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

FROM: Stephen D. Dingbaum /RA/

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

SUBJECT: SURVEY OF NRC’S SUPPORT PROVIDED TO

RESIDENT INSPECTORS (OIG-14-A-12)

Attached is the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) audit report titled Survey of NRC’s 

Support Provided to Resident Inspectors. The objective of the audit was to survey the 

effectiveness of NRC support provided to Resident Inspectors at nuclear power plants, 

fuel-cycle facilities, and construction sites. 

OIG identified opportunities to improve the agency’s support of Resident Inspectors which 

include: (1) identifying a formal mechanism for obtaining Residents’ perspectives regarding 

support issues, and (2) taking measures to ensure that the roles and responsibilities for 

existing support systems for Residents’ needs and concerns are communicated and 

understood by the appropriate management and staff, and are effectively executed. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-5923 or R.K. Wild, Team Leader, 

Nuclear Reactor Safety Audit Team, at 415-5948.

Attachment: As stated
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is tasked with examining the 

regulatory compliance and safety of licensed nuclear facilities. One of the 

methods that NRC uses to ensure the compliance and safety of nuclear 

power plants is conducting inspections. The core of the NRC inspection 

program for nuclear power plants is carried out by Resident Inspectors1

who provide the major onsite NRC presence for inspection and 

assessment of licensee performance and conformance with regulatory 

requirements. 

NRC assigns at least two Residents to each operating nuclear power 

reactor site. Residents are also assigned to Category I fuel cycle 

facilities,2 gaseous diffusion plants, and new reactor construction sites. As 

of October 2013, there were approximately 148 Residents stationed at 67 

nuclear facilities. From their remote duty locations, NRC Resident 

Inspectors report to assigned regional offices (regions I-IV). 

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this audit was to survey the effectiveness of NRC support 

provided to Resident Inspectors at nuclear power plants, fuel-cycle 

facilities, and construction sites.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that the agency generally 

provides Residents with sufficient support to enable them to adequately 

perform their roles and responsibilities. However, there is a perception 

among Residents that support from headquarters and the regions is, at 

times, inconsistent. 

 

1 Throughout this report, “Resident Inspectors” and or “Residents” refers to both Resident and Senior 

Resident Inspectors.

2 Category I fuel cycle facilities use special nuclear material in the manufacturing process. NRC classifies 

special nuclear materials and the facilities that possess them into three categories based on the 

materials’ potential for use in nuclear weapons or “strategic significance.” Category I is considered “High 

Strategic Significance.”
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

ii

These perceptions among the Resident staff exist because the agency has 

not identified a formal mechanism for obtaining, reviewing, and responding 

to Residents’ perspectives regarding the type and level of support they are 

currently provided. By identifying a formal mechanism for obtaining 

Residents’ perspectives and ensuring that the roles and responsibilities for 

existing support systems are understood and effectively executed, 

Residents are apt to feel more engaged and supported by management. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

This report makes recommendations to improve the effectiveness by which 

NRC provides support to Resident Inspectors.

AGENCY COMMENTS

At an exit conference on January 23, 2014, agency management provided 

informal comments on a draft of this report. OIG incorporated these 

comments into the report, as appropriate. 

On February 19, 2014, the agency provided formal comments, which have 

been included in Appendix C of this report. OIG’s response to the 

agency’s formal comments is contained in Appendix D of this report. 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

DRP Division of Reactor Projects

GAO Government Accountability Office

IMC Inspection Manual Chapter

IT Information Technology

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

OIG Office of the Inspector General

RI(s) Resident Inspector(s)

SRI(s) Senior Resident Inspector(s)

TIA Task Interface Agreement
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... i

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS........................................................iii

I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 1

II. OBJECTIVE.................................................................................... 3

III. FINDING

RESIDENT INSPECTORS IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUPPORT 

IMPROVEMENT. ............................................................................ 3

RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................... 12

IV. AGENCY COMMENTS.......................................................13

APPENDICES

A. OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY............................. 14

B. SURVEY DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION ................................ 16

C. AGENCY FORMAL COMMENTS ................................................. 19

D. OIG ANALYSIS OF AGENCY FORMAL COMMENTS ................. 23
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

1

I. BACKGROUND

Resident Inspectors play a very important role in overseeing NRC

licensees. Specifically, the core of the NRC inspection program for 

nuclear power plants is carried out by Residents who provide an onsite 

NRC presence for inspection and assessment of licensee performance 

and conformance with regulatory requirements. NRC assigns at least two 

Residents to each operating nuclear power reactor site. Residents are 

also assigned to Category I fuel cycle facilities, gaseous diffusion plants, 

and new reactor construction sites. As of October 2013, there were 

approximately 148 Residents stationed at 67 nuclear facilities. From their 

remote duty locations, NRC Resident Inspectors report to assigned 

regional offices (regions I-IV). The map below illustrates the locations of

nuclear power reactor sites.

32

Residents

49 

Residents

38 

Residents

29 

Residents Regional Offices

Headquarters

Resident Inspector Assignments by Region

Source: NRC, as of October 2013.

Residents serve as an important interface between the NRC and

licensees. Residents work as a team with other NRC experts based in 

headquarters and regional offices to make sure the plants adhere to NRC 

rules. They also frequently interact with the licensee staff as they conduct
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

2

walk downs3 of the plant, discuss plant status with the reactor operators, 

and meet regularly with plant management.

History of the Resident Inspector Program

From June 1974 through October 1976, NRC conducted a trial program to 

evaluate the potential benefits of a Resident Inspector program. In April 

1977, staff presented NUREG-0425, “NRC Inspection Alternatives: 

A Study Report,” to the Commission for review. In the report, staff 

concluded that the Resident Inspector concept was viable because it 

made more efficient and effective use of an inspector’s time. Specifically, 

staff recommended to the Commission that the agency adopt a full-time, 

onsite-inspector approach based on a favorable comparison of 

competency, utility, flexibility, objectivity, and licensee motivation. In June 

1977, the Commission approved a revised inspection program that 

included stationing NRC inspectors at all operating nuclear power reactors 

and selected reactors under construction. Initial implementation of the 

Resident Inspector program occurred in 1978 with the assignment of 20

onsite inspectors. These inspectors were charged with providing 

increased knowledge of conditions at licensed facilities, independently 

verifying licensee performance, and improving incident response 

capability. By 1981, at least one Resident was stationed at each power 

reactor site. 

NRC Organizations Responsible for Supporting Resident Inspectors

NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) conducts a broad 

range of regulatory activities in four primary program areas of rulemaking, 

licensing, oversight, and incident response programs for reactors. The 

Division of Inspection and Regional Support is located within NRR and 

provides centralized management for programs pertaining to operating

nuclear power reactors, including reactor inspection, performance

assessment (the Reactor Oversight Process), and operational events. 

Each regional office is also charged with performing inspections, including 

 

3 A walk down is an activity routinely conducted by Residents that includes walking through the plant to 

assess the day-to-day operation, oversight, and condition of the plant.
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

3

those conducted by Residents. Together, NRR and the regional offices

provide support for the Resident Inspector program. 

II. OBJECTIVE

The audit objective was to survey the effectiveness of NRC support 

provided to the Residents at nuclear power plants, fuel-cycle facilities, and 

construction sites. Appendix A provides information on the audit scope 

and methodology.

III. FINDING

RESIDENT INSPECTORS IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT 

According to feedback provided to OIG from the Resident Inspector

population, the agency generally provides Residents with sufficient 

support to enable them to adequately perform their roles and 

responsibilities. However, Residents did identify opportunities for the 

agency to improve the type and level of support currently being provided.

Staff located in remote locations—such as NRC Residents—require

reliable and consistent support4 to be effective in their jobs. It is equally 

important that remote employees feel connected to the organization and 

perceive that management is willing to listen to their perspectives. 

However, there is a perception among Residents that support from 

headquarters and regions is, at times, inconsistent. Additionally, some 

Residents identified opportunities where support could be improved by 

facilitating better coordination and communication between headquarters, 

regions, and Residents, as well as providing clearer and more concise 

inspection guidance. These perceptions among the Resident staff exist 

because the agency has not identified a formal mechanism for obtaining, 

reviewing, and responding to Residents’ perspectives regarding the type 

and level of support they are currently provided. Consequently, the 

effectiveness by which Residents are able to perform their roles and 

responsibilities may be negatively affected.

 

4 The term “support” refers to both technical and non-technical support. Technical support includes 

reviews of inspection findings, technical reviews, and management input and perspectives on agency 

guidance. Non-technical support refers to activities associated with office administration, information 

technology, coordination, communication, and general management/supervision. 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

4

Remote Staff Require Consistent Support and Communication

Staff located at remote sites away from headquarters or the central

office—as NRC Residents are—require consistent support and sustained 

communication to be effective in their jobs. It is equally important that 

remote employees feel connected to their organization and perceive that 

management is willing to listen to their concerns. These principles are 

recognized both within the academic and government sectors as being 

necessary to ensure remote workers remain engaged and committed.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology–Sloan School of Management

study states the importance of routinely engaging remote employees in a 

relevant, reliable, and timely manner to ensure they remain engaged and

enabled to perform their jobs. This is vital because remote employees can 

feel disconnected and isolated from their organization due to the lack of 

management action and responsiveness. Therefore, managers are 

encouraged to enable and promote opportunities for sustained

communication and take steps to help remote employees cope with the 

challenges of working remotely.

Additionally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Internal Control 

Management and Evaluation Tool (GAO Green Book Tool) specifies 

considerations for Federal agencies when creating an environment with 

internal controls.

5

 One such consideration for Federal agencies is that 

there is frequent interaction between senior management and operating 

program management, especially when operating from geographically 

dispersed locations. The GAO Green Book Tool emphasizes the 

importance of being engaged by maintaining consistent communication 

with employees so that “Personnel have a means of communicating 

information upstream within the agency through someone other than a 

direct supervisor, and there is genuine willingness to listen on the part of 

management.”

 

5 Internal control is an integral component of an organization’s management that provides reasonable 

assurance that the following objectives are being achieved: effectiveness and efficiency of operations, 

reliability of financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

5

Some Support to Residents Could Be Improved

While Residents generally feel that they have sufficient support to perform 

their roles and functions adequately, some specific types of support may 

not be adequate. By means of a survey instrument,

6 OIG learned of a 

perception among Residents that headquarters and regional offices are 

sometimes viewed as disengaged and unresponsive to Residents’ needs 

and concerns. These specific areas of concern span both non-technical 

and technical types of support. 

Concerns With Non-Technical Support

The majority of Residents’ perspectives on the OIG survey pertained to

technical support; however, Residents also identified some areas of nontechnical support, such as activities associated with office administration,

information technology, communication, and general management

supervision, that are in need of attention. For example, one Resident 

wrote, “IT [information technology] resources at Resident sites are 

woefully inadequate and unreliable.” Another wrote, “Responses to 

enquiries, requests for assistance, or process requirements are delayed or 

forgotten.” And, another expressed the view that support for Residents

has been on a steady decline, stating, “I believe we have seen 

considerable erosion in the level and quality of support for RIs [Resident 

Inspectors] and SRIs [Senior Resident Inspectors] in the field....” 

Furthermore, during Resident interviews, multiple Residents expressed 

concerns or dissatisfaction with an agency-relocation program.7

 

 

6 OIG developed and administered a survey designed to assess Residents’ perspectives on various types 

of support provided to them by the agency. At the time of the survey (March 11-29, 2013), OIG invited 

144 Residents to participate in the survey. A total of 79 Residents completed the survey for an overall 

survey response rate of approximately 55 percent. Of the 79 completed surveys, 35 Residents also 

provided multiple written comments. A description of the survey design and administration, and summary 

of results, are provided in Appendix B. 7 The relocation program is part of the NRC Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Incentives Program.

One program objective is to “Encourage and promote mobility of NRC or other Federal employees by 

offering relocation incentives when location or other factors may serve as disincentives to suitable 

candidates.”
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

6

A sampling of Resident Inspectors’ comments included:

• “If our office assistants worked more than 10 hours a week (up to 15 or 

20) we could have shifted more of our administrative burden to them.”

• “It is often difficult for IT personnel from the region or [headquarters] to 

diagnose and address IT issues from hundreds of miles away.”

• “My IT resources are inadequate, my computer has not been upgraded 

(hardware or software) in a least 5 years and it is slow.”

Concerns With Technical Support 

The results of the OIG survey indicate that while more than half of 

respondents were satisfied with job-related technical support, a sizable 

portion of respondents had concerns. For example: 

• 51 percent of survey respondents responded that they “agree” or 

“strongly agree” that they receive timely, high-quality technical support 

in resolving regulatory questions.

• 53 percent of survey respondents responded that they “agree” or 

“strongly agree” that coordination of support between the region and 

headquarters is effective.

• 53 percent of survey respondents responded that they “agree” or 

“strongly agree” that they are able to easily identify an appropriate 

point of contact at headquarters to provide additional technical 

assistance when needed.

• 60 percent of survey respondents responded that they “agree” or 

“strongly agree” that current inspection guidance (inspection 

procedures, inspection manual chapters) is clear, concise, and easily 

understood. 

Approximately half of the respondents expounded on their survey 

responses by providing written comments on their concerns, as follows: 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

7

• Technical Support: One Resident stated, “Technical support 

requested from headquarters is not timely,” while another noted, “The 

process for getting a technical or regulatory answer from headquarters 

when using the TIA process8 is unnecessarily time consuming.” 

Another commented on the usefulness of subject matter experts

stating, “The resident staff should be supplied with an updated (and 

kept updated) list of [headquarters] Subject Matter Experts. 

Sometimes the person we are referred to has little experience in the 

subject matter and is little help to the resident staff [...].”

• Regional and Headquarters Coordination: Residents’ comments also 

addressed the problems associated with headquarters and regional 

offices working together to provide support to the Resident staff. For 

example, “If anything requires the region and headquarters working 

together, it takes forever and often involves miscommunication.” 

Another aspect of coordination that many Residents identified as a 

concern pertained to identifying points of contact within the regional 

and headquarters offices. For example, multiple Residents provided 

comments addressing the difficulties associated with communicating 

with headquarters staff, particularly identifying the appropriate point of 

contact or subject matter expert. For instance, “It can be difficult to 

interact with [headquarters] when your project manager is unavailable

for whatever reason. Some project managers are much more 

responsive then [sic] others...Once contact is made the support from 

[headquarters] is great. Making that contact can be a challenge 

sometimes. Finding the right group, person etc., all depends on a 

strong project manager.” Another noted, “There are too many 

coordinators and not enough regulatory/technical experts to address 

the regulatory and technical questions needed to disposition issues 

appropriately.”

• Inspection Guidance: Several Residents remarked on the state of 

inspection guidance, indicating that it is “lacking,” “inconsistent,” and 

“not written as clearly as it could be.” One Resident articulated that the 

primary issue with inspection procedures is the general lack of clarity

 

8 The Task Interface Agreement (TIA) process is used to address questions or concerns raised within the 

NRC regarding nuclear reactor safety and related regulatory and oversight programs. A TIA is a request 

from a region or another NRC office for technical assistance from NRR. OIG recently initiated a separate 

audit of the TIA process.
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

8

of the guidance versus requirements, including inspection samples. 

Lack of clarity results in inconsistent understanding and application

among Residents and headquarters technical staff. 

NRC Has Not Identified a Formal Mechanism for Obtaining

Residents’ Support Concerns

NRC has not identified a formal mechanism for obtaining Residents’

concerns, including feedback and perspectives on support-related issues. 

Furthermore, the Resident support roles and responsibilities of agency 

managers could be clarified and communicated.

Residents work through a variety of channels to seek technical and nontechnical support. For example, they may seek technical support directly 

from their branch chief or project manager. These are individuals with 

whom Residents have a formal relationship. But they may also know of 

an individual in one of the engineering branches that they believe can 

assist them. Similarly, if they need support with a non-technical issue, 

such as with IT systems, they might directly contact their branch chief or

they might also call the IT Help Desk located at headquarters. The 

following figure illustrates some of the various formal and informal 

relationships Residents may have with individuals or offices that 

potentially provide support, as described by Residents during the audit.
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

9

Source: OIG, based on NRC staff and manager interviews.

For Resident Inspectors to be successful, they must be able to access 

support from multiple organizations. The success of these disparate

approaches often depends on the experience, knowledge, and 

persistence of individual Residents, as they are reliant on identification of 

the appropriate subject matter expert(s). Additionally, they must follow up 

on the issue or concern without assurance of receiving a timely,

adequately detailed, and appropriate response. 

Residents are in a unique position in NRC because they are 

geographically separated from NRC staff and management. Being 

geographically separated, the Residents cannot readily use traditional 

communication vehicles such as the open door policy, drop-in visits with 

management, or face-to-face peer interaction. Residents, as an 

occupational group, also have a complex organizational relationship,
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

10

because they report from about 70 different locations to 4 geographically 

remote regional offices and to about 27 branch chiefs. 

As a result of these geographical and organizational separations, the 

common challenges that multiple Residents at remote sites face may not 

be as evident to management. For example, a Resident at a nuclear 

power plant in Florida may have the same challenge needing 

management attention as Residents in California and Michigan. However, 

neither the Residents, nor their branch chiefs, nor management may

recognize that the problem is affecting multiple sites and may therefore be 

more significant. The same challenge may have been encountered and 

solved at one site, but not at others. The geographical and organizational 

separation makes knowledge transfer of the solution a challenge. 

These challenges make it difficult for a conventional management 

structure to ensure Residents’ concerns and challenges are appropriately 

addressed and that a formal response is consistently provided in a timely 

manner. This contributes to Residents’ perception that staff in 

headquarters and regional offices are disengaged and not responsive to 

perspectives regarding Residents’ concerns and support needs. 

One way to obtain Residents’ concerns, feedback, and perspectives is by 

the assignment of one or more executive champions or comparable 

support system to the Resident Inspector program. An executive 

champion or comparable support system is typically an individual or group 

that:

• Has access and influence with senior management in the organization.

• Is able to energetically and consistently support program activities, 

policies, and processes, and address common challenges. 

• Provides a view that transcends program and office boundaries.

• Serves the strategic purpose of ensuring that resources are available 

and that cross-functional issues are resolved. 

• Facilitates the flow of information between staff and the organizations 

that provide them support. 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

11

After reviewing a draft of this report, agency managers stated that the 

Directors of the Divisions of Reactor Projects (DRP) located in each region 

already serve in a champion-like capacity for Resident Inspectors. OIG 

auditors did not find any documentation that describes the DRP regional 

directors’ roles and responsibilities in this capacity.9 During subsequent 

discussions with OIG auditors, agency managers described a need for the 

Executive Director for Operations to take measures to ensure that the 

roles and responsibilities for existing support systems for Residents’

needs and concerns are communicated and understood by the 

appropriate management and staff, and are effectively executed.

Improved Support Could Enhance Job Performance, Morale, and 

Engagement

If Residents’ perspectives regarding support-related needs and concerns

are not consistently and appropriately addressed in a timely manner, their

ability to perform assigned duties could be affected. Some forms of 

support, particularly technical support, are critically important to the 

Residents’ ability to adequately and consistently perform their oversight 

mission. For example, Residents seek technical support from 

headquarters in part to determine whether action should be taken against 

a licensee for a violation or nonconformance. Without consistent support, 

technical and otherwise, there may be inconsistency in how the 

significance of regulatory issues is determined. Subsequently, licensees 

may perceive disparate treatment should Residents not disposition 

regulatory issues in the same way.

Furthermore, because Residents work remotely, inconsistent and

insufficient support also has the potential to perpetuate the feeling among 

Residents of being disconnected or isolated from the larger NRC. As a 

result, the morale and level of engagement within the Resident population 

could be negatively affected. 

 

9 Documentation reviewed includes agency Management Directives, Inspection Manual Chapters, and the 

DRP directors’ position descriptions. 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

12

Recommendations

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:

1. Identify a formal mechanism for obtaining Residents’ perspectives

regarding support issues.

2. Take measures to ensure that the roles and responsibilities for 

existing support systems for Residents’ needs and concerns are 

communicated and understood by the appropriate management 

and staff, and are effectively executed.
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

13

IV. AGENCY COMMENTS

On November 18, 2013, OIG issued the discussion draft of this report to

the Executive Director for Operations. OIG met with NRC senior 

management on December 19, 2013, to discuss concerns with the draft 

audit report and accommodate the agency’s request to postpone the exit 

conference. Informal written comments were provided by the agency on 

December 24, 2013. The exit conference was rescheduled for January 

23, 2014. At these meetings, the agency provided informal comments,

which OIG subsequently incorporated into the draft report as appropriate. 

On February 19, 2014, NRC provided formal comments to the draft report 

that indicated its general agreement with the revised audit report and 

recommendations.

Appendix A contains the audit Objective, Scope, and Methodology; 

Appendix B contains the Survey Design and Administration; Appendix C 

contains a copy of the agency’s formal comments; and Appendix D 

contains OIG’s analysis of the agency’s formal comments.
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

14

APPENDIX A

OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVE

The audit objective was to survey the effectiveness of NRC support 

provided to the Resident Inspectors at nuclear power plants, fuel-cycle 

facilities, and construction sites. 

SCOPE 

This audit focused on evaluating the effectiveness of NRC support 

provided to Residents. OIG also performed a review of the agency’s use 

of comprehensive program evaluations as a means to monitor and 

evaluate the Resident Inspector program. We conducted this 

performance audit at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD, and each of the 

four NRC regional offices in King of Prussia, PA; Atlanta, GA; Lisle, IL;

and Arlington, TX, from October 2012 through May 2013. Internal controls 

related to the audit objective were reviewed and analyzed. Throughout 

the audit, auditors were aware of the possibility or existence of fraud, 

waste, or misuse in the program.

METHODOLOGY

The audit team reviewed relevant Federal guidance, including GAO’s

Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool and OMB Circular 

A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, December 2004. 

The team also reviewed NRC planning documents such as the agency’s

2008-2013 Strategic Plan, as well as operating documents including 

inspection procedures and inspection manual chapters. Several policyrelated internal communication documents pertaining to the Resident 

Inspector program were also reviewed. The audit team also developed 

and administered a survey designed to assess Residents’ perspectives on 

various types of support provided to them by the agency. The survey and 

the results are described in further detail in Appendix B. Additionally, OIG 

auditors conducted numerous interviews with NRC staff at headquarters 

and regional offices to obtain further information and insight on the 

Resident Inspector program. Lastly, the audit team attended all four 

regional counterpart meetings held in December 2012 during which time 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

15

members of the team met with Resident Inspectors and regional 

management.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 

we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objective. 

The audit work was conducted by RK Wild, Team Leader; Kevin 

Nietmann, Senior Technical Advisor; Jaclyn Storch, Audit Manager; 

Andrea Ferkile, Audit Manager; Avinash Jaigobind, Senior Analyst; Ziad 

Buhaissi, Senior Auditor; Tincy Thomas, Senior Auditor; Tariq Noaman, 

Analyst; and Jenny Cheung, Auditor.
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

16

APPENDIX B

SURVEY DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION

The OIG Resident Inspector survey was designed using Microsoft 

SharePoint and included a series of 17 multiple-choice questions 

regarding various aspects of support provided to Residents from regional 

and headquarters offices. The questions were designed to elicit the 

respondent’s level of agreement or disagreement with each question.

Respondents were also invited through the survey instrument to provide 

written comments on topics addressed by the survey questions.

The survey was administered from March 11, 2013, to March 29, 2013. 

This yielded a survey universe of 144 Residents, each of whom was

invited to participate in the survey. A total of 79 Residents completed the 

survey for an overall survey response rate of 55 percent. Of the 79 

completed surveys, 35 Residents also provided multiple written 

comments. The following table shows the cumulative percentage of 

Residents’ responses to all 17 survey items. 
17

OIG Analysis of Item Responses From the OIG-Administered Survey

7

11

13

16

19

12

13

14

16

19

13

16

9

8

20

14

13

23

14

18

19

14

28

9

24

33

27

22

19

14

5

27

19

34

71

74

70

65

67

59

79

62

52

54

66

65

78

88

53

67

53

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1. Overall, I feel that I am provided adequate support from headquarters to perform my job.

2. Overall, I feel that I am provided adequate support from the region to perform my job.

3. I feel that I am provided adequate immediate management support to perform my job.

4. I feel that I am provided adequate senior management support to perform my job.

5. I have adequate time, resources (IT administrative, technical manual chapters) to be clear, concise,

and understood.

6. I find current inspection guidance (inspection procedures, inspection manual chapters) to be clear,

concise, and understood.

7. I have been provided adequate continuous training to perform my responsibilities and duties as

assigned.

8. I receive timely, high-quality technical support in resolving technical questions.

9. I receive timely, high-quality technical support in resolving regulatory questions.

10. I believe that expertise, experience, and technical background are appropriately considered when

Resident Inspectors are assigned to a site or facility.

11. I believe the qualification process for becoming a Resident Inspector is well designed, adequate,

and appropriately administered.

12. My decisions as a Resident Inspector are appropriately supported by management.

13. I believe the current inspection requirements provided enough flexibility to adequately perform

my job.

14. I have good continuity in my position and am not inappropriately assigned away from my site for

significant periods of time.

15. I am able to easily identify an appropriate point of contact at headquarters to provide additional

technical assistance when needed.

16. I receive adequate and appropriate support from headquarters and the region when developing a

finding.

17. I believe coordination of support between the region and headquarters is effective.

Total Disagree Neutral Total Agree
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

18

OIG also performed a content analysis of survey comments made by 

Residents. The results are shown in the following figure. Based on the 

content analysis, 11 categories were identified as areas of concern 

regarding insufficient support for Residents. The most commonly noted 

concerns cited by Residents included insufficient support with inspection 

guidance and the TIA process, and communication difficulties associated 

with identifying points of contact within headquarters. The content 

analysis generally confirmed the distribution of responses to the 17 survey 

items as issues of particular concern to the Resident population.

Content Analysis on Residents’ Comments

Source: OIG analysis of written comments from the OIG-administered survey.

 

4

6

6

4

9

4

8

18

5

7

3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Relocation Program

FTE/Staffing

Training & Qual Program

Physical Resource Support

TIA Process/Technical Support

Inspection Reports & Findings

Points of Contact/Communication

Guidance (IPs and IMCs)

Feedback

Management/Leadership

Work Policies/Practices

Categories Content Analysis

# of respondents
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

19

APPENDIX C

AGENCY FORMAL COMMENTS
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

20
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

21
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

22
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

23

APPENDIX D

OIG ANALYSIS OF AGENCY FORMAL COMMENTS

On November 18, 2013, OIG issued the discussion draft of this report to

the Executive Director for Operations. OIG met with NRC senior 

management on December 19, 2013, to discuss concerns with the draft 

audit report and accommodate the agency’s request to postpone the exit 

conference. Informal written comments were provided by the agency on 

December 24, 2013. The exit conference was rescheduled for January 

23, 2014. At these meetings, the agency provided informal comments,

which OIG subsequently incorporated into the draft report as appropriate. 

On February 19, 2014, NRC provided formal comments to the draft report 

that indicated its general agreement with the revised audit report and 

recommendations.

OIG has assigned a reference number to each of the agency’s

comments to aid the following point-by-point analysis:

Agency Comment 1:

“Information Technology (IT) and relocation issues – Support for 

relocations remains a topic of continued study and interest. The 

NRC will evaluate information about the concerns of resident 

inspectors (RIs) to determine if there are specific improvements that 

the agency can implement. In addition, the NRC is engaging 

regional offices to revise the fiscal year (FY) 2014 Enterprise 

Roadmap that captures the agency’s IT capability needs over 

multiple fiscal years. The NRC will begin using the Enterprise 

Roadmap to support the agency wide fiscal IT budget formulation 

process.”

OIG Response to Agency Comment 1:

OIG appreciates the agency’s continued interest in studying the 

relocation program for Resident Inspectors as this remains an area of 

concern among the Resident population. Additionally, OIG 

encourages the agency to continue to evaluate the IT needs of the 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

24

Resident Inspectors in order to find timely, workable solutions to 

common recurring problems associated with IT support. 

Agency Comment 2:

“Reliance on survey of RI perceptions – Appendix A of the draft report 

identifies that the audit objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of NRC 

support provided to the residents. In addition to the insights gained from 

the residents, the scope and methodology described in the draft audit

report indicated that the following were included: (a) operating documents, 

including inspection procedures, and inspection manual chapters, (b) 

policy-related internal communication documents, (c) interviews with NRC 

staff at headquarters and regional offices, and (d) meetings with regional 

management. In light of this, the agency would be interested in any 

additional information from OIG’s audit of these areas and any additional 

insights regarding the RI perceptions from the survey that would inform its

approach to implementing your recommendations.”

OIG Response to Agency Comment 2:

Appendix A of the audit report states that the objective of the audit 

“...was to survey the effectiveness of NRC support provided to the

Residents at nuclear power plants, fuel-cycle facilities, and construction 

sites.” The term “survey” is used to represent the portion of the 

fieldwork the audit team conducted via an OIG-developed survey, in 

order to obtain direct feedback and perspectives from Resident 

Inspectors on various aspects of support. A significant amount of 

fieldwork consisted of document review which included reviewing 

internal office and policy related documentation, as well as internal 

agency Web sites. The audit team also attended regional counterpart 

meetings and throughout the course of fieldwork interviewed 

management and staff involved in the Resident Inspector program. In 

short, the resulting audit report represents a variety of fieldwork

activities and is not reliant solely on the results of the Resident 

Inspector survey.

All pertinent information that directly supports the audit work, including 

the finding and resulting recommendations, is included in the audit 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

25

report. It is not the practice or policy of OIG to share any specific 

information beyond that which is presented in the audit report, 

including that which identifies particular staff and/or management with 

whom the OIG may have interacted. 

Agency Comment 3:

“Regional management involvement - Appendix A of the draft report 

stated that the team met with regional managers. However the draft 

report does not reflect any results from these meetings. There is a 

significant regional management role in providing support to RIs.

Numerous regional managers were once RIs themselves and they have 

a genuine interest in the well-being of the RI staff, including technical 

and quality of life factors. Every manager that has spent time at a site is 

an instinctive champion for the RIs. Each of the significant interactions 

outlined below provide opportunities for residents to directly interface 

with multiple levels of regional management:

• RI branch chief conference calls several times a week

• RI quarterly calls with division management

• RI quarterly calls with regional administrators (may vary by 

Region)

• Quarterly branch chief site visits

• Division director or deputy site visits (each site about every 24 

months)

• Periodic senior management site visits

• RI inspection debriefs and branch findings calls

• Semi-annual regional counterpart meetings”

OIG Response to Agency Comment 3:

OIG agrees that Residents have significant interaction with various 

managers as shown above. However, this audit was not a review of 

Residents’ interaction with regional management and other staff. 

Rather, this audit was focused on reviewing support provided to 

Residents as well as Residents’ concerns with the resolution of 

Resident-identified support issues. OIG recognizes the important role 

that the regional managers play in supporting the Resident Inspector 

population and as such made note of it in the graphic on page 9 of the 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

26

report where the role and interactions of regional and headquarters 

management are discussed.

As per OIG policy, Appendix A of the report does not explicitly state 

who the audit team met with and/or interviewed during fieldwork. As 

noted in OIG’s Response to Agency Comment 2, it is not the practice or 

policy of OIG to share any specific information beyond that which is 

presented in the audit report, including that which identifies particular 

staff and/or management with whom OIG may have interacted. 

Agency Comment 4:

“Comprehensive program evaluations, performance audits, 

operating documents, and policy-related documents related to the 

RI program – Objective evidence of formalized mechanisms for

obtaining, reviewing, and responding to RI perspectives regarding the 

type and level of support they are currently receiving is provided in 

several documents and internal (pre-decisional and non-public) Web 

sites, including:

• IMC 0102 Oversight and Objectivity of Inspectors and Examiners 

at Reactor Facilities

• IMC 0307 Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) Self-Assessment 

Program and ROP Self-Assessment SharePoint Site

• IMC 0801 Reactor Oversight Process Feedback Program and 

Associated SharePoint Site”

OIG Response to Agency Comment 4:

The audit team reviewed Inspection Manual Chapter documents during 

the audit, and concluded that the documents do not describe an 

institutionalized mechanism of support for Residents. None of the 

documents describe any mechanisms for Residents or other inspectors 

to solicit or obtain support. The first document mentions Residents 

within the context of managers’ supervisory oversight of Residents in 

order for Residents to maintain objectivity. There is no discussion in 

the document about how Residents can use this performance oversight 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

27

Inspection Manual Chapter for obtaining support. The latter two 

documents describe mechanisms for ROP evaluation and 

improvements, not inspector support. OIG acknowledges that some 

suggestions for program improvement may also serve as a form of 

support. However, OIG has concluded such instances would be 

coincidental to the overall purpose of the IMCs to evaluate and solicit 

suggestions for program-level improvements. 

Agency Comment 5:

“Internal (pre-decisional and non-public) Web pages, SharePoint 

sites, online forums, newsletters, etc. – are readily accessible to 

RIs and provide support and opportunities for RIs to engage in a 

timely manner and enable them to perform their jobs.

• Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Division of Inspection and 

Regional Support (DIRS), Reactor Inspection Branch (IRIB), 

Performance Assessment Branch (IPAB) and Regions 1, 2, 3, and 

4 SharePoint Sites.

• ROP Digital City Web Site 

• Projects and Working Groups SharePoint Site

• Inspector News Letter SharePoint Site

• Office of Enforcement SharePoint Site

• Reactor OpE Information Gateway Web Site”

OIG Response to Agency Comment 5:

The aforementioned electronic interfaces serve primarily as an 

information resource for NRC staff in numerous occupations to obtain 

additional knowledge on, among other things, inspection activities and 

NRC policy. In that capacity, they are an invaluable tool to NRC staff. 

However, OIG has concluded that they currently do not serve as a 
Survey of NRC’s Support Provided to Resident Inspectors

28

source of staff or management support for Residents in that these 

interfaces are passive and thus require the end-user to be aware of 

them, have an operating knowledge of how they work and what types of 

information they contain, and have the time to search through them. 

Their passive nature also means that a timely and/or official response to 

a question or comment raised by a Resident is not guaranteed.