AUDIT REPORT

Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

 OIG-A-17 September 19, 2011

All publicly available OIG reports 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

September 19, 2011

MEMORANDUM TO: R. William Borchardt

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Stephen D. Dingbaum /RA/

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

SUBJECT: AUDIT OF NRC’S MANAGEMENT OF LICENSEE 

COMMITMENTS (OIG-11-A-17)

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

Management of Licensee Commitments. 

The report presents the results of the subject audit. Agency comments provided at a 

meeting with NRC management officials and staff on August 12, 2011, and an August 

23, 2011, exit conference have been incorporated, as appropriate, into this report.

Please provide information on actions taken or planned on each of the 

recommendations within 30 days of the date of this memorandum. Actions taken or 

planned are subject to OIG follow up as stated in Management Directive 6.1.

We appreciate the cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during the 

audit. If you have any questions or comments about our report, please contact me at 

415-5915 or RK Wild, Team Leader, Nuclear Reactor Safety Team, at 415-5948.

Attachment: As stated 
Electronic Distribution

Edwin M. Hackett, Executive Director, Advisory Committee 

 on Reactor Safeguards

E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety 

 and Licensing Board Panel

Stephen G. Burns, General Counsel

Brooke D. Poole, Director, Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication

James E. Dyer, Chief Financial Officer

Margaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs

Rebecca L. Schmidt, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Eliot B. Brenner, Director, Office of Public Affairs

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission

R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations

Michael F. Weber, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste,

 Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, OEDO

Darren B. Ash, Deputy Executive Director 

 for Corporate Management, OEDO

Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor

 and Preparedness Programs, OEDO

Nader Mamish, Assistant for Operations, OEDO

Kathryn O. Greene, Director, Office of Administration

Patrick D. Howard, Director, Computer Security Office

Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Enforcement

Cynthia Carpenter, Acting Director, Office of Federal and State Materials

 and Environmental Management Programs

Cheryl L. McCrary, Director, Office of Investigations

Thomas M. Boyce, Director, Office of Information Services

Miriam L. Cohen, Director, Office of Human Resources

Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of New Reactors

Catherine Haney, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

 and Safeguards

Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Brian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Corenthis B. Kelley, Director, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights

James T. Wiggins, Director, Office of Nuclear Security

 and Incident Response

William M. Dean, Regional Administrator, Region I

Victor M. McCree, Regional Administrator, Region II

Mark A. Satorius, Regional Administrator, Region III

Elmo E. Collins, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region IV
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates commercial 

nuclear power plants that generate electricity through a combination of 

regulatory requirements and licensing, inspection, and enforcement 

activities. One way NRC provides oversight of licensees is through the 

management of regulatory commitments (commitments). 

Commitments are docketed, written statements describing a specific 

action that the licensee has agreed or volunteered to take. They often 

result from a licensing action such as a license amendment, including 

power uprates, or from a generic communication, such as generic letters 

and bulletins. Commitments are neither legally binding nor obligations of 

a license; however, a commitment may be escalated into a legally binding 

obligation only if NRC staff deems that the commitment is essential for 

ensuring public health and safety.

Licensees are responsible for creating, tracking, and handling all 

commitments made to NRC. The licensee is entirely responsible for 

tracking the commitments, and this includes any changes to the 

commitments and notification to NRC about such changes. NRC expects 

licensees to honor commitments in good faith.

PURPOSE

The audit objective was to assess the extent to which NRC appropriately 

and consistently utilizes and manages regulatory commitments for power 

reactor licensees. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF

Part of NRC’s mission is to identify and accomplish those actions that 

provide the level of nuclear plant performance necessary to ensure 

adequate protection of public health and safety. A commitment is one tool

that NRC uses in the overall licensing process to add flexibility, improve 

efficiency, and maintain the flow of information between the staff and 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

iii

licensees. OIG identified opportunities for improvement in the following 

three areas: 

 Consistent implementation of commitment management audits.

o NRC inconsistently implements the audits of licensee 

commitment management programs. This is because agency 

guidance concerning its performance of required triennial audits 

is incomplete and imprecise. Incomplete and imprecise 

guidance concerning the conduct of commitment management 

audits can result in ineffective audits, inefficient use of 

resources, and the appearance that NRC provides disparate 

oversight of similarly situated licensees.

 Staff understanding of the definition and use of commitments.

o The definition and use of commitments is not consistently 

understood throughout the agency. This occurs because NRC

training on commitments is insufficient. Specifically, training 

does not effectively address the definition and use of 

commitments and is not provided to all agency staff involved in 

reviewing licensee commitments. This could potentially result in 

the misapplication of commitments by NRC staff.

 NRC tracking of commitments.

o NRC does not systematically track commitments because the 

agency does not have an adequate tool for tracking them, in 

part, because the agency has not identified a need for such a 

tool. Consequently, NRC cannot completely ensure oversight of 

commitments, which has implications for the agency’s 

continuing awareness of significant commitments, the 

effectiveness of the triennial commitment management audits, 

and institutional knowledge management. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

iv

RECOMMENDATIONS 

This report makes five recommendations to improve the agency’s 

management of licensee commitments. A consolidated list of these 

recommendations appears in Section V of this report.

AGENCY COMMENTS 

On August 9, 2011, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued the 

discussion draft of this report to the Executive Director for Operations. 

OIG met with NRC management officials and staff on August 12, 2011, at 

which time the agency provided informal comments to the draft report. 

OIG subsequently met with agency management and staff during an

August 23, 2011, exit conference to discuss agency informal comments 

that OIG incorporated into the draft report as appropriate. At this meeting, 

agency management provided supplemental information that has also 

been incorporated into this report as appropriate. NRC management and 

staff reviewed the revised draft report and generally agreed with the 

recommendations in this report. Furthermore, the agency opted not to 

provide formal comments for inclusion in this report.
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

v

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DORL Division of Operating Reactor Licensing 

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report

MD Management Directive

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

OGC Office of the General Counsel

OIG Office of the Inspector General

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................ii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................v

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

II. PURPOSE ................................................................................ 5

III. FINDINGS.................................................................................. 5

A. COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT AUDITS ARE

INCONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENTED ........................................... 6

B. DEFINITION AND USE OF COMMITMENTS

ARE INCONSISTENTLY UNDERSTOOD ...................................11

C. NRC STAFF DO NOT SYSTEMATICALLY 

TRACK COMMITMENTS........................................................16

IV. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................22

V. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS..................22

VI. AGENCY COMMENTS .............................................................23

APPENDIX

A. EXAMPLES OF COMMITMENTS..................................24

B. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY.....................................26
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

1

I. BACKGROUND

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates commercial 

nuclear power plants that generate electricity through a combination of 

regulatory requirements and licensing, inspection, and enforcement

activities. One way NRC provides oversight of licensees is through the 

management of regulatory commitments (commitments), which are nonlegally binding actions that the licensee agrees or volunteers to take. 

Licensees are responsible for creating, tracking, and handling all 

commitments made to NRC. Within NRC, the primary responsibility for 

managing commitments lies with Division of Operating Reactor Licensing 

(DORL) project managers in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

(NRR). However, other NRC staff—such as DORL branch chiefs, NRR 

technical reviewers, and Office of the General Counsel (OGC) staff—are 

involved in decisionmaking processes that use commitments. 

Guidance on Commitments

Although the term "regulatory commitment" is not defined in NRC’s 

regulations, commitments are used in the context of interactions between 

NRC and licensees for commercial nuclear reactors. The license renewal 

rule—Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 54.3 (10 CFR §

54.3)—references commitments in the definition of a "current licensing 

basis."

1

 In February 2000, NRC endorsed Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)2

guidance document NEI-99-04, Guidelines for Managing NRC 

Commitment Changes, which the agency found to be an acceptable 

method for licensees to follow for managing and changing their 

commitments to NRC. In 2003, NRR released office instruction LIC-105,

Managing Regulatory Commitments Made by Licensees to NRC,

3

to 

provide common references for handling commitments. 

 

1

Per 10 CFR § 54.3 "Definitions," the current licensing basis is the set of NRC requirements applicable to 

a specific plant and a licensee's written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within

applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis (including all modifications and

additions to such commitments over the life of the license) that are docketed and in effect.

2 NEI is the policy organization for the nuclear technologies industry.

3

LIC-105 is applicable to NRR staff, and provides them and their stakeholders with a common reference 

for handling regulatory commitments made by licensees for commercial nuclear reactors to NRC staff. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

2

Definition of a Commitment

According to NEI-99-04, commitments are docketed, written statements

describing a specific action that the licensee has agreed or volunteered to 

take. Agency and industry guidance documents distinguish between the 

safety importance and regulatory significance of different types of licensee

actions such as obligations and commitments. In summary:

Obligations are conditions or actions that are legally binding 

requirements imposed on licensees through applicable rules, 

regulations, orders, and licenses (includes technical specifications 

and license conditions). 

Commitments are appropriate for matters that are of significant 

interest to staff but do not warrant either (1) legally binding 

requirements, or (2) inclusion in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Reports (UFSAR)

4

or programs subject to a formal regulatory 

change control mechanism.

Unlike regulatory requirements contained in regulations, technical 

specifications, licenses, and orders, commitments are neither legally 

binding nor obligations of a license. According to LIC-105, NRC staff 

should escalate a commitment into a legally binding obligation only if the 

staff deems that the commitment is essential for ensuring public health 

and safety. NRC management asserts that once a commitment is 

escalated into a requirement, it is no longer a commitment, but rather it 

becomes a legal obligation and must be converted to an NRC enforceable 

requirement, such as a condition of the facility operating license.

Purpose of Commitments

As noted above, commitments are appropriate for matters that are of 

significant interest to staff, but do not warrant legally binding obligations. 

According to LIC-105, the regulatory process relies on commitments to, 

among other things, support the justification for a proposed licensing 

action or resolution of other regulatory related activities. Commitments

 

4

The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is the principal document upon which the NRC bases its safety 

evaluation supporting the issuance of an operating license for a nuclear power plant. Changes made after 

the operating license has been issued are documented in a new document, the UFSAR, which serves as 

the official source of current plant design and analyses. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

3

often result from a licensing action such as a license amendment, 

including power uprates, or from a generic communication, such as 

generic letters and bulletins. Further, LIC-105 states that NRC expects 

licensees to honor commitments that have a safety or regulatory purpose. 

Appendix A provides examples of commitments. 

NRC expects licensees to honor commitments in good faith; however,

noncompliance with a commitment can result in the issuance of a Notice 

of Deviation. A Notice of Deviation describes a licensee's failure to satisfy 

a commitment and requests a licensee to provide a written explanation or 

statement describing corrective steps taken (or planned), the results 

achieved, and the date when corrective action will be completed.5 A

Notice of Deviation is an administrative mechanism that is less severe 

than a Notice of Violation,

6

but allows NRC staff to request information 

from a licensee if the implementation of an action was not consistent with 

the mutually agreed-upon commitment. 

Licensee Commitment Responsibilities

According to NEI-99-04, licensees are responsible for creating, 

implementing, and tracking all commitments made to NRC. As part of 

their business practices, licensees maintain a commitment management 

program to track a variety of commitments, including commitments made 

to NRC7and to non-regulatory organizations, as well as corrective actions 

and self-assessments.

The licensee is entirely responsible for tracking the commitments, and this 

includes any changes to the commitments and notification to NRC about 

such changes. NEI-99-04 includes guidance for changing commitments

and criteria for determining if and when to inform NRC staff about a

change. Although there is no regulatory requirement for such reporting, 

licensees will periodically report changes in commitments to the NRC via 

docketed correspondence. NEI-99-04 also provides flowcharts outlining a 

 

5

According to NRC staff, the agency has not issued any Notices of Deviation to licensees since 2007 for 

not fulfilling a commitment. 

6

According to NRC’s Enforcement Manual, a Notice of Violation is a written notice that identifies an NRC 

requirement and how it was violated.

7 NRC does not have comprehensive data on the number of commitments made by licensees each year, 

but licensee staff and NRC project managers estimated that 3 to 10 commitments are created for each 

plant annually. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

4

commitment management change process to assist licensees in 

identifying changes that are significant to safety and/or of high regulatory 

interest that should be communicated to NRC. 

NRC’s Commitment Responsibilities

The primary responsibility for managing commitments within NRC is 

assigned to DORL project managers, but other NRC staff involved in 

decisionmaking processes that use commitments include DORL branch 

chiefs, NRR technical reviewers, and OGC. 

DORL project managers are responsible for the general oversight and 

coordination of NRR activities—including management of commitments—

related to the processing of licensing actions, generic issues, or policy 

issues for a specific licensee. Specifically, as part of NRC’s oversight

responsibilities, project managers are required every 3 years to audit 

licensee commitment management programs by assessing the adequacy 

of licensee implementation of a sample of commitments made to the NRC 

in past licensing actions.8 Performance of these audits is not a 

requirement of NRC’s inspection program, which does not assess how

well licensees control commitments. Instead, the triennial audit 

requirement is described in LIC-105.

DORL branch chiefs are expected to ensure that the triennial audits of 

licensee commitment management programs are performed. In addition,

they are expected to ensure that the project managers are appropriately 

trained and provided with the necessary tools during their reviews of 

specific licensing actions or other licensing tasks.

It is the role of NRR technical staff to review licensing actions and the 

supporting documentation—including any applicable commitments—to 

ensure that appropriate consideration has been given to technical issues. 

In many cases, project managers will seek subject matter expertise from 

the technical reviewers during the decisionmaking process.

According to NRR office instructions, NRR staff should coordinate their 

programmatic efforts with OGC. LIC-100, Control of Licensing Bases for 

Operating Reactors; and NEI-99-04, Guidelines for Managing NRC 

Commitment Changes, states that OGC plays a critical role in defining the 

 

8

The commitment audit requirement was initiated in 2003. As of February 2010, 65 nuclear power plants 

had been subject to an initial audit, and 23 plants had been subject to a followup audit.
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

5

elements of the licensing bases of nuclear facilities, in defining the 

appropriate controls for and other attributes of the elements of the 

licensing bases, and in processing some plant-specific changes to 

licensing bases information. Further, NRR staff should coordinate their 

programmatic and plant-specific efforts with OGC to ensure NRC products

(e.g., licensing documents) comply with legal requirements.

II. PURPOSE

The audit objective was to assess the extent to which NRC appropriately 

and consistently utilizes and manages regulatory commitments for power 

reactor licensees. Appendix B contains information on the audit scope 

and methodology.

III. FINDINGS

Part of NRC’s mission is to identify and accomplish those actions that 

provide the level of nuclear plant performance necessary to ensure 

adequate protection of public health and safety. A commitment is one tool

that NRC uses in the overall licensing process to add flexibility, improve 

efficiency, and maintain the flow of information between the staff and 

licensees. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) identified 

opportunities for improvement in the following three areas: 

 Consistent implementation of commitment management audits.

 Staff understanding of the definition and use of commitments.

 NRC tracking of commitments.
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

6

A. Commitment Management Audits Are Inconsistently Implemented

To achieve NRC’s mission of adequately protecting the public health and

safety and the environment, NRC programs and processes should be 

carried out effectively, efficiently, and consistently. However, NRC

inconsistently implements the audits of licensee commitment management 

programs. This is because agency guidance on implementing the triennial 

audits is incomplete and imprecise. Incomplete and imprecise guidance 

concerning the conduct of commitment management audits can result in 

ineffective audits, inefficient use of resources, and the appearance that 

NRC provides disparate oversight of similarly situated licensees.

Consistent Implementation of NRC Programs and Processes 

To achieve NRC’s mission of adequately protecting public health and

safety and the environment, NRC programs and processes should be 

carried out effectively, efficiently, and consistently. Consistent 

implementation of NRC programs and processes facilitates a consistent 

regulatory framework for overseeing commercial nuclear power plants. 

One element of NRC’s regulatory oversight process is the management of 

commitments, which includes conducting triennial audits of licensee 

commitment management programs. The triennial audits are a primary 

tool used by NRC for assessing licensee commitment management 

programs. In accordance with NRC’s mission, the triennial audits of 

licensee commitment management programs should be implemented 

consistently.

Commitment Management Audits Are Inconsistently Implemented

NRC’s triennial commitment management audits are not consistently 

implemented. There are disparities in how staff members develop

samples of commitments for review and the thoroughness of the audits. 

DORL project managers inconsistently identify the universe of 

commitments eligible for sampling for the triennial audits. Some of the 

various sources of information that project managers use to identify the 

universe of commitments include: 

 Generic communications.

 Licensee correspondence.

 Prior commitment audit reports.
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

7

 UFSAR changes.

 Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS).9

 NRC amendment logs.

 Licensee commitment tracking systems.

 Licensee corrective action programs.

Most project managers explained that when developing their audit sample,

they consult various sources and/or combinations of sources, including 

ADAMS, their own records, and/or licensee kept records. For example, 

during the development of a commitment audit sample, some project 

managers indicated that they depended on a self-generated list of 

commitments to extract a sample of commitments for the audit, while other 

project managers said they rely solely upon ADAMS searches as their 

source of commitments (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Percent of Project Managers Indicating Source for 

Developing Their Audit Sample

Source: OIG analysis of interviews with staff.

 

9

ADAMS is the official recordkeeping system through which NRC provides access to libraries or 

collections of documents related to the agency’s regulatory activities.

40%

20%

25%

15%

40% Only ADAMS 

20% Self-generated list of 

commitments 

25% Both ADAMS and a 

self-generated list of 

commitments 

15% ADAMS and licenseeprovided commitments 

N = 20 Project Managers
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

8

DORL staff members have varying views on what constitutes a thorough 

audit, and OIG observed differences in the conduct of the audits. For 

example, project managers and branch chiefs provided contrasting 

responses on whether the commitment management audit includes 

physical verification of commitments. Approximately half of the project 

managers interviewed said they would not physically or visually inspect 

the accomplishment of commitments, while all of the branch chiefs that 

OIG interviewed agreed that project managers should physically or 

visually inspect the accomplishment of commitments. 

Further, OIG observed the performance of several commitment

management audits of licensees and noted significant differences in how 

they were conducted. Two of the audits were performed at licensee 

nuclear power plant sites while one was performed at NRC headquarters. 

The two site audits differed markedly from each other in the depth of the 

review, including the degree to which the project manager reviewed 

supporting documentation and performed physical verification activities at

the nuclear power plant. For example, one of the project managers 

verified that the licensee had completed a specific commitment, and when 

asked if further verification was needed, the project manager said that the

commitment review stops at the completion of the commitment. However, 

another project manager reviewed the completion of the commitment and 

then requested additional supporting documentation that went beyond the 

documented completion of the specific commitment to ensure the proper 

changes and procedures had been correctly implemented. The project 

manager also reviewed associated documents that were directly or 

indirectly affected by the commitment to ensure that the licensee had 

made all relevant changes that were impacted by the commitment.

NRC Guidance Is Incomplete and Imprecise 

Staff interpretations concerning conduct of the triennial commitment 

management audits vary because agency guidance10 on conducting the 

audits is incomplete and imprecise. Specifically, agency guidance on 

developing a commitment management audit sample does not provide 

detailed direction on the sources to be used for identifying a universe of 

commitments. Furthermore, guidance on conducting the audits does not 

 

10 Although LIC-105 is the agency’s primary guidance on managing commitments, other guidance 

documents such as LIC-100, Control of Licensing Bases for Operating Reactors, and LIC-101, License 

Amendment Review Procedures, reference commitments.
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

9

articulate the depth-of-review expectations and guidelines for performing 

the audits. 

LIC-105 guidance on developing an audit sample is incomplete because it 

does not provide detailed direction on sources that should be used to 

identify the universe of commitments in preparation for an audit. For 

commitment sample selection, the guidance directs project managers to 

review commitments specifically made by licensees. The guidance does 

not offer the specific sources where commitments can be found. Based 

on this guidance, it is questionable whether project managers consistently 

draw their samples from an appropriate, representative, or inclusive

universe. 

Further, the LIC-105 section on conducting triennial commitment 

management audits is imprecise because it does not clearly articulate the 

depth-of-review expectations and guidelines for performing the audits. 

This guidance does not specifically address management expectations of 

staff to verify that commitments have been appropriately implemented in 

the plant facility, procedures, program, or other plant documentation. 

Rather, guidance simply notes that the project manager is responsible for 

determining the level of physical verification and document review 

depending on the nature of each commitment. This non-prescriptive 

approach affords the project manager a degree of flexibility in conducting 

the audit. However, it does not provide sufficient guidance to ensure that 

the audits are conducted consistently with regard to thoroughness and 

level of review.

Reduced Effectiveness and Efficiency, and the Appearance of 

Disparate Treatment

Incomplete and imprecise guidance on the conduct of triennial 

commitment management audits can result in ineffective audits, inefficient 

use of resources, and the appearance that NRC provides disparate 

oversight of similarly situated licensees. 

The lack of clear direction from agency guidance contributes to reduced

effectiveness of the triennial audits. Unless project managers identify the 

full universe of commitments for the audit sample and until the guidance 

provides more clarity with regard to the depth of the audit, the audits may 

not fully support NRC’s objective to determine whether licensees 

successfully implement their commitments. This may lead to NRC staff 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

10

perceptions that the commitment management audits are ineffective. 

Indeed, some staff articulated to OIG a reluctance to continue performing

the audits. Those audits that do not sample a complete universe of 

commitments or lack the rigor and depth to ensure that commitments were 

implemented represent an inefficient use of agency resources. 

The inconsistencies in the implementation and conduct of the audits also 

lend an appearance of disparate treatment among licensees. Ideally, 

NRC should audit two licensees with similar commitments in a similar 

fashion. However, if two separate project managers reviewed the two 

licensees with different standards of proof and documentation, the result 

could be two very different outcomes, giving the appearance of different 

treatment. 

Recommendations

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:

1. Revise the section of LIC-105, Managing Regulatory Commitments 

Made by Licensees to NRC, on conducting triennial commitment 

management audits to include detailed sampling direction, such as a 

checklist of sources to be used in identifying a universe of 

commitments from which to sample.

2. Revise LIC-105, Managing Regulatory Commitments Made by 

Licensees to NRC, to include well-defined expectations and guidelines 

regarding the conduct of commitment management audits. The 

guidelines should include an expectation that audited commitments are 

reviewed to ensure that they have been appropriately implemented in 

the plant facility, procedures, program, or other plant documentations. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

11

B. Definition and Use of Commitments Are Inconsistently 

Understood 

Agency staff should have a consistent understanding of commitments to

perform their work effectively; however, the definition and use of 

commitments is not consistently understood throughout the agency. This 

occurs because NRC training on commitments is insufficient. Specifically, 

training does not effectively address the definition and use of 

commitments and is not provided to all agency staff involved in reviewing

licensee commitments. This could potentially result in the misapplication 

of commitments by NRC staff. 

Importance of Performance Management

Good performance management practices dictate that agency staff should 

have a consistent understanding of NRC’s regulatory tools and their use, 

including commitments, so they can perform their work and collectively

ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment. 

Furthermore, the agency’s approach to performance management 

requires staff members to be highly trained in the technical disciplines 

relating to their duties, the regulatory processes that govern agency 

actions, and the regulatory principles inherent in making the agency a 

strong, independent, stable, and predictable regulator. Being a stable and 

predictable regulator implies that NRC must operate in a consistent 

regulatory framework. This requires staff associated with a particular 

regulatory program to have a consistent understanding of that regulatory 

program and associated policies, including the definitions and the tools 

used for evaluating and implementing the program.

Definition and Use of Commitments Are Inconsistently Understood

Agency staff, industry, and the public have various views on the definition 

of a commitment. Furthermore, agency staff expressed conflicting 

descriptions for the use of commitments.

Commitments Are Variously Defined by Stakeholders

Agency staff, industry personnel, and the public have various views of the 

definition of a commitment and whether commitments are enforceable. 

Figure 2 below shows the views expressed by members of these groups 

when asked whether commitments can be enforced by the NRC. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

12

Figure 2: Perceptions of Enforceability of Commitments 

Source: OIG analysis of interview data.

DORL project managers explained that because commitments are not 

enforceable,

11 it is their responsibility to assess the level to which NRC 

staff rely on commitments and to make sure a commitment is the 

appropriate tool to ensure that the action is completed. Further, NRC staff 

explained that commitments are not a part of the license and are therefore 

not legally enforceable.

12

 Under that interpretation, NRC could not issue a 

violation if a licensee fails to fulfill a commitment. However, other agency 

staff said that NRC could enforce commitments. For example, one branch 

chief said that a commitment is part of the licensing basis and is therefore 

enforceable. Other NRC staff members, including project managers, 

branch chiefs, and an OGC attorney, contended that the agency could

take enforcement action if a licensee failed to fulfill the commitment. 

Agency and industry staff articulated a hierarchy of commitments that the 

agency guidance does not specifically address. Some NRC staff have 

differentiated commitments based on their intended application and NRC's 

ability to oversee commitments using the terms "big C" commitments and 

 

11 The term “enforceable” describes a legally binding obligation, such as a condition of a facility’s 

operating license. 

12 According to LIC-105, issues regarding the use of regulatory commitments usually center on the legal 

standing of the commitment and NRC staffs’ ability to enforce the action committed to by a licensee. 

While licensees are not legally bound to fulfill a commitment, the NRC staff may use the administrative 

enforcement tool of a Notice of Deviation if a licensee fails to satisfy a commitment.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Indicated 

commitments 

are enforceable

Indicated 

commitments 

are not 

enforceable

24% 76%

Number of NRC staff, 

industry staff, and public 

interest group 

representatives

N = 33 Individuals
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

13

"small c" commitments. Some NRC staff have also used the terms 

"regulatory commitments" and "commitments" to differentiate between the 

"big C" and "small c" commitments, respectively. Furthermore, the 

definitions provided by staff for these different types of commitments were 

contradictory. For example, one project manager said that "big C" or 

"regulatory commitments" are safety-significant commitments that could 

become an obligation or condition of the license, while another project 

manager along with an OGC staff member explained that a "regulatory 

commitment" is similar to a "small c" commitment which is a nonenforceable, voluntary agreement between the licensee and NRC. 

Industry staff also articulated two kinds of commitments—"obligatory 

commitments" and "non-obligatory commitments"— to differentiate 

between commitments made in association with a requirement in a 

regulation and those commitments not explicitly identified in a regulation. 

Moreover, there is a difference in the way the public and industry 

understands a commitment versus NRC staff’s view of a commitment. Of 

54 NRC staff members interviewed, 28 understood a commitment to be a 

low-level promise between NRC and the licensees. For example, seven

staff members referred to commitments as a "gentleman’s agreement" or 

as the "icing on the cake," essentially providing NRC additional assurance 

that licensees will take a particular action beyond that specified in the 

requirements. However, some industry staff and a public interest group 

see commitments as more formal, enforceable agreements.

Agency Staff Have Conflicting Views on Use of Commitments 

Various agency staff involved in handling commitments expressed

conflicting descriptions for the use of commitments. Particularly, agency 

staff members have differing views on whether a regulatory decision (e.g.,

amendments to licensing documents) can be based on a commitment

(see Figure 3). Many NRC staff members believe regulatory decisions

should be made without reliance on a commitment and the commitment 

should serve merely as extra assurance for NRC; however, other staff 

members believe that licensing actions could be approved with 

commitments and that, in some cases, NRC could not have approved the 

licensing action without a commitment. 

 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

14

Figure 3: NRC Staff Views on Role of Commitments in Regulatory 

Decisions 

Source: OIG analysis of interviews with staff.

Some NRC staff are aware of a regulatory practice that incorporates the 

content of a commitment into a licensing action implementation statement, 

while others are unaware of this option. The term "implementation 

statement" is not defined in the agency guidance for commitments.

13

However, NRC staff members who reported using the implementation 

statement explained that it requires the licensee to place their 

commitment(s) into the UFSAR. This makes the commitment subject to 

the provisions of 10 CFR § 50.5914 such that changes to the commitment 

by the licensee would result in a process to determine if prior NRC 

approval may be required. Additionally, NRC has the opportunity to 

review changes to the commitment when the UFSAR is updated according

 

13 The terms "implementation statement," "implementation clause," and "implementation requirement"

were used interchangeably by some NRC staff. Although the term "implementation statement" is not 

defined in agency commitment guidance, NRC staff explained that they could add an implementation 

statement or clause to the licensing amendment. This section of the approval letter lists the items to be 

implemented and the implementation timeframe in conjunction with or prior to the approval of the 

amendment. The implementation language might state, for example, "the implementation of the 

amendment shall also include...." Within this "implementation statement" is where a commitment may be 

inserted and incorporated into the FSAR.

14 10 CFR 50.59, Issuance, Limitations, and Conditions of Licenses and Construction Permits: Changes, 

Tests and Experiments, outlines the instances in which a license amendment would or would not be 

required due to a change in the facility or procedures described in the FSAR (as updated) or a test or 

experiment not described in the FSAR (as updated).

27%

73%

27% of NRC staff indicated 

that regulatory decisions can 

be based on commitments.

73% of NRC staff indicated 

that regulatory decisions 

cannot be based on 

commitments.

N = 30 NRC staff
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

15

to 10 CFR § 50.71(e).

15

 Therefore, certain commitments that are formally 

captured and included into the UFSAR through the implementation 

statement would receive more scrutiny by NRC staff. However, the use of 

the implementation statement as a tool that allows NRC to have more 

oversight of selected commitments is not consistently known among NRC 

staff. Specifically, of DORL staff asked if they had the knowledge and/or 

understanding of an implementation statement, more than 40 percent said 

their branch did not use it and they were unaware of such a statement

being used by other DORL branches.

Insufficient Commitment-Specific Training

Current training on commitments does not sufficiently address the 

definition and use of commitments, and is not provided to all staff involved 

in reviewing licensee commitments. Providing commitment-specific 

training to all applicable NRC staff—including project managers, technical 

staff, and OGC involved in the formation or revision of reactor licensing 

actions—helps ensure that staff have the skills, knowledge, and abilities 

needed to perform their work. DORL is in the process of developing 

licensing-specific training for project managers that will address the 

application of commitments; however, this effort has not been addressed

by all NRC offices involved in reviewing reactor licensee commitments.

Misapplication of Commitments

Until the various understandings of the definition and use of commitments

are clarified, NRC risks improper application of commitments. For 

example, NRC staff may inappropriately rely on a commitment for a 

licensing decision when an obligation was required. In fact, some NRC 

staff members said that they would not have approved a particular 

licensing action without a specific commitment being present. Therefore, 

lacking a sound understanding of the appropriate application of a 

commitment, NRC staff may be accepting licensees’ proposed 

commitments in lieu of an appropriate regulatory requirement, such as 

applicable licensing conditions, orders, rules, or regulations.

 

15 10 CFR § 50.71(e), Maintenance of records, making of reports, is the requirement for licensees to 

update their FSAR that was originally submitted as part of their application for a license. Subsequent 

revisions must be filed within a period not to exceed 24 months.
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

16

Recommendation

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:

3. Develop training that sufficiently addresses the definition and use of 

commitments and provide it to all agency staff involved in reviewing

reactor licensee commitments.

C. NRC Staff Do Not Systematically Track Commitments 

According to Federal regulations for preserving records and NRC 

guidance on records management, NRC should maintain records that are 

sufficient to document matters dealt with by NRC, including significant 

decisions and the decisionmaking process. NRC does not systematically 

track commitments because the agency does not have an adequate tool 

for tracking them, in part, because the agency has not identified a need for 

such a tool. Consequently, NRC cannot completely ensure oversight of 

commitments, which has implications for the agency’s continuing 

awareness of significant commitments, the effectiveness of the triennial 

commitment management audits, and institutional knowledge 

management. 

Preservation of Documents

Federal regulations require NRC to preserve records containing adequate 

and proper documentation of the functions, decisions, and essential 

transactions of the agency to ensure that the agency can find records 

when needed. According to Management Directive (MD) 3.53, NRC 

Records Management Program,

16 the agency should maintain records that 

are sufficient to document matters dealt with by NRC, including significant 

decisions and the actions taken to arrive at those decisions. This includes

docketed commitments that are considered safety significant17 and/or 

relied upon to make regulatory decisions. Documenting commitments that 

contain information supporting regulatory decisionmaking helps ensure 

that the agency captures pertinent information and that NRC can be 

responsive and accountable for its actions in communicating with reactor

 

16 MD 3.53 contains procedures, standards, and guidelines for managing NRC's official records in 

accordance with U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and General Services Administration

regulations.

17 The term “safety significant” refers to a function whose degradation or loss could result in a significant 

adverse effect on defense-in-depth, safety margin, or risk. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

17

licensees. Moreover, capturing commitments would assist NRC in

knowing the universe and status of all commitments. 

NRC Does Not Systematically Track Commitments

NRC does not systematically track commitments and, consequently, 

project managers cannot independently generate a list of all commitments 

related to a specific licensee, even those that were considered by staff to 

be safety significant and/or integral to approving a proposed licensing 

action. The agency does not collect commitments into a single document. 

Rather, commitments are included in various documents submitted by 

licensees. NRC relies on licensees to track their respective commitments 

and supply information to NRC on the status of the implementation/

closure of commitments for the purpose of the triennial audit. This is 

problematic because some staff members view certain commitments as 

safety significant and/or necessary for approval of proposed licensing 

actions. 

Although project managers are not required to track commitments, OIG 

learned that some project managers informally track commitments. With 

no requirement to track commitments, these project managers create their 

own mechanisms for tracking this information because they seek the 

ability to independently conduct timely and thorough commitment 

searches. One experienced project manager explained that maintaining 

one’s own list of commitments provides the opportunity to independently 

verify that the licensee’s commitment-related information is adequately 

captured, tracked, and managed. Furthermore, the majority of NRC staff 

interviewed indicated that having a formal tracking tool for licensee 

commitments would be beneficial (see Figure 4). Many of the staff 

members who disagreed believe that tracking commitments would not be 

beneficial did so solely because they felt it would be an administrative 

burden for project managers.
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

18

Figure 4: NRC Staff View on Whether a Commitment Tracking Tool 

Would Be Beneficial

Source: OIG analysis of interviews with staff. 

NRC Lacks an Adequate Commitment Tracking Tool

NRC does not have an adequate tool for tracking commitments, in part, 

because the agency has not identified a need for such a tool. NRC 

managers said that the agency staff should not rely on commitments for 

regulatory decisionmaking. However, these managers were unaware that 

some staff members had used commitments for the approval of licensing 

actions. Thus, the agency’s lack of support for the tracking of 

commitments has been partly based on an assumption that staff were not

using commitments for the purpose of regulatory decisionmaking. 

OIG identified some instances of licensee commitments that were safety 

significant and/or necessary for approval of a proposed licensing action, 

as follows:

 Commitment A: Staff relied upon a commitment for approval of a 

licensee's amendment to make a technical specification change 

regarding reactor power monitoring equipment calibration. NRC's

issuance letter stated that the approval of the amendment was 

based on the commitment. One interviewee—who was the branch 

chief at the time of the commitment—said, had the commitment not 

been fulfilled, NRC may have issued an order. Another NRC staff 

member, a technical reviewer, said that the license amendment 

45% 55%

55% of NRC staff indicated it 

would be beneficial to have 

a commitment tracking tool 

45% of NRC staff indicated it 

would not be beneficial to 

have a commitment tracking 

tool 

N = 22 NRC staff
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

19

request would not have been accepted without the completion of 

the commitment. 

 Commitment B: After a licensee conducted a power uprate-related 

evaluation, the licensee made a commitment to operate at a lower 

power level than allowed by the nuclear power plant license. NRC 

staff members said that if the commitment had not been completed, 

it could have adversely impacted safe plant operations. NRC 

managers involved in the power level approval agreed that they 

could postulate a safety-related problem had the licensee opted not 

to implement the commitment. Later, an OGC attorney confirmed 

that a commitment was not appropriate in this instance; instead, a 

license amendment should have been used. 

 Commitment C: For a requested amendment to extend the allowed 

out-of-service time for a plant’s diesel generators, the staff 

determined that a commitment was necessary. Two NRC staff 

members, a technical reviewer and an OGC attorney, said that a 

commitment to modify a circuit breaker was necessary for the 

amendment.

OIG did not perform a detailed search and review of commitments to 

identify commitments, similar to the examples above, that were safety 

significant and/or necessary for approval of a proposed licensing action. 

Therefore, it is possible that additional examples exist. The agency also 

does not know the extent to which such commitments exist because it has 

not identified commitments that the staff had considered safety significant 

and/or necessary for approval of a proposed licensing action.

Agency Cannot Ensure Oversight of Commitments

Until the agency tracks safety significant commitments, NRC will not be 

able to ensure oversight of such commitments. Consequently, there are 

implications for the agency’s continuing awareness of significant 

commitments, the effectiveness of the triennial commitment management 

audits, and institutional knowledge management. Further, NRC risks 

erosion of its licensing logic, wherein the agency would rely on nonmandatory commitments in lieu of licensing conditions or obligations for 

nuclear power plant licensing. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

20

Agency Awareness of Commitments

Without a tracking system, significant commitments could be overlooked 

or forgotten. For example, a 1979 safety significant commitment 

resurfaced in 2007 when an NRC inspection found the commitment and 

issued a Notice of Deviation to the licensee because action to address the 

commitment had not been completed. If NRC had a process to 

independently track commitments, the agency would have been able to 

monitor the implementation of the commitment, and any failure by the 

licensee to take action would have been identified earlier. Instead, the 

oversight and tracking of commitment implementation by NRC is ad hoc, 

making it difficult for the agency and staff members to identify deviations 

from poorly documented plans. However, effective use of the triennial 

commitment management audits to identify potential inappropriatelyapplied commitments and agency training on the proper implementation of 

commitments, once implemented and reviewed by OIG, may obviate the 

need for a tracking system.

Impact on Triennial Commitment Management Audits

NRC risks conducting ineffective triennial commitment management audits 

because significant commitments may not be included in the commitment 

management audit samples. OIG learned during an audit it observed that 

NRC missed commitments made during an entire year between NRC’s 

initial and first followup audit of a licensee’s commitment management 

program. OIG notified the project manager of the missed timeframe, and 

the project manager stated a belief that it was unnecessary to increase the 

audit sample to include the missed year’s commitments because the 

licensee performs its own internal audits. 

Impact on Institutional Knowledge Management

Employee attrition could potentially result in the agency’s loss of 

undocumented information, particularly in those instances where some 

project managers have developed their own commitment tracking 

systems. Commitment related information to support future projects or 

regulatory decisionmaking may not be available for germane agency staff 

if the agency does not formally capture the information. The commitment 

management audits should identify and correct situations where 

commitments were used inappropriately. Properly documenting relevant 

information is a critical aspect of effective oversight and demonstrates that 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

21

NRC operates with due care and can be accountable for its oversight of 

commitments.

Risks to NRC’s Licensing Logic

NRC risks not following its established licensing logic, leaving the agency 

in a potential position whereby the licensing of nuclear power plants 

depends on non-mandatory commitments. The licenses for operating 

nuclear power plants include requirements that ensure that the functional 

capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation 

of the facility are maintained. The requirements in licenses are mandatory 

and require compliance by the licensee. If NRC allows reliance on 

commitments for the approval of license amendments, it risks making the 

basis of safe operation reliant on actions that are not required.

Recommendations

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:

4. Identify actions to determine the extent to which commitments that are

considered safety significant and/or necessary for approval of 

proposed licensing actions exists. This could be accomplished by 

either: (1) NRR project managers identifying any such commitments as 

part of the triennial commitment management audits, or (2) conducting

a review of all existing commitments and identifying any inappropriately 

applied commitments. Any such commitments should be identified to 

NRC management for appropriate action.

5. Depending on the outcome of the efforts to meet recommendation 4, 

develop and utilize a tool for systematically tracking the status of 

commitments that are deemed safety significant and/or necessary for 

approval of proposed licensing actions.
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

22

IV. CONCLUSION

NRC commitments are a valuable regulatory tool that add flexibility to the 

regulatory review framework. They also play a key role in facilitating the 

agency’s decisionmaking process on matters that can be highly safety 

significant. Specifically, they provide additional assurance to the agency 

that a licensee action will not adversely affect the safe operation of the 

plant. Therefore, it is essential that all agency staff who work with 

commitments clearly understand the appropriate application and role of 

commitments to facilitate their consistent use. However, not all NRC staff 

understand the appropriate use of commitments. By enhancing agency 

guidance and training on the role and use of commitments, as well as 

requiring routine review and capture of commitments pertaining to safetysignificant decisions, the agency can further strengthen its pledge to 

promote the safe operation of the nation’s power reactors.

V. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations:

1. Revise the section of LIC-105, Managing Regulatory Commitments 

Made by Licensees to NRC, on conducting triennial commitment 

management audits to include detailed sampling direction, such as a 

checklist of sources to be used in identifying a universe of 

commitments from which to sample.

2. Revise LIC-105, Managing Regulatory Commitments Made by 

Licensees to NRC, to include well-defined expectations and guidelines 

regarding the conduct of commitment management audits. The 

guidelines should include an expectation that audited commitments are 

reviewed to ensure that they have been appropriately implemented in 

the plant facility, procedures, program, or other plant documentations.

3. Develop training that sufficiently addresses the definition and use of 

commitments and provide it to all agency staff involved in reviewing 

reactor licensee commitments. 

4. Identify actions to determine the extent to which commitments that are 

considered safety significant and/or necessary for approval of 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

23

proposed licensing actions exists. This could be accomplished by 

either: (1) NRR project managers identifying any such commitments as 

part of the triennial commitment management audits, or (2) conducting 

a review of all existing commitments and identifying any inappropriately 

applied commitments. Any such commitments should be identified to 

NRC management for appropriate action.

5. Depending on the outcome of the efforts to meet recommendation 4, 

develop and utilize a tool for systematically tracking the status of 

commitments that are deemed safety significant and/or necessary for 

approval of proposed licensing actions.

VI. AGENCY COMMENTS

On August 9, 2011, OIG issued the discussion draft of this report to the 

Executive Director for Operations. OIG met with NRC management 

officials and staff on August 12, 2011, at which time the agency provided 

informal comments to the draft report. OIG subsequently met with agency 

management and staff during an August 23, 2011, exit conference to 

discuss agency informal comments that OIG incorporated into the draft 

report as appropriate. At this meeting, agency management provided 

supplemental information that has also been incorporated into this report 

as appropriate. NRC management and staff reviewed the revised draft 

report and generally agreed with the recommendations in this report. 

Furthermore, the agency opted not to provide formal comments for 

inclusion in this report.
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

24

Appendix A

EXAMPLES OF COMMITMENTS

Commitments are generated from different sources, including license 

amendments, notices of enforcement discretion, generic letters, and other 

operational and licensing documents. However, the commitments are 

documented as written communication from the licensee to NRC. The 

following examples illustrate some of the sources and types of 

commitments utilized by the industry and NRC.

Example 1: Commitment to upgrade a spent fuel pool crane

All heavy load lifts in or around the spent fuel pool made using the 

upgraded Auxiliary Building crane lifting system will meet the 

guidance in NUREG-0612.

This commitment was made in support of a license amendment related to 

the plant’s spent fuel pool crane. In this case, the licensee committed to 

limit use of the crane so that objects above a specific weight would not be 

lifted unless the crane was upgraded. 

Example 2: Commitment to maintain a minimum amount of fuel oil 

available

The licensee commits to administratively control the amount of fuel 

oil in each fuel oil storage tank such that a minimum usable amount

of 25,000 gallons (including the day tanks) is available to supply 

each EDG [emergency diesel generator] (without reliance on a 

portable transfer pump), for the duration of the enforcement 

discretion.

In this case, a licensee made a commitment in support of the licensee 

receiving approval for temporary enforcement discretion for a requirement 

related to an emergency diesel generator. The licensee committed to 

maintain an amount of fuel in the plant’s fuel oil storage tanks that was 

greater than the minimum amount normally required. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

25

Example 3: Commitment to modify the containment emergency sump of a 

nuclear power plant 

Installation of Unit 1 and Unit 2 new post loss of coolant accident

containment sump recirculation screens, completion of required 

modifications and implementation of required procedural changes.

A licensee made this commitment to the NRC in response to an NRC 

Generic Letter. NRC originally sent the Generic Letter to licensees of 

pressurized water reactors to communicate a generic concern with their 

containment emergency sumps. In response to this concern, this licensee 

committed to make modifications to its reactors’ sumps recirculation 

screens. 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

26

Appendix B

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The audit objective was to assess the extent to which NRC appropriately 

and consistently utilizes and manages regulatory commitments for power 

reactor licensees. The audit focused on reviewing the oversight of 

commitments through an examination of documents, interviews, and 

observations.

OIG reviewed relevant Federal regulations regarding the management 

and use of commitments, including 10 CFR § 54.3, Requirements for 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, and 10 CFR §

50.59, Issuance, Limitations, and Conditions of Licenses and Construction 

Permits: Changes, Tests and Experiments. OIG also reviewed agency 

and industry guidance, including LIC-105, Managing Regulatory 

Commitments Made by Licensees to the NRC; LIC-100, Control of 

Licensing Bases for Operating Reactors; and NEI-99-04, Guidelines for 

Managing NRC Commitment Changes. OIG reviewed generic 

communication documents as well as licensing documents such as 

license amendments. Furthermore, OIG reviewed NRC inspection 

procedures, SECY papers, office handbooks, and all (88) NRC

commitment audit reports published between January 2004 and February 

2009.

OIG interviewed NRC staff who participated in activities related to the 

management of commitments. These interviews included resident 

inspectors, OGC staff, NRC technical reviewers, DORL project managers, 

DORL staff, and agency managers. In all, OIG conducted interviews with 

54 NRC staff members to obtain staff insights into the oversight of

licensees’ commitments and commitment management programs. 

OIG also conducted interviews with industry representatives, a public 

interest group representative, and licensee staff. The audit team also 

observed three audits of licensee’s commitment management programs 

performed by DORL project managers.

This performance audit was conducted at NRC headquarters (Rockville, 

MD) and selected commitment audit sites in Regions II and III, from 

October 2010 through May 2011, in accordance with generally accepted 

Government auditing standards. Those standards require that the audit is 

planned and performed with the objective of obtaining sufficient, 
Audit of NRC’s Management of Licensee Commitments

27

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for any findings and 

conclusions based on the stated audit objective. OIG believes that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for the report findings and 

conclusions based on the audit objective. 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. 

The audit work was conducted by R.K. Wild, Team Leader; Kevin 

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

Andrea Ferkile, Senior Management Analyst; Joseph Capuano, Auditor; 

and Dana Furstenau, Student Management Analyst.