AUDIT REPORT 

Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

OIG-08-A-17 September 26, 2008 

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/ 


Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND

Enforcement is an integral component of NRC’s regulatory programs and 

NRC’s Office of Enforcement (OE) has overall responsibility for the 

oversight of the agency’s Enforcement Program. NRC’s four regional 

offices and headquarters-based technical program offices1 are 

responsible for implementing NRC’s Enforcement Program. 

NRC’s enforcement process begins when issues of concern are identified 

as potential violations primarily through region-based inspections and 

investigations. NRC staff assess potential violations to determine a level 

of significance by considering, among other things, actual or potential 

safety consequences and any willful aspects of the violation. 

 

NRC’s Enforcement Policy applies to all NRC licensees, various 

categories of non-licensees,2 and individual employees of licensed and 

non-licensed firms involved in NRC-regulated activities. Violations of 

NRC regulations are subject to enforcement actions as either “escalated” 

or “non-escalated”.3 Although non-escalated violations are not as 

significant based on risk, assigning this severity level does not mean that 

a violation has no risk significance and NRC expects licensees to correct 

these matters. The agency issued 1,450 enforcement actions during 

2007, the majority of which involved non-escalated enforcement actions. 

PURPOSE

The overall objective of this audit was to determine if NRC’s Enforcement 

Program is comprehensive and consistently implemented, and if 

enforcement decisions are based on complete and reliable data. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF

According to agency documents, enforcement is a vital regulatory activity 

and NRC expects consistent agencywide implementation of its 

Enforcement Program. However, the agency’s four regional offices 

inconsistently implement the program in ways that can significantly impact 

 

1 Technical program offices include the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office of New Reactors, Office of 

Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. 

2 Non-licensees include vendors, contractors, subcontractors, certificate holders (e.g., certificates of compliance, 

early site permits, or standard design certificates), and the employees of these non-licensees.

3 “Escalated” violations are designated as Severity Level I, II, and III and violations related to Red, Yellow, or White 

Significance Determination Process (SDP) findings. “Non-escalated” violations are Severity Level IV or those 

associated with a Green SDP finding. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

ii

the enforcement process. These differences occur because the agency 

has not issued clear and comprehensive guidance to facilitate program 

consistency. Regional inconsistencies in Enforcement Program 

implementation can leave agency enforcement decisions vulnerable to 

challenge, potentially compromising public confidence in NRC’s 

Enforcement Program. 

Furthermore, although NRC staff need complete and reliable enforcement 

information for decisionmaking and reporting purposes, complete and 

reliable enforcement data is not readily available in all cases. Data 

availability and reliability issues exist because NRC has not (1) defined a 

uniform manner for collecting or tracking non-escalated enforcement 

activity or (2) instituted a quality assurance process over non-escalated 

enforcement data used for reporting purposes. Without complete and 

reliable information, enforcement decisionmakers cannot ensure 

appropriate processing of enforcement issues, and staff may miss 

opportunities to identify precedents or trends that would be useful in 

guiding appropriate enforcement responses. Furthermore, the agency 

cannot ensure it is reporting accurately on Enforcement Program activity. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

This report makes three recommendations. A Consolidated List of 

Recommendations appears in Section IV of this report. 

AGENCY COMMENTS

An exit conference was held with NRC senior executives on September 4, 

2008. Agency officials generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

recommendations and decided not to provide formal comments. Informal 

comments on the draft report provided by the agency were incorporated 

as appropriate. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution 

CY calendar year 

EATS Enforcement Action Tracking System 

EGM Enforcement Guidance Memoranda 

FTE full-time equivalents 

FY fiscal year 

MD management directive 

NOV Notice of Violation 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

OE Office of Enforcement 

OI Office of Investigations 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

ROP Reactor Oversight Process 

SDP Significance Determination Process 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

iv

[Page intentionally left blank.] 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

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

II. PURPOSE.......................................................................................6 

III. FINDINGS .......................................................................................7 

 A. THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM LACKS CLEAR AND 

 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDANCE NEEDED TO ENSURE 

 CONSISTENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION..................................7 

 B. ENFORCEMENT DECISIONS MAY NOT BE BASED ON COMPLETE 

 AND RELIABLE DATA...............................................................13 

IV. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS .....................18 

V. AGENCY COMMENTS .................................................................18 

APPENDICES

A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY .....................................................19 

B. ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AND AVAILABLE SANCTIONS.......21 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

vi

[Page intentionally left blank.] 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

1

I. BACKGROUND 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) develops and implements 

rules and regulations that govern the civilian uses of nuclear materials to 

protect public health and safety, the environment, and the common 

defense and security. NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants 

and other uses of nuclear materials 

through licensing, inspection, and 

enforcement of its requirements. 

Enforcement is an integral component 

of NRC’s regulatory programs. This 

report focuses on the agency’s 

Enforcement Program, which 

could result in sanctions to licensees 

who violate NRC regulations. 

Enforcement Program Overview 

 

Organizational Responsibilities Figure 1. How NRC Regulates 

Based in headquarters, NRC’s Office of Enforcement (OE) has overall 

responsibility for the oversight of the agency’s Enforcement Program. 

OE’s primary Enforcement Program role is to provide programmatic and 

implementing direction to the agency’s four regional offices and 

headquarters-based technical program offices4 which are responsible for 

implementing NRC’s Enforcement Program. Other NRC offices involved, 

directly or indirectly, in the enforcement process include the Offices of 

Investigations, the General Counsel, and Public Affairs. 

 

Enforcement Guidance

NRC’s Enforcement Policy applies to all NRC licensees, various 

categories of non-licensees,5

 and individual employees of licensed and 

non-licensed firms involved in NRC-regulated activities. The policy 

includes information on NRC enforcement roles and responsibilities, the 

agency’s statutory authority for enforcement activities, significance of 

violations, and dispositioning (i.e., handling) of violations. Other guidance 

 

4 Technical program offices include the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office of New Reactors, Office of 

Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. 

5 Non-licensees include vendors, contractors, subcontractors, certificate holders (e.g., certificates of compliance, 

early site permits, or standard design certificates), and the employees of these non-licensees.
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

2

on enforcement issues relative to NRC licensees is available in NRC’s 

Enforcement Manual,6 Enforcement Guidance Memoranda,7 and select 

inspection manual chapters. 

To address known shortcomings in its enforcement related guidance, 

NRC initiated two efforts in 2007 to revise program documents. First, OE 

announced plans in January 2007 for a major revision of the Enforcement 

Policy to clarify terms, remove outdated information, and include 

information on enforcement issues not fully addressed in the current 

policy. The last complete revision to the policy was in May 2000. 

Later in 2007, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) identified 

plans to study the use of certain traditional enforcement items as a more 

integrated input into the assessment process. OE, NRR, and regional 

representatives are working together to identify options. 

Enforcement Process

NRC’s enforcement process begins when issues of concern are identified 

as potential violations primarily through region-based inspections8 and 

investigations. NRC staff assess potential violations to determine a level 

of significance by considering, among other things, actual or potential 

safety consequences and any willful9

 aspects of the violation. Based on 

this initial assessment, there are two paths available for dispositioning 

violations: “traditional” enforcement and the Reactor Oversight Process 

(ROP).10 

NRC’s traditional enforcement process is used to evaluate all materials 

and fuel cycle facility-related violations and certain reactor-related 

violations. Specifically, traditional enforcement applies to violations that 

may impact the NRC’s ability for oversight of licensed activities and those 

associated with deliberate misconduct and discrimination matters for all 

licensees, and reactor-related technical violations in areas such as 

operator licensing, spent fuel pools, and independent spent fuel storage 

 

6 The Enforcement Manual provides procedures, requirements, and background information for use by staff that 

develops or reviews enforcement actions to keep the actions consistent with the Enforcement Policy. 

7 OE issues Enforcement Guidance Memoranda (EGM) to provide temporary enforcement guidance, including, in 

some instances, enforcement discretion when specific criteria are met. EGMs normally describe the situation that 

has occurred that requires the use of such guidance, as well as the length of time the EGM will be in effect. 

8 Security-related inspections and some materials inspections are conducted by headquarters inspectors. 

9 “Willful” is defined as either deliberate misconduct or careless disregard. Willful violations are of particular concern 

to NRC because its regulatory program is based on licensees and their contractors, employees, and agents acting 

with integrity and communicating with candor. 

10 The ROP’s graded approach to assessment is intended to be more predictable than previous practices by linking 

regulatory actions to performance criteria. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

3

installations. A traditional enforcement evaluation focuses on a violation’s 

causes and consequences and results in the assignment of a significance 

level ranging from Severity Level I for the most significant to Severity 

Level IV for less significant but “more than minor”11 concerns. 

Most reactor-related technical violations are processed through the ROP’s 

Significance Determination Process (SDP).12 The SDP is used to 

characterize the safety significance of an inspection finding and any 

associated enforcement action. Similar to the traditional enforcement 

process, SDP evaluations also result in the assignment of a significance 

level. However, the SDP assigns a color-coding of Green, White, Yellow, 

or Red to represent progressively more safety significance, with Green the 

lowest level of significance and Red the highest. As represented in 

Table 1, the SDP color-coded significance categories are related 

approximately to the traditional enforcement process and its associated 

escalated and non-escalated categories. 

Table 1. Approximate Relationship of SDP and Traditional Enforcement 

Significance Categories 

 

 Non-Escalated Enforcement Escalated Enforcement 

 

11 “Minor” violations can be considered as those below the significance of Severity Level IV violations and violations 

associated with Green inspection findings, and those having minimal safety or environmental significance. 

12 NRC developed different SDP analytical tools to assess different types of performance deficiencies. The resulting 

information is then assessed and enforcement action is taken on significant inspection findings, as appropriate. 

Significant Determination 

Process 

Traditional Enforcement 

Process 

Minor Minor 

Green Severity Level IV 

 White Severity Level III 

Yellow Severity Level II 

Red Severity Level I 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

4

Escalated and Non-Escalated Enforcement 

Violations of NRC regulations are subject to either “escalated” or “nonescalated” enforcement actions. More significant violations of NRC 

regulations are candidates for escalated enforcement. According to OE’s 

Calendar Year (CY) 2007 Enforcement Program Annual Report, the 

agency issued 1,450 enforcement actions during 2007, the majority of 

which involved non-escalated enforcement actions. 

 Escalated Enforcement

Escalated enforcement includes violations designated through the 

traditional enforcement process as Severity Level I, II, and III and 

violations related to Red, Yellow, or White SDP findings. Escalated 

severity level designations reflect the amount of regulatory concern 

associated with the violations. Per agency guidance, OE staff are directly 

involved in the development, processing, and tracking of all escalated 

enforcement actions. Although regional administrators and office 

directors have limited delegated authority to issue escalated enforcement 

sanctions, OE retains responsibility for the oversight of these activities. 

 Non-Escalated Enforcement

Non-escalated enforcement refers to less significant violations designated 

as either Severity Level IV or associated with a Green SDP finding. 

According to NRC’s Enforcement Manual, non-escalated violations are 

not as significant based on risk, but assigning this severity level does not 

mean that a violation has no risk significance. Non-escalated actions are 

primarily handled by the regions and headquarters-based program offices. 

For non-escalated matters, regional and program office managers are 

authorized to determine, process, and prepare enforcement sanctions 

without OE involvement but in accordance with NRC’s Enforcement Policy

and ROP guidance. 

 Enforcement Program Sanctions 

As indicated in Figure 2, for each of the 

last 3 years, NRC issued more than 1,400 

enforcement actions, the overwhelming 

majority of which involved non-escalated 

violations. NRC uses a graded approach 

for sanctioning escalated and nonescalated violations. (Appendix B 

provides more details on sanctions.) 

For escalated enforcement violations, 

NRC primarily issues Notices of Violation 

1400

114

1514

1434

87

1521

1332

118

1450

Figure 2 

Enforcement Program Actions

 2005 2006 2007

Totals

Esc

Non-Esc
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

5

(NOV), civil penalties, or orders.13 According to OE’s annual report, NRC 

issued 118 escalated and 1,332 non-escalated enforcement actions during 

CY 2007. 

The escalated sanctions included 

 77 NOVs without civil penalties. 

 18 proposed civil penalties totaling $383,200. 

 22 orders modifying, suspending, or revoking a license.

 1 order imposing a proposed civil penalty of $3,250. 

The agency has various sanctions available for dispositioning nonescalated enforcement issues but NRC normally uses Non-Cited 

Violations which will establish a public record of the violation but does not 

require a licensee’s written response. Dispositioning violations in this 

manner does not eliminate NRC's emphasis on compliance with 

requirements or the importance of maintaining safety since licensees must 

take steps to address corrective actions for these violations. Violations 

identified as “minor” under the traditional approach and through the SDP 

are not subject to formal enforcement action. Nevertheless, NRC also 

expects licensees to correct these matters. 

Program Resources 

For fiscal year (FY) 2008, OE is allotted 23 full-time equivalents (FTE), 

including 10 FTE who work primarily on Enforcement Program activities. 

An additional eight FTE are filled by OE staff assigned to NRC’s four 

regional offices. Per agency guidance, these regional OE staff report 

directly to their respective regional administrators. The remaining 

enforcement FTE work to carry out the full range of OE’s mission.14

 

13 Orders can be issued to modify, suspend, or revoke a license; to cease and desist from a given practice or activity; 

or take such other action as may be proper. (See Appendix B for more details.) 

14 OE’s full mission includes providing oversight, development, and management for: (1) the Enforcement Program 

and the Alternative Dispute Resolution process, (2) all agency external discrimination cases, (3) the external 

Allegations Program, (4) the Differing Professional Opinions Program, (5) the non-concurrence process, and (6) the 

Safety Culture Initiative policy. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

6

II. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audit was to 

determine if NRC’s 

 Enforcement Program is comprehensive and consistently 

implemented. 

 Enforcement decisions are based on complete and reliable data. 

Appendix A provides a detailed description of the audit’s scope and 

methodology. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

7

III. FINDINGS

A comprehensive, reliable, and consistent Enforcement Program provides 

vital support to NRC's overall safety mission of protecting public health 

and safety, the environment, and the common defense and security. 

However, program weaknesses exist that prevent the program from 

achieving its full potential as a regulatory tool. Specifically, 

A. The Enforcement Program lacks clear and comprehensive 

guidance needed to ensure consistent program implementation. 

B. Enforcement decisions may not be based on complete and reliable 

data. 

A. The Enforcement Program Lacks Clear and Comprehensive Guidance 

Needed To Ensure Consistent Program Implementation 

According to agency documents, enforcement is a vital regulatory activity 

and NRC expects consistent agencywide implementation of its 

Enforcement Program. However, the agency’s four regional offices 

inconsistently implement the program in ways that can significantly impact 

the enforcement process. These differences occur because the agency 

has not issued clear and comprehensive guidance to facilitate program 

consistency. Regional inconsistencies in Enforcement Program 

implementation can leave agency enforcement decisions vulnerable to 

challenge, potentially compromising public confidence in NRC’s 

Enforcement Program. 

NRC Expects Consistent Implementation of Its Enforcement Program 

Agency documents routinely cite an expectation of consistent 

implementation of NRC’s Enforcement Program. Specifically, OE’s 

FY 2008 Operating Plan states that the Enforcement Program ensures that 

the agency’s Enforcement Policy is applied to its reactors and materials 

licensees in a consistent manner. NRC’s Enforcement Manual states that 

regional and program offices are to ensure consistent implementation of 

the program and that staff are to ensure that proposed enforcement 

strategies are consistent with office policy, guidance, and past practice 

(i.e., precedents). Inspection Manual Chapter 0308, “Reactor Oversight 

Process (ROP) Basis Document,” specifically states that regional and 

program office management should take steps to assure that reactor 

inspector observations are placed in an appropriate context and do not 

undermine the overall effort to put inspection and enforcement efforts on a 

more objective and consistent foundation. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

8

Management Directive (MD) 9.1915 also cites consistent Enforcement 

Program implementation and identifies responsibilities for ensuring the 

expected consistency. In particular, MD 9.19 states that OE is responsible 

for developing guidance to assist the regions with evaluating enforcement 

cases, coordinating and reviewing region-prepared enforcement actions to 

determine appropriateness and technical adequacy, and assessing 

whether the regions apply enforcement policies and practices in a 

consistent manner. To further ensure consistency, regional enforcement 

coordinators are expected to (1) prepare or review all escalated 

enforcement actions, and (2) monitor, audit, and assist in processing nonescalated enforcement actions. 

Regional Offices Do Not Consistently Implement NRC’s Enforcement 

Program 

The majority of the agency’s enforcement activity occurs in NRC’s four 

regions, which implement the Enforcement Program differently in ways that 

can significantly impact the enforcement process. Specifically, (1) regional 

inspectors have varying amounts of authority to disposition enforcement 

violations onsite and (2) regional enforcement review processes differ. 

Regional Inspector Authority To Disposition Enforcement Onsite Varies 

Regional inspectors have varying amounts of authority to make 

enforcement decisions and disposition violations onsite (i.e., while in the 

field conducting inspections). The significance level of a potential violation 

is a key consideration for whether an inspector can pursue resolution while 

onsite or whether the issue requires additional involvement of regional 

managers. The Enforcement Program provides various methods for 

inspectors to address violations of minor or low significance while in the 

field, such as verbal discussions with the licensee at an inspection exit 

meeting or using an NRC Form 591, Safety Inspection Report and 

Compliance Inspection. 

Another key factor that determines whether inspectors can disposition 

onsite enforcement relates to the amount of authority given to individual 

regional inspectors by their respective managers. OIG found 

inconsistencies in regional managers’ expectations and in the amount of 

authority given to regional inspectors to disposition enforcement in the 

field. For example, inspectors in one region are encouraged to disposition 

enforcement in the field (on Form 591) whenever possible. At the other 

end of the spectrum, managers in another region expect their inspectors to 

bring all potential violations back to the regional office for discussion prior 

 

15 Management Directive 9.19, Organization and Functions, Office of Enforcement, dated May 1989.
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

9

to dispositioning. According to OE management, uniform guidance is 

provided to inspection staff on the use of Form 591s; however, regional 

implementation varies. 

Differences in Regional Enforcement Review Processes Are Significant 

The process for evaluating findings and making enforcement decisions is 

not consistent across the NRC regions. Specifically, the regions use 

significantly different review processes for evaluating inspection findings to 

determine whether potential violations should be processed as escalated 

(which requires OE involvement) or non-escalated (where regions manage 

the process without headquarters’ oversight). 

Beyond inspectors and managers, other regional staff have potential roles 

in the enforcement determinations, particularly enforcement team leaders 

and their staff, Office of Investigations (OI) staff, and the regional counsels. 

OIG observed various regional methods for reviewing inspection findings 

to assess potential violations and to determine appropriate levels of 

enforcement action. The regions and, in some cases, offices within a 

region independently decide which staff are involved, and at what point, in 

the decision process. Table 2 below represents the significantly different 

regional enforcement decisionmaking processes. 

Table 2. Differences in Regional Enforcement Decisionmaking Processes 

Source: OIG-generated 

In practice, the process in Region “A” involves a region-wide debriefing at 

the end of each reactor and materials inspection, to include a discussion 

of potential violations. The briefings typically involve staff filling the 

positions as noted in Table 2. Region “A” managers said that the diverse 

experiences of those present affords the best opportunity to identify 

enforcement precedents, generic issues, or performance trends, which 

results in more consistent processing of violations at the appropriate 

severity levels. For example, the early involvement of OI staff in this 

ROUTINE PARTICIPANTS REGION A REGION B 

Inspector X X 

Branch Chief X X 

Division Director X 

Managers/staff from other Regional 

divisions 

X 

Regional Administrator or Deputy X 

Regional Enforcement Specialists X 

Regional OI Investigators X 

Regional Counsel X 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

10

region’s weekly inspection debriefings reportedly had immediate positive 

impact when violations deemed by the inspection staff as having no willful 

aspects were challenged by the OI staff present. OI subsequently 

identified a number of cases to be brought before a review board in order 

to evaluate the willful aspects of the subject violations. 

The decisionmaking processes in the other NRC regions (represented as 

Region “B” above) routinely involve fewer people. Specifically, the 

evaluation of potential violations and subsequent enforcement decisions 

typically involve the relevant inspector and his/her respective branch chief. 

In these three regions, additional communications with other regional staff, 

such as division directors, regional enforcement specialists, or OI staff 

occur only if the inspector and branch chief request assistance. According 

to staff in these regions, enforcement precedents and consistency with 

agency policy can be identified through various means including 

discussions during plant status meetings and senior management 

meetings, and by reviewing inspection reports. 

The Enforcement Program Lacks Clear and Comprehensive 

Guidance 

Differences in program implementation across the regions exist because 

the agency has no clear and comprehensive guidance to support 

consistent implementation of the Enforcement Program agencywide, 

primarily with respect to non-escalated enforcement actions. NRC’s 

Enforcement Policy and inspection manual chapters provide overall 

guidance for handling materials and reactor-related enforcement actions. 

However, these documents do not provide specific criteria that would 

ensure consistent program implementation regarding (1) authority to 

disposition non-escalated enforcement violations onsite and (2) 

involvement of relevant participants in enforcement decisionmaking 

processes. For example, although a December 2005 OE memorandum 

informed regional administrators and office directors of an agency goal to 

maximize use of Form 591s to handle inspection findings, there is no 

specific or uniform guidance on when inspectors can or should make 

independent field-based enforcement decisions. 

Although the agency initiated efforts in 2007 to add more clarification and 

specification to the Enforcement Policy, Enforcement Manual, and reactor 

enforcement guidance, these revisions are not yet complete. 

Furthermore, the scope of the planned revisions will not necessarily 

address the inconsistencies identified in this report. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

11

Program Inconsistencies Leave Enforcement Decisions Vulnerable to 

Challenge and Compromise Public Confidence 

Differences in regional practices not only challenge the agency’s 

expectation of consistent implementation but can leave enforcement 

decisions vulnerable to challenge and compromise the public’s confidence 

in NRC’s Enforcement Program. Specifically, 

 Inspectors evaluating findings onsite creates a potential for 

inappropriate dispositioning. 

 Lack of relevant staff involvement in the decision process may 

result in a less than fully evaluated potential violation. 

For example, a regional manager’s review of his division’s Form 591s 

identified issues dispositioned by inspectors in the field that would likely 

have been assigned a higher severity level and a different level of 

processing had the inspectors consulted their managers. Another 

example involved a regional OI supervisor whose review of completed 

enforcement actions identified cases that were processed without OI 

involvement because probable willful aspects were not appropriately 

identified by the inspection staff. 

And finally, an NRC Commissioner recently stated that consistent 

implementation of NRC’s processes is needed to foster public confidence. 

Throughout the audit, numerous external NRC stakeholders expressed 

frustration with apparent inconsistencies in Enforcement Program 

processes across the NRC regions resulting in agency enforcement 

decisions that are not clearly understood. Although the stakeholders 

acknowledged that each case has specific factors that likely affected 

NRC’s enforcement actions, a recurring comment was the appearance 

that similar violations are processed inconsistently across the NRC 

regions. Therefore, the absence of clear and comprehensive agency 

guidance to ensure consistent Enforcement Program implementation may 

be unintentionally compromising public confidence in NRC as an effective 

regulator. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

12

Recommendation:

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations: 

1. Develop comprehensive agencywide guidance to clearly establish 

 Expectations for inspectors and managers to independently 

disposition violations. 

 Relevant participants needed for enforcement decisionmaking. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

13

B. Enforcement Decisions May Not Be Based on Complete and Reliable Data 

Although NRC staff need complete and reliable enforcement information 

for decisionmaking and reporting purposes, complete and reliable 

enforcement data is not readily available in all cases. Data availability 

and reliability issues exist because NRC has not (1) defined a uniform 

manner for collecting or tracking non-escalated enforcement activity or (2) 

instituted a quality assurance process over non-escalated enforcement 

data used for reporting purposes. Without complete and reliable 

information, enforcement decisionmakers cannot ensure appropriate 

processing of enforcement issues, and staff may miss opportunities to 

identify precedents or trends that would be useful in guiding appropriate 

enforcement responses. Furthermore, the agency cannot ensure it is 

reporting accurately on Enforcement Program activity. 

Enforcement Decisionmakers Need Complete, Reliable, and Readily 

Available Information

NRC staff need complete and reliable information for enforcement 

decisionmaking and reporting purposes. NRC’s Enforcement Policy

identifies several elements of the Enforcement Program where factoring 

all information relevant to a violation is required. The policy gives agency 

managers the flexibility to increase or decrease a violation’s severity level, 

including consideration of prior violations, based on a review of all data 

relative to the violation. Further, a recent OE annual report identified 

effective tracking of enforcement actions as a key Enforcement Program 

goal. 

The collection of escalated and non-escalated enforcement data also is 

needed to satisfy Enforcement Program reporting requirements. 

Specifically, OE is responsible for preparing an assortment of periodic 

reports on Enforcement Program activities to external and internal entities 

such as Congress and the Commission. In particular, OE is required to 

report on non-escalated enforcement activity in 

 Semiannual reports to Congress. 

 Semiannual reviews to regional division directors and headquarters 

office directors. 

 Annual enforcement summary reports to the Commission. 

 Annual performance measure updates. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

14

Federal guidelines16 also direct that agency programs should have 

appropriate controls in place to ensure complete, reliable, and readily 

available information for management decisionmaking. 

Complete and Reliable Information Is Not Readily Available

Complete and reliable Enforcement Program data is not readily available 

to NRC staff to inform enforcement decisionmaking. In particular, 

 Non-escalated enforcement data is not uniformly collected. 

 Non-escalated data that is collected is of questionable reliability. 

Non-Escalated Enforcement Data Is Not Uniformly Collected or 

 Verified

NRC’s Enforcement Program does not provide for the uniform collection 

of available information on the majority of the agency’s enforcement 

activities, which are non-escalated. Non-escalated enforcement data is 

not collected or tracked in any uniform manner even though this level of 

activity constitutes 90 percent or more of the 1,400+ enforcement actions 

NRC issues per year. For example, although there is guidance for 

tracking power reactor related non-escalated data through the Reactor 

Program System, implementation throughout the regions is inconsistent. 

Figures 3 through 5 reflect that the majority of NRC’s enforcement activity 

over the past 3 years was non-escalated (i.e., Severity Level IV violations 

or violations associated with Green SDP findings).17 

 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 

 

 

16 Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-123, Management Accountability and Control, and the

Government Accountability Office’s GAO/AIMB-002-21.3.1, Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal 

Government.

17 Non-escalated actions comprised 1,400 of the 1,514 total actions in CY 2005; 1,434 of the 1,521 actions in 

CY 2006; and 1,332 of the 1,450 actions in CY 2007. 

CY 2007 

Actual Percentage

92%

8%

Non Esc

Esc

CY 2006 

Actual Percentage

94%

6%

Non Esc

Esc

CY 2005 

Actual Percentage

92%

8%

Non Esc

Esc
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

15

Agency managers acknowledge that non-escalated enforcement data can 

help to identify precedents and performance trends, and it is needed to 

prepare input for reporting purposes. Therefore, enforcement and 

inspection staff make efforts to collect various pieces of non-escalated 

information. Individual organizations within NRC headquarters and the 

four regions decide what non-escalated enforcement data to collect based 

on their individual programmatic needs and the different offices use 

varying means to capture and track the information. The collection 

methods range from maintaining information in hardcopy form to 

individually-developed data spreadsheets and other types of electronic 

files. However, there is no assurance that data is uniformly collected or 

that what is collected is reliable. Although staff conduct periodic reviews 

of non-escalated enforcement actions, results of these reviews typically 

focus on the number of violations rather than the accuracy of the 

information. 

The Enforcement Action Tracking System (EATS), the primary centralized 

database of Enforcement Program information, does not systematically 

collect non-escalated enforcement information. The agency is currently in 

the process of implementing a new and updated EATS; however, 

according to OE managers, there are no plans for this system to routinely 

capture non-escalated enforcement information. 

Enforcement Program Lacks Uniform Data Collection Requirements 

and a Quality Assurance Process

NRC’s Enforcement Program lacks the controls needed to ensure that 

complete and reliable enforcement data is readily available. Specifically, 

the Enforcement Program lacks (1) uniform data collection requirements 

for non-escalated data and (2) an organized quality assurance review of 

non-escalated data compiled for reporting purposes. 

Data Collection Requirements Not Defined

Enforcement Program participants do not have access to a complete 

universe of known data because a methodology for the systematic 

collection of all available enforcement information has not been defined. 

Specifically, the Enforcement Program has no uniform data collection 

requirements that pertain to minor and non-escalated18 enforcement 

actions. NRC’s Enforcement Manual and reactor guidance (which 

includes regional specific guidance) do not require tracking of most minor 

and non-escalated information because of their low safety significance. 

Yet, in apparent contrast, these same documents state that information 

regarding these low level violations can be used by NRC staff for 

 

18 The non-escalated enforcement actions required to be tracked include cases involving: willfulness, certain NOVs, 

individuals, potential escalation, or related to a proposed escalated action.
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

16

aggregation and discretion purposes and that these issues must be 

addressed by NRC licensees. Further, in certain cases, NRC inspectors 

are expected to verify that the licensees’ corrective actions were effective. 

Quality Assurance Review Process Is Missing 

The reliability of information related to non-escalated enforcement actions 

compiled and submitted for reporting purposes is questionable because 

NRC has not instituted a comprehensive quality assurance review 

process over the information. Agency officials, in both the regions and 

headquarters, pointed out that some quality assurance checks do occur 

for enforcement actions through the routine review and approval process. 

However, the Enforcement Program does not have an established 

process designed to assure the quality of the non-escalated enforcement 

data submitted for inclusion in reports to internal and external NRC 

stakeholders. 

Enforcement Decisions May Not Be Fully Informed and Program 

Reporting May Not Be Accurate 

Without timely consideration of complete and reliable information, 

enforcement decisionmakers cannot ensure appropriate responses to 

NRC enforcement issues or an accurate representation of Enforcement 

Program activities. 

Enforcement Decisions May Not Be Fully Informed

Without the systematic collection of non-escalated enforcement 

information, managers will not have timely access to all relevant factors 

regarding repeat violations, precedents, or trends in declining licensee 

performance. Such factors could impact the decisions regarding the 

proper level of enforcement action NRC should pursue. Regional and OE 

managers also acknowledged that absent a readily available collection of 

enforcement data, it can be difficult and time consuming to identify 

detailed information relative to lower level enforcement activities. This 

information is needed to assess whether licensees met the requirements 

of the enforcement actions. In some cases, developing this information 

depends on staff members’ individual recollections of violation details. 

Accurate Reporting May Be Compromised

Without an established and organized quality assurance process, the 

accuracy of the information used to report on the full range of 

Enforcement Program activities may be compromised. Specifically, there 

is no assurance that the agency accurately depicts non-escalated 

enforcement actions in required reports. Agency staff acknowledge that 

there is no systematic verification that the non-escalated statistics 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

17

compiled and submitted to OE by individual offices are accurate. 

Nonetheless, this information serves as the basis for OE reports to 

Congress and the Commission on Enforcement Program activity and 

effectiveness. 

Recommendations:

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations: 

2. Define systematic data collection requirements for non-escalated 

enforcement actions. 

3. Develop and implement a quality assurance process that ensures that 

collected enforcement data is accurate and complete. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

18

IV. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations: 

1. Develop comprehensive agencywide guidance to clearly establish 

 Expectations for inspectors and managers to independently 

disposition violations. 

 Relevant participants needed for enforcement decisionmaking. 

2. Define systematic data collection requirements for non-escalated 

enforcement actions. 

3. Develop and implement a quality assurance process that ensures that 

collected enforcement data is accurate and complete. 

V. AGENCY COMMENTS 

An exit conference was held with NRC senior executives on September 4, 

2008. Agency officials generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

recommendations and decided not to provide formal comments. Informal 

comments on the draft report provided by the agency were incorporated as 

appropriate.
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

19

Appendix A 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

 The purpose of this audit was to determine if NRC’s 

 Enforcement Program is comprehensive and consistently 

implemented. 

 Enforcement decisions are based on complete and reliable data. 

To address the audit objectives, OIG reviewed relevant management controls, 

internal and external enforcement-related documentation, and Federal statutes, 

including reviews of: 

 The Atomic Energy Act. 

 NRC’s Enforcement Policy and Enforcement Manual.

 Related OIG reports published between 1989 and 2008. 

 Regional enforcement guidance. 

 Inspection Manual Chapters. 

 Office of Management and Budget and Government Accountability 

Office Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. 

Auditors interviewed approximately 120 members of NRC and the public regarding 

the NRC’s Enforcement Program. Interviewees included: 

 NRC senior managers and staff from: 

 - Headquarters, Rockville, Maryland 

 - Region I, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 

 - Region II, Atlanta, Georgia 

 - Region III, Lisle, Illinois 

 - Region IV, Arlington, Texas. 

 Industry representatives. 

 Intervener groups and other external stakeholders. 

This audit progressed in two phases. OIG began its review of the overall 

NRC Enforcement Program in March 2007 and promptly learned that the 

Office of Enforcement planned to complete a major revision of the 

Enforcement Policy that would address and promote expansion of NRC’s 

newly developed ADR program. Because significant weaknesses in the 

ADR program were identified early in OIG’s review, the general audit was 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

20

suspended to allow auditors to focus on aspects of the ADR program. OIG 

subsequently issued two memorandum reports of ADR findings in 

December 2007 and March 200819 so that the agency could take 

corrective actions prior to OE’s late 2008 estimated completion date for 

the policy revisions. Fieldwork on the audit of the overall Enforcement 

Program resumed full-time in late November 2007 and continued through 

June 2008 to determine the most recent agency activities. 

OIG conducted this 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 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Major contributors to this report were Sherri Miotla, Team Leader; 

Catherine Colleli, Audit Manager; James McGaughey, Senior 

Management Analyst; Rebecca Underhill, Senior Auditor; Timothy Wilson, 

Management Analyst; Andrea Ferkile, Management Analyst; and Daniel 

Livermore, former OIG Technical Advisor. 

 

19Memorandum Report, OIG-08-A-03, Audit of NRC's Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, dated December 14, 

2007, and Memorandum Report, OIG-08-A-08, Audit of NRC’s Contract for Alternative Dispute Resolution Services, 

dated March 26, 2008. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

21

Appendix B 

ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AND AVAILABLE SANCTIONS 

The NRC's enforcement program is based on the recognition that 

violations occur in a variety of activities and have varying levels of 

significance. The manner in which the NRC processes a violation is 

intended to reflect the significance of the violation and the circumstances 

involved. After a violation is identified, the staff assesses the significance 

of a violation by considering: 

 Actual safety consequences. 

 Potential safety consequences. 

 Potential for impacting the NRC's ability to perform its regulatory 

function. 

 Any willful aspects of the violation. 

Violations are either: 

 Assigned a severity level, ranging from Severity Level IV for those 

of more than minor concern to Severity Level I for the most 

significant. 

 Associated with findings assessed through the ROP's SDP that are 

assigned a color of Green, White, Yellow, or Red based on 

increasing risk significance. 

The Commission recognizes that there are violations of minor safety or 

environmental concern that are below Severity Level IV violations and 

below violations associated with Green SDP findings. Although minor 

violations must be corrected, given their limited risk significance, they are 

not subject to enforcement action and are not normally described in 

inspection reports. All other violations are documented and may be 

dispositioned as Non-Cited Violations, cited in NOVs, or issued in 

conjunction with civil penalties or various types of orders. The NRC may 

also choose to exercise discretion and refrain from issuing enforcement 

action. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

22

The following diagram is a graphical representation of the NRC's graded approach for 

processing violations: 

Source: NRC 

For escalated violations, NRC primarily uses any of the following three 

sanctions: 

 An NOV identifies a requirement and how it was violated, 

formalizes a violation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, and normally 

requires a written response from the licensee. Under certain 

circumstances, NOVs can be used for non-escalated violations and 

an NRC Form 591 may be used as an NOV for materials licensee 

violations. 

 A civil penalty is a monetary fine issued under authority of Section 

234 of the Atomic Energy Act which provides for penalties of up to 

$100,000 per violation per day. The Debt Collection Improvement 

Act of 1996 adjusted the limit of a civil penalty to $130,000 per 

violation per day. 

 Orders can be issued to modify, suspend, or revoke a license; to 

cease and desist from a given practice or activity; or take such 

other action as may be proper. Orders may be issued in lieu of, or 

in addition to civil penalties. The NRC may also issue an order to 

impose a civil penalty where a licensee refuses to pay a civil 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

23

penalty. In addition, the NRC may issue an order to an unlicensed 

person (including vendors) where the NRC has identified deliberate 

misconduct. 

Severity Level IV violations and violations related to Green SDP findings 

are addressed within the “non-escalated” enforcement process. Although 

NOVs can be used as discussed above, the primary sanction for nonescalated violations is the Non-Cited Violation. 

 Non-Cited Violations are documented in inspection reports (or 

inspection records for some materials licensees) to establish public 

records of the violations, but are not cited in NOVs which normally 

require written responses from licensees. Dispositioning violations 

in this manner does not eliminate the NRC's emphasis on 

compliance with requirements nor the importance of maintaining 

safety. Licensees are still responsible for maintaining safety and 

compliance and must take steps to address corrective actions for 

these violations. 

In addition to Non-Cited Violations, NOVs, civil penalties, and orders, the 

NRC also uses administrative actions, such as Notices of Deviation, 

Notices of Nonconformance, Confirmatory Action Letters, Letters of 

Reprimand, and Demands for Information to supplement its Enforcement 

Program. The NRC expects licensees and contractors to adhere to any 

obligations and commitments resulting from these actions and will not 

hesitate to issue appropriate orders to ensure that these obligations and 

commitments are met. 

 Notices of Deviation are written notices describing a licensee's 

failure to satisfy a commitment where the commitment involved has 

not been made a legally binding requirement. A Notice of Deviation 

requests that a licensee provide a written explanation or statement 

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

and the date when corrective action will be completed. 

 Notices of Nonconformance are written notices describing 

contractors' failures to meet commitments which have not been 

made legally binding requirements by NRC. Notices of 

Nonconformances request that non-licensees provide written 

explanations or statements describing corrective steps (taken or 

planned), the results achieved, the dates when corrective actions 

will be completed, and measures taken to preclude recurrence. 

 Confirmatory Action Letters are letters confirming a licensee's or 

contractor's agreement to take certain actions to remove significant 

concerns about health and safety, safeguards, or the environment. 
Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program 

24

 Letters of Reprimand are letters addressed to individuals subject to 

Commission jurisdiction identifying a significant deficiency in their 

performance of licensed activities. 

 Demands for Information are demands for information from 

licensees or other persons for the purpose of enabling the NRC to 

determine whether an order or other enforcement action should be 

issued.