AUDIT REPORT 

Audit of the Regional Counsel Role 

in the Enforcement Process 

OIG-09-A-10 May 11, 2009 

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

NRC’s Web site at: 

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

OFFICE OF THE 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 May 11, 2009 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. William Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Stephen D. Dingbaum /RA/ 

 Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

SUBJECT: AUDIT OF THE REGIONAL COUNSEL ROLE IN THE 

ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (OIG-09-A-10) 

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

Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process.

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

and subsequent to an April 20, 2009, 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 followup 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 Anthony Lipuma, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at 

415-5910. 

Attachment: As stated 
Electronic Distribution

Edward 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 

John F. Cordes, Jr., Director, Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

Jim 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 

Bruce S. Mallett, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor 

 and Preparedness Programs, OEDO 

Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, 

 State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, OEDO 

Darren B. Ash, Deputy Executive Director for Corporate Management 

 and Chief Information Officer, OEDO 

Vonna L. Ordaz, Assistant for Operations, OEDO 

Kathryn O. Greene, Director, Office of Administration 

Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director, Office of Enforcement 

Charles L. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials 

 and Environmental Management Programs 

Guy P. Caputo, Director, Office of Investigations 

Thomas M. Boyce, Director, Office of Information Services 

James F. McDermott, Director, Office of Human Resources 

Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of New Reactors 

Michael F. Weber, 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 

Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region I 

Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II 

Mark A. Satorius, Region III 

Elmo E. Collins, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region IV 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is authorized to enforce 

its regulatory requirements by imposing sanctions against licensees who 

violate those requirements. The agency’s enforcement program is 

directed by the Office of Enforcement (OE) in headquarters, but is 

implemented primarily in the regional offices, where staff conduct 

inspections and investigations of licensees to identify violations and 

assess their significance so that appropriate enforcement actions can be 

determined. 

In three of NRC’s four regional offices, a dedicated enforcement staff 

supervisor oversees the work of the regional enforcement staff and 

another individual serves as the region’s attorney, or Regional Counsel. 

In Region II, however, the Regional Counsel serves both as the region’s 

attorney and as the enforcement staff supervisor. As enforcement 

supervisor, this individual is to ensure that the region adheres to the 

agency’s enforcement policy, oversees the preparation of escalated 

enforcement packages, and performs other enforcement related tasks. As 

Regional Counsel, this individual provides legal advice to the region, 

including advice on the legal sufficiency of escalated enforcement 

packages. This audit report refers to Region II’s arrangement as the “dual 

role” approach. 

A recent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audit found that differences 

in the ways the regional offices implement the enforcement program can 

significantly impact the enforcement process, leaving enforcement 

decisions vulnerable to challenge and potentially compromising public 

confidence in NRC’s enforcement program. 

PURPOSE

The audit objective was to determine whether combining the roles of 

regional counsel and enforcement supervisor is a workable approach for 

regional enforcement programs. Because this approach is currently used 

only in Region II, the audit findings describe what was found in that region; 

however, the findings and recommendations are applicable for any region 

that would use the dual role approach. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

ii 

RESULTS IN BRIEF

The dual role approach could work for regional enforcement programs if: 

 The appropriate human resources steps are followed. 

 Appropriate internal controls are implemented to ensure that 

written legal advice provided by the dual role holder is 

distinguished from non-legal advice. Participants in discussions 

with the dual role holder that involve sensitive information 

should be made aware that information disclosed is of a 

sensitive nature if doubt exists that the participants are not 

otherwise aware of the sensitive nature of the discussions. 

Human Resources Steps Were Not Followed

NRC uses the dual role position in Region II, but did not follow human 

resources requirements to formally establish a dual role position in Region 

II. Specifically, Region II did not (1) develop a position description for the 

job or (2) evaluate the position to ensure it was properly classified or 

included the necessary background requirements. Instead, the region 

simply assigned the enforcement supervisor duties to the Regional 

Counsel without changing this individual’s job title or assessing whether 

the Regional Counsel possessed the background requirements listed in 

the enforcement supervisor position description. Although new elements 

and standards reflecting both sets of duties were prepared, and the 

Regional Counsel has been evaluated against these elements and 

standards, these criteria could not be based on a current position 

description or position evaluation because none existed. 

Agency managers did not follow the required human resources steps 

because they were unaware such steps were necessary. Without 

following human resource requirements to formally establish a dual role 

position, the dual role holder could be subject to unfair rating criteria, and 

the enforcement program might not be adequately supported. 

Internal Controls To Distinguish Legal From Non-Legal Advice Were Not 

Implemented

Agency managers have not implemented management controls to ensure 

that legal advice provided by an agency attorney with a line function (dual 

role) is readily distinguishable from non-legal advice. Although NRC’s 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) policy 

requires agency attorneys to mark their documents as containing legal 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

iii 

advice when appropriate, and the agency’s General Counsel expects such 

marking to occur, the Region II dual role holder does not make such 

notations. Furthermore, there is no parallel requirement to provide similar 

clarification about legal advice provided during oral discussions. 

Management controls were not implemented because they were not 

deemed necessary. However, without such clarification, the dual role 

arrangement could lead to public misunderstanding or legal challenge 

related to the issue of attorney-client privilege. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

A consolidated list of recommendations appears on page 11 of this report. 

AGENCY COMMENTS

During an exit conference held on April 20, 2009, the agency generally 

agreed with the findings and recommendations in this audit report, but 

opted to provide written comments concerning the draft audit report. OIG 

modified the report as we deemed appropriate in response to the 

comments. NRC reviewed the modifications and decided not to submit 

formal written comments to this final version of the report. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

iv 

[Page intentionally left blank.] 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

v 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

MD Management Directive and Handbook 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

OE Office of Enforcement 

OGC Office of the General Counsel 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

SUNSI Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

vi 

[Page intentionally left blank.] 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

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

II. PURPOSE.......................................................................................2 

III. FINDINGS .......................................................................................3 

A. HUMAN RESOURCES STEPS WERE NOT FOLLOWED .....................3 

B. INTERNAL CONTROLS TO DISTINGUISH LEGAL 

FROM NON-LEGAL ADVICE WERE NOT IMPLEMENTED...................7 

IV. AGENCY COMMENTS .................................................................10 

V. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS .....................11 

APPENDIX 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY............................................................13 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

viii 

[Page intentionally left blank.] 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

1 

I. BACKGROUND 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is authorized to enforce 

its regulatory requirements by imposing sanctions against licensees who 

violate those requirements. The agency’s enforcement program is 

directed by the Office of Enforcement (OE) in headquarters, but is 

implemented primarily in the regional offices, where staff conduct 

inspections and investigations of licensees to identify violations and 

assess their significance so that appropriate enforcement actions can be 

determined. Less significant (“non-escalated”) violations may be 

addressed entirely at the regional office level, while more significant 

(“escalated”) violations are addressed through a collaborative process 

involving OE, the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and other 

headquarters offices as well as the regional offices.1 

In three of NRC’s four regional offices, a dedicated enforcement staff 

supervisor oversees the work of the regional enforcement staff and 

another individual serves as the region’s attorney, or Regional Counsel. 

In Region II, however, the Regional Counsel serves both as the region’s 

attorney and as the enforcement staff supervisor.2

 As enforcement 

supervisor, this individual is to ensure that the region adheres to the 

agency’s enforcement policy, oversees the preparation of escalated 

enforcement packages, and performs other enforcement related tasks. As 

Regional Counsel, this individual provides legal advice to the region, 

including advice on the legal sufficiency of escalated enforcement 

packages. This audit report refers to Region II’s arrangement as the “dual 

role” approach. 

Although NRC’s regional counsels are supervised by and report to their 

regional administrator, they also receive guidance and direction from 

OGC, which directs matters of law and legal policy for NRC, providing 

opinions, advice, and assistance to the agency. According to 

Management Directive 9.7, Organization and Functions, Office of the 

General Counsel, this includes coordinating and monitoring the legal 

activities of regional counsels. 

 

1

 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 significance determination 

process (SDP) findings. Non-escalated enforcement refers to violations designated as either Severity 

Level IV or associated with a Green SDP finding. 

2

 In all four regions, the supervisor also oversees the regional allegations staff. However, because this 

report focuses only on enforcement, information on allegation positions is not provided. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

2 

A recent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audit3 found that 

differences in the ways the regional offices implement the enforcement 

program can significantly impact the enforcement process, leaving 

enforcement decisions vulnerable to challenge and potentially 

compromising public confidence in NRC’s enforcement program. 

II. PURPOSE 

The audit objective was to determine whether combining the roles of 

regional counsel and enforcement supervisor is a workable approach for 

regional enforcement programs. Because this approach is currently used 

only in Region II, the audit findings describe what was found in that region; 

however, the findings and recommendations are applicable for any region 

that would use the dual role approach. This audit was initiated 

subsequent to OIG’s Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program, based on 

questions about dual role effectiveness raised during that review. The 

Appendix contains information on the audit scope and methodology. 

 

3

 OIG-08-A-17, Audit of NRC’s Enforcement Program, dated September 26, 2008. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

3 

III. FINDINGS 

The dual role approach could work for regional enforcement programs if: 

 The appropriate human resources steps are followed. 

 Appropriate internal controls are implemented to ensure that written 

legal advice provided by the dual role holder is distinguished from nonlegal advice. Participants in discussions with the dual role holder that 

involve sensitive information should be made aware that information 

disclosed is of a sensitive nature if doubt exists that the participants 

are not otherwise aware of the sensitive nature of the discussions. 

A. HUMAN RESOURCES STEPS WERE NOT FOLLOWED

The dual role approach can be a workable arrangement for regional 

enforcement programs if the appropriate human resources management 

directives are followed. However, agency managers did not follow human 

resources requirements to formally establish a dual role position in Region 

II because they were unaware that such steps were necessary. As a 

result, the dual role holder could be subject to unfair rating criteria, and the 

enforcement program might not be adequately supported. 

Human Resources Requirements 

NRC’s policy is to appoint and assign well-qualified employees in a fair, 

equitable, efficient, and effective manner to carry out the agency’s mission. 

Toward this end, the agency has issued management directives covering 

a range of human resources issues. These directives require that: 

 Position descriptions be prepared when a new position is established 

or when a significant change in the assigned duties or responsibilities 

of an existing position occurs (Management Directive and Handbook 

10.37, Position Evaluation and Benchmarks). 

 Position evaluations be conducted for each position so that a proper 

occupational series and grade may be determined and qualification 

requirements established (Management Directive and Handbook 

10.37). 

 Supervisors assure that position descriptions reflect the duties and 

responsibilities assigned to their employees (Management Directive 

and Handbook 10.67, Non-SES Performance Appraisal System). 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

4 

 Employees be appraised annually to assess their performance against 

performance plans based on the requirements of the employee’s 

position (Management Directive and Handbook 10.67). 

 The individual filling the position possesses the knowledge, skills, and 

abilities to fill the position (Management Directive and Handbook 10.15, 

Merit Staffing Program). 

NRC’s regional offices provided OIG with their latest position descriptions 

for the positions of (1) regional counsel and (2) enforcement supervisor. 

Background requirements for both sets of positions were similar across 

the regions. According to the position descriptions from all four regional 

offices, a regional counsel must have graduated from an accredited law 

school and an enforcement supervisor must have an engineering 

background. In two of the regional offices, the enforcement supervisor 

must have at least an undergraduate degree in nuclear engineering, 

engineering, health physics, or other scientific discipline, or equivalent 

experience in one of these fields. In the other two regional offices, the 

enforcement supervisor must have a thorough knowledge of theories, 

principles, and practices of nuclear engineering and radiation safety, 

supplemented by extensive and responsible experience in the field of 

engineering. 

To create a position that combines the roles of regional counsel and 

enforcement supervisor as it is presently defined across the agency, (1) 

the position description would need to include both a legal education and 

a technical education and/or background requirement and (2) any 

candidate selected to fill the position would need to possess both sets of 

qualifications. 

NRC Did Not Follow Human Resources Steps 

NRC uses the dual role position in Region II, but did not develop a position 

description for the job and did not evaluate the position to ensure it was 

properly classified or included the necessary background requirements. 

Instead, the region simply assigned the enforcement supervisor duties to 

the Regional Counsel without changing this individual’s job title or 

assessing whether the Regional Counsel possessed the background 

requirements listed in the enforcement supervisor position description. 

Although new elements and standards reflecting both sets of duties were 

prepared, and the Regional Counsel has been evaluated against these 

elements and standards, these criteria could not be based on a current 

position description or position evaluation because none existed. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

5 

The Region II Administrator, who implemented the dual role arrangement 

approximately 9 years ago, explained that it was a regional staffing 

decision made after OGC stopped providing the regions with 1 FTE for a 

regional counsel position. The Regional Administrator said this was a 

sensible way to fully utilize the Regional Counsel. The Regional Counsel 

recalled that the Regional Administrator also felt it would provide the 

Regional Counsel with management experience. The Regional 

Administrator explained that although the Regional Counsel lacks the 

technical background listed as a prerequisite in the enforcement 

supervisor position description, the Regional Counsel has the skills to 

succeed in the position and has consistently performed well in the dual 

role. The Regional Administrator further stated that there are a sufficient 

number of participants in the regional enforcement process who do 

possess a technical background, that the enforcement team leader’s role 

is to provide policy – not technical – guidance, and that, collectively, the 

required skills are applied to the enforcement review process. 

Agency Did Not Recognize Need for Human Resources Action 

Agency managers did not follow required human resources steps because 

they were unaware that such steps were necessary. According to Region 

II’s Human Resources Team Leader, at the time the Region II Regional 

Counsel was assigned the new role, it was viewed as a realignment of 

work and a lateral reassignment rather than assignment to a new position. 

The Team Leader recalled that the new assignment was seen as a 

prudent business decision to better utilize a resource. The Team Leader 

also noted that while the enforcement supervisor position description 

describes a technical background requirement, Region II managers did 

not view the position as technical. The Team Leader agreed that Region 

II will now update the position description for the dual role position and 

conduct a position evaluation that will be submitted to the headquarters 

Office of Human Resources to verify the evaluation outcome. 

Impact on Dual Role Holder and Agency

Without taking the necessary human resources steps to formally establish 

the dual role regional counsel/enforcement supervisor position, the dual 

role holder could be subject to unfair rating criteria, and the enforcement 

program might not be adequately supported. 

NRC managers have the latitude to make staffing decisions that benefit 

their organizations provided they follow human resources requirements, 

which exist to ensure fairness and consistency in agency staffing 

decisions. Furthermore, if Region II or any other region determines that a 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

6 

technical background is no longer needed for a position, then they must 

follow applicable human resources steps to change the position 

description or risk appearing arbitrary or inconsistent in filling the position 

with someone who does not meet the background requirements. 

Recommendations

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations: 

1. Develop a new position description and conduct a position evaluation 

for the dual role Regional Counsel/Enforcement Supervisor position 

and have headquarters Office of Human Resources verify the 

evaluation outcome. 

2. Ensure that a dual role holder meets the requirements for the new 

position. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

7 

B. INTERNAL CONTROLS TO DISTINGUISH LEGAL FROM NON-LEGAL ADVICE WERE 

NOT IMPLEMENTED

Agency managers have not implemented management controls to ensure 

that legal advice provided by an agency attorney with a line function (dual 

role) is readily distinguishable from non-legal advice. Although NRC’s 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) policy requires 

agency attorneys to mark their documents as containing legal advice when 

appropriate, and the agency’s General Counsel expects such marking to 

occur, the Region II dual role holder does not make such notations. 

Furthermore, there is no parallel requirement to provide similar clarification 

about legal advice provided during oral discussions. Management controls 

were not implemented because they were not deemed necessary. 

However, without such clarification, the dual role arrangement could lead to 

public misunderstanding or legal challenge related to the issue of attorneyclient privilege. 

Management Controls To Distinguish Legal From Policy Advice 

Management controls are needed for any dual role position that combines 

the role of a functioning agency attorney (advisory role) with a line-staff 

(program implementation) position to ensure that legal advice or guidance 

provided by the dual role holder in their attorney role is readily 

distinguishable from non-legal advice or guidance this individual provides 

in their other role. Distinguishing legal from non-legal advice is particularly 

important in connection with the attorney-client and attorney work product 

privilege and in light of the agency’s goal for openness and clarity in its 

regulation of the nuclear industry. 

Attorney-client privilege is a legal concept that identifies certain 

communications between a client and their attorney as confidential or 

protected from disclosure requirements. A related concept is the workproduct doctrine, which provides protection from disclosure through the 

legal process of pre-trial discovery of certain documents and other tangible 

things prepared by a lawyer in preparation for, or anticipation of, going to 

trial. According to an OGC attorney, the prerequisites for information to be 

considered attorney-client privilege are (1) an attorney who is officially 

performing the role of an attorney for a client provides the information and 

(2) the attorney is providing legal advice. Therefore, the OGC attorney 

explained, whenever a regional counsel provides legal advice in his or her 

capacity as an attorney within a region, the information is subject to 

attorney-client privilege. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

8 

NRC’s SUNSI policy requires documents to be marked as attorney-client 

privilege or work-product, as appropriate. An agency attorney who also 

performs a line function may need to identify oral sensitive information, 

such as legal advice, so that such information can properly be understood 

as being sensitive. 

Agency Did Not Implement Needed Management Controls 

NRC has not imposed management controls to ensure that advice 

provided by a functioning agency attorney, who also performs an agency 

line function, is clearly distinguished as legal versus non-legal in nature. 

Furthermore, the Region II dual role holder does not specify in written 

products or oral discussion whether the advice provided is legal or nonlegal in nature. 

The agency’s General Counsel told OIG that it is good practice for agency 

attorneys to clarify whether information is of a legal or policy nature in 

written documents in accordance with NRC’s SUNSI policy and in oral 

discussions if the distinction is not readily apparent. The General Counsel 

said it is important for the dual role holder to make such distinctions and 

expects this is occurring in Region II. However, the General Counsel 

would not expect such clarification to become overly procedural in nature 

or ask attorneys always to clarify because in many cases it is very obvious. 

Further, according to OGC staff, the expectation that oral legal advice be 

identified as sensitive should not operate to interfere with the free flow of 

discussion involving legal and programmatic policy advice. 

No Requirement To Preface Advice 

Management controls to ensure a distinction between legal and 

programmatic advice were not implemented because they were not 

deemed necessary. 

According to the Region II dual role holder, there is no need for her to mark 

memoranda prepared as attorney-client material because it is obvious from 

the information contained in the memos that attorney advice is being 

provided, and the privilege would be asserted if the document was 

requested in a Freedom of Information Act request. The dual role holder 

expressed a willingness to mark written documents as attorney-client 

material to ensure correct interpretation, but opposed the idea of having to 

clarify for agency staff when oral remarks constituted legal versus 

programmatic advice. The dual role holder was not aware of staff ever 

experiencing a problem where legal advice was mistaken for programmatic 

advice or vice versa. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

9 

OIG contends that, consistent with SUNSI requirements, it is important for 

there to be a process by which the dual role holder may distinguish legal 

from non-legal advice. Failure to have such a process could lead to 

confusion as to the protections to be accorded various documents. It could 

also lead to a public perception that NRC has the authority to withhold all 

documents prepared by the dual role holder – or even documents prepared 

by others that contain advice provided by the dual role holder. 

OIG further observes the situation involving classified information, where 

protection requirements address both written and oral classified 

information. Classified documents must be marked so there is no 

confusion by a recipient about the level of protection needed for the 

information. When classified information is discussed orally in a meeting, 

participants must be cautioned that the information discussed was 

classified and needs to be protected accordingly. OIG recognizes that 

classified information warrants more rigorous protection than SUNSI 

information, but provides this example to show that the technique of 

informing listeners of the nature of certain information is not unusual, and is 

already practiced at NRC. 

Distinction Can Prevent Misunderstanding 

It is important for the agency to provide a process to delineate the 

character of the communication from NRC attorneys who are also assigned 

an agency line function to clarify when they are providing legal versus nonlegal advice. Making this distinction will help prevent potential 

misunderstanding by the public that any advice provided by the dual role 

holder could be protected using an attorney-client privilege rationale. 

Conversely, making such distinctions can help ensure that NRC is able to 

protect the legal advice it seeks to properly protect. 

Recommendations

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations, in 

consultation with the General Counsel: 

3. Develop a management control to ensure that when an agency 

attorney is also assigned a line function, written legal advice provided 

by this individual is easily distinguished from non-legal advice. 

4. Develop for agency attorneys who are also assigned a line function 

guidance to convey the need to clarify in conversations involving 

sensitive information that the information disclosed is of a sensitive 

nature. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

10 

IV. AGENCY COMMENTS 

During an exit conference held on April 20, 2009, the agency generally 

agreed with the findings and recommendations in this audit report, but 

opted to provide written comments concerning the draft audit report. OIG 

modified the report as we deemed appropriate in response to the 

comments. NRC reviewed the modifications and decided not to submit 

formal written comments to this final version of the report. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

11 

V. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations: 

1. Develop a new position description and conduct a position evaluation 

for the dual role Regional Counsel/Enforcement Supervisor position 

and have headquarters Office of Human Resources verify the 

evaluation outcome. 

2. Ensure that a dual role holder meets the requirements for the new 

position. 

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations, in 

consultation with the General Counsel: 

3. Develop a management control to ensure that when an agency 

attorney is also assigned a line function, written legal advice provided 

by this individual is easily distinguished from non-legal advice. 

4. Develop for agency attorneys who are also assigned a line function 

guidance to convey the need to clarify in conversations involving 

sensitive information that the information disclosed is of a sensitive 

nature. 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

12 

[Page intentionally left blank.] 
Audit of the Regional Counsel Role in the Enforcement Process 

13 

Appendix 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

The audit objective was to determine whether combining the roles of 

regional counsel and enforcement supervisor is a workable approach for 

regional enforcement programs. 

Auditors reviewed Office of Personnel Management and agency human 

resources guidance to identify human resource requirements for creating 

and filling positions. Guidance reviewed included the following: 

 Management Directive and Handbook (MD) 10.15, Merit 

Staffing Program. 

 MD 10.37, Position Evaluation and Benchmarks. 

 MD 10.67, Non-SES Performance Appraisal System.. 

Auditors reviewed the enforcement staffing configurations in each regional 

office and position descriptions for regional counsels and enforcement 

supervisors in each region. Auditors reviewed NRC’s Enforcement Policy, 

Enforcement Manual, and guidance pertaining to the Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Program to identify the roles played by various NRC staff in the 

enforcement process. Auditors also reviewed agency information security 

requirements as posted on the agency’s internal Web site. 

OIG interviewed headquarters staff in the Office of Enforcement and the 

Office of the General Counsel to learn about the roles played by regional 

and headquarters staff in the enforcement process and to obtain their 

views on the effectiveness of the dual role. OIG interviewed an Office of 

Human Resources official about agency personnel procedures. OIG 

interviewed the Region IV Administrator and Regional Counsel by 

telephone to obtain their views on the effectiveness of the dual role. OIG 

traveled to Atlanta, Georgia, and interviewed Region II managers about 

the effectiveness of the dual role and their rationale for using that 

approach. 

OIG conducted this audit between November 2008 and March 2009 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 finding and 

conclusions based on our audit objective. 

Major contributors to this report were Anthony Lipuma, Deputy Assistant 

Inspector General for Audits, and Judy Gordon, Senior Analyst.