The NRC’s Enforcement Policy does not address the issue of discrimination in one

specific area or section. Therefore, the following is a collection of areas in the Policy

where the issue of discrimination (which is considered willful) is addressed as indicated

in bold.

*****

IV. SIGNIFICANCE OF VIOLATIONS

*****

A. Assessing Significance

In assessing the significance of a noncompliance, the NRC considers four specific issues: 

(1) actual safety consequences; (2) potential safety consequences, including the consideration of

risk information; (3) potential for impacting the NRC’s ability to perform its regulatory function;

and (4) any willful aspects of the violation. 

For certain types of violations at commercial nuclear power plants, the NRC relies on

information from the Reactor Oversight Process’s Significance Determination Process (SDP). 

The SDP is used to evaluate the actual and potential safety significance of inspection findings to

provide a risk-informed framework for discussing and communicating the significance of

inspection findings. Violations associated with findings evaluated through the SDP are

addressed in Section IV.A.5. Violations at commercial nuclear power plants that are associated

with inspection findings that cannot be evaluated through the SDP (i.e., violations that may

impact the NRC’s ability for oversight of licensed activities and violations that involve

willfulness, including discrimination) are evaluated in accordance with the guidance in

Sections IV.A.1 through IV.A.4 and Section IV.B. Violations that are associated with inspection

findings with actual consequences are evaluated in accordance with the guidance in

Section IV.A.5.c. 

*****

4. Willfulness. Willful violations are by definition of particular concern to the

Commission because its regulatory program is based on licensees and their contractors,

employees, and agents acting with integrity and communicating with candor. Willful violations

cannot be tolerated by either the Commission or a licensee. Therefore, a violation may be

considered more significant than the underlying noncompliance if it includes indications of

willfulness. The term "willfulness" as used in this policy embraces a spectrum of violations

ranging from deliberate intent to violate or falsify to and including careless disregard for

requirements. Willfulness does not include acts which do not rise to the level of careless

disregard, e.g., negligence or inadvertent clerical errors in a document submitted to the NRC. In

determining the significance of a violation involving willfulness, consideration will be given to

such factors as the position and responsibilities of the person involved in the violation (e.g.,
 1

The term "licensee official" as used in this policy statement means a first-line supervisor or above, a licensed

individual, a radiation safety officer, or an authorized user of licensed material whether or not listed on a license. 

Notwithstanding an individual’s job title, severity level categorization for willful acts involving individuals who can

be considered licensee officials will consider several factors, including the position of the individual relative to the

licensee’s organizational structure and the individual’s responsibilities relative to the oversight of licensed activities

and to the use of licensed material.

licensee official1 or non-supervisory employee), the significance of any underlying violation, the

intent of the violator (i.e., careless disregard or deliberateness), and the economic or other

advantage, if any, gained as a result of the violation. The relative weight given to each of these

factors in arriving at the significance assessment will be dependent on the circumstances of the

violation. However, if a licensee refuses to correct a minor violation within a reasonable time

such that it willfully continues, the violation should be considered at least more than minor. 

Licensees are expected to take significant remedial action in responding to willful violations

commensurate with the circumstances such that it demonstrates the seriousness of the violation

thereby creating a deterrent effect within the licensee’s organization.

*****

V. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES

*****

A predecisional enforcement conference is a meeting between the NRC and the licensee. 

Conferences are normally held in the regional offices and are normally open to public

observation. Predecisional enforcement conferences will not normally be open to the public if

the enforcement action being contemplated:

(1) Would be taken against an individual, or if the action, though not taken against an

individual, turns on whether an individual has committed wrongdoing;

(2) Involves significant personnel failures where the NRC has requested that the

individual(s) involved be present at the conference;

(3) Is based on the findings of an NRC Office of Investigations report that has not been

publicly disclosed; or

(4) Involves safeguards information, Privacy Act information, or information which could

be considered proprietary;

In addition, conferences will not normally be open to the public if:

(5) The conference involves medical misadministrations or overexposures and the

conference cannot be conducted without disclosing the exposed individual’s name; or 
(6) The conference will be conducted by telephone or the conference will be conducted at

a relatively small licensee’s facility.

Notwithstanding meeting any of these criteria, a predecisional enforcement conference

may still be open if the conference involves issues related to an ongoing adjudicatory proceeding

with one or more interveners or where the evidentiary basis for the conference is a matter of

public record, such as an adjudicatory decision by the Department of Labor. In addition,

notwithstanding the normal criteria for opening or closing predecisional enforcement

conferences, conferences may either be open or closed to the public, with the approval of the

Executive Director for Operations, after balancing the benefit of the public’s observation against

the potential impact on the agency’s decision-making process in a particular case.

*****

For a case in which an NRC Office of Investigations (OI) report finds that discrimination

as defined under 10 CFR 50.7 (or similar provisions in Parts 30, 40, 60, 70, or 72) has occurred,

the OI report may be made public, subject to withholding certain information (i.e., after

appropriate redaction), in which case the associated predecisional enforcement conference will

normally be open to public observation. In a predecisional enforcement conference where a

particular individual is being considered potentially responsible for the discrimination, the

conference will remain closed. In either case (i.e., whether the conference is open or closed), the

employee or former employee who was the subject of the alleged discrimination (hereafter

referred to as "complainant") will normally be provided an opportunity to participate in the

predecisional enforcement conference with the licensee/employer. This participation will

normally be in the form of a complainant statement and comment on the licensee’s presentation,

followed in turn by an opportunity for the licensee to respond to the complainant’s presentation. 

In cases where the complainant is unable to attend in person, arrangements will be made for the

complainant’s participation by telephone or an opportunity given for the complainant to submit a

written response to the licensee’s presentation. If the licensee chooses to forego an enforcement

conference and, instead, responds to the NRC’s findings in writing, the complainant will be

provided the opportunity to submit written comments on the licensee’s response. For cases

involving potential discrimination by a contractor, any associated predecisional enforcement

conference with the contractor would be handled similarly. These arrangements for complainant

participation in the predecisional enforcement conference are not to be conducted or viewed in

any respect as an adjudicatory hearing. The purpose of the complainant’s participation is to

provide information to the NRC to assist it in its enforcement deliberations. 

A predecisional enforcement conference may not need to be held in cases where there is a

full adjudicatory record before the Department of Labor. If a conference is held in such

cases, generally the conference will focus on the licensee’s corrective action. As with

discrimination cases based on OI investigations, the complainant may be allowed to participate.

*****
VI. DISPOSITION OF VIOLATIONS

*****

C. Civil Penalty

*****

2. Civil Penalty Assessment

*****

c. Credit for Prompt and Comprehensive Corrective Action 

The purpose of the Corrective Action factor is to encourage licensees to (1) take the immediate

actions necessary upon discovery of a violation that will restore safety and compliance with the license,

regulation(s), or other requirement(s); and (2) develop and implement (in a timely manner) the lasting

actions that will not only prevent recurrence of the violation at issue, but will be appropriately

comprehensive, given the significance and complexity of the violation, to prevent occurrence of

violations with similar root causes.

*****

Corrective action for violations involving discrimination should normally only be considered

comprehensive if the licensee takes prompt, comprehensive corrective action that (1) addresses the

broader environment for raising safety concerns in the workplace, and (2) provides a remedy for the

particular discrimination at issue.

*****

VII. EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

*****

B. Mitigation of Enforcement Sanctions

*****

5. Violations Involving Certain Discrimination Issues

Enforcement discretion may be exercised for discrimination cases when a licensee who,

without the need for government intervention, identifies an issue of discrimination and takes

prompt, comprehensive, and effective corrective action to address both the particular situation

and the overall work environment for raising safety concerns. Similarly, enforcement may not be

warranted where a complaint is filed with the Department of Labor (DOL) under Section 211 of

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, but the licensee settles the matter before the

DOL makes an initial finding of discrimination and addresses the overall work environment. 
Alternatively, if a finding of discrimination is made, the licensee may choose to settle the case

before the evidentiary hearing begins. In such cases, the NRC may exercise its discretion not to

take enforcement action when the licensee has addressed the overall work environment for

raising safety concerns and has publicized that a complaint of discrimination for engaging in

protected activity was made to the DOL, that the matter was settled to the satisfaction of the

employee (the terms of the specific settlement agreement need not be posted), and that, if the

DOL Area Office found discrimination, the licensee has taken action to positively reemphasize

that discrimination will not be tolerated. Similarly, the NRC may refrain from taking

enforcement action if a licensee settles a matter promptly after a person comes to the NRC

without going to the DOL. Such discretion would normally not be exercised in cases in which

the licensee does not appropriately address the overall work environment (e.g., by using training,

postings, revised policies or procedures, any necessary disciplinary action, etc., to communicate

its policy against discrimination) or in cases that involve: allegations of discrimination as a result

of providing information directly to the NRC, allegations of discrimination caused by a manager

above first-line supervisor (consistent with current Enforcement Policy classification of Severity

Level I or II violations), allegations of discrimination where a history of findings of

discrimination (by the DOL or the NRC) or settlements suggests a programmatic rather than an

isolated discrimination problem, or allegations of discrimination which appear particularly

blatant or egregious. 

*****

SUPPLEMENTS - VIOLATION EXAMPLES

This section provides examples of violations in each of four severity levels as guidance in

determining the appropriate severity level for violations in each of eight activity areas (reactor

operations, Part 50 facility construction, safeguards, health physics, transportation, fuel cycle and

materials operations, miscellaneous matters, and emergency preparedness).

*****

SUPPLEMENT VII--MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

*****

A. Severity Level I - Violations involving for example:

*****

4. Action by senior corporate management in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 or similar

regulations against an employee;

*****
B. Severity Level II - Violations involving for example:

*****

4. An action by plant management or mid-level management in violation of

10 CFR 50.7 or similar regulations against an employee;

*****

9. The failure of licensee management to take effective action in correcting a hostile

work environment.

*****

C. Severity Level III - Violations involving for example:

*****

5. An action by first-line supervision or other low-level management in violation of

10 CFR 50.7 or similar regulations against an employee;

*****

10. Threats of discrimination or restrictive agreements which are violations under

NRC regulations such as 10 CFR 50.7(f).

*****

D. Severity Level IV - Violations involving for example:

*****

7. Discrimination cases which, in themselves, do not warrant a Severity Level III

categorization.