ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 

ANNUAL REPORT 

Calendar Year 2013 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Enforcement 

Washington, DC 20555 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Enforcement Program Annual Report

i 

– CONTENTS – 

I. Program Overview .......................................................................................................... 1 

A. Mission and Authority ............................................................................................... 1 

B. Assessment of Escalated Enforcement Actions .................................................... 3 

1. Escalated Enforcement Trends .......................................................................... 5 

2. Civil Penalty Actions ........................................................................................... 7 

3. Notices of Violation without Civil Penalties .................................................... 10 

4. Enforcement Program Timeliness ................................................................... 11 

5. Alternative Dispute Resolution ........................................................................ 13 

C. Non-Escalated Enforcement .................................................................................. 16 

II. Enforcement Case Work ............................................................................................... 19 

A. Significant Enforcement Actions ........................................................................... 19 

B. Hearing Activities .................................................................................................... 21 

C. Enforcement Orders ................................................................................................ 22 

D. Enforcement Actions Supported by the Office of Investigations ....................... 22 

E. Actions Involving Individuals and Nonlicensee Organizations .......................... 22 

F. Enforcement Action Involving Discrimination ..................................................... 23 

G. Use of Judgment and Discretion in Determining Appropriate 

Enforcement Sanctions .......................................................................................... 23 

1. Discretion Involving Enforcement Guidance .................................................. 23 

2. Discretion Involving Special Circumstances .................................................. 24 

3. Discretion Involving Violations Identified Because of Previous 

Enforcement Actions ........................................................................................ 25 

4. Notices of Enforcement Discretion .................................................................. 25 

H. Withdrawn Actions .................................................................................................. 27 

III. Ongoing Activities ........................................................................................................ 29 

A. Enforcement Policy ................................................................................................. 29 

1. Enforcement Policy Revisions ......................................................................... 29 

2. Future Enforcement Policy Revision Activities .............................................. 30 

3. Enforcement Guidance Memoranda ................................................................ 30 

B. Knowledge Management and Improvement Initiatives ........................................ 31 

C. Regional Accomplishments ................................................................................... 33 

D. Calendar Year 2014 Focus Areas ........................................................................... 33 
Enforcement Program Annual Report

ii 

– TABLES – 

Table 1 – Escalated Action Trends .................................................................................... 5

Table 2 – Civil Penalty Information .................................................................................... 8

Table 3 – Escalated Enforcement Actions by Region and Program Office .................. 35

Table 4 – Escalated Enforcement Actions by Type of Licensee, .................................. 36

– FIGURES – 

Figure 1 – How the NRC Regulates .................................................................................... 1

Figure 2 – Escalated Enforcement by Type of Action (CY 2013) ..................................... 3

Figure 3 – Escalated Enforcement by Business Line (CY 2013) ..................................... 4

Figure 4 – Escalated Action Trends (CY 2009 to CY 2013) .............................................. 6

Figure 5 – Escalated Action Trends by Business Line (CY 2009 to CY 2013) ................ 7

Figure 6 – Proposed Civil Penalties Trends by Business Line ....................................... 9

Figure 7 – Percentage of Proposed Civil Penalties by Business Line .......................... 10

Figure 8 – Escalated Enforcement Associated with ROP SDP Findings ...................... 11

Figure 9 – Non-OI Based Case Timeliness Trends (Average Number of Days) ........... 12

Figure 10 – OI Based Case Timeliness Trends (Average Number of Days) ................. 13

Figure 11 – ADR Confirmatory Orders Issued (CY 2009 to CY 2013) ............................ 14

Figure 12 – Calendar Days from NRC Action to Issuance of Confirmatory Order ....... 15

Figure 13 – Non-Escalated Enforcement Trends (CY 2009 to CY 2013) ........................ 16

– APPENDICES – 

Appendix A - Summary of Cases Involving Civil Penalties ............................................A1

Appendix B - Summary of Escalated Notices of Violation without Civil Penalties .......B1

Appendix C - Summary of Orders .....................................................................................C1

Appendix D - Summary of Escalated Enforcement Actions Against Individuals .........D1

Appendix E - Summary of Escalated Enforcement Actions Against Nonlicensees ..... E1
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

iii 

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) effectively implemented the agency’s 

Enforcement Policy and Program in Calendar Year (CY) 2013. NRC headquarters and 

regional offices continued to focus on appropriate and consistent enforcement of the 

agency’s regulations. 

Escalated Enforcement Action Data 

The Enforcement Policy defines an escalated enforcement action as a notice of violation 

(NOV) with a severity level (SL) of III or greater (SL I, II, and III NOVs); NOVs associated 

with an inspection finding that the Significance Determination Process (SDP) evaluates as 

having low to moderate (white) or greater safety significance; civil penalties; NOVs to 

individuals; Orders to modify, suspend, or revoke NRC licenses or the authority to engage in 

NRC-licensed activities; and Orders issued to impose civil penalties. During CY 2013, the 

NRC issued 75 escalated enforcement actions under traditional enforcement and the 

Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). These actions were comprised of 11 actions involving 

civil penalties totaling $212,400, 10 enforcement orders, and 54 escalated NOVs without a 

proposed civil penalty. 

The total number of escalated enforcement actions decreased in CY 2013 by 34 percent 

when compared with CY 2012. This 1-year trend was largely the result of (1) an overall 

decrease in the number of escalated actions issued to nuclear materials user licensees, and 

(2) a decrease in the number of notices of violation without a civil penalty issued to 

operating power reactors. Over the past 5 years, the number of escalated enforcement 

actions issued by the agency has also shown a declining trend, primarily the result of a 

steady decrease in escalated actions issued to nuclear materials user and fuel facility 

licensees. Section I of the Annual Report provides additional information on these trends. 

Noteworthy Program Accomplishments 

The Commission approved a revision to the Enforcement Policy that became effective on 

January 28, 2013, and a new interim Policy on July 9, 2013. In addition, the Office of 

Enforcement (OE) issued three new Enforcement Guidance Memoranda to assist the staff in 

dispositioning specific enforcement actions. OE also assessed Region II’s implementation 

of the agency’s enforcement program, with an emphasis on new construction enforcement. 

The agency continued the successful use of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

Program and expanded the program, via a pilot, to include certain cases with proposed civil 

penalties. The agency met the congressional timeliness goals for issuing enforcement 

actions in CY 2013. 

Significant Cases 

In CY 2013, the agency processed a number of significant cases that required extensive 

coordination and cooperation with internal stakeholders. These significant cases included: 

(1) a confirmatory order issued to Chicago Bridge and Iron (formerly Shaw Nuclear 

Services), (2) two notices of violation associated with a yellow significance determination 

process finding issued to Watts Bar, Unit 1, and Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and 

(3) a confirmatory order and two orders to former licensed operators prohibiting involvement 

in NRC-licensed activities at Dresden Nuclear Power Station. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report

iv 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

1 

I. Program Overview 

A. Mission and Authority 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) regulates 

the civilian uses of nuclear 

materials in the United States 

to protect public health and 

safety, the environment, and 

the common defense and 

security. The agency 

accomplishes this mission 

through: licensing of nuclear 

facilities and the possession, 

use, and disposal of nuclear 

materials; the development 

and implementation of 

requirements governing 

licensed activities; and 

inspection and enforcement 

activities to ensure 

compliance with these 

requirements. 

The NRC conducts various types of inspections and investigations designed to ensure that 

the activities it licenses are conducted in strict compliance with the Commission’s 

regulations, the terms of the licenses, and other requirements. 

The sources of the NRC’s enforcement authority are the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005. These statutes give the NRC broad authority. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

expanded the definition of byproduct material, placing additional byproduct material under 

the NRC’s jurisdiction including both naturally occurring and accelerator-produced 

radioactive materials (NARM). The agency implements its enforcement authority through 

Title 10, “Energy,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 2, “Rules of Practice 

for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,” Subpart B, “Procedures for 

Imposing Requirements by Order, or for Modification, Suspension, or Revocation of a 

License, or for Imposing Civil Penalties.” The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 

provides the statutory framework for the Federal Government to use alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR). 

The NRC Enforcement Policy establishes the general principles governing the NRC’s 

Enforcement Program and specifies a process for implementing the agency’s enforcement 

authority in response to violations of NRC requirements. This statement of policy is 

predicated on the NRC’s view that compliance with NRC requirements serves a key role in 

ensuring safety, maintaining security, and protecting the environment. The Enforcement 

Policy applies to all NRC licensees, to various categories of nonlicensees, and to individual 

employees of licensed and nonlicensed firms involved in NRC-regulated activities. 

Figure 1 – How the NRC Regulates 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

2

Enforcement actions serve as a deterrent, emphasize the importance of compliance with 

regulatory requirements, and encourage prompt identification and prompt, comprehensive 

correction of violations. In addition, because violations occur in a variety of activities and 

have varying levels of significance, the NRC Enforcement Policy contains graduated 

sanctions. 

Enforcement sanctions include the use of notices of violation, civil penalties, and orders to 

modify, suspend, or revoke a license. The NRC staff may exercise discretion in determining 

the appropriate enforcement sanctions to be taken. Most violations are identified through 

inspections and investigations and are normally assigned a severity level (SL) ranging from 

SL IV for those of more than minor concern to SL I for the most significant. 

The Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) supplements the enforcement process for operating 

nuclear reactors. A similar process has been implemented to assess findings at new reactor 

construction sites. Under the ROP, violations are not normally assigned a SL but instead 

are assessed through the ROP and usually referred to as “findings.” Under this program, 

the NRC determines the risk significance of inspection findings using the significance 

determination process (SDP), which assigns the colors of green, white, yellow, or red with 

increasing risk significance. Findings under the ROP may also include licensee failures to 

meet self-imposed standards. As such, an ROP finding may or may not involve a violation 

of a regulatory requirement. Findings assigned a greater-than-Green color are considered 

escalated enforcement actions. While the ROP can process most violations at operating 

power reactors, it cannot address aspects of some violations; such violations require the 

NRC to follow the traditional enforcement process. 

Under the ROP, violations that result in actual safety or security consequences, affect the 

ability of the NRC to perform its regulatory oversight function, and involve willfulness are 

processed with the traditional Enforcement Policy. In addition, while ROP findings are not 

normally subject to civil penalties, the NRC does consider civil penalties for any violation that 

involves actual consequences. SL IV violations and violations associated with green ROP 

findings are normally dispositioned as noncited violations (NCVs). Inspection reports or 

inspection records document NCVs and briefly describe the corrective action that the 

licensee has taken or plans to take, if they are known at the time the NCV is documented. 

Additional information about the ROP is available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html. 

OE develops policies and programs for the enforcement of NRC requirements. In addition, 

OE oversees NRC enforcement activities, giving programmatic and implementation 

guidance to regional and headquarters offices that conduct or are involved in enforcement 

activities, and strives to ensure consistency between regional and program office 

implementation of the agency’s enforcement program, particularly for more significant cases. 

The NRC’s enforcement Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/enforcement.html) presents a variety of information, such as the Enforcement 

Policy; the Enforcement Manual; and current temporary enforcement guidance contained in 

enforcement guidance memoranda. This Web site also has information about escalated 

enforcement actions the NRC has issued to reactor and materials licensees, nonlicensees 

(vendors, contractors, and certificate holders), and individuals. In keeping with NRC 

practices and policies, details associated with most security-related actions and activities are 

not available on the NRC’s public Web site. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

3 

B. Assessment of Escalated Enforcement Actions 

Escalated enforcement actions include the following: 

• notices of violations (NOVs), including SL I, II, or III violations 

• NOVs associated with red, yellow, or white SDP findings (for operating reactor 

facilities) 

• civil penalty actions 

• enforcement orders (including confirmatory orders (COs) that result from the ADR 

process) 

Figure 2 – Escalated Enforcement by Type of Action (CY 2013)

During CY 2013, the NRC issued a total of 75 escalated enforcement actions to all 

licensees, nonlicensees, and individuals. Figure 2 shows the distribution of these actions, 

by the category of the action, for CY 2013. The most common type of escalated 

enforcement action was an NOV without a civil penalty, with 54 of the 75 escalated actions 

(or 72 percent) issued during the year fitting this category. This percentage is consistent 

with the overall distribution of escalated enforcement actions during the past 5 years, where 

approximately 70 percent of all escalated actions issued between CY 2009 and CY 2013 

have been NOVs without a civil penalty. Generally speaking, a large percentage of NOVs 

without civil penalties is considered a positive outcome because it reflects strong licensee 

corrective action programs, with the majority of licensees adequately responding to 

identified violations. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

4

The remaining 28 percent of escalated enforcement actions were almost equally split 

between NOVs and orders with a civil penalty, and orders without a civil penalty. As shown 

in Table 1 (below), the NRC issued 11 civil penalty actions (15 percent) and 10 orders 

without a civil penalty (13 percent). The 11 civil penalty actions included 10 NOVs and 1 of 

the ADR orders issued in CY 2013. 

Figure 3 shows the distribution of enforcement actions based on the business line, or type of 

licensee to whom the NRC issued escalated enforcement actions in CY 2013. For this 

figure, enforcement actions issued to individuals were included in the appropriate category 

of licensee, instead of being counted separately. Tables 3 and 4 at the end of this report 

give further detail by identifying the region or program office that initiated the action, as well 

as additional detail on the type of licensee, nonlicensee, and individual involved. 

Figure 3 – Escalated Enforcement by Business Line (CY 2013) 

As shown in Figure 3, operating reactor licensees received the largest percentage of all 

escalated enforcement actions (47 percent) in CY 2013. This was followed closely by 

materials user licensees who received 43 percent of all escalated enforcement actions 

issued by the NRC. Because of the increase in construction activities at new reactor 

construction sites, Figure 3 now shows escalated actions issued to reactor licensees by 

operating reactors and new reactors in separate categories. In CY 2013, the NRC issued 

four escalated actions to new reactor licensees and vendors. All four new reactors 

enforcement actions were evaluated and issued under the traditional enforcement process; 

however, this might or might not be the case in upcoming years with the implementation of 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

5 

the Construction Reactor Oversight Process (cROP) at the Vogtle and Summer new 

construction sites. The staff expects that the majority of findings and performance 

deficiencies discovered in the future will be evaluated under the cROP process. 

1. Escalated Enforcement Trends 

As previously noted, the NRC issued 75 escalated enforcement actions during CY 

2013. The 75 actions represent a 34 percent decrease from the number of actions 

issued in CY 2012. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the total number of escalated 

enforcement actions issued by the NRC over the past 5 years by type of enforcement 

action. Figure 4 (below) displays this information in graphical form. 

Table 1 – Escalated Action Trends

 CY 2013 CY 2012 CY 2011 CY 2010 CY 2009 Average 

Escalated NOVs 

(w/o Civil Penalties) 54 79 90 79 99 80

NOVs and Orders 

(w/ Civil Penalties) 11 16 14 21 19 16

Orders 

(w/o Civil Penalties) 10 18 4 15 33 16

Orders Imposing 

Civil Penalties 0 0 0 1 4 1

Total 75 113 108 116 155 113

As shown in Table 1 above, the total number of escalated enforcement actions issued 

in CY 2013 is considerably less than the 5-year average. While the 1-year decrease 

might be viewed as significant, Figure 4 suggests that there has also been a steady 

decline in the number of escalated NOVs without a civil penalty issued since CY 2009, 

as well as an overall decrease in the number of orders and escalated actions with a 

civil penalty issued over the same 5-year period. 

To help answer the reasons for these trends, Figure 5 (next page) provides escalated 

enforcement trends between CYs 2009 and 2013 based on business line. As shown 

in Figure 5, this year’s decrease in escalated actions when compared to CY 2012 may 

be attributed to an almost equal reduction in the number of escalated enforcement 

actions issued to operating reactor and materials user licensees. However, when 

considering the past 5 years, the data shows that this trend has resulted from largely a 

steady decrease in the number of escalated actions issued to materials users and fuel 

facility licensees since CY 2009. During this period, there was an approximately 60 

percent decrease in the total number of escalated actions issued to materials users 

and an 82 percent decrease at fuel facilities. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

6

The nuclear materials users’ trend was primarily caused by a decrease in enforcement 

actions issued to gauge user licensees (an 80 percent reduction since CY 2009), 

hospitals (a 27 percent reduction from CY 2009), and radiographers (a 75 percent 

reduction from CY 2009). The staff’s analysis of the materials user trend has not been 

conclusive. However, two causal factors are factual and impact the trend in the 

expected direction, therefore accounting for a substantial portion of the change but 

likely not the entire change. In the early years of the most recent five-year period, 

particularly in CY 2009, the number of cases involving security-related increased 

controls violations remained high due to the implementation of the additional 

requirements. Second, in 2011, the SL criteria of certain gauge cases were changed 

from SL III to SL IV, reducing the number of escalated actions issued thereafter. 

A similar trend has been observed at fuel facilities and can be attributed to improved 

licensee performance in the area of problem identification and resolution, safety 

culture, as well as changes made as part of a major revision to the Enforcement Policy 

in CY 2010. In September 2010, the severity level examples for violations at fuel 

facilities were changed in the Policy to be more risk-informed, and this impacted the 

threshold for dispositioning violations as escalated actions at these facilities. Table 4 

at the end of this report provides a more detailed breakdown of enforcement actions 

issued during CY 2013 by the type of licensee. As shown in Table 4, escalated 

enforcement actions without civil penalties issued to other materials licensees are 

relatively evenly dispersed among the different types of licensees. 

 

Figure 4 – Escalated Action Trends (CY 2009 to CY 2013) 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

7 

Figure 5 (below) also shows that the number of escalated enforcement actions issued 

to operating reactor licensees between CYs 2009 and 2013 has been mostly steady, 

generally ranging between 31 and 38 actions per year. However, in CY 2012 

operating reactors were issued 51 escalated actions. Of these violations, 21 were 

associated with white SDP findings under the ROP, and six were associated with 

yellow and red SDP findings (which increased significantly over previous CYs). Also, 

CY 2012 experienced a higher number of violations issued to licensed operators, such 

as the multiple cases involving deliberate misconduct at River Bend in CY 2011. 

Figure 5 – Escalated Action Trends by Business Line (CY 2009 to CY 2013) 

2. Civil Penalty Actions

In CY 2013, the agency processed 11 enforcement actions that involved civil 

penalties. One of the 11 actions was associated with a settlement that followed an 

ADR mediation session. One case involved a SL II violation identified at Chicago 

Bridge and Iron (formerly Shaw Nuclear Services) that was later withdrawn following 

ADR mediation. Another case involved the failure to supply and require the use of 

individual radiation monitoring devices (dosimeters) and the failure to provide complete 

and accurate information to an NRC inspector by Jackson Cardiology Associates, P.C. 

Four of these cases involved “willfulness,” which is defined as either deliberate 

misconduct or careless disregard. The Commission is particularly concerned with the 

identification of willful violations. The NRC’s regulatory program is based on licensees 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

8

and their contractors, employees, and agents acting with integrity and communicating 

with candor; therefore, the agency may consider a violation involving willfulness to be 

more egregious than the underlying violation, taken alone, would have been, and it 

may increase the SL accordingly. 

Table 2 – Civil Penalty Information

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Average 

No. of Proposed 

Civil Penalties 10 13 10 19 17 14 

No. of Imposed 

Civil Penalties*

 1 3 3 1 1 2 

No. of Paid Civil 

Penalties 8 12 13 16 8 11 

Amount of 

Proposed Civil 

Penalties 

$211,400 $404,700 $108,750 $663,700 $175,750 $312,860 

Amount of 

Imposed Civil 

Penalties 

$1,000 $14,000 $29,500 $10,000 $3,250 $11,550 

Amount of Paid 

Civil Penalties $176,500 $402,700 $130,529 $624,950 $228,250 $312,586 

* Imposition cases and civil penalty (CP) amounts reflect CPs issued via an order and includes both (1) orders 

imposing a CP after a licensee does not pay a proposed CP, and (2) CPs agreed to in an alternative dispute 

resolution case that are included in the case confirmatory order. In the first scenario, the case is a subset of 

the proposed CP cases in that imposing the CP is the next step after a licensee does not pay a proposed 

CP. However, in the second scenario, an ADR settlement, potentially with a CP, can, and typically does, 

occur prior to any proposed CP. Consequently, neither addition nor subtraction of the “proposed” and 

“imposed” rows is appropriate. 

Table 2 compares civil penalty assessments proposed, imposed, and paid for the most 

recent five calendar years and the 5-year average. When reviewing the information in 

this table, it is important to note that an enforcement action may include more than one 

civil penalty or more than one violation. In addition, a civil penalty may be proposed in 

one year and paid or imposed in another year. In some cases, the NRC has approved 

a civil penalty payment plan whereby a licensee is permitted to pay the civil penalty in 

regular installments. Finally, the amount of a proposed civil penalty may be reduced, 

for example, as a result of exercising discretion as part of a settlement agreement 

developed during ADR. 

The total number of civil penalties proposed in CY 2013 decreased from the number 

proposed in CY 2012 and is below the average number proposed over the last 5 

years. The total dollar amount of proposed civil penalties also decreased significantly 

(by approximately a factor of two) in CY 2013 compared to CY 2012. While the total 

dollar value is less than the five-year average, it is consistent with proposed civil 

penalty amounts in years that have not been driven by one or two high profile cases. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

9 

The number and total amount of civil penalties associated with ADR settlement 

agreements decreased from those issued in CY 2012. Only one civil penalty was 

issued in CY 2013 compared to three in CY 2012, even though the total number of 

ADR cases increased from 7 to 11. The amount of civil penalties associated with ADR 

settlements decreased from $14,000 in CY 2012 to $1,000 in CY 2013. The staff will 

monitor this trend in future years. 

Figure 6 – Proposed Civil Penalties Trends by Business Line (CY 2009 to CY 2013) 

Figure 6 shows the dollar amount of civil penalties proposed for reactor, materials, and 

fuel facility licensees in CY 2013 and the preceding 4 years. Figure 7 (next page) 

shows that reactor licensees have received a greater share of the total civil penalty 

amount issued over the past 2 years compared to fuel cycle and materials licensees. 

However, this has not always been the trend. The largest peaks are frequently the 

result of a single civil penalty (e.g., the Philadelphia VA Medical Center in 2010, and 

Kewaunee and Watts Bar 2 in 2013). As a consequence, a single year might not 

indicate a trend—an important factor to consider in assessing possible trends. 

Appendix A to this report includes a brief description of each of the civil penalty actions 

for CY 2013. Security related issues involving NOVs with civil penalties are not 

addressed in Appendix A; however, the number of NOVs associated with security 

related issues is included in the data discussed in this report. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

10

Figure 7 – Percentage of Proposed Civil Penalties by Business Line 

3. Notices of Violation without Civil Penalties

In accordance with Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty may not be 

warranted for escalated enforcement actions if certain criteria are met. For instance, 

(1) the identified violation is the first non-willful SL III violation identified in the past 2 

years or two inspections at the licensee’s facility and the licensee took adequate 

corrective action to prevent its recurrence, or (2) this was not the first non-willful SL III 

violation identified in the past 2 years or two inspections, but the licensee self-identified 

the violation and took adequate corrective action to prevent its recurrence. In addition, 

the agency may use enforcement discretion, when deemed appropriate, to refrain from 

proposing a civil penalty, regardless of the normal civil penalty assessment process 

described above. 

In CY 2013, the NRC issued 54 escalated NOVs without civil penalties. Approximately 

half (26 of 54) were issued to operating reactor licensees. Of these violations, 14 were 

associated with white SDP findings under the ROP, and two violations were related to 

yellow SDP findings. There were no red SDP findings with associated violations 

issued in CY 2013. Figure 8 (below) shows escalated NOV trends for SDP findings 

over the past 5 years. As indicated in Figure 8, the 16 escalated enforcement actions 

associated with SDP findings that were issued in CY 2013 represented a decrease in 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

11 

the number issued when compared to CY 2012. This trend was also accompanied by 

a notable reduction in the more significant yellow and red SDP findings in CY 2013. 

Figure 8 – Escalated Enforcement Associated with ROP SDP Findings 

Of the remaining 28 escalated NOVs without civil penalties that were not issued to 

operating reactors, 24 were issued to nuclear materials users and 3 were issued to 

fuel facility licensees. Appendix B to this report summarizes each of these NOVs 

without civil penalties issued to licensees, as well as the NOVs associated with SDP 

findings. Security related issues involving NOVs without civil penalties are not 

addressed in Appendix B; however, the number of NOVs associated with security 

related issues is included in the data discussed in this report. 

4. Enforcement Program Timeliness 

Escalated enforcement actions are issued in cases involving violations assessed at 

SL I, II, or III if they are dispositioned under the traditional enforcement process; and 

violations associated with white, yellow, or red findings for facilities participating in the 

ROP, as well as orders that impose sanctions. The timeliness associated with issuing 

escalated enforcement actions to reactor and materials licensees is an output measure 

(external goal) reported annually to Congress within the NRC’s Performance 

Accountability Report. The external goals were modified in 2012 to stress the 

importance of timely escalated enforcement actions and are: (1) 100 percent of 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

12

non-Office of Investigations (non-OI) based cases are completed with an NRC 

processing time of less than or equal to 160 days; and (2) 100 percent of OI-based 

cases are completed with an NRC processing time of less than or equal to 330 days. 

Figure 9 – Non-OI Based Case Timeliness Trends (Average Number of Days)

In addition to the external goals, the NRC staff continues to use the additional 

timeliness measures (internal goals) for trending purposes and to provide information 

to support potential improvements to our processes. The internal goals are: 

(1) completing non-OI based cases in an average NRC processing time of less than or 

equal to 120 days; and (2) completing OI based cases in an average NRC processing 

time of less than or equal to 180 days. 

The NRC processing time starts on the latest of the following dates: (1) the inspection 

exit for non-OI cases; (2) the date of the OI memorandum forwarding the report to staff 

for OI related cases; (3) the date that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) indicates 

that the NRC may proceed for cases either prosecuted or reviewed for an extended 

period of time by DOJ; or (4) the date of the Department of Labor decision that is the 

basis for the action. The cases are grouped together and treated as a single case 

whenever two or more enforcement action numbers are associated with one action. 

All OI related enforcement actions were issued in less than 330 processing days and 

all non-OI related actions were issued in less than 160 processing days. Therefore, 

the external goals for dispositioning OI and non-OI related enforcement actions were 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

13 

met in CY 2013. Figure 9 (above) also shows that, on the average, the agency 

required 94 processing days to issue a non-OI related enforcement action. This is less 

than the goal of 120 processing days and is consistent with trends for the past 5 years. 

Figure 10 – OI Based Case Timeliness Trends (Average Number of Days) 

Figure 10 shows the case processing timeliness trends for OI-related escalated 

enforcement actions for the five most recent CYs. The figure illustrates that, on 

average, the agency required 172 days to issue an OI-related enforcement action 

during CY 2013. This number is less than the internal goal of 180 days, and continues 

the steady decline in average processing time over the past 5 years. This positive 

(decreasing) trend may be attributed to business process improvements implemented 

in CY 2011 (e.g., increased coordination between offices following the issuance of an 

OI report) as well as increased staff focus on managing cases that involve OI 

investigations. The staff will continue to monitor this trend in future years. 

5. Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to a number of voluntary processes, such 

as mediation and facilitated dialogues that can be used to assist parties in resolving 

disputes and potential conflicts outside of courts using a neutral third party. The NRC 

employs mediation for its post-investigation ADR program, using a neutral third party 

with no decisionmaking authority to help the parties attempt to reach an agreement. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

14

The process is voluntary in terms of the decision to participate and the content of the 

final agreement. 

The term ''post-investigation ADR'' refers to the use of mediation after OI has 

completed its investigation and an enforcement panel has concluded that pursuit of an 

enforcement action appears to be warranted. On February 25, 2013, the NRC 

expanded the scope of the use of post-investigation ADR for a one-year pilot period. 

The pilot expanded ADR to include all escalated non-willful, traditional enforcement 

cases with proposed civil penalties (note that this does not include violations 

associated with findings assessed through the ROP). Although most stakeholders 

supported this expanded use of ADR, no parties requested to engage in the expanded 

ADR program in CY 2013. 

Figure 11 – ADR Confirmatory Orders Issued (CY 2009 to CY 2013)

Under the NRC’s post-investigation ADR process, mediation may be offered at three 

points in the enforcement process: (1) before a predecisional enforcement 

conference; (2) after the initial enforcement action is taken, typically with the issuance 

of an NOV or proposed imposition of a civil penalty; or (3) with the imposition of a civil 

penalty and before a hearing request. The staff believes that for certain escalated 

enforcement actions, mediation affords the staff an opportunity to institute broader or 

more comprehensive corrective actions to better ensure public health and safety than 

outcomes typically achieved through the traditional enforcement process. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

15 

As Figure 11 (above) shows, the number of COs arising from the post-investigation 

ADR program generally stayed at the same typical levels, averaging approximately 

seven confirmatory orders per year. In CY 2013, the NRC participated in five postinvestigation ADR mediations, four of which resulted in orders confirming the terms of 

the parties’ agreement. During the past 5 years, approximately 85 percent of cases 

that engaged in ADR resulted in settlements. 

Figure 12 – Calendar Days from NRC Action to Issuance of Confirmatory Order 

In CY 2013, the staff continued its focus on enhancing the post-investigation ADR 

program’s timeliness, transparency and overall effectiveness. Program enhancements 

initiated in CY 2012 following an internal business process improvement review 

continue to have a positive impact on the ADR program, as reflected in the timeliness 

data (Figure 12). Specifically, over the past 3 years, cases processed within the ADR 

program maintain a positive timeliness rate - averaging 6 months (from initiation of the 

investigation to the issuance of the CO), which is similar to other investigation-related, 

escalated action cases that use the PEC process. Some of the other CY 2012 

initiatives included, (1) public meetings to solicit feedback from stakeholders, 

(2) enhancements to the program’s public Web page, (3) revisions to program 

documents, and (4) issuance of additional guidance documents. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

16

C. Non-Escalated Enforcement 

The Enforcement Program Annual Report has historically focused on escalated enforcement 

actions with little information regarding non-escalated enforcement provided. Non-escalated 

actions include SL IV NOVs and NCVs under traditional enforcement and NOVs and NCVs 

associated with Green SDP Findings under the ROP. In recent years, OE has recognized 

that improving the ability to trend data for non-escalated enforcement across the various 

programs is necessary. One of the primary challenges in tracking and trending nonescalated enforcement actions is that these actions are recorded in separate databases by 

the various program offices. Operating reactors information is recorded in the Reactor 

Program System (RPS), materials user non-escalated actions are stored in the new 

web-based licensing (WBL) system, and new reactors construction data is maintained by the 

Construction Inspection Program Information Management System (CIPIMS). The 

availability of the WBL system will allow a more complete presentation of the agency’s use 

of non-escalated enforcement actions. Consequently, OE has started to gather information 

from these systems in order to be able to provide improved trending. Figure 13 provides 

information that was obtained from the RPS and WBL systems. 

Figure 13 – Non-Escalated Enforcement Trends (CY 2009 to CY 2013)

As shown in Figure 13, operating reactors are issued approximately 750 to 900 nonescalated enforcement actions each year, and nuclear materials users received, on 

average, 175 non-escalated actions for the three most recent CYs. OE notes that 

information from CY 2013 may be artificially low because violations are recorded by the 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

17 

event date, and that there is often a time lag between this date, the date of the inspection 

report, and the date this information is recorded in RPS, WBL and CIPIMS. 

During CY2013, the Government Accountability Office issued a report titled “Nuclear Power: 

Analysis of Regional Differences and Improved Access to Information Could Strengthen 

NRC Oversight.” The report’s second finding related to the enforcement program generally, 

and stated that “differences exist across NRC regions in identifying and resolving findings, 

and NRC has taken some steps to address them.” More specifically, GAO discussed the 

fact that the extent to which nonescalated findings, which equate to very low risk 

significance, have been identified differs across regions. GAO noted that some steps had 

been taken to address these differences but that a comprehensive review of the reasons 

had not been undertaken. The number of escalated findings, which equate to greater risk 

significance, was more similar across regions. Consequently, the Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, with the support of OE and the regions, initiated a review to determine the 

cause, or causes, of the differences. The review and any appropriate follow-up action will 

continue in CY2014. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

18

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

19 

II. Enforcement Case Work 

A. Significant Enforcement Actions 

In CY 2013, the agency was involved in several significant enforcement actions that 

required coordination among internal stakeholders beyond the typical enforcement case and 

were noteworthy in some aspects. 

Chicago Bridge & Iron 

On July 29, 2011, the Office of Investigations (OI) initiated an investigation into an allegation 

of discrimination involving Shaw Nuclear Services (SNS).1

 The investigation focused on 

whether or not a former employee was terminated for engaging in protected activities after 

the individual had raised a potential 10 CFR Part 21 concern. OI completed its investigation 

on June 5, 2012. Based on its review of evidence stemming from the investigation, the staff 

concluded that SNS (now CB&I) discriminated against the former employee, in part, for 

raising safety concerns in violation of 10 CFR 52.5, “Employee protection.” 

On June 11, 2013, the staff participated in an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation 

session with CB&I. As the result of the mediation, CB&I agreed to take a number of actions 

for all CB&I employees (excluding short-term employees), contractors and subcontractors 

who are engaged in work associated with NRC-regulated activities. Those actions include: 

(1) reinforcing through a written communication from CB&I's Chief Executive Officer the 

company's strategy to improve its nuclear safety culture; (2) updating CB&I’s nuclear safety 

culture and safety conscious work environment policies and documents to ensure that they 

are consistent with and informed by NRC and industry guidance, (3) developing and/or 

revising the company's employee protection, nuclear safety culture and safety conscious 

work environment training; (4) establishing a uniform Executive Review Board process to 

ensure independent management review of all proposed significant adverse actions; and 

(5) performing tailored comprehensive nuclear safety culture assessments, including site 

surveys, of all CB&I nuclear business entities. 

The NRC issued a CO to CB&I on September 16, 2013, to formalize the commitments made 

as a result of the ADR mediation session. The NRC also exercised enforcement discretion 

and withdrew a notice of violation and proposed imposition of civil penalties ($36,400) that 

was issued on April 18, 2013, in consideration of CB&I’s adoption of the commitments 

outlined in the CO. 

Inspection Manual Chapter 0350 Activities at Fort Calhoun Station 

In 2011, an outage at the Omaha Public Power District’s Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) was 

extended because of the Missouri River flooding that affecting the site from June through 

September 2011. Restart of the facility was delayed by performance concerns involving the 

recovery actions associated with the flood, including restoration of plant systems, security, 

and geotechnical/site restoration. As a result of the continuous performance assessment of 

FCS, on December 13, 2011, the NRC modified its regulatory oversight to Inspection 

 

1 During the investigation, SNS was purchased by Chicago Bridge and Iron, Inc. (CB&I). 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

20

Manual Chapter (IMC) 0350 "Oversight of Reactor Facilities in a Shutdown Condition due to 

Significant Performance and/or Operations Concerns" rather than the usual IMC 0305 

“Operating Reactor Assessment Program” oversight. The IMC 0350 process establishes a 

regulatory oversight framework adhering to implementation of an oversight panel, inspection 

plan, restart checklist and a record of actions taken and technical issues resolved to provide 

adequate protection of public health and safety, and security. These actions were agreed to 

in a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) dated September 2, 2011. On February 26, 2013, the 

NRC revised the CAL to confirm corrective actions that the NRC determined to need review 

or inspection before the restart of the plant. 

 

Additional information about the IMC 0350 process is available on the NRC website at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/fcs/special-oversight.html. The IMC 0350 Oversight 

Panel reviews apparent deficiencies, findings and violations identified during IMC 0350 

inspections. The functions of the normal enforcement process, including the review of 

apparent escalated violations, the conduct of regulatory conferences, and the issuance of 

NOVs with civil penalties or orders are superseded by the authority given to the Oversight 

Panel. All greater-than-green issues are reviewed by the panel and documented in an 

inspection report. The significance of these findings are typically bounded by the Yellow 

finding associated with the flooding event and therefore are not characterized by a color 

significance. Since the identified deficiencies, findings and violations are evaluated by the 

NRC under the IMC 0350 process and captured in the restart checklist, there is typically not 

a regulatory conference. The licensee always has the option to request a conference, 

present their position on an item, or dispute a deficiency, finding or violation under the 

normal process. 

The following is a summary of the significant enforcement actions processed under IMC 

0350, in which the items are documented in an inspection report issued in CY 2013 and 

captured in the restart checklist. 

• On February 14, 2013, one finding involving multiple violations of NRC requirements 

was identified by the NRC. This finding was determined to be a violation related to a 

previously-issued Yellow finding regarding the ability to mitigate an external flooding 

event. The significance of the finding was bounded by the previous Yellow finding and 

was, therefore, not characterized by color. 

• On February 26, 2013, a revision to CAL 4-12-002 was issued to reflect changes made 

to the FCS Restart Checklist. Specifically, as reported in the 3rd quarter of 2012, the 

Safety System Functional Failures Performance Indicator transitioned from Green to 

White. As a result, this item was added to Section 1 of the Restart Checklist, “Causes 

of Significant Performance Deficiencies and Assessment of Organizational 

Effectiveness.” In addition, two specific items involving qualification of containment 

electrical penetrations and containment internal structure deficiencies were added to 

Section 2, “Flood Restoration and Adequacy of Structures, Systems, and 

Components.” 

• On March 11, 2013, a finding was identified involving the failure to classify the river 

sluice gates as Safety Class 3. This finding was determined to involve a violation of 

NRC requirements and related to the previously-issued Yellow finding regarding the 

ability to mitigate an external flooding event and its significance was, therefore, not 

characterized by color. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

21 

• On July 16, 2013, one finding was identified and determined to be a violation related to 

a previously issued Yellow finding regarding the ability to mitigate an external flooding 

event. Another finding was identified and determined to be a violation related to a 

previously issued Red finding regarding a significant internal fire event in the 480-Vac 

safety-related switchgear. The significance of these findings was bounded by the 

previous Yellow finding and a related Red finding and was, therefore, not 

characterized by a color. 

Oconee Nuclear Station (Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC) 

On July 1, 2013, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order (CO) and NOV for a SL III violation 

to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke). These actions were based on Duke's failure to 

comply with a license condition associated with the license amendment to complete their 

transition to the National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 for its Oconee Nuclear 

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Duke received the NOV for not incorporating the protected 

service water (PSW) modification into its fire protection program site documents and 

confirming the risk reduction from the modification prior to January 1, 2013, as required by 

its license. The CO was issued to provide a heightened regulatory accountability for the 

completion of the PSW system, and interim milestones associated with this modification. 

The only milestone for CY 2013 contained in the order was met by the licensee. 

Violations Associated with Red and Yellow Findings 

In CY 2013, the NRC issued NOVs associated with two separate yellow SDP findings to two 

reactor licensees. There were no red SDP findings with an associated NOV issued during 

CY 2013. In CY 2012, the NRC issued NOVs associated with three red SDP findings to one 

reactor licensee and three separate yellow SDP findings to three additional reactor 

licensees. Short summaries of the non-security cases issued in CY 2013 follow: 

• On June 4, 2013, the NRC issued an NOV associated with a Yellow SDP finding to 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Watts Bar, Unit 1. The Yellow finding, a violation 

of Technical Specification (TS) 5.7.1, “Procedures,” was issued for the failure of Watts 

Bar personnel to maintain an adequate procedure to implement its flood mitigation 

strategy within 27 hours as described in Watts Bar's Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report from initial licensing to July 2012. 

• On August 28, 2013, the NRC issued an NOV to Northern States Power Company for 

a violation of TS Section 5.4.1, Procedures, associated with a Yellow SDP finding 

involving the failure of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant personnel to maintain a 

flood plan to protect the site against external flooding events. Specifically, from 

February 29, 2012, to February 15, 2013, the site failed to maintain flood Procedure 

A.6, “Acts of Nature,” in such a way that it could support the timely implementation of 

flood protection features within the 12-day timeframe credited in the design basis, as 

stated in the updated safety analysis report. 

B. Hearing Activities 

No enforcement related proceedings were held before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board in CY 2013. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

22

C. Enforcement Orders 

In CY 2013, the NRC issued 11 orders to licensees, nonlicensees, and individuals. These 

included four Confirmatory Orders that were issued to confirm commitments associated with 

ADR settlement agreements. One of these orders included a requirement to pay a civil 

penalty as a result of the settlement agreement. Another order was associated with 

employee discrimination and was issued to a contractor providing services to a new reactors 

licensee. 

Two of the 11 orders were issued to individuals, and both were prohibited from involvement 

in NRC-licensed activities until such time that they can provide the NRC with reasonable 

assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission’s 

requirements. 

As shown in Table 1, the number of orders the NRC issued in CY 2013 decreased from 

CY 2012, in part, because of a decrease in the number of cases involving individuals. 

Appendix C includes a brief description of the enforcement orders issued in CY 2013. 

D. Enforcement Actions Supported by the Office of Investigations 

In CY 2013, an OI investigation supported 23 percent of the escalated enforcement actions 

(17 of the 75). This figure is lower than the percentage supported by OI investigations in 

CY 2012. The escalated actions supported by OI investigations include the following: 

• 4 of the 11 escalated NOVs and orders with civil penalties (36 percent) 

• 6 of the 54 escalated NOVs without civil penalties (11 percent) 

• 7 of the 10 enforcement orders without civil penalties (70 percent) 

The 17 enforcement actions supported by OI investigations is approximately one-half of the 

37 enforcement actions supported in CY 2012 but is more in line with the average number of 

enforcement actions supported by OI investigations over the previous 2 years (CY 2010 

through CY 2011). Also, the percentage of enforcement actions supported by an OI 

investigation (23 percent) is consistent with the percentage of enforcement actions 

supported by OI investigations over the past 5 year period from CY 2009 through CY 2013 

(26 percent). 

E. Actions Involving Individuals and Nonlicensee Organizations

In CY 2013, the agency issued five escalated enforcement actions to licensed and 

unlicensed individuals. This number is included in the total number of escalated 

enforcement actions (NOVs and orders) that the agency issued in 2013. Appendix C 

summarizes the orders that were issued to individuals and Appendix D summarizes the 

NOVs issued to individuals in CY 2013. These appendices do not include individual 

enforcement actions involving security related violations. The number of escalated actions 

issued to individuals in CY 2013 is approximately one-third the number of actions issued to 

individuals in CY 2012 (18). 

The agency issued one escalated enforcement action to a nonlicensee organization in 

CY 2013. Appendix E summarizes this action. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

23 

F. Enforcement Action Involving Discrimination 

In CY 2013, one case involving an allegation of discrimination was resolved using postinvestigation ADR. Between CY 2009 and CY 2013, the NRC has handled, on average, one 

substantiated discrimination case each year, and this past year was consistent with that 

trend. On September 16, 2013, the NRC issued a CO to Chicago Bridge and Iron, 

Company (CB&I) to formalize the commitments made as a result of the ADR mediation 

session held on June 11, 2013, between CB&I and the NRC. The CO arose out of an 

apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7, “Employee Protection,” in which the NRC had reached a 

preliminary conclusion that an employee at CB&I was terminated because he had raised a 

concern about a possible 10 CFR Part 21 issue. A more detailed discussion of this case is 

located in on page 19 and in Appendix E. 

G. Use of Judgment and Discretion in Determining Appropriate 

Enforcement Sanctions 

The NRC may choose to exercise discretion and either escalate or mitigate enforcement 

sanctions or otherwise refrain from taking enforcement action within its statutory authority. 

The exercise of discretion allows the NRC to determine actions that are appropriate for a 

particular case, consistent with the Enforcement Policy. After considering the general tenets 

of the Policy and the safety and security significance of a violation and its surrounding 

circumstances, the NRC may exercise judgment and discretion in determining the severity 

levels of violations and the appropriate enforcement sanctions. 

In CY 2013, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in 26 cases to address violations of 

NRC requirements. This number reflects a 45 percent decrease in the number of cases in 

which discretion was used from CY 2012 (47 cases) and a 24 percent decrease from 

CY 2011 (34 cases). This decrease is caused, in large part, by a corresponding decrease in 

the use of discretion in accordance with EGM-09-004 to disposition violations of the 

Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM) requirements. 

Below is a discussion of the significant cases dispositioned using enforcement discretion in 

CY 2013. 

1. Discretion Involving Enforcement Guidance 

In 18 cases, the NRC used discretion in accordance with either the Interim 

Enforcement Policies related to fire protection and permanent implant brachytherapy 

issues (Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of the Policy) or an enforcement guide memorandum 

(EGM). 

• The NRC dispositioned six violations using discretion in accordance with 

EGM-11-004, “Interim Guidance for Dispositioning Violations of Security 

Requirements for Portable Gauges,” dated April 28, 2011. Enforcement 

discretion in the form of a reduced severity level may be exercised for violations 

of 10 CFR 30.34(i) if certain criteria are met as described in EGM-11-004. 

• The agency dispositioned five violations using discretion in accordance with 

EGM-09-004, “Interim Guidance for Dispositioning Violations of Naturally 

Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM) 

Requirements,” dated May 13, 2009. Enforcement discretion may be exercised 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

24

for violations of the NARM requirements if certain criteria are met as described in 

the EGM. The five cases that used this guidance represented a sharp decline 

over CY 2012 when the staff used this guidance to disposition 17 cases. 

• The NRC continued to perform fire protection inspections at power reactor sites 

to verify compliance with requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, “Fire 

Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 

1979.” Violations of these requirements that were identified at sites transitioning 

to the National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA 805) and met 

the criteria as stated in the Interim Enforcement Policy, “Enforcement Discretion 

for Certain Fire Protection Issues (10 CFR 50.48)” warranted enforcement 

discretion and notices of violation were not issued. Three cases involved this 

type of discretion. 

• In April 2013, the staff issued EGM-13-003, “Interim Guidance for Dispositioning 

Violations Involving 10 CFR 35.60 and 10 CFR 35.63 for the Calibration of 

Instrumentation to Measure the Activity of Rubidium-82 and the Determination of 

Rubidium-82 Patient Dosages.” The agency dispositioned two cases that met 

the criteria under this new guidance. 

• The NRC dispositioned one violation using discretion in accordance with 

EGM-11-003, “Dispositioning Boiling Water Reactor Licensee Non-Compliance 

with Technical Specification Containment Requirements During Operations with 

a Potential for Draining the Reactor Vessel,” dated October 4, 2011. 

Enforcement discretion may be exercised for violations of certain technical 

specification requirements at boiling water reactors if certain criteria are met as 

described in EGM-11-003. 

• In July 2013, the staff issued a new Interim Enforcement Policy, Section 9.2, 

“Enforcement Discretion for Permanent Implant Brachytherapy Medical Event 

Reporting (10 CFR 35.3045).” This section set forth criteria in which 

enforcement discretion may be used in certain medical event reporting scenarios. 

One documented case involved use of this type of discretion. 

 

2. Discretion Involving Special Circumstances 

Six cases involved use of discretion to disposition violations in accordance with 

Section 3.5 of the Enforcement Policy, “Special Circumstances.” In four of the six 

cases, the staff determined that the Enforcement Policy would lead to categorizing the 

violation at SL IV; however, based on Section 3.5 of the Policy, the NRC determined 

that it was appropriate to refrain from issuing an NOV. Below is a brief discussion of 

the cases dispositioned in CY 2013. 

• A violation of a material licensee’s license, normally categorized at SL IV, was 

dispositioned using enforcement discretion in accordance with Section 3.5 of the 

Enforcement Policy. At a government facility located in New Cumberland, 

Pennsylvania, the materials licensee was found to be not in compliance with 

certain conditions of its license. Specifically, the licensee did not perform an 

annual physical inventory that accounted for all sources and/or devices received 

and possessed under its license. As a result, the methodology to perform the 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

25 

annual physical inventory to ensure material accountability was not adequate to 

account for all material received and possessed under its license. However, the 

NRC exercised discretion under Section 3.5 of the Policy because the licensee 

believed its annual inventory method was acceptable given that the methodology 

had been reviewed and approved by the NRC during the licensing process in 

2008 and previous NRC inspections that included review of the inventory process 

did not identify any issues. 

• The NRC concluded that the merits of three cases warranted disposition of 

violations in accordance with Section 3.5 of the Enforcement Policy because of 

inadequate guidance or lack of clear guidance. One of the three violations 

involved the failure to control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed 

material that was in a controlled or unrestricted area and was not in storage, as 

required by 10 CFR 20.1802. Two violations involved the failure to perform and 

document an adequate evaluation of changes at a fuel facility, and the failure to 

submit annual updates at a fuel facility under construction, as required by 

10 CFR 70.72. 

• Two violations, one normally categorized at SL III, were also dispositioned to not 

issue a violation using enforcement discretion in accordance with Section 3.5 of 

the Enforcement Policy. Further details are not provided because of the securityrelated nature of the violations. 

3. Discretion Involving Violations Identified Because of Previous 

Enforcement Actions 

The staff exercised enforcement discretion, in accordance with Section 3.3 of the 

Enforcement Policy, if the violation was identified by the licensee as part of the 

corrective action for a previous enforcement action and the violation has the same or 

similar root cause as the violation for which enforcement action was previously taken. 

In CY 2013, one violation of the NRC’s import and export license requirements, 

normally categorized at SL III, was dispositioned in accordance with Section 3.3 of the 

Policy. Specifically, the case involved the export of byproduct material to an 

embargoed destination without a specific NRC license. The staff exercised 

enforcement discretion to not issue an NOV because the unauthorized shipment was 

identified by the licensee as a result of the self-audit performed in response to a 

previous enforcement action. 

4. Notices of Enforcement Discretion 

Occasionally, circumstances might arise in which a power reactor licensee’s 

compliance with a technical specification or other license condition would require a 

plant transient or performance testing, inspection, or other system realignment that is 

of greater risk than the current specific plant conditions. In these circumstances, the 

NRC staff may choose not to enforce the applicable requirements. The staff exercises 

this enforcement discretion, designated as a notice of enforcement discretion (NOED) 

in accordance with Section 3.8 of the Enforcement Policy, only if it is clearly satisfied 

that the action is consistent with protecting the public health and safety. The staff may 

also issue NOEDs in cases involving severe weather or other natural phenomena 

when it determines that exercising this discretion will not compromise safety. NOEDs 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

26

require justification from a licensee or certificate holder that documents the safety 

basis for the request and provides whatever other information the staff deems 

necessary to issue an NOED. The NRC issued four NOEDs in CY 2013; one request 

was denied. 

• NOED 13-04-001: The NRC verbally granted enforcement discretion on January 

10, 2013, to the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) to not 

enforce compliance with the actions required in Wolf Creek’s TS 3.8.1, “AC 

Sources - Operating,” Required Action B.4.1. On January 8, 2013, emergency 

diesel generator (EDG) B was removed from service for planned maintenance. 

On January 9, 2013, maintenance personnel contacted one of the eight cylinder 

head studs and identified that the head stud was broken. Enforcement discretion 

was sought to permit additional time to complete repairs and restoration of EDG 

B before a plant shutdown was required. WCNOC requested an additional 96 

hours to restore EDG B such that the completion time of Required Action B.4.1 

would expire at 5:00 a.m. on January 15, 2013. Based on its review of 

information provided by the licensee, the NRC exercised discretion to not enforce 

compliance with TS 3.8.1, Required Action B.4.1, for an additional period of 96 

hours. 

• NOED 13-2-001: The NRC granted enforcement discretion on April 17, 2013, to 

the Carolina Power and Light Company to not enforce compliance with the 

actions required in Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Unit No. 1, required 

actions of TS 3.7.3, "Control Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System;" TS 

3.8.1, "AC Sources – Operating;" TS 3.8.4, "DC Sources – Operating;" and TS 

3.8.7, "Distribution Systems – Operating." On April 11, 2013, a degraded 

condition was identified on the E8 power transformer during preventive 

maintenance. A visual inspection of the transformer core indicated that the 

transformer may have been overheated, and a decision was made to replace the 

transformer. At that time, the necessary replacement parts were available onsite 

and the established work schedule would have allow the work to be completed 

before the applicable TS LCO action statements would expire. However, late on 

April 14, 2013, additional associated work and testing activities were recognized 

that extended the work completion time beyond that allowed by the TS. Based 

on its review of information provided by the licensee, the NRC exercised 

discretion to not enforce compliance with the TSs. 

• NOED 13-4-002 – The NRC verbally granted enforcement discretion to WCNOC 

on June 17, 2013, to not enforce compliance with Wolf Creek Technical 

Specification LCO 3.0.3, and the Required Actions associated with TS 3.8.4, “DC 

Sources – Operating,” TS 3.8.7, “Inverters – Operating,” and TS 3.8.9, 

“Distribution Systems – Operating.” The licensee requested enforcement 

discretion after it had declared the Train A Class 1E electrical equipment air 

conditioning unit nonfunctional when it determined that the unit was not capable 

of performing its specified function important to safety for its full mission time. 

WCNOC’s determination was based, in part, on oil samples that showed 

aluminum particles indicative of abnormal wear, as well as elevated running 

current and vibration levels. Based on its review of information provided by the 

licensee, the NRC exercised discretion to not enforce compliance with TSs 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

27 

impacted by the loss of the air conditioning unit for a total period of 168 hours 

that expired on June 24, 2013. 

• NOED 13-4-003 – On October 18, 2013, the NRC denied another request made 

by the WCNOC to exercise enforcement discretion at its Wolf Creek facility. The 

licensee requested enforcement discretion after it had discovered that the Train 

A Class 1E electrical equipment air conditioning unit was nonfunctional and not 

capable of performing its specified function for the full mission time. The unit was 

tripping on a low lube oil pressure signal from a faulty pressure sensor. The 

NRC denied the request after it was unable to reconcile differences between the 

NRC staff’s risk assessment and the risk assessment presented by the licensee. 

In particular, the staff’s assessment indicated that without crediting a reduction in 

risk from the proposed compensatory measures, the value for the incremental 

change in core damage frequency would exceed the threshold discussed in 

Inspection Manual Chapter 0410 (5E-7). 

• NOED 13-4-004 – The NRC verbally granted enforcement discretion to Luminant 

Generation Company LLC on December 5, 2013, to not enforce compliance with 

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) Technical Specification 3.8.1, 

Condition C, Required Action C.2. On December 4, 2013, the licensee 

experienced a loss of safeguards electrical power that occurred during planned 

modification work to install an additional 138 kV transformer (XST1A). Power 

was lost to the 345 kV transformer (XST2) which at the time was providing power 

to the 6.9 kV safeguards buses for both CPNPP Units 1 and 2. The licensee 

determined that the loss of offsite power to the safeguards buses was caused 

during the modification work when workers inadvertently cut into an energized 

6.9 kV cable for transformer XST2, rather than an intended de-energized cable 

for transformer XST1. CPNPP Units 1 and 2 entered Technical Specification 

3.8.1, Condition C, Required Action C.2, to restore one required offsite circuit to 

operable status within 24 hours, or face the shutdown of both units. Luminant 

sought enforcement discretion to permit additional time to make repairs and 

restore transformers XST1 or XST2 to operable status. Based on its review of 

information provided by the licensee, the NRC exercised discretion to not enforce 

compliance with TSs for an additional period of 14 hours, which expired on 

December 6, 2013. 

H. Withdrawn Actions 

Licensees can challenge enforcement actions for several reasons; for example, a 

licensee might dispute the requirements, the facts of the case, the agency’s 

application of the Enforcement Policy, or the significance of the violation. Licensees 

may provide clarifying information that was not available at the time of the inspection, 

and this may affect a finding of noncompliance. 

In addition, OE has established a metric for quality of enforcement actions based on 

the number of disputed and withdrawn nonescalated enforcement actions. The goal is 

fewer than 4 withdrawn nonescalated enforcement actions in a calendar year per 

region. This metric does not include violations that are withdrawn on the basis of 

supplemental information that was not available to an inspector before the assessment 

of an enforcement sanction. In CY 2013, the agency issued approximately 900 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

28

nonescalated enforcement actions to reactor, materials, and fuel facility licensees. 

This number is generally consistent with the number of nonescalated enforcement 

actions issued annually in the past 2 years. Of these actions, 11 nonescalated 

enforcement actions were disputed. While this number is slightly higher than the nine 

disputed actions submitted in CY 2012, it is consistent with the average number of 

actions that have been disputed between CYs 2009 and 2013. In CY 2013, the NRC 

withdrew only one nonescalated action. The action was not disputed by the licensee, 

but was withdrawn by the NRC after it had received additional information that was not 

available to the staff before issuance of the original action. The single withdrawn 

action is a decrease from the three nonescalated enforcement actions withdrawn in 

CY 2012. As a result, the goal for disputed violations was met in CY 2013 indicating 

that NOVs and other nonescalated enforcement actions were prepared properly and 

accurately. 

In CY 2013, the agency issued 75 escalated enforcement actions to reactors, 

materials, and fuel facility licensees, of which none were formally disputed. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

29 

III. Ongoing Activities 

A. Enforcement Policy 

1. Enforcement Policy Revisions 

The NRC Enforcement Policy is periodically revised to reflect regulatory changes, 

experience, and stakeholder input. In Staff Requirements Memorandum SRM-SECY09-0190, ‘‘Revisions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enforcement Policy,’’ 

dated December 30, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093200520), which approved 

the Policy that became effective on September 30, 2010 (75 FR 60485), the 

Commission directed the staff to evaluate specific topics for inclusion in a future policy 

revision. The topics included guidance for (1) determining when daily civil penalties 

are appropriate; (2) providing credit to fuel cycle licensees with effective corrective 

action programs; and (3) reevaluating the Policy related to construction activities, 

including cases for which discretion may be appropriate. 

January 28, 2013 Revision 

On January 28, 2013, the staff issued a revision to the Policy to: (1) incorporate 

changes directed by the Commission in SRM-SECY-09-0190; (2) make other changes 

proposed and approved by the Commission; and (3) make minor edits. Specifically, 

the changes, following an opportunity for public comment, included: 

• A revision to Section 2.3.2, “Non-Cited Violation,” to allow all licensees with an 

NRC-approved corrective action program (CAP) to have SL IV violations treated 

as noncited violations (NCVs), regardless of who identified the violation, if certain 

other criteria are met. Before the revision, this CAP credit was only available to 

power reactor licensees, and this revision gives fuel cycle licensees (and all other 

licensees or nonlicensees) the same credit for an NRC-approved CAP. 

• Revisions to Section 2.3.2.b, “All Other Licensees,” to permit nonlicensees to be 

issued NCVs when they meet the NCV criteria stated in Section 2.3.2.b. 

• Changes to Section 2.3.4, “Civil Penalty,” to allow the civil penalty assessment 

process to be more consistent with the NRC’s policy on lost radioactive sources. 

• The addition of new Sections 2.3.11, “Inaccurate and Incomplete Information, 

and 2.3.12, “Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance.” 

• Clarifications to Section 2.3.5, “Orders;” Section 2.4.1, “Predecisional 

Enforcement Conference;” Section 2.4.3, “Alternative Dispute Resolution;” and 

Section 4.0, “Enforcement Actions Involving Individuals.” 

• Revisions to Section 6.0, “Violation Examples,” by adding several new violation 

examples and revising several previous examples. 

The January 28, 2013, revision to the Enforcement Policy is available on the NRC’s 

public Web site and in ADAMS as Accession No. ML12340A295. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

30

July 9, 2013 Revision 

The Policy was most recently revised on July 9, 2013, to add Interim Enforcement 

Policy (IEP) Section 9.2, “Enforcement Discretion for Permanent Implant 

Brachytherapy Medical Event Reporting (10 CFR 35.3045).” The IEP set forth a new 

interim policy that allows the staff to exercise enforcement discretion for certain 

violations of 10 CFR 35.3045. Enforcement discretion will typically be exercised for 

reporting violations in the following scenarios, subject to other specified criteria when 

the authorized treatment mode is permanent implant brachytherapy: (1) the licensee 

uses total source strength and exposure time for evaluating the existence of a 

treatment site medical event; or (2) the total absorbed dose to the treatment site 

equals or exceeds 120 percent of the prescribed dose. The IEP does not provide 

regulatory relief from complying with any other aspect of 10 CFR 35.41 or 35.3045, 

including the requirements related to the evaluation of dose to normal tissue. 

The July 9, 2013, revision to the Enforcement Policy is available on the NRC’s public 

Web site and in ADAMS as Accession No. ML13228A199.

2. Future Enforcement Policy Revision Activities 

On March 21, 2011, SRM – SECY-10-0140, “Options for Revising the Construction 

Reactor Oversight Process (cROP) Assessment Program,” (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML110800557) directed the staff to develop a construction assessment program for 

nuclear power plants that includes: (1) a regulatory framework; (2) the use of a 

construction significance determination process to determine the significance of 

findings identified during the construction inspection program; and, (3) the use of a 

construction action matrix to determine the appropriate NRC response to findings. On 

January 1, 2012, the staff initiated a 12-month pilot program for the new cROP. EGM11-006, “Enforcement Actions Related to the Construction Reactor Oversight 

Process,” dated December 21, 2011, provided enforcement guidance for use during 

the cROP pilot program. The cROP was fully implemented in July 2013, and the 

guidance provided in the EGM will remain in effect until the staff issues a subsequent 

revision to the Enforcement Policy. 

3. Enforcement Guidance Memoranda 

OE issues EGMs to provide guidance on the interpretation of specific provisions of the 

Enforcement Policy. Links to the full text of all publicly available EGMs is available on 

the NRC’s public Web site, and are contained in Appendix A to the NRC Enforcement 

Manual. The office issued three EGMs and revised one existing EGM in CY 2013, and 

these are summarized below. 

• February 25, 2013, EGM 13-001, “Pilot Program – Post-Investigation Alternative 

Dispute Resolution Expansion.” The purpose of this EGM is to provide guidance 

regarding the expansion of the scope of use of post-investigation alternative 

dispute resolution (ADR) for a 1-year pilot period. The pilot program expanded 

the scope of post-investigation ADR to include all escalated non-willful 

(traditional) enforcement cases with proposed civil penalties. The pilot program 

did not include violations associated with findings assessed under the ROP. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

31 

• April 3, 2013, EGM 13-002, “Enforcement Discretion Not To Cite Violations 

Involving the Use of the New American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 

Certification Marks Instead of ASME Code Symbol Stamps, while Rulemaking 

Changes are Being Developed.” This EGM grants enforcement discretion for the 

use of ASME Certification Marks in instances in which ASME Code Symbol 

Stamps are required by Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

Code. 

• April 18, 2013, EGM 13-003, “Interim Guidance for Dispositioning Violations 

Involving 10 CFR 35.60 and 10 CFR 35.63 for the Calibration of Instrumentation 

to Measure the Activity of Rubidium-82 and the Determination of Rubidium-82 

Patient Dosages.” This EGM provides guidance for dispositioning inspection 

findings related to a licensee’s implementation of calibration requirements for 

rubidium-82 (Rb-82) activity measurement systems in accordance with 10 CFR 

35.60; and the requirement to determine the Rb-82 dosage before medical use in 

accordance with 10 CFR 35.63. 

• December 13, 2013, Revision 2 to EGM 11-003, "Dispositioning Boiling Water 

Reactor Licensee Non-Compliance with Technical Specification Containment 

Requirements During Operations with a Potential for Draining the Reactor 

Vessel.” This EGM provides guidance on how to disposition boiling water reactor 

licensee noncompliance with TS containment requirements during operations 

with a potential for draining the reactor vessel. Revision 2 extended the time 

period of enforcement discretion to December 31, 2015, to permit refueling 

outage planning while the NRC staff and the Boiling Water Reactor Owners 

Group finalize a generic solution for TS changes. 

B. Knowledge Management and Improvement Initiatives 

In CY 2013, OE engaged in several knowledge-management and continuous improvement 

activities. Some of the ongoing activities being conducted to maintain an adequate 

knowledge base included supporting training, completing reviews and self assessments, 

developing internal office procedures, mentoring new staff members with more experienced 

staff, and conducting counterpart meetings. 

Enforcement Counterpart Meetings 

The regional and headquarters enforcement staff held a counterpart meeting from 

September 10 – 12, 2013, to discuss ways to improve the enforcement process and 

enhance communications among staff. The meeting resulted in a number of action items to 

improve the enforcement program. Examples included: (1) review the process for profiling 

enforcement documents in ADAMS; (2) consider developing additional tools (e.g., iLearn 

training) to conduct enforcement refresher training; (3) develop an OE office procedure on 

timeliness; (4) develop program office-specific guidance for the Enforcement Manual; 

(5) review/improve Enforcement Manual guidance on Factual Summaries; (6) initiate 

discussions on the 2-year licensee performance lookback and whether or not escalated 

ROP-related violations are considered in the civil penalty assessment process; (7) expand 

the use of the new electronic Enforcement Action Worksheet (EAW) and consider whether 

only one form should be used; and (8) consider additional guidance on the topic of 

“materiality” for the Enforcement Manual. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

32

Reviews and Self Assessments 

In CY 2013, OE completed one regional enforcement assessment. OE typically performs 

two assessments each year; however, only one assessment was conducted to meet the 

budgetary guidelines implemented in fiscal year 2013. 

In May 2013, an assessment was completed in Region II that was performed by a team of 

enforcement specialists from OE and Region III. The primary focus of the assessment, 

which was requested by Region II management, was to ensure that the enforcement 

program in the new construction inspection area is being consistently implemented in the 

region. The assessments also provided the opportunity to share “best practices” between 

the regions and to enhance knowledge management for the enforcement process. The 

assessments involved the review of nonescalated enforcement actions and processes, 

which do not normally involve headquarters. The team concluded that Region II maintains a 

strong regional enforcement program and is effectively implementing the NRC Enforcement 

Policy through an effective collaboration among inspectors, enforcement and allegation 

coordination staff, and regional and division management. The team also identified 

opportunities to heighten training and the transfer of knowledge to the regional construction 

inspection staff. 

A review of the assessment program will be conducted in CY 2014 and program 

modifications, if necessary, will be incorporated during future assessments. 

Continuous Improvement Initiatives 

The Enforcement Manual was reformatted and revised during the year to improve the 

efficiency of future revisions, supporting increased ease of providing additional guidance. 

Additional updates, including review and revisions of over 60 boilerplate documents, were 

included in the revision. 

OE continues to improve the internal procedures used to execute various aspects of the 

enforcement program. During CY2013, at least six internal procedures were developed, 

reviewed and implemented, supporting both knowledge management goals and improving 

the enforcement staff’s effectiveness and efficiency. 

Other activities included significantly improving the search capability of the escalated 

enforcement database to aid in consistency and precedence reviews and the development 

of additional guidance and boilerplates to support a variety of program areas such as 

import/export reporting requirements, improved guidance on the use of confirmatory action 

letters, and additional information on the agency’s use of orders. 

Training

Headquarters and regional enforcement staff conducted training for the Region II 

construction staff in August 2013 as a followup to the program assessment performed in 

May 2013. The training focused on the documentation of nonescalated enforcement actions 

and staff members from headquarters and the region also shared other “best practices” at 

the training sessions. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

33 

C. Regional Accomplishments 

In CY 2013, the regions conducted both routine and focused self assessments of the 

enforcement area to ensure effective performance and to identify opportunities for 

continuous improvement. The self-assessments encompassed both the reactor and 

materials arenas; considered performance associated with development and issuance of 

both nonescalated and escalated enforcement actions; and included activities that required 

a high degree of coordination with other NRC stakeholders. 

Overall, the self-assessments showed that the regions were effectively implementing the 

Enforcement Program. Recommendations were made for any weaknesses identified. 

In addition to assessments, the enforcement staff (1) trained regional technical staff, in part, 

on the revised Enforcement Policy, recent EGMs, and proper enforcement documentation 

requirements for inspectors and (2) participated on inspector qualification review boards as 

necessary. 

D. Calendar Year 2014 Focus Areas 

During CY2014, OE plans to address several activity areas that include: (1) a potential 

revision to the Enforcement Policy, (2) the development of interim enforcement policies and 

implementation guidance, (3) enhancing the understanding of regional differences with 

respect to enforcement (particularly in the area of non-escalated enforcement), and 

(4) continued development of enforcement staff expertise are all planned. 

• A proposed revision to the Enforcement Policy is being considered, which would likely 

include specific topical areas with a few changes to support additional clarity. Topical 

areas being considered include: clarification of whether significance determination 

process (SDP) findings from the reactor oversight process should be included in 

licensee performance history when a traditional enforcement action is being processed 

for a potential civil penalty; revision to different areas of violation examples to clarify 

and reflect staff experience in specific areas; and incorporation of an expanded scope 

for the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program, namely, not restricting the 

program to wrongdoing cases but allowing a case with a civil penalty to be considered 

for ADR. 

• Several interim enforcement policies and enforcement guidance memoranda will be 

considered in CY 2014. The relatively large amount of activity in this area will be a 

challenge with regard to resources, particularly when considered in conjunction with 

continued priority support for case work. In addition, action items identified during the 

2013 Enforcement Counterpart Meeting will be addressed during CY 2014. 

• OE will support the agency effort to understand the differences between the regions 

regarding the number of non-escalated enforcement actions (which are primarily SDP 

Green NCVs). While OE is not normally involved in individual, non-escalated 

enforcement actions, and the majority of the issues result from the SDP criteria, as an 

enforcement program issue, OE continues to support the Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation in determining the cause and whether any agency action is appropriate. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

34

• Although the average experience level of the enforcement staff is increasing, 

additional development opportunities will be utilized when possible. Continued 

turnover, particularly in the regional enforcement staff recently, has reduced the level 

of expertise available to support the inspection staff throughout the agency. The 

hiring, training, and development of internal procedures needs to continue to reduce 

reliance on a very limited number of individuals. 

 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

35 

Table 3 – Escalated Enforcement Actions by Region and Program Office

Region/Office 

NOVs w/o Civil 

Penalties 

Orders w/o Civil 

Penalties 

NOVs and Orders 

w/ Civil Penalties Total 

REGION I 9 1 1 11 

REGION II 13 1 1 15 

REGION III 23 3 6 32 

REGION IV 6 0 1 7 

NRR 2 4 0 6 

OE 0 1 2 3 

NSIR 1 0 0 1 

FSME 0 0 0 0 

NMSS 0 0 0 0 

NRO 0 0 0 0 

OIP 0 0 0 0 

Total 54 10 11 75 

Key to Offices

• NRO – Office of New Reactors 

• NSIR – Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

• FSME – Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

• NMSS – Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

• OIP – Office of International Programs 

 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

36

Table 4 – Escalated Enforcement Actions by Type of Licensee, 

Nonlicensee, or Individual 

NOVs w/o 

Civil Penalties 

Orders w/o 

Civil Penalties 

NOVs and 

Orders w/ 

Civil Penalties Total 

Operating Reactor 24 5 1 30 

Hospital 8 0 0 8 

Gauge 5 0 0 5 

Radiographer 2 0 3 5 

Academic 3 0 1 4 

Physician (M) 0 0 3 3 

Fuel Facility 3 0 0 3 

Irradiator 2 0 0 2 

Vendor - New Reactors 0 1 2 3 

Materials Distributor 2 0 0 2 

Licensed Operator 0 2 0 2 

Research Reactor 1 1 0 2 

Individual Actor - Reactors 1 0 0 1 

Individual Actor - Materials 0 1 0 1 

Waste Disposal 1 0 0 1 

New Construction - Reactor 0 0 1 1 

Well Logger 1 0 0 1 

Other 1 0 0 1 

Grand Total 54 10 11 75 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

A1 

Appendix A – Summary of Cases Involving Civil Penalties*

Civil Penalties Issued To Reactor Licensees

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. EA-12-266 

Kewaunee Power Station 

On April 30, 2013, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a notice of 

violation to Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (licensee) for a SL III problem with a proposed 

civil penalty of $70,000, and a White Significance Determination Process (SDP) finding for 

an associated performance deficiency. The violations were based on the licensee’s failure 

to follow License Condition 2.C.(3), “Fire Protection” and Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.9(a), “Completeness and accuracy of information.” 

Specifically, from at least August 19, 2009 to December 20, 2011, a Kewaunee fire brigade 

trainer willfully failed to conduct announced fire drills in accordance with the Kewaunee 

license condition and implementing procedure and falsified fire drill evaluation or critique 

forms. 

Tennessee Valley Authority EA-13-019 

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 

On June 18, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation and proposed civil penalty in the 

amount of $70,000 to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for a SL III problem involving 

three violations of NRC requirements relating to the commercial grade dedication program at 

the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (WB2). Specifically, TVA failed to: (1) verify the proper 

critical characteristics for certain safety-related items procured for the WB2 project starting 

with the resumption of construction activities in 2008 as a result of a breakdown in its quality 

assurance (QA) program; under Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,” to 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities”; (2) report the breakdown in its QA program to the NRC 

as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e)(4) and (e)(5); and (3) follow plant procedures and identify a 

significant condition adverse to quality and, thus, reevaluate corrective action categorization 

when the QA program breakdown was found to be more significant than originally reported. 

Civil Penalties Issued To Material Licensees

Jackson Cardiology Associates, P.C. EA-13-134 

Jackson, Michigan 

On October 30, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation and proposed imposition of civil 

penalty in the amount of $3,500 to Jackson Cardiology Associates, P.C., for a SL III problem 

involving two violations. The first violation involved the failure to supply and require the use 

of individual monitoring devices by adults likely to receive a dose in excess of 10 percent of 

the limits in 10 CFR 20.1201(a) as required by 10 CFR 20.1502(a)(1). The second violation 

involved the failure to ensure that information provided to the NRC was complete and 

 

* Please note that cases involving security-related issues are not included 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

A2

accurate in all material respects as required by 10 CFR 30.9. Specifically, on August 20, 

2012, a nuclear medicine technologist informed an NRC inspector that dosimetry had been 

left at home although it had been misplaced at the end of June 2012. The technologist 

neglected to inform the inspector that payments had not made to the vendor to continue the 

dosimetry contract nor were the services of a replacement vendor obtained. 

Centro de Medicina Nuclear EA-13-059 

Santurce, Puerto Rico 

On November 5, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation and proposed imposition of civil 

penalty in the amount of $7,000 to Centro de Medicina Nuclear (CDM) for a SL III violation 

involving CDM's failure to comply with an Order issued on August 7, 2012, after CDM failed 

to pay the NRC licensing fee. Specifically, as of November 5, 2013, CDM (1) had not 

submitted an answer to the Order, (2) paid the license fee, or (3) submitted the required 

written report regarding the amount, condition, and status of its licensed material by 

August 27, 2012; or begun decommissioning its site by October 26, 2012. 

Southwest X-Ray Corp. EA-13-164 

Glenrock, Wyoming 

On November 12, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation and proposed imposition of 

civil penalty in the amount of $7,000 to Southwest X-Ray Corporation for a SL III problem 

involving the failure to implement both 10 CFR 34.41(a), requiring the radiographer to be 

accompanied by a qualified radiographer when not conducting radiography at a permanent 

radiographic installation, and 34.46(c), requiring a radiographer to personally supervise a 

radiographer’s assistant who is using radiographic exposure devices. Specifically, on July 

8, 2013, the radiographer was in the office area of the facility and did not observe the 

assistant performing radiographic operations. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B1 

Appendix B – Summary of Escalated Notices of Violation without 

Civil Penalties*

Notices of Violation Issued to Power Reactor Licensees

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. EA-11-260 

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 

On July 17, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

(Entergy) for a SL III problem involving two violations of NRC requirements associated with 

licensed reactor operator medical examinations and reporting at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power 

Station (PNPS). The first violation involved Entergy's failure to ensure that licensed 

operators at PNPS met medical prerequisites for performing NRC-licensed operator 

activities and Entergy's failure to obtain prior NRC approval, as required by 10 CFR 55.3, 

10 CFR 55.31 and 10 CFR 55.23. Specifically, on various dates, licensed reactor operators 

performed duties without meeting medical prerequisites (blood pressure limits and stamina 

tests) and without prior NRC approval. The second violation involved Entergy's non-willful 

failure to provide the NRC with information that is complete and accurate in all material 

respects, as required by 10 CFR 50.9. Specifically, Entergy submitted NRC Form-396s for 

renewal of two reactor operator licenses that certified that the operators met the medical 

requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Nuclear Society 

(ANS) 3.4-1983, when, in fact, the facility licensee had not verified, by conducting a stamina 

test, that the operators had met the requirements. 

Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPL) Susquehanna, LLC EA-12-216 

Susquehanna 

On August 28, 2013, a notice of violation was issued to Pennsylvania Power and Light 

(PPL) Susquehanna, LLC for a SL III problem for several issues with PPL’s process for 

conducting biennial medical exams for licensed reactor operators (ROs) and reporting 

changes in RO medical conditions. Between August 2007 and June 2012, eight ROs 

performed licensed duties when they had permanent disabilities or illnesses that caused 

them to not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.33, “Disposition of an initial application.” 

PPL also provided information to the NRC that was not complete and accurate when it 

submitted an initial RO application and three NRC licensed operator renewal applications. 

This was determined to be a non-willful violation of 10 CFR 50.9, “Completeness and 

accuracy of information.” 

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC EA-12-220 

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 

On January 2, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to NextEra Energy Point Beach, 

LLC for a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, “Instructions, Procedures, 

and Drawings.” This violation was associated with a White SDP finding involving the failure 

of Point Beach personnel to prescribe maintenance on the safety-related turbine driven 

auxiliary feedwater (TDAFW) pump, an activity affecting quality, by documented instructions 

 

* Please note that cases involving security-related issues are not included
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B2

of a type appropriate to the circumstances. Specifically, a work order used to perform 

maintenance on the TDAFW pump specified a first time evolution of unbolting the steam 

exhaust piping to the turbine, aligning the turbine to the pump, and then re-bolting the steam 

piping to the turbine. The documented instructions were not appropriate to the 

circumstances in that they did not ensure that the final turbine-to-pump alignment was 

performed after the bolting of the steam exhaust piping to the turbine flange. This led to the 

failure of the turbine-to-pump coupling on May 21, 2012. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. EA-12-240 

Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 

On March 4, 2013, a notice of violation was issued to Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Inc. for a SL III problem for the failure to implement: (1) 10 CFR 50.48, “Fire 

Protection,” and (2) 10 CFR 50.9(a), “Completeness and Accuracy of Information.” Between 

September and December 2011, four contract employees willfully failed to complete fire 

watch rounds required to ensure that Farley remained in compliance with 10 CFR 50.48. In 

addition, these same employees falsified fire watch logs by annotating that hourly fire 

watches were completed when in fact they had not been performed. These actions were 

identified by the licensee and caused Farley to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR 

50.9(a). 

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. EA-12-272 

Kewaunee Power Station 

On April 4, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Dominion Energy, Kewaunee, Inc. 

for a violation of 10 CFR 50.54, “Conditions of Licenses,” and risk significant planning 

standards 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and (b)(8) associated with a White SDP finding, which 

involved the loss of the Auxiliary and Reactor Building system particulate iodine and noble 

gas (SPING) indication. Specifically, from February 28, 2011, to March 30, 2011, SPING 

indication on the plant process computer system (PPCS) and local server station was 

inoperable, which rendered emergency action levels ineffective. Kewaunee neither identified 

nor took timely corrective action to repair failed equipment necessary to support the 

emergency preparedness program. 

Northern States Power Company EA-12-273 

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 

On March 26, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Northern States Power 

Company, Minnesota for a violation of 10 CFR 50.54, “Conditions of Licenses,” and risk 

significant planning standards 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and (b)(8) associated with a White SDP 

finding. The finding involved the failure to recognize that the shield building high range vent 

gas radiation detector at Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (Prairie Island) was a 

single piece of equipment necessary for emergency preparedness action levels and failure 

to recognize its importance to the emergency preparedness program. Specifically, from July 

24, 2011, to May 18, 2012, the high range detector was inoperable, which degraded Prairie 

Island’s ability on Unit 1 to classify and declare general emergencies or site area 

emergencies. Prairie Island did not take timely corrective actions to restore the monitor. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B3 

Entergy Operations, Inc. EA-12-275 

Arkansas Nuclear One 

On June 10, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Entergy Operations, Inc. 

(Entergy) for a SL III violation of NRC Regulations. Between December 14, 2010 and 

January 11, 2012, the licensee failed to maintain information required by the Commission's 

regulations as complete and accurate in all material respects. Specifically, a senior 

emergency planner formerly employed by Arkansas Nuclear One, deliberately falsified 

documents regarding the performance of Emergency Preparedness drills and 

communication surveillances. The senior emergency planner documented that the drills and 

surveillances were completed when they had not actually been performed. These actions 

were identified by the licensee and caused Arkansas Nuclear One to be in violation of 

10 CFR 50.9(a), which requires, in part, that information provided to the Commission by the 

licensee, or information required by the Commission's regulations to be maintained by a 

licensee, shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC EA-13-010 

Oconee Nuclear Station 

On July 1, 2013, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order (CO) and a notice of violation (NOV) 

for a SL III violation to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke). These actions are based on 

Duke's failure to comply with a license condition associated with the amendment to 

complete their transition to the National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 for its 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Duke received the NOV for not incorporating the 

protected service water (PSW) modification into its fire protection program site documents 

and confirming the risk reduction from the modification prior to January 1, 2013, as called for 

in its transition license condition. A CO was issued to provide a heightened regulatory 

accountability for the completion of the PSW system, and interim milestones associated with 

this modification. 

Tennessee Valley Authority EA-13-018 

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 

On June 4, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation associated with a Yellow SDP finding, 

a White SDP finding, and a SL III violation to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The 

Yellow finding, a violation of TS 5.7.1, “Procedures,” was issued for the failure of Watts Bar 

personnel to maintain an adequate procedure to implement its flood mitigation strategy 

within 27 hours as described in Watts Bar's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report from initial 

licensing to July 2012. The White finding, a violation of TS 5.7.1, “Procedures,” was issued 

for the failure of Watts Bar personnel to establish and maintain an adequate procedure to 

implement its flood mitigation strategy prior to September 30, 2009, such that earthen dams 

located upstream of the facility could potentially overtop, causing a subsequent breach and 

resulting in onsite flooding and the submergence of critical equipment. The SL III violation 

involved the failure of Watts Bar personnel to implement 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(B) on 

December 30, 2009, when Watts Bar personnel failed to notify the NRC within 8 hours upon 

confirmation that a postulated Maximum Probable Flood (MPF) level would exceed the 

current licensing basis and the design basis MPF flooding event would result in overtopping 

of critical earthen dam structures upstream of the Watts Bar facility. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B4

Tennessee Valley Authority EA-13-023 

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 

On June 4, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation associated with a White SDP finding 

and a SL III violation to Tennessee Valley Authority. The White finding, a violation of TS 

6.8.1, “Procedures and Programs,” involved the failure of Sequoyah personnel to establish 

an adequate Abnormal Condition Procedure to implement its flood mitigation strategy. 

Specifically, prior to September 30, 2009, AOP-N.03, “External Flooding,” was inadequate to 

mitigate the effects of a Maximum Probable Flood (MPF) event, in that earthen dams 

located upstream of the facility could potentially overtop, causing a subsequent breach and 

resulting in onsite flooding and the submergence of critical equipment. The SL III violation 

of 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(B) involved the failure of Sequoyah personnel to report within 8 

hours an unanalyzed condition that significantly degraded plant safety. Specifically, on 

December 30, 2009, Sequoyah personnel failed to notify the NRC upon confirmation that a 

postulated MPF level would exceed the current licensing basis and the design basis MPF 

flooding event would result in overtopping of critical earthen dam structures upstream of the 

Sequoyah facility. 

Tennessee Valley Authority EA-13-045 

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 

On June 4, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Tennessee Valley Authority for a 

violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, “Design Control,” associated with a White 

SDP finding involving the failure of Sequoyah personnel to translate the design basis related 

to onsite flooding into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions. Specifically, 

prior to December 15, 2012, Sequoyah's design documentation for the essential raw cooling 

water (ERCW) pumping station did not contain information to identify design basis flood 

barriers to prevent water from flooding the building during a design basis flood. As a result, 

the ERCW pump station would not remain functional when subjected to the maximum flood 

level, the ERCW intake station would not remain dry during flood mode, and portions of the 

ERCW walls and penetrations would not withstand all static and dynamic forces imposed by 

the design basis flood. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC EA-13-046 

Three Mile Island Unit 1 

On April 30, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

(Three Mile Island) for a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, associated with a 

White SDP finding involving Three Mile Island’s failure to identify, during external flood 

barrier walk downs, that electrical cable conduit couplings in the Three Mile Island Nuclear 

Station, Unit 1 Air Intake Tunnel (AIT) were not sealed, as designed, to maintain the integrity 

of the external flood barrier system. Specifically, Exelon staff, during visual inspections of 

the couplings and conduits in the AIT, did not identify that flood seals and material had not 

been installed, as designed. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC EA-13-079 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station 

On July 31, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

for a violation of TS Section 5.4.1, “Procedures,” associated with a White SDP finding 

involving the failure of Dresden personnel to establish a written procedure to address the 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B5 

effect of an external flooding scenario on the plant. Specifically, prior to November 21, 

2012, procedure DOA 0010-04, “Floods,” did not account for reactor vessel inventory 

makeup during an external flooding scenario up to and including the probable maximum 

flood event which could result in reactor vessel water level lowering below the top of active 

fuel. 

Southern California Edison Company EA-13-083 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3 

On December 23, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation associated with a White SDP 

finding identified during an inspection of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3. 

This White finding involves the failure of San Onofre personnel to verify the adequacy of the 

thermal-hydraulic and flow-induced vibration design of the Unit 3 replacement steam 

generators, which resulted in significant and unexpected steam generator tube wear and the 

loss of tube integrity on Unit 3 Steam Generator 3EO-88 after 11 months of operation. 

Northern States Power Company, Minnesota EA-13-096 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

On August 28, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Northern States Power 

Company, Minnesota for a violation of Technical Specification Section 5.4.1, “Procedures,” 

associated with a Yellow SDP finding involving the failure of Monticello personnel to 

maintain a flood plan to protect the site against external flooding events. Specifically, from 

February 29, 2012, to February 15, 2013, the site failed to maintain flood Procedure A.6, 

“Acts of Nature,” such that it could support the timely implementation of flood protection 

features within the 12-day timeframe credited in the design basis, as stated in the Monticello 

Updated Safety Analysis Report. 

Aerotest Operations, Inc. EA-13-108 

Auburn Hills, Michigan 

On December 18, 2013, the NRC issued a SL III notice of violation to Aerotest Operations, 

Inc. involving the failure to implement TS 10.2. Specifically, for an indeterminate period of 

time, beginning at a point after the last full fuel inspection in 2006 and lasting until 

October 15, 2010, when the facility ceased reactor operation, the licensee operated the 

reactor with significant defects in the fuel elements. During fuel inspections conducted 

following reactor shutdown, 22 fuel elements were identified as having varying degrees of 

cracking in the aluminum cladding, representing a significant defect in the fuel elements and 

loss of the integrity of a fission product barrier. 

Tennessee Valley Authority EA-13-118 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 

On August 23, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Tennessee Valley Authority for 

a violation of Technical Specification Section 5.4.1, “Procedures,” associated with a White 

SDP finding involving the failure of Browns Ferry personnel to properly implement a 

procedure recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, dated February 

1978. Specifically, on December 22, 2012, the licensee failed to properly implement the 

procedure for Startup, Operation, and Shutdown of the Reactor Protection System, 2-OI-99, 

Reactor Protection System, when an operator incorrectly opened the RPS motor generator 

set tie to battery board 2 Breaker on the A RPS bus motor generator set while attempting to 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B6

start the B RPS bus motor generator set. The failure to properly implement 2-OI-99 caused 

a Unit 2 reactor scram and main steam isolation valve (MSIV) closure. 

NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC EA-13-125 

Point Beach Nuclear Plant 

On August 9, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to NextEra Energy, Point Beach, 

LLC for a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, “Instructions, Procedures, 

and Drawings,” associated with a White SDP finding involving the failure of Point Beach 

personnel to have a procedure appropriate to the circumstances to address flooding as 

described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Specifically, from January 19, 1996, 

to March 13, 2013, procedure PC 80 Part 7, “Lake Water Determination,” as implemented, 

would not protect safety-related equipment in the turbine building or pump house because 

the procedure: (1) did not appropriately prescribe the installation of barriers such that gaps 

between the barriers were eliminated to prevent water intrusion, (2) did not protect 

equipment by requiring barriers to be placed in front of the doors, from 1996 to 2008, as 

described in the FSAR, and (3) did not require the barriers to protect the plant to an 

elevation of at least 9 feet as described in the FSAR. 

Carolina Power and Light EA-13-129 

H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 

On September 19, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Carolina Power and Light 

for a violation of 10 CFR 50.63(c)(2), Loss of all Alternating Current Power, Implementation 

– Alternating AC Source, associated with a White SDP finding involving the failure of 

Robinson to have an alternate AC power source with acceptable capability to withstand 

station blackout for the required durations specified in its coping analysis. Specifically, 

during surveillance testing of the Dedicated Shutdown Diesel Generator (DSDG) on 

October 2, 2012, the DSDG automatically shut down on high engine temperature due to a 

failure of the radiator drive belts. Based on the failure of the DSDG and necessary repair 

time, this degraded condition would have prohibited the DSDG from supplying power to 

shutdown equipment within 1 hour following a station blackout and could have rendered the 

plant unable to cope for 8 hours after a postulated station blackout or to provide emergency 

power for certain selected fire-related safe shutdown scenarios. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC EA-13-182 

Duane Arnold 

On December 18, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to NextEra Energy Duane 

Arnold, LLC for a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, “Instructions, 

Procedures, and Drawings,” associated with a White SDP finding involving the failure of 

Duane Arnold personnel to prescribe a work instruction of a type appropriate to the 

circumstances for the re-assembly of the ‘A’ standby diesel generator lube oil heat 

exchanger. Specifically, on October 18, 2012, the licensee completed a work order which 

replaced the ‘A’ standby diesel generator lube oil heat exchanger tube bundle. The work 

order did not contain a specific and detailed sequence for re-assembly of the heat 

exchanger and connected piping system to achieve uniform and appropriate compression of 

the tube bundle-to-shell gasket. This contributed to the catastrophic failure of the tube 

bundle-to-shell gasket during a maintenance run of the engine on March 8, 2013, rendering 

the ‘A’ standby diesel generator unavailable. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B7 

Notices of Violation Issued to Material Licensees

Missouri Baptist Medical Center Hospital EA-12-242 

St. Louis, Missouri 

On January 29, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Missouri Baptist Medical 

Center Hospital for a SL III violation involving the failure to develop, implement, and 

maintain written procedures to provide high confidence that each administration was in 

accordance with the written directive as required by 10 CFR 35.41(a). In accordance with 

10 CFR 35.41(b)(2), the procedures required by 10 CFR 35.41(a) must address verifying 

that the administration is in accordance with the treatment plan, if applicable, and the written 

directive. However, as of October 19, 2012, the licensee’s procedures failed to address 

verification that the administered dosage was in accordance with the prescribed dosage on 

the written directive prior to administration. Specifically, on or about May 1, 2012, a yttrium90 (Y-90) procedure was performed, and the written directive indicated a prescribed dosage 

other than the authorized user intended to deliver to the patient. The authorized user 

electronically signed and dated the written directive immediately before the administration of 

the dose without verifying that the written directive indicated the intended activity. The 

administration represented a dosage 39 percent greater than the prescribed dosage 

documented on the written directive. Additionally, on or about May 31, 2012, a medical 

procedure involving samarium-153 was performed and the “prescribed activity” section was 

blank in the written directive as no data had been entered into the applicable area. The 

calculations attached to the written directive indicate that the authorized user intended to 

give a dosage that was within 20 percent of the administered dosage. 

Deaconess Hospital EA-12-245 

Newburgh, Indiana 

On January 31, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Deaconess Hospital for a SL 

III violation involving the failure to develop, implement, and maintain written procedures to 

provide high confidence that each administration is in accordance with the written directive 

as required by 10 CFR 35.41(a). In accordance with 10 CFR 35.41(b)(2), the procedures 

required by 10 CFR 35.41(a) must address verifying that the administration is in accordance 

with the treatment plan, if applicable, and the written directive. However, as of March 5, 

2012, the licensee administered a 34 Gray dose to a patient, and the licensee’s procedures 

did not require verifying that the administration was in accordance with the applicable 

treatment plan and written directive. 

Havells USA Inc. EA-12-258 

Atlanta, Georga 

On March 6, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Havells USA Inc. (Havells) for a 

SL III violation. The violation involved a failure to limit the distribution of products containing 

byproduct material from only those locations authorized on its NRC exempt distribution 

license. Specifically, between March 11, 2009, and December 7, 2012, on an unspecified 

number of occasions Havells distributed lamps containing exempt quantities of krypton-85 

from Mullins, South Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia locations, and these locations are not 

authorized by its NRC license. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B8

Bruker Detection Corporation EA-13-012 

Billerica, Massachusetts 

On March 29, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Bruker Detection Corporation 

(Bruker), for a SL III violation involving the failure to file NRC Form 241 “Report of Proposed 

Activities in Non-Agreement States,” at least 3 days prior to engaging in licensed activities 

within NRC jurisdiction, as required by 10 CFR 150.20 (b). Specifically, from April 16 to April 

21, 2012, Bruker, a licensee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, possessed and used 

ion mobility spectrometer devices containing nickel-63 sealed sources in Indiana, a nonAgreement State, without first filing a Form-241 with the NRC, at least 3 days before 

engaging in such activity. 

Mercy Hospital EA-13-049 

St. Louis, Missouri 

On May 16, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Mercy Hospital for a SL III 

violation involving the failure to secure from unauthorized removal or limit access to licensed 

material stored in controlled or unrestricted areas as required by 10 CFR 20.1801. On 

October 9, 2012, and February 25, 2013, the licensee failed to secure from unauthorized 

removal or limit access to licensed material that was stored in controlled or unrestricted 

areas as noted during an internal audit and an NRC inspection. 

Nordlund and Associates EA-13-053 

Ludington, Michigan 

On June 27, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Nordlund and Associates for a SL 

III problem. One of the violations included in the SL III problem involved the failure to 

confine possession and use of byproduct materials to the locations and purposes authorized 

by the license as required by 10 CFR 30.34(c). As for accelerator-produced radioactive 

material or discrete sources of radium-226 that require a license amendment, licensees may 

continue to use these materials for authorized purposes until the specified date provided the 

person submits an amendment application within 6 months from the NRC's waiver expiration 

date. However, from August 7, 2009, to April 3, 2013, the licensee possessed four radium226 gauges and used one of these gauges for density measurements at a temporary job 

site on July 3 and 5, 2012. The licensee was not authorized to possess the gauges and did 

not submit a license amendment until February 19, 2013, which is more than 6 months from 

the waiver expiration date. Another violation involved the conduct of operations so that the 

dose in any unrestricted area from external sources does not exceed 2 millirem in any 

1 hour as required by 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2). Specifically, as of January 16, 2013, the 

licensee stored its radium gauges in an outdoor shed in an unrestricted area in a manner 

that resulted in a dose of approximately 4.5 millirem per hour external to the shed. 

Braun Intertec Corporation EA-13-056 

Bloomington, Minnesota 

On May 14, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Braun Intertec Corporation for a 

SL III violation. The violation involved the failure to, at least 3 days before engaging in the 

activity for the first time in a calendar year, file a submittal containing an NRC Form 241, 

"Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States," a copy of the Agreement State 

specific license, and the appropriate fee as required by 10 CFR 150.20. Also, if applicable, 

the Agreement State licensee must file an amended form to request approval for changes in 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B9 

work locations. However, the Agreement State licensee possessed and used radioactive 

material in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction in 2013 without filing an initial submittal. 

Additionally, the Agreement State licensee failed to file an amended form for a different work 

location in 2012. 

GeoLog Well Services, Inc. EA-13-067 

Wayne City, Illinois 

On June 11, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to GeoLog Well Services, Inc., for a 

SL III violation. The violation involved the failure to, at least 3 days before engaging in the 

activity for the first time in a calendar year, file a submittal containing an NRC Form 241, 

“Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States,” a copy of the Agreement State 

specific license, and the appropriate fee as required by 10 CFR 150.20. However, on 

multiple occasions between August 5, 2005, and March 14, 2013, the Agreement State 

licensee possessed and used licensed materials at temporary job sites in Indiana, a NonAgreement State, without first filing the required documentation with the NRC. 

Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corporation EA-13-107 

Parkersburg, West Virginia 

On August 8, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital 

Corporation (CCMHC) for a SL III problem involving two violations. The first violation 

involved the failure to implement its written procedure to provide high confidence that an 

administration was performed in accordance with the written directive as required by 10 CFR 

35.41. Specifically, on February 25, 2011, CCMHC implanted a patient with 63 palladium103 seeds to deliver a dose of 125 Grays; however, 16 of the 63 prescribed palladium-103 

seeds were implanted outside the planned treatment area. CCMHC's subsequent 

assessment of the implant on April 1, 2011, did not identify that the delivered dose was 

different from the prescribed dose by more than 20 percent. This failure to identify the 

medical event contributed to the second violation, specifically, CCMHC not notifying the 

NRC Operations Center by the next calendar day, in accordance with 10 CFR 35.3045(c), 

that a medical event had occurred. Instead, CCMHC reported the medical event on March 5, 

2012. 

Maui Memorial Medical Center EA-13-126 

Wailuku, Hawaii 

On September 3, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Maui Memorial Medical 

Center for a SL III violation involving the failure to implement 10 CFR 35.40(a) and related 

conditions of its license when it failed to ensure that the written directive was dated and 

signed by an authorized physician user before administering sodium iodine (I-131) at greater 

than 1.11 megabecquerels (30 microcuries). Specifically, on October 31 and November 21, 

2012, for a total of three occasions, the licensee allowed a physician that was not listed as 

an authorized user on the license to sign a written directive for the administration of 5 

millicuries of I-131 for diagnostic use. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

B10

ADCO Services, Inc. EA-13-131 

Tinley Park, Illinois 

On October 30, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to ADCO Services, Inc., for a 

SL III violation. The violation involved the licensee’s failure to have an individual specifically 

named on the license fulfill the duties of the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) as required by 

License Condition 11. A of the NRC License. Specifically, the RSO left the company on 

June 30, 2012, and the licensee did not hire a new qualified RSO and submit an 

amendment request to the NRC until February 1, 2013. 

Canberra Industries, Inc. EA-13-184 

Meriden, Connecticut 

On November 1, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Canberra Industries, Inc., 

(Canberra) for a SL III violation involving the licensee’s failure to secure from unauthorized 

removal or access licensed materials that are stored in controlled or unrestricted areas as 

required by 10 CFR 20.1801. Specifically, Canberra stored an americium-241/ beryllium 

source in a locked calibration room in which there was a pass-through window to an 

unlocked outer room that was open and accessible. Also, the source was inside a shielded 

drum that was not secured to the floor and the motorized device that is used to expose the 

source could have been operated by unauthorized individuals via an unlocked switch 

located in the outer room. 

Notices of Violation Issued to Fuel Cycle Licensees

None 

Notices of Violation Issued to Individuals

Notices of violation issued to individuals are discussed in Appendix D 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

C1 

Appendix C – Summary of Orders*

Orders Issued To Reactor Licensees

Entergy Operations, Inc. EA-13-031 

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 

On March 20, 2013, a Confirmatory Order was issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), 

confirming Entergy’s commitment to submit a license amendment request to transition 

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 to the National Fire Protection Association Standard 805. 

Entergy had originally planned to submit its application on August 31, 2012. The NRC 

reviewed Entergy’s justification for the delay, and accepted the proposed new submittal date 

of January 31, 2014. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. EA-12-145 

Farley Nuclear Plant 

On May 6, 2013, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order to Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Inc. (SNC) to formalize commitments made as a result of an ADR mediation 

session held on March 15, 2013. The commitments were made as part of a settlement 

agreement between SNC and the NRC regarding apparent violations of NRC requirements. 

The agreement resolves the apparent deliberate violations involving falsification of radiation 

worker training exams by security officers at Farley Nuclear Plant. The proctors and security 

officers self-proctoring the radiation worker exams were not ensuring that the exams were 

not compromised either by someone providing answers, hinting to the answers, or using 

material such as study guides during the exams. As such, the security officers did not 

complete their radiation worker training requalification exams in accordance with SNC 

procedures in order to maintain unescorted access to Protected/Vital Areas or Radiation 

Controlled Areas; yet they continued to have unescorted access to those areas. SNC 

agreed to a number of corrective actions, issuing fleet-wide messages that will clearly 

articulate that willful misconduct is incompatible with safe nuclear construction and 

operation, conducting fleet-wide stand-downs with all employees and contractors to address 

trustworthiness and integrity, and modifying guidance involving investigations based on 

allegations to include an initial evaluation of potential nuclear safety implications and to 

identify any appropriate immediate mitigating measures to be taken while the investigation is 

ongoing. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. EA-12-254 

Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 

On February 20, 2013, a Confirmatory Order was issued to the FirstEnergy Nuclear 

Operating Company (FENOC), confirming FENOC’s commitment to submit a license 

amendment request to transition its two units to the National Fire Protection Association 

Standard 805. FENOC had originally planned to submit its application on September 30, 

2012. The NRC reviewed FENOC’s justification for the delay, and accepted the proposed 

new submittal date of December 31, 2013. 

 

* Please note that cases involving security-related issues are not included
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

C2

Exelon Generation Company, LLC EA-13-068 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station 

On October 28, 2013, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order (CO) to Exelon Generating 

Company, LLC. (Exelon) to formalize commitments made as a result of an alternative 

dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session held on September 18, 2013. The commitments 

were made as part of a settlement agreement between Exelon and the NRC regarding the 

apparent violation of 10 CFR 73.56, “Personnel access authorization requirements for 

nuclear power plants.” The agreement resolves the apparent violation which involved the 

failure of several Dresden Nuclear Power Station (Dresden) individuals to immediately 

inform a reviewing official of the questionable behavior of a now former Dresden senior 

reactor operator (SRO). This individual, along with another former Dresden SRO, planned 

and attempted to recruit another former employee to commit a violent off-site crime. As part 

of the ADR settlement agreement, Exelon completed or intends to complete a number of 

corrective actions. These actions include fleet wide procedure revisions and training, fleet 

wide briefings, a presentation at an appropriate industry forum and submittal of an operating 

experience summary to an industry wide organization. In consideration of the corrective 

actions and commitments outlined in the CO, the NRC agreed to refrain from issuing a 

notice of violation and to preclude consideration of this CO as enforcement history for the 

Dresden Station. 

Aerotest Operations, Inc. EA-13-097 

Auburn Hills, Michigan 

On July 19, 2013, the NRC issued a letter to Aerotest Operations, Inc. denying an 

application for license renewal of the Aerotest Radiography and Research Reactor license 

because Aerotest is owned by a foreign corporation. The staff also denied an application for 

transfer of the license. As a result, on July 24, 2013, NRC issued an order to prohibit 

Aerotest from operating the reactor and placing the facility and its licensed material in a 

possession-only condition. The order also requires submission of an updated 

decommissioning plan and updated decommission funding. 

Orders Issued To Material Licensees

Bradley D. Bastow, D. O. EA-13-025 

On September 3, 2013, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order, notice of violation, and a civil 

penalty to Bradley D. Bastow, D. O., a medical licensee, confirming commitments reached 

as part of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation settlement agreement between 

the licensee and the NRC. This action is based on information discovered during an 

inspection and an investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (OI), wherein 

violations were identified related to the failure to calibrate and use survey instrumentation, to 

conduct radiation surveys, to accurately record radiation safety activities, and the Radiation 

Safety Officer failing to ensure that radiation safety activities were being performed in 

accordance with licensee-approved procedures and regulatory requirements. The licensee 

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,000 in addition to numerous corrective actions in 

accordance with the conditions contained in the Confirmatory Order. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

C3 

Orders Issued To Fuel Cycle Licensees

None 

Orders Issued To Individuals

Landon E. Brittain IA-13-024 

On October 28, 2013, the NRC issued an immediately effective Order prohibiting 

involvement in NRC-licensed activities to Mr. Landon E. Brittain, a former Dresden Nuclear 

Power Station (Dresden) senior reactor operator (SRO) until such time that he can provide 

reasonable assurance to the NRC that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance 

with the Commission’s requirements. Specifically, the NRC determined that Mr. Brittain was 

approached and recruited by a now former Dresden SRO to assist in an armored car 

robbery. Mr. Brittain’s failure to report this aberrant behavior to Dresden management is a 

violation of 10 CFR 73.56, “Personnel access authorization requirements for nuclear power 

plants.” The NRC is also aware that local authorities have charged Mr. Brittain with a 

number of criminal offenses, including aggravated vehicular hijacking, vehicular hijacking, 

and obstruction of justice. The NRC has concluded that Mr. Brittain’s failure to report the 

questionable behavior and his apparent participation in criminal activities have 

demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness. 

Michael J. Buhrman IA-13-025 

On October 28, 2013, the NRC issued an immediately effective Order prohibiting 

involvement in NRC-licensed activities to Mr. Michael J. Buhrman, a former Dresden 

Nuclear Power Station (Dresden) senior reactor operator (SRO) until such time that he can 

provide reasonable assurance to the NRC that licensed activities can be conducted in 

compliance with the Commission’s requirements. Specifically, the NRC determined that Mr. 

Buhrman held conversations with a now former Dresden Station SRO and a former 

equipment operator, in which Mr. Buhrman either recruited them, or attempted to recruit 

them to assist him in an armored car robbery. However, prior to executing the armored car 

robbery, Mr. Buhrman was apprehended by police for hijacking a car at gunpoint, released 

on bail and fled the country. Mr. Buhrman was later tried in absentia, found guilty of 

aggravated vehicular hijacking and sentenced to a 40-year prison term. The NRC has 

concluded that Mr. Buhrman’s criminal activities related to both the carjacking and the 

planning of an armored car robbery have demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness. 

Joseph S. Shepherd IA-13-038 

On December 23, 2013, the NRC issued Mr. Joseph S. Shepherd, owner of Foss Therapy 

Services, an Order conditioning involvement in NRC-licensed activities and notice of 

violation associated with a willful failure to adhere to some of the conditions set forth in NRC 

Order IA-08-014. Specifically, on April 13, 2012, Mr. Shepherd, with careless disregard, 

failed to notify his customer of NRC Order IA-08-014 and did not make the Order available 

to them. This current Order, NRC Order IA-13-038, conditions Mr. Shepherd's involvement 

in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 3 years, and also requires certain documentation 

for an additional year. Under this Order, before beginning work in NRC jurisdiction, 

Mr. Shepherd must notify customers of NRC Order IA-08-014 and make it available for their 

review, must provide future employers with a copy of the Order and must also notify the 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

C4

NRC no less than 5 business days before conducting licensed activities within NRC 

jurisdiction. The provisions above will remain in effect for 3 years from the effective date of 

the Order. Mr. Shepherd must also determine whether the customer is under NRC 

jurisdiction, document his determination and state the basis for his determination. The 

provision will remain in effect for 3 years from the effective date of the Order. The 

documentation of this requirement must be maintained for a period of 4 years from the 

effective date of the Order. The NRC also issued a SL III notice of violation for 

Mr. Shepherd's failure to follow certain conditions set forth in NRC Order IA-08-014. 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

D1 

Appendix D – Summary of Escalated Enforcement Actions 

Against Individuals*

Orders

Orders issued to individuals during 2013 are discussed in Appendix C. 

Notices of Violation 

Anthony Bullard IA-13-026 

On July 29, 2013, the NRC issued a notice of violation to Mr. Anthony Bullard, formerly 

employed as a contract General Foreman at Florida Power and Light Company's (FPL) 

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, for a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2) associated with a SL III 

violation involving his deliberate submittal to a licensee, information that he knew to be 

incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Specifically, while employed 

as a contract General Foreman at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Mr. Bullard signed 

paperwork certifying that the urine specimen he was providing during a random drug screen 

was his and was not adulterated. He then submitted a urine sample to FPL that he knew 

was not his own at the time of testing, in an attempt to subvert the testing. The information 

was material to the NRC because licensees, through fitness-for-duty testing, provide the 

requisite assurance that workplaces are free from the presence of illegal drugs and alcohol. 

Joel A. Keown IA-13-028 

On October 7, 2013, the NRC issued Mr. Joel A. Keown, an information technology 

manager, formerly employed by Southern California Edison Company at its San Onofre 

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), a SL III violation of 10 CFR 73.56(g), "Personnel 

access authorization requirements for nuclear power plants." Specifically, Mr. Keown failed 

to report a driving under the influence arrest to SONGS management. 

 

* Please note that cases involving security-related issues are not included
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

D2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

E1 

Appendix E – Summary of Escalated Enforcement Actions Against 

Nonlicensees 

(Vendors, Contractors and Certificate Holders)*

Confirmatory Orders 

Chicago Bridge & Iron EA-12-189 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

On September 16, 2013, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order to Chicago Bridge & Iron 

(CB&I) to formalize commitments made as a result of an ADR mediation session. CB&I 

agreed to these commitments as part of a settlement agreement with the NRC regarding two 

violations of 10 CFR 52.5, "Employee protection," for: (1) terminating a former Quality 

Assurance Supervisor because he/she notified another NRC licensee of potential 10 CFR 

Part 21 issues regarding possible faulty rebar that may have been shipped to their facility by 

a third party vendor; and (2) prohibitive language in the company's Corporate Code of 

Conduct which prohibits, restricts, or otherwise discourages an employee from participating 

in a protected activity including notifying an NRC licensee of matters within the NRC's 

regulatory responsibility. As the result of the mediation, CB&I agreed to take a number of 

actions for all persons employed by CB&I, including contractors and subcontractors, 

excluding short term employees, who are engaged in work associated with NRC-regulated 

activities. Those actions include: (1) reinforcing through a written communication from 

CB&I's Chief Executive Officer the Company's strategy to improve its nuclear safety culture; 

(2) updating its nuclear safety culture and safety conscious work environment policies and 

documents to ensure they are consistent with and informed by NRC and industry guidance, 

(3) developing and/or revising the company's employee protection, nuclear safety culture 

and safety conscious work environment training; (4) establishing a uniform Executive 

Review Board process to ensure independent management review of all proposed 

significant adverse actions; and (5) performing tailored comprehensive nuclear safety 

culture assessments, including site surveys, of all CB&I nuclear business entities. In 

consideration of these commitments and subject to the satisfactory completion of the 

conditions of the Confirmatory Order by CB&I, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion 

and withdrew the two notices of violation and proposed imposition of civil penalties (totaling 

$36,400) that were issued on April 18, 2013. 

 

* Please note that cases involving security-related issues are not included
Enforcement Program Annual Report 

E2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK