UNITED STATES 


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-000 

OFFICE OF THE 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

June 9,2010 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. William Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: &Q;Q' 

Assistant Inspector G 

SUBJECT: 	 MEMORANDUM REPORT: AUDIT OF NRC'S PROCESS 

FOR CLOSED MEETINGS (OIG-10-A-14) 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit to determine if the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) process for conducting meetings that are 

closed to the public hinders the transparent transaction of nuclear regulation. To 

increase accountability and promote informed public participation, the Federal 

Government promotes openness and transparency in the sharing of information. NRC 

is implementing these concepts into its nuclear regulatory activities. NRC has a policy 

and process in place to share information regarding closed meetings between staff and 

external stakeholders (referred to in this report as closed staff meetings). Based on this 

audit, OIG found that openness and transparency in NRC's process for closed meetings 

can be enhanced by: 

A. Defining what constitutes a "meeting." 

B. Making closed staff meeting notices and summaries accessible by the public. 

C. Issuing closed staff meeting notices and summaries in a timely manner. 

These improvements would remove the ambiguity in NRC's guidance for closed staff 

meetings. Lack of clarity in the guidance may impede agency staff from effectively and 

conSistently complying with the agency's openness goal. Moreover, without these 

improvements, the agency risks a public perception that NRC does not regulate in an 

open and transparent manner. This report makes two recommendations aimed at 

enhancing NRC's process for closed meetings. 

OFFICE OF THE 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MEMORANDUM TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-000 

June 9,2010 

R. William Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

&Q;Q' 

Assistant Inspector G 

MEMORANDUM REPORT: AUDIT OF NRC'S PROCESS 

FOR CLOSED MEETINGS (OIG-10-A-14) 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit to determine if the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) process for conducting meetings that are 

closed to the public hinders the transparent transaction of nuclear regulation. To 

increase accountability and promote informed public participation, the Federal 

Government promotes openness and transparency in the sharing of information. NRC 

is implementing these concepts into its nuclear regulatory activities. NRC has a policy 

and process in place to share information regarding closed meetings between staff and 

external stakeholders (referred to in this report as closed staff meetings). Based on this 

audit, OIG found that openness and transparency in NRC's process for closed meetings 

can be enhanced by: 

A. Defining what constitutes a "meeting." 

B. Making closed staff meeting notices and summaries accessible by the public. 

C. Issuing closed staff meeting notices and summaries in a timely manner. 

These improvements would remove the ambiguity in NRC's guidance for closed staff 

meetings. Lack of clarity in the guidance may impede agency staff from effectively and 

conSistently complying with the agency's openness goal. Moreover, without these 

improvements, the agency risks a public perception that NRC does not regulate in an 

open and transparent manner. This report makes two recommendations aimed at 

enhancing NRC's process for closed meetings. 
Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

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

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

planned are subject to OIG followup as stated in Management Directive (MD) 6.1. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1977, Congress enacted the Government in the Sunshine Act (the Sunshine Act) with 

the goal of enhancing openness in the decisionmaking process of Federal Government 

agencies. The Sunshine Act states that when Federal agency heads deliberate on 

behalf of their respective organizations, these meetings must be open to the public. 

However, the Sunshine Act provides exemptions allowing for certain meetings to be 

closed to the public. Each Federal agency is required to document the reasons why a 

meeting was closed; give notice of the closed meeting; keep transcripts, electronic 

recordings, or minutes of the closed meeting; and report to Congress annually on 

compliance with these requirements. The Sunshine Act provisions apply to meetings in 

which NRC Commission members participate; currently, the agency is meeting the 

reporting requirements of the act. 

In addition to meetings between Commission members and stakeholders, NRC staff 

meet regularly with various external stakeholders (e.g., NRC licensees, license 

applicants) to discuss agency regulatory activities. These exchanges take place in 

various forums, including in-person, teleconference, videoconference, phone 

conversations, and Web-based meetings. These meetings are not governed by the 

Sunshine Act. 

NRC strives to be open and transparent in the transaction of nuclear regulation, and 

NRC's Commission members promote this goal. In a recent speech, the current NRC 

Chairman stated that NRC must conduct itself openly and transparently in fulfilling the 

agency's core mission and preparing for new issues and challenges. A former NRC 

Chairman also affirmed that transparency and public involvement must be key elements 

of NRC's licensing and oversight, and a prior NRC Commissioner stated that for NRC to 

fulfill its mission, it must do so in an open and transparent regulatory environment. 

RESULTS 

Although NRC strives for a transparent closed meeting process, the public availability of 

closed staff meeting notices and summaries is inconsistent. According to Federal 

guidance, the agency's regulatory process should be open and transparent. However, 

ambiguity in NRC's guidance for closed staff meetings may impede agency staff from 

effectively and consistently complying with the agency's openness goal. Moreover, 

NRC risks the public perception of not regulating in an open and transparent manner. 

2 


Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

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

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

planned are subject to OIG followup as stated in Management Directive (MD) 6.1. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1977, Congress enacted the Government in the Sunshine Act (the Sunshine Act) with 

the goal of enhancing openness in the decisionmaking process of Federal Government 

agencies. The Sunshine Act states that when Federal agency heads deliberate on 

behalf of their respective organizations, these meetings must be open to the public. 

However, the Sunshine Act provides exemptions allowing for certain meetings to be 

closed to the public. Each Federal agency is required to document the reasons why a 

meeting was closed; give notice of the closed meeting; keep transcripts, electronic 

recordings, or minutes of the closed meeting; and report to Congress annually on 

compliance with these requirements. The Sunshine Act provisions apply to meetings in 

which NRC Commission members participate; currently, the agency is meeting the 

reporting requirements of the act. 

In addition to meetings between Commission members and stakeholders, NRC staff 

meet regularly with various external stakeholders (e.g., NRC licensees, license 

applicants) to discuss agency regulatory activities. These exchanges take place in 

various forums, including in-person, teleconference, videoconference, phone 

conversations, and Web-based meetings. These meetings are not governed by the 

Sunshine Act. 

NRC strives to be open and transparent in the transaction of nuclear regulation, and 

NRC's Commission members promote this goal. In a recent speech, the current NRC 

Chairman stated that NRC must conduct itself openly and transparently in fulfilling the 

agency's core mission and preparing for new issues and challenges. A former NRC 

Chairman also affirmed that transparency and public involvement must be key elements 

of NRC's licensing and oversight, and a prior NRC Commissioner stated that for NRC to 

fulfill its mission, it must do so in an open and transparent regulatory environment. 

RESULTS 

Although NRC strives for a transparent closed meeting process, the public availability of 

closed staff meeting notices and summaries is inconsistent. According to Federal 

guidance, the agency's regulatory process should be open and transparent. However, 

ambiguity in NRC's guidance for closed staff meetings may impede agency staff from 

effectively and consistently complying with the agency's openness goal. Moreover, 

NRC risks the public perception of not regulating in an open and transparent manner. 

2 
Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

Open and Transparent Regulatory Process 

A recent Federal initiative encourages Government agencies to provide more 

information to the public about their activities. On December 8, 2009, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued Directive M-10-06, Open Government 

Directive, which identifies the openness and transparency goals for the entire Federal 

Government. This directive states that transparency is a key principle for an open 

Government; transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with 

information about what the Government is doing. Furthermore, OMB Directive M-10-06 

states that an essential component of transparency is the timely publication of 

information. 

To demonstrate how NRC is addressing OMB's directive, the agency issued its Open 

Government Plan on April 7,2010. NRC's Open Government Plan aligns the agency's 

Organizational Values and Principles of Good Regulation with the recent Federal 

Government initiative on openness and transparency. 

NRC's Organizational Values and Principles of Good Regulation highlight the agency's 

openness goal. One of NRC's organizational values is openness in communications 

and decisionmaking, which highlights that NRC's regulatory process should be 

transparent and forthright. Furthermore, NRC's principles of good regulation 

underscore openness by stating that "nuclear regulation is the public's business, and it 

must be transacted publicly and candidly." 

To ensure that members of the public have the opportunity to enhance their 

understanding of the agency's regulatory process, NRC issued MD 3.5, Attendance at 

NRC Staff Sponsored Meetings,1 as the agency guidance for meetings between NRC 

staff and external stakeholders. MD 3.5, like the Sunshine Act, provides exemptions 

that allow for certain meetings between NRC staff and stakeholders to be closed to the 

public. 

Inconsistent Public Availability of Closed Staff Meeting Information 

Although NRC strives for a transparent closed meeting process, the public availability of 

closed staff meeting notices and summaries is inconsistent. Specifically: 

? 	 There is uncertainty as to what constitutes a "meeting." 

? 	 Closed staff meeting information is not always accessible by the public. 

? 	 The timeframe in which closed staff meeting notices and summaries are issued 

varies. 

1 MD 3.5 was issued on September 26, 1994, and last revised on April 10, 2007. 

3 


Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

Open and Transparent Regulatory Process 

A recent Federal initiative encourages Government agencies to provide more 

information to the public about their activities. On December 8, 2009, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued Directive M-10-06, Open Government 

Directive, which identifies the openness and transparency goals for the entire Federal 

Government. This directive states that transparency is a key principle for an open 

Government; transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with 

information about what the Government is doing. Furthermore, OMB Directive M-10-06 

states that an essential component of transparency is the timely publication of 

information. 

To demonstrate how NRC is addressing OMB's directive, the agency issued its Open 

Government Plan on April 7,2010. NRC's Open Government Plan aligns the agency's 

Organizational Values and Principles of Good Regulation with the recent Federal 

Government initiative on openness and transparency. 

NRC's Organizational Values and Principles of Good Regulation highlight the agency's 

openness goal. One of NRC's organizational values is openness in communications 

and decisionmaking, which highlights that NRC's regulatory process should be 

transparent and forthright. Furthermore, NRC's principles of good regulation 

underscore openness by stating that "nuclear regulation is the public's business, and it 

must be transacted publicly and candidly." 

To ensure that members of the public have the opportunity to enhance their 

understanding of the agency's regulatory process, NRC issued MD 3.5, Attendance at 

NRC Staff Sponsored Meetings,1 as the agency guidance for meetings between NRC 

staff and external stakeholders. MD 3.5, like the Sunshine Act, provides exemptions 

that allow for certain meetings between NRC staff and stakeholders to be closed to the 

public. 

Inconsistent Public Availability of Closed Staff Meeting Information 

Although NRC strives for a transparent closed meeting process, the public availability of 

closed staff meeting notices and summaries is inconsistent. Specifically: 

? There is uncertainty as to what constitutes a "meeting." 

? Closed staff meeting information is not always accessible by the public. 

? The timeframe in which closed staff meeting notices and summaries are issued 

varies. 

1 MD 3.5 was issued on September 26, 1994, and last revised on April 10, 2007. 

3 
Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

Uncertainty About What Constitutes a "Meeting" 

There is uncertainty as to what constitutes a "meeting," leading to inconsistencies in the 

recording of closed staff meeting information. For example, stakeholders expressed 

concerns about certain phone conversations between NRC and licensees/applicants 

that could have been construed as closed staff meetings and, therefore, should have 

been announced and summarized. One agency official questioned whether visits 'from 

NRC employees to licensee/applicant sites can be interpreted as "meetings," and added 

that NRC needs better guidance in this area. In this era where there are many means 

by which NRC staff can have conversations with external stakeholders, it is 

important for the agency to clearly de'fine what constitutes a "meeting." Without a clear 

definition of what constitutes a "meeting," it is hard for agency staff and external 

stakeholders to know how many closed staff meetings actually occur. 

Closed Staff Meeting Information Is Not Always Accessible By the Public 

Agency guidance states that staff are encouraged to post closed staff meeting 

information in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS);2 

thus, this information is not always accessible by the public. Although the public cannot 

attend closed staff meetings, notices of when the meetings take place can be made 

available to the public. While sensitive issues are discussed in closed staff meetings 

and the details are not appropriate to be made public, NRC can issue generic 

summaries that can be made public. 

Notices Are Not Always Accessible By the Public 

Notices of closed staff meetings are not always accessible by the public. When agency 

staff enter a document into ADAMS, they can profile the document as either public or 

non-public. A document designated as "public" allows NRC internal and external 

stakeholders access to that document, whereas a document designated as "non-public" 

prevents external stakeholders from accessing that document through ADAMS. OIG 

identified 375 closed staff meeting notices posted in ADAMS for calendar years 2007 

through 2009. Of those 375 closed staff meeting notices, only about 67 percent are 

accessible by the public. 

In addition, there are discrepancies in the information obtained from NRC offices 

compared to the meeting notices that are available in ADAMS. NRC offices provided 

OIG with lists of closed staff meetings that occurred during calendar years 2007 through 

2009. The office-provided lists of closed staff meeting notices do not match the notices 

in ADAMS. For example, one NRC office stated that it had 81 closed staff meetings 

during calendar year 2009. However, OIG was able to find a reference to only one of 

these closed staff meetings in ADAMS (see Figure 1). Based on this, OIG is not 

2 ADAMS is a document management system used by NRC to organize, process, manage, search, and 

retrieve agency records. 

4 


Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

Uncertainty About What Constitutes a "Meeting" 

There is uncertainty as to what constitutes a "meeting," leading to inconsistencies in the 

recording of closed staff meeting information. For example, stakeholders expressed 

concerns about certain phone conversations between NRC and licensees/applicants 

that could have been construed as closed staff meetings and, therefore, should have 

been announced and summarized. One agency official questioned whether visits 'from 

NRC employees to licensee/applicant sites can be interpreted as "meetings," and added 

that NRC needs better guidance in this area. In this era where there are many means 

by which NRC staff can have conversations with external stakeholders, it is 

important for the agency to clearly de'fine what constitutes a "meeting." Without a clear 

definition of what constitutes a "meeting," it is hard for agency staff and external 

stakeholders to know how many closed staff meetings actually occur. 

Closed Staff Meeting Information Is Not Always Accessible By the Public 

Agency guidance states that staff are encouraged to post closed staff meeting 

information in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS);2 

thus, this information is not always accessible by the public. Although the public cannot 

attend closed staff meetings, notices of when the meetings take place can be made 

available to the public. While sensitive issues are discussed in closed staff meetings 

and the details are not appropriate to be made public, NRC can issue generic 

summaries that can be made public. 

Notices Are Not Always Accessible By the Public 

Notices of closed staff meetings are not always accessible by the public. When agency 

staff enter a document into ADAMS, they can profile the document as either public or 

non-public. A document designated as "public" allows NRC internal and external 

stakeholders access to that document, whereas a document designated as "non-public" 

prevents external stakeholders from accessing that document through ADAMS. OIG 

identified 375 closed staff meeting notices posted in ADAMS for calendar years 2007 

through 2009. Of those 375 closed staff meeting notices, only about 67 percent are 

accessible by the public. 

In addition, there are discrepancies in the information obtained from NRC offices 

compared to the meeting notices that are available in ADAMS. NRC offices provided 

OIG with lists of closed staff meetings that occurred during calendar years 2007 through 

2009. The office-provided lists of closed staff meeting notices do not match the notices 

in ADAMS. For example, one NRC office stated that it had 81 closed staff meetings 

during calendar year 2009. However, OIG was able to find a reference to only one of 

these closed staff meetings in ADAMS (see Figure 1). Based on this, OIG is not 

2 ADAMS is a document management system used by NRC to organize, process, manage, search, and 

retrieve agency records. 

4 
Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

confident that the data available in ADAMS represents the entire universe of closed staff 

meetings. An NRC official noted that a possible reason for these discrepancies might 

be that some meetings are not noticed because the meeting titles are considered to be 

proprietary information. 

Figure 1: Availability of ADAMS Information on 2009 Closed Meetings* 

100 


# of Meetings 50 


• List provided by NRC o 

Office 

Office Office Office Office Office 

I .• List compiled by OIG •. 1 234 5 I through ADAMS : NRC Office 

*Source: OIG-prepared graphic. 

Summaries Are Not Always Prepared and Publicly Available 

Summaries of closed staff meetings are not always prepared and publicly available in 

ADAMS. Of the 375 closed staff meeting notices in ADAMS, less than half have 

accompanying summaries. Furthermore, only 80 summaries were profiled as public 

documents, accessible to all stakeholders through ADAMS. 

Timeframe in Which Notices and Summaries Are Issued Varies 

The timeframe in which closed staff meeting notices and summaries are issued to the 

public varies. Based on the 375 closed staff meeting notices available in ADAMS, 

about 40 percent of the meeting notices publicly available in ADAMS were issued less 

than 10 days prior to the date of the meeting (see Figure 2).3 Summaries of closed staff 

meetings, when prepared, were publicly available in ADAMS between 1 and 60 days 

after the meeting took place. 

3 An NRC official noted that some closed staff meetings are scheduled on a very short notice and, 

therefore, the agency is unable to provide advance notification of these meetings. 

5 


Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

confident that the data available in ADAMS represents the entire universe of closed staff 

meetings. An NRC official noted that a possible reason for these discrepancies might 

be that some meetings are not noticed because the meeting titles are considered to be 

proprietary information. 

Figure 1: Availability of ADAMS Information on 2009 Closed Meetings* 

# of Meetings 

• List provided by NRC 

Office 

I .• List compiled by OIG •. 

I through ADAMS : 

100 

50 

o 

Office Office Office Office Office 

1 234 5 

NRC Office 

*Source: OIG-prepared graphic. 

Summaries Are Not Always Prepared and Publicly Available 

Summaries of closed staff meetings are not always prepared and publicly available in 

ADAMS. Of the 375 closed staff meeting notices in ADAMS, less than half have 

accompanying summaries. Furthermore, only 80 summaries were profiled as public 

documents, accessible to all stakeholders through ADAMS. 

Timeframe in Which Notices and Summaries Are Issued Varies 

The timeframe in which closed staff meeting notices and summaries are issued to the 

public varies. Based on the 375 closed staff meeting notices available in ADAMS, 

about 40 percent of the meeting notices publicly available in ADAMS were issued less 

than 10 days prior to the date of the meeting (see Figure 2).3 Summaries of closed staff 

meetings, when prepared, were publicly available in ADAMS between 1 and 60 days 

after the meeting took place. 

3 An NRC official noted that some closed staff meetings are scheduled on a very short notice and, 

therefore, the agency is unable to provide advance notification of these meetings. 

5 
Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

Figure 2: Closed Staff Meeting Notice Issuance Date Analysis (2007-2009)* 

4.38% 4.38% 

5.98% 

24.30% 

liD Issued 10 or more days prior 

.1ssued 9-5 days prior 

Dlssued 4-2 days prior 

o Issued 1 day prior 60.96% 

.1ssued on the same day or after 

meeting 

*Source: OIG-prepared graphic using ADAMS data. 

Closed Staff Meeting Guidance Is Ambiguous 

NRC guidance for documenting closed staff meetings is ambiguous, leading to 

inconsistencies in the reporting and public availability of closed staff meeting 

information. Specifically, MD 3.5 does not define what constitutes a "meeting." Even 

though MD 3.5 provides definitions for open and closed staff meetings and provides 

examples of closed meetings, it does not define the word "meeting." Without 

understanding what constitutes a "meeting," NRC staff could be confused as to which 

activities should be considered public or closed meetings. 

MD 3.5 also does not specify whether closed staff meeting notices and summaries 

should be posted publicly in ADAMS. Although MD 3.5 encourages agency staff to post 

closed staff meeting notices and summaries in ADAMS, it does not state whether this 

information should be public or non-public. This omission has led to inconsistencies in 

the public availability of closed staff meeting notices and summaries. 

In addition, MD 3.5 and ADAMS Template NRC-001, ADAMS Document Processing 

Instruction Template: Local Office Policy and Procedures for NRC Generated 

Documents, present conflicting guidance regarding whether closed staff meeting notices 

are suggested or required. MD 3.5 states that closed staff meeting notices "should" be 

prepared and it refers to ADAMS template NRC-001 for additional guidance. ADAMS 

Template NRC-001 states that if a meeting is closed to the public, NRC staff is 

"required"to enter the notice into ADAMS. Adding to the conflicting guidance, ADAMS 

Template NRC-001 also states, in a separate section, that closed meeting notices 

"should" be entered into ADAMS. 

6 


Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

Figure 2: Closed Staff Meeting Notice Issuance Date Analysis (2007-2009)* 

4.38% 4.38% 

5.98% 

24.30% 

60.96% 

liD Issued 10 or more days prior 

.1 ssued 9-5 days prior 

Dlssued 4-2 days prior 

o Issued 1 day prior 

.1 ssued on the same day or after 

meeting 

*Source: OIG-prepared graphic using ADAMS data. 

Closed Staff Meeting Guidance Is Ambiguous 

NRC guidance for documenting closed staff meetings is ambiguous, leading to 

inconsistencies in the reporting and public availability of closed staff meeting 

information. Specifically, MD 3.5 does not define what constitutes a "meeting." Even 

though MD 3.5 provides definitions for open and closed staff meetings and provides 

examples of closed meetings, it does not define the word "meeting." Without 

understanding what constitutes a "meeting," NRC staff could be confused as to which 

activities should be considered public or closed meetings. 

MD 3.5 also does not specify whether closed staff meeting notices and summaries 

should be posted publicly in ADAMS. Although MD 3.5 encourages agency staff to post 

closed staff meeting notices and summaries in ADAMS, it does not state whether this 

information should be public or non-public. This omission has led to inconsistencies in 

the public availability of closed staff meeting notices and summaries. 

In addition, MD 3.5 and ADAMS Template NRC-001, ADAMS Document Processing 

Instruction Template: Local Office Policy and Procedures for NRC Generated 

Documents, present conflicting guidance regarding whether closed staff meeting notices 

are suggested or required. MD 3.5 states that closed staff meeting notices "should" be 

prepared and it refers to ADAMS template NRC-001 for additional guidance. ADAMS 

Template NRC-001 states that if a meeting is closed to the public, NRC staff is 

"required"to enter the notice into ADAMS. Adding to the conflicting guidance, ADAMS 

Template NRC-001 also states, in a separate section, that closed meeting notices 

"should" be entered into ADAMS. 

6 
Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

Agency guidance also does not specify a timeframe for the issuance of closed staff 

meeting notices and summaries. The agency does not have a timeliness metric for 

closed staff meetings. External stakeholders stated that, in many cases, they learned 

about an f\IRC closed staff meeting only after the meeting occurred and that the 

summaries for those meetings were not easily found and, in many cases, were 

unavailable. 

Risk of Not Operating in an Open and Transparent Manner 

Ambiguity in NRC's guidance for closed staff meetings may impede agency staff from 

effectively and conSistently complying with the agency's openness goal. Moreover, the 

agency risks the public perception that NRC does not regulate in an open and 

transparent manner, and that the agency gives preferential treatment to certain external 

stakeholders. Recent Federal Government initiatives require agencies to improve the 

openness and transparency of their activities with the public. Therefore, it is especially 

important for NRC to clarify its guidance to improve its communication regarding closed 

staff meeting information and thereby better meet its goal for an open and transparent 

nuclear regulatory process. 

Recommendations 

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations: 

1. Revise MD 3.5 to enhance NRC's closed staff meeting process. Specifically, 

a. 	 Clearly define what constitutes a "meeting." 

b. 	 Clarify guidance to ensure that closed staff meeting notices and 

summaries are appropriately available to the public through ADAMS. 

c. 	 Revise ADAMS Template NRC-001 and MD 3.5 to ensure that the 

guidance for preparing closed staff meeting notices is consistent. 

2. Establish a timeframe for issuing closed staff meeting notices and summaries. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

OIG held an exit meeting with NRC management on May 25, 2010. During the meeting, 

agency management provided informal comments to the draft report. OIG included 

these comments, as appropriate, and provided NRC with a revised draft report. Agency 

management generally agreed with the report's finding and recommendations and 

chose not to provide formal comments. 

7 


Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

Agency guidance also does not specify a timeframe for the issuance of closed staff 

meeting notices and summaries. The agency does not have a timeliness metric for 

closed staff meetings. External stakeholders stated that, in many cases, they learned 

about an f\IRC closed staff meeting only after the meeting occurred and that the 

summaries for those meetings were not easily found and, in many cases, were 

unavailable. 

Risk of Not Operating in an Open and Transparent Manner 

Ambiguity in NRC's guidance for closed staff meetings may impede agency staff from 

effectively and conSistently complying with the agency's openness goal. Moreover, the 

agency risks the public perception that NRC does not regulate in an open and 

transparent manner, and that the agency gives preferential treatment to certain external 

stakeholders. Recent Federal Government initiatives require agencies to improve the 

openness and transparency of their activities with the public. Therefore, it is especially 

important for NRC to clarify its guidance to improve its communication regarding closed 

staff meeting information and thereby better meet its goal for an open and transparent 

nuclear regulatory process. 

Recommendations 

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations: 

1. Revise MD 3.5 to enhance NRC's closed staff meeting process. Specifically, 

a. Clearly define what constitutes a "meeting." 

b. Clarify guidance to ensure that closed staff meeting notices and 

summaries are appropriately available to the public through ADAMS. 

c. Revise ADAMS Template NRC-001 and MD 3.5 to ensure that the 

guidance for preparing closed staff meeting notices is consistent. 

2. Establish a timeframe for issuing closed staff meeting notices and summaries. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

OIG held an exit meeting with NRC management on May 25, 2010. During the meeting, 

agency management provided informal comments to the draft report. OIG included 

these comments, as appropriate, and provided NRC with a revised draft report. Agency 

management generally agreed with the report's finding and recommendations and 

chose not to provide formal comments. 

7 
Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

To accomplish the audit objective, the audit team reviewed Federal and internal NRC 

guidance such as the Sunshine Act, the Code of Federal Regulations, MD 3.5, and 

individual NRC program office procedures. In addition, the audit team analyzed lists of 

closed staff meetings as prepared by various NRC offices, and closed staff meeting 

notices and summaries obtained through ADAMS. The audit team also interviewed 

agency staff and external stakeholders. 

OIG conducted this performance audit between November 2009 and March 2010 in 

accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

finding and conclusions based on our audit objective. OIG conducted this work at 

NRC's headquarters located in Rockville, Maryland. 

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

Manager; Catherine Colleli, Audit Manager; Yvette Mabry, Senior Auditor; Jaclyn 

Storch, Senior Management Analyst; Rebecca Ryan, Management Analyst; and 

Vidya Sathyamoorthy, Student Management Analyst. 

cc: N. Mamish, OEDO 

J. Andersen, OEDO 

J. Arildsen, OEDO 

C. Jaegers, OEDO 

8 


Audit of NRC's Process for Closed Meetings 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

To accomplish the audit objective, the audit team reviewed Federal and internal NRC 

guidance such as the Sunshine Act, the Code of Federal Regulations, MD 3.5, and 

individual NRC program office procedures. In addition, the audit team analyzed lists of 

closed staff meetings as prepared by various NRC offices, and closed staff meeting 

notices and summaries obtained through ADAMS. The audit team also interviewed 

agency staff and external stakeholders. 

OIG conducted this performance audit between November 2009 and March 2010 in 

accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

finding and conclusions based on our audit objective. OIG conducted this work at 

NRC's headquarters located in Rockville, Maryland. 

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

Manager; Catherine Colleli, Audit Manager; Yvette Mabry, Senior Auditor; Jaclyn 

Storch, Senior Management Analyst; Rebecca Ryan, Management Analyst; and 

Vidya Sathyamoorthy, Student Management Analyst. 

cc: N. Mamish, OEDO 

J. Andersen, OEDO 

J. Arildsen, OEDO 

C. Jaegers, OEDO 

8 
Electronic Distribution 

Edwin M. Hackett, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards 

E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel 

Stephen G. Burns, General Counsel 

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

James E. Dyer, Chief Financial Officer 

Margaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs 

Rebecca L. Schmidt, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs 

Eliot B. Brenner, Director, Office of Public Affairs 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission 

R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations 

Bruce S. Mallett, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor 

and Preparedness Programs, OEDO 

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

State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, OEDO 

Darren B. Ash, Deputy Executive Director for Corporate Management 

and Chief Information Officer, OEDO 

Nader L. Mamish, Assistant for Operations, OEDO 

Kathryn O. Greene, Director, Office of Administration 

Patrick D. Howard, Director, Computer Security Officer 

Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Enforcement 

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

and Environmental Management Programs 

Cheryl A. McCrary, Director, Office of Investigations 

Thomas M. Boyce, Director, Office of Information Services 

James F. McDermott, Director, Office of Human Resources 

Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of New Reactors 

Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

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

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

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

James T. Wiggins, Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region I 

Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II 

Mark A. Satorius, Regional Administrator, Region III 

Elmo E. Collins, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region IV 

Electronic Distribution 

Edwin M. Hackett, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards 

E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel 

Stephen G. Burns, General Counsel 

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

James E. Dyer, Chief Financial Officer 

Margaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs 

Rebecca L. Schmidt, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs 

Eliot B. Brenner, Director, Office of Public Affairs 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission 

R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations 

Bruce S. Mallett, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor 

and Preparedness Programs, OEDO 

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

State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, OEDO 

Darren B. Ash, Deputy Executive Director for Corporate Management 

and Chief Information Officer, OEDO 

Nader L. Mamish, Assistant for Operations, OEDO 

Kathryn O. Greene, Director, Office of Administration 

Patrick D. Howard, Director, Computer Security Officer 

Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Enforcement 

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

and Environmental Management Programs 

Cheryl A. McCrary, Director, Office of Investigations 

Thomas M. Boyce, Director, Office of Information Services 

James F. McDermott, Director, Office of Human Resources 

Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of New Reactors 

Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

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

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

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

James T. Wiggins, Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region I 

Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II 

Mark A. Satorius, Regional Administrator, Region III 

Elmo E. Collins, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region IV