NUREG-1600

General Statement of 

Policy and Procedure for 

NRC Enforcement Actions 

Enforcement Policy - May 1, 2000 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Enforcement 

Washington, DC 20555-0001
AVAILABILITY NOTICE

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regu

lations, and Title 10, Energy, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, may be purchased from one of the fol

lowing sources: 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

RO. Box 37082 

Washington, DC 20402-9328 

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/sudocs> 

202-512-1800 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161 -0002 

<http://www.ntis.gov> 

1 -800-553-6847 or locally 703-605-6000 

The NUREG series comprises (1) brochures 

(NUREG/BR-X)OOX, (2) proceedings of confer

ences (NUREG/CP-)X00X, (3) reports resulting 

from international agreements (NUREG/IA-X)XX), 

(4) technical and administrative reports'and books 

[(NUREG-)X00) or (NUREG/CR-XXXX)], and (5) 

compilations of legal decisions and orders of the 

Commission and Atomic and Safety Licensing 

Boards and of Office Directors' decisions under 

Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG

Xxxx). 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for com

ment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon 

written request as follows: 

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer 

Reproduction and Distribution 

Services Section 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: <DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov> 

Facsimile: 301-415-2289 

A portion of NRC regulatory and technical informa

tion is available at NRC's World Wide Web site:

<http://www.nrc.gov> 

After January 1,2000, the public may electronically 

access NUREG-series publications and other NRC 

records in NRC's Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS), through the 

Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR), link 

< http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html>. 

Publicly released documents include, to name a 

few, NUREG-series reports; Federal Register no

tices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents 

and correspondence; NRC correspondence and 

internal memoranda; bulletins and information no

tices; inspection and investigation reports; licens

ee event reports; and Commission papers and 

their attachments. 

Documents available from public and special tech

nical libraries ihclude all open literature items, such 

as books, journal articles, and transactions, Feder

al Register notices, Federal and State legislation, 

and congressional reports. Such documents as 

theses, dissertations, foreign reports and transla

tions, and non-NRC conference proceedings may 

be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process 

are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint 

North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852-2738. These standards are available in the 

library for reference use by the public. Codes and 

standards are usually copyrighted and may be 

purchased from the originating organization or, if 

they are American National Standards, from

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10036-8002 

< http://www.ansi.org > 

212-642-4900
NUREG-1600

General Statement of 

Policy and Procedure for 

NRC Enforcement Actions 

Enforcement Policy - May 1, 2000

Manuscript Completed: May 2000 

Date Published: May 2000 

Office of Enforcement 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Abstract 

This document includes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's or 

Commission's) revised General Statement of Policy and Procedure for 

Enforcement Actions (Enforcement Policy) as it was published in the Federal 

Register on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25368). Because the policy is often revised 

without being reissued as a NUREG series publication, this current document is 

identified by date instead of revision number. The policy that preceded this April 

2000 publication was NUREG-1600, November 9, 1999. The Enforcement 

Policy is a general statement of policy explaining the NRC's policies and 

procedures in initiating enforcement actions, and the responsibilities of the 

presiding officers and the Commission in reviewing these actions. This policy 

statement is applicable to enforcement matters involving the radiological health 

and safety of the public, including employees' health and safety, the common 

defense and security, and the environment. The NRC publishes the policy 

statement in NRC's NUREG series to foster its widespread dissemination. 

However, this is a policy statement and not a regulation. The Commission may 

deviate from this statement of policy and procedure as appropriate under the 

circumstances of a particular case. 

As a living policy statement, revisions are noticed in the Federal Register. The 

NRC's Office of Enforcement maintains the current policy statement on its 

homepage on the Internet at www.nrc.gov/OE/. This revision (1) incorporates the 

Interim Enforcement Policy that was used during the NRC Power Reactor 

Oversight Process Pilot Plant Study into the main body of the Enforcement Policy 

as permanent guidance; (2) adds an interim Enforcement Policy for exercising 

enforcement discretion for inaccurate or incomplete performance indicator data 

for nuclear power plants; (3) changes examples of violations for operating reactors 

regarding changes, tests, and experiments; (4) adds examples of violations for 

inaccurate or incomplete performance indicator data; (5) changes examples of 

violations involving the failure to secure, or maintain surveillance over, licensed 

material; and (6) edits existing guidance to assure clarity of existing policy and 

consistency with the intent of the Interim Enforcement Policy. The intent of this 

Policy revision is to continue to move towards a more risk-informed and 

performance-based approach.

iii NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final policy statement does not contain a new or amended information collection 

requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing 

requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 

3150-0136. 

Public Protection Notification 

If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a currently valid 

OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, the information collection. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the 

NRC has determined that this action is not a "major" rule and has verified this determination with 

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

NUREG-1600 

iv

NUREG-1600 iv
NRC Enforcement Policy 

- Contents 

A bstract .................................................................... iii 

Paperwork Reduction and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Acts .......... iv 

Table of C ontents .............................................................. v 

Preface ...................................................................... 1 

1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ......................................... 1 

II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK .............. 2 

A . Statutory Authority .................................................... 2 

B. Procedural Framework ................................................. 3 

III. RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................... 4 

IV. SIGNIFICANCE OF VIOLATIONS ......................................... 5 

A. Assessing Significance ................................................. 6 

1. Actual Safety Consequence ........................................ 6 

2. Potential Safety Consequence ...................................... 6 

3. Impacting the Regulatory Process ................................... 6 

4. W illfulness .................................................... 7 

5. Significance Determination Process ................................. 7 

B. Assigning Severity Level ............................................... 9 

V. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES ....................... 10 

VI. DISPOSITION OF VIOLATIONS ......................................... 13 

A. Non-Cited Violation.................................................. 13 

1. Power Reactor Licensees ........................................ 14 

2. - 7. [Reserved] .................................................. 15 

8. All Other Licensees ....................................... 15 

B. Notice of Violation ................................................... 15 

C . Civil Penalty ........................................................ 16 

1. Base Civil Penalty .............................................. 16 

2. Civil Penalty Assessment ........................................ 18 

a. Initial Escalated Action .................................... 19 

b. Credit for Actions Related to Identification .................... 19 

c. Credit for Prompt and Comprehensive Corrective Action ......... 23 

d. Exercise of Discretion ..................................... 24 

D . O rders ............................................................. 24 

E. Related Administrative Actions ......................................... 26 

VII. EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ............................................ 26 

A. Escalation of Enforcement Sanctions ..................................... 26 

1. Civil Penalties ................................................. 27 

2. O rders ....................................................... 28 

3. Daily Civil Penalties ............................................ 28 

B. Mitigation of Enforcement Sanctions ..................................... 28 

1. [R eserved] .................................................... 28 

2. Violations Identified During Extended Shutdowns or Work Stoppages .... 28 

3. Violations Involving Old Design Issues ................ ............ 29 

4. Violations Identified Due to Previous Enforcement Action .............. 30 

5. Violations Involving Certain Discrimination Issues .................... 30 

6. Violations Involving Special Circumstances ......................... 31 

v NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

C. Notice of Enforcement Discretion for Power Reactors and 

Gaseous Diffusion Plants ............................................. 31 

VIII. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVING INDIVIDUALS .................... 33 

IX. INACCURATE AND INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ........................ 37 

X. ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST NON-LICENSEES ..................... 38 

XI. REFERRALS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ......................... 39 

XII. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ...................... 39 

XIII. REOPENING CLOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ......................... 39 

SUPPLEMENTS - VIOLATION EXAMPLES ...................................... 41 

Supplement I--Reactor Operations ............................................... 41 

Supplement H--Facility Construction ............................................. 44 

Supplement mI--Safeguards .................................................... 45 

Supplement IV--Health Physics (10 CFR Part 20) .................................. 48 

Supplement V--Transportation ................................................. 52 

Supplement VI--Fuel Cycle and Materials Operations ............................... 54 

Supplement VII--Miscellaneous Matters .......................................... 58 

Supplement VIII--Emergency Preparedness ....................................... 62 

INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICIES ...................................... 63 

Interim Enforcement Policy for Generally Licensed Devices Containing 

Byproduct M aterial (10 CFR 31.5) ............................................. 63 

Interim Enforcement Policy Regarding Enforcement Discretion for Nuclear 

Power Plants During the Year 2000 Transition ................................... 64 

Interim Enforcement Policy Regarding Enforcement Discretion for Inaccurate or Incomplete 

Performance Indicator Data for Nuclear Power Plants ................................ 66

NUREG-1600 Ai
NRC Enforcement Policy 

PREFACE 

The following policy statement describes the enforcement policy and procedures that the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) and its staff intends to follow in 

initiating and reviewing enforcement actions in response to violations of NRC requirements. 

This statement of general policy and procedure is published as NUREG-1600 to foster its 

widespread dissemination. However, this is a policy statement and not a regulation. The 

Commission may deviate from this statement of policy as appropriate under the circumstances of 

a particular case. 

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, establishes "adequate protection" as the 

standard of safety on which NRC regulations are based. In the context of NRC regulations, 

safety means avoiding undue risk or, stated another way, providing reasonable assurance of 

adequate protection of workers and the public in connection with the use of source, byproduct 

and special nuclear materials. 

While safety is the fundamental regulatory objective, compliance with NRC requirements 

plays an important role in giving the NRC confidence that safety is being maintained. NRC 

requirements, including technical specifications, other license conditions, orders, and regulations, 

have been designed to ensure adequate protection -- which corresponds to "no undue risk to 

public health and safety" -- through acceptable design, construction, operation, maintenance, 

modification, and quality assurance measures. In the context of risk-informed regulation, 

compliance plays a very important role in ensuring that key assumptions used in underlying risk 

and engineering analyses remain valid. 

While adequate protection is presumptively assured by compliance with NRC 

requirements, circumstances may arise where new information reveals that an unforeseen hazard 

exists or that there is a substantially greater potential for a known hazard to occur. In such 

situations, the NRC has the statutory authority to require licensee action above and beyond 

existing regulations to maintain the level of protection necessary to avoid undue risk to public 

health and safety. 

The NRC also has the authority to exercise discretion to permit continued operations -

despite the existence of a noncompliance -- where the noncompliance is not significant from a 

risk perspective and does not, in the particular circumstances, pose an undue risk to public health 

and safety. When noncompliance occurs, the NRC must evaluate the degree of risk posed by that 

noncompliance to determine if specific immediate action is required. Where needed to ensure 

adequate protection of public health and safety, the NRC may demand immediate licensee action, 

up to and including a shutdown or cessation of licensed activities. 

Based on the NRC's evaluation of noncompliance, the appropriate action could include 

refraining from taking any action, taking specific enforcement action, issuing orders, or providing 

input to other regulatory actions or assessments, such as increased oversight (e.g., increased 

inspection). Since some requirements are more important to safety than others, the NRC

1 NUREG-1600 1
NRC Enforcement Policy 

endeavors to use a risk-informed approach when applying NRC resources to the oversight of 

licensed activities, including enforcement activities. 

The primary purpose of the NRC's Enforcement Policy is to support the NRC's overall 

safety mission in protecting the public health and safety and the environment. Consistent with 

that purpose, the policy endeavors to: 

* Deter noncompliance by emphasizing the importance of compliance with NRC 

requirements, and 

0 Encourage prompt identification and prompt, comprehensive correction of violations of 

NRC requirements. 

Therefore, licensees,' contractors,2 and their employees who do not achieve the high 

standard of compliance which the NRC expects will be subject to enforcement sanctions. Each 

enforcement action is dependent on the circumstances of the case. However, in no case will 

licensees who cannot achieve and maintain adequate levels of safety be permitted to continue to 

conduct licensed activities. 

II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK 

A. Statutory Authority 

The NRC's enforcement jurisdiction is drawn from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) of 1974, as amended. 

Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act authorizes the NRC to conduct inspections and 

investigations and to issue orders as may be necessary or desirable to promote the common 

defense and security or to protect health or to minimize danger to life or property. Section 186 

authorizes the NRC to revoke licenses under certain circumstances (e.g., for material false 

statements, in response to conditions that would have warranted refusal of a license on an 

original application, for a licensee's failure to build or operate a facility in accordance with the 

terms of the permit or license, and for violation of an NRC regulation). Section 234 authorizes 

the NRC to impose civil penalties not to exceed $100,000 per violation per day for the violation 

of certain specified licensing provisions of the Act, rules, orders, and license terms implementing 

these provisions, and for violations for which licenses can be revoked. In addition to the 

enumerated provisions in section 234, sections 84 and 147 authorize the imposition of civil 

'This policy primarily addresses the activities of NRC licensees and applicants for NRC licenses. However, this 

policy provides for taking enforcement action against non-licensees and individuals in certain cases. These non

licensees include contractors and subcontractors, holders of, or applicants for, NRC approvals, e.g., certificates of 

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

guidance regarding enforcement action against individuals and non-licensees is addressed in Sections VIII and X, 

respectively. 

2

The term "contractor" as used in this policy includes vendors who supply products or services to be used in an 

NRC-licensed facility or activity.

NUREG-1600 2
NRC Enforcement Policy 

penalties for violations of regulations implementing those provisions. Section 232 authorizes the 

NRC to seek injunctive or other equitable relief for violation of regulatory requirements. 

Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act authorizes the NRC to impose civil 

penalties for knowing and conscious failures to provide certain safety information to the NRC. 

Notwithstanding the $100,000 limit stated in the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission 

may impose higher civil penalties as provided by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. 

Under the Act, the Commission is required to modify civil monetary penalties to reflect inflation. 

The adjusted maximum civil penalty amount is reflected in 10 CFR 2.205 and this Policy 

Statement. 

Chapter 18 of the Atomic Energy Act provides for varying levels of criminal penalties 

(i.e., monetary fines and imprisonment) for willful violations of the Act and regulations or orders 

issued under sections 65, 161(b), 161(i), or 161(o) of the Act. Section 223 provides that criminal 

penalties may be imposed on certain individuals employed by firms constructing or supplying 

basic components of any utilization facility if the individual knowingly and willfully violates 

NRC requirements such that a basic component could be significantly impaired. Section 235 

provides that criminal penalties may be imposed on persons who interfere with inspectors. 

Section 236 provides that criminal penalties may be imposed on persons who attempt to or cause 

sabotage at a nuclear facility or to nuclear fuel. Alleged or suspected criminal violations of the 

Atomic Energy Act are referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate action. 

B. Procedural Framework 

Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 2 of NRC's regulations sets forth the procedures the NRC uses 

in exercising its enforcement authority. 10 CFR 2.201 sets forth the procedures for issuing 

Notices of Violation. 

The procedure to be used in assessing civil penalties is set forth in 10 CFR 2.205. This 

regulation provides that the civil penalty process is initiated by issuing a Notice of Violation and 

Proposed Imposition of a Civil Penalty. The licensee or other person is provided an opportunity 

to contest the proposed imposition of a civil penalty in writing. After evaluation of the response, 

the civil penalty may be mitigated, remitted, or imposed. An opportunity is provided for a 

hearing if a civil penalty is imposed. If a civil penalty is not paid following a hearing or if a 

hearing is not requested, the matter may be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice to institute 

a civil action in District Court. 

The procedure for issuing an order to institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke 

a license or to take other action against a licensee or other person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

Commission is set forth in 10 CFR 2.202. The licensee or any other person adversely affected by 

the order may request a hearing. The NRC is authorized to make orders immediately effective if 

required to protect the public health, safety, or interest, or if the violation is willful. Section 2.204 

sets out the procedures for issuing a Demand for Information (Demand) to a licensee or other 

person subject to the Commission's jurisdiction for the purpose of determining whether an order 

or other enforcement action should be issued. The Demand does not provide hearing rights, as 

only information is being sought. A licensee must answer a Demand. An unlicensed person may

3 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

answer a Demand by either providing the requested information or explaining why the Demand 

should not have been issued. 

III. RESPONSIBILITIES 

The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) and the principal enforcement officers of 

the NRC, the Deputy Executive Director for Reactor Programs (DEDR)and the Deputy 

Executive Director for Materials, Research and State Programs (DEDMRS) have been delegated 

the authority to approve or issue all escalated enforcement actions. The DEDR is responsible to 

the EDO for NRC enforcement programs. The Office of Enforcement (OE) exercises oversight 

of and implements the NRC enforcement program. The Director, OE, acts for the Deputy 

Executive Director in enforcement matters in his absence or as delegated. 

Subject to the oversight and direction of OE, and with the approval of the Deputy 

Executive Director, where necessary, the regional offices normally issue Notices of Violation and 

proposed civil penalties. However, subject to the same oversight as the regional offices, the 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards (NMSS) may also issue Notices of Violation and proposed civil penalties for certain 

activities. Enforcement orders are normally issued by the Deputy Executive Director or the 

Director, OE. However, orders may also be issued by the EDO, especially those involving the 

more significant matters. The Directors of NRR and NMSS have also been delegated authority 

to issue orders, but it is expected that normal use of this authority by NRR and NMSS will be 

confined to actions not associated with compliance issues. The Chief Financial Officer has been 

delegated the authority to issue orders where licensees violate Commission regulations by 

nonpayment of license and inspection fees. 

In recognition that the regulation of nuclear activities in many cases does not lend itself to 

a mechanistic treatment, judgment and discretion must be exercised in determining the severity 

levels of the violations and the appropriate enforcement sanctions, including the decision to issue 

a Notice of Violation, or to propose or impose a civil penalty and the amount of this penalty, after 

considering the general principles of this statement of policy and the significance of the 

violations and the surrounding circumstances. 

Unless Commission consultation or notification is required by this policy, the NRC staff 

may depart, where warranted in the public's interest, from this policy as provided in Section VII, 

"Exercise of Discretion." 

The Commission will be provided written notification for the following situations: 

(1) All enforcement actions involving civil penalties or orders; 

3

The term "escalated enforcement action" as used in this policy means a Notice of Violation or civil penalty for 

any Severity Level I, II, or III violation (or problem); a Notice of Violation associated with an inspection finding 

that the Significance Determination Process evaluates as having low to moderate, or greater, safety significance (i.e., 

white, yellow, or red); or any order based upon a violation.

NUREG-1600 4
NRC Enforcement Policy 

(2) The first time that discretion is exercised for a plant that meets the criteria of 

Section VII.B.2; 

(3) (Where appropriate, based on the uniqueness or significance of the issue) when 

discretion is exercised for violations that meet the criteria of Section VII.B.6; and 

(4) All Notices of Enforcement Discretion (NOEDs) issued involving natural events, 

such as severe weather conditions. 

The Commission will be consulted prior to taking action in the following situations 

(unless the urgency of the situation dictates immediate action): 

(1) An action affecting a licensee's operation that requires balancing the public health 

and safety or common defense and security implications of not operating against the potential 

radiological or other hazards associated with continued operation (cases involving severe weather 

or other natural phenomena may be addressed by the NRC staff without prior Commission 

consultation in accordance with Section VII.C); 

(2) Proposals to impose a civil penalty for a single violation or problem that is greater 

than 3 times the Severity Level I value shown in Table 1A for that class of licensee; 

(3) Any proposed enforcement action that involves a Severity Level I violation; 

(4) Any action the EDO believes warrants Commission involvement; 

(5) Any proposed enforcement case involving an Office of Investigations (01) report 

where the NRC staff (other than the 01 staff) does not arrive at the same conclusions as those in 

the 01 report concerning issues of intent if the Director of 01 concludes that Commission 

consultation is warranted; and 

(6) Any proposed enforcement action on which the Commission asks to be consulted. 

IV. SIGNIFICANCE OF VIOLATIONS 

Regulatory requirements4 have varying degrees of safety, safeguards, or environmental 

significance. Therefore, the relative importance or significance of each violation is assessed as 

the first step in the enforcement process. 

4The term "requirement" as used in this policy means a legally binding requirement such as a statute, 

regulation, license condition, technical specification, or order.

5 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

A. Assessing Significance 

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

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

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

and (4) any willful aspects of the violation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section IV.A.5.c. 

1. Actual Safety Consequences. In evaluating actual safety consequences, the NRC 

considers issues such as actual onsite or offsite releases of radiation, onsite or offsite radiation 

exposures, accidental criticalities, core damage, loss of significant safety barriers, loss of control 

of radioactive material or radiological emergencies. (See Section IV.A.5.c for guidance on 

violations that are associated with SDP findings with actual consequences.) 

2. Potential Safety Consequences. In evaluating potential safety consequences, the NRC 

considers the realistic likelihood of affecting safety, i.e., the existence of credible scenarios with 

potentially significant actual consequences. The NRC will use risk information wherever 

possible in assessing significance and assigning severity levels. A higher severity may be 

warranted for violations that have greater risk significance and a lower severity level may be 

appropriate for issues that have low risk significance. Duration is an appropriate consideration in 

assessing the significance of violations. 

3. Impacting the Regulatory Process. The NRC considers the safety implications of 

noncompliances that may impact the NRC's ability to carry out it statutory mission. 

Noncompliances may be significant because they may challenge the regulatory envelope upon 

which certain activities were licensed. These types of violations include failures such as: 

failures to provide complete and accurate information, failures to receive prior NRC approval for 

changes in licensed activities, failures to notify NRC of changes in licensed activities, failure to 

perform 10 CFR 50.59 analyses, reporting failures, etc., Even inadvertent reporting failures are 

important because many of the surveillance, quality control, and auditing systems on which both 

the NRC and its licensees rely in order to monitor compliance with safety standards are based 

primarily on complete, accurate, and timely recordkeeping and reporting. The existence of a 

regulatory process violation does not automatically mean that the issue is safety significant. In 

determining the significance of a violation, the NRC will consider appropriate factors for the 

particular regulatory process violation. These factors may include: the significance of the

NUREG-1600 6
NRC Enforcement Policy 

underlying issue, whether the failure actually impeded or influenced regulatory action, the level 

of individuals involved in the failure and the reasonableness of the failure given their position 

and training, and whether the failure invalidates the licensing basis. Factors to consider for 

failures to provide complete and accurate information are addressed in Section IX of this policy. 

Unless otherwise categorized in the Supplements to this policy statement, the severity 

level of a violation involving the failure to make a required report to the NRC will be based upon 

the significance of and the circumstances surrounding the matter that should have been reported. 

However, the severity level of an untimely report, in contrast to no report, may be reduced 

depending on the circumstances surrounding the matter. A licensee will not normally be cited for 

a failure to report a condition or event unless the licensee was actually aware of the condition or 

event that it failed to report. A licensee will, on the other hand, normally be cited for a failure to 

report a condition or event if the licensee knew of the information to be reported, but did not 

recognize that it was required to make a report. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

licensee official5 or non-supervisory employee), the significance of any underlying violation, the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Significance Determination Process. The Reactor Oversight Process uses a 

Significance Determination Process (SDP) to determine the safety significance of most 

inspection findings identified at commercial nuclear power plants. Depending on their 

significance, inspection findings are assigned colors of green, white, yellow, or red. The Reactor 

5

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

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

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

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

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

and to the use of licensed material.

7 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Oversight Process uses an Agency Action Matrix to determine the appropriate agency response. 

If violations that are more than minor are associated with these inspection findings, they will be 

documented and may or may not be cited depending on the safety significance. These violations 

are not normally assigned severity levels, nor are they normally subject to civil penalties. 

NOTE: Violations associated with inspection findings that are not evaluated through the 

SDP will be assigned severity levels in accordance with Section IV.B and will be subject 

to civil penalties in accordance with Section VI.C. 

a. Violations Associated with Findings of Very Low Safety Significance 

Violations associated with findings that the SDP evaluates as having very low safety 

significance (i.e., green) will normally be described in inspection reports as Non-Cited 

Violations (NCVs). The finding will be categorized by the assessment process within the 

licensee response band. However, a Notice of Violation (NOV) will be issued if the issue meets 

one of the three applicable exceptions in Section VI.A. 1. The Commission recognizes that 

violations exist below this category that are of minimal safety or environmental significance. 

While licensees must correct these minor violations, they don't normally warrant documentation 

in inspection reports and do not warrant enforcement action. To the extent such violations are 

described, they will be noted as violations of minor significance that are not subject to 

enforcement action. 

b. Violations Associated with Findings of Low to Moderate, or Greater Safety 

Significance 

Violations associated with findings that the SDP evaluates as having low to moderate 

safety significance (i.e., white), substantial safety significance (yellow), or high safety 

significance (red) will be cited in an NOV requiring a written response unless sufficient 

information is already on the docket. The finding will be assigned a color related to its 

significance for use by the assessment process. The Commission reserves the use of discretion 

for particularly significant violations (e.g. an accidental criticality) to assess civil penalties in 

accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 

c. Violations Associated with Actual Consequences 

Violations that involve actual consequences such as an overexposure to the public or 

plant personnel above regulatory limits, failure to make the required notifications that impact the 

ability of Federal, State and local agencies to respond to an actual emergency preparedness (site 

area or general emergency), transportation event, or a substantial release of radioactive material, 

will be assigned severity levels and will be subject to civil penalties.

NUREG-1600 

8

NUREG-1600 8
NRC Enforcement Policy 

B. Assigning Severity Level 

For purposes of determining the appropriate enforcement action, violations (except the 

majority of those associated with findings evaluated though the SDP) are normally categorized in 

terms of four levels of severity to show their relative importance or significance within each of 

the following eight activity areas: 

I. Reactor Operations; 

II. Facility Construction; 

III. Safeguards; 

IV. Health Physics; 

V. Transportation; 

VI. Fuel Cycle and Materials Operations; 

VII. Miscellaneous Matters; and 

VIII. Emergency Preparedness. 

Licensed activities will be placed in the activity area most suitable in light of the 

particular violation involved, including activities not directly covered by one of the listed areas, 

e.g., export license activities. Within each activity area, Severity Level I has been assigned to 

violations that are the most significant and Severity Level IV violations are the least significant. 

Severity Level I and II violations are of very significant regulatory concern.6 In general, 

violations that are included in these severity categories involve actual or high potential 

consequences on public health and safety. Severity Level III violations are cause for significant 

regulatory concern. Severity Level IV violations are less serious but are of more than minor 

concern. Violations at Severity Level IV involve noncompliance with NRC requirements that are 

not considered significant based on risk. This should not be misunderstood to imply that 

Severity Level IV issues have no risk significance. 

The Commission recognizes that there are other violations of minor safety or 

environmental concern that are below the level of significance of Severity Level IV violations. 

While licensees must correct these minor violations, they don't normally warrant documentation 

in inspection reports or inspection records and do not warrant enforcement action. To the extent 

such violations are described, they will be noted as violations of minor significance that are not 

subject to enforcement action. 

Comparisons of significance between activity areas are inappropriate. For example, the 

immediacy of any hazard to the public associated with Severity Level I violations in Reactor 

Operations is not directly comparable to that associated with Severity Level I violations in 

Facility Construction. 

Supplements I through VIII provide examples and serve as guidance in determining the 

appropriate severity level for violations in each of the eight activity areas. However, the 

6 Regulatory concern pertains to primary NRC regulatory responsibilities, i.e., safety, safeguards, and the 

environment.

9 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

examples are neither exhaustive nor controlling. In addition, these examples do not create new 

requirements. Each is designed to illustrate the significance that the NRC places on a particular 

type of violation of NRC requirements. Each of the examples in the supplements is predicated 

on a violation of a regulatory requirement. 

The NRC reviews each case being considered for enforcement action on its own merits to 

ensure that the severity of a violation is characterized at the level best suited to the significance 

of the particular violation. 

V. PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES 

When the NRC learns of a potential violation for which escalated enforcement action 

appears to be warranted, or recurring nonconformance on the part of a contractor, the NRC may 

provide an opportunity for a predecisional enforcement conference with the licensee, contractor, 

or other person before taking enforcement action. The purpose of the predecisional enforcement 

conference is to obtain information that will assist the NRC in determining the appropriate 

enforcement action, such as: (1) a common understanding of facts, root causes, and missed 

opportunities associated with the apparent violations; (2) a common understanding of corrective 

actions taken or planned; and (3) a common understanding of the significance of issues and the 

need for lasting comprehensive corrective action. 

The NRC may conduct Regulatory Conferences (in lieu of predecisional enforcement 

conferences) to discuss the significance of findings evaluated by the Reactor Oversight Process's 

SDP when apparent violations are associated with potentially significant findings. The purpose 

of Regulatory Conferences is to get information from licensees on the significance of findings 

evaluated through the SDP whether or not violations are involved. Because the significance 

assessment from the SDP determines whether or not escalated enforcement action will be issued 

(i.e., a Notice of Violation associated with a white, yellow, or red SDP finding), a subsequent 

predecisional enforcement conference is not normally necessary. 

If the NRC concludes that it has sufficient information to make an informed enforcement 

decision involving a licensee, contractor, or vendor, a predecisional enforcement conference will 

not normally be held. If a predecisional enforcement conference is not held, the licensee may be 

given an opportunity to respond to a documented apparent violation (including its root causes 

and a description of planned or implemented corrective actions) before the NRC takes 

enforcement action. However, if the NRC has sufficient information to conclude that a civil 

penalty is not warranted, it may proceed to issue an enforcement action without first obtaining 

the licensee's response to the documented apparent violation. 

The NRC will normally provide an opportunity for an individual to address apparent 

violations before the NRC takes escalated enforcement action. Whether an individual will be 

provided an opportunity for a predecisional enforcement conference or an opportunity to address 

an apparent violation in writing will depend on the circumstances of the case, including the 

severity of the issue, the significance of the action the NRC is contemplating, and whether the 

individual has already had an opportunity to address the issue (e.g., an Office of Investigation or 

a Department of Labor hearing).

NUREG-1600 10
NRC Enforcement Policy 

During the predecisional enforcement conference, the licensee, contractor, or other 

persons will be given an opportunity to provide information consistent with the purpose of the 

conference, including an explanation to the NRC of the immediate corrective actions (if any) that 

were taken following identification of the potential violation or nonconformance and the 

long-term comprehensive actions that were taken or will be taken to prevent recurrence. 

Licensees, contractors, or other persons will be told when a meeting is a predecisional 

enforcement conference. 

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

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

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

the enforcement action being contemplated: 

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

individual, turns on whether an individual has committed wrongdoing; 

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

individual(s) involved be present at the conference; 

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

publicly disclosed; or 

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

be considered proprietary; 

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

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

conference cannot be conducted without disclosing the exposed individual's name; or 

(6) The conference will be conducted by telephone or the conference will be conducted at 

a relatively small licensee's facility. 

Notwithstanding meeting any of these criteria, a predecisional enforcement conference 

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

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

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

notwithstanding the normal criteria for opening or closing predecisional enforcement 

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

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

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

The NRC will notify the licensee that the predecisional enforcement conference will be 

open to public observation. Consistent with the agency's policy on open meetings (included on 

the NRC's Public Meeting Web site), the NRC intends to announce open conferences normally at 

least 10 calendar days in advance of conferences. Conferences will be announced on the Internet 

at the NRC Office of Enforcement's homepage (www.nrc.gov/OE) and on the Public Meeting

11 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Web site (www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/meet.html). Individuals who do not have Internet access 

may get assistance on scheduled conferences by contacting the NRC staff at the Public Document 

Room, by calling toll-free 1-800-397-4209. In addition, the NRC will normally issue a press 

release and notify appropriate State liaison officers that a predecisional enforcement conference 

has been scheduled and that it is open to public observation. 

The public attending open predecisional enforcement conferences may observe but may 

not participate in the conference. The purpose of conducting open conferences is not to 

maximize public attendance, but rather to provide the public with opportunities to be informed of 

NRC activities consistent with the NRC's ability to exercise its regulatory and safety 

responsibilities. Therefore, members of the public will be allowed access to the NRC regional 

offices to attend open enforcement conferences in accordance with the "Standard Operating 

Procedures For Providing Security Support For NRC Hearings and Meetings," published 

November 1, 1991 (56 FR 56251). These procedures provide that visitors may be subject to 

personnel screening, that signs, banners, posters, etc., not larger than 18" be permitted, and that 

disruptive persons may be removed. The open conference will be terminated if disruption 

interferes with a successful conference. NRC's Predecisional Enforcement Conferences (whether 

open or closed) normally will be held at the NRC's regional offices or in NRC Headquarters 

Offices and not in the vicinity of the licensee's facility. 

For a case in which an NRC Office of Investigations (01) report finds that discrimination 

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

the 01 report may be made public, subject to withholding certain information (i.e., after 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

involving potential discrimination by a contractor, any associated predecisional enforcement 

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

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

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

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

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

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

generally the conference will focus on the licensee's corrective action. As with discrimination 

cases based on 01 investigations, the complainant may be allowed to participate.

NUREG-1600 12
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Members of the public attending open predecisional enforcement conferences will be 

reminded that (1) the apparent violations discussed at predecisional enforcement conferences are 

subject to further review and may be subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement action 

and (2) the statements of views or expressions of opinion made by NRC employees at 

predecisional enforcement conferences, or the lack thereof, are not intended to represent final 

determinations or beliefs. 

When needed to protect the public health and safety or common defense and security, 

escalated enforcement action, such as the issuance of an immediately effective order, will be 

taken before the conference. In these cases, a conference may be held after the escalated 

enforcement action is taken. 

VI. DISPOSITION OF VIOLATIONS 

This section describes the various ways the NRC can disposition violations. The manner 

in which a violation is dispositioned is intended to reflect the seriousness of the violation and the 

circumstances involved. As previously stated, minor violations are not the subject of 

enforcement action. While licensees must correct these violations, they don't normally warrant 

documentation in inspection reports or inspection records. Other violations are documented and 

may be dispositioned as Non-Cited Violations, cited in Notices of Violation, or issued in 

conjunction with civil penalties or various types of orders. The NRC may also choose to exercise 

discretion and refrain from issuing enforcement action. (See Section VII.B, "Mitigation of 

Enforcement Sanctions.") As discussed further in Section VI.E, related administrative actions 

such as Notices of Nonconformance, Notices of Deviation, Confirmatory Action Letters, Letters 

of Reprimand, and Demands for Information are used to supplement the enforcement program. 

In determining the appropriate regulatory response, the NRC will consider enforcement actions 

taken by other Federal or State regulatory bodies having concurrent jurisdiction, such as in 

transportation matters. 

A. Non-Cited Violation (NCV) 

A Non-Cited Violation (NCV) is the term used to describe a method for dispositioning a 

Severity Level IV violation or a violation associated with a finding that the Reactor Oversight 

Process's SDP evaluates as having very low safety significance (i.e., green). These issues are 

documented as violations in inspection reports (or inspection records for some materials 

licensees) to establish public records of the violations, but are not cited in Notices of Violation 

which normally require written responses from licensees (see Section VI.B below). 

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

with requirements nor the importance of maintaining safety. Licensees are still responsible for 

maintaining safety and compliance and must take steps to address corrective actions for these 

violations. While licensees are not required to provide written responses to NCVs, this approach 

allows licensees to dispute violations described as NCVs. The following sections describe the 

circumstances under which a violation may or may not be dispositioned as an NCV.

13 NUREG-1600 13
NRC Enforcement Policy 

1. Power Reactor Licensees 

Severity Level IV violations and violations associated with green SDP findings are 

normally dispositioned as NCVs. Violations dispositioned as NCVs will be described in 

inspection reports, although the NRC will close these violations based on their being entered into 

the licensee's corrective action program. At the time a violation is closed in an inspection report, 

the licensee may not have completed its corrective actions or begun the process to identify the 

root cause and develop action to prevent recurrence. Licensee actions will be taken 

commensurate with the established priorities and processes of the licensee's corrective action 

program. The NRC inspection program will provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the 

corrective action program. In addition to documentation in inspection reports, violations will be 

entered into the Plant Issues Matrix (PIM). Because the NRC will not normally obtain a written 

response from licensees describing actions taken to restore compliance and prevent recurrence of 

these violations, this enforcement approach places greater NRC reliance on licensee corrective 

action programs. Any one of the following circumstances will result in consideration of an NOV 

requiring a formal written response from a licensee. 

a. The licensee failed to restore compliance within a reasonable time after a violation was 

identified. 

b. The licensee did not place the violation into a corrective action program to address 

recurrence. 

c. The violation is repetitive7 as a result of inadequate corrective action, and was 

identified by the NRC. NOTE: This exception does not apply to violations associated with green 

SDP findings. 

d. The violation was willful. Notwithstanding willfulness, an NCV may still be 

appropriate if: 

(1) The licensee identified the violation and the information concerning the violation, 

if not required to be reported, was promptly provided to appropriate NRC personnel, such as a 

resident inspector or regional branch chief; 

(2) The violation involved the acts of a low-level individual (and not a licensee 

official as defined in Section IV.A); 

(3) The violation appears to be the isolated action of the employee without 

management involvement and the violation was not caused by lack of management oversight as 

evidenced by either a history of isolated willful violations or a lack of adequate audits or 

supervision of employees; and 

7

A violation is considered "repetitive" if it could reasonably be expected to have been prevented by the licensee's 

corrective action for a previous violation or a previous licensee finding that occurred within the past 2 years of the 

inspection at issue, or the period within the last two inspections, whichever is longer.

NUREG-1600 14
NRC Enforcement Policy 

(4) Significant remedial action commensurate with the circumstances was taken by 

the licensee such that it demonstrated the seriousness of the violation to other employees and 

contractors, thereby creating a deterrent effect within the licensee's organization. 

The approval of the Director, Office of Enforcement, with consultation with the Deputy 

Executive Director as warranted, is required for dispositioning willful violations as NCVs. 

2. - 7. [Reserved] 

8. All Other Licensees 

Severity Level IV violations that are dispositioned as NCVs will be described in 

inspection reports (or inspection records for some materials licensees) and will include a brief 

description of the corrective action the licensee has either taken or planned to take. Any one of 

the following circumstances will result in consideration of an NOV requiring a formal written 

response from a licensee. 

a. The licensee failed to identify the violation;8 

b. The licensee did not correct or commit to correct the violation within a reasonable time 

by specific corrective action committed to by the end of the inspection, including immediate 

corrective action and comprehensive corrective action to prevent recurrence; and 

c. The violation is repetitive as a result of inadequate corrective action; 

d. The violation was willful. Notwithstanding willfulness, an NCV may still be 

appropriate if it meets the criteria in Section VI.A. 1.d. 

The approval of the Director, Office of Enforcement, with consultation with the Deputy 

Executive Director as warranted, is required for dispositioning willful violations as NCVs. 

B. Notice of Violation 

A Notice of Violation is a written notice setting forth one or more violations of a legally 

binding requirement. The Notice of Violation normally requires the recipient to provide a 

written statement describing (1) the reasons for the violation or, if contested, the basis for 

disputing the violation; (2) corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved; 

(3) corrective steps that will be taken to prevent recurrence; and (4) the date when full 

compliance will be achieved. The NRC may waive all or portions of a written response to the 

extent that relevant information has already been provided to the NRC in writing or documented 

in an NRC inspection report or inspection record. The NRC may require responses to Notices of 

8

An NOV is warranted when a licensee identifies a violation as a result of an event where the root cause of the 

event is obvious or the licensee had prior opportunity to identify the problem but failed to take action that would 

have prevented the event. Disposition as an NCV may be warranted if the licensee demonstrated initiative in 

identifying the violation's root cause.

15 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Violation to be under oath. Normally, responses under oath will be required only in connection 

with Severity Level I, II, or III violations; violations associated with findings that the SDP 

evaluates as having low to moderate, or greater safety significance (i.e., white, yellow, or red); or 

orders. 

Issuance of a Notice of Violation is normally the only enforcement action taken for 

Severity Level I, II, and mI violations, except in cases where the criteria for issuance of civil 

penalties and orders, as set forth in Sections VI.C and VI.D, respectively, are met. 

C. Civil Penalty 

A civil penalty is a monetary penalty that may be imposed for violation of (1) certain 

specified licensing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act or supplementary NRC rules or orders; 

(2) any requirement for which a license may be revoked; or (3) reporting requirements under 

section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act. Civil penalties are designed to deter future 

violations both by the involved licensee and other licensees conducting similar activities. Civil 

penalties also emphasize the need for licensees to identify violations and take prompt 

comprehensive corrective action. 

Civil penalties are normally assessed for Severity Level I and II violations and knowing 

and conscious violations of the reporting requirements of section 206 of the Energy 

Reorganization Act. Civil penalties are considered for Severity Level III violations. 

Civil penalties are also considered for violations associated with inspection findings 

evaluated through the Reactor Oversight Process's SDP that involved actual consequences, such 

as an overexposure to the public or plant personnel above regulatory limits, failure to make the 

required notifications that impact the ability of Federal, State and local agencies to respond to an 

actual emergency preparedness event (site area or general emergency), transportation event, or a 

substantial release of radioactive material. (Civil penalties are not proposed for violations 

associated with low to moderate, or greater safety significant findings absent actual 

consequences.) 

Civil penalties are used to encourage prompt identification and prompt and 

comprehensive correction of violations, to emphasize compliance in a manner that deters future 

violations, and to serve to focus licensees' attention on significant violations. 

Although management involvement, direct or indirect, in a violation may lead to an 

increase in the civil penalty, the lack of management involvement may not be used to mitigate a 

civil penalty. Allowing mitigation in the latter case could encourage the lack of management 

involvement in licensed activities and a decrease in protection of the public health and safety. 

1. Base Civil Penalty 

The NRC imposes different levels of penalties for different severity level violations and 

different classes of licensees, contractors, and other persons. Tables lA and 1B show the base 

civil penalties for various reactor, fuel cycle, and materials programs. (Civil penalties issued to 

individuals are determined on a case-by-case basis.) The structure of these tables generally takes

NUREG-1600 16
NRC Enforcement Policy 

into account the gravity of the violation as a primary consideration and the ability to pay as a 

secondary consideration. Generally, operations involving greater nuclear material inventories 

and greater potential consequences to the public and licensee employees receive higher civil 

penalties. Regarding the secondary factor of ability of various classes of licensees to pay the 

civil penalties, it is not the NRC's intention that the economic impact of a civil penalty be so 

severe that it puts a licensee out of business (orders, rather than civil penalties, are used when the 

intent is to suspend or terminate licensed activities) or adversely affects a licensee's ability to 

safely conduct licensed activities. The deterrent effect of civil penalties is best served when the 

amounts of the penalties take into account a licensee's ability to pay. In determining the amount 

of civil penalties for licensees for whom the tables do not reflect the ability to pay or the gravity 

of the violation, the NRC will consider necessary increases or decreases on a case-by-case basis. 

Normally, if a licensee can demonstrate financial hardship, the NRC will consider payments over 

time, including interest, rather than reducing the amount of the civil penalty. However, where a 

licensee claims financial hardship, the licensee will normally be required to address why it has 

sufficient resources to safely conduct licensed activities and pay license and inspection fees.

17 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

TABLE 1A--BASE CIVIL PENALTIES 

a. Power reactors and gaseous diffusion plants ................................ $110,000 

b. Fuel fabricators authorized to possess Category I or II quantities of SNM ......... $55,000 

c. Fuel fabricators, industrial processors,' and independent spent fuel and 

monitored retrievable storage installations ................................ $27,500 

d. Test reactors, mills and uranium conversion facilities, contractors, waste 

disposal licensees, industrial radiographers, and other large material users ....... $11,000 

e. Research reactors, academic, medical, or other small material users2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,500 

'Large firms engaged in manufacturing or distribution of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material. 

2

This applies to nonprofit institutions not otherwise categorized in this table, mobile nuclear services, 

nuclear pharmacies, and physician offices. 

TABLE 1B--BASE CIVIL PENALTIES 

Severity Level Base Civil Penalty Amount 

(Percent of amount listed in Table 1 A) 

I .................................................. 100% 

II .................................................. 80% 

111 .................................................. 50 % 

2. Civil Penalty Assessment 

In an effort to (1) emphasize the importance of adherence to requirements and 

(2) reinforce prompt self-identification of problems and root causes and prompt and 

comprehensive correction of violations, the NRC reviews each proposed civil penalty on its own 

merits and, after considering all relevant circumstances, may adjust the base civil penalties 

shown in Table lA and 1B for Severity Level I, II, and IlI violations as described below. 

The civil penalty assessment process considers four decisional points: (a) whether the 

licensee has had any previous escalated enforcement action (regardless of the activity area) 

during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, whichever is longer; (b) whether the licensee should 

be given credit for actions related to identification; (c) whether the licensee's corrective actions 

are prompt and comprehensive; and (d) whether, in view of all the circumstances, the matter in 

question requires the exercise of discretion. Although each of these decisional points may have

NUREG-1600 18
NRC Enforcement Policy

several associated considerations for any given case, the outcome of the assessment process for 

each violation or problem, absent the exercise of discretion, is limited to one of the following 

three results: no civil penalty, a base civil penalty, or a base civil penalty escalated by 100 

percent. The flow chart presented below is a graphic representation of the civil penalty 

assessment process. 

E ANotPOe of 

YES veolatton 

YES Crdi foC ivil 

•.,orective Penalty 

YES ? N Notice of 

ESCALATED PROCESS Nn an O Cei o iVtolation & 

SeeiyLevel 1, 11 Wilu III In • denSL Case 

an IIVolations SL1 I YES civPenlt 

DiNretlon Y 

a. Initial Escalated Action 

When the NRC determines that a non-willful Severity Level IH violation or problem has 

occurred, and the licensee has not had a previous escalated actions (regardless of the activity 

area) during the past 2 years or 2 inspections, whichever is longer, the NRC will consider 

whether the licensee's corrective action for the present violation or problem is reasonably prompt 

and comprehensive (see the discussion under Section VI.C.2.c, below). Using 2 years as the 

basis for assessment is expected to cover most situations, but considering a slightly longer or 

shorter period might be warranted based on the circumstances of a particular case. The starting 

point of this period should be considered the date when the licensee was put on notice of the need 

to take corrective action. For a licensee-identified violation or an event, this would be when the 

licensee is aware that a problem or violation exists requiring corrective action. For an NRC

identified violation, the starting point would be when the NRC puts the licensee on notice, which 

could be during the inspection, at the inspection exit meeting, or as part of post-inspection 

communication. 

If the corrective action is judged to be prompt and comprehensive, a Notice of Violation 

normally should be issued with no associated civil penalty. If the corrective action is judged to 

be less than prompt and comprehensive, the Notice of Violation normally should be issued with a 

base civil penalty. 

b. Credit for Actions Related to Identification 

(1) If a Severity Level I or II violation or a willful Severity Level 1ll violation has 

occurred--or if, during the past 2 years or 2 inspections, whichever is longer, the licensee has 

been issued at least one other escalated action--the civil penalty assessment should normally 

consider the factor of identification in addition to corrective action (see the discussion under 

Section VI.C.2.c, below). In these circumstances, the NRC should consider whether the licensee 

should be given credit for actions related to identification.

19 NUREG-1690 19 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

In each case, the decision should be focused on identification of the problem requiring 

corrective action. In other words, although giving credit for Identification and Corrective Action 

should be separate decisions, the concept of Identification presumes that the identifier recognizes 

the existence of a problem, and understands that corrective action is needed. The decision on 

Identification requires considering all the circumstances of identification including: 

(i) Whether the problem requiring corrective action was NRC-identified, licensee

identified, or revealed through an eventg; 

(ii) Whether prior opportunities existed to identify the problem requiring corrective 

action, and if so, the age and number of those opportunities; 

(iii) Whether the problem was revealed as the result of a licensee self-monitoring 

effort, such as conducting an audit, a test, a surveillance, a design review, or troubleshooting; 

(iv) For a problem revealed through an event, the ease of discovery, and the degree of 

licensee initiative in identifying the root cause of the problem and any associated violations; 

(v) For NRC-identified issues, whether the licensee would likely have identified the 

issue in the same time-period if the NRC had not been involved; 

(vi) For NRC-identified issues, whether the licensee should have identified the issue 

(and taken action) earlier; and 

(vii) For cases in which the NRC identifies the overall problem requiring corrective 

action (e.g., a programmatic issue), the degree of licensee initiative or lack of initiative in 

identifying the problem or problems requiring corrective action. 

(2) Although some cases may consider all of the above factors, the importance of each 

factor will vary based on the type of case as discussed in the following general guidance: 

(i) Licensee-Identified. When a problem requiring corrective action is licensee

identified (i.e., identified before the problem has resulted in an event), the NRC should normally 

give the licensee credit for actions related to identification, regardless of whether prior 

opportunities existed to identify the problem. 

9

An "event," as used here, means (1) an event characterized by an active adverse impact on equipment or 

personnel, readily obvious by human observation or instrumentation, or (2) a radiological impact on personnel or the 

environment in excess of regulatory limits, such as an overexposure, a release of radioactive material above NRC 

limits, or a loss of radioactive material. For example, an equipment failure discovered through a spill of liquid, a 

loud noise, the failure to have a system respond properly, or an annunciator alarm would be considered an event; a 

system discovered to be inoperable through a document review would not. Similarly, if a licensee discovered, 

through quarterly dosimetry readings, that employees had been inadequately monitored for radiation, the issue 

would normally be considered licensee-identified; however, if the same dosimetry readings disclosed an 

overexposure, the issue would be considered an event.

NUREG-1600 20
NRC Enforcement Policy 

(ii) Identified Through an Event. When a problem requiring corrective action is 

identified through an event, the decision on whether to give the licensee credit for actions related 

to identification normally should consider the ease of discovery, whether the event occurred as 

the result of a licensee self-monitoring effort (i.e., whether the licensee was "looking for the 

problem"), the degree of licensee initiative in identifying the problem or problems requiring 

corrective action, and whether prior opportunities existed to identify the problem. 

Any of these considerations may be overriding if particularly noteworthy or particularly 

egregious. For example, if the event occurred as the result of conducting a surveillance or similar 

self-monitoring effort (i.e., the licensee was looking for the problem), the licensee should 

normally be given credit for identification. Even if the problem was easily discovered (e.g., 

revealed by a large spill of liquid), the NRC may choose to give credit because noteworthy 

licensee effort was exerted in ferreting out the root cause and associated violations, or simply 

because no prior opportunities (e.g., procedural cautions, post-maintenance testing, quality 

control failures, readily observable parameter trends, or repeated or locked-in annunciator 

warnings) existed to identify the problem. 

(iii) NRC-Identified. When a problem requiring corrective action is NRC-identified, 

the decision on whether to give the licensee credit for actions related to Identification should 

normally be based on an additional question: should the licensee have reasonably identified the 

problem (and taken action) earlier? 

In most cases, this reasoning may be based simply on the ease of the NRC inspector's 

discovery (e.g., conducting a walkdown, observing in the control room, performing a 

confirmatory NRC radiation survey, hearing a cavitating pump, or finding a valve obviously out 

of position). In some cases, the licensee's missed opportunities to identify the problem might 

include a similar previous violation, NRC or industry notices, internal audits, or readily 

observable trends. 

If the NRC identifies the violation but concludes that, under the circumstances, the 

licensee's actions related to Identification were not unreasonable, the matter would be treated as 

licensee-identified for purposes of assessing the civil penalty. In such cases, the question of 

Identification credit shifts to whether the licensee should be penalized for NRC's identification of 

the problem. 

(iv) Mixed Identification. For "mixed" identification situations (i.e., where multiple 

violations exist, some NRC-identified, some licensee-identified, or where the NRC prompted the 

licensee to take action that resulted in the identification of the violation), the NRC's evaluation 

should normally determine whether the licensee could reasonably have been expected to identify 

the violation in the NRC's absence. This determination should consider, among other things, the 

timing of the NRC's discovery, the information available to the licensee that caused the NRC 

concern, the specificity of the NRC's concern, the scope of the licensee's efforts, the level of 

licensee resources given to the investigation, and whether the NRC's path of analysis had been 

dismissed or was being pursued in parallel by the licensee.

21 NUREG-1600 21
NRC Enforcement Policy 

In some cases, the licensee may have addressed the isolated symptoms of each violation 

(and may have identified the violations), but failed to recognize the common root cause and 

taken the necessary comprehensive action. Where this is true, the decision on whether to give 

licensee credit for actions related to Identification should focus on identification of the problem 

requiring corrective action (e.g., the programmatic breakdown). As such, depending on the 

chronology of the various violations, the earliest of the individual violations might be considered 

missed opportunities for the licensee to have identified the larger problem. 

(v) Missed Opportunities to Identify. Missed opportunities include prior 

notifications or missed opportunities to identify or prevent violations such as (1) through normal 

surveillances, audits, or quality assurance (QA) activities; (2) through prior notice, i.e., specific 

NRC or industry notification; or (3) through other reasonable indication of a potential problem or 

violation, such as observations of employees and contractors, and failure to take effective 

corrective steps. It may include findings of the NRC, the licensee, or industry made at other 

facilities operated by the licensee where it is reasonable to expect the licensee to take action to 

identify or prevent similar problems at the facility subject to the enforcement action at issue. In 

assessing this factor, consideration will be given to, among other things, the opportunities 

available to discover the violation, the ease of discovery, the similarity between the violation and 

the notification, the period of time between when the violation occurred and when the 

notification was issued, the action taken (or planned) by the licensee in response to the 

notification, and the level of management review that the notification received (or should have 

received). 

The evaluation of missed opportunities should normally depend on whether the 

information available to the licensee should reasonably have caused action that would have 

prevented the violation. Missed opportunities is normally not applied where the licensee 

appropriately reviewed the opportunity for application to its activities and reasonable action was 

either taken or planned to be taken within a reasonable time. 

In some situations the missed opportunity is a violation in itself. In these cases, unless 

the missed opportunity is a Severity Level III violation in itself, the missed opportunity violation 

may be grouped with the other violations into a single Severity Level III "problem." However, if 

the missed opportunity is the only violation, then it should not normally be counted twice (i.e., 

both as the violation and as a missed opportunity-- "double counting") unless the number of 

opportunities missed was particularly significant. 

The timing of the missed opportunity should also be considered. While a rigid time-frame 

is unnecessary, a 2-year period should generally be considered for consistency in implementation, 

as the period reflecting relatively current performance. 

(3) When the NRC determines that the licensee should receive credit for actions related to 

Identification, the civil penalty assessment should normally result in either no civil penalty or a 

base civil penalty, based on whether Corrective Action is judged to be reasonably prompt and 

comprehensive. When the licensee is not given credit for actions related to Identification, the 

civil penalty assessment should normally result in a Notice of Violation with either a base civil 

penalty or a base civil penalty escalated by 100 percent, depending on the quality of Corrective 

Action, because the licensee's performance is clearly not acceptable.

NUREG-1600 22
NRC Enforcement Policy 

c. Credit for Prompt and Comprehensive Corrective Action 

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

immediate actions necessary upon discovery of a violation that will restore safety and compliance 

with the license, regulation(s), or other requirement(s); and (2) develop and implement (in a 

timely manner) the lasting actions that will not only prevent recurrence of the violation at issue, 

but will be appropriately comprehensive, given the significance and complexity of the violation, 

to prevent occurrence of violations with similar root causes. 

Regardless of other circumstances (e.g., past enforcement history, identification), the 

licensee's corrective actions should always be evaluated as part of the civil penalty assessment 

process. As a reflection of the importance given to this factor, an NRC judgment that the 

licensee's corrective action has not been prompt and comprehensive will always result in issuing 

at least a base civil penalty. 

In assessing this factor, consideration will be given to the timeliness of the corrective 

action (including the promptness in developing the schedule for long term corrective action), the 

adequacy of the licensee's root cause analysis for the violation, and, given the significance and 

complexity of the issue, the comprehensiveness of the corrective action (i.e., whether the action 

is focused narrowly to the specific violation or broadly to the general area of concern). Even in 

cases when the NRC, at the time of the enforcement conference, identifies additional peripheral 

or minor corrective action still to be taken, the licensee may be given credit in this area, as long 

as the licensee's actions addressed the underlying root cause and are considered sufficient to 

prevent recurrence of the violation and similar violations. 

Normally, the judgment of the adequacy of corrective actions will hinge on whether the 

NRC had to take action to focus the licensee's evaluative and corrective process in order to obtain 

comprehensive corrective action. This will normally be judged at the time of the predecisional 

enforcement conference (e.g., by outlining substantive additional areas where corrective action is 

needed). Earlier informal discussions between the licensee and NRC inspectors or management 

may result in improved corrective action, but should not normally be a basis to deny credit for 

Corrective Action. For cases in which the licensee does not get credit for actions related to 

Identification because the NRC identified the problem, the assessment of the licensee's corrective 

action should begin from the time when the NRC put the licensee on notice of the problem. 

Notwithstanding eventual good comprehensive corrective action, if immediate corrective action 

was not taken to restore safety and compliance once the violation was identified, corrective 

action would not be considered prompt and comprehensive. 

Corrective action for violations involving discrimination should normally only be 

considered comprehensive if the licensee takes prompt, comprehensive corrective action that 

(1) addresses the broader environment for raising safety concerns in the workplace, and 

(2) provides a remedy for the particular discrimination at issue.

23 NUREG-16W) 23 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

In response to violations of 10 CFR 50.59, corrective action should normally be 

considered prompt and comprehensive only if the licensee -

(i) Makes a prompt decision on operability; and either 

(ii) Makes a prompt evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59 if the licensee intends to maintain the 

facility or procedure in the as found condition; or 

(iii) Promptly initiates corrective action consistent with Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, 

Appendix B, if it intends to restore the facility or procedure to the FSAR description. 

d. Exercise of Discretion 

As provided in Section VII, "Exercise of Discretion," discretion may be exercised by 

either escalating or mitigating the amount of the civil penalty determined after applying the civil 

penalty adjustment factors to ensure that the proposed civil penalty reflects all relevant 

circumstances of the particular case. However, in no instance will a civil penalty for any one 

violation exceed $110,000 per day. 

D. Orders 

An order is a written NRC directive to modify, suspend, or revoke a license; to cease and 

desist from a given practice or activity; or to take such other action as may be proper (see 

10 CFR 2.202). Orders may also be issued in lieu of, or in addition to, civil penalties, as 

appropriate for Severity Level I, II, or III violations. Orders may be issued as follows: 

1. License Modification orders are issued when some change in licensee equipment, 

procedures, personnel, or management controls is necessary. 

2. Suspension Orders may be used: 

(a) To remove a threat to the public health and safety, common defense and security, 

or the environment; 

(b) To stop facility construction when, 

(i) Further work could preclude or significantly hinder the identification or correction 

of an improperly constructed safety-related system or component; or 

(ii) The licensee's quality assurance program implementation is not adequate to 

provide confidence that construction activities are being properly carried out; 

(c) When the licensee has not responded adequately to other enforcement action; 

(d) When the licensee interferes with the conduct of an inspection or investigation; or

NUREG-1600 24
NRC Enforcement Policy 

(e) For any reason not mentioned above for which license revocation is legally 

authorized. 

Suspensions may apply to all or part of the licensed activity. Ordinarily, a licensed 

activity is not suspended (nor is a suspension prolonged) for failure to comply with requirements 

where such failure is not willful and adequate corrective action has been taken. 

3. Revocation Orders may be used: 

(a) When a licensee is unable or unwilling to comply with NRC requirements; 

(b) When a licensee refuses to correct a violation; 

(c) When licensee does not respond to a Notice of Violation where a response was 

required; 

(d) When a licensee refuses to pay an applicable fee under the Commission's 

regulations; or 

(e) For any other reason for which revocation is authorized under section 186 of the 

Atomic Energy Act (e.g., any condition which would warrant refusal of a license on an original 

application). 

4. Cease and Desist Orders may be used to stop an unauthorized activity that has 

continued after notification by the NRC that the activity is unauthorized. 

5. Orders to non-licensees, including contractors and subcontractors, holders of NRC 

approvals, e.g., certificates of compliance, early site permits, standard design certificates, or 

applicants for any of them, and to employees of any of the foregoing, are used when the NRC has 

identified deliberate misconduct that may cause a licensee to be in violation of an NRC 

requirement or where incomplete or inaccurate information is deliberately submitted or where the 

NRC loses its reasonable assurance that the licensee will meet NRC requirements with that 

person involved in licensed activities. 

Unless a separate response is warranted under 10 CFR 2.201, a Notice of Violation need 

not be issued where an order is based on violations described in the order. The violations 

described in an order need not be categorized by severity level. 

Orders are made effective immediately, without prior opportunity for hearing, whenever it 

is determined that the public health, interest, or safety so requires, or when the order is 

responding to a violation involving willfulness. Otherwise, a prior opportunity for a hearing on 

the order is afforded. For cases in which the NRC believes a basis could reasonably exist for not 

taking the action as proposed, the licensee will ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to show 

why the order should not be issued in the proposed manner by way of a Demand for Information. 

(See 10 CFR 2.204)

25 NUREG-1600 25
NRC Enforcement Policy 

E. Related Administrative Actions 

In addition to NCVs, NOVs, civil penalties, and orders, the NRC also uses administrative 

actions, such as Notices of Deviation, Notices of Nonconformance, Confirmatory Action Letters, 

Letters of Reprimand, and Demands for Information to supplement its enforcement program. 

The NRC expects licensees and contractors to adhere to any obligations and commitments 

resulting from these actions and will not hesitate to issue appropriate orders to ensure that these 

obligations and commitments are met. 

1. Notices of Deviation are written notices describing a licensee's failure to satisfy a 

commitment where the commitment involved has not been made a legally binding requirement. 

A Notice of Deviation requests that a licensee provide a written explanation or statement 

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

action will be completed. 

2. Notices of Nonconformance are written notices describing contractors' failures to 

meet commitments which have not been made legally binding requirements by NRC. An 

example is a commitment made in a procurement contract with a licensee as required by 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix B. Notices of Nonconformances request that non-licensees provide written 

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

the dates when corrective actions will be completed, and measures taken to preclude recurrence. 

3. Confirmatory Action Letters are letters confirming a licensee's or contractor's 

agreement to take certain actions to remove significant concerns about health and safety, 

safeguards, or the environment. 

4. Letters of Reprimand are letters addressed to individuals subject to Commission 

jurisdiction identifying a significant deficiency in their performance of licensed activities. 

5. Demands for Information are demands for information from licensees or other 

persons for the purpose of enabling the NRC to determine whether an order or other enforcement 

action should be issued. 

VII. EXERCISE OF DISCRETION 

Notwithstanding the normal guidance contained in this policy, as provided in Section ff1, 

"Responsibilities," the NRC may choose to exercise discretion and either escalate or mitigate 

enforcement sanctions within the Commission's statutory authority to ensure that the resulting 

enforcement action takes into consideration all of the relevant circumstances of the particular 

case. 

A. Escalation of Enforcement Sanctions 

The NRC considers violations categorized at Severity Level I, II, or Inl to be of significant 

regulatory concern. The NRC also considers violations associated with findings that the Reactor 

Oversight Process's Significance Determination Process evaluates as having low to moderate, or

NUREG-1600 26
NRC Enforcement Policy 

greater safety significance (i.e., white, yellow, or red) to be of significant regulatory concern. If 

the application of the normal guidance in this policy does not result in an appropriate sanction, 

with the approval of the Deputy Executive Director and consultation with the EDO and 

Commission, as warranted, the NRC may apply its full enforcement authority where the action is 

warranted. NRC action may include (1) escalating civil penalties; (2) issuing appropriate orders; 

and (3) assessing civil penalties for continuing violations on a per day basis, up to the statutory 

limit of $110,000 per violation, per day. 

1. Civil Penalties 

Notwithstanding the outcome of the normal civil penalty assessment process addressed in 

Section VI.C, the NRC may exercise discretion by either proposing a civil penalty where 

application of the factors would otherwise result in zero penalty or by escalating the amount of 

the resulting civil penalty (i.e., base or twice the base civil penalty) to ensure that the proposed 

civil penalty reflects the significance of the circumstances. The Commission will be notified if 

the deviation in the amount of the civil penalty proposed under this discretion from the amount of 

the civil penalty assessed under the normal process is more than two times the base civil penalty 

shown in Tables lA and lB. Examples when this discretion should be considered include, but 

are not limited to the following: 

(a) Problems categorized at Severity Level I or II; 

(b) Overexposures, or releases of radiological material in excess of NRC 

requirements; 

(c) Situations involving particularly poor licensee performance, or involving 

willfulness; 

(d) Situations when the licensee's previous enforcement history has been particularly 

poor, or when the current violation is directly repetitive of an earlier violation; 

(e) Situations when the violation results in a substantial increase in risk, including 

cases in which the duration of the violation has contributed to the substantial increase; 

(f) Situations when the licensee made a conscious decision to be in noncompliance in 

order to obtain an economic benefit; 

(g) Cases involving the loss of a source. In addition, unless the licensee self

identifies and reports the loss to the NRC, these cases should normally result in a civil penalty in 

an amount at least in the order of the cost of an authorized disposal of the material or of the 

transfer of the material to an authorized recipient; or 

(h) Severity Level II or LII violations associated with departures from the Final Safety 

Analysis Report identified after March 30, 2000, for risk-significant items as defined by the 

licensee's maintenance rule program and March 30, 2001, for all other issues. Such a violation 

or problem would consider the number and nature of the violations, the severity of the violations, 

whether the violations were continuing, and who identified the violations (and if the licensee

27 NUREG-1600 27
NRC Enforcement Policy 

identified the violation, whether exercise of Section VII.B.3 enforcement discretion is 

warranted.) 

2. Orders 

The NRC may, where necessary or desirable, issues orders in conjunction with or in lieu 

of civil penalties to achieve or formalize corrective actions and to deter further recurrence of 

serious violations. 

3. Daily Civil Penalties 

In order to recognize the added significance for those cases where a very strong message 

is warranted for a significant violation that continues for more than one day, the NRC may 

exercise discretion and assess a separate violation and attendant civil penalty up to the statutory 

limit of $110,000 for each day the violation continues. The NRC may exercise this discretion if a 

licensee was aware of or clearly should have been aware of a violation, or if the licensee had an 

opportunity to identify and correct the violation but failed to do so. 

B. Mitigation of Enforcement Sanctions 

The NRC may exercise discretion and refrain from issuing a civil penalty and/or a Notice 

of Violation after considering the general principles of this statement of policy and the 

surrounding circumstances.10 The approval of the Director, Office of Enforcement, in 

consultation with the Deputy Executive Director, as warranted, is required for exercising 

discretion of the type described in Sections VII.B.2 through VII.B.6. The circumstances under 

which mitigation discretion should be considered include, but are not limited to the following: 

1. [Reserved] 

2. Violations Identified During Extended Shutdowns or Work Stoppages 

The NRC may refrain from issuing a Notice of Violation or a proposed civil penalty for a 

Severity Level II, IMI, or IV violation that is identified after (i) the NRC has taken significant 

enforcement action based upon a major safety event contributing to an extended shutdown of an 

operating reactor or a material licensee (or a work stoppage at a construction site), or (ii) the 

licensee enters an extended shutdown or work stoppage related to generally poor performance 

over a long period of time, provided that the violation is documented in an inspection report (or 

inspection records for some material cases) and that it meets all of the following criteria: 

(a) It was either licensee-identified as a result of a comprehensive program for 

problem identification and correction that was developed in response to the shutdown or 

'0 The mitigation discretion described in Sections VII.B.2 - VII.B.6 does not normally apply to violations 

associated with issues evaluated by the SDP. The Reactor Oversight Process will use the Agency Action Matrix to 

determine the agency response to performance issues. The Agency Action Matrix has provisions to consider 

extenuating circumstances that were previously addressed through enforcement mitigation.

NUREG-1600 28
NRC Enforcement Policy 

identified as a result of an employee allegation to the licensee; (If the NRC identifies the 

violation and all of the other criteria are met, the NRC should determine whether enforcement 

action is necessary to achieve remedial action, or if discretion may still be appropriate.) 

(b) It is based upon activities of the licensee prior to the events leading to the 

shutdown; 

(c) It would not be categorized at Severity Level I; 

(d) It was not willful; and 

(e) The licensee's decision to restart the plant requires NRC concurrence. 

3. Violations Involving Old Design Issues 

The NRC may refrain from proposing a civil penalty for a Severity Level II or I 

violation involving a past problem, such as in engineering, design, or installation, if the violation 

is documented in an inspection report (or inspection records for some material cases) that 

includes a description of the corrective action and that it meets all of the following criteria: 

(a) It was a licensee-identified as a result of its voluntary initiative; 

(b) It was or will be corrected, including immediate corrective action and long term 

comprehensive corrective action to prevent recurrence, within a reasonable time following 

identification (this action should involve expanding the initiative, as necessary, to identify other 

failures caused by similar root causes); and 

(c) It was not likely to be identified (after the violation occurred) by routine licensee 

efforts such as normal surveillance or quality assurance (QA) activities. 

In addition, the NRC may refrain from issuing a Notice of Violation for a Severity 

Level II, I1, or IV violation that meets the above criteria provided the violation was caused by 

conduct that is not reasonably linked to present performance (normally, violations that are at least 

3 years old or violations occurring during plant construction) and there had not been prior notice 

so that the licensee should have reasonably identified the violation earlier. This exercise of 

discretion is to place a premium on licensees initiating efforts to identify and correct subtle 

violations that are not likely to be identified by routine efforts before degraded safety systems are 

called upon to work. 

Section VII.B.3 discretion would not normally be applied to departures from the FSAR if: 

(a) The NRC identifies the violation, unless it was likely in the NRC staff's view that 

the licensee would have identified the violation in light of the defined scope, thoroughness, and 

schedule of the licensee's initiative provided the schedule provides for completion of the 

licensee's initiative by March 30, 2000, for risk-significant items as defined by the licensee's 

maintenance rule program and by March 30, 2001, for all other issues;

29 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

(b) The licensee identifies the violation as a result of an event or surveillance or other 

required testing where required corrective action identifies the FSAR issue; 

(c) The licensee identifies the violation but had prior opportunities to do so (was 

aware of the departure from the FSAR) and failed to correct it earlier; 

(d) There is willfulness associated with the violation; 

(e) The licensee fails to make a report required by the identification of the departure 

from the FSAR; or 

(f) The licensee either fails to take comprehensive corrective action or fails to 

appropriately expand the corrective action program. The corrective action should be broad with a 

defined scope and schedule. 

4. Violations Identified Due to Previous Enforcement Action 

The NRC may refrain from issuing a Notice of Violation or a proposed civil penalty for a 

Severity Level II, I1, or IV violation that is identified after the NRC has taken enforcement 

action, if the violation is documented in an inspection report (or inspection records for some 

material cases) that includes a description of the corrective action and that it meets all of the 

following criteria: 

(a) It was licensee-identified as part of the corrective action for the previous 

enforcement action; 

(b) It has the same or similar root cause as the violation for which enforcement action 

was issued; 

(c) It does not substantially change the safety significance or the character of the 

regulatory concern arising out of the initial violation; and 

(d) It was or will be corrected, including immediate corrective action and long term 

comprehensive corrective action to prevent recurrence, within a reasonable time following 

identification. 

(e) It would not be categorized at Severity Level I; 

5. Violations Involving Certain Discrimination Issues 

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOL makes an initial finding of discrimination and addresses the overall work environment.

NUREG-1600 30
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Alternatively, if a finding of discrimination is made, the licensee may choose to settle the case 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

isolated discrimination problem, or allegations of discrimination which appear particularly 

blatant or egregious. 

6. Violations Involving Special Circumstances 

Notwithstanding the outcome of the normal enforcement process addressed in 

Section VI.B or the normal civil penalty assessment process addressed in Section VI.C, the NRC 

may reduce or refrain from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level II, 

III, or IV violation based on the merits of the case after considering the guidance in this statement 

of policy and such factors as the age of the violation, the significance of the violation, the clarity 

of the requirement, the appropriateness of the requirement, the overall sustained performance of 

the licensee has been particularly good, and other relevant circumstances, including any that may 

have changed since the violation. This discretion is expected to be exercised only where 

application of the normal guidance in the policy is unwarranted. In addition, the NRC may 

refrain from issuing enforcement action for violations resulting from matters not within a 

licensee's control, such as equipment failures that were not avoidable by reasonable licensee 

quality assurance measures or management controls. Generally, however, licensees are held 

responsible for the acts of their employees and contractors. Accordingly, this policy should not 

be construed to excuse personnel or contractor errors. 

C. Notice of Enforcement Discretion for Power Reactors and Gaseous Diffusion Plants 

On occasion, circumstances may arise where a power reactor's compliance with a 

Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation or with other license conditions 

would involve an unnecessary plant transient or performance of testing, inspection, or system 

realignment that is inappropriate with the specific plant conditions, or unnecessary delays in plant 

startup without a corresponding health and safety benefit. Similarly, for a gaseous diffusion plant 

(GDP), circumstances may arise where compliance with a Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) 

or technical specification or other certificate condition would unnecessarily call for a total plant 

shutdown or, notwithstanding that a safety, safeguards, or security feature was degraded or

31 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

inoperable, compliance would unnecessarily place the plant in a transient or condition where 

those features could be required. 

In these circumstances, the NRC staff may choose not to enforce the applicable TS, TSR, 

or other license or certificate condition. This enforcement discretion, designated as a Notice of 

Enforcement Discretion (NOED), will only be exercised if the NRC staff is clearly satisfied that 

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

grant enforcement discretion in cases involving severe weather or other natural phenomena, 

based upon balancing the public health and safety or common defense and security of not 

operating against the potential radiological or other hazards associated with continued operation, 

and a determination that safety will not be impacted unacceptably by exercising this discretion. 

The Commission is to be informed expeditiously following the granting of an NOED in these 

situations. A licensee or certificate holder seeking the issuance of a NOED must provide a 

written justification, or in circumstances where good cause is shown, oral justification followed 

as soon as possible by written justification, that documents the safety basis for the request and 

provides whatever other information necessary for the NRC staff to make a decision on whether 

to issue a NOED. 

The appropriate Regional Administrator, or his or her designee, may issue a NOED where 

the noncompliance is temporary and nonrecurring when an amendment is not practical. The 

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 

Safeguards, as appropriate, or his or her designee, may issue a NOED if the expected 

noncompliance will occur during the brief period of time it requires the NRC staff to process an 

emergency or exigent license amendment under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91 (a)(5) or (6) or a 

certificate amendment under 10 CFR 76.45. The person exercising enforcement discretion will 

document the decision. 

For an operating reactor, this exercise of enforcement discretion is intended to minimize 

the potential safety consequences of unnecessary plant transients with the accompanying 

operational risks and impacts or to eliminate testing, inspection, or system realignment which is 

inappropriate for the particular plant conditions. For plants in a shutdown condition, exercising 

enforcement discretion is intended to reduce shutdown risk by, again, avoiding testing, inspection 

or system realignment which is inappropriate for the particular plant conditions, in that, it does 

not provide a safety benefit or may, in fact, be detrimental to safety in the particular plant 

condition. Exercising enforcement discretion for plants attempting to startup is less likely than 

exercising it for an operating plant, as simply delaying startup does not usually leave the plant in 

a condition in which it could experience undesirable transients. In such cases, the Commission 

would expect that discretion would be exercised with respect to equipment or systems only when 

it has at least concluded that, notwithstanding the conditions of the license: (1) The equipment or 

system does not perform a safety function in the mode in which operation is to occur; (2) the 

safety function performed by the equipment or system is of only marginal safety benefit, 

provided remaining in the current mode increases the likelihood of an unnecessary plant 

transient; or (3) the TS or other license condition requires a test, inspection, or system 

realignment that is inappropriate for the particular plant conditions, in that it does not provide a 

safety benefit, or may, in fact, be detrimental to safety in the particular plant condition.

NUREG-1600 

32

NUREG-1600 32
NRC'Enforcement Policy 

For GDPs, the exercise of enforcement discretion would be used where compliance with 

a certificate condition would involve an unnecessary plant shutdown or, notwithstanding that a 

safety, safeguards, or security feature was degraded or inoperable, compliance would 

unnecessarily place the plant in a transient or condition where those features could be required. 

Such regulatory flexibility is needed because a total plant shutdown is not necessarily the best 

response to a plant condition. GDPs are designed to operate continuously and have never been 

shut down. Although portions can be shut down for maintenance, the NRC staff has been 

informed by the certificate holder that restart from a total plant shutdown may not be practical 

and the staff agrees that the design of a GDP does not make restart practical. Hence, the decision 

to place either GDP in plant-wide shutdown condition would be made only after determining that 

there is inadequate safety, safeguards, or security and considering the total impact of the 

shutdown on safety, the environment, safeguards, and security. A NOED would not be used for 

noncompliances with other than certificate requirements, or for situations where the certificate 

holder cannot demonstrate adequate safety, safeguards, or security. 

The decision to exercise enforcement discretion does not change the fact that a violation 

will occur nor does it imply that enforcement discretion is being exercised for any violation that 

may have led to the violation at issue. In each case where the NRC staff has chosen to issue a 

NOED, enforcement action will normally be taken for the root causes, to the extent violations 

were involved, that led to the noncompliance for which enforcement discretion was used. The 

enforcement action is intended to emphasize that licensees and certificate holders should not rely 

on the NRC's authority to exercise enforcement discretion as a routine substitute for compliance 

or for requesting a license or certificate amendment. 

Finally, it is expected that the NRC staff will exercise enforcement discretion in this area 

infrequently. Although a plant must shut down, refueling activities may be suspended, or plant 

startup may be delayed, absent the exercise of enforcement discretion, the NRC staff is under no 

obligation to take such a step merely because it has been requested. The decision to forego 

enforcement is discretionary. When enforcement discretion is to be exercised, it is to be 

exercised only if the NRC staff is clearly satisfied that the action is warranted from a health and 

safety perspective. 

VIII. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVING INDIVIDUALS 

Enforcement actions involving individuals, including licensed operators, are significant 

personnel actions, which will be closely controlled and judiciously applied. An enforcement 

action involving an individual will normally be taken only when the NRC is satisfied that the 

individual fully understood, or should have understood, his or her responsibility; knew, or should 

have known, the required actions; and knowingly, or with careless disregard (i.e., with more than 

mere negligence) failed to take required actions which have actual or potential safety 

significance. Most transgressions of individuals at the level of Severity Level IH or IV violations 

will be handled by citing only the facility licensee. 

More serious violations, including those involving the integrity of an individual (e.g., 

lying to the NRC) concerning matters within the scope of the individual's responsibilities, will be

33 IN UKkAw- lOUt) N U REG- IO0 L

33
NRC Enforcement Policy 

considered for enforcement action against the individual as well as against the facility licensee. 

However, action against the individual will not be taken if the improper action by the individual 

was caused by management failures. The following examples of situations illustrate this 

concept: 

0 Inadvertent individual mistakes resulting from inadequate training or guidance 

provided by the facility licensee. 

* Inadvertently missing an insignificant procedural requirement when the action is 

routine, fairly uncomplicated, and there is no unusual circumstance indicating that the procedures 

should be referred to and followed step-by-step. 

* Compliance with an express direction of management, such as the Shift Supervisor or 

Plant Manager, resulted in a violation unless the individual did not express his or her concern or 

objection to the direction. 

* Individual error directly resulting from following the technical advice of an expert 

unless the advise was clearly unreasonable and the licensed individual should have recognized it 

as such. 

0 Violations resulting from inadequate procedures unless the individual used a faulty 

procedure knowing it was faulty and had not attempted to get the procedure corrected. 

Listed below are examples of situations which could result in enforcement actions 

involving individuals, licensed or unlicensed. If the actions described in these examples are 

taken by a licensed operator or taken deliberately by an unlicensed individual, enforcement action 

may be taken directly against the individual. However, violations involving willful conduct not 

amounting to deliberate action by an unlicensed individual in these situations may result in 

enforcement action against a licensee that may impact an individual. The situations include, but 

are not limited to, violations that involve: 

"* Willfully causing a licensee to be in violation of NRC requirements. 

"* Willfully taking action that would have caused a licensee to be in violation of NRC 

requirements but the action did not do so because it was detected and corrective action was taken. 

"* Recognizing a violation of procedural requirements and willfully not taking corrective 

action. 

"* Willfully defeating alarms which have safety significance. 

"* Unauthorized abandoning of reactor controls. 

"* Dereliction of duty. 

"* Falsifying records required by NRC regulations or by the facility license. 

"* Willfully providing, or causing a licensee to provide, an NRC inspector or investigator 

with inaccurate or incomplete information on a matter material to the NRC. 

* Willfully withholding safety significant information rather than making such 

information known to appropriate supervisory or technical personnel in the licensee's 

organization. 

0 Submitting false information and as a result gaining unescorted access to a nuclear 

power plant.

N UREU-1600 34

NUREG-1600 34
NRC Enforcement Policy 

* Willfully providing false data to a licensee by a contractor or other person who 

provides test or other services, when the data affects the licensee's compliance with 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix B, or other regulatory requirement. 

* Willfully providing false certification that components meet the requirements of their 

intended use, such as ASME Code. 

* Willfully supplying, by contractors of equipment for transportation of radioactive 

material, casks that do not comply with their certificates of compliance. 

* Willfully performing unauthorized bypassing of required reactor or other facility safety 

systems. 

* Willfully taking actions that violate Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for 

Operation or other license conditions (enforcement action for a willful violation will not be taken 

if that violation is the result of action taken following the NRC's decision to forego enforcement 

of the Technical Specification or other license condition or if the operator meets the requirements 

of 10 CFR 50.54 (x), (i.e., unless the operator acted unreasonably considering all the relevant 

circumstances surrounding the emergency.) 

Normally, some enforcement action is taken against a licensee for violations caused by 

significant acts of wrongdoing by its employees, contractors, or contractors' employees. In 

deciding whether to issue an enforcement action to an unlicensed person as well as to the 

licensee, the NRC recognizes that judgments will have to be made on a case by case basis. In 

making these decisions, the NRC will consider factors such as the following: 

1. The level of the individual within the organization. 

2. The individual's training and experience as well as knowledge of the potential 

consequences of the wrongdoing. 

3. The safety consequences of the misconduct. 

4. The benefit to the wrongdoer, e.g., personal or corporate gain. 

5. The degree of supervision of the individual, i.e., how closely is the individual 

monitored or audited, and the likelihood of detection (such as a radiographer working 

independently in the field as contrasted with a team activity at a power plant). 

6. The employer's response, e.g., disciplinary action taken. 

7. The attitude of the wrongdoer, e.g., admission of wrongdoing, acceptance of 

responsibility. 

8. The degree of management responsibility or culpability. 

9. Who identified the misconduct. 

Any proposed enforcement action involving individuals must be issued with the 

concurrence of the Deputy Executive Director. The particular sanction to be used should be

35 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

determined on a case-by-case basis." Notices of Violation and Orders are examples of 

enforcement actions that may be appropriate against individuals. The administrative action of a 

Letter of Reprimand may also be considered. In addition, the NRC may issue Demands for 

Information to gather information to enable it to determine whether an order or other 

enforcement action should be issued. 

Orders to NRC-licensed reactor operators may involve suspension for a specified period, 

modification, or revocation of their individual licenses. Orders to unlicensed individuals might 

include provisions that would: 

0 Prohibit involvement in NRC licensed activities for a specified period of time 

(normally the period of suspension would not exceed 5 years) or until certain conditions are 

satisfied, e.g., completing specified training or meeting certain qualifications. 

"• Require notification to the NRC before resuming work in licensed activities. 

"* Require the person to tell a prospective employer or customer engaged in licensed 

activities that the person has been subject to an NRC order. 

In the case of a licensed operator's failure to meet applicable fitness-for-duty requirements 

(10 CFR 55.53(j)), the NRC may issue a Notice of Violation or a civil penalty to the Part 55 

licensee, or an order to suspend, modify, or revoke the Part 55 license. These actions may be 

taken the first time a licensed operator fails a drug or alcohol test, that is, receives a confirmed 

positive test that exceeds the cutoff levels of 10 CFR Part 26 or the facility licensee's cutoff 

levels, if lower. However, normally only a Notice of Violation will be issued for the first 

confirmed positive test in the absence of aggravating circumstances such as errors in the 

performance of licensed duties or evidence of prolonged use. In addition, the NRC intends to 

issue an order to suspend the Part 55 license for up to 3 years the second time a licensed operator 

exceeds those cutoff levels. In the event there are less than 3 years remaining in the term of the 

individual's license, the NRC may consider not renewing the individual's license or not issuing a 

new license after the three year period is completed. The NRC intends to issue an order to 

revoke the Part 55 license the third time a licensed operator exceeds those cutoff levels. A 

licensed operator or applicant who refuses to participate in the drug and alcohol testing programs 

established by the facility licensee or who is involved in the sale, use, or possession of an illegal 

drug is also subject to license suspension, revocation, or denial. 

In addition, the NRC may take enforcement action against a licensee that may impact an 

individual, where the conduct of the individual places in question the NRC's reasonable 

assurance that licensed activities will be properly conducted. The NRC may take enforcement 

action for reasons that would warrant refusal to issue a license on an original application. 

"Except for individuals subject to civil penalties under section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended, the NRC will not normally impose a civil penalty against an individual. However, section 234 of the 

Atomic Energy Act (AEA) gives the Commission authority to impose civil penalties on "any person." "Person" is 

broadly defined in Section I Is of the AEA to include individuals, a variety of organizations, and any representatives 

or agents. This gives the Commission authority to impose civil penalties on employees of licensees or on separate 

entities when a violation of a requirement directly imposed on them is committed.

NUREG-1600 36
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Accordingly, appropriate enforcement actions may be taken regarding matters that raise issues of 

integrity, competence, fitness-for-duty, or other matters that may not necessarily be a violation of 

specific Commission requirements. 

In the case of an unlicensed person, whether a firm or an individual, an order modifying 

the facility license may be issued to require (1) the removal of the person from all licensed 

activities for a specified period of time or indefinitely, (2) prior notice to the NRC before using 

the person in licensed activities, or (3) the licensee to provide notice of the issuance of such an 

order to other persons involved in licensed activities making reference inquiries. In addition, 

orders to employers might require retraining, additional oversight, or independent verification of 

activities performed by the person, if the person is to be involved in licensed activities. 

IX. INACCURATE AND INCOMPLETE INFORMATION 

A violation of the regulations involving the submittal of incomplete and/or inaccurate 

information, whether or not considered a material false statement, can result in the full range of 

enforcement sanctions. The labeling of a communication failure as a material false statement 

will be made on a case-by-case basis and will be reserved for egregious violations. Violations 

involving inaccurate or incomplete information or the failure to provide significant information 

identified by a licensee normally will be categorized based on the guidance herein, in Section IV, 

"Significance of Violations," and in Supplement VII. 

The Commission recognizes that oral information may in some situations be inherently 

less reliable than written submittals because of the absence of an opportunity for reflection and 

management review. However, the Commission must be able to rely on oral communications 

from licensee officials concerning significant information. Therefore, in determining whether to 

take enforcement action for an oral statement, consideration may be given to factors such as 

(1) the degree of knowledge that the communicator should have had, regarding the matter, in 

view of his or her position, training, and experience; (2) the opportunity and time available prior 

to the communication to assure the accuracy or completeness of the information; (3) the degree 

of intent or negligence, if any, involved; (4) the formality of the communication; (5) the 

reasonableness of NRC reliance on the information; (6) the importance of the information which 

was wrong or not provided; and (7) the reasonableness of the explanation for not providing 

complete and accurate information. 

Absent at least careless disregard, an incomplete or inaccurate unsworn oral statement 

normally will not be subject to enforcement action unless it involves significant information 

provided by a licensee official. However, enforcement action may be taken for an 

unintentionally incomplete or inaccurate oral statement provided to the NRC by a licensee 

official or others on behalf of a licensee, if a record was made of the oral information and 

provided to the licensee thereby permitting an opportunity to correct the oral information, such as 

if a transcript of the communication or meeting summary containing the error was made available 

to the licensee and was not subsequently corrected in a timely manner. 

When a licensee has corrected inaccurate or incomplete information, the decision to issue 

a Notice of Violation for the initial inaccurate or incomplete information normally will be 

dependent on the circumstances, including the ease of detection of the error, the timeliness of the

37 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

correction, whether the NRC or the licensee identified the problem with the communication, and 

whether the NRC relied on the information prior to the correction. Generally, if the matter was 

promptly identified and corrected by the licensee prior to reliance by the NRC, or before the 

NRC raised a question about the information, no enforcement action will be taken for the initial 

inaccurate or incomplete information. On the other hand, if the misinformation is identified after 

the NRC relies on it, or after some question is raised regarding the accuracy of the information, 

then some enforcement action normally will be taken even if it is in fact corrected. However, if 

the initial submittal was accurate when made but later turns out to be erroneous because of newly 

discovered information or advance in technology, a citation normally would not be appropriate if, 

when the new information became available or the advancement in technology was made, the 

initial submittal was corrected. 

The failure to correct inaccurate or incomplete information which the licensee does not 

identify as significant normally will not constitute a separate violation. However, the 

circumstances surrounding the failure to correct may be considered relevant to the determination 

of enforcement action for the initial inaccurate or incomplete statement. For example, an 

unintentionally inaccurate or incomplete submission may be treated as a more severe matter if the 

licensee later determines that the initial submittal was in error and does not correct it or if there 

were clear opportunities to identify the error. If information not corrected was recognized by a 

licensee as significant, a separate citation may be made for the failure to provide significant 

information. In any event, in serious cases where the licensee's actions in not correcting or 

providing information raise questions about its commitment to safety or its fundamental 

trustworthiness, the Commission may exercise its authority to issue orders modifying, 

suspending, or revoking the license. The Commission recognizes that enforcement 

determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the issues 

described in this section. 

X. ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST NON-LICENSEES 

The Commission's enforcement policy is also applicable to non-licensees, including 

contractors and subcontractors, holders of NRC approvals, e.g., certificates of compliance, early 

site permits, standard design certificates, quality assurance program approvals, or applicants for 

any of them, and to employees of any of the foregoing, who knowingly provide components, 

equipment, or other goods or services that relate to a licensee's activities subject to NRC 

regulation. The prohibitions and sanctions for any of these persons who engage in deliberate 

misconduct or knowing submission of incomplete or inaccurate information are provided in the 

rule on deliberate misconduct, e.g., 10 CFR 30.10 and 50.5. 

Contractors who supply products or services provided for use in nuclear activities are 

subject to certain requirements designed to ensure that the products or services supplied that 

could affect safety are of high quality. Through procurement contracts with licensees, suppliers 

may be required to have quality assurance programs that meet applicable requirements, e.g., 

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 CFR Part 71, Subpart H. Contractors supplying certain 

products or services to licensees are subject to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 regarding 

reporting of defects in basic components.

NUREG-1600 

38

NUREG-1600 38
NRC Enforcement Policy 

When inspections determine that violations of NRC requirements have occurred, or that 

contractors have failed to fulfill contractual commitments (e.g., 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B) 

that could adversely affect the quality of a safety significant product or service, enforcement 

action will be taken. Notices of Violation and civil penalties will be used, as appropriate, for 

licensee failures to ensure that their contractors have programs that meet applicable requirements. 

Notices of Violation will be issued for contractors who violate 10 CFR Part 21. Civil penalties 

will be imposed against individual directors or responsible officers of a contractor organization 

who knowingly and consciously fail to provide the notice required by 10 CFR 21.21 (d)(1). 

Notices of Violation or orders will be used against non-licensees who are subject to the specific 

requirements of Part 72. Notices of Nonconformance will be used for contractors who fail to 

meet commitments related to NRC activities but are not in violation of specific requirements. 

XI. REFERRALS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Alleged or suspected criminal violations of the Atomic Energy Act (and of other relevant 

Federal laws) are referred to the Department of Justice (DO1J) for investigation. Referral to the 

DOJ does not preclude the NRC from taking other enforcement action under this policy. 

However, enforcement actions will be coordinated with the DOJ in accordance with the 

Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and the DOJ, (53 FR 50317; December 14, 

1988). 

XII. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 

Enforcement actions and licensees' responses, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790, are 

publicly available for inspection. In addition, press releases are generally issued for orders and 

civil penalties and are issued at the same time the order or proposed imposition of the civil 

penalty is issued. In addition, press releases are usually issued when a proposed civil penalty is 

withdrawn or substantially mitigated by some amount. Press releases are not normally issued for 

Notices of Violation that are not accompanied by orders or proposed civil penalties. 

XIII. REOPENING CLOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 

If significant new information is received or obtained by NRC which indicates that an 

enforcement sanction was incorrectly applied, consideration may be given, dependent on the 

circumstances, to reopening a closed enforcement action to increase or decrease the severity of a 

sanction or to correct the record. Reopening decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, are 

expected to occur rarely, and require the specific approval of the Deputy Executive Director.

39 NUREG-1600 39
NRC Enforcement Policy 

SUPPLEMENTS - VIOLATION EXAMPLES 

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

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

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

materials operations, miscellaneous matters, and emergency preparedness). 

SUPPLEMENT I--REACTOR OPERATIONS 

This supplement provides examples of violations in each of the four severity levels as 

guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations in the area of reactor 

operations. 

A. Severity Level I - Violations involving for example: 

1. A Safety Limit, as defined in 10 CFR 50.36 and the Technical Specifications 

being exceeded; 

2. A system12 designed to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event not being able to 

perform its intended safety function"3 when actually called upon to work; 

3. An accidental criticality; or 

4. A licensed operator at the controls of a nuclear reactor, or a senior operator directing licensed activities, involved in procedural errors which result in, or exacerbate the 

consequences of, an alert or higher level emergency and who, as a result of subsequent testing, 

receives a confirmed positive test result for drugs or alcohol. 

B. Severity Level H - Violations involving for example: 

1. A system designed to prevent or mitigate serious safety events not being able to 

perform its intended safety function; 

2. A licensed operator involved in the use, sale, or possession of illegal drugs or the 

consumption of alcoholic beverages, within the protected area; or 

3. A licensed operator at the control of a nuclear reactor, or a senior operator 

directing licensed activities, involved in procedural errors and who, as a result of subsequent 

testing, receives a confirmed positive test result for drugs or alcohol. 

"

21

The term "system" as used in these supplements, includes administrative and managerial control systems, as 

well as physical systems. 

"

3"Intended safety function" means the total safety function, and is not directed toward a loss of redundancy. A 

loss of one subsystem does not defeat the intended safety function as long as the other subsystem is operable.

41 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

C. Severity Level III - Violations involving for example: 

1. A significant failure to comply with the Action Statement for a Technical 

Specification Limiting Condition for Operation where the appropriate action was not taken 

within the required time, such as: 

(a) In a pressurized water reactor, in the applicable modes, having one high-pressure 

safety injection pump inoperable for a period in excess of that allowed by the action statement; or 

(b) In a boiling water reactor, one primary containment isolation valve inoperable for 

a period in excess of that allowed by the action statement. 

2. A system designed to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event not being able to 

perform its intended function under certain conditions (e.g., safety system not operable unless 

offsite power is available; materials or components not environmentally qualified). 

3. Inattentiveness to duty on the part of licensed personnel; 

4. Changes in reactor parameters that cause unanticipated reductions in margins of 

safety; 

5. A non-willful compromise of an application, test, or examination required by 

10 CFR Part 55 that: 

(a) In the case of initial operator licensing, contributes to an individual being granted 

an operator or a senior operator license, or 

(b) In the case of requalification, contributes to an individual being permitted to 

perform the functions of an operator or a senior operator. 

6. A licensee failure to conduct adequate oversight of contractors resulting in the use 

of products or services that are of defective or indeterminate quality and that have safety 

significance; 

7. A licensed operator's confirmed positive test for drugs or alcohol that does not 

result in a Severity Level I or IU violation; 

8. Equipment failures caused by inadequate or improper maintenance that 

substantially complicates recovery from a plant transient; 

9. A failure to obtain prior Commission approval required by 10 CFR 50.59 for a 

change, in which the consequence of the change, is evaluated as having low to moderate, or 

greater safety significance (i.e., white, yellow, or red) by the SDP; 

10. The failure to update the FSAR as required by 10 CFR 50.7 1(e) where the 

unupdated FSAR was used in performing a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation for a change to the facility 

or procedures, implemented without prior Commission approval, that results in a condition

NUREG-1600 42
NRC Enforcement Policy 

evaluated as having low to moderate, or greater safety significance (i.e., white, yellow, or red) by 

the SDP; or 

11. The failure to make a report required by 10 CFR 50.72 or 50.73 associated with 

any Severity Level IMI violation. 

D. Severity Level IV - Violations involving for example: 

1. A less significant failure to comply with the Action Statement for a Technical 

Specification Limiting Condition for Operation where the appropriate action was not taken 

within the required time, such as: 

(a) In a pressurized water reactor, a 5 percent deficiency in the required volume of the 

condensate storage tank; or 

(b) In a boiling water reactor, one subsystem of the two independent MSIV leakage 

control subsystems inoperable; 

2. A non-willful compromise of an application, test, or examination required by 

10 CFR Part 55 that: 

(a) In the case of initial operator licensing, is discovered and reported to the NRC 

before an individual is granted an operator or a senior operator license, or 

(b) In the case of requalification, is discovered and reported to the NRC before an 

individual is permitted to perform the functions of an operator or a senior operator, or 

(c) Constitutes more than minor concern. 

3. A failure to meet regulatory requirements that have more than minor safety or 

environmental significance; 

4. A failure to make a required Licensee Event Report; 

5. Violations of 10 CFR 50.59 that result in conditions evaluated as having very low 

safety significance (i.e., green) by the SDP; or 

6. A failure to update the FSAR as required by 10 CFR 50.7 1(e) in cases where the 

erroneous information is not used to make an unacceptable change to the facility or procedures. 

E. Minor - Violations involving for example: 

A failure to meet 10 CFR 50.59 requirements where there was not a reasonable likelihood 

that the change requiring 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation would ever require Commission review and 

approval prior to implementation. In the case of a 10 CFR 50.7 1(e) violation, where a failure to 

update the FSAR would not have a material impact on safety or licensed activities.

43 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

SUPPLEMENT II--PART 50 FACILITY CONSTRUCTION 

This supplement provides examples of violations in each of the four severity levels as 

guidance in determining the appropriate severity level forviolations in the area of Part 50 facility 

construction. 

A. Severity Level I - Violations involving structures or systems that are completed14 

in such a manner that they would not have satisfied their intended safety related purpose. 

B. Severity Level II - Violations involving for example: 

1. A breakdown in the Quality Assurance (QA) program as exemplified by 

deficiencies in construction QA related to more than one work activity (e.g., structural, piping, 

electrical, foundations). These deficiencies normally involve the licensee's failure to conduct 

adequate audits or to take prompt corrective action on the basis of such audits and normally 

involve multiple examples of deficient construction or construction of unknown quality due to 

inadequate program implementation; or 

2. A structure or system that is completed in such a manner that it could have an 

adverse effect on the safety of operations. 

C. Severity Level III - Violations involving for example: 

1. A deficiency in a licensee QA program for construction related to a single work 

activity (e.g., structural, piping, electrical, or foundations). This significant deficiency normally 

involves the licensee's failure to conduct adequate audits or to take prompt corrective action on 

the basis of such audits, and normally involves multiple examples of deficient construction or 

construction of unknown quality due to inadequate program implementation; 

2. A failure to confirm the design safety requirements of a structure or system as a 

result of inadequate preoperational test program implementation; or 

3. A failure to make a required 10 CFR 50.55(e) report. 

D. Severity Level IV - Violations involving failure to meet regulatory requirements 

including one or more Quality Assurance Criterion not amounting to Severity Level I, II, or III 

violations that have more than minor safety or environmental significance. 

"

4The term "completed" as used in this supplement means completion of construction including review and 

acceptance by the construction QA organization.

NUREG-1600 44
NRC Enforcement Policy 

SUPPLEMENT III--SAFEGUARDS 

This supplement provides examples of violations in each of the four severity levels as 

guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations in the area of safeguards. 

A. Severity Level I - Violations involving for example: 

1. An act of radiological sabotage in which the security system did not function as 

required and, as a result of the failure, there was a significant event, such as: 

(a) A Safety Limit, as defined in 10 CFR 50.36 and the Technical Specifications, was 

exceeded; 

(b) A system designed to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event was not able to 

perform its intended safety function when actually called upon to work; or 

(c) An accidental criticality occurred; 

2. The theft, loss, or diversion of a formula quantity'5 of special nuclear material 

(SNM); or 

3. Actual unauthorized production of a formula quantity of SNM 

B. Severity Level I - Violations involving for example: 

1. The entry of an unauthorized individual' 6 who represents a threat into a vital area'7 

from outside the protected area; 

2. The theft, loss or diversion of SNM of moderate strategic significance"8 in which 

the security system did not function as required; or 

3. Actual unauthorized production of SNM. 

"

5See 10 CFR 73.2 for the definition of "formula quantity." 

"MThe term "unauthorized individual" as used in this supplement means someone who was not authorized for 

entrance into the area in question, or not authorized to enter in the manner entered. 

"

7The phrase "vital area" as used in this supplement includes vital areas and material access areas. 

"

8See 10 CFR 73.2 for the definition of "special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance." 

45 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

C. Severity Level III - Violations involving for example: 

1. A failure or inability to control access through established systems or procedures, 

such that an unauthorized individual (i.e., not authorized unescorted access to protected area) 

could easily gain undetected access" into a vital area from outside the protected area; 

2. A failure to conduct any search at the access control point or conducting an 

inadequate search that resulted in the introduction to the protected area of firearms, explosives, or 

incendiary devices and reasonable facsimiles thereof that could significantly assist radiological 

sabotage or theft of strategic SNM; 

3. A failure, degradation, or other deficiency of the protected area intrusion detection 

or alarm assessment systems such that an unauthorized individual who represents a threat could 

predictably circumvent the system or defeat a specific zone with a high degree of confidence 

without insider knowledge, or other significant degradation of overall system capability; 

4. A significant failure of the safeguards systems designed or used to prevent or 

detect the theft, loss, or diversion of strategic SNM; 

5. A failure to protect or control classified or safeguards information considered to 

be significant while the information is outside the protected area and accessible to those not 

authorized access to the protected area; 

6. A significant failure to respond to an event either in sufficient time to provide 

protection to vital equipment or strategic SNM, or with an adequate response force; or 

7. A failure to perform an appropriate evaluation or background investigation so that 

information relevant to the access determination was not obtained or considered and as a result a 

person, who would likely not have been granted access by the licensee, if the required 

investigation or evaluation had been performed, was granted access. 

D. Severity Level IV - Violations involving for example: 

1. A failure or inability to control access such that an unauthorized individual (i.e., 

authorized to protected area but not to vital area) could easily gain undetected access into a vital 

area from inside the protected area or into a controlled access area; 

2. A failure to respond to a suspected event in either a timely manner or with an 

adequate response force; 

3. A failure to implement 10 CFR Parts 25 and 95 with respect to the information 

addressed under Section 142 of the Act, and the NRC approved security plan relevant to those 

parts; 

"1n determining whether access can be easily gained, factors such as predictability, identifiability, and ease of 

passage should be considered.

NUREG-1600 46
NRC Enforcement Policy 

4. A failure to conduct a proper search at the access control point; 

5. A failure to properly secure or protect classified or safeguards information inside 

the protected area that could assist an individual in an act of radiological sabotage or theft of 

strategic SNM where the information was not removed from the protected area; 

6. A failure to control access such that an opportunity exists that could allow 

unauthorized and undetected access into the protected area but that was neither easily or likely to 

be exploitable; 

7. A failure to conduct an adequate search at the exit from a material access area; 

8. A theft or loss of SNM of low strategic significance that was not detected within 

the time period specified in the security plan, other relevant document, or regulation; or 

9. Other violations that have more than minor safeguards significance.

47 NUREG-1600 47
NRC Enforcement Policy 

SUPPLEMENT IV--HEALTH PHYSICS (10 CFR PART 20) 

This supplement provides examples of violations in each of the four severity levels as 

guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations in the area of health physics, 

10 CFR Part 20.20 

A. Severity Level I - Violations involving for example: 

1. A radiation exposure during any year of a worker in excess of 25 reins total 

effective dose equivalent, 75 rems to the lens of the eye, or 250 rads to the skin of the whole 

body, or to the feet, ankles, hands or forearms, or to any other organ or tissue; 

2. A radiation exposure over the gestation period of the embryo/fetus of a declared 

pregnant woman in excess of 2.5 rems total effective dose equivalent; 

3. A radiation exposure during any year of a minor in excess of 2.5 rems total 

effective dose equivalent, 7.5 rems to the lens of the eye, or 25 rems to the skin of the whole 

body, or to the feet, ankles, hands or forearms, or to any other organ or tissue; 

4. An annual exposure of a member of the public in excess of 1.0 rem total effective 

dose equivalent; 

5. A release of radioactive material to an unrestricted area at concentrations in 

excess of 50 times the limits for members of the public as described in 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(i); 

or 

6. Disposal of licensed material in quantities or concentrations in excess of 10 times 

the limits of 10 CFR 20.2003. 

B. Severity Level II - Violations involving for example: 

1. A radiation exposure during any year of a worker in excess of 10 reins total 

effective dose equivalent, 30 rems to the lens of the eye, or 100 rems to the skin of the whole 

body, or to the feet, ankles, hands or forearms, or to any other organ or tissue; 

2. A radiation exposure over the gestation period of the embryo/fetus of a declared 

pregnant woman in excess of 1.0 rem total effective dose equivalent; 

3. A radiation exposure during any year of a minor in excess of 1 rem total effective 

dose equivalent; 3.0 reins to the lens of the eye, or 10 rems to the skin of the whole body, or to 

the feet, ankles, hands or forearms, or to any other organ or tissue; 

20

Personnel overexposures and associated violations incurred during a life-saving or other emergency response 

effort will be treated on a case-by-case basis.

NUREG-1600 48
NRC Enforcement Policy 

4. An annual exposure of a member of the public in excess of 0.5 rem total effective 

dose equivalent; 

5. A release of radioactive material to an unrestricted area at concentrations in 

excess of 10 times the limits for members of the public as described in 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(i) 

(except when operation up to 0.5 rem a year has been approved by the Commission under 

§20.1301(c)); 

6. Disposal of licensed material in quantities or concentrations in excess of five 

times the limits of 10 CFR 20.2003; or 

7. A failure to make an immediate notification as required by 10 CFR 20.2202 (a)(1) 

or (a)(2). 

C. Severity Level III - Violations involving for example: 

1. A radiation exposure during any year of a worker in excess of 5 rems total 

effective dose equivalent, 15 rems to the lens of the eye, or 50 rems to the skin of the whole body 

or to the feet, ankles, hands or forearms, or to any other organ or tissue; 

2. A radiation exposure over the gestation period of the embryo/fetus of a declared 

pregnant woman in excess of 0.5 rem total effective dose equivalent (except when doses are in 

accordance with the provisions of §20.1208(d)); 

3. A radiation exposure during any year of a minor in excess of 0.5 rem total 

effective dose equivalent; 1.5 rems to the lens of the eye, or 5 rems to the skin of the whole body, 

or to the feet, ankles, hands or forearms, or to any other organ or tissue; 

4. An annual exposure of a member of the public in excess of 0.1 rem total effective 

dose equivalent (except when operation up to 0.5 rem a year has been approved by the 

Commission under §20.1301(c)); 

5. A release of radioactive material to an unrestricted area at concentrations in 

excess of two times the effluent concentration limits referenced in 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(i) 

(except when operation up to 0.5 rem a year has been approved by the Commission under 

Section 20.1301(c)); 

6. A failure to make a 24-hour notification required by 10 CFR 20.2202(b) or an 

immediate notification required by 10 CFR 20.2201(a)(1)(i); 

7. A substantial potential for exposures or releases in excess of the applicable limits 

in 10 CFR 20.1001-20.2401 whether or not an exposure or release occurs; 

8. Disposal of licensed material not covered in Severity Levels I or II;

49 NUREG-1600 49
NRC Enforcement Policy 

9. A release for unrestricted use of contaminated or radioactive material or 

equipment that poses a realistic potential for exposure of the public to levels or doses exceeding 

the annual dose limits for members of the public; 

10. Conduct of licensee activities by a technically unqualified person; or 

11. A violation involving failure to secure, or maintain surveillance over, licensed 

material that: 

(a) involves licensed material in any aggregate quantity greater than 1000 times the 

quantity specified in Appendix C to Part 20; or 

(b) involves licensed material in any aggregate quantity greater than 10 times the quantity 

specified in Appendix C to Part 20, where such failure is accompanied by the absence of 

a functional program to detect and deter security violations that includes training, staff 

awareness, detection (including auditing), and corrective action (including disciplinary 

action); or 

(c) results in a substantial potential for exposures or releases in excess of the applicable 

limits in Part 20. 

D. Severity Level IV - Violations involving for example: 

1. Exposures in excess of the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201, 20.1207, or 20.1208 not 

constituting Severity Level I, HI, or U11 violations; 

2. A release of radioactive material to an unrestricted area at concentrations in 

excess of the limits for members of the public as referenced in 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(i) (except 

when operation up to 0.5 rem a year has been approved by the Commission under §20.1301(c)); 

3. A radiation dose rate in an unrestricted or controlled area in excess of 0.002 rem 

in any 1 hour (2 millirem/hour) or 50 millirems in a year; 

4. Failure to maintain and implement radiation programs to keep radiation exposures 

as low as is reasonably achievable; 

5. Doses to a member of the public in excess of any EPA generally applicable 

environmental radiation standards, such as 40 CFR Part 190; 

6. A failure to make the 30-day notification required by 10 CFR 20.2201 (a)(1)(ii) or 

20.2203(a); 

7. A failure to make a timely written report as required by 10 CFR 20.2201(b), 

20.2204, or 20.2206;

NUREG-1600 50

NUREG-1600 50
NRC Enforcement Policy 

8. A failure to report an exceedance of the dose constraint established in 

10 CFR 20.1101(d) or a failure to take corrective action for an exceedance, as required by 

10 CFR 20.1101(d); 

9. Any other matter that has more than a minor safety, health, or environmental 

significance; or 

10. A violation involving an isolated failure to secure, or maintain surveillance over, 

licensed material that is not otherwise characterized in Example IV.C. 11 and that involves 

licensed material in any aggregate quantity greater than 10 times the quantity specified in 

Appendix C to Part 20, provided that: (i) the material is labeled as radioactive or located in an 

area posted as containing radioactive materials; and (ii) such failure occurs despite a functional 

program to detect and deter security violations that includes training, staff awareness, detection 

(including auditing), and corrective action (including disciplinary action). 

E. Minor - Violations involving for example: 

A violation involving an isolated failure to secure, or maintain surveillance over, licensed 

material in an aggregate quantity that does not exceed 10 times the quantity specified in 

Appendix C to Part 20.

51 NUREG-1600 51 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

SUPPLEMENT V--TRANSPORTATION 

This supplement provides examples of violations in each of the four severity levels as 

guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations in the area of NRC 

transportation requirements.2

' 

A. Severity Level I - Violations involving for example: 

1. Failure to meet transportation requirements that resulted in loss of control of 

radioactive material with a breach in package integrity such that the material caused a radiation 

exposure to a member of the public and there was clear potential for the public to receive more 

than. 1 rem to the whole body; 

2. Surface contamination in excess of 50 times the NRC limit; or 

3. External radiation levels in excess of 10 times the NRC limit. 

B. Severity Level H - Violations involving for example: 

1. Failure to meet transportation requirements that resulted in loss of control of 

radioactive material with a breach in package integrity such that there was a clear potential for 

the member of the public to receive more than. 1 rem to the whole body; 

2. Surface contamination in excess of 10, but not more than 50 times the NRC limit; 

3. External radiation levels in excess of five, but not more than 10 times the NRC 

limit; or 

4. A failure to make required initial notifications associated with Severity Level I or 

HI violations. 

C. Severity Level III - Violations involving for example: 

1. Surface contamination in excess of five but not more than 10 times the NRC limit; 

2. External radiation in excess of one but not more than five times the NRC limit; 

3. Any noncompliance with labeling, placarding, shipping paper, packaging, loading, 

or other requirements that could reasonably result in the following: 

(a) A significant failure to identify the type, quantity, or form of material; 

"

2 1

Some transportation requirements are applied to more than one licensee involved in the same activity such as a 

shipper and a carrier. When a violation of such a requirement occurs, enforcement action will be directed against the 

responsible licensee which, under the circumstances of the case, may be one or more of the licensees involved. 

NUREG-1600 52
NRC Enforcement Policy 

(b) A failure of the carrier or recipient to exercise adequate controls; or 

(c) A substantial potential for either personnel exposure or contamination above 

regulatory limits or improper transfer of material; or 

4. A failure to make required initial notification associated with Severity Level Il 

violations. 

D. Severity Level IV - Violations involving for example: 

1. A breach of package integrity without external radiation levels exceeding the 

NRC limit or without contamination levels exceeding five times the NRC limits; 

2. Surface contamination in excess of but not more than five times the NRC limit; 

3. A failure to register as an authorized user of an NRC-Certified Transport package; 

4. A noncompliance with shipping papers, marking, labeling, placarding, packaging 

or loading not amounting to a Severity Level I, II, or IH violation; 

5. A failure to demonstrate that packages for special form radioactive material meets 

applicable regulatory requirements; 

6. A failure to demonstrate that packages meet DOT Specifications for 7A Type A 

packages; or 

7. Other violations that have more than minor safety or environmental significance.

53 NUREG-1600 53
NRC Enforcement Policy 

SUPPLEMENT VI--FUEL CYCLE AND MATERIALS OPERATIONS 

This supplement provides examples of violations in each of the four severity levels as 

guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations in the area of fuel cycle and 

materials operations. 

A. Severity Level I - Violations involving for example: 

1. Radiation levels, contamination levels, or releases that exceed 10 times the limits 

specified in the license; 

2. A system designed to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event not being operable 

when actually required to perform its design function; 

3. A nuclear criticality accident; 

4. A failure to follow the procedures of the quality management program, required 

by 10 CFR 35.32, that results in a death or serious injury (e.g., substantial organ impairment) to a 

patient; 

5. A safety limit, as defined in 10 CFR 76.4, the Technical Safety Requirements, or 

the application being exceeded; or 

6. Significant injury or loss of life due to a loss of control over licensed or certified 

activities, including chemical processes that are integral to the licensed or certified activity, 

whether radioactive material is released or not. 

B. Severity Level H - Violations involving for example: 

1. Radiation levels, contamination levels, or releases that exceed five times the limits 

specified in the license; 

2. A system designed to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event being inoperable; 

3. A substantial programmatic failure in the implementation of the quality 

management program required by 10 CFR 35.32 that results in a misadministration; 

4. A failure to establish, implement, or maintain all criticality controls (or control 

systems) for a single nuclear criticality scenario when a critical mass of fissile material was 

present or reasonably available, such that a nuclear criticality accident was possible; or 

5. The potential for a significant injury or loss of life due to a loss of control over 

licensed or certified activities, including chemical processes that are integral to the licensed or 

certified activity, whether radioactive material is released or not (e.g., movement of liquid UF6 

cylinder by unapproved methods).

NUREG-1690 

54

NUREG-1600 54
NRC Enforcement Policy 

C. Severity Level III - Violations involving for example: 

1. Possession or use of unauthorized equipment or materials in the conduct of 

licensee activities which degrades safety; 

2. Use of radioactive material on humans where such use is not authorized; 

3. Conduct of licensed activities by a technically unqualified or uncertified person; 

4. A substantial potential for exposures, radiation levels, contamination levels, or 

releases, including releases of toxic material caused by a failure to comply with NRC regulations, 

from licensed or certified activities in excess of regulatory limits; 

5. Substantial failure to implement the quality management program as required by 

10 CFR 35.32 that does not result in a misadministration; failure to report a misadministration; or 

programmatic weakness in the implementation of the quality management program that results in 

a misadministration; 

6. A failure, during radiographic operations, to have present at least two qualified 

individuals or to use radiographic equipment, radiation survey instruments, and/or personnel 

monitoring devices as required by 10 CFR Part 34; 

7. A failure to submit an NRC Form 241 as required by 10 CFR 150.20; 

8. A failure to receive required NRC approval prior to the implementation of a 

change in licensed activities that has radiological or programmatic significance, such as, a change 

in ownership; lack of an RSO or replacement of an RSO with an unqualified individual; a change 

in the location where licensed activities are being conducted, or where licensed material is being 

stored where the new facilities do not meet the safety guidelines; or a change in the quantity or 

type of radioactive material being processed or used that has radiological significance; 

9. A significant failure to meet decommissioning requirements including a failure to 

notify the NRC as required by regulation or license condition, substantial failure to meet 

decommissioning standards, failure to conduct and/or complete decommissioning activities in 

accordance with regulation or license condition, or failure to meet required schedules without 

adequate justification; 

10. A significant failure to comply with the action statement for a Technical Safety 

Requirement Limiting Condition for Operation where the appropriate action was not taken within 

the required time, such as: 

(a) In an autoclave, where a containment isolation valve is inoperable for a period in 

excess of that allowed by the action statement; or 

(b) Cranes or other lifting devices engaged in the movement of cylinders having 

inoperable safety components, such as redundant braking systems, or other safety devices for a 

period in excess of that allowed by the action statement; 

---- •~T~T b'jTIbd• 1 £Alll

1N Un•P•.r "-IJLUU 55
NRC Enforcement Policy 

11. A system designed to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event: 

(a) Not being able to perform its intended function under certain conditions (e.g., safety 

system not operable unless utilities available, materials or components not according to 

specifications); or 

(b) Being degraded to the extent that a detailed evaluation would be required to 

determine its operability; 

12. Changes in parameters that cause unanticipated reductions in margins of safety; 

13. A significant failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 76.68, including a failure 

such that a required certificate amendment was not sought; 

14. A failure of the certificate holder to conduct adequate oversight of contractors 

resulting in the use of products or services that are of defective or indeterminate quality and that 

have safety significance; 

15. Equipment failures caused by inadequate or improper maintenance that 

substantially complicates recovery from a plant transient; 

16. A failure to establish, maintain, or implement all but one criticality control (or 

control systems) for a single nuclear criticality scenario when a critical mass of fissile material 

was present or reasonably available, such that a nuclear criticality accident was possible; or 

17. A failure, during radiographic operations, to stop work after a pocket dosimeter is 

found to have gone off-scale, or after an electronic dosimeter reads greater than 200 mrem, and 

before a determination is made of the individual's actual radiation exposure. 

D. Severity Level IV - Violations involving for example: 

1. A failure to maintain patients hospitalized who have cobalt-60, cesium- 137, or 

iridium-192 implants or to conduct required leakage or contamination tests, or to use properly 

calibrated equipment; 

2. Other violations that have more than minor safety or environmental significance; 

3. Failure to follow the quality management (QM) program, including procedures, 

whether or not a misadministration occurs, provided the failures are isolated, do not demonstrate 

a programmatic weakness in the implementation of the QM program, and have limited 

consequences if a misadministration is involved; failure to conduct the required program review; 

or failure to take corrective actions as required by 10 CFR 35.32; 

4. A failure to keep the records required by 10 CFR 35.32 or 35.33;

NUREG-1600 56

NUREG-1600 56
NRC Enforcement Policy 

5. A less significant failure to comply with the Action Statement for a Technical Safety 

Requirement Limiting Condition for Operation when the appropriate action was not taken within 

the required time; 

6. A failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 76.68 that does not result in a Severity 

Level I, II, or III violation; 

7. A failure to make a required written event report, as required by 10 CFR 76.120(d)(2); 

or 

8. A failure to establish, implement, or maintain a criticality control (or control system) 

for a single nuclear criticality scenario when the amount of fissile material available was not, but 

could have been sufficient to result in a nuclear criticality.

57 NUREG-1600 57
NRC Enforcement Policy 

SUPPLEMENT VII--MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS 

This supplement provides examples of violations in each of the four severity levels as 

guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations involving miscellaneous 

matters. 

A. Severity Level I - Violations involving for example: 

1. Inaccurate or incomplete information"2 that is provided to the NRC (a) 

deliberately with the knowledge of a licensee official that the information is incomplete or 

inaccurate, or (b) if the information, had it been complete and accurate at the time provided, 

likely would have resulted in regulatory action such as an immediate order required by the public 

health and safety; 

2. Incomplete or inaccurate information that the NRC requires be kept by a licensee 

that is (a) incomplete or inaccurate because of falsification by or with the knowledge of a 

licensee official, or (b) if the information, had it been complete and accurate when reviewed by 

the NRC, likely would have resulted in regulatory action such as an immediate order required by 

public health and safety considerations; 

3. Information that the licensee has identified as having significant implications for 

public health and safety or the common defense and security ("significant information identified 

by a licensee") and is deliberately withheld from the Commission; 

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

regulations against an employee; 

5. A knowing and intentional failure to provide the notice required by 10 CFR 

Part 21; or 

6. A failure to substantially implement the required fitness-for-duty program.23 

B. Severity Level II- Violations involving for example: 

1. Inaccurate or incomplete information that is provided to the NRC (a) by a licensee 

official because of careless disregard for the completeness or accuracy of the information, or 

(b) if the information, had it been complete and accurate at the time provided, likely would have 

resulted in regulatory action such as a show cause order or a different regulatory position; 

"

22

In applying the examples in this supplement regarding inaccurate or incomplete information and records, 

reference should also be made to the guidance in Section IX, "Inaccurate and Incomplete Information," and to the 

definition of "licensee official" contained in Section IV.C. 

"

32

The example for violations for fitness-for-duty relate to violations of 10 CFR Part 26.

NUREG-1600 58
NRC Enforcement Policy 

2. Incomplete or inaccurate information that the NRC requires be kept by a licensee 

which is (a) incomplete or inaccurate because of careless disregard for the accuracy of the 

information on the part of a licensee official, or (b) if the information, had it been complete and 

accurate when reviewed by the NRC, likely would have resulted in regulatory action such as a 

show cause order or a different regulatory position; 

3. "Significant information identified by a licensee" and not provided to the 

Commission because of careless disregard on the part of a licensee official; 

4. An action by plant management or mid-level management in violation of 10 CFR 

50.7 or similar regulations against an employee; 

5. A failure to provide the notice required by 10 CFR Part 21; 

6. A failure to remove an individual from unescorted access who has been involved 

in the sale, use, or possession of illegal drugs within the protected area or take action for on duty 

misuse of alcohol, prescription drugs, or over-the-counter drugs; 

7. A failure to take reasonable action when observed behavior within the protected 

area or credible information concerning activities within the protected area indicates possible 

unfitness for duty based on drug or alcohol use; 

8. A deliberate failure of the licensee's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to 

notify licensee's management when EAP's staff is aware that an individual's condition may 

adversely affect safety related activities; or 

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

work environment. 

C. Severity Level III - Violations involving for example: 

1. Incomplete or inaccurate information that is provided to the NRC (a) because of 

inadequate actions on the part of licensee officials but not amounting to a Severity Level I or II 

violation, or (b) if the information, had it been complete and accurate at the time provided, likely 

would have resulted in a reconsideration of a regulatory position or substantial further inquiry 

such as an additional inspection or a formal request for information; 

2. Incomplete or inaccurate information that the NRC requires be kept by a licensee 

that is (a) incomplete or inaccurate because of inadequate actions on the part of licensee officials 

but not amounting to a Severity Level I or II violation, or (b) if the information, had it been 

complete and accurate when reviewed by the NRC, likely would have resulted in a 

reconsideration of a regulatory position or substantial further inquiry such as an additional 

inspection or a formal request for information; 

3. Inaccurate or incomplete performance indicator (PI) data submitted to the NRC by 

a Part 50 licensee that would have caused a PI to change from green to either yellow or red; white 

to either yellow or red; or yellow to red.

59 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

4. A failure to provide "significant information identified by a licensee" to the 

Commission and not amounting to a Severity Level I or II violation; 

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

10 CFR 50.7 or similar regulations against an employee; 

6. An inadequate review or failure to review such that, if an appropriate review had 

been made as required, a 10 CFR Part 21 report would have been made; 

7. A failure to complete a suitable inquiry on the basis of 10 CFR Part 26, keep 

records concerning the denial of access, or respond to inquiries concerning denials of access so 

that, as a result of the failure, a person previously denied access for fitness-for-duty reasons was 

improperly granted access; 

8. A failure to take the required action for a person confirmed to have been tested 

positive for illegal drug use or take action for onsite alcohol use; not amounting to a Severity 

Level HI violation; 

9. A failure to assure, as required, that contractors have an effective fitness-for-duty 

program; or 

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

NRC regulations such as 10 CFR 50.7(f). 

D. Severity Level IV - Violations involving for example: 

1. Incomplete or inaccurate information that is provided to the NRC but not 

amounting to a Severity Level I, II, or lil violation; 

2. Information that the NRC requires be kept by a licensee and that is incomplete or 

inaccurate and of more than minor significance but not amounting to a Severity Level I, HI, or III 

violation; 

3. Inaccurate or incomplete performance indicator (PI) data submitted to the NRC by 

a Part 50 licensee that would have caused a PI to change from green to white. 

4. An inadequate review or failure to review under 10 CFR Part 21 or other 

procedural violations associated with 10 CFR Part 21 with more than minor safety significance; 

5. Violations of the requirements of Part 26 of more than minor significance; 

6. A failure to report acts of licensed operators or supervisors pursuant to 

10 CFR 26.73; or 

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

categorization.

NUREG-1600 60
NRC Enforcement Policy 

E. Minor - Violations involving for example: 

Inaccurate or incomplete performance indicator (PI) data submitted to the NRC by a 

Part 50 licensee that would not have caused a PI to change color.

61 NUREG-1600
NRC Enforcement Policy 

SUPPLEMENT VIII--EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 

This supplement provides examples of violations in each of the four severity levels as 

guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations in the area of emergency 

preparedness. It should be noted that citations are not normally made for violations involving 

emergency preparedness occurring during emergency exercises. However, where exercises 

reveal (i) training, procedural, or repetitive failures for which corrective actions have not been 

taken, (ii) an overall concern regarding the licensee's ability to implement its plan in a manner 

that adequately protects public health and safety, or (iii) poor self critiques of the licensee's 

exercises, enforcement action may be appropriate. 

A. Severity Level I - Violations involving for example: 

In a general emergency, licensee failure to promptly (1) correctly classify the event, 

(2) make required notifications to responsible Federal, State, and local agencies, or (3) respond to 

the event (e.g., assess actual or potential offsite consequences, activate emergency response 

facilities, and augment shift staff.) 

B. Severity Level II - Violations involving for example: 

1. In a site emergency, licensee failure to promptly (1) correctly classify the event, 

(2) make required notifications to responsible Federal, State, and local agencies, or (3) respond to 

the event (e.g., assess actual or potential offsite consequences, activate emergency response 

facilities, and augment shift staff); or 

2. A licensee failure to meet or implement more than one emergency planning 

standard involving assessment or notification. 

C. Severity Level III - Violations involving for example: 

1. In an alert, licensee failure to promptly (1) correctly classify the event, (2) make 

required notifications to responsible Federal, State, and local agencies, or (3) respond to the event 

(e.g., assess actual or potential offsite consequences, activate emergency response facilities, and 

augment shift staff); or 

2. A licensee failure to meet or implement one emergency planning standard 

involving assessment or notification. 

D. Severity Level IV - Violations involving for example: 

A licensee failure to meet or implement any emergency planning standard or requirement 

not directly related to assessment and notification.

NUREG-1600 

62

NUREG-1600 62
NRC Enforcement Policy 

INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICIES 

Interim Enforcement Policy for Generally Licensed Devices Containing Byproduct 

Material (10 CFR 31.5) 

This section sets forth the interim enforcement policy that the NRC will follow to 

exercise enforcement discretion for certain violations of requirements in 10 CFR Part 31 for 

generally licensed devices containing byproduct material. It addresses violations that persons 

licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 31.5 identify and correct now, as well as during the initial cycle of 

the notice and response program contemplated by the proposed new requirements published in 

the Federal Register on December 2, 1998 (63 FR 66492), entitled "Requirements for Those Who 

Possess Certain Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Material to Provide Requested 

Information". 

Exercise of Enforcement Discretion 

Under this interim enforcement policy, enforcement action normally will not be taken for 

violations of 10 CFR 31.5 if they are identified by the general licensee, and reported to the NRC 

if reporting is required, if the general licensee takes appropriate corrective action to address the 

specific violations and prevent recurrence of similar problems. 

Exceptions 

Enforcement action may be taken where there is: (a) failure to take appropriate corrective 

action to prevent recurrence of similar violations; (b) failure to respond and provide the 

information required by the notice and response program (if it becomes a final rule); (c) failure to 

provide complete and accurate information to the NRC; or (d) a willful violation, such as 

willfully disposing of generally licensed material in an unauthorized manner. Enforcement 

sanctions in these cases may include civil penalties as well as Orders to modify or revoke the 

authority to possess radioactive sources under the general license.

63 NUREG-1600 63
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Interim Enforcement Policy Regarding Enforcement Discretion for Nuclear Power Plants 

During the Year 2000 Transition 

This section sets forth the interim enforcement policy that will govern the exercise of 

enforcement discretion by the NRC staff when licensees of operating nuclear power plants find it 

necessary to deviate from license conditions, including technical specifications (TSs), in those 

cases in which year 2000 (Y2K) related complications would otherwise require a plant shutdown 

that could adversely affect the stability and reliability of the electrical power grid. This policy 

does not extend to situations in which a licensee may be unable to communicate with the NRC. 

The policy is effective August 30, 1999, and will remain in effect through January 1, 

2001. This policy only applies during Y2K transition or rollover periods (December 31, 1999, 

through January 3, 2000; February 28, 2000, through March 1, 2000; and December 30, 2000, 

through January 1, 2001). During these periods, a licensee may contact the NRC Headquarters 

Operations Center and seek NRC enforcement discretion with regard to the potential 

noncompliance with license conditions, including TSs, if the licensee has determined that: 

(a) Complying with license conditions, including TSs, in a Y2K-related situation 

would require a plant shutdown; 

(b) Continued plant operation is needed to help maintain a reliable and stable grid; 

and 

(c) Any decrease in safety as a result of continued plant operation is small 

(considering both risk and deterministic aspects), and reasonable assurance of 

public health and safety, the environment, and security is maintained with the 

enforcement discretion. 

Licensees are expected to follow the existing guidance as stated in NRC Inspection 

Manual Part 9900 for Notices of Enforcement Discretion to the maximum extent practicable, 

particularly regarding a safety determination and notification of NRC. A licensee seeking NRC 

enforcement discretion must provide a written justification, or in circumstances in which good 

cause is shown, an oral justification followed as soon as possible by written justification. The 

justification must document the need and safety basis for the request and provide whatever other 

information the NRC staff needs to make a decision regarding whether the exercise of discretion 

is appropriate. The NRC staff may grant enforcement discretion on the basis of balancing the 

public health and safety or common defense and security of not operating against potential 

radiological or other hazards associated with continued operation, and a determination that safety 

will not be unacceptably affected by exercising the discretion. The Director of the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or designee, will advise the licensee whether the NRC has approved 

the licensee's request and, if so, will subsequently confirm the exercise of discretion in writing. 

Enforcement discretion will only be exercised if the NRC staff is clearly satisfied that the action 

is consistent with protecting public health and safety and is warranted in the circumstances 

presented by the licensee. 

If the volume of requests to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center is such that the 

NRC staff cannot review and approve all licensee requests in a timely fashion, the NRC staff will

NUREG-1600 64
NRC Enforcement Policy 

obtain the safety-significant information from the licensee to enable the NRC staff to make a 

prompt initial assessment. Unless the assessment is unfavorable, the licensee would be permitted 

to proceed with its planned course of action. The NRC staff will complete these assessments as 

time permits and the licensee will be advised of the results orally, if possible, and then in writing. 

If the NRC staffs prompt initial assessment or subsequent assessment determines that a 

licensee's actions raise safety concerns, the licensee would be so informed. The licensee would 

then be required to follow its license conditions, including TSs. 

If there are communications difficulties between the licensee and the NRC, the licensee is 

encouraged to interact with the NRC inspector onsite who will have a dedicated satellite 

telephone. The inspector should be able to facilitate communication with the NRC Headquarters 

Operations Center and/or the NRC Regional Incident Response Centers (IRCs). If 

communication with the NRC Headquarters Operations Center is not possible, then the licensee 

should contact the IRC in NRC Region IV to discuss enforcement discretion. Similarly, if the 

Region IV IRC cannot be reached, then the licensee should attempt to contact the Region I, II and 

III IRCs. Although it is considered highly unlikely, if communication with NRC is not possible, 

the licensee should follow the plant license conditions, including technical specifications. 

In conducting its assessments, the licensee should follow, to the extent practicable, the 

guidance in NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900 for Notices of Enforcement Discretion. Contrary 

to Part 9900 Section B.3 guidance, it is not necessary for an emergency to be declared by a 

government entity. Licensees are encouraged to contact NRC early in their evaluation process, 

particularly if time is of the essence, even though complete information as specified in Part 9900 

may not be available. 

The decision to exercise enforcement discretion does not change the fact that the licensee 

will be in noncompliance nor does it imply that enforcement discretion is being exercised for any 

noncompliance that may have led to the noncompliance at issue. To the extent noncompliance 

was involved, the NRC staff will normally take enforcement action for the root causes that led to 

the noncompliance for which enforcement discretion was granted. Enforcement action will also 

be considered in those cases in which incorrect or incomplete information was provided to the 

NRC staff by a licensee in its justification. The NRC recognizes that a licensee will need to 

exercise judgement in making a determination under this discretion provision. Consistent with 

the NRC's position involving 10 CFR 50.54(x), enforcement action for a violation of a license 

condition, including a TS, will not be taken unless a licensee's action was clearly unreasonable 

considering all the relevant circumstances. Enforcement action could include assessment of civil 

penalties and the issuance of orders.

65 NUREG-1600 65
NRC Enforcement Policy 

Interim Enforcement Policy Regarding Enforcement Discretion for Inaccurate or 

Incomplete Performance Indicator Data for Nuclear Power Plants 

This section sets forth the interim enforcement policy that the NRC will follow to 

exercise enforcement discretion for inaccurate or incomplete performance indicator (PI) data 

submitted to the NRC as part of the Part 50 Reactor Oversight Process. The policy is effective 

until January 31, 2001. 

Because both the NRC and licensees are in a learning process for the submission and 

review of PI data, some errors are expected. Therefore, in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of 

the Enforcement Policy, the NRC will refrain from issuing enforcement action for all non-willful 

violations of 10 CFR 50.9 for the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete PI data. Non-willful 

violations will be documented in inspection reports followed by an explanation that the NRC is 

exercising this discretion. Violations involving inaccurate or incomplete PI data submitted to the 

NRC that would not have caused a PI to change color do not normally warrant documentation 

given the minimal safety significance. Consistent with existing policy, no enforcement action 

will be taken for these minor violations.

NUREG-1600 

66

NUREG-1600 66
NRC FORM 335 US. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER 

(2-89) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol, Supp., Rev., 

NRCM 1 B02, and Addendum Numbers, It any.) 

3201.3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 

(See instructions on the reverse) 

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE NUREG-1600 

General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED 

Enforcement Policy - May 1, 2000 MONTH YEAR 

May 2000 

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER 

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT 

Office of Enforcement Regulatory 

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates) 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION -NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor, 

provide name and mailing address.) 

Office of Enforcement 

U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type 'Same as above'; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

and mailing address.)

Same as 8 above.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less) 

This document includes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's or Commission's) revised General Statement of 

Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions (Enforcement Policy) as it was pub lished in the Federal Register on May 1, 

2000 (65 FR 25368). Because the policy is often revised without being reissued as a NUREG series publication, this current 

document is identified by date instead of revision number. The policy that pre ceded this April 2000 publication was 

NUREG-1600, November 9, 1999. The Enforcement Policy is a general statement of policy explaining the NRC's policies and 

procedures in initiating enforcement actions, and the responsibilities of the p residing officers and the Commission in reviewing 

these actions. This policy statement is applicable to enforcement matters invo Iving the radiological health and safety of the 

public, including employees' health and safety, the common defense and security, and the environment. The NRC publishes 

the policy statement in NRC's NUREG series to foster its widespread dissemination. However, this is a policy statement and 

not a regulation. The Commission may deviate from this statement of policy and procedure as appropriate under the 

circumstances of a particular case. As a living policy statement, revisions are noticed in the Federal Register. The NRC's 

Office of Enforcement maintains the current policy statement on its homepage on the Internet at www.nrc.gov/OE/. This 

revision (1) incorporates the Interim Enforcement Policy that was used during t he NRC Power Reactor Oversight Process Pilot 

Plant Study into the main body of the Enforcement Policy as permanent guidance; (2) adds an interim Enforcement Policy for 

exercising enforcement discretion for inaccurate or incomplete performance indi cator data for nuclear power plants; 

(3) changes examples of violations for operating reactors regarding changes, te sts, and experiments; (4) adds examples of 

violations for inaccurate or incomplete performance indicator data; (5) changes examples of violations involving the failure to 

secure, or maintain surveillance over, licensed material; and (6) edits existin g guidance to assure clarity of existing policy and 

consistency with the intent of the Interim Enforcement Policy.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.) 13. AVAILABIUTY STATEMENT 

NRC enforcement guidance unlimited 

NRC Enforcement Policy 14. SECURITY CLASSIRCATION 

NRC enforcement program (This Page) 

NRC enforcement responsibilities unclassified 

(This Report) 

unclassified 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (2-89)
Federal Recycling Program
NUREG-1600 GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR NRC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

MAY 2000