NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY 

COMMISSION

Changes Planned to 

Budget Structure and 

Justification

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2017

GAO-17-294

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-294, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2017

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Changes Planned to Budget Structure and 

Justification

What GAO Found

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) formulates its agencywide budget 

using estimates developed by its offices, and its budget structure changed twice 

from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. NRC’s budget formulation consists of (1) its 

internal budget process, during which NRC management develops planning 

guidance, offices develop budget requests, and management and offices work 

together to develop an agencywide budget, and (2) its external budget process, 

during which NRC obtains external review from the Office of Management and 

Budget to finalize its budget, which goes forward to Congress as part of the 

President’s budget request for that fiscal year. From fiscal years 2010 through 

2017, NRC made two major changes to how it organized its budget structure, the 

first of which created confusion among users of NRC’s budget requests—such 

as Congress and licensees—and contributed to increased congressional scrutiny 

of NRC costs. For example, in the requests for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, NRC 

changed how it budgeted for overhead; this change had the unintended 

consequence of appearing to significantly increase NRC’s costs associated with 

overhead, according to the agency. NRC attempted to address these concerns 

and improve transparency as part of its second budget structure change, which 

NRC implemented starting with the fiscal year 2016 budget request for NRC and

which it completed in the fiscal year 2017 request. Fiscal year 2017 was just 

beginning as GAO finished its audit work, so it was too early to determine 

whether these changes improved transparency or lowered overhead costs. 

During the budget structure changes from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, NRC’s 

primary budget formulation guidance was not up to date. NRC updated this 

guidance in August 2016, nearly 30 years after it was originally issued, and 

established a process to regularly update its directives.

NRC’s budget justification—which supports the budget request for NRC—did not 

align with its budget execution from fiscal years 2010 through 2015; furthermore, 

its budget justification did not reflect the agency’s use of funds in prior years. 

NRC used two different systems for two related, but distinct budget processes: 

one to formulate its budget and one to execute its budget through obligation of 

funds. The two systems differ in that they use different account structures to 

account for NRC’s personnel and other costs. Due in part to the differences in 

these systems, NRC did not present actual obligation data in its budget 

justifications for fiscal years 2010 through 2017, which would show how NRC 

used its funds in prior years. Without this information, it is difficult for users of the 

budget justification to compare budget requests for NRC with how NRC is 

obligating its funds. Upon request, NRC provided GAO with obligation data using 

the same account structure used for developing its budget. Using this data, GAO 

found that NRC has decreased its overall obligations from fiscal years 2010 to 

2015 and shifted resources to reflect reduced new reactor construction and 

implementation of recommendations in response to the nuclear disaster in 

Fukushima, Japan, in 2011. NRC plans to include prior year obligation data in its 

fiscal year 2018 budget justification.

View GAO-17-294. For more information, 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or 

ruscof@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

NRC is an independent agency that 

regulates civilian uses of nuclear 

materials in the United States. From

fiscal years 2005 to 2010, NRC’s

budget and workforce increased by 

about 59 percent and about 27 

percent, respectively, in anticipation of 

growth in the commercial nuclear 

industry. When this growth did not 

occur, NRC made plans to reduce its 

budget and workforce. However, 

Congress and licensees—the 

companies regulated by NRC—have 

expressed confusion about the annual 

budget request for NRC, and they say 

they cannot determine specifically how 

NRC plans to spend its appropriations.

The explanatory statement 

accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016, included a 

provision for GAO to review NRC’s 

budget formulation process. This report 

examines (1) how NRC formulates its 

budget and how its budget structure 

changed for fiscal years 2010 through 

2017 and (2) the extent to which NRC's 

budget justification aligns with its 

budget execution and reflects the 

agency's use of funds for prior years.

GAO reviewed NRC documentation, 

interviewed NRC and Office of 

Management and Budget staff, and 

interviewed a nongeneralizable sample 

of 13 industry stakeholders and 1 nonindustry stakeholder. GAO also 

analyzed NRC budget and obligation

data to assess trends from fiscal years

2010 through 2015.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations. 

NRC generally agreed with GAO’s 

findings.
Page i GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Letter 1

Background 5

NRC Formulates Its Budget Based on Estimates from Its Offices, 

and Its Budget Structure Changed Twice from Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2017 11

NRC’s Budget Justification Did Not Align with Its Budget 

Execution Structure or Reflect the Agency’s Use of Funds for 

Prior Years, but NRC Plans to Provide Additional Data 18

Agency Comments 25

Appendix I Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 26

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 27

Table

Table 1: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Budget 

Allocations and Reported Actual Obligations by Business 

Line (Dollars in Millions), Fiscal Year 2010 through 2015 23

Figures

Figure 1: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Fiscal Year 2017 

Budget Structure 7

Figure 2: Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission by Business Line 8

Figure 3: Federal Budget Formulation Process 9

Figure 4: Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Budget 

Formulation Timeline for Fiscal Year 2017 12

Figure 5: Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Budget Structures 

from Fiscal Years 2010 through 2017 15

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Abbreviations

BFS Budget Formulation System

FAIMIS Financial Accounting and Integrated Management 

 Information System

FTE Full-time equivalent

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OMB Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 8, 2017

The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Mike Simpson

Chairman

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an independent 

agency established to regulate civilian uses of nuclear materials for 

commercial, industrial, medical, and academic purposes in the United 

States. From fiscal years 2005 to 2010, NRC’s budget and workforce 

increased by about 59 percent and about 27 percent, respectively.1 The 

increase in budget and workforce that NRC experienced occurred largely 

in response to the anticipated growth of the commercial nuclear industry, 

referred to as the “nuclear renaissance;” and was aided by the passage of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included tax incentives to promote 

additional nuclear energy development. As a result, NRC expected a 

substantial increase in workload due to a projected large number of 

applications for new nuclear power plants, among other things. In 

preparation for this anticipated increase, NRC’s budget authority grew 

from $669 million in fiscal year 2005 to more than $1 billion in fiscal year 

2010. Similarly, its workforce grew from about 3,100 full-time equivalent 

(FTE) employees to almost 4,000 FTEs over the same period.2 By 2011, 

 1The increases in NRC’s budget and workforce are calculated based on data from NRC’s 

Congressional budget justifications for fiscal years 2006 and 2011. 

2FTEs reflect the total number of regular straight-time hours (i.e., not including overtime or 

holiday hours) worked by employees divided by the number of compensable hours 

applicable to each fiscal year. For a glossary of federal budgeting terms and definitions, 

see GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2005). 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

however, it became clear that the nuclear renaissance had not 

materialized for a variety of reasons, including low prices of natural gas 

and concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants. Additionally, 

concerns have been raised about nuclear waste generated by nuclear 

power plants.

After the growth in the commercial nuclear industry did not materialize, 

NRC established Project Aim in June 2014 to develop plans to establish 

clearer agency-wide priorities, align the agency’s budget and workforce 

with its new workload, streamline agency processes, and better position 

the agency to respond to changes in external conditions in an agile and 

flexible manner. Specifically, NRC projected that it could meet industry 

demand for licensing and other regulatory services in 2020 by reducing its 

workforce and budget by 10 percent and by adjusting its workforce 

composition to resemble its composition in 2005. Nevertheless, NRC’s 

budget authority has declined little since fiscal year 2010 from about 

$1.07 billion in fiscal year 2010 to about $1.00 billion in fiscal year 2016—

a decrease of about 6 percent. NRC is required by law to collect 

approximately 90 percent of its budget authority through regulatory user 

fees assessed to companies that hold an NRC license—referred to as 

licensees—and to license applicants.3 Congress and licensees have 

expressed confusion about the annual budget request for NRC and have 

said they cannot determine specifically how NRC plans to spend its 

appropriations. For example, the explanatory statement accompanying 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 stated that NRC’s budget 

presentation lacks transparency and that improvements in NRC’s budget 

allocation and presentation process are needed and could lead to better 

justifications to Congress.4

To formulate its annual budget, NRC prepares a Congressional Budget 

Justification (budget justification) that provides Congress with estimates 

and other information that support the policies and proposed spending 

decisions represented in the President’s budget request, including 

 342 U.S.C. § 2214.

4Section 4 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113 (2015), 

provides that the explanatory statement accompanying the act and printed in the 

Congressional Record shall have the same effect as if it were a joint explanatory 

statement of a committee of conference. 
Page 3 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

information on what NRC plans to achieve with the resources requested.5

After Congress enacts appropriations providing NRC’s budget authority 

for the fiscal year, NRC enters the budget execution phase during which 

the budget authority is available for obligation. During the budget 

execution process, OMB provides apportionments of funds, usually on a 

quarterly basis, to federal agencies to make money available for use. 

NRC allocates these appropriated funds to its offices, which obligate them 

to carry out the agency’s mission.

The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016, included a provision for GAO to review NRC’s 

budget formulation process. This report examines (1) how NRC 

formulates its budget and how its budget structure changed for fiscal 

years 2010 through 2017 and (2) the extent to which NRC’s budget 

justification aligns with its budget execution and reflects the agency’s use 

of funds for prior years.

To examine how NRC formulates its budget and how its budget structure 

changed for fiscal years 2010 through 2017, we reviewed NRC 

documentation, such as the agency’s budget justifications from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2017, as well as guidance, policy documents, and 

reports from NRC’s Inspector General. In addition, we reviewed federal 

laws, regulations, and guidelines relevant to agency budgeting, such as 

OMB Circular A-11. We also interviewed NRC and OMB staff to 

determine NRC’s budget formulation process and gather information 

about OMB’s review of the budget request for NRC. In addition, we 

conducted interviews with a nongeneralizable sample of 13 industry 

stakeholders, including 8 large licensees, 2 small licensees, and 3 

industry trade organizations, and 1 non-industry stakeholder.6 We 

selected the licensees from each of NRC’s nine fee classes that were 

assessed the highest total amount of fees from fiscal years 2011 to 2015, 

based on data provided by NRC’s Financial Accounting and Integrated 

Management Information System (FAIMIS). We also randomly selected 

small licensees based on data provided by NRC staff on small entity fee 

adjustments. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing 

documentation about the system and interviewing NRC staff who were 

 5Agencies are generallyrequired to prepare a budget justification under Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and 

Execution of the Budget (Washington, D.C.: June 2015). 

6Data collected are anecdotal and are not generalizable to all of NRC’s licensees or other 

stakeholders.
Page 4 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

knowledgeable about the system. We sent these NRC staff written 

questions on the reliability of the system and reviewed their written 

responses. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of 

selecting licensees to interview. We made a nongeneralizable selection of 

industry trade organizations to interview that represented a variety of 

interests. We attempted to identify potential non-industry stakeholders, 

but were only able to identify and interview one group representing 

scientists. 

To examine how NRC’s budget justification aligns with its budget 

execution and how it reflects the agency’s use of funds for prior years, we 

reviewed NRC’s budget justification and budget execution information. 

We combined and analyzed budget request and enacted budget data 

from NRC’s budget justifications from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. We 

then analyzed two sets of data on budget execution and obligation that 

we obtained from NRC. Specifically, we analyzed budget execution data 

from FAIMIS, and actual obligation data that NRC provided us from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2015, the last completed fiscal year at the time of our 

request. In addition to the previously discussed assessment of the 

reliability of NRC’s FAIMIS, we assessed the reliability of these 

calculations by conducting interviews with the NRC officials who 

performed the calculations, as well as by reviewing NRC staff’s written 

responses to additional questions on data reliability. Based on the 

answers provided, we determined these data to be sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of determining trends in NRC’s budget authority and actual 

obligations from fiscal years 2010 through 2015. We also analyzed 

budget justifications of 60 agencies for fiscal year 2015 to determine the 

extent to which federal agencies provided data on actual obligations. We 

chose these agencies based on the requirement that they comply with the 

Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, which reformed federal financial 

management for 23 (now 24) statutorily designated departments and 

agencies, including NRC.7 The Departments of Commerce, Health and 

Human Services, and the Interior do not submit an overall departmentwide justification. Instead, each of the agencies under these departments 

submit individual budget justifications. For the purposes of this analysis, 

we reviewed these agency-level budget justifications.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2016 to March 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 7Pub. L. No.101-576 (1990). 
Page 5 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

This section discusses NRC’s organizational structure, NRC’s budget 

structure, the federal budget formulation process, and NRC’s budget 

control process.

NRC was established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and is 

headed by five commissioners, who are collectively referred to as the 

Commission, with members appointed by the President and confirmed by 

the Senate. The President designates one commissioner to serve as the 

Chair and official spokesperson of the Commission and NRC.8 The 

Commission as a whole formulates policies and regulations governing 

nuclear reactor and materials safety, issues orders to licensees, and 

adjudicates matters brought before it. The Commission is also 

responsible for, among other things, (1) approving proposals for the 

reorganization of the major offices within the Commission, (2) revising 

budget estimates and determining the distribution of appropriated funds 

according to major programs and purposes, and (3) approving changes to 

management directives directly related to policy formulation or the 

functions of the commissioners.

The Executive Director for Operations carries out the policies and 

decisions of the Commission and directs the activities of 15 offices to 

ensure that the commercial use of nuclear materials in the United States 

is conducted in a safe manner. These offices include those based in 

headquarters, such as the Office of New Reactors, as well as four 

regional offices; all these offices together conduct the agency’s regulatory 

development, licensing, inspection, enforcement, and emergency 

response programs, among other things. In addition, the Chief Financial 

Officer leads the agency’s budget formulation and execution processes. 

Furthermore, some of NRC’s offices are designated as “lead offices” and 

play a key role in developing the agency’s budget requests.

 8Pub. L. No. 93-438 (1974). 

Background

NRC’s Organizational 

Structure
Page 6 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRC’s budget structure, which differs from its office-based organizational 

structure described above, is currently grouped by program, business 

line, product line, and product (see fig. 1). For fiscal year 2017, NRC’s 

two overarching programs are Nuclear Reactor Safety and Nuclear 

Materials and Waste Safety.9 Under these programs, six business lines 

relate to key regulatory groups of licensees. In addition, the Corporate 

Support business line is responsible for agencywide support activities, 

which include acquisitions, administrative services, financial 

management, human resource management, information management, 

information technology, outreach, policy support, and associated training 

and travel. The Corporate Support business line supports all of the 

programmatic business lines, and Corporate Support costs are allocated 

across the other business lines in NRC’s budget. Under NRC’s business 

lines, product lines are categories of agency work functions that contain 

products—which are key tasks that have notable resources assigned and 

which represent the outputs of activities. The product line and product 

structures are similar across the business lines. For example, as shown in 

figure 1, each of the business lines other than Corporate Support have 

product lines for Licensing, Oversight, Rulemaking, and International 

Activities.

9As discussed later in this report, for fiscal year 2016, the explanatory statement included 

budgetary classifications referred to as control points that limit NRC’s obligations and 

provide additional transparency to NRC’s budget execution process. These control points 

include, but are not limited to, its two programs. 

NRC’s Budget Structure
Page 7 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Figure 1: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Structure

Note: Products are a subset of product lines and are not shown.

The fiscal year 2017 budget request for NRC was $970 million (see fig. 

2).10 The largest business line was Operating Reactors; with associated 

Corporate Support costs included, this business line accounted for 61 

percent of the budget request. Figure 2 shows the fiscal year 2017 budget 

request for NRC by business line—associated Corporate Support costs 

are included in each of the other business lines. Collectively, these 

 10This amount excludes the request for NRC’s Office of the Inspector General, which was 

$12.1 million for fiscal year 2017. 
Page 8 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Corporate Support portions accounted for 33 percent of the budget 

request.

Figure 2: Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

by Business Line

Note: Corporate Support is a business line w ithin NRC’s budget structure. How ever, in NRC’s budget 

justifications, Corporate Support costs are allocated across the programmatic business lines they 

support.

The federal budget formulation process is set by law, according to which 

the President is to submit a budget request to Congress by the first 

Monday in February for the fiscal year starting the following October 1. 

For example, in February 2016, the President submitted the budget 

request for fiscal year 2017, which runs from October 1, 2016, through 

September 30, 2017. Figure 3 shows the federal budgeting process that 

most agencies, including NRC, follow. Detailed guidance for preparing 

The Federal Budget 

Formulation Process
Page 9 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

budget submissions is included in OMB Circular A-11, which OMB 

typically revises each year.

Figure 3: Federal Budget Formulation Process

a

The term “agency” refers to either the department, agency, or low er component levels, depending on 

the level of decision being made. The budget submitted to OMB represents the budget decisions 

made at the department level or the highest organizational level.
Page 10 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Although federal funding may be available for an agency to obligate for 

one year, multiple years, or until expended (referred to as “no-year”), only 

unobligated multi-year or no-year funds may be carried over from one 

fiscal year to the next. Generally, NRC’s appropriations are available until 

expended. In any given year, the total budgetary resources available to 

an agency consist of unobligated funds—amounts that have not yet been 

obligated—carried forward from previous years, if applicable, plus new 

budget authority for that fiscal year.11

In order to comply with fiscal statutes, federal agencies must establish an 

effective budget control process to ensure that obligations or 

expenditures do not exceed amounts available for obligation. In addition, 

the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016, directs NRC to limit its obligation levels in four 

areas, referred to as control points, in order to provide additional 

transparency to NRC’s budget execution process. The four control points 

apply to NRC’s two programs, one business line that is treated 

separately, and an additional program that is not part of NRC’s budget 

structure. For the control points that apply to NRC’s programs and 

business lines, the explanatory statement includes limits on how much 

funding can be used for Corporate Support costs associated with these 

programs and business lines. Specifically, the four control points are:

• Nuclear Reactor Safety—just more than $760 million; no more than 

about $258 million of this amount may be used for Corporate Support. 

This control point includes the Operating Reactors and New Reactors 

business lines, which are within the Nuclear Reactor Safety program.

• Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety—just more than $172 million; no 

more than about $58 million of this amount may be used for Corporate 

Support. This control point includes the Fuel Facilities, Nuclear 

Materials Users, and Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation business 

 11As described earlier, NRC assesses regulatory user fees to licensees and license 

applicants and is required by law to collect approximately 90 percent of its budget 

authority through these fees. For example, the total amount of fees that NRC was required 

to collect in fiscal year 2005 was about $538 million, which increased to about $911 million 

in 2010, an increase of about 69 percent. The total amount NRC needed to collect in fees 

from licensees decreased to $883 million in 2016, a decrease of about 3 percent from 

2010. These numbers are not adjusted for inflation. For more information, see GAO, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Regulatory Fee-Setting Calculations Need Greater 

Transparency, GAO-17-232 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2, 2017).

NRC’s Budget Control 

Process
Page 11 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

lines, which are within the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

program.

• Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste—almost $43 million; no more 

than about $15 million of this amount may be used for Corporate 

Support. This control point is for the Decommissioning and Low-Level 

Waste business line within the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

program.

• Integrated University Program—$15 million. The Integrated University 

Program, among other things, provides grants to support research 

projects that do not align with programmatic missions but that are 

critical to maintaining the discipline of nuclear science and 

engineering. This program is not included in the budget request for 

NRC, but receives appropriations from Congress.

NRC formulates its agencywide budget based on estimates developed by 

its nine lead offices.12 NRC’s budget formulation process covers 2 fiscal 

years—the budget year and the following fiscal year—and is divided into 

internal and external budget processes. NRC’s internal budget process, 

as shown in steps 1 through 3 of figure 4, consists of all milestones and 

activities internal to the agency for developing the budget and submitting 

it to OMB. During this process, NRC’s lead offices follow planning 

guidance issued by NRC’s management, and they use historical data and 

workload estimates, among other things, to develop budget requests for 

each of NRC’s business lines. Next, the offices work with the Chief 

Financial Officer, the Executive Director for Operations, and Deputy 

Executive Directors for Operations to aggregate this information into an 

agencywide budget, which is reviewed by the Chairman and the 

Commission and submitted to OMB. The external budget process, as 

shown in step 4 of figure 4, consists of all milestones and activities 

outside of NRC that are associated with the review of NRC’s budget by 

OMB and the subsequent review of the President’s budget request for 

NRC by Congress.

 12As discussed above, lead offices play a key role in the development of budget requests 

for the agency. NRC’s lead offices are the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office of 

New Reactors, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Administration, 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Office of International Programs, and Office of Small 

Business and Civil Rights.

NRC Formulates Its 

Budget Based on 

Estimates from Its 

Offices, and Its 

Budget Structure 

Changed Twice from 

Fiscal Years 2010 

through 2017
Page 12 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Figure 4: Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Budget Formulation Timeline for Fiscal Year 2017

Note: These dates are specific to the fiscal year 2017 budget formulation process, but NRC’s process 

generally follow s the same time frames each year.

The first major step in NRC’s budget formulation is the development of 

guidance (see fig. 4). The Chief Financial Officer and the Executive 

Director for Operations propose high-level planning guidance and submit 

it to NRC’s Chairman. This guidance is informed by NRC’s Strategic Plan

and is intended to provide NRC staff direction on workload priorities. The 

Chairman reviews the proposed guidance and sends it to the Commission 

for approval. The Chief Financial Officer and Executive Director for 
Page 13 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Operations also issue annual budget instructions on how the lead offices 

should formulate their budget estimates. According to NRC, these 

instructions provide financial analyses and communicate any major 

changes in the budget formulation process from prior years.

The second major step in NRC’s budget formulation process is the 

development of business line estimates and budget requests by NRC’s 

lead offices (see fig. 4). For the purposes of budget formulation, NRC 

treats Corporate Support product lines as similar to its other business 

lines, meaning lead offices develop estimates and budget requests for all 

business lines and Corporate Support product lines. To develop their 

business line budget requests, NRC’s lead offices use prior-year 

execution data and workload estimates based on anticipated changes 

and projections for new or changing work. According to NRC staff we 

interviewed, lead offices base workload estimates on many different 

factors, including their assessment of the industry’s stability; the effect of 

regulatory activities and industry events, such as the nuclear disaster in 

Fukushima, Japan, in 2011;13 and information obtained from industry 

outreach, such as when applicants plan to submit license applications to 

the agency. NRC also makes use of agencywide and office-specific 

planning tools to develop budget requests. For example, NRC staff told 

us that they use a common reporting template every year to develop their 

budget request, and that some of the charts and narrative language in 

this template can be populated directly from NRC’s budget formulation 

system. NRC also has an internal site for budget development that 

maintains much of its budget information from previous years. In addition, 

the Office of New Reactors uses a table to track spending by project and 

conducts monthly resource planning.

Following the development of business line budget requests, the third 

major step in NRC’s budget formulation involves the development of an 

agencywide budget and review by NRC’s management (see fig. 4). 

Specifically, once the lead offices have developed their budget requests, 

they submit the requests to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, which 

coordinates the assembly of an agencywide draft budget and provides the 

draft to the Chief Financial Officer, Executive Director for Operations, and 

the Deputy Executive Directors for Operations. The budget decisions and 

recommendations are forwarded to NRC’s Chairman. The Chairman then 

 13Although this event took place outside the United States, it affected how NRC decided to 

respond to mandated safety upgrades in the U.S. operating reactor fleet. 
Page 14 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

reviews the staff’s budget, modifies it as needed, and submits the 

proposed Chairman’s budget to the full Commission for review, analysis, 

and approval. After the Commission’s review, the Chief Financial Officer 

works with the Executive Director for Operations and the nine lead offices 

to finalize the budget information and complete other documentation 

required for the Chairman to submit the budget to OMB. The form and 

content of the document are specified in OMB Circular A-11 and other 

supplementary guidance provided by OMB.

The fourth major step in NRC’s budget formulation process involves NRC 

obtaining external review from OMB to finalize its budget and submitting 

this finalized budget to Congress (see fig. 4). After OMB’s initial review of 

the budget to ensure quality and consistency with the President’s national 

program policies and objectives,14 OMB returns the budget to NRC with 

adjustments, if needed. Upon receipt of the initial feedback, NRC’s Chief 

Financial Officer and Executive Director for Operations provide a 

memorandum to the Commission summarizing OMB’s decision. The 

Commission votes on whether to appeal OMB’s initial decision; however, 

after the resolution of any such appeal, NRC must use OMB’s final 

decision to prepare a budget justification that is submitted to Congress for 

review.

From fiscal years 2010 through 2017, NRC made two major changes to 

how it organized its budget structure; NRC staff told us these changes 

were intended to improve the transparency of the full costs of NRC’s 

activities. The first change, which NRC implemented in two phases in its 

fiscal years 2011 and 2012 budget requests, contributed to increased 

congressional scrutiny of NRC costs. NRC intended to address these 

concerns as part of its second budget structure change, which the agency 

implemented starting with the fiscal year 2016 budget request for NRC 

and completed in the fiscal year 2017 request. Figure 5 shows the three 

different budget structures NRC used to organize its budget from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2017. According to NRC staff and as described 

below, the changes reflected a top-to-bottom overhaul of the agency’s 

budget structure hierarchy, as well as reclassifications of the agency’s 

overhead costs.

 14According to NRC, quality measures include adjustments made for inflation, accounting 

of FTE costs, and compliance with performance measures. 
Page 15 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Figure 5: Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Budget Structures from Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2017

NRC’s budget structure in fiscal year 2010 consisted of programs, subprograms, major drivers, and planned activities, which was the same 

budget structure the agency used before it began implementing changes 

in fiscal year 2011. NRC staff told us that in fiscal year 2010, the agency 

budgeted for mission support activities, such as administrative support for 

programs and mission-related travel, within its Reactors and Materials 

programs and budgeted for agencywide support activities, such as human 

resources, within the Management and Support sub-program. However, 

resources budgeted for mission support activities were commingled with 

other program resources and were not specifically identified as overhead. 

According to NRC, this budget structure did not allow for sufficient 

tracking or understanding of mission support costs during the agency’s 

growth period in preparation for the anticipated nuclear renaissance.

In an attempt to streamline its budget structure and make it more 

transparent for users of the budget, NRC adopted a new budget structure 

for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. NRC staff described this change as 

organizing the budget into broad functional categories—programs, 
Page 16 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

business lines, product lines, and products—and reducing the number of 

sub-categories. In addition, NRC renamed Management and Support as 

Corporate Support, a business line that included agencywide support 

activities. NRC also created a new business line, Office Support, which 

included all mission support activities as well as top-level management, 

administrative assistants, and other office support staff who work in the 

program mission areas.15 According to NRC staff, no personnel changes 

were made as a result of this reorganization. Although NRC’s budget 

structure changes made it easier to track mission support activities 

because they were grouped together under Office Support, according to 

NRC staff, this change had the unintended consequence of appearing to 

significantly increase NRC’s overhead costs. Mission support costs, 

which were previously considered programmatic costs, were being 

treated as if they were overhead in the newly created Office Support 

business line. Furthermore, despite an NRC initiative to decrease 

overhead costs and duplication of work in fiscal year 2012, NRC told us 

that actual overhead costs increased each year from fiscal years 2011 to 

2015 due to increases in rent, utilities, and information technology 

investments, among other things.

NRC’s budgets for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 reflect changes the agency 

made over these two years in response to congressional concerns about 

increased overhead costs. The explanatory statement that accompanied 

the Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015 appropriations directed NRC to 

engage a third party to recommend ways it could reduce corporate 

support requirements and improve the efficiency of the Commission’s 

internal processes.16 To conduct this review, NRC hired a consultant, 

which issued a report in April 2015.17 The report concluded that, although 

there is no standard government-wide definition for mission support, other 

agencies do not separate out resources for mission support activities from 

program costs, nor do they make a budgetary distinction between mission 

 15Although Office Support and Corporate Support included many of the same categories 

of activities—such as human resources, information technology, and travel—Office 

Support activities supported individual mission programs while Corporate Support 

activities were centrally managed and supported the entire agency.

16Section 4 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. 

No. 113-235 (2014), provided that the explanatory statement accompanying the act and 

printed in the Congressional Record shall have the same effect as if it were a joint 

explanatory statement of a committee of conference. 

17Ernst & Young, Overhead Assessment, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Report

(2015). 
Page 17 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

support and agencywide support activities. The report also found that by 

moving mission support activities back to mission programs, NRC would 

more accurately represent mission support and agencywide support 

costs, resulting in a 13.5 percent reduction in costs categorized as 

agency overhead. This reduction would not represent a decrease in total 

costs but instead a shift in how funding is budgeted from Office Support to 

the other business lines.

Based on the consultant’s findings, NRC changed its budget structure to 

present a budget more comparable with other federal agencies. NRC also 

eliminated the Office Support business line and returned these mission 

support costs activities to the mission programs. These changes 

preserved the general budget structure categories developed in fiscal 

years 2011 and 2012 but returned to the treatment of mission support 

activities seen in NRC’s fiscal year 2010 budget structure. For the fiscal 

year 2017 budget request, NRC staff told us that they budgeted for 

mission support costs in a dedicated product line within the program 

business lines so that NRC can track these costs by business line. Fiscal 

year 2017 was just beginning as we finished our audit work for this report, 

so it was too early to determine whether the budget structure changes 

made in the requests for fiscal year 2016 through 2017 improved 

transparency or lowered overhead costs.

During the budget structure changes from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, 

NRC’s primary budget formulation guidance was not up to date. Prior to 

updating Management Directive 4.7 in August 2016, NRC had not 

updated its budget formulation guidance for nearly 30 years.18 Several 

changes occurred in the period from 1989—when the original 

Management Directive 4.7 was issued—to 2016 that necessitated 

updates to the budget formulation management directive. For example, 

Congress passed multiple laws that changed how all federal agencies 

must formulate or report their budget or financial information, including 

the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993. In addition, according to NRC staff, 

NRC’s budget structure changes led to a shift in budget formulation by 

business line, rather than by offices. NRC also streamlined its budget 

formulation process, according to NRC staff, by creating high-level 

planning guidance and eliminating certain reports and review meetings. In 

 18Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Budget Formulation, U.S. NRC Management Directive 

4.7 (Washington, D.C.: 2016).
Page 18 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

the absence of an up-to-date management directive on budget 

formulation, NRC staff told us that the Chief Financial Officer and 

Executive Director for Operations communicated important changes in 

budget procedures to staff through annual budget instructions and used 

Commission internal procedures and guidance in OMB Circular A-11 to 

make structural changes. In 2016, NRC issued Management Directive 1.1 

that requires all management directives to be reviewed every 5 years and 

to be either certified as still relevant or updated.19 This directive is being 

addressed by NRC’s Office of Administration, which, according to NRC 

staff, has developed a system to alert the responsible offices to update 

their guidance as guidance expiration dates approach.

NRC’s budget justification did not align with its budget execution structure 

for fiscal years 2010 through 2015 because NRC used two different 

systems—one to formulate its budget and another to obligate funds 

based on its appropriations from Congress. Because of the differences in 

these systems, NRC did not present information on its actual use of funds 

in its budget justifications from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. Without 

this data, it is difficult for users of the information—such as Congress and 

licensees—to understand how NRC used its appropriations. NRC plans to 

start presenting obligation data in its fiscal year 2018 budget justification.

Prior to fiscal year 2016, NRC’s systems for managing its budget 

formulation and budget execution processes did not align with each other 

in a way that made it easy to compare the agency’s budget justification 

with its actual use of funds. There are no specific requirements for an 

agency’s budget formulation process to align with its execution process, 

but without this information, it is difficult to track how NRC uses its funds 

in relation to its budget authority.

 19Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Management Directives System, U.S. NRC 

Management Directive 1.1 (Washington, D.C.: 2016). 

NRC’s Budget 

Justification Did Not 

Align with Its Budget 

Execution Structure 

or Reflect the 

Agency’s Use of 

Funds for Prior Years, 

but NRC Plans to 

Provide Additional 

Data

NRC’s Budget Justification 

Did Not Align with Its 

Budget Execution System 

Prior to Fiscal Year 2016

Due to Differences in the 

Systems Used to Manage 

these Processes
Page 19 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRC’s budget formulation and execution are related processes that serve 

distinct purposes and that are governed by different requirements. At the 

agency level, budget formulation is the process by which an agency 

develops its proposed budget; this process is governed by the 

requirements of OMB Circular A-11, which requires agencies to include, 

where possible, the full cost of a program in their budget justifications. On 

the other hand, budget execution is the process through which an agency 

manages its finances based on the enacted budget and obligates these 

funds to its programs and activities throughout the fiscal year. Budget 

execution is governed by fiscal statutes that require agencies to develop 

systems to track their funds against their appropriations and ensure that 

they do not obligate more money than they have available to them.20 As 

previously stated, NRC’s funds are generally available to obligate until 

expended. This designation enables NRC to obligate money that was 

appropriated in the current year, as well as carry over funds from prior 

years to the current year or into future years.

NRC uses the Budget Formulation System (BFS) to manage budget 

formulation, and FAIMIS to manage NRC’s budget execution.21 The 

agency uses information from both of these systems—and from other 

systems NRC uses to manage other processes, such as the Human 

Resources Management System that captures time and labor data—for 

its budget formulation and execution processes. For example, NRC 

budget staff use execution data from FAIMIS to establish a baseline of 

actual spending on a given program. Similarly, BFS provides data to 

FAIMIS to establish how much money NRC can spend based on 

allocated budget levels. NRC business line managers have different 

levels of responsibility during budget formulation and execution. 

Specifically, NRC managers are responsible for formulating the budgets 

for their business lines that represent the full cost of the programs they 

manage. However, some aspects of their programs are managed 

centrally by NRC during budget execution. For example, business line 

managers develop the budgets for travel by headquarters-based 

employees, but these costs are managed through a central NRC travel 

budget. The largest of these centrally managed costs, according to NRC 

documents, are for salaries and benefits of NRC employees, which

routinely comprise more than half of NRC’s resources. Although NRC’s 

 20See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. § 1341; 1514.

21In addition to tracking funds that have been obligated, NRC uses FAIMIS to track 

obligated funds for which payment has not yet been made.
Page 20 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

business line managers do not manage salaries and benefits costs 

directly, they are indirectly responsible for these costs through their 

management of the FTE allocation for their business lines. NRC business 

line managers are responsible for managing other types of costs directly, 

most notably the costs of contracts used by their business lines. BFS and 

FAIMIS use slightly different account structures, which reflect these 

differences in how NRC handles these costs, as discussed below:

• Salaries and benefits: In budget formulation, BFS includes the costs 

associated with salaries and benefits and office support in the 

requests for each business line, since agencies must include the full 

cost of a program in their budget justification. NRC allocates the costs 

of salaries and benefits to the various business lines and product lines 

using the total FTEs allocated to each, multiplied by the average cost 

of salaries and benefits per FTE for the entire agency. As discussed 

previously, NRC manages salaries and benefits through a central 

account for the entire agency in budget execution. Consequently, 

FAIMIS reports these obligations separately from the business lines 

and product lines during budget execution.

• Mission support activities: During budget formulation, certain 

activities that support NRC’s principal regulatory activities—such as 

training, travel, and supervisory costs—are allocated to the business 

lines to represent the full costs of those programs. As described 

earlier in this report, prior to fiscal year 2016, NRC reported 

agencywide supervisory costs in the Office Support business line for 

budget execution in an attempt to provide additional transparency on 

the costs of these activities. These costs were then allocated to each 

of the other business lines during budget formulation. In fiscal year 

2016, NRC restructured its budget and eliminated the Office Support 

business line.

In 2013, NRC’s Inspector General found that NRC’s budgeting and

operations did not align, since budgets are formulated by business-line 

managers but are executed by office-level managers, who are not 
Page 21 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

necessarily the same people.22 Inspector General staff noted that this 

creates a potential mismatch between the formulation and execution of 

the budget and may reduce transparency in NRC’s budget justifications. 

NRC staff we interviewed told us that they addressed many of these 

issues in fiscal year 2016 as monthly reports to Congress on funding 

changes within and between the control points since the submission of 

the budget. The staff told us that they did so due to the additional 

management controls instituted to comply with the control points included 

in the explanatory statement for the appropriations for that fiscal year. 

However, we did not evaluate these additional controls.

NRC did not present data on prior-year obligations in its budget 

justifications from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, which makes it difficult 

for users of the budget justifications—including Congress and licensees—

to understand how NRC spent its appropriations. There are no specific 

requirements in OMB Circular A-11 for agencies to report actual 

obligations in their budget justifications. However, 51 of the 60 

congressional budget justifications we reviewed present some data on 

actual obligations as part of their justifications. According to four of the 

stakeholders we interviewed, NRC’s budget materials are difficult to use 

to understand NRC’s activities. For example, one stakeholder group said 

that there seems to be a mismatch between the activities for which NRC 

budgets and the activities it actually conducts. Another stakeholder group 

said that NRC currently presents its budget at a level that does not give 

them enough detail to determine the activities for which NRC will spend 

funds.

Upon request, NRC was able to provide us obligation data for fiscal years 

2010 through 2015 in the same account structure used in its budget 

justifications for those years. NRC staff told us that the actual obligations 

levels presented in this data are correct at the total agency level. 

However, as noted above, NRC reports many of the obligations that 

 22NRC Office of Inspector General, Audit of NRC’s Budget Execution Process, OIG-13-A18, (Washington, D.C.: May 2013). In 2013, NRC’s Inspector General recommended that 

NRC complete implementation of its Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management 

process, which resulted in the updates to Management Directive 4.7, as well as updates to 

NRC’s management directives on budget execution, performance management, and 

strategic planning. The updated Management Directive 4.7 is intended to describe roles 

and responsibilities for NRC’s budget formulation, as aligned to current practices. As 

previously discussed, NRC finalized the four new management directives, including 

Management Directive 4.7, in August 2016.

NRC’s Budget Justification 

Materials for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2017 Did 

Not Include Information on 

the Agency’s Use of Funds 

for Prior Years
Page 22 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

represent major portions of the full cost of their programs as separate 

items for budget execution, such as salaries and benefits, office support, 

training, and travel costs. NRC staff manually calculated and allocated 

obligations made to support these items to each business line and 

product line in order to present the full cost of their programs. NRC staff 

allocated salaries and benefits amounts to each business line and 

product line based on calculations using average FTE costs for the entire 

agency, multiplied by the number of FTEs used by each business line and 

product line. NRC staff also told us that they used actual FTE utilization 

by business line and product line in these calculations starting in 2013, 

when NRC added this reporting function to its systems. According to NRC 

staff, NRC’s systems could not report actual FTE utilization by business 

line prior to 2013, so they estimated the distribution of actual FTEs used 

by each business line and product line using the enacted FTE levels. 

NRC staff said that they manually allocated training, travel, and office 

support amounts to each of the business lines using a similar 

methodology. However, as noted above, the Office Support business line 

was eliminated during budget execution for fiscal year 2016, which 

eliminated the need to allocate certain mission-indirect costs in their 

future reporting.

Based on the data provided by NRC, we found that NRC’s total enacted 

budget authority and actual obligations decreased slightly from fiscal year 

2010 to fiscal year 2015. As shown in table 1, NRC’s overall enacted 

budget authority decreased by about $51 million (4.8 percent), and its 

overall total actual obligations decreased by about $60 million (5.4 

percent) from fiscal years 2010 to 2015. These decreases were largely 

reflected in the New Reactors business line. From fiscal year 2010 

through 2015, NRC’s allocation for the New Reactors business line 

decreased by $62.4 million (33 percent). Moreover, actual obligations in 

this business line decreased by $88.6 million (47 percent), roughly $26 

million more than its annual allocation. NRC began reducing obligations 

for this business line in fiscal year 2012. On average, in each year since 

2012, the New Reactors business line obligated $17.2 million (12.6 

percent) less than its allocation level. According to NRC documents, 

workload in the New Reactors business line decreased over the period as 

existing new reactor licensees either slowed or suspended their existing 
Page 23 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

construction projects and as potential new reactor licensees chose to 

delay submission of their license applications.23

Table 1: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Budget Allocations and Reported Actual Obligations by Business Line 

(Dollars in Millions), Fiscal Year 2010 through 2015

Fiscal Year

2010a 2011a 2012a 2013 2014 2015

Operating Reactors Allocation $356.2 $350.0 $349.4 $334.1 $368.8 $365.6

Actual $369.6 $356.9 $354.3 $364.9 $382.0 $387.1

New Reactors Allocation $186.6 $187.5 $181.3 $136.8 $140.1 $124.2

Actual $190.1 $197.2 $175.0 $124.4 $112.6 $101.5

Fuel Facilities Allocation $35.7 $37.6 $35.7 $35.0 $32.7 $30.7

Actual $35.7 $38.1 $32.3 $25.3 $25.5 $25.2

Nuclear Materials Users Allocation $63.0 $63.3 $63.2 $56.9 $58.4 $57.7

Actual $67.2 $60.0 $57.8 $57.1 $60.3 $53.6

Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Allocation $22.3 $28.8 $26.2 $27.2 $29.5 $28.7

Actual $24.7 $34.3 $28.4 $33.0 $28.9 $26.8

Decommissioning and 

Low-Level Waste

Allocation $24.3 $22.9 $24.0 $23.5 $24.0 $26.3

Actual $26.8 $22.9 $23.8 $23.5 $24.9 $27.6

High-Level Waste 

Repositoryb

Allocation $23.8 $10.2 $- $- $- $-

Actual $32.0 $7.9 $- $0.1 $8.9 $2.1

Corporate Support Allocation $343.9 $342.9 $347.5 $361.8 $390.5 $369.8

Actual $351.1 $344.3 $353.4 $380.7 $406.1 $412.5

Office of the Inspector 

Generalc

Allocation $10.1 $10.9 $10.9 $10.3 $12.0 $12.1

Actual $11.7 $12.2 $10.9 $10.7 $11.1 $12.4

Total Allocation $1,065.9 $1,054.1 $1,038.2 $985.6 $1,056.0 $1,015.1

Actual $1,108.8 $1,073.8 $1,035.7 $1,019.6 $1,060.4 $1,048.7

Source: GAO analysis of Nuclear Regulatory Commission data | GAO-17-294.

Note: These numbers are not adjusted for inflation. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

a

Reported obligations for each business line in fiscal years 2010 through 2012 are based, in part, on 

each business line’s estimated full-time equivalent (FTE) utilization levels. The overall actual 

obligations levels are correct.

 23In addition to the six business lines and Corporate Support listed above, NRC makes 

obligations toward the High-Level Waste Repository, which supports activities associated 

with the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain geologic repository application. NRC 

stopped making requests to support this activity in 2011 but spent remaining unobligated 

funds in later years. In addition, NRC’s budget requests include the agency’s Office of 

Inspector General, which is managed separately from NRC and which receives its own 

appropriation.
Page 24 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

b

The High-Level Waste Repository business line supports the licensing, oversight, rulemaking, and 

research activities associated with the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain geologic repository 

application. NRC stopped making requests to support this activity in 2011 but spent remaining 

unobligated funds in later years.

c

The Office of Inspector General is an independent and objective unit to conduct and supervise audits 

and conduct investigations relating to NRC’s programs and operations. It is managed separately from 

NRC and receives its ow n appropriation.

While many of NRC’s business lines saw their allocation level and 

obligations reduced during this period, other areas—such as Operating 

Reactors and Corporate Support—saw increases. As shown in table 1, 

allocations for Operating Reactors increased by $9.4 million (2.6 percent) 

from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015, while actual obligations 

increased by $17.5 million (4.7 percent). For Corporate Support, 

allocations increased by $25.9 million (7.5 percent) from fiscal year 2010 

to fiscal year 2015, while actual obligations increased by $61.4 million 

(17.5 percent). According to NRC documents, these increases reflect a 

shift in NRC’s resources from the New Reactors business line to the 

Operating Reactors business line in order to implement recommendations 

of an NRC task force convened in response to the Fukushima disaster of 

2011. In addition, NRC staff we interviewed told us that the increased 

resources for Corporate Support reflect increases in rent, utilities, and 

information technology investments, among other things. Moreover, these 

two business lines spent an average of $15.1 million (4.3 percent) and 

$15.3 million (4.2 percent) more per year, respectively, than their 

allocation levels during fiscal years 2010 through 2015, reflecting the use 

of budget authority carried over from prior years.

NRC’s actual obligation data were incomplete for fiscal years 2016 and 

2017 at the time of our review, however NRC’s fiscal year 2016 budget 

authority was about $1 billion, and the overall budget for fiscal year 2017 

was $952 million. According to NRC’s budget justifications and agency 

officials, these reductions reflect the agency’s implementation of Project 

Aim and the recommendations of rebaselining, a one-time effort to 

examine NRC’s workload to determine which tasks could be done later, 

done with fewer resources, or not done at all.

According to NRC staff we interviewed, the agency plans to start 

presenting obligation data in its fiscal year 2018 budget justification. NRC 

had not submitted its budget justification to Congress before we 

completed our audit work; therefore, we were not able to assess the 

information provided as part of this review. However, we anticipate that 

providing obligation data aligned with the budget request for NRC could 

provide users of the data—including Congress and licensees—with 
Page 25 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

information that could help them better understand how NRC is executing 

its budget.

We provided a draft of this report to NRC for review and comment. NRC 

provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix I. In its 

written comments, NRC generally agreed with our findings. NRC also 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Chairman of NRC, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or RuscoF@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix II.

Frank Rusco

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Agency Comments 
Appendix I: Comments from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission

Page 26 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Appendix I: Comments from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 27 GAO-17-294 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841, RuscoF@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Hilary Benedict (Assistant 

Director); Keya Cain; Wyatt R. Hundrup; and Perry Lusk, Jr. made key 

contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Richard 

Burkard, John Delicath, Emily E. Eischen, Cindy Gilbert, Carol Henn, 

Douglas Hunker, Kathleen Padulchick, Brian Shaw, and Sara Sullivan.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100725)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.