Safety Culture Policy Statement Development: Public Meeting and Request for Public Comments, 6433-6436 [E9-2621]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 25 (Monday, February 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6433-6436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2621]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0013]


Safety Culture Policy Statement Development: Public Meeting and 
Request for Public Comments

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The NRC is developing an update to its policy statement on 
safety culture to include the unique aspects of security and to ensure 
that the policy applies to all licensees and certificate holders. The 
NRC is conducting a public meeting to solicit public input on topics 
relating to the development of the policy statement. In addition to 
announcing the public meeting, the NRC is using this notice to request 
comments on the topics discussed in this notice. These topics can be 
found in section D (Topics for Discussion) of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.

DATES:
    Public Meeting Dates: The NRC will take public comments at the 
public meeting on February 3, 2009.
    Comment Dates: Comments are requested by February 11, 2009. 
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical 
to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments 
received on or before this date. The NRC will also take public comments 
on the questions raised in this notice at a public meeting on February 
3, 2009. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 
additional information, including the topics and associated questions 
to which NRC is requesting input.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held on February 3, 2009, in the 
Commissioners' Hearing Room of the NRC Headquarters building at 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, which is across the street from 
the White Flint Metro stop. The most convenient transportation to the 
meeting venue is via Metro since there is extremely limited on-street 
parking. Please take Metro to the White Flint Metro stop on the Red 
Line. Please allow time to register with building security and to check 
with the entry guard station for signs for the Safety Culture Policy 
Statement Public Meeting room as you enter the building. Users unable 
to travel to the NRC Headquarters may participate by Webinar or 
teleconference. Please see the meeting notice, which is posted on the 
NRC public meeting schedule Web site: https://www.nrc.gov/public-
involve/public-meetings/
index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.Detail&MC=20080837&NS=0&CFID=264654&CFTOKEN=
94010205, for instructions on how to register for the workshop.
    After the conduct of the public meeting, members of the public are 
invited and encouraged to submit comments by February 11, 2009, by mail 
to June Cai, Concerns Resolution Branch, Office of Enforcement, Mail 
Stop O-4 A15A, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, or by e-mail to june.cai@nrc.gov.
    To ensure efficient consideration of your comments, please identify 
the related topic and specific question numbers with your comments when 
applicable. When commenting, please exercise caution with regard to 
site-specific security-related information. Comments will be made 
available to the public in their entirety. Personal information, such 
as your name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, etc. will not 
be removed from your submission.
    You can access publicly available documents related to this notice 
using the following methods:
    NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have 
copied for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public 
File Area O-1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): 
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic 
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this 
site, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-
4737 or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Cai, (301) 415-5192, 
june.cai@nrc.gov of the Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Public meeting attendees are 
requested to register with one of the meeting contacts by January 30, 
2009. Please let the meeting contacts know if special services, such as 
for the hearing impaired, are necessary.

[[Page 6434]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose of the Public Meeting: The 
purpose of this meeting is to solicit the views of interested 
stakeholders on topics related to safety culture that were provided in 
the Commission's Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRM)-COMGBJ-08-0001 
(ML080560476), ``A Commission Policy Statement on Safety Culture,'' 
dated February 25, 2008, which are presented in Section D, below. The 
NRC will consider the input received during the meeting in the 
development of the draft policy statement(s) addressing safety culture 
and security culture.
    B. Public Meeting Agenda: A meeting notice and detailed agenda is 
available on the NRC public meeting schedule Web site: https://
www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/
index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.Detail&MC=20080837&NS=0&CFID=264654&CFTOKEN=
94010205. The meeting notice has information on how to participate via 
Webinar or teleconference. Concurrent with the meeting, there will be 
an open house poster session throughout the day to provide additional 
opportunities for attendees to provide input. The information presented 
at the open house will also be made available at the Web site listed 
above, to allow those unable to attend the meeting or attending through 
the Webinar or teleconference to view the information and have an 
opportunity to provide their input on the topics addressed at the open 
house.
    C. Background: The NRC recognizes the importance of licensees to 
establish and maintain a strong safety culture--a work environment 
where management and employees are dedicated to putting safety first. 
The Commission previously addressed this topic on January 24, 1989 (54 
FR 3424) in ``Policy Statement on the Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant 
Operations'' (https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/
54fr3424.pdf)--the Commission's policy statement on safety culture--
where it described expectations for such a safety culture and how it 
supports the agency's mission to protect public health and safety. 
Although the policy statement was issued to make clear the Commission's 
expectation of utility management and licensed operators with respect 
to the conduct of nuclear power plant operations, the Commission 
intended for the policy statement to help foster the development and 
maintenance of a safety culture at every facility licensed by the NRC. 
In the Policy Statement, safety culture is described as ``the necessary 
full attention to safety matters,'' and the ``personal dedication and 
accountability of all individuals engaged in any activity which has a 
bearing on the safety of nuclear power plants. A strong safety culture 
is one that has a strong safety-first focus.''
    The Commission has referenced the International Nuclear Safety 
Advisory Group's (INSAG) definition of safety culture as follows: 
``Safety Culture is that assembly of characteristics and attitudes in 
organizations and individuals which establishes that, as an overriding 
priority, nuclear safety issues receive the attention warranted by 
their significance.''
    On May 14, 1996, the Commission published its policy, ``Freedom of 
Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns without Fear 
of Retaliation'' (61 FR 24336) (https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/
regulatory/allegations/scwe-frn-5-14-96.pdf), which expressed the 
Commissions expectation that licensees and other employers subject to 
NRC authority will establish and maintain a safety conscious 
environment in which employees feel free to raise safety concerns, both 
to their management and to the NRC, without fear of retaliation. A 
safety conscious work environment is one facet of a strong safety 
culture. On August 25, 2005, the NRC issued Regulatory Issue Summary 
2005-018 (ML052220239), ``Guidance for Establishing and Maintaining a 
Safety Conscious Work Environment,'' to provide guidance on maintaining 
a safety conscious work environment.
    In SRM-COMGBJ-08-0001 (ML080560476), ``A Commission Policy 
Statement on Safety Culture,'' dated February 25, 2008, the Commission 
directed staff to ``expand the Commission's policy of safety culture to 
address the unique aspects of security and to ensure the resulting 
policy is applicable to all licensees and certificate holders,'' and to 
conduct a ``broad review of issues related to safety culture as part of 
the effort for developing the oversight process and for revising or 
developing additional Commission Policy Statement(s).''
    The Commission directed the staff to complete its evaluation, 
provide a recommendation to the Commission on how best to update the 
Commission policy, and provide draft policy statement(s) on safety 
culture to the Commission for its consideration. In its review, the 
staff should, at a minimum, evaluate the following key areas:
    (1) Whether safety culture as applied to reactors needs to be 
strengthened.
    (2) How to increase attention to safety culture in the materials 
area.
    (3) How stakeholder involvement can most effectively be used to 
address safety culture for all NRC and Agreement State licensees and 
certificate holders, including any unique aspects of security. The 
staff should, as part of its public stakeholder outreach, reach out to 
all types of licensees and certificate holders, including power 
reactors (including new reactors), research and test reactors, fuel 
facilities, spent fuel shipping and storage cask vendors, and the 
materials community, including industrial, academic, and medical users. 
The assessment should also involve outreach activities to Members of 
Congress, the Agreement States, and other stakeholders.
    (4) Whether publishing NRC's expectations for safety culture and 
for security culture is best accomplished in one safety/security 
culture statement or in two separate statements, one each for safety 
and security, while still considering the safety and security 
interfaces.
    A Safety Culture Policy Statement Task Group and Steering Committee 
have been established to address this direction. The Task Group has 
been conducting review and analysis of various information and data 
sources in order to inform and provide the basis for the draft policy 
statement(s) and recommendations development. Examples of these sources 
are information from existing agency activities in the safety culture 
and security culture area and information and insights from relevant 
industry activities, international activities and organizations, and 
the organizational research literature.
    The Task Group has also been conducting outreach activities with 
stakeholders to raise awareness of safety culture and to provide 
information about this activity. The Task Group is holding the public 
meeting on February 3, 2009, to provide opportunity for stakeholders to 
offer input on the draft policy statement(s) development and on key 
topics related to the Commission direction.
    D. Topics for Discussion: The NRC is seeking input on key topics 
related to the direction from the Commission on the Safety Culture 
Policy Statement development. Specifically, the NRC is seeking input on 
the following topics:
    1. Should NRC combine its expectations in the policy statement for 
safety culture and security culture or should NRC keep its expectations 
separate?
    2. How should NRC increase attention by NRC, licensees, and 
certificate holders to safety culture in the materials area?

[[Page 6435]]

    3. Does safety culture as applied to reactors needs to be 
strengthened?
    Obtaining public input on these topics will be the focus of the 
February 3, 2009, public meeting. The NRC has developed a series of 
questions relating to each of these topics to foster discussion and to 
solicit specific information relating to the Commission direction.
    The following format is used in the presentation of the topics 
below. Each topic is assigned a number and a short title, and a list of 
questions for consideration then follows. Each question, or set of 
questions, is also assigned a number. When providing written comments, 
please list the relevant topic and question numbers when appropriate.

Topic 1: Should NRC combine its expectations in the policy statement 
for safety culture and security culture or should NRC keep its 
expectations separate?

    Q1.1. Within organizations, one can think about safety and security 
in different ways. For example, safety may take precedence over 
security, security may take precedence over safety, or both may be 
treated equally. Different types of licensees, certificate holders and 
organizations have a variety of experiences and perspectives. How do 
you generally view the relationship or hierarchy between safety and 
security functions and decision making?
    Q1.2. While efforts to maintain safety and security have the same 
common goal of protecting public health and safety, there can be 
distinct differences in the approach used to achieve that goal and that 
may have competing outcomes. One example is how information is shared 
to mitigate risks, where increased sharing of information may 
contribute to maintaining safety, but presents increased security 
risks. Are there other examples where efforts to maintain safety and 
security require different approaches or result in competing outcomes 
that need to be addressed to achieve the desired outcome or goal?
    Q1.3. When resolving differences or conflicts while seeking to 
maintain safety and security--such as when managing risk, sharing 
information, planning work, correcting problems, etc.--and where 
changes or actions that are taken to address either a safety issue or a 
security issue could have an adverse effect on the other (i.e., 
security or safety, respectively); what challenges does your 
organization face?
    Q1.4. What challenges or complexities arise when licensees and 
certificate holders work with contractors and vendors where the 
organizations either take different approaches to resolving conflicting 
outcomes when they seek to maintain safety and security or the 
organizations may balance the conflicting outcomes of efforts to 
maintain safety and security differently?
    Q1.5. What practices have been used to effectively address the 
conflicts to achieve the desired outcomes or goals?
    Q1.6. Given that there are several ways to think about safety 
culture and security culture within organizations, the NRC wishes to 
express a policy in a way that best furthers its goals of protecting 
the public and environment and ensuring the secure use and management 
of radioactive materials.
    If the above issues are viewed in terms of safety culture and 
security culture implementation, what benefits or challenges would 
licensees, certificate holders, Agreement States, or others foresee 
with a single policy statement? Two separate policy statements?
    Q1.7. How can the NRC best express a policy that gives appropriate 
weight to safety culture and security culture across the range of 
licensees and certificate holders?
    Q1.8. Given the diversity among the licensees and certificate 
holders regulated by the NRC and the Agreement States, how should the 
policy statement address any differences in emphasis on safety and 
security at the different types of licensees and certificate holders?

Topic 2: How should NRC increase attention by licensees and certificate 
holders to safety culture in the materials area?

    Q2.1. What is the NRC doing that is working well to help materials 
licensees and certificate holders to maintain their safety culture and 
security culture?
    Q2.2. What might the NRC do differently, or that it is not 
currently doing, to increase NRC, licensee, or certificate holder 
attention to safety culture at materials licensees and certificate 
holders?
    Q2.3. How could the NRC better interact with materials licensees 
and certificate holders to help them to pay greater attention to 
maintaining their safety culture and/or security culture?
    Q2.4. If the NRC expresses a policy for materials licensees and 
certificate holders to maintain safety culture and security culture, or 
made its references to safety culture and security culture more 
explicit in its interactions with these licensees and certificate 
holders, how would their performance change?
    Q2.5. What should the NRC consider when developing policy 
statement(s) on safety culture and security culture?
    Q2.5.1. What is the current level of understanding of materials 
licensees and certificate holders of the NRC's expectations that they 
maintain a safety culture that is cognizant of issues relating to 
security? How does this level of understanding change with the type of 
licensee or certificate holder?
    Q2.5.2. How should the NRC consider the different activities (e.g., 
risk, type of material, quantities of materials, how the material is 
used, location, etc.) conducted at materials licensees and certificate 
holders when evaluating whether, or how, to express its policy?
    Q2.5.3. How should NRC consider differences in the materials 
licensees and certificate holders (e.g., size of workforce, 
relationship to activities not regulated by the NRC, etc.) when 
evaluating whether, or how, to express its policy? What differences 
should the NRC consider?
    Q2.5.4. What are the unique aspects of security at materials 
licensees and certificate holders that the NRC should consider when 
expressing its policy?
    Q2.5.5. What topics should be addressed in the policy statement(s) 
that would be of value to materials licensees and certificate holders?
    Q2.5.6. How could the policy statement(s) effectively address 
issues that involve both safety and security (at the safety/security 
interface) at materials licensees and certificate holders?
    Q2.5.7. How can the NRC best express a policy that gives 
appropriate weight to safety culture and security culture across the 
range of licensees and certificate holders?
    Q2.5.8. Given the diversity among the licensees and certificate 
holders regulated by the NRC and the Agreement States, how should the 
policy statement address any differences in emphasis on safety and 
security at the different types of licensees and certificate holders?
    Q2.6. How should the NRC work with the Agreement States to 
encourage increased attention being focused on safety culture, 
including the unique aspects of security, at Agreement State licensees?
    Q2.6.1. What is the level of understanding at Agreement State 
licensees regarding the value in maintaining safety culture and 
security culture?
    Q2.6.2. What is the level of understanding of safety culture and 
security culture within the Agreement States?
    Q2.6.3. How do the Agreement States view the NRC's goal of 
increasing the

[[Page 6436]]

attention paid to safety culture and security culture at materials 
licensees and certificate holders?
    Q2.6.4. What topics do the Agreement States believe should be 
addressed in the policy statement(s)?
    Q2.6.5. How could the NRC help the Agreement States to increase 
attention to safety culture and security culture at their licensees?
    Q2.6.6. How should the NRC address safety culture and security 
culture at Agreement State licensees that engage in activities within 
NRC jurisdiction under reciprocity?
    Q2.6.7. How might NRC use stakeholder involvement to increase the 
attention that materials licensees and certificate holders give to 
maintaining a safety culture, including the unique aspects of security?

Topic 3: Does safety culture as applied to reactors need to be 
strengthened?

    A number of enhancements were made to the ROP in 2006 to address 
safety culture (for example: safety culture cross-cutting aspect 
assignment to findings; identifying substantive cross-cutting issues; 
performing an independent NRC safety culture assessment for licensees 
in Column 4 of the ROP Action Matrix).
    Q3.1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach 
for evaluating licensee safety culture in the ROP?
    Q3.2. How has the use of safety culture cross-cutting aspects that 
are assigned to inspection findings helped to identify potential safety 
culture issues? Suggest any alternative approaches that licensees could 
use to identify potential safety culture issues.
    Q3.3. What may be better or more effective methods or tools that 
the NRC could use to help identify precursors to future plant 
performance deficiencies?
    Q.3.4. In the following situations the NRC may/or will request a 
licensee to perform a safety culture assessment (licensee self-
assessment, independent assessment, or a third-party assessment): (a) 
The same substantive cross-cutting issue had been identified in three 
consecutive assessment letters (generated from assessments conducted at 
6 month intervals); (b) a 95002 inspection (Inspection for One Degraded 
Cornerstone or Any Three White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area) 
that confirmed the licensee had not identified a safety culture 
component that either caused or significantly contributed to the risk-
significant performance issue that resulted in the supplemental 
inspection; and (c) a plant enters Column 4 of the Action Matrix.
    Under what other situations should the NRC consider requesting that 
a licensee perform a safety culture assessment?
    Another ROP enhancement was for the NRC to perform an independent 
safety culture assessment for plants that enter the multiple 
repetitive/degraded cornerstone column (column 4).
    Q3.5. In what other circumstances might the NRC consider performing 
an independent safety culture assessment?
    Q3.6. What other entity, other than the NRC, could perform an 
independent safety culture assessment or simply verify the results of 
the licensee's assessments and corrective actions?
    Q3.7. What additional safety culture related ROP changes could help 
the NRC to improve the focus of NRC and licensee attention on site 
safety culture issues?
    The NRC has held public meetings where draft changes to several ROP 
guidance documents resulting from a lessons learned evaluation of the 
initial implementation period of the ROP safety culture enhancements 
have been made available for public comment.
    Q3.8. What areas beyond the draft changes (for example, a provision 
in Inspection Procedure 95003 for the NRC to be able to conduct a 
graded safety culture assessment) presented by the NRC have the 
potential to further enhance how the ROP addresses safety culture?
    Q3.8.1. How would these potential changes enhance or improve how 
the NRC addresses safety culture through the ROP?
    Q3.9. In what ways does the current process lead to consistency/
predictability of implementation by the NRC? Provide examples to 
support your view.
    Q3.9.1. In what ways does it lead to inconsistency or 
unpredictability?
    Q3.10. How effective is the ROP in addressing security culture 
issues?
    Q3.10.1. What ROP changes could help the NRC to improve the focus 
of NRC and licensee attention on site security culture issues?
    In previous public meetings, the NRC has discussed using the ROP 
safety culture components and modified aspects as a tool to understand 
the challenges to safety culture during new reactor construction.
    Q3.11. How can challenges to safety culture in new reactor 
construction be identified and addressed in regulatory oversight?

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of January, 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart L. Magruder,
Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E9-2621 Filed 2-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P