Revised Draft Safety Culture Policy Statement: Request for Comments, 57081-57086 [2010-23249]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13th day
of September, 2010. For the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. McGinty,
Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–23250 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0282]
Revised Draft Safety Culture Policy
Statement: Request for Comments
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Issuance of revised Draft Safety
Culture Policy Statement and notice of
opportunity for public comment.
AGENCY:
Comments are requested 30 days
from the date of this Federal Register
Notice. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but the NRC is only able to
assure consideration of comments
received on or before this date. Please
refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for additional information
including specific questions for which
the NRC is requesting comment.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of the following methods.
Please include Docket ID NRC–2010–
0282 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the
Federal rulemaking Web site
www.Regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. Additionally, the NRC
requests that any party soliciting or
aggregating comments received from
other persons for submission to the NRC
inform those persons that the NRC will
not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and
therefore, they should not include any
information in their comments that they
do not want publicly disclosed.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2010–0282. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher
301–492–3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy K. Blady,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Division of
Administrative Services, Office of
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Sep 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492–
3446.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maria E. Schwartz or Catherine
Thompson at the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of
Enforcement, Mail Stop O–4 A15A,
Washington, DC 20555–0001 or by email or telephone to
Maria.Schwartz@nrc.gov, (301) 415–
1888, or Catherine.Thompson@nrc.gov,
(301) 415–3409.
SUMMARY: On November 6, 2009, the
NRC published a draft policy
statement,’’ Safety Culture Policy
Statement,’’ in the Federal Register
(FRN) (74 FR 57525; NRC ADAMS
Accession Number ML093030375).1 The
Statement of Policy (SOP) contained in
the FRN focuses on the interface of
nuclear safety and security in a positive
safety culture, and highlights the
Commission’s expectation that all
licensees and certificate holders 2
establish and maintain a positive safety
culture that protects public health and
safety and the common defense and
security when carrying out licensed
activities. The FRN requested that
interested persons provide comments
within 90 days of its publication. On
January 12, 2010, the comment period
was extended to March 1, 2010 (75 FR
1656; ML100050288). As part of its
outreach activities, the NRC held a
Safety Culture Workshop in February
2010 that provided a venue for
interested parties to provide comments
on the draft safety culture policy
statement. The additional goal of the
workshop was for panelists representing
a broad range of stakeholders to reach
alignment on a common definition of
safety culture and a high-level set of
traits that describe areas important to a
positive safety culture. The workshop
panelists, with the assistance of the
other workshop participants, developed
both. Following the February workshop,
the staff evaluated the public comments
that were submitted in response to the
November 2009 FRN. Additionally, the
1 The Commission may use a policy statement to
address matters relating to areas that are within
NRC jurisdiction and are of particular interest to the
Commission in order to guide staff’s activities and
to express its expectations; however, policy
statements, unlike regulations/rules are not binding
upon, or enforceable against, NRC or Agreement
State licensees and certificate holders.
2 The reference in the November 2009 FRN to
‘‘licensee and certificate holder’’ included licensees,
certificate holders, permit holders, authorization
holders, holders of quality assurance program
approvals, and applicants for a license, certificate,
permit, authorization, or quality assurance program
approval.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57081
staff participated on panels and made
presentations at various industry forums
in order to provide information to
stakeholders about the development of
the safety culture policy statement and/
or to obtain additional input and to
ascertain whether the draft definition
and traits developed at the workshop
accurately reflect a broad range of
stakeholders’ views.
In its ongoing effort to continue this
dialogue with stakeholders, the NRC is
publishing this FRN containing the
revised draft SOP for a 30-day public
comment period. The revised draft SOP,
including the revised definition and
traits, is based on careful consideration
of the Commission guidance in the
October 2009 Staff Requirements
Memorandum (SRM) for SECY–09–0075
(ML092920099), the NRC staff’s
evaluation of the public comments
received on the November 2009 FRN,
the revised definition and traits
developed at the February 2010
workshop, and the outreach efforts the
NRC staff has engaged in since February
2010.
The information contained in this
FRN will be used to focus discussions
at a public meeting the NRC is holding
on September 28, 2010, at its Las Vegas,
Nevada, hearing facility. Both this FRN
and the September meeting are intended
to provide additional opportunities for
stakeholders to provide comments on
the revised draft SOP, including the
revised draft definition and traits.
I. Background
Previous Policy Statements
While the NRC has increased its
attention on the importance of a positive
safety culture, the agency has long
recognized the importance of a work
environment with a safety-first focus. In
1989, in response to an incident
involving operators sleeping in the
control room, the NRC issued a policy
statement on the conduct of operations
which describes the NRC’s expectation
that licensees place appropriate
emphasis on safety in the operations of
nuclear power plants. The ‘‘Policy
Statement on the Conduct of Nuclear
Power Plant Operations’’ (54 FR 3424;
January 24, 1989) states the
Commission’s expectations of utility
management and licensed operators
with respect to the conduct of
operations, noting that it applies to all
individuals engaged in any activity
which has a bearing on the safety of
nuclear power plants. The Commission
issued the policy statement to help
foster the development and
maintenance of a positive safety culture
at these facilities.
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
57082
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
In 1996, the Commission published a
policy statement, ‘‘Freedom of
Employees in the Nuclear Industry to
Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of
Retaliation’’ (61 FR 24336; May 14,
1996), to set forth its expectations that
licensees and other employers subject to
NRC authority establish and maintain
safety-conscious work environments in
which employees feel free to raise safety
concerns, both to their management and
to the NRC, without fear of retaliation.
This policy statement applies to the
regulated activities of all NRC licensees
and their contractors and
subcontractors. A safety conscious work
environment is an important attribute of
a positive safety culture and is one of
the safety culture characteristics in the
initial draft safety culture policy
statement. It is also one of the revised
traits captured by the February 2010
workshop participants as an
‘‘Environment for Raising Concerns.’’
Events Underscoring the Importance of
a Positive Safety Culture
The importance of a positive safety
culture has been demonstrated by a
number of significant, high-visibility
events world-wide involving civilian
uses of radioactive materials that have
occurred in the 20-year period since the
Commission published its 1989 policy
statement. These events are not
confined to a particular type of licensee
or certificate holder as they occurred at
nuclear power plants and fuel cycle
facilities and during medical and
industrial activities involving regulated
materials. Because of their significance
to public health and safety, the
Commission has required the regulated
entity involved to determine the
underlying root causes of the problem
and, in some instances, to commit to
having a third-party assessment of its
safety culture in order to establish
appropriate corrective actions. These
assessments have revealed that
weaknesses in the regulated entities’
safety culture were an underlying root
cause of the problem or increased the
severity of the problem. These root
causes included, for example,
inadequate management oversight of
process changes, perceived production
pressures, lack of a questioning attitude,
and poor communications.
One such incident indicated the need
for additional NRC efforts to evaluate
whether it should increase its attention
to reactor licensees’ safety cultures.
During a planned outage, a nuclear
power plant licensee discovered a cavity
caused by boric acid corrosion in the
top of the reactor pressure vessel. In
response to this serious deterioration,
the NRC required the licensee to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Sep 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
determine the underlying root causes of
the problem. The licensee’s evaluation
identified that the root causes for the
failure to take appropriate corrective
actions included an inadequate safety
culture and an emphasis on production
over safety. NRC lessons learned from
this incident indicated the need for
additional NRC efforts to evaluate
nuclear power plant licensees’ safety
cultures. In SRM–SECY–04–0111
(ML042430661), dated August 30, 2004,
the Commission approved the staff’s
plan to enhance the Reactor Oversight
Process (ROP) treatment of cross-cutting
issues to more fully address safety
culture. As part of this effort, the staff
made important changes to the ROP to
address Commission direction,
including: (1) Enhancements to problem
identification and resolution initiatives;
(2) inspector training on safety culture;
(3) establishment of processes for
revising the ROP while involving
stakeholders; (4) evaluation of safety
culture at plants in the Degraded
Cornerstone Column of the ROP Action
Matrix; and (5) the treatment of crosscutting issues to more fully address
safety culture. Commission paper
SECY–06–0122, dated May 24, 2006,
(ML061320282) describes the NRC’s
safety culture activities at that time and
the outcomes of those activities. On July
31, 2006, the agency issued Regulatory
Issue Summary 2006–13, ‘‘Information
on the Changes Made to the Reactor
Oversight Process to More Fully
Address Safety Culture,’’
(ML061880341) to provide information
to nuclear power reactor licensees on
the revised ROP.
Increased Focus on Security Issues
Following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, the Commission
increased its focus on the security of
regulated facilities whose operations
can have an impact on public health
and safety. The Commission issued
orders enhancing security at these
facilities. During the early years of
implementation of these security
enhancements, several violations of the
Commission’s security requirements
were identified, in which the licensee
failed to cultivate an effective safety
culture in its security program. The
most visible of these involved a culture
of complacency involving security
officers sleeping while on shift at a
nuclear power plant. Most of these
violations involved inadequate
management oversight of security, lack
of a questioning attitude within the
security organization, inability to raise
concerns about security issues, and
inadequacy of training for security
personnel. These issues prompted the
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commission in SECY–09–0075 to direct
the staff to evaluate ‘‘[w]hether
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.’’ Based on
the staff’s review and stakeholder
feedback, the staff concluded that the
Commission’s expectations for safety
culture should be published in one
policy statement entitled, ‘‘A Safety
Culture Policy Statement,’’ but should
emphasize that safety and security be
treated in a balanced, commensurate
with the significance, manner, within
the overarching safety culture. Thus,
while the term ‘‘security’’ is not included
in the revised draft definition of safety
culture, as the preamble to the traits
points out, the traits of an effective
safety culture should be balanced
commensurate with their significance in
ensuring that the security program is
effectively implemented.
Additionally, one of the insights
gained from the increased emphasis on
security is the importance of
incorporating security considerations
into a safety culture and effectively
managing the safety and security
interface. An effective safety and
security interface integrates safety and
security activities so as not to diminish
or adversely affect either. Capturing
both safety and security activities under
an overarching safety culture policy
statement is important because, while
many safety and security activities
complement each other, there may be
instances in which safety and security
interests create competing goals.
Mechanisms should be established to
identify and resolve these differences.
II. Development of the Current
Statement of Policy
Commission Direction
In February 2008, the Commission
issued SRM–COMGBJ–08–0001
(ML080560476) directing the NRC staff
to expand the Commission’s policy on
safety culture to address the unique
aspects of security and to ensure the
resulting policy is applicable to all
licensees and certificate holders. The
Commission posed several additional
questions for the staff to answer
including (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
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices
certificate holders, including any
unique aspects of security; and (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 while still
considering the safety and security
interfaces.
To address the Commission’s
direction, NRC staff reviewed domestic
and international safety culture related
documents, considered NRC lessons
learned, and obtained wide ranging
stakeholder input on questions related
to the issues in the SRM. In February
2009, the NRC held a public workshop
on the ‘‘Development of a Policy
Statement(s) on Safety and Security
Culture’’ in which a broad range of
stakeholders participated, including a
representative from the Agreement
States (Meeting Summary:
ML090930572). The 2009 workshop
developed a draft definition and
characteristics 3 of a positive safety
culture. Additionally, mindful of the
increased attention to the important role
of security, the staff also sought input
from the workshop participants on
whether there should be a single safety
culture policy statement or two policy
statements addressing safety and
security independently while
considering the interface of both. The
staff also sought input on the additional
questions the Commission posed to the
staff in SRM–COMGBJ–08–0001.
The staff provided its
recommendations to the Commission in
May 2009 in Commission paper SECY–
09–0075, ‘‘Safety Culture Policy
Statement’’ (ML091130068). Based on its
review and stakeholder feedback, the
staff (1) concluded that the NRC’s
oversight of safety culture as applied to
reactors has been strengthened, is
effective, and continues to be refined in
accordance with the existing reactor
oversight process (ROP) self-assessment
process; (2) described actions taken and
planned for increasing attention to
safety culture in the materials area; (3)
described actions taken and planned for
most effectively utilizing stakeholder
involvement to address safety culture,
including any unique aspects of
security, for all NRC and Agreement
State licensees and certificate holders;
and (4) developed one draft safety
culture policy statement that
acknowledges the equal importance of
3 At the February 2010 workshop, the panelists
referred to the characteristics (NRC term) or
principles (INPO term) as traits. The term ‘‘traits’’ is
used in the revised draft SOP and throughout this
FRN and describes areas important to a positive
safety culture.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Sep 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
safety and security within the
overarching safety culture.
In SRM–SECY–09–0075
(ML092920099), the Commission
directed the staff to: (1) Continue to
engage a broad range of stakeholders,
including the Agreement States and
other organizations with an interest in
nuclear safety, to ensure the final policy
statement presented to the Commission
considers a broad spectrum of views
and provides the necessary foundation
for safety culture applicable to the entire
nuclear industry; (2) make the necessary
adjustments to encompass security
within the statement; (3) seek
opportunities to comport NRC
terminology, where possible, with that
of existing standards and references
maintained by those that the NRC
regulates; and (4) consider incorporating
suppliers and vendors of safety related
components in the safety culture policy
statement.
February 2010 Workshop
The February 2010 workshop was part
of the staff’s efforts to further engage all
NRC-regulated entities as well as the
Agreement States, the Indian Tribes,
and organizations and individuals
interested in nuclear safety. The goals of
the February workshop were to (1)
provide an additional opportunity for
comments on the November 2009 FRN
and (2) develop a common definition of
safety culture and a high-level set of
traits describing areas important to a
positive safety culture. The workshop
participants represented a wide range of
stakeholders regulated by the NRC and/
or the Agreement states including
medical, industrial, and fuel cycle
materials users, and nuclear power
reactor licensees, as well as the Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI), the Institute of
Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), and
members of the public. The workshop
panelists reached alignment with input
from the other meeting attendees on a
common definition of safety culture and
a high-level set of traits describing areas
important to a positive safety culture.
Additional Outreach Activities
Following the February workshop, the
staff evaluated the public comments that
were submitted in response to the initial
draft SOP. Additionally, the staff
participated on panels and made
presentations at various industry forums
in order to provide information to
stakeholders about the development of
the safety culture policy statement and/
or to obtain additional input and to
ascertain whether the draft definition
and traits developed at the workshop
accurately reflect a broad range of
stakeholders’ views. These outreach
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57083
activities included, for example,
participation in a Special Joint Session
on Safety Culture at the Health Physics
Society Annual Meeting, and
presentations on the development of the
Safety Culture Policy Statement at the
Annual Fuel Cycle Information
Exchange, the Conference of Radiation
Control Program Directors’ Annual
National Conference on Radiation
Control, the Institute of Nuclear
Materials Management’s Annual
Meeting, the 2nd NRC Workshop on
Vendor Oversight for New Reactors, and
the Organization of Agreement States
Annual Meeting.
III. Statement of Policy
The purpose of this Statement of
Policy is to set forth the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission’s expectation
that individuals and organizations,
performing or overseeing regulated
activities involving nuclear materials,
establish and maintain a positive safety
culture commensurate with the safety
and security significance of their
activities and the nature and complexity
of their organizations and functions.
This applies to all licensees, certificate
holders, permit holders, authorization
holders, holders of quality assurance
program approvals, vendors, suppliers
of safety related components, and
applicants for a license, certificate,
permit, authorization, or quality
assurance program approval, subject to
NRC authority. Additionally, it is the
Commission’s expectation that the
Agreement States and other
organizations interested in nuclear
safety will support the development and
maintenance of a positive safety culture,
as articulated in this Statement of
Policy, within their regulated
communities.
The Commission defines Nuclear
Safety Culture as the core values and
behaviors resulting from a collective
commitment by leaders and individuals
to emphasize safety over competing
goals to ensure protection of people and
the environment. The Commission
considers nuclear safety and nuclear
security issues to be equally important
in a positive safety culture. Thus, as part
of this collective commitment,
organizations should ensure that
personnel in the safety and security
sectors have an appreciation for the
importance of each, emphasizing the
need for integration and balance to
achieve optimized protection. Safety
and security activities are closely
intertwined, and it is critical that
consideration of these activities be
integrated so as not to diminish or
adversely affect either. A safety culture
that accomplishes this would include
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
57084
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices
all nuclear safety and security issues
associated with NRC-regulated
activities.
Individuals and organizations
performing or overseeing regulated
activities involving nuclear materials
bear the primary responsibility for
safely handling and securing these
materials. The Commission, as the
regulatory agency, has an independent
oversight role that reviews the
performance of those individuals and
organizations through its inspection and
assessment processes, including their
performance as it relates to areas
important to safety culture.
Experience has shown that certain
personal and organizational traits are
present in a positive safety culture. A
trait, in this case, is a pattern of
thinking, feeling, and behaving that
emphasizes safety, particularly in goal
conflict situations, e.g., production vs.
safety, schedule vs. safety, and cost of
the effort vs. safety. It should be noted
that although the term ‘‘security’’ is not
expressly included in these traits, safety
and security are the primary pillars of
the NRC’s regulatory mission.
Consequently, consideration of both
safety and security issues,
commensurate with their significance, is
an underlying principle of this
Statement of Policy. The traits of a
positive safety culture include, but are
not limited to: (1) Leadership Safety
Values and Actions in which leaders
demonstrate a commitment to safety in
their decisions and behaviors; (2)
Problem Identification and Resolution
in which issues potentially impacting
safety are promptly identified, fully
evaluated, and promptly addressed and
corrected commensurate with their
significance; (3) Personal Accountability
in which all individuals take personal
responsibility for safety; (4) Work
Processes in which the process of
planning and controlling work activities
is implemented so that safety is
maintained; (5) Continuous Learning in
which opportunities to learn about ways
to ensure safety are sought out and
implemented; (6) Environment for
Raising Concerns in which a safety
conscious work environment is
maintained where personnel feel free to
raise safety concerns without fear of
retaliation, intimidation, harassment or
discrimination; (7) Effective Safety
Communication in which
communications maintain a focus on
safety; and (8) a Respectful Work
Environment in which trust and respect
permeate the organization. It is the
Commission’s expectation that all
individuals and organizations,
performing or overseeing regulated
activities involving nuclear materials
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Sep 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
should take the necessary steps to
promote a positive safety culture by
fostering these traits as they apply to
their organizational environments.
IV. Changes to the Initial Draft
Statement of Policy
Like the initial draft SOP, the revised
draft SOP begins by indicating to whom
the policy applies as a general matter. In
the initial draft SOP, licensees and
certificate holders are listed; however,
earlier in the FRN, there is a footnote
indicating that throughout the
document, the phrase ‘‘licensees and
certificate holders’’ includes licensees,
certificate holders, permit holders,
authorization holders, etc. The revised
draft SOP refers to ‘‘individuals and
organizations, performing or overseeing
regulated activities involving nuclear
materials,’’ which includes vendors and
suppliers of safety-related components.
Additionally, the revised draft SOP
notes the Commission’s expectation that
the Agreement States and other
organizations interested in the safe use
of nuclear materials also develop and
maintain a positive safety culture within
their regulated communities as well.
The definition of safety culture in the
initial draft SOP is based on the
International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) definition of safety culture,
modified to broaden its applicability to
materials users and to include security.
The definition of safety culture has been
changed in the revised draft SOP to the
definition that was developed during
the February 2010 workshop. This
definition is broad enough to apply to
all individuals and organizations,
performing or overseeing regulated
activities involving nuclear materials.
Additionally, the February 2010
workshop definition does not include
the term ‘‘security.’’ The revised
definition resonated with the workshop
panelists. Additionally, it was the
preferred definition in the comments
received on the initial draft policy
statement and the comments received
during several industry forums held
after the February 2010 workshop. The
initial draft SOP, like the revised draft
SOP, discusses the importance of
providing personnel in both the safety
and security sectors with an
appreciation for the importance of each.
Both SOPs also discuss the importance
of recognizing how closely intertwined
safety and security activities are and the
importance of integrating these
activities so as not to diminish or
adversely affect either. The initial draft
SOP indicates areas that should receive
the greatest attention as a matter of
priority. The revised draft SOP is silent
on this point because each entity should
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
examine its specific regulated activities
to determine the areas that should
receive the greatest attention.
Both SOPs stress the fact that those
entities that use or provide services
related to the use of radioactive
materials bear the primary
responsibility for safely handling and
securing such materials; however, the
revised draft SOP, as noted above,
expands those entities to include
individuals and organizations
performing regulated activities to
support the ability of the Agreement
States to apply this SOP to their
licensees. Both SOPs also point out that
the NRC, as the regulatory agency, has
an independent oversight role of those
individuals and organizations through
their inspection and assessment
processes including their performance
as it relates to areas important to safety
culture.
Based on responses to a question
posed in the FRN containing the initial
draft SOP, the revised draft SOP
contains the traits (i.e., descriptions of
areas important to safety culture). The
November 2009 FRN describes the traits
in another section of the policy
statement rather than in the actual
Statement of Policy (SOP) section. The
traits that are included in the revised
draft SOP, while similar to those
proposed by the NRC in the November
2009 FRN, are based on the traits
developed by the February workshop
panelists. Taking into consideration the
public comments on the initial draft
safety policy statement, the NRC staff
revised the workshop traits to make
them clearer but made no substantive
changes. Additionally, the revised draft
SOP contains a preamble to the traits
explaining what is a trait, and a
discussion of the use of the term
‘‘security’’ in the traits, noting that
although not expressly included in the
traits, consideration of both safety and
security issues commensurate with their
significance is an underlying principle
of the SOP.
The initial draft SOP also refers to the
scope of the Commission’s
responsibilities as well as how it carries
out these responsibilities. This
paragraph was removed from the
revised draft SOP to avoid confusing the
SOP with a regulation; rather, the SOP
provides the Commission’s expectations
regarding the applicability of this
statement to individuals and
organizations, performing or overseeing
regulated activities involving nuclear
materials.
V. Evaluation of Public Comments
Sixty-six public comments were
received on the initial draft policy
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices
statement published in the November
2009 FRN. Several of the comments
were statements of agreement on the
information and/or draft SOP that was
published in the November 2009 FRN.
Although the NRC staff used these
comments to validate work the staff had
already completed, these comments did
not require further clarification. Of the
remaining public comments, most fell
into one of three themes: (1) More
guidance is needed on implementation
issues; (2) should the term ‘‘security’’ be
included in the definition and, if not,
should there be a separate security
policy statement; and, (3) how will the
NRC use a policy statement (which is
voluntary) to enforce implementation of
safety culture.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
(1) Implementation Comments
Several of the comments requested
clarification on the NRC’s plans to
implement the SOP. After the
Commission has approved the policy
statement, the Commission will issue an
SRM to provide direction to the staff
regarding next steps. The NRC offices
that are responsible for overseeing
regulated activities will assess their
inspection and oversight programs to
determine whether (and if so, how) to
revise their programs based on the
Commission’s direction. The
Commission is aware that there are
many different settings in which the
policy statement will be implemented
and that implementation will be more
complex in some settings than others.
For example, as discussed above, the
NRC’s Reactor Oversight Program (ROP)
already addresses safety culture in the
inspection of nuclear power reactors. In
addition, the power reactor community
has ongoing programs and activities in
place for assessing safety culture and
implementing improvement strategies.
This may not be the case with other
categories of regulated activities, such as
industrial radiography and medical use
of isotopes. Variants such as these will
be factored into the agency’s approach
and schedule for implementing the
policy statement.
(2) Security Comments
As noted above, the panelists at the
February workshop aligned on a
common definition of safety culture.
That definition, however, differs from
the draft definition proposed in the
November 2009 FRN which defines
safety culture as ‘‘that assembly of
characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors
in organizations and individuals which
establishes that as an overriding
priority, nuclear safety and security
issues receive the attention warranted
by their significance.’’ The initial draft
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Sep 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
definition includes the terms ‘‘safety’’
and ‘‘security,’’ underscoring the
significance the Commission places on
consideration of both within NRC’s
regulatory framework. In subsequent
internal discussions and during the
various outreach activities with
stakeholders, the February workshop
definition, which does not include the
term ‘‘security’’, has been well received
and thus, has been adopted in the
revised draft SOP. The workshop
definition is as follows: ‘‘Nuclear safety
culture is the core values and behaviors
resulting from a collective commitment
by leaders and individuals to emphasize
safety over competing goals to ensure
protection of people and the
environment.’’ Deletion of the term
‘‘security’’ was deliberate. The panelists
believe that leaving it in the definition
would cause unnecessary confusion,
particularly for smaller regulated
entities that do not have to consider the
same security issues as a nuclear power
plant or fuel processing facility, for
example. Their position is that security,
like radiation protection, safeguards,
material control and accounting,
physical protection, and emergency
preparedness, falls under an
overarching definition of safety and
should not be singled out. These views
on removing the term ‘‘security’’ from
the definition were also expressed by
several members of a stakeholder panel
during the Safety Culture Commission
Briefing on March 30, 2010
(ML100950527).
Likewise, the traits that are included
in the revised draft SOP, while similar
to those proposed by the NRC, do not
include the term ‘‘security’’ wherever the
term ‘‘safety’’ is used. In recognition of
the importance the agency places on
security in a post ‘‘9/11’’ environment,
the staff developed a preamble to the
traits which points out that while the
term ‘‘security’’ is not expressly
included in each of the traits, safety and
security are the primary pillars of the
NRC’s regulatory mission.
Finally, unlike the initial draft safety
culture policy statement, the revised
traits are included in the revised draft
SOP itself. The November 2009 FRN
specifically asked whether commenters
would prefer this approach. There was
almost unanimous agreement that the
traits should be included to clarify the
SOP.
(3) Policy Statement vs. Regulation/Rule
Comments
Because public comments reflected
some misunderstanding regarding the
Commission’s use of a policy statement
rather than a regulation or rule, the
following clarification is offered: The
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57085
Commission may use a policy statement
to address matters relating to activities
that are within NRC jurisdiction and are
of particular interest and importance to
the Commission. Policy statements help
to guide the activities of the NRC staff
and can express the Commission’s
expectations. The NRC’s Enforcement
Policy, for example, describes the policy
and procedures the agency intends to
follow in initiating and reviewing
enforcement actions in response to
violations of NRC requirements.
Policy statements are not regulations/
rules and are not accorded the status of
a regulation/rule within the meaning of
the Administrative Procedure Act (Pub.
L. 79–404), the primary goal of which is
to ensure that agencies observe
procedural due process (i.e., fairness), in
conducting their regulatory and
administrative affairs. For example,
Agreement States that are responsible
for overseeing materials licensees are
not required to implement the elements
of a policy statement because such
statements, unlike NRC regulations, are
not a matter of compatibility.
Additionally, policy statements cannot
be considered binding upon, or
enforceable against, NRC or Agreement
State licensees and certificate holders.
While the option to consider
rulemaking exists, the NRC believes
that, at this time, developing a policy
statement is a more effective way to
engage stakeholders.
Additional Recommendations Based on
Public Comments
Based on its evaluation of the public
comments, the NRC staff made several
additional recommendations. These
recommendations have been included
in the revised draft SOP or are
addressed elsewhere in this FRN.
• In SRM–SECY–09–0075, the
Commission directed the staff to
consider incorporating vendors and
suppliers of safety related components
in the safety culture policy statement.
Although there is strong support for
doing so, some stakeholders have raised
implementation issues. While
implementation issues (particularly in
cases where such vendors and suppliers
are outside of NRC jurisdiction) may be
complicated, most comments indicated
that vendors and suppliers of safetyrelated components should be
developing and maintaining a positive
safety culture in their organizations for
the same reasons that NRC licensees and
certificate holders should be doing so.
Thus, the revised draft SOP indicates
that it is applicable to vendors and
suppliers of safety-related components.
• Because of the emphasis that the
public comments place on strong
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
57086
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
leadership, the NRC staff recommended
moving the trait ‘‘Leadership Safety
Values and Actions’’ to the top of the
traits list to give it visual prominence.
• Several comments indicated that
there should be a discussion of
complacency in the SOP. Complacency
can occur because of long term success
and repetition. Although this is already
indirectly addressed in the traits (e.g.,
Effective Safety Communication and
Personal Accountability are traits that
prevent complacency), the NRC staff
recommended further discussion of
complacency in the revised draft SOP.
The NRC is asking for comments as to
whether it is useful to add a discussion
on this aspect of safety culture to the
SOP.
VI. Questions for Which NRC Is
Seeking Input
(1) The revised definition of Nuclear
Safety Culture is: ‘‘Nuclear Safety
Culture is the core values and behaviors
resulting from a collective commitment
by leaders and individuals to emphasize
safety over competing goals to ensure
protection of people and the
environment.’’ Should this be retained,
as currently written, or should it be
revised?
(2) Does including the safety culture
traits in the SOP itself clarify your
understanding of what the Commission
means by a positive safety culture? If
not, what additional guidance do you
think is needed?
(3) Does the revised draft SOP provide
a clear statement of the NRC’s
expectations that the regulated
community should maintain a safety
culture that includes balanced
consideration of safety and security? If
not, what changes or additions should
be made?
(4) Should a discussion regarding
complacency be added to the SOP and/
or to the traits that describe areas
important to safety?
(5) In late August 2010, the Institute
of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
completed a validation study to assess
the extent to which the factors that
emerged from analyzing responses to a
safety culture survey match the traits
that were identified during the February
2010 workshop. Only individuals
working at nuclear reactors participated
in the survey.
The study provides general support
for the traits developed at the workshop;
however, the study provides a slightly
different grouping. Under the validation
study, there are nine traits: (1)
Management Responsibility/
Commitment to Safety; (2) Willingness
to Raise Concerns; (3) Decision-making;
(4) Supervisor Responsibility for Safety;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Sep 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
(5) Questioning Attitude; (6) Safety
Communication; (7) Personal
Responsibility for Safety; (8) Prioritizing
Safety; and (9) Training Quality. Four of
these are consistent with the eight traits
developed by the workshop
participants, i.e., Management
Responsibility is consistent with
Leadership Safety Values and Actions;
Willingness to Raise Concerns relates to
Environment for Raising Concerns;
Safety Communication relates to
Effective Safety Communication; and
Personal Responsibility for Safety is
consistent with Personal Accountability.
The remaining five traits identified in
the study, i.e., Decision-making,
Supervisor Responsibility for Safety,
Questioning Attitude, Prioritizing
Safety, and Training Quality, are not as
closely related (although they are not
completely dissimilar). This is new
information. The NRC is seeking
stakeholder comments on this
information though the FRN and
through the public meeting scheduled
for September 28 in Las Vegas.
To ensure efficient consideration of
your comments, if you are responding to
a specific question, please identify it by
number with your comment. When
commenting, please exercise caution
with regard to site-specific securityrelated information. Comments will be
made available to the public in their
entirety. Personal information such as
your name, address, telephone number,
and e-mail address will not be removed
from your submission.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day
of Sept, 2010.
Roy P. Zimmerman,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2010–23249 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
Submission for Review: Federal Cyber
Service: Scholarship for Service (SFS)
Registration Web Site
Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), Human Resources
Solutions Division, offers the general
public and other Federal agencies the
opportunity to comment on an existing
information collection request (ICR)
3206–0246, SFS Registration. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35), as amended by the ClingerCohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is
soliciting comments for this collection.
The information collection was
previously published in the Federal
Register on April 19, 2010 at 75 FR
20400, allowing for a 60-day public
comment period. One comment was
received, and OPM provided a response.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an
additional 30 days for public comments.
The Office of Management and Budget
is particularly interested in comments
that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted until October 18, 2010.
This process is conducted in accordance
with 5 CFR 1320.1.
ADDRESS: Interested persons are invited
to submit written comments on the
proposed information collection to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for the Office of Personnel
Management or sent via electronic mail
to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or
faxed to (202) 395–6974.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A
copy of this ICR, with applicable
supporting documentation, may be
obtained by contacting the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the
Office of Personnel Management or sent
via electronic mail to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or faxed
to (202) 395–6974.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SFS
Program was established by the National
Science Foundation in accordance with
E:\FR\FM\17SEN1.SGM
17SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57081-57086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23249]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0282]
Revised Draft Safety Culture Policy Statement: Request for
Comments
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Issuance of revised Draft Safety Culture Policy Statement and
notice of opportunity for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments are requested 30 days from the date of this Federal
Register Notice. Comments received after this date will be considered
if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to assure
consideration of comments received on or before this date. Please refer
to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional information
including specific questions for which the NRC is requesting comment.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2010-0282 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site
www.Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed. Additionally, the NRC requests that any party
soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit
their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and
therefore, they should not include any information in their comments
that they do not want publicly disclosed.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0282. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy K. Blady, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Division of Administrative Services, Office
of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492-
3446.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria E. Schwartz or Catherine
Thompson at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Enforcement, Mail Stop O-4 A15A, Washington, DC 20555-0001 or by e-mail
or telephone to Maria.Schwartz@nrc.gov, (301) 415-1888, or
Catherine.Thompson@nrc.gov, (301) 415-3409.
SUMMARY: On November 6, 2009, the NRC published a draft policy
statement,'' Safety Culture Policy Statement,'' in the Federal Register
(FRN) (74 FR 57525; NRC ADAMS Accession Number ML093030375).\1\ The
Statement of Policy (SOP) contained in the FRN focuses on the interface
of nuclear safety and security in a positive safety culture, and
highlights the Commission's expectation that all licensees and
certificate holders \2\ establish and maintain a positive safety
culture that protects public health and safety and the common defense
and security when carrying out licensed activities. The FRN requested
that interested persons provide comments within 90 days of its
publication. On January 12, 2010, the comment period was extended to
March 1, 2010 (75 FR 1656; ML100050288). As part of its outreach
activities, the NRC held a Safety Culture Workshop in February 2010
that provided a venue for interested parties to provide comments on the
draft safety culture policy statement. The additional goal of the
workshop was for panelists representing a broad range of stakeholders
to reach alignment on a common definition of safety culture and a high-
level set of traits that describe areas important to a positive safety
culture. The workshop panelists, with the assistance of the other
workshop participants, developed both. Following the February workshop,
the staff evaluated the public comments that were submitted in response
to the November 2009 FRN. Additionally, the staff participated on
panels and made presentations at various industry forums in order to
provide information to stakeholders about the development of the safety
culture policy statement and/or to obtain additional input and to
ascertain whether the draft definition and traits developed at the
workshop accurately reflect a broad range of stakeholders' views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission may use a policy statement to address matters
relating to areas that are within NRC jurisdiction and are of
particular interest to the Commission in order to guide staff's
activities and to express its expectations; however, policy
statements, unlike regulations/rules are not binding upon, or
enforceable against, NRC or Agreement State licensees and
certificate holders.
\2\ The reference in the November 2009 FRN to ``licensee and
certificate holder'' included licensees, certificate holders, permit
holders, authorization holders, holders of quality assurance program
approvals, and applicants for a license, certificate, permit,
authorization, or quality assurance program approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its ongoing effort to continue this dialogue with stakeholders,
the NRC is publishing this FRN containing the revised draft SOP for a
30-day public comment period. The revised draft SOP, including the
revised definition and traits, is based on careful consideration of the
Commission guidance in the October 2009 Staff Requirements Memorandum
(SRM) for SECY-09-0075 (ML092920099), the NRC staff's evaluation of the
public comments received on the November 2009 FRN, the revised
definition and traits developed at the February 2010 workshop, and the
outreach efforts the NRC staff has engaged in since February 2010.
The information contained in this FRN will be used to focus
discussions at a public meeting the NRC is holding on September 28,
2010, at its Las Vegas, Nevada, hearing facility. Both this FRN and the
September meeting are intended to provide additional opportunities for
stakeholders to provide comments on the revised draft SOP, including
the revised draft definition and traits.
I. Background
Previous Policy Statements
While the NRC has increased its attention on the importance of a
positive safety culture, the agency has long recognized the importance
of a work environment with a safety-first focus. In 1989, in response
to an incident involving operators sleeping in the control room, the
NRC issued a policy statement on the conduct of operations which
describes the NRC's expectation that licensees place appropriate
emphasis on safety in the operations of nuclear power plants. The
``Policy Statement on the Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant Operations''
(54 FR 3424; January 24, 1989) states the Commission's expectations of
utility management and licensed operators with respect to the conduct
of operations, noting that it applies to all individuals engaged in any
activity which has a bearing on the safety of nuclear power plants. The
Commission issued the policy statement to help foster the development
and maintenance of a positive safety culture at these facilities.
[[Page 57082]]
In 1996, the Commission published a policy statement, ``Freedom of
Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear
of Retaliation'' (61 FR 24336; May 14, 1996), to set forth its
expectations that licensees and other employers subject to NRC
authority establish and maintain safety-conscious work environments in
which employees feel free to raise safety concerns, both to their
management and to the NRC, without fear of retaliation. This policy
statement applies to the regulated activities of all NRC licensees and
their contractors and subcontractors. A safety conscious work
environment is an important attribute of a positive safety culture and
is one of the safety culture characteristics in the initial draft
safety culture policy statement. It is also one of the revised traits
captured by the February 2010 workshop participants as an ``Environment
for Raising Concerns.''
Events Underscoring the Importance of a Positive Safety Culture
The importance of a positive safety culture has been demonstrated
by a number of significant, high-visibility events world-wide involving
civilian uses of radioactive materials that have occurred in the 20-
year period since the Commission published its 1989 policy statement.
These events are not confined to a particular type of licensee or
certificate holder as they occurred at nuclear power plants and fuel
cycle facilities and during medical and industrial activities involving
regulated materials. Because of their significance to public health and
safety, the Commission has required the regulated entity involved to
determine the underlying root causes of the problem and, in some
instances, to commit to having a third-party assessment of its safety
culture in order to establish appropriate corrective actions. These
assessments have revealed that weaknesses in the regulated entities'
safety culture were an underlying root cause of the problem or
increased the severity of the problem. These root causes included, for
example, inadequate management oversight of process changes, perceived
production pressures, lack of a questioning attitude, and poor
communications.
One such incident indicated the need for additional NRC efforts to
evaluate whether it should increase its attention to reactor licensees'
safety cultures. During a planned outage, a nuclear power plant
licensee discovered a cavity caused by boric acid corrosion in the top
of the reactor pressure vessel. In response to this serious
deterioration, the NRC required the licensee to determine the
underlying root causes of the problem. The licensee's evaluation
identified that the root causes for the failure to take appropriate
corrective actions included an inadequate safety culture and an
emphasis on production over safety. NRC lessons learned from this
incident indicated the need for additional NRC efforts to evaluate
nuclear power plant licensees' safety cultures. In SRM-SECY-04-0111
(ML042430661), dated August 30, 2004, the Commission approved the
staff's plan to enhance the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) treatment
of cross-cutting issues to more fully address safety culture. As part
of this effort, the staff made important changes to the ROP to address
Commission direction, including: (1) Enhancements to problem
identification and resolution initiatives; (2) inspector training on
safety culture; (3) establishment of processes for revising the ROP
while involving stakeholders; (4) evaluation of safety culture at
plants in the Degraded Cornerstone Column of the ROP Action Matrix; and
(5) the treatment of cross-cutting issues to more fully address safety
culture. Commission paper SECY-06-0122, dated May 24, 2006,
(ML061320282) describes the NRC's safety culture activities at that
time and the outcomes of those activities. On July 31, 2006, the agency
issued Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-13, ``Information on the Changes
Made to the Reactor Oversight Process to More Fully Address Safety
Culture,'' (ML061880341) to provide information to nuclear power
reactor licensees on the revised ROP.
Increased Focus on Security Issues
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
Commission increased its focus on the security of regulated facilities
whose operations can have an impact on public health and safety. The
Commission issued orders enhancing security at these facilities. During
the early years of implementation of these security enhancements,
several violations of the Commission's security requirements were
identified, in which the licensee failed to cultivate an effective
safety culture in its security program. The most visible of these
involved a culture of complacency involving security officers sleeping
while on shift at a nuclear power plant. Most of these violations
involved inadequate management oversight of security, lack of a
questioning attitude within the security organization, inability to
raise concerns about security issues, and inadequacy of training for
security personnel. These issues prompted the Commission in SECY-09-
0075 to direct the staff to evaluate ``[w]hether 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.'' Based on the staff's
review and stakeholder feedback, the staff concluded that the
Commission's expectations for safety culture should be published in one
policy statement entitled, ``A Safety Culture Policy Statement,'' but
should emphasize that safety and security be treated in a balanced,
commensurate with the significance, manner, within the overarching
safety culture. Thus, while the term ``security'' is not included in
the revised draft definition of safety culture, as the preamble to the
traits points out, the traits of an effective safety culture should be
balanced commensurate with their significance in ensuring that the
security program is effectively implemented.
Additionally, one of the insights gained from the increased
emphasis on security is the importance of incorporating security
considerations into a safety culture and effectively managing the
safety and security interface. An effective safety and security
interface integrates safety and security activities so as not to
diminish or adversely affect either. Capturing both safety and security
activities under an overarching safety culture policy statement is
important because, while many safety and security activities complement
each other, there may be instances in which safety and security
interests create competing goals. Mechanisms should be established to
identify and resolve these differences.
II. Development of the Current Statement of Policy
Commission Direction
In February 2008, the Commission issued SRM-COMGBJ-08-0001
(ML080560476) directing the NRC staff to expand the Commission's policy
on safety culture to address the unique aspects of security and to
ensure the resulting policy is applicable to all licensees and
certificate holders. The Commission posed several additional questions
for the staff to answer including (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
[[Page 57083]]
certificate holders, including any unique aspects of security; and (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 while still considering the
safety and security interfaces.
To address the Commission's direction, NRC staff reviewed domestic
and international safety culture related documents, considered NRC
lessons learned, and obtained wide ranging stakeholder input on
questions related to the issues in the SRM. In February 2009, the NRC
held a public workshop on the ``Development of a Policy Statement(s) on
Safety and Security Culture'' in which a broad range of stakeholders
participated, including a representative from the Agreement States
(Meeting Summary: ML090930572). The 2009 workshop developed a draft
definition and characteristics \3\ of a positive safety culture.
Additionally, mindful of the increased attention to the important role
of security, the staff also sought input from the workshop participants
on whether there should be a single safety culture policy statement or
two policy statements addressing safety and security independently
while considering the interface of both. The staff also sought input on
the additional questions the Commission posed to the staff in SRM-
COMGBJ-08-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ At the February 2010 workshop, the panelists referred to the
characteristics (NRC term) or principles (INPO term) as traits. The
term ``traits'' is used in the revised draft SOP and throughout this
FRN and describes areas important to a positive safety culture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staff provided its recommendations to the Commission in May
2009 in Commission paper SECY-09-0075, ``Safety Culture Policy
Statement'' (ML091130068). Based on its review and stakeholder
feedback, the staff (1) concluded that the NRC's oversight of safety
culture as applied to reactors has been strengthened, is effective, and
continues to be refined in accordance with the existing reactor
oversight process (ROP) self-assessment process; (2) described actions
taken and planned for increasing attention to safety culture in the
materials area; (3) described actions taken and planned for most
effectively utilizing stakeholder involvement to address safety
culture, including any unique aspects of security, for all NRC and
Agreement State licensees and certificate holders; and (4) developed
one draft safety culture policy statement that acknowledges the equal
importance of safety and security within the overarching safety
culture.
In SRM-SECY-09-0075 (ML092920099), the Commission directed the
staff to: (1) Continue to engage a broad range of stakeholders,
including the Agreement States and other organizations with an interest
in nuclear safety, to ensure the final policy statement presented to
the Commission considers a broad spectrum of views and provides the
necessary foundation for safety culture applicable to the entire
nuclear industry; (2) make the necessary adjustments to encompass
security within the statement; (3) seek opportunities to comport NRC
terminology, where possible, with that of existing standards and
references maintained by those that the NRC regulates; and (4) consider
incorporating suppliers and vendors of safety related components in the
safety culture policy statement.
February 2010 Workshop
The February 2010 workshop was part of the staff's efforts to
further engage all NRC-regulated entities as well as the Agreement
States, the Indian Tribes, and organizations and individuals interested
in nuclear safety. The goals of the February workshop were to (1)
provide an additional opportunity for comments on the November 2009 FRN
and (2) develop a common definition of safety culture and a high-level
set of traits describing areas important to a positive safety culture.
The workshop participants represented a wide range of stakeholders
regulated by the NRC and/or the Agreement states including medical,
industrial, and fuel cycle materials users, and nuclear power reactor
licensees, as well as the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the Institute
of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), and members of the public. The
workshop panelists reached alignment with input from the other meeting
attendees on a common definition of safety culture and a high-level set
of traits describing areas important to a positive safety culture.
Additional Outreach Activities
Following the February workshop, the staff evaluated the public
comments that were submitted in response to the initial draft SOP.
Additionally, the staff participated on panels and made presentations
at various industry forums in order to provide information to
stakeholders about the development of the safety culture policy
statement and/or to obtain additional input and to ascertain whether
the draft definition and traits developed at the workshop accurately
reflect a broad range of stakeholders' views. These outreach activities
included, for example, participation in a Special Joint Session on
Safety Culture at the Health Physics Society Annual Meeting, and
presentations on the development of the Safety Culture Policy Statement
at the Annual Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, the Conference of
Radiation Control Program Directors' Annual National Conference on
Radiation Control, the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management's
Annual Meeting, the 2nd NRC Workshop on Vendor Oversight for New
Reactors, and the Organization of Agreement States Annual Meeting.
III. Statement of Policy
The purpose of this Statement of Policy is to set forth the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's expectation that individuals and organizations,
performing or overseeing regulated activities involving nuclear
materials, establish and maintain a positive safety culture
commensurate with the safety and security significance of their
activities and the nature and complexity of their organizations and
functions. This applies to all licensees, certificate holders, permit
holders, authorization holders, holders of quality assurance program
approvals, vendors, suppliers of safety related components, and
applicants for a license, certificate, permit, authorization, or
quality assurance program approval, subject to NRC authority.
Additionally, it is the Commission's expectation that the Agreement
States and other organizations interested in nuclear safety will
support the development and maintenance of a positive safety culture,
as articulated in this Statement of Policy, within their regulated
communities.
The Commission defines Nuclear Safety Culture as the core values
and behaviors resulting from a collective commitment by leaders and
individuals to emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure
protection of people and the environment. The Commission considers
nuclear safety and nuclear security issues to be equally important in a
positive safety culture. Thus, as part of this collective commitment,
organizations should ensure that personnel in the safety and security
sectors have an appreciation for the importance of each, emphasizing
the need for integration and balance to achieve optimized protection.
Safety and security activities are closely intertwined, and it is
critical that consideration of these activities be integrated so as not
to diminish or adversely affect either. A safety culture that
accomplishes this would include
[[Page 57084]]
all nuclear safety and security issues associated with NRC-regulated
activities.
Individuals and organizations performing or overseeing regulated
activities involving nuclear materials bear the primary responsibility
for safely handling and securing these materials. The Commission, as
the regulatory agency, has an independent oversight role that reviews
the performance of those individuals and organizations through its
inspection and assessment processes, including their performance as it
relates to areas important to safety culture.
Experience has shown that certain personal and organizational
traits are present in a positive safety culture. A trait, in this case,
is a pattern of thinking, feeling, and behaving that emphasizes safety,
particularly in goal conflict situations, e.g., production vs. safety,
schedule vs. safety, and cost of the effort vs. safety. It should be
noted that although the term ``security'' is not expressly included in
these traits, safety and security are the primary pillars of the NRC's
regulatory mission. Consequently, consideration of both safety and
security issues, commensurate with their significance, is an underlying
principle of this Statement of Policy. The traits of a positive safety
culture include, but are not limited to: (1) Leadership Safety Values
and Actions in which leaders demonstrate a commitment to safety in
their decisions and behaviors; (2) Problem Identification and
Resolution in which issues potentially impacting safety are promptly
identified, fully evaluated, and promptly addressed and corrected
commensurate with their significance; (3) Personal Accountability in
which all individuals take personal responsibility for safety; (4) Work
Processes in which the process of planning and controlling work
activities is implemented so that safety is maintained; (5) Continuous
Learning in which opportunities to learn about ways to ensure safety
are sought out and implemented; (6) Environment for Raising Concerns in
which a safety conscious work environment is maintained where personnel
feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation,
intimidation, harassment or discrimination; (7) Effective Safety
Communication in which communications maintain a focus on safety; and
(8) a Respectful Work Environment in which trust and respect permeate
the organization. It is the Commission's expectation that all
individuals and organizations, performing or overseeing regulated
activities involving nuclear materials should take the necessary steps
to promote a positive safety culture by fostering these traits as they
apply to their organizational environments.
IV. Changes to the Initial Draft Statement of Policy
Like the initial draft SOP, the revised draft SOP begins by
indicating to whom the policy applies as a general matter. In the
initial draft SOP, licensees and certificate holders are listed;
however, earlier in the FRN, there is a footnote indicating that
throughout the document, the phrase ``licensees and certificate
holders'' includes licensees, certificate holders, permit holders,
authorization holders, etc. The revised draft SOP refers to
``individuals and organizations, performing or overseeing regulated
activities involving nuclear materials,'' which includes vendors and
suppliers of safety-related components. Additionally, the revised draft
SOP notes the Commission's expectation that the Agreement States and
other organizations interested in the safe use of nuclear materials
also develop and maintain a positive safety culture within their
regulated communities as well.
The definition of safety culture in the initial draft SOP is based
on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) definition of safety
culture, modified to broaden its applicability to materials users and
to include security. The definition of safety culture has been changed
in the revised draft SOP to the definition that was developed during
the February 2010 workshop. This definition is broad enough to apply to
all individuals and organizations, performing or overseeing regulated
activities involving nuclear materials. Additionally, the February 2010
workshop definition does not include the term ``security.'' The revised
definition resonated with the workshop panelists. Additionally, it was
the preferred definition in the comments received on the initial draft
policy statement and the comments received during several industry
forums held after the February 2010 workshop. The initial draft SOP,
like the revised draft SOP, discusses the importance of providing
personnel in both the safety and security sectors with an appreciation
for the importance of each. Both SOPs also discuss the importance of
recognizing how closely intertwined safety and security activities are
and the importance of integrating these activities so as not to
diminish or adversely affect either. The initial draft SOP indicates
areas that should receive the greatest attention as a matter of
priority. The revised draft SOP is silent on this point because each
entity should examine its specific regulated activities to determine
the areas that should receive the greatest attention.
Both SOPs stress the fact that those entities that use or provide
services related to the use of radioactive materials bear the primary
responsibility for safely handling and securing such materials;
however, the revised draft SOP, as noted above, expands those entities
to include individuals and organizations performing regulated
activities to support the ability of the Agreement States to apply this
SOP to their licensees. Both SOPs also point out that the NRC, as the
regulatory agency, has an independent oversight role of those
individuals and organizations through their inspection and assessment
processes including their performance as it relates to areas important
to safety culture.
Based on responses to a question posed in the FRN containing the
initial draft SOP, the revised draft SOP contains the traits (i.e.,
descriptions of areas important to safety culture). The November 2009
FRN describes the traits in another section of the policy statement
rather than in the actual Statement of Policy (SOP) section. The traits
that are included in the revised draft SOP, while similar to those
proposed by the NRC in the November 2009 FRN, are based on the traits
developed by the February workshop panelists. Taking into consideration
the public comments on the initial draft safety policy statement, the
NRC staff revised the workshop traits to make them clearer but made no
substantive changes. Additionally, the revised draft SOP contains a
preamble to the traits explaining what is a trait, and a discussion of
the use of the term ``security'' in the traits, noting that although
not expressly included in the traits, consideration of both safety and
security issues commensurate with their significance is an underlying
principle of the SOP.
The initial draft SOP also refers to the scope of the Commission's
responsibilities as well as how it carries out these responsibilities.
This paragraph was removed from the revised draft SOP to avoid
confusing the SOP with a regulation; rather, the SOP provides the
Commission's expectations regarding the applicability of this statement
to individuals and organizations, performing or overseeing regulated
activities involving nuclear materials.
V. Evaluation of Public Comments
Sixty-six public comments were received on the initial draft policy
[[Page 57085]]
statement published in the November 2009 FRN. Several of the comments
were statements of agreement on the information and/or draft SOP that
was published in the November 2009 FRN. Although the NRC staff used
these comments to validate work the staff had already completed, these
comments did not require further clarification. Of the remaining public
comments, most fell into one of three themes: (1) More guidance is
needed on implementation issues; (2) should the term ``security'' be
included in the definition and, if not, should there be a separate
security policy statement; and, (3) how will the NRC use a policy
statement (which is voluntary) to enforce implementation of safety
culture.
(1) Implementation Comments
Several of the comments requested clarification on the NRC's plans
to implement the SOP. After the Commission has approved the policy
statement, the Commission will issue an SRM to provide direction to the
staff regarding next steps. The NRC offices that are responsible for
overseeing regulated activities will assess their inspection and
oversight programs to determine whether (and if so, how) to revise
their programs based on the Commission's direction. The Commission is
aware that there are many different settings in which the policy
statement will be implemented and that implementation will be more
complex in some settings than others. For example, as discussed above,
the NRC's Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) already addresses safety
culture in the inspection of nuclear power reactors. In addition, the
power reactor community has ongoing programs and activities in place
for assessing safety culture and implementing improvement strategies.
This may not be the case with other categories of regulated activities,
such as industrial radiography and medical use of isotopes. Variants
such as these will be factored into the agency's approach and schedule
for implementing the policy statement.
(2) Security Comments
As noted above, the panelists at the February workshop aligned on a
common definition of safety culture. That definition, however, differs
from the draft definition proposed in the November 2009 FRN which
defines safety culture as ``that assembly of characteristics,
attitudes, and behaviors in organizations and individuals which
establishes that as an overriding priority, nuclear safety and security
issues receive the attention warranted by their significance.'' The
initial draft definition includes the terms ``safety'' and
``security,'' underscoring the significance the Commission places on
consideration of both within NRC's regulatory framework. In subsequent
internal discussions and during the various outreach activities with
stakeholders, the February workshop definition, which does not include
the term ``security'', has been well received and thus, has been
adopted in the revised draft SOP. The workshop definition is as
follows: ``Nuclear safety culture is the core values and behaviors
resulting from a collective commitment by leaders and individuals to
emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure protection of people
and the environment.'' Deletion of the term ``security'' was
deliberate. The panelists believe that leaving it in the definition
would cause unnecessary confusion, particularly for smaller regulated
entities that do not have to consider the same security issues as a
nuclear power plant or fuel processing facility, for example. Their
position is that security, like radiation protection, safeguards,
material control and accounting, physical protection, and emergency
preparedness, falls under an overarching definition of safety and
should not be singled out. These views on removing the term
``security'' from the definition were also expressed by several members
of a stakeholder panel during the Safety Culture Commission Briefing on
March 30, 2010 (ML100950527).
Likewise, the traits that are included in the revised draft SOP,
while similar to those proposed by the NRC, do not include the term
``security'' wherever the term ``safety'' is used. In recognition of
the importance the agency places on security in a post ``9/11''
environment, the staff developed a preamble to the traits which points
out that while the term ``security'' is not expressly included in each
of the traits, safety and security are the primary pillars of the NRC's
regulatory mission.
Finally, unlike the initial draft safety culture policy statement,
the revised traits are included in the revised draft SOP itself. The
November 2009 FRN specifically asked whether commenters would prefer
this approach. There was almost unanimous agreement that the traits
should be included to clarify the SOP.
(3) Policy Statement vs. Regulation/Rule Comments
Because public comments reflected some misunderstanding regarding
the Commission's use of a policy statement rather than a regulation or
rule, the following clarification is offered: The Commission may use a
policy statement to address matters relating to activities that are
within NRC jurisdiction and are of particular interest and importance
to the Commission. Policy statements help to guide the activities of
the NRC staff and can express the Commission's expectations. The NRC's
Enforcement Policy, for example, describes the policy and procedures
the agency intends to follow in initiating and reviewing enforcement
actions in response to violations of NRC requirements.
Policy statements are not regulations/rules and are not accorded
the status of a regulation/rule within the meaning of the
Administrative Procedure Act (Pub. L. 79-404), the primary goal of
which is to ensure that agencies observe procedural due process (i.e.,
fairness), in conducting their regulatory and administrative affairs.
For example, Agreement States that are responsible for overseeing
materials licensees are not required to implement the elements of a
policy statement because such statements, unlike NRC regulations, are
not a matter of compatibility. Additionally, policy statements cannot
be considered binding upon, or enforceable against, NRC or Agreement
State licensees and certificate holders.
While the option to consider rulemaking exists, the NRC believes
that, at this time, developing a policy statement is a more effective
way to engage stakeholders.
Additional Recommendations Based on Public Comments
Based on its evaluation of the public comments, the NRC staff made
several additional recommendations. These recommendations have been
included in the revised draft SOP or are addressed elsewhere in this
FRN.
In SRM-SECY-09-0075, the Commission directed the staff to
consider incorporating vendors and suppliers of safety related
components in the safety culture policy statement. Although there is
strong support for doing so, some stakeholders have raised
implementation issues. While implementation issues (particularly in
cases where such vendors and suppliers are outside of NRC jurisdiction)
may be complicated, most comments indicated that vendors and suppliers
of safety-related components should be developing and maintaining a
positive safety culture in their organizations for the same reasons
that NRC licensees and certificate holders should be doing so. Thus,
the revised draft SOP indicates that it is applicable to vendors and
suppliers of safety-related components.
Because of the emphasis that the public comments place on
strong
[[Page 57086]]
leadership, the NRC staff recommended moving the trait ``Leadership
Safety Values and Actions'' to the top of the traits list to give it
visual prominence.
Several comments indicated that there should be a
discussion of complacency in the SOP. Complacency can occur because of
long term success and repetition. Although this is already indirectly
addressed in the traits (e.g., Effective Safety Communication and
Personal Accountability are traits that prevent complacency), the NRC
staff recommended further discussion of complacency in the revised
draft SOP. The NRC is asking for comments as to whether it is useful to
add a discussion on this aspect of safety culture to the SOP.
VI. Questions for Which NRC Is Seeking Input
(1) The revised definition of Nuclear Safety Culture is: ``Nuclear
Safety Culture is the core values and behaviors resulting from a
collective commitment by leaders and individuals to emphasize safety
over competing goals to ensure protection of people and the
environment.'' Should this be retained, as currently written, or should
it be revised?
(2) Does including the safety culture traits in the SOP itself
clarify your understanding of what the Commission means by a positive
safety culture? If not, what additional guidance do you think is
needed?
(3) Does the revised draft SOP provide a clear statement of the
NRC's expectations that the regulated community should maintain a
safety culture that includes balanced consideration of safety and
security? If not, what changes or additions should be made?
(4) Should a discussion regarding complacency be added to the SOP
and/or to the traits that describe areas important to safety?
(5) In late August 2010, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
(INPO) completed a validation study to assess the extent to which the
factors that emerged from analyzing responses to a safety culture
survey match the traits that were identified during the February 2010
workshop. Only individuals working at nuclear reactors participated in
the survey.
The study provides general support for the traits developed at the
workshop; however, the study provides a slightly different grouping.
Under the validation study, there are nine traits: (1) Management
Responsibility/Commitment to Safety; (2) Willingness to Raise Concerns;
(3) Decision-making; (4) Supervisor Responsibility for Safety; (5)
Questioning Attitude; (6) Safety Communication; (7) Personal
Responsibility for Safety; (8) Prioritizing Safety; and (9) Training
Quality. Four of these are consistent with the eight traits developed
by the workshop participants, i.e., Management Responsibility is
consistent with Leadership Safety Values and Actions; Willingness to
Raise Concerns relates to Environment for Raising Concerns; Safety
Communication relates to Effective Safety Communication; and Personal
Responsibility for Safety is consistent with Personal Accountability.
The remaining five traits identified in the study, i.e., Decision-
making, Supervisor Responsibility for Safety, Questioning Attitude,
Prioritizing Safety, and Training Quality, are not as closely related
(although they are not completely dissimilar). This is new information.
The NRC is seeking stakeholder comments on this information though the
FRN and through the public meeting scheduled for September 28 in Las
Vegas.
To ensure efficient consideration of your comments, if you are
responding to a specific question, please identify it by number with
your comment. 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, and e-mail address will not be
removed from your submission.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of Sept, 2010.
Roy P. Zimmerman,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2010-23249 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P