[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57081-57086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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
[email protected].
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 [email protected], (301) 415-1888, or
[email protected], (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