October 28, 2010 

MEMORANDUM TO: Roy P. Zimmerman, Director 

 Office of Enforcement 

 

FROM: David Solorio, Branch Chief /RA/

 Concerns Resolution Branch 

 Office of Enforcement 

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2010, PUBLIC 

 MEETING BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION AND STAKEHOLDERS REGARDING SAFETY 

CULTURE POLICY STATEMENT (ADAMS ACCESSION 

NUMBER ML102500563) 

On September 28, 2010, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a public 

meeting in the Las Vegas Hearing Facility, Las Vegas, Nevada, with simultaneous broadcast in 

the Commission Hearing Room, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of this meeting was to: 

(1) provide a western location for public meeting with stakeholders, (2) provide stakeholders a 

summary of efforts on the Safety Culture Policy Statement (SCPS) initiative, (3) provide 

stakeholders a summary of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) validation study, 

(4) provide last major outreach effort and the opportunity for public comments on the Federal 

Register Notice (FRN) (ML102500563),and (5) provide opportunity for discussion on next steps 

of draft SCPS. The goals of the public meeting were met. 

Prior to the public meeting, the staff reached out to a large number of NRC-regulated entities. 

The staff encouraged their participation in this workshop in order to benefit from consideration of 

a spectrum of views and encourage these entities to comment on the SC policy statement. The 

staff’s outreach activities included: (1) issuing an FRN (ML102290260) announcing the NRC 

plans for this public meeting in Las Vegas, (2) issuing an FRN (ML102500563) to provide 

revised draft policy statement for public comment, (3) issuing a press release for the general 

public, (4) noticing the meeting in the NRC public meeting website, and (5) contacting licensees: 

reactors, materials-industrial, materials-medical, material-fuel cycle, new reactor construction, 

vendors and suppliers, and interested members of the public to encourage their participation in 

the public meeting. In addition, the NRC solicited input from an external safety culture planning 

committee, made up of various stakeholders (external to the NRC that were participants at the 

February 2010 workshop to develop the safety culture definition and traits) that provided 

feedback to the NRC for conducting this public meeting. 

In addition to the Las Vegas location, stakeholders could attend the secondary location in the 

Commission Hearing Room in Rockville, Maryland. The Las Vegas and Rockville locations 

were connected by video telephone conference. For the stakeholders that were not able to 

attend the two locations, individuals could participate the meeting by phone and the web. 

CONTACT: Jose Ibarra, OE/CRB 

 301-415-2581 
R. Zimmerman 2 

Because it was expected there would be attendees new to the safety culture topic, the one-day 

public meeting was structured to provide information for both stakeholders familiar with the 

SCPS initiative and stakeholders new to the SCPS initiative. The staff (1) presented the 

research basis for the development of a safety culture, (2) presented the evolution of the draft 

safety culture policy statement initiative from the start of the process to the present, and 

(3) presented information on the INPO validation study. 

Following the NRC presentations, a panel of stakeholders representing nuclear power, portable 

nuclear gauges, building and construction, and physicists in medicine provided comments from 

their perspective on the SCPS. A facilitated discussion followed with opportunities for 

stakeholders in Las Vegas, Rockville, and on the phone and the web to join the discussion and 

ask questions. 

In the afternoon the staff provided a brief description on the remaining steps in the SCPS 

initiative before the Commission renders its decision on the SCPS and gives the staff 

instructions related to the implementation of the policy. As a part of this discussion the staff 

from four licensing program offices provided their thoughts on implementing the SCPS. Another 

panel representing physicists in medicine, non-destructive testing, and fuel cycle facilities 

presented their comments related to the challenges/issues with respect to implementing the 

SCPS. An additional opportunity was provided for stakeholders to participate in the discussions 

and ask questions regarding the implementation and any other SCPS issue. 

Throughout the meeting, stakeholders complimented the manner in which the NRC approached 

the development of the development of the SCPS. Specifically, they talked about the NRC 

giving the regulated entities the opportunity to be part of the development of the proposed 

definition and traits. Additionally, the stakeholders acknowledged that the NRC through its 

external planning committee kept them aware of the outreach activities. 

Stakeholder comments during the public meeting: 

1. INPO Validation 

The staff stated that the INPO validation study only applied to the nuclear power area and 

had a targeted purpose. Nevertheless, several stakeholders expressed concerns that this 

study only applied to nuclear power reactors. The staff clarified the intent of the validation 

study with options on how it could potentially be used. This explanation appeared to 

mitigate some of the concerns. A representation of the American Association of Physicists 

in Medicine (AAPM) indicated that they want to poll the medical community regarding the 

INPO study and plans to do so at a meeting in late November. 

2. Definition and Traits 

There was agreement expressed by the stakeholders at the public meeting that the 

definition and traits as proposed in the September 17, 2010, FRN were satisfactory. There 

was a discussion related to the topic of Complacency as well as the potential addition of 

Questioning Attitude as a new trait. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) representative for 

the nuclear reactors indicated that he supported the addition of Questioning Attitude as a 

trait. The nuclear fuel cycle representative indicated that there may be confusion if 

Questioning Attitude was added as a trait in response to a discussion of complacency. He 
R. Zimmerman 3 

stated that complacency is the number one concern with respect to industrial safety. He 

further stated that Questioning Attitude is important, however, he did not see a direct nexus 

between Questioning Attitude and Complacency. He believes these are different traits. A 

stakeholder representing the Endangered Planet Earth group indicated that complacency 

should be trait. 

There was support for including the traits directly in the statement of policy as they are in the 

September 17 FRN. One commenter representing the Endangered Planet Earth group 

indicated that the definition was too broad. He suggested one for power reactors and one 

for other licensees. 

3. Federal Register Notice 

Several of the representatives requested an extension of the FRN comment period originally 

set for 30 days. They felt their organizations needed more time to review the draft SCPS. 

The comment period is scheduled to end on October 18, 2010. 

4. Other Issues 

The nuclear fuel cycle representative indicated that there needs to be additional discussion 

as to how vendors and suppliers will be addressed in the policy statement. 

The Endangered Planet Earth representative indicated that there should be an enforcement 

mechanism for the policy statement. 

There was concern expressed regarding the lack of involvement of the Advisory Committee 

on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI).

5. Next Steps 

A representative in the medical community stated that the implementation phase for different 

categories of licensees may differ. This representative further stated that the NRC needs to 

define metrics related to the Statement of Policy. It was recommended that this effort 

should be completed with participation by the industry, such as with round-table discussions. 

In addition, this representative stated that additional presentations to industry groups would 

not suffice and a third tier is important and needs to be completed before enforcement of the 

policy statement. Support for her comments were offered by a radiation safety officer who 

stated that any scheme needs to be objective and the NRC should use a trial approach. 

In response to questions regarding the framework for providing feedback during the 

implementation phase, the staff indicated that: (1) NUREG-1556 volumes, pertaining to 

material licensees, would be published for public comment, (2) States could inform their 

licensees, and (3) other organizations could be informed. 

A medical community representative indicated a potential concern with NRC citing safety 

culture being rolled up into an inspection finding. This representative provided an example 

where a Veteran Affairs Hospital and Johns Hopkins University were cited by the State of 

Maryland. 
R. Zimmerman 4 

The nuclear fuel cycle representative indicated that there should be a sizeable investment in 

addressing the issues of implementation. He indicated that there needs to be a 

consideration of priorities for the regulated community and alluded to 20 generic issues that 

the fuel cycle industry is working on that he feels would have a greater affect on improving 

safety than the focus on safety culture. 

The representative for the Non-Destructive Testing Management Association (NDTMA) 

stated that the NRC needs to define the expectations for implementation and should 

consider holding additional workshops. 

The Director for the Office of Enforcement indicated that the Commission paper would 

address implementation by the different licenses at some level. 

Information about the Las Vegas Public Meeting can be obtained at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/safety-culture.html#meetings

This information among other documents includes the meeting agenda and the presentations. 
R. Zimmerman 4 

The nuclear fuel cycle representative indicated that there should be a sizeable investment in 

addressing the issues of implementation. He indicated that there needs to be a 

consideration of priorities for the regulated community and alluded to 20 generic issues that 

the fuel cycle industry is working on that he feels would have a greater affect on improving 

safety than the focus on safety culture. 

The representative for the Non-Destructive Testing Management Association (NDTMA) 

stated that the NRC needs to define the expectations for implementation and should 

consider holding additional workshops. 

The Director for the Office of Enforcement indicated that the Commission paper would 

address implementation by the different licensees at some level. 

Information about the Las Vegas Public Meeting can be obtained at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/safety-culture.html#meetings

This information among other documents includes the meeting agenda and the presentations. 

DISTRIBUTION: 

R. Albert J. Adams V. Barnes J. Cai C. Carpenter N. Rivera-Feliciano 

M. Cash C. Casto M. Cheok D. Coe M. Delligatti L. Langlie 

D. Dorman J. Firth T. Frye T. Harris P. Hernandez L. Moorin 

P. Holahan J. Ibarra J. Jimenez M. Keefe K. Martin M. Lemoncelli 

R. Lewis J. Luehman C. Lui G. Fehst C. Thompson D. Sieracki 

D. Pasquale J. Peralta J. Piccone P. Prescott L. Rakovan P. Hernandez 

D. Reinert T. Reis U. Shoop M. Schwartz D. Solorio 

A. Campbell G. Tracy S. Wastler D. Weaver R. Rasmussen 

K. Witt M. Virgilio R. Virgilio R. Zimmerman 

OE r/f 

■Publicly Available ■ Non-Sensitive 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML102871218 *via e-mail 

OFFICE OE: PM OE: PM* OE:BC OE:D 

NAME JIbarra/nxh CThompson DSolorio RZimmerman 

DATE 10/18/2010 10/19/2010 10/28/2010 10/28/2010 

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY