Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 57081 

1The 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. 

2The 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. 

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 

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 

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 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 

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. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
57082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 

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 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 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 57083 

3At 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. 

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 

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 


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 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 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 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
57086 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 

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 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 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1