[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34773-34778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14656]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0282]
Final Safety Culture Policy Statement
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of final safety culture policy statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is issuing this Statement of Policy to set forth its expectation that
individuals and organizations performing or overseeing regulated
activities 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. 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. This policy statement applies
to all licensees, certificate holders, permit holders, authorization
holders, holders of quality assurance program approvals, vendors and
suppliers of safety-related components, and applicants for a license,
certificate, permit, authorization, or quality assurance program
approval, subject to NRC authority.
DATES: This policy statement becomes effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are
[[Page 34774]]
available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which
provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If you do
not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Federal rulemaking Web site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this document can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2010-0282. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-492-
3668; e-mail: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-2741; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Previous Policy Statements and Events Involving Safety Culture
The NRC has long recognized the importance of a safety-first focus
in nuclear work environments for public health and safety. The
Commission's emphasis on a safety-first focus is reflected in two
previously published NRC policy statements. The 1989, ``Policy
Statement on the Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant Operations'' (54 FR
3424; January 24, 1989), applies to all individuals engaged in
activities that affect the safety of nuclear power plants, and provides
the Commission's expectations of utility management and licensed
operators with respect to the conduct of operations. The 1996,
``Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns
Without Fear of Retaliation'' (61 FR 24336; May 14, 1996), applies to
the regulated activities of all NRC licensees and their contractors and
subcontractors, and provides the Commission's 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 Safety Culture Statement of Policy,
in conjunction with the previous policy statements, is intended to
emphasize the importance the NRC places on the development and
maintenance of a positive safety culture for all regulated activities.
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, brought
attention to the importance of safety culture and the impact that
weaknesses in safety culture can have on safety performance. Since
then, the importance of a positive safety culture has been demonstrated
by a number of significant, high-visibility events worldwide. In the
United States, incidents involving the civilian uses of radioactive
materials have not been confined to a particular type of licensee or
certificate holder, as they have occurred at nuclear power plants and
fuel cycle facilities and during medical and industrial activities
involving regulated materials. Assessments of these incidents revealed
that weaknesses in the regulated entities' safety cultures were an
underlying cause of the incidents or increased the severity of the
incidents. The causes of these incidents 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 the agency should increase its attention to
reactor licensees' safety cultures. This resulted in important changes
to the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). Commission paper SECY-06-
0122, dated May 24, 2006, (ADAMS Accession No. ML061320282) describes
the NRC's safety culture activities at that time and the outcomes of
those activities.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
Commission issued orders enhancing security at facilities whose
operations, if attacked, could have an impact on public health and
safety. During the early years of implementation of these security
enhancements, several violations of the Commission's security
requirements were identified in which the licensee's failure to
cultivate a positive safety culture impacted the effectiveness of the
licensee's security program. The most visible of these involved
security officers sleeping in a ``ready room'' while on shift at a
nuclear power plant. Most of the weaknesses involved inadequate
management oversight of security, lack of a questioning attitude within
the security organization, complacency, barriers to raising concerns
about security issues, and inadequate training of security personnel.
B. Commission Direction
In February 2008, the Commission issued Staff Requirements
Memorandum (SRM), SRM-COMGBJ-08-0001 (ADAMS Accession No. 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 directed the staff to answer several additional
questions, including: (1) Whether safety culture as applied to reactors
needed to be strengthened; (2) how to increase attention to safety
culture in the materials area; (3) how stakeholder involvement can most
effectively be used to address safety culture for all NRC and Agreement
State licensees and certificate holders, including any unique aspects
of security; and (4) whether publishing the NRC's expectations for
safety culture and for security culture would be best accomplished in
one safety/security culture statement or in two separate statements
while still considering the safety and security interfaces.
In response to Commission direction, the NRC staff reviewed
domestic and international safety-culture-related documents and
considered NRC lessons learned. Additionally, the staff sought insights
and feedback from external stakeholders. This was accomplished by
providing information in a variety of forums, such as stakeholder
organization meetings, newsletters, and teleconferences, and by
publishing questions developed to address Commission direction in the
February 9, 2009, Federal Register notice (FRN) (74 FR 6433) entitled
``Safety Culture Policy Statement Development: Public Meeting and
Request for Public Comments'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML090260709).
In February 2009, the NRC held a public workshop on the
``Development of a Policy Statement on Safety Culture and Security
Culture'' in which a broad range of stakeholders participated,
including representatives from the Agreement States (Meeting Summary:
ADAMS Accession No. ML090930572). The staff developed draft
characteristics (subsequently referred to as ``traits'') of a positive
safety culture and presented them at the workshop. 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. Before providing its recommendations to the
Commission, the staff developed a draft definition of safety culture in
which it modified a definition from the International Atomic Energy
Agency's
[[Page 34775]]
advisory group, the International Nuclear Safety Group, to make it
applicable to all NRC-regulated activities and to address security.
Based on its review and stakeholder feedback, in SECY-09-0075,
``Safety Culture Policy Statement,'' dated May 16, 2009 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML091130068), the NRC staff provided a single draft
safety culture policy statement for Commission approval. The draft
policy statement acknowledged the importance of safety and security,
and the interface of both, within an overarching culture of safety.
Additionally, in response to the Commission's questions, 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 ROP self-assessment process;
(2) described actions taken and planned for increasing attention to
safety culture in the materials area; and (3) described actions taken
and planned for most effectively obtaining stakeholder involvement to
address safety culture, including any unique aspects of security, for
all NRC and Agreement State licensees and certificate holders.
In SRM-SECY-09-0075 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092920099), the
Commission directed the staff to: (1) Publish the draft safety culture
policy statement for no fewer than 90 days; (2) 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 reflects a broad spectrum
of views and provides the necessary foundation for safety culture
applicable to the entire nuclear industry; (3) make the necessary
adjustments to encompass security within the statement; (4) seek
opportunities to comport NRC terminology, where possible, with that of
existing standards and references maintained by those that the NRC
regulates; and (5) consider incorporating suppliers and vendors of
safety-related components in the safety culture policy statement.
C. Development of the Final Policy Statement
On February 2-4, 2010, the NRC held a second safety culture
workshop to provide a venue for interested parties to comment 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, using common terminology, on a definition of safety
culture and a high-level set of traits that describe areas important to
a positive safety culture. The workshop panelists 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, 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 definition of safety
culture and a high-level set of traits describing areas important to a
positive safety culture.
Following the February 2010, workshop, the NRC staff evaluated the
public comments that were submitted in response to the November 6,
2009, FRN (74 FR 57525). 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 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 Second NRC Workshop on Vendor Oversight for New
Reactors, and the Organization of Agreement States Annual Meeting. In
response to Commission direction in SRM-SECY-09-00075, the staff
focused attention on attending meetings involving the Organization of
Agreement States and other materials licensees.
In July 2010, the NRC held a public teleconference with the
panelists who participated in the February 2010, workshop to discuss
the status of outreach activities associated with the development of
the policy statement. At the July 2010, meeting, the panelists
reiterated their support for the definition and traits developed at the
February 2010, workshop as a result of their outreach with their
industry colleagues. This position aligns with the comments the staff
received during the various outreach activities. In September 2010, the
staff held an additional teleconference to provide information on the
initial results of a validation study conducted by INPO, which was
conducted, in part, to see whether and to what extent the factors that
came out of INPO's safety culture survey support the February 2010,
workshop traits. The factors support the traits developed at the
workshop.
Based on its review and stakeholder feedback, the staff published
the revised draft safety culture policy statement (ADAMS Accession No.
ML102500563) on September 17, 2010 (75 FR 57081), for a 30-day public
comment period. Because public comments reflected some misunderstanding
regarding the Commission's use of a policy statement rather than a
regulation or rule, the September 2010, FRN provided clarification,
pointing out that 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 of others; however, they are not
regulations or rules and are not accorded the status of a regulation or
rule within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. The
Agreement States, which are responsible for overseeing their materials
licensees, cannot be 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.
This Statement of Policy has been developed to engage individuals
and organizations performing regulated activities involving nuclear
materials and share the Commission's expectations regarding the
development and maintenance of a positive safety culture.
The NRC held a public meeting in September 2010, in the Las Vegas
Hearing Facility, Las Vegas, Nevada, which was simultaneously broadcast
in the Commission Hearing Room, Rockville, Maryland, and over the
internet via Web streaming in order to allow remote participation. The
goals of the September 2010, FRN and meeting were to provide additional
opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the revised draft policy
statement, including the definition and traits developed at the
February 2010, workshop, and to discuss the information gathered from
the outreach activities that had occurred since the February 2010,
workshop. Additionally, a representative from INPO presented
[[Page 34776]]
information on the validation study INPO conducted as part of INPO's
efforts to help establish a technical basis for the identification and
definition of areas important to safety culture. A member of the Office
of Nuclear Regulatory Research also presented findings related to the
oversight of the INPO study.
II. Public Comments
The November 2009, FRN and the September 2010, FRN generated 76
comments from affected stakeholders and members of the public. The
staff's evaluation concluded that many of the comments were statements
of agreement on the information included in the draft and revised
safety culture policy statements and did not require further action. A
few of the commenters raised issues that the staff considered during
the development of the policy statement, but ultimately concluded that
the issues were either not applicable to the policy statement, for
example, that ``by virtue of its all encompassing applicability, the
policy must be taken as a strategic utterance;'' or either
misunderstood or disregarded the concept of a policy statement in this
application, for example, that a policy statement is ``largely
inadequate for purposes of establishing broad-reaching performance
standards.'' The remaining comments informed the NRC staff's
development of the final policy statement. These were grouped into the
following themes:
1. The NRC should adopt the definition and traits developed during
the February 2010, workshop. This theme encompassed additional comments
indicating that retaining the term ``security'' in the definition and
traits of a positive safety culture may be confusing to many licensees,
particularly materials licensees.
2. The traits from the February 2010, workshop should be included
in the Statement of Policy in order to provide additional clarity as to
its intent.
3. More guidance is needed on the NRC's expectations as to how the
policy statement will be implemented. This encompassed the additional
theme that stakeholders would like to be actively involved in the
process of developing this guidance and that the continued use of
workshops with the various licensees would be helpful.
4. A discussion should be included in the policy statement that
addresses the diversity of the regulated community. Additionally, the
Commission should acknowledge the efforts already underway as the
regulated community addresses the Statement of Policy.
5. How does the NRC plan to ``enforce'' adherence to the policy
statement?
6. Comments on the draft policy statement were generally supportive
of including vendors and suppliers of safety-related components in the
Statement of Policy, but reflected concern about jurisdictional issues,
as well as the impact that including vendors and suppliers in the
Statement of Policy might have on licensees' ability to work with these
entities.
7. During its evaluation of the public comments on the draft safety
culture policy statement, the staff felt that a trait addressing
complacency should be added to the February 2010, workshop traits.
Several months later, the results of an INPO study indicated that the
trait ``Questioning Attitude'' had strong support with operating
nuclear plant personnel. This trait resonated with the staff as an
approach for addressing complacency for all regulated activities. At
the September 2010, public meeting, as part of a larger presentation
providing the results of the INPO validation study, the staff added a
question about whether to include this trait. Additionally, the
September 2010, FRN specifically asked whether complacency should be
addressed in the Statement of Policy. Although the responses to this
question varied, the staff concluded it should be considered in a
positive safety culture and included the concept of complacency in the
Statement of Policy under the trait, ``Questioning Attitude.''
``Questioning Attitude'' is described in the final Statement of Policy
as a culture ``in which individuals avoid complacency and continuously
challenge existing conditions and activities in order to identify
discrepancies that might result in error or inappropriate action.''
This policy statement is being issued after careful consideration
of the staff's evaluation of the public comments received on the
November 2009, and September 2010, FRNs; the public meetings held in
February 2009, and February, July, and September 2010; the views
expressed by stakeholders during the Commission briefing in March 2010;
and the informal dialogue with the various stakeholders during the
staff's additional outreach efforts from the February 2010, workshop
until the second public comment period ended on October 18, 2010.
The following paragraphs provide the specific information that was
used in the development of the final policy statement, including the
changes that were made to the November 2009, FRN:
1. The Statement of Policy adopts the February 2010, workshop
definition and traits of a positive safety culture. The term
``security'' is not included in either the definition or the traits.
The Commission agrees that an overarching safety culture addresses both
safety and security and does not need to single out ``security'' in the
definition. However, to ensure that security is appropriately
encompassed within the Statement of Policy, a preamble to the traits
has been added and the robust discussion of security, including the
importance of considering the interface of safety and security that was
included in the draft Statement of Policy, has been retained in the
Statement of Policy.
2. The Commission agrees that including the traits in the Statement
of Policy will serve to clarify the intent of the policy. The draft
policy statement published in the November 2009, FRN did not include
the characteristics (now described as ``traits') in the actual
Statement of Policy. The staff developed the draft characteristics
based on a variety of sources, including the 13 safety culture
components used in the ROP. The characteristics included significantly
more detail than the traits included in the Statement of Policy. The
staff's basis for the original decision to include the characteristics
in another section of the draft policy statement but not in the actual
draft Statement of Policy was three-fold: first, it would keep the
Statement of Policy brief and concise; second, it would maintain the
Statement of Policy at a high level; and third, it would not invalidate
the characteristics' standing as part of the draft policy statement to
place them in another section of the draft policy statement. The
November 6, 2009, FRN that contained the draft policy statement
specifically requested comments on whether the characteristics should
be included in the Statement of Policy. Some commenters indicated that
they would prefer not to include the traits in the actual Statement of
Policy or that they agree with the original decision to include the
traits in their own section of the policy statement. However, several
commenters indicated that adding the traits to the Statement of Policy
itself would help to clarify the Commission's expectations. Because the
traits in question were developed by the stakeholders at the February
2010, workshop to provide a high-level description of the areas
important to a positive safety culture, the level of detail that was
included in the draft characteristics is not present in the traits.
Thus, even with inclusion of the traits, the Statement of Policy
remains brief and concise; in addition, this approach provides high-
level detail that
[[Page 34777]]
was not in the draft Statement of Policy. Including the traits in the
Statement of Policy rather than as part of the policy statement
visually supports their standing as part of the Commission's
expectation that these are areas that members of the regulated
community should consider as they develop a positive safety culture.
Finally, as the Statement of Policy points out, the list of traits was
not developed for inspection purposes nor does it represent an all-
inclusive list of areas important to a positive safety culture.
3. Implementation is not directly addressed in this policy
statement, which sets forth the overarching principles of a positive
safety culture. This discussion is not included because the Commission
is aware of the diversity of its regulated community (which includes,
for example, industrial radiography services; hospitals, clinics and
individual practitioners involved in medical uses of radioactive
materials; research and test reactors; large-scale fuel fabrication
facilities; as well as operating nuclear power plants and the
construction of new facilities where operations will involve
radioactive materials with the potential to affect public health and
safety and the common defense and security) and recognizes that
implementation will be more complex in some settings than others. The
NRC program offices responsible for licensing and oversight of the
affected entities intend to work with their constituents, who bear the
primary responsibility for safely handling and securing regulated
materials, to address the next steps and specific implementation
issues. Nevertheless, before implementation issues are addressed, the
regulated community can begin assessing their activities to identify
areas for enhancement. For example, industry representatives could
begin to identify tacit organizational and personal goals that, at
times, may compete with a safety-first focus and develop strategies for
adjusting those goals. Some monetary incentive or other rewards
programs could work against making a safe decision. Current training
programs may not address safety culture and its traits or how those
traits apply to day-to-day work activities. Identification of both
strengths and weaknesses related to safety culture in the regulated
community will be helpful in understanding implementation strategies.
4. The final Statement of Policy includes a statement that the
Commission recognizes the diversity of the various organizations that
are included in the Statement of Policy and the fact that some
organizations have already spent significant time and resources in the
development of programs and policies to support a positive safety
culture. The Commission will take these efforts into consideration as
the regulated community addresses the Statement of Policy.
5. Because there seemed to be some questions about the Commission's
use of a policy statement rather than a regulation, the staff provided
a brief discussion of the differences in the September 17, 2010, FRN,
pointing out that policy statements, while not enforceable, guide the
activities of the NRC staff and express the Commission's expectations.
The Commission reiterates the conclusion of the discussion provided in
the September 2010, FRN that while the option to consider rulemaking
exists, the Commission believes at this time, that developing a policy
statement is a more effective way to engage stakeholders.
6. Vendors and suppliers of safety-related components have been
included in this Statement of Policy. A few stakeholders have raised
concerns about how implementation would be carried out, particularly in
cases where vendors and suppliers are located outside of NRC
jurisdiction. However, the Commission believes that vendors and
suppliers of safety-related components should develop and maintain a
positive safety culture in their organizations for the same reasons
that other NRC-regulated entities should do so.
7. The final Statement of Policy adds the trait ``Questioning
Attitude'' to the traits developed at the February 2010, workshop as an
appropriate vehicle for addressing complacency.
III. Statement of Policy
The purpose of this Statement of Policy is to set forth the
Commission's expectation that individuals and organizations 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 includes all licensees,
certificate holders, permit holders, authorization holders, holders of
quality assurance program approvals, vendors and suppliers of safety-
related components, and applicants for a license, certificate, permit,
authorization, or quality assurance program approval, subject to NRC
authority. The Commission encourages the Agreement States, Agreement
State licensees and other organizations interested in nuclear safety to
support the development and maintenance of a positive safety culture,
as articulated in this Statement of Policy.
Nuclear Safety Culture is defined 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. Individuals and organizations performing regulated
activities bear the primary responsibility for safety and security. The
performance of individuals and organizations can be monitored and
trended and, therefore, may be used to determine compliance with
requirements and commitments and may serve as an indicator of possible
problem areas in an organization's safety culture. The NRC will not
monitor or trend values. These will be the organization's
responsibility as part of its safety culture program.
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 both safety
and security in their activities. Safety and security activities are
closely intertwined. While many safety and security activities
complement each other, there may be instances in which safety and
security interests create competing goals. It is important that
consideration of these activities be integrated so as not to diminish
or adversely affect either; thus, mechanisms should be established to
identify and resolve these differences. A safety culture that
accomplishes this would include all nuclear safety and security issues
associated with NRC-regulated activities.
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, schedule,
and the cost of the effort versus safety. It should be noted that
although the term ``security'' is not expressly included in the
following 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 following are traits of a positive safety culture:
(1) Leadership Safety Values and Actions--Leaders demonstrate a
commitment to safety in their decisions and behaviors;
(2) Problem Identification and Resolution--Issues potentially
[[Page 34778]]
impacting safety are promptly identified, fully evaluated, and promptly
addressed and corrected commensurate with their significance;
(3) Personal Accountability--All individuals take personal
responsibility for safety;
(4) Work Processes--The process of planning and controlling work
activities is implemented so that safety is maintained;
(5) Continuous Learning--Opportunities to learn about ways to
ensure safety are sought out and implemented;
(6) Environment for Raising Concerns--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--Communications maintain a focus
on safety;
(8) Respectful Work Environment--Trust and respect permeate the
organization; and
(9) Questioning Attitude--Individuals avoid complacency and
continuously challenge existing conditions and activities in order to
identify discrepancies that might result in error or inappropriate
action.
There may be traits not included in this Statement of Policy that
are also important in a positive safety culture. It should be noted
that these traits were not developed to be used for inspection
purposes.
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. The Commission recognizes the
diversity of these organizations and acknowledges that some
organizations have already spent significant time and resources in the
development of a positive safety culture. The Commission will take this
into consideration as the regulated community addresses the Statement
of Policy.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of June 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-14656 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P