ML100990031
| ML100990031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/2010 |
| From: | Division of Reactor Safety I |
| To: | |
| Trapp J | |
| References | |
| Download: ML100990031 (1) | |
Text
ML100990031 2009 Nuclear Safety Culture Assessment Entergy Presentation to NRC Region I April 13, 2010 1
NRC ORDER EA-09-060 (Palisades)
Task 5 :
Entergy shallllleet with the NRC Regional Adlllinistrators in the three regions in which Entergy owns and operates plants, to discuss the results ofthe safety culture workplace surveys conducted in 2009.
2
Survey Methodology SYNERGY's Standard Cultural Models Nuclear Safety Culture Model (NSC)
Nuclear Safety Values, Behaviors & Practices Safety Conscious Work Environment Employee Concerns Program General Culture & Work Environment (GCWE)
Leadership, Management and Supervision (Abridged) (LMS)
SYNERGY'S Model for INPO Principles SYNERGY'S Model for NRC RIS 2006-13 3
Summary of Results 2009 NSC Response Summary Location Location Total No. Respondents
% Response White Plains Office (WPO) 85 74 87.1%
I Vermont Yankee (VTY) 632 537 85.0%
Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) 1159 811 70.0%
- 1. A. FitzPatrick (JAF) 661 456 69.0%
I Pilgrim (PNPS) 685 382 55.8%
Composite - Entergy Fleet 7561 5656 74.8%
4
Summary of Results
&tergy Nuclear Safety Culture Trends 1999-2009 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 y
- .s 4.1
~
~
4 U
U U
r..fl 3.9
~WPO Z
3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 1999 2002 2004 2006 2009 5
Summary of Results 2009 NSC Composite Cultural Metrics by Fleet Demographics Percent Percent Fleet NSC Variation Improvement I Demographic co fromENT Decline 2006-9 Category Composite (2004-6)
+6.0 (-5.0)
_-+--__.1%
1--2:3.8 (-2.3)
-3.5%
I
+13.0 (-7.8)
.8%
nla
+1.8%
7.6%
+1.7
+3.1
-0.2%
+4.8
+4.7 (-4.0)
-2.7%
3.3~
1 ___.2-6.2 (-3.9)
-0.6 Yo I
+6.5 (-5.6) ears 4.1t> t 1.9'%
I
-+7.3 (-4.0)
C'Jfeater than 15 Years 4.03
-1.4%
+4.9 (-4.9) 6
Scope & Methodology Methodology Update - Rating Criteria
- Measuring site performance acceptability based on comparisons to the industry norms.
D - Top Industry Quartile - "Areas of Strength" (AOS)
- Middle Industry Quartiles - "Areas ofAdequacy I Competency" (AOA)
D Low 3rd Industry Quartile - "Opportunities for Improvement" (OFI)
Bottom Industry Quartile - "Area in Need of Attention" (ANA)
- Bottom Industry Decile - Perceived "Area for Improvement" (AFI) 7
Summary of Results NSC Metrics, Trends & Industry Comparison Summary NSC SCWE ECP Location Metric I Industry Metric I Industry Metric I Industry Trend Quartile Trend Quartile Trend Quartile White Plains (WPO) 4.25
+1.5%
n/a 4.55
-0.7%
nfa 4.18
+6.2%
+3.0%
1st 4.54
+1.0%
1st 3.86
+4.7%
pt J. A. Fitzpatrick (JAF) 2nd 3rd 2nd Bottom 2nd 3rd Pilgrim (PNPS)
Decile Indian Point (IPEG) 3rd 3rd 4th 4.08 4.46 3.87 Composite -- Entergy Fleet nla nla nla
+6.0%
+3.1%
+9.2%
8
Summary of Results GCWE Metrics, Trends & Industry Comparison Summary GCWE Job Satisfaction & Moral Location Metric I Trend Industry Quartile Metric I Trend STTrend White Plains (WPO) 3.82
+0.2%
nJa 3.65
+7.3%
-3.9%
VennontYankeeCVTY) 1st 3.72
+15.1%
+3.9%
Pilgrim (PNPS) 3rd
+0.3%
J. A. Fitzpatrick (JAF) 3rd
-3.5%
Point (IPEC) 3rd
+0.9%
3.71 3.57 Composite - Entergy Fleet nJa
+1.1%
+7.4%
+15.1%
9
SUIDlllary of Opportunities Applicability Area VTY Sufficient Staffing
'/AFI
'/AFI Confidence in Employee Concerns Program Priority 1 & 2 "Industry Norms" Organizations
'/5
'/1
'/4 (No. Priority 1&2 orgs)
No. of NSC Attributes Rated 1/3 0/0 7/10 2/42 as AFls ! ANAs No. of GCWE!LMS Attributes Rated as AFls !
1/16 0/0 0/5 1/12 ANAs 10
Entergy Fleet Actions
- Communication of Results
- Briefings by Synergy
- Site All Hands Meetings
- Department Manager discussion with workers
- Action Planning
- Action Plan guides and templates (consistency)
- Use Corrective Action Program
- Site NSA Directors lead action planning efforts
- Reviewed by VP Oversight - Entergy Fleet
- Periodic status reports to Fleet Management 11
Indian Point Overview
- Notable Improvement Since 2006
- NSC & GCWE are Adequate
- Focus Areas developed based on results
- Action Plans have been developed for Focus Areas and priority departments
- Site Plan focuses on training, communications, and accountability 12
J. A. FitzPatrick Overview
- Nominal Improvement Since 2006
- NSC & GCWE are Adequate
- Focus Areas developed based on results
- Action Plans have been developed for Focus Areas and priority departments
- Site Plan focuses on safety conscious work environment, teamwork, trust, change management, and conduct ofwork 13
Pilgrim Overview
- Nominal Improvement Since 2006.
- NSC & GCWE are Adequate.
- Focus Areas developed based on results
- Action Plans have been developed for Focus Areas (there are no priority departments)
- Site Plan focuses on staffing and work load, Employee Concerns Program, Safety Conscious Work Environment, communications, and use of HU tools 14
Vermont Yankee Overview
- Nominal Improvement Since 2006
- NSC & GCWE are Strengths
- Focus Areas developed based on results
- Action Plans have been developed for Focus Areas and the priority department
- Site Plan focuses on feedback to Condition Report initiators and quality ofprocedures 15