ML20199B457
| ML20199B457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1998 |
| From: | Myers L CENTERIOR ENERGY |
| To: | Beach A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| PY-CEI-OIE-0472, PY-CEI-OIE-472, NUDOCS 9801280282 | |
| Download: ML20199B457 (5) | |
Text
__ __ __
Lo l
\\
Perry Nuclear F er Piant e
F" -
LP" 10 Center Road EE PO Pax 97 PorryONy M061 Lew W Myere 4 4 280 5915 Vice Ihesrdent Fax 44280-8029 January 12,1998 PY-CEl/ ole-0472L pggggygotqqa First !
Secono Mr. A. Ililllleach r
. h RC o
Regional Adm:uistrator, Region til
[i4,,
EtC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[Gf[$ GlP SGA 801 Warrenville Road g gg,, y Lisle,IL 60532 M
PAO Perry Nucle.ar Power Plam ky
=-
Docket No. 50-440 L
/
l Perry Site Visit on December 18,1997 FILE *,_
Dear Mr. Ileach:
o Thank you again for your visit on December 18,1997, and for speaking at our all hands meeting. It was indeed a pleasure and a great time of the year to have your message delivered tc. our staff. I aho appreciated the opportunity to discuss with you the progress we have made at Perry.
As part o conducting these all hands meetings, we solicit feedback to assess and critique cach r
meeting, We specifically requested feedback concerning your presentation at the site meeting and the response was very favorable. I have enclosed a copy of those comments for your infonuation, along with copies of Perry's 1997 accomplishments and 1998 initiatives.
During our discussion with management, we also talked about today's regulatory environment.
Over the holidays I had the opportunity to reflect on our disc'esion. As we direct Perry on its track to excellence, I often review a Safety Culture Model that I borrowed from another utility and shared with my stafflast year. I have enclosed a copy of that model. As we move forward within such nu encompassing safety cuhure,it becomes even more important for us to anticipate problems, be proactive, and become better communicators with our regulators. I thought that this was an excellent document when I found it. I believe that the direction that we are taking when dealing v ith your staffis a result of the Perry use of this model.
I look fonvard to continued discussions with you and your staff, and, again, thank you for sharing the NRC perspective with us. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or conectns.
Sincerely, gh#
Enebsures cc: NRR Project Manager
\\
NRC Resident htspector
))l{[Mhflhlf g,D Document ContTOl Desk
/ V
')'/
,.e.,
9901280282 V80112 ADOCR 050 0
gDR JAN 16 9
Replies fr:m q esti:nnrira r:g:rding 12/18 Sita Meeting cnd in p:rticul:r Mr.
. Beach's comments.
Sixty two resporpes were received and reviewed. A summary of the responses follows:
Regarding the meeting:
- 1. 26 positive comments such as " good, positive, well received, worthwhile, o pen communications, teamwork, informative, well presented, OK, Mr. Schrauder did an admirabs job as MC, subject i..rJ.ter better than past meetings, upbeat, liked the meeting, a good lead into the holidays."
- 2. Three negative comments such as "not worth having..., boring and a waste of time..., unfulnlling..."
Regarding meeting length:
- 1. 16 positive comments
- 2. O negative comments Regarding Mr. Beach's comments:
- 1. 45 positive or neutral comments such as:
" comments were good and gave good insight, interesting to hear his perspective, e
Perry len a positive impression with Mr. Beach (plant material condition and proactive e
operators) drove home reason for constant self assessment and evaluation e
added a human side to the NRC, e
great that a key NRC person talked to us, e
content was good, infomiative e
gave a good perspective of the NRC's role, e
I liked the message, direct and to the point, e
delivered the NRC's new expectation and position e
positive..., interesting..., nice..., useful..., hopeful..., enjoyable..., excellent...,
e a good message for us to hear, Perry's communication with the NRC has improved I was impressed Pleasing to the car 0
Glad he took the time to speak e
Good idea to go over the expectations Opportunity to get his perspective on the industry Sent a good message from the NRC
- 2. - Five r.cgative comments such as: " presented a gloomy picture of nuclear power generation, not well prepared, e little grim, low key, didn't tell me anything I didn't already know."
Other general comments Could not hear Beach's comments from the back rows.
Keep up the good human relationship and personnel contact.
References to denominations and seating preferences were not well received.
Suggestions for other speakers:
INPO speaker for the next meeting?
A keynote speaker for each meeing (two per year).
1
Replies from questionnaire regarding 12/18 Site Meeting and in p;rticul:r Mr.
, Beach's comments.
Continued.
. - - Someone from Akron to explain their vision of Perry in the new FirstEnergy Company.
Expert on the effect of bus bar cost on CEl/FirstEnergy and the open market, Expert on the effects of deregulation.
e SMT were believable, covered correct material and were able to convey a vision of where they
.want Perry to be in the future.
Only present infonnation that is important to the audience and remember what may be important to e
upper management isn't always viewed with the same interest at the worker level.
I think Lew should have been recognized by the SMT for his role in making the plant organization realize what we are really capable of.
Having Bill Beach here is very good PR for FirstEnergy and Perry.
I would like a printed copy of Mr. Beach's presentation.
e I wondered if Mr. B.'s words regarding continuing to be self critical and this not affecting our SALP scores will be communicated throughout the NRC organization.
After Mr. B.'s speech, the focus should have been on nuclear safety versus economical goals.
. Prefer hard facts concerning Perry's profitability, future stafting, future orgamzation.
I hope we taped this message, I would like a copy for future use.
Question for Mr. B. "What is the NRC's perspective of competition and how (if any) would its role change in a co apetitive environment (recogniziag that if nuclear energy is not competitive, his agency'sjob is considerably reduced.
Would like to hear more about what is in store in the near future for Perry at these meetings.
is the NRC getting cancemed about the forecast stafling levels at nuclear power plants?
Beach and Myers should have discussed the content of their presentations so they could paint a e
somewhat unified picture, (Positive picture - Myers) (Gloomy picture - Beach)
~
More dynamic s isual aids (multiniedia, music, fiashing one liners and picture for our accornplishments, Several people were happy to be asked for feedback.
e A
2-
4 aa- ' aw maw DRAFT
.).
THE SAFETY CULTURE MOlsEL ll!Gil Stage One - SAfiTY MANAGEMENT IS DETERMINED BY REGl'LATIONS OR RULES um n,au There a httle awarenew of behawar and attit*=t aspects of safety r.L,- and imee w:nonrien i. con e&r such iese Stage Teo - GOOD SAFETY PERTORMANCE BfCOMES AN ORGANIZA' lONAL GOAL An organization at this stage has a -- _ ---- system that perceives safety perferrnance as importait even in the absence of regutanary (c
pressure. Akhcagh there is a groweg anweness of behavioral issues, this aspect is largely missing imm safety management methods that
[
f focus pnmarily on technical armi procedural 6Junans. Theorganizanon begms so look as =by safety performance has reached a placents and is willmg so seek tfie advice of other orWe=e
. 5 um n-o
/
RJ Stage Ihree - S AFETY PERFORMANCE CAN ALWAYS BE IMPROVFD sc An organization at stage thee hee adopted the idea ofcontinuos ;.....u.a and applied the cmcept to safety pedmnante. As is the case for other ;..,, maos, there is a strong emphasis on safety, cornmunicuions, training, cfriciency, and efkttneness.
" ',P -
Everyone i i the organizatson contributes. Behasiors can be observed within the organization that enable ;..sm 4.,~e to take place and there are recognized behaviors that act as a barner to ;-vm..~.L Ce%-4.peopic imderstand the impact of
.I behavneral issues on safety.
-I
- filG!!
CULTURE I
a tem s tu two nha neau e
e.,e
- see, men: _
_ sed ee.r esteede - ere.eeeed se -
e es
. eum _
med em.onde _
m mesome vee.e -
_ _ e.e d u,od ee__
e e.d comer, esee a e seeme,ee appeert ehese mese e aereed essende,
e me.
- pr=nerdy en d.yway
. em smeer hoger eens em pehmme reeer eben seempen es.
e me__
men eerungeone h. see se me aseger A,ree se sem ese es e
Esr= esehnes seesomees a am pauseme; h pahe,me end desh me meer esame hees,e mee 6=pree
. em se e edeeroores sh, heesese - _
and e spas,ses e
-^
__. : sed e_
edome mLwet e
me_
oud.
. esop.eesse end ip
_ M soevermoseeresepere ^
sedsey, emeek and predermee ese emme se sempsenog dereers; people eseh ehes sedesy poemessee seJ etuskong med essenen e more so..
ebes soisee..
,. end ase n. ^. ehese es e
e mesmo higher onese med Rose prederhoe se eesseedeog eseomre der sedney en om armessenes people see e=ese of ee hopersease of seEsey or emet,
med holy
_ end ewemeesse; "
we made end e.,estos met een h_ _ _ etsheer estem empeee ee _
h
_-opea ebene hereeg 6e= esh.se.esponemy o
ese mwh -
_ er seereeng sende se seemede she _
_ edern a eser og e,e.e ashe,e, heet emesse med eseede she __
. h e aend: she
=
e paesem whenermeemed med hees prerece-essessemy este too shage ese he deee heemse heteese '_,_
. and imeeseene se med e
r- ^
" and = "
^ esame end e
end semer the emed der '- ___ esseng ;,_
_ end o
' fineremose behave me rz:
ensaug omedhree are ese remebed, deposemene
. eseSere to desserhang sad '
_,_ to che emme of -
6 W ehey poseene
- eseded and *
- est eerb emer; esemeeres de meek assear
.. fossees se esen med begie se. _ -
-and foersessed derimenee people she make messekse am sesepey Remed for sheer festees to sempey eseh valse "o
es mesenhos a se pas more essereth,,.
, and ehe.
.- se eederassed shee bee "
whee e meneste e e
e et peersdurest ehere le hielr eflert es deteronome esse emesse ereseeng as plaes; these h a teser Isee b5 eems moede reeer shes and someone se hassee
. she ech of
. - is sese se appewg - _
seet se e
___7. pete e esse es eenchet and goedeng peeph end peorese se emprove peepes see eenerded see end resehe esgardamse of toeg earm.
e managemene by ob)mes& wee e_._
. people seeeveyereed eed esamed for sheer eenertestos
^
e po par we esamed as eyesen
. dodeed med esamed enha, en norme of m. esperesee se men e, esseed she, sere,. -_
gash 6 peeph are she,ue,= per.
=
_ end onesyend se ese -
^
whee me, de eewarded Ser
-. geele eagerdhes of she toeg-eare ehes tempreme Imag erar~-
. ese he made a
e eben e a seeas -
- of she empees of enkered eme* in the wert pense; peopte ese emere of to impees of eekered menos med ebene ese " _ __
. _ em she a heek er es sweeenese of eart,.
^
e e
e peepeo de see sederessed eshy added senerete de ese yesed the espected swee01. in hoy * '. ehe treef of _
ef behooseral med essendemed homes to high, somey per-end meessee e enhoe se -
6 aedsoedest behoweare
-merene med bederen, sed gy
s
&Auwa m:
n DRAFT QUESUONS ")N SAFETY CULTURE I. -. e.riear s.sny pehey and pearine.
Defenome of =
-y u.a _ es - _.
raehe pervwe.e h, -
._a um a amiew way posny marmens beca==ed' h a He et mpanee y of du phs manage few mactem e
Do man manhm mognen em am les ufwy ansede n Whm a se working myte si er wear upm=ws on shat' cteur' ikes Gw potry esprevs the owereding neenf for safm been clearty smed and acceperd' is there a clear empanaus a der wieosen med pemensam of managm' How en Are they we5 miemned* Do Aey
==est en areas mantees safay*
Ime of revonshiery far vescour safeey from the CEo to se this recognetaan faserved' whree enfreyetmed =crk a hems enne' Am they 7
(fos as thes pohey beceaght to the Waff"g spentes shift superwaar' e
De annual performarme appranals enctisde feedhed en uttsesor meeremed se the farab4nos or de thry engdeenae the perioecaHP e
Are the documents em edesssfy sa'cey mponsAdnaes kep toward eurtear safery?
echedma' Are manatcrs and workers Te a weh she safey pohey
=
up so dme and reviewed perndmany wah key %
Can cases be adentifad a witmeti eutleer safety arrande was a De aseddle snanagers make feehw=4 mapensons of the e
and cas nan ps=e esampass thm illesrase its meanes' su hiding te sW sospeevuor*
sagnefacamur facent m asigeovens av reyrcemg a prcenessen to condsce of safevetased was for wheda they are Does the corporase board have espemme as nuclear plans e
g-
_ lewef' senconeMe' safety and do board mertags mis.hede agenda sesns ce thws i e plant message perseducaNy shwewe the condwet of e
nuclear safery*
Is there an actsvir effsne enclear safety eryww ccmmmee afev-setased werk* De sensne meanage's swa the plant e
whah separts fedmgs a se corpneme leveP segolarty? De shrt g*ve anentene so sofm spaners' h wfnytelmal espeapmem scumed so wwwe e an e
Are the fewistcc requeentres for the sa(ety functsan e
severwed ar-6 tty a corporare fewef' W th whm espedemira seanner*
Ones supmsene meen equersnent defwsencers en the
=
eesuks?
I emment seggme for isspects en outleer esfe%9 Itew= of eartru ufMy puformasu Anwedesof maeagers Ae'pedesof andpedeets f brs meesat and ermas.an "tanseg tsdneenate en formal e
Does senene utanagentent reweve regels seseres of the e
Whee them as aparent conflect between ufsty and cost er e
Ase staff aware of the meanagessem cosasemnene to as=essmese of quet#wetwa and approbal for chases? What autieur safety perfsenance of the plant, em hadmg herween safety and cperatum. de snanagen &eceus cremhstaan of empevmg mectrar safery' se the wcsewhhra suceed9 ceniparisons wsth the performance of other mesdear plants' the conflect wdh staff members' Can pmcomet sense em en whch sa'ren smghs he Are sufktese resources allocaed to trummg* a the Ase the venstes of newlear safety severws acted oss en a e
Arc the schededes and consem of work far wfiselmg outapes sweprinted by thee own L
- artwas er by unhee e
qualWy of tremeg pogf ams assessed as coryerme and tum 4y way? Is there feedback to managers on the enarM usmg as meernal safety semen geocess' wortog a eetmed mem' plans --,
a levets*
unplemeritasum of lesseets learneJ' Can magers adessafy mhre safety -
_ ensredwe a delay se the sqanup of a Does era 87 usedeveand ere..
%.es*
e h there a feriodw rewwe of the aphcabday, cervectarns changes thm eewhed from reveres' plant, do
.. ww the occmas te dientme 1bs safety Can operateg and mannemance perwneet ducens vecent and sewks of tramme cou'nes, enctodes operatmg Dnes the staff soutmety send and andmtand repa 3 en connes fnsr' votatmos of piant operswig hesrA descree the e=ent espceieiice feedbad' operang esperience' h operatog espersense enfermataan Durmg periods of heavy work 4aed, do
,. ensure that happear
- and stare w4iat has been ensee op psevene e
A e produdause wquirements permmed to swerfere wah placuf m a turm (report, traaimg, cme seedy, prete esaff are vemmM dist anwwcessary hame and shnrtrues are rec seesme?
scheduled manamig' terfmgs, ces ) approprune to she work lesel destgaared se mappsoprime' the arrende e, endivusesh.ake sowanh thew own
=
f4 staff memhm umterstand the signsficance of the recerte a' e
De naamagm regularly dessemmate rele=mu nedrar safey mesiskes phas eneght geepedice safety' Whar neund an opessmg temas of Ae paarn an thew areas of Is there a syssern of safety performance endecaers enth a sformmenn such as chpectrues,--_
, ___ L and eyerator.
. techneraan, er meerment de d a o
Mey* Are the staffedutmed as the safety psograrn for the emprovemens of performance? Are the shescuenengs? Do star: agers dnmemmate to thew snaff the followeg a wrmeen proemfare he canic apus a usep ther te cesnequences at plant tranuents?
safety performarus andmahms underssand by stafP lessnes learned Skeen empereence m their ewe and sandar plants' hienght was e erwr' Are staff traened am the specnot empwtance of fe4lowmg Are managm aware of the trends of msdear safety is there a svaren for bruges safetyclared sencerns er e
Does the staff ow the nieshmeemms for sepo*g on enferv
' pecahares and regularty resnaede t' Ase they tramed an performance mdumors and the wanems for the trends?
pneental _, _ to the artentam of bgher management' shnricornegs and wwwier ervers and for toggesteg the safety basn of procedures' nha arrangemesws esem far seportsng safetywimed events is ds ow encouraged by managm' Do -.. mpred
..;# De etaff reipved serrsfarscrdy to the ran tramang vraff cae enamples of opermes emes shat at ttk plant
- h there a fannal means for evaluatmg such sartsfactordy? Are are&vaduals wito eamana sucs concerns mwcwigation of safety pet 4ces, menemg effectswely a e
have eewhed m anod4fumeans to a trammig program?
events for lessone tramed' wwsrded and gn=en pobisc eccogneson?
seekmg the canars and emplemcwmg
__s.'
he control renen opermort does contmums asamg on that are the arends for the amnber of outsiandmg a
Rhet to the aristuda of
,..en safety revsees and andes Ase control veran maff waarheut, questamms, ano alert at e
the smeutatos fador m the difficuhsrs that staff have defitengsen, temporary modifsratens er operurweg manuais affectag eeer acnremes' Do they discues =tsh thew staff the all temes' espersented and questants they have rassed' en need of fevanson?
8esidts and the erans by whe:h drfecsencers snav be conecord' Does the staff make effeetrwe ese of rammg eypwnesws' f or mairnenance personnet, does tramesng make use of o
Does the plant manaqrer hold permd.c snecrungs enh has Do maanagers grwe publer secognmeno to staff members she take Dnes she esff seep thmk med eequem sapsevenary assavance e
mod mes ar.d other preparations before a complex scenar staff regardmg performance
- Do thesu uneenags actions benefactat so safety? % hat a the respame af wisen faceng an unenpezied sauetwan' mounenmece actevey as pedernied r cower safay segmficant uenos at 6.m plam er er other management to welarsons of safeyefsted archmcal
- Are tremed emistasm mo&fummes made as soon as
'"d'88try Plants?
ipecifetaricas?
Ma is he armede of man m @ wend W De
.. partenpaar m sta87 wasnet courses a whsch safevy affert ng thew area of work? How ersponswe are ecy to h there a swseem for reportmg warter errors? How as it g
e g.4e deg me phnt u modifwd,
,,,,,g,7 made know, se maff*
snerses and geocedmes are esplamest' Do thry follon the De systems of remard enclude factnri r&tmg to nuclear erammg of &er staff and are they aware of derw trameg earms e
safay performance?
and leweh of abdary? Do managers anderge seurammg in nuclear safety ensores' De managers stwe anenrica se tiie physacal wortsng envense.ncser'
l l
IIIGil Stage One - SAFETY MANAGEMI There is little awareness of behasior:
STAGE TilREE Stage Two - GOOD SAFETY PERF An organization at this stage has a in y
pressure. Although there is a growin O
f cus primarily on technical and proc h
STAGE TWo willing to seek the advice of other or
- C W
CD Stage Three - SAFETY PERFORf An organi:rstion at singe three has
~
the case for other improvements, t STAGE Everyone. the organizat. ion conti oNE.-
m place and there are recognized beh behavioral issues on safety.
> 111G11 CULTURE i
STAGE ONE STAGE T1 regnistory driven; regulators and other outside groups are treated as adversaries the relationship with regulators and outsidi e
close; there is a cautious approach where tr react to problems rather than me icipate them e
the organization concentrates primarily nn o
term thinking there is an adversarial relationship between management and employees relationship between management and emp e
little trust or respect demonstrated production end economics dominate thinking and actions a
safety, costs, and production are seen as con e
means higher costs and less production not much listening or learning inside or outside the organization; adopts a e
the organization is somewhat open about lei e
defensive posture when criticized techniques and best practices coatmunications between departments and runctions is minimal; departments and e
management encourages cross-departments a
functions behave as semi-autonomous units; conflicts are not resolved; departments communications; conflict is disturbing and anJ functions compete with each other; teamwork is weak senler managers function as term and begir functional decisions people who make mistakes are simply blamed for their failure to comply with ruL.
e management's response to mistakes is to pu e
or procedures; there is little efrort to detcrmine root causes training Inylace; there is a little less blamin people are rewarded for obedience and results regardless oflong term consequences the role of management is seen as applying e
management by objectives people are viewed as system components; defined and valued solely in terms of e
it is important to meet or esceed short-term e
what they do rewarded for ereceding goals regardless ofI there is little or no awareness of work processes e
there is a growing awareness of the impact <
e people do not understand why added contrc g
safety performance
FT TURE MODEL A%S c
APER.
ST IS DETERMINED I!Y REGULATIONS OR RULES Ob l and attitudinal aspects of safety performance and little willingness to consider such issues.
g ga Aperture Card
)RMANCE IlECOMES AN ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL nagement system that perceives rafety performance as important even in the absence of regulatory
- awareness of behavioral issues, this aspect is largely missing from safety management methods that edural solutions. The organization begins to look at why safety performance has reached a plateau and is
- anizations.
IANCE CAN ALWAYS 13E IMPROVED idopted the idea of continuos improvement and applied the concept to safety performance. As is iere is a strong emphasis on safety, communications, training, efficiency, and effectiveness.
butss. llehaviors can be observed within the organization that enable improvements to take iviors that act as a barrier to improvement. Consequently, people understand the impact of
'O STAGE TilREE nrganizations is distant rather than collaborative relationships are developed between the organitralon, regulators, and a
'st is earned outside organizations lay-t> day matters; there is little leiger the organization arts strategically with a focus on the longer term as well was an o
awareness of the present;it anticipater problems and deals with their causes before they happen nyees CJ somewhat adversarial, with the relationship between management and employees is respectful and suppc,rtive e
4 peting factors; people think that safety there is recognition that safety, reliability, and economics are interrelated; there is e
an overriding concern for safety in all activities; people are aware of the importance of safety or work processes and help mausge and refine them; decisions are made and are taken with full knowledge of their safety impact ruing from others, especially learning from others, both inside and outside the organtration,is valued; the e
organization cJathumily asks how things can be done better and cross-functional teams and e
employees recogalte and state the need for collaboration amor.g departments and encouraged la the name of teamwork; functions; they receive management support needed to coordinate departmental and M controls, procedures, and the organization attempts to understand what has happened when a mistake is e
med. Mther than find someone to blame lausgement techniques such as management's role is sees as coaching and guiding people and process to improve e
performance people are respected and valued for their contribution meformance goals; people are short-term performance is measured and ana8yres so that changes can be made e
ne long term consequences that improve lon;. term performance
'culturalIsae in the work piece; people are aware of the impact of culturalissues and these are factors considered in e
n do not yleid the expected results la key decisions; the level of awareness of behavioral and attitudinalissues is high, and measure are taken to improve organizational norms and leadership and ladividual behaviors 9te mro.tv2-O f
q l
i DRA QUESTIONS ON SA Corporate nuclear safety policy and practices Definition of responsibil:ty lias a nuclear safety policy statement been issued? Is it e
lias the responsibiiity of the plant manager for nuclear e
clear? Does the policy express the overriding need for safety been clearly stated and t.ecepted? Is there a clear nuclear safety?
line of responsibility for reactor safety from the CEO to the flow is this policy brought to the staft's attention shift supervisor?
e periodically?
Are the documents that identify safety responsibilities kept Are managers and workers familiar with the safety policy up to date and reviewed periodically with key managers, and can staff give examples th.t illustrate its meaning?
including the shift supervisor?
Does the corporate board have expertise in nuclear plant e
refety and do board meetings include agenda items on nuclear safety?
Is there an active offsite nuclear safety review committee which reports findings at the corporate level?
Are the resource requirements for the safety function e
reviewed periodically at corporate level? With what results?
Training Review of nuelcar safety performance Does initial and critical training culminate in formal e
Does senior management receive regular reviews of -
e assessment of qualifiution and approval for duties? What nuclear safety performance of the plant, includmg is the success / failure record?
comparisons v*ith the perfornunce of other nuclear plants?
Arc sufficient resources allocated to training? Is the Are the results of nuclear safety reviews acted on in a e
quality of training programs assessed at corporate and timely way? Is there feedback to mar. agers on the plant management levels?
implementation oflessons learned? Can managvs identify is there a periodic review of the applicability, correctnes; changes that re<ulted from reviews?
e p
and results of training courses, including operating Does the stafTroutinely read and understand reports on experience feedback?
operating experience? Is operating experience information.
Are production requirements permitted to interfere with placed in a form (report, training, case tudy, pre-job scheduled training?
br efings, etc.) appropriate to the work level designated to i
Do staff members understand the significance of the receive it?
e operating limits of the plant in their areas of Is there a system of safety performance indicators with a responsibihty? Are the staff educated in the safety program for the improvement of performance? Are the consequences of plant transients?
safety performance indicators understood by staft?
Are staff trained in the special importance of following e
Are managers aware of the trends of nuclear safety procedures and regularly reminded? Are they trained in performance indicators and the reasons for the trends?
the safety basis of procedures?
What arrangements exist for reporting safety-related events e
Can training statf cite examples of operating errors that at the plant? Is there a formal means for evaluating such e
have resulted in modifications to a training program?
events for lessons learned?
For control room operators, does continuing training on e
What are the trends for the number of outstanding the simulator factor in the difficulties that staff have deficiencies, temporary modifications or operating manuals experienced and questions they have raised?
in need of revision?
For maintenance personnel, does training make use of e
Does the plant manager hold periodic meetings with his mock-ups and other preparations before a complex senior staff regarding performance? Do these meetings maintenance activity is performed?
cover safety significant items at that plant or at other
- Are training simulator modifications made as soon as industry plants?
is there a system for reporting worker errors? Ilow is it possible when the plant i: modified?
e made known to staft?
Do systems of reward include factors relating to nuclear e
safety perfonnance?
t
_j
ANSTEC T
APERT C CARL STY CULTURE
.m
._,,e-lection of managers Field supervision by management
- '" " Cr5 Do staff members recognize that nuclea~ safety attitude is What is the working style of the senior krbo$ on sk11 ift?
Important in the selection and promotion of managers? Ilow is Are they well informed? Do they routinely visit the areas this recognition fostered?
where safety-related work is being done? Are they Do annual performance appraisals include feedback on attitude interested in the problems or do they emphasize the toward nt. clear safety?
schedule?
Can cases be identified in which nuclear safety attitude was a Do middle managers make first-hand inspectionr of the e
significant factor in approving or rejecting a promotion to conduct of safety-related work for which they are management level?
responsibic?
Does the pht manager periodically observe the conduct of safety-related work? Do senior managers visit the plant regularly? Do they give attention to safety matters?
ls safety related equipment returned to service in an expeditious manner?
Does supervision review equipment deficiencies in the aggregate for impacts on nuclear safety?
titudes of managers Attitudes ofindividuals When the e ;s apparent conflict between safety and cost or Are staff aware of the management commitment to between safety and operation, do managers discuss resolution of improving nuclear safety?
the conflict with staff members?
Can personnel state ways in which safety might be Are the schedules and untent of work for refueling outages prejudiced by their own erroneous actions or by others evamined using an internal safety review process?
working in related areas?
When safety considerations introduce a delay the startup of a Does staff understand their responsibilities?
e plant, do managers use the occasion to illustrate that safety Can operating and maintenance personnel discuss recent comes first?
violations of plant operating limits, describe the event During periods of heavy work load, do managers ensure that happened and state what has been done to prevent staff are reminded that unnecessary haste and shortcuts are recurrence?
inapprnpriate?
What attitude do individuals take towards their own Do managers regularly dissemine'e relevant nuclear safety mistakes that might prejudice safety? What would an inform; tion such as objectives, accomplishments and operator, maintenance technician, or instructor do if in shortcomings? Do managers disseminate to their stafT the following a written procedure he came upon a step that he lessons le rned from experience at their own and similar plants?
thought was in error?
Is there a syste n for bringing safety-related concerns or Does the staff use the mechanisms for reporting on safety potential improvements to the attention of higher management?
shortcomings and worker errors and for suggesting is i s use encouraged by managers? Do managers respond improvements? Do staff respond satisfactorily to the t
satisfactorily? Arc individuals who transmit such concems investigation of safety problems, assisting effectively in tewarded and given public recognition?
seeking the causes and implementing improvements?
What is the attitude of managers to safety reviews and cudits Are cont ol room staff watchful, questioning, and alert at affecting their activitics? Do they discuss with their stafYthe all times?
results and the means by which deficiencies may be corrected?
Does the staff make effective use of training opportunit:es?
Do managers give public recognitica to staff members who take Does the staff stop, think and request supervisory assistance ections beneficial to safety? What is the response of when facing an unexpected situation?
n.anaget ient to violittions of safety-related technical What is the attitude of staff to safety reviews and audits specifications?
affecting their area of work? How responsive are they to Do managers participate in staff training courses at which safety mprovements socght as a result?
policies and procedures are explained? Do they follow the tr:ining of their stafrand are they aware of their training status and levels of ability? Do managers undergo retraining in
- uclear safety matters?
Do managers give attention to the physical working
_ environment?
91ro /21 rom 2- 02
_