ML100990031

Entergy Nuclear Operations (Entergy): Meeting Presentation 2009 Nuclear Safety Culture Assessment Meeting

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 of the 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 3.9 r..fl ~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 Category co fromENT Decline 2006-9 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 C'Jfeater than 15 Years 4.1t>

4.03 t 1.9'%

-1.4%

I -+7.3 (-4.0)

+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 4.25 4.55 4.18 White Plains (WPO) n/a nfa nla

+1.5% -0.7% +6.2%

4.13 4.54 3.86 pt Vermont Yankee (VTY) 1st 1st

+3.0% +1.0% +4.7%

J. A. Fitzpatrick (JAF) 2nd 3rd 2 nd Bottom Pilgrim (PNPS) 2nd 3 rd Decile Indian Point (I PEG) 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 Industry Metric I STTrend Trend Quartile Trend 3.82 3.65 White Plains (WPO) nJa -3.9%

+0.2% +7.3%

3.72 VennontYankeeCVTY) 1st +3.9%

+15.1%

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 of work 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 of procedures 15