4.0 Summary of Major Review Topics, DCISC 15th Annual Report - July 1, 2004 thru June 30, 2005
4.5 Health and Safety Conscious Work Environment
4.5.1 Overview and Previous Activities
The foci of Health and Safety Conscious Work Environment are twofold: 1) the health of the individual employee, and 2) safety as the context and requirement for all DCPP Employees. Included in this area are all health related issues and actions. This section also focuses on safety as a contextual requirement.
In previous periods the DCISC reviewed the following:
- Review of the DCPP Safety Conscious Work Environment Survey
- Safety Culture
- Meeting with Director of Nuclear Quality & Licensing
- Employee Concerns Program
- Operator Fitness & No Solo Status
During previous reviews PG&E appeared conscious about monitoring and improving employee health and its safety conscious work environment. The organization makes operator fitness a priority, even with the aging workforce, and had reduced the number of “no solos.”
The DCPP employee concerns program was active and focused, and there were no fitness for duty problems and they continued to man its capable on-site medical center.
4.5.2 Current Period Activities
During the current period (2004-2005) the DCISC reviewed the following Health and Safety Conscious Work Environment items:
- Employee Concerns Program (ECP) Update
- Plant Morale
- Plant Morale and Employee Concerns Program (ECP)
- Safety Culture
Employee Concerns Program (ECP) Update
The DCISC received an update of the Employee Concerns Program (ECP) during the September 21, 2004 Fact-finding (Volume II, Exhibit D.3, Section 3.1) from Mr. Rick Burnside, Manager of the DCPP ECP.
Mr. Burnside identified the allegations received by the ECP and noted that there was no significant change in the number and types of employee concerns identified in 2003 and 2004.
Despite a number of organizational challenges in the last 36 months, including bankruptcy of PG&E, DCPP has held steady in the relatively low number of employee concerns and the severity of employee concerns identified. This is a positive sign.
Plant Morale
The DCISC reviewed the area of Plant Morale during the September 21, 2004 Fact-finding (Volume II, Exhibit D.3, Section 3.1). This review was based upon the observations of Mr. Rick Burnside, as Manager of the DCPP Employee Concerns Program (ECP), acknowledging that he has a lot of interaction with employees at all levels, and a good overview of the organization. Mr. Burnside observed that in general, plant morale at DCPP was flat and could possibly even go down, citing a number of possible contributions based upon the challenges faced by the plant during 2004.
Mr. Burnside further noted that DCPP was very good in the technical arena, but needed to improve its understanding and management of human performance. He further observed that it would be valuable for DCPP leadership to get “closer in touch with the people,” achieve as much buy-in to the changes and improvements as possible, and all around, improve the “engagement of people.”
Mr. Burnside also noted that there was not an overall and coordinated strategy to address “people issues,” to coordinate and integrate the “softer side” of operating a plant to include human performance, change management, safety culture, and leadership.
Mr. Burnside also noted the specific area of the INPO mid-cycle report as not being positive enough to improve the morale at DCPP. He believed that people were disappointed in the lack of progress in the areas that had been previous identified by WANO as areas for improvement.
PG&E believed that at that time, the DCPP “morale” appeared to be flat and could face decline over the next year. Factors that influence morale include: first line management; the intensity of activities, lack of sufficient progress on areas for improvement, duration, and length of outage; and general lack of “buy in,” created among the workforce.
Plant Morale and ECP
The DCISC had another opportunity to review the Employee Concerns Program (ECP) in conjunction with plant morale at the February 15, 2005 Fact-finding (Volume II, Exhibit D.7, Section 3.1) again, with Mr. Rick Burnside, Manager ECP
Mr. Burnside concluded that morale was improving due to the coaching being given to the Vice President, Directors, and Managers, as well as the leaderships’ interaction with the workforce.
Mr. Burnside also reported on The Employee Concerns Program (ECP) Self-Assessment that had been completed since our last interview. The preliminary feedback from the Self-Assessment indicated that the ECP was proactive, with well-qualified people. It also provided some areas for improvement.
The Diablo Canyon Power Plant Premier Survey results of December 2004 were also provided during this Fact Finding. This survey was administered between August 30th and September 15th, 2004 to all 19,702 PG&E Employees. For a review of the response and findings, see the February 15th, 2005 Fact-finding Report as Referenced above.
DCPP has incorporated their responses for the 2004 Premier Survey, into the DCPP Performance Plan 2005 (for additional information see section 3.6 of the February 15, 2005 Fact-finding Report). The results of the Premier Survey are also being used as a forum for work group conversations in an effort to facilitate an organizational effort to align performance with ECP.
The interview with Mr. Burnside concluded with a short discussion of Safety Culture. Regarding whether safety culture should “live” in the Employee Concerns Program, Mr. Burnside concluded, that is where safety culture was currently housed, but he did not know if that was the best location for safety culture at DCPP.
An additional update on the Employee Concerns Program (ECP) was provided by Mr. Burnside at the June 1-2, 2005 Public Meeting (Volume II, Exhibit B.9). Included was a review of the NRC statistics for employee concerns, the number of employee contacts with the ECP, investigations resulting form those contacts and investigations with elements of discrimination (from 2001 forward). Mr. Burnside confirmed since 2001 there has been an increasing trend at DCPP in employee contacts with the ECP, which Mr. Oatley opined may be seen as an indication of employee confidence in the ECP.
Mr. Burnside stated the ECP seeks feedback from employees raising concerns regarding the employee’s level of satisfaction with the ECP and provides alternate avenues to raise concerns within PG&E outside the ECP context if an employee is dissatisfied with the EP’s attempt to resolve a concern.
Mr. Burnside also reported on the Self-Assessment of the ECP performed during 2005.
DCPP is working to identify and address employee concerns. The ECP Coordinator demonstrates initiative and concern for safety culture, employee morale, and specific employee concerns.
According to the DCPP ECP Self Assessment, the preliminary results are positive.
It appeared that the results of the Premier Survey are being utilized to generate awareness and conversation among the work groups.
Safety Culture
The DCISC reviewed the area of Safety Culture during the September 21, 2004 Fact-finding (Volume II, Exhibit D.3, Section 3.1). The Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE), and the measurement of SCWE is handled by the Employee Concerns Program (ECP). The DCISC met with Mr. Rick Burnside, Manager of the DCPP Employee Concerns Program for this discussion.
Mr. Burnside observed that DCPP “assumes that everyone knows what safety is and supports it,” but has placed little focus per se, on either defining safety culture or measuring safety culture.
Mr. Burnside had recently participated in a “safety culture” assessment performed at another nuclear power plant and he shared with the Committee an overview of the assessment and provided DCISC with a copy of the Interview Protocol used in the Plant Safety Culture Self- Assessment.
Mr. Burnside has written an Action Request (AR) to document his experience using this Safety Culture Assessment. He believes that DCPP should do a similar assessment of safety culture. He mentioned that he would be willing to develop and present a program on Safety Culture for DCPP Employees.
DCPP has examined safety culture in the past through the use of a Synergy Survey, which resulted in the “WE Culture”. The DCISC believes that DCPP plans, in 2005, to do a Safety Culture Assessment.
DCPP recognizes that safety culture is an important issue. It was encouraging to see the Manager of the Employee Concerns Program (ECP) assume some responsibility for safety culture at DCPP.
Meeting with New Vice-President of Nuclear Services on Safety Culture
The DCISC met with Donna Jacobs, Vice-President of Nuclear Services at the May 4, 2005 Fact-finding meeting (Volume II, Exhibit D.10, Section 3.14) to discuss her philosophy of nuclear safety culture.
Ms. Jacobs said she had background in nuclear safety culture, and she would work with the organization to build on the existing foundation of nuclear safety. Dave Oatley had asked her to be accountable for safety culture at DCPP. To her, safety culture is how one acts in taking responsibility, and a healthy safety culture exhibits a pro-activeness in looking at issues and having a questioning attitude.
Ms. Jacobs has developed a class on nuclear safety culture, predicated upon the INPO document, “Nuclear Safety Culture,” and the nine attributes identified in that document. This class is being offered to Officers, Directors, and Managers first. Time would also be spent searching out what other people have done in the area of nuclear safety culture to ensure DCPP was among the best in class.
DCPP has adopted the INPO definition of safety culture, and Donna Jacobs, Vice-President Nuclear Services is the plant officer accountable for safety culture at DCPP. She has initiated an INPO-based class on nuclear safety culture and is benchmarking the industry to adopt best practices. This is a positive step, and the DCISC should closely monitor activities and progress in this area, including whether DCPP will utilize a safety culture assessment.
4.5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
- Conclusions:
- DCPP recognizes that safety culture is an important issue. Responsibility for leading safety culture has been assigned to Donna Jacobs, VP of Nuclear Services. DCPP uses the INPO safety culture definition and the INPO-based training program. Plans for improving safety culture are apparent, and the DCISC will follow DCPP’s execution. The DCISC believes an effective safety culture is vitally important.
Despite a number of organizational challenges in the last 36 months, including temporary bankruptcy of PG&E and the California “energy crisis”, DCPP has held steady in the relatively low number of employee concerns and the severity of employee concerns identified. ECP Coordinator Rick Burns demonstrates initiative and concern for safety culture, employee morale, and specific employee concerns. DCPP has and is considering safety culture assessments. These are all positive steps. (4.5.3)
- Recommendations:
- None