BASIS FOR ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM OUTPUTS OF IAEA CS MEETING ON SC EVALUATION ITEMS

1. Regional Training Course on Transition to IMS Approach Supporting the Development of a Strong SCJiujiang City 8-12 November 2010 BASIS FOR ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMOUTPUTS OF IAEA CS MEETING ON SC EVALUATION ITEMS Anne Kerhoas, IAEA

2. OUTLINES • 1. BACKGROUND • 2. OBJECTIVE • OUTPUTS • COMMENTS 2

3. BACKGROUND • The safety culture attributes as described in IAEA GS-G-3.1 are not adapted for an evaluation purpose. Several activities using them raised this issue. More specifically, the two SCART missions in NPP and component 2 of CNCAN project aiming at developing safety culture oversight guidelines had been using the 37 safety culture attributes as framework for evaluation and in the three cases, adaptations more or less significant had been necessary. • Moreover, during the International Conference on Operational Safety Experience and Performance of Nuclear Power plants and Fuel Cycle Facilities, last June, the first recommendation for safety culture area was related to the development of “a common international approach to safety culture” and agreement “on common set up of safety culture attributes”, which is closely related. • One of the SCART CS meeting (held in June) conclusions was the need to develop safety culture evaluation items based on the 37 safety culture attributes.

4. 2. OBJECTIVE The objective of the CS meeting was to develop safety culture evaluation items based on the current safety culture attributes identified in IAEA GS-G 3.1

5. 3. OUTPUTS SC attributes Table A reduced list of 26 SC evaluation items Characteristics description Framework comparisons table 5

6. OUTPUTS (1) SC attributes table establishes for each of them • How relevant is the attribute to both formal and non-formal aspects of SC • The link with IAEA GS-R-3 and NS-R-2 requirements • The overlap between SC attributes • Key words supporting understanding of the SC attributes

7. 7

8. OUTPUTS (2) A reduced list of SC evaluation items (26) 8

9. 1. Safety is a Clearly Recognized Value The high priority given to safety is demonstrated in communication and decision making and reflected in documentation Safety is a primary consideration in the allocation of resources A proactive and long term approach to safety issues is shown in decision making Individuals are convinced and there is evidence that safety is not compromised by production Safety conscious behaviour is socially accepted and supported 9

10. 2. Leadership for Safety is Clear Commitment to safety is evident at all levels of management including corporate management There is visible leadership showing the involvement of management in safety related activities Management seeks the active involvement of individuals in improving safety Management considers factors affecting work motivation and job satisfaction Relationships between managers and individuals are built on trust 10

11. 3. Accountability for Safety is clear An appropriate relationship with the regulatory body ensures that the accountability for safety remains with the licensee Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood Management delegates responsibility with appropriate authority to enable clear accountabilities to be established. There is a high level of compliance with procedures ‘Ownership’ for safety is evident for all individuals and reflected in work environment and plant conditions 11

12. 4. Safety is Integrated into all activities Consideration of all types of safety, including industrial safety and environmental safety, and of security is evident Processes from implementation to review ensure that an adequate level of safety is maintained Safe working conditions exist with regard to time pressures, workload and stress Cooperation and teamwork ensure that an adequate level of safety is maintained Factors affecting human performance are considered 12

13. 5. Safety is Learning Driven A questioning attitude prevails at all organizational levels Open reporting of deviations and errors is established and supported Internal and external assessments, including self-assessments contribute to continuous improvement Operating experience (both internal and external to the facility) contribute to continuous improvement Safety performance indicators are tracked, trended, evaluated and acted upon There is systematic development of individual competences including leadership 13

14. OUTPUTS (3) Descriptions supporting the understanding of the 5characteristics

15. 1. Safety is a Clearly Recognized Value The high priority given to safety is demonstrated in proactive and long-term decision making, allocation of resources and documentation. There is evidence that individuals including contractors share the value of “safety first” and that it is not compromised by production goals.

16. Management at all levels have evident and visible commitment to safety. Managers concern about staff active involvement to improve safety, motivation and job satisfaction, establishing a relationship built on trust. 2. Leadership for Safety is Clear 16

17. 3. Accountability for Safety is clear Accountabilty for safety is well defined and clearly understood. Reporting relationships, roles and responsibilities, and resources support safety responsibilities. 17

18. 4. Safety is Integrated into all activities Safety is considered in planning, communication, execution, and review of all NPP activities. This includes nuclear, radiological, industrial, environmental, and physical safety. Cross-functional impacts of all activities are considered 18

19. 5. Safety is Learning Driven A questioning attitude is encouraged and actively developed; It includes the promotion and support of an open reporting culture. This is combined with the acceptance of internal and external assessments and the effective use of operational experience feedback to enhance safety performance. This is supported by the systematic development of individual competences. 19

20. OUTPUTS (4) A table of comparisons at the characteristics level. Between IAEA, INPO, new USNRC traits and JANTI frameworks. 20

21. Table of comparisons 21

22. 4. COMMENTS • The reduction of the number of attributes has been mainly reached by inclusion • Some attributes have been moved to another characteristic • When reformulating SC evaluation item , the emphasis has been put on the non-formal part • One SC evaluation item addressing the specificity of human performance has been fully created