Nuclear Safety Culture and the Shrinking U.S. Nuclear Plant Population

In the last few years, nuclear plant owners have shut down or scheduled for shutdown 17 units totaling over 14,000 MW.  Over half of these units had (or have) nuclear safety culture (NSC) issues sufficiently noteworthy to warrant mention here on Safetymatters.  We are not saying that NSC issues alone have led to the permanent shutdown of any plant, but such issues often accompany poor decision-making that can hasten a plant’s demise.  Following is a roll call of the deceased or endangered plants.

Plants with NSC issues

NSC issues provide windows into organizational behavior; the sizes of issues range from isolated problems to systemic weaknesses.

FitzPatrick

This one doesn’t exactly belong on the list.  Entergy scheduled it for shutdown in Jan. 2017 but instead it will likely be purchased by a white knight, Exelon, in a transaction brokered by the governor of New York.  With respect to NSC, in 2012 FitzPatrick received a Confirmatory Order (CO) after the NRC discovered violations, the majority of which were willful, related to adherence to site radiation protection procedures. 

Fort Calhoun

This plant shut down on Oct. 24, 2016.  According to the owner, the reason was “market conditions.”  It’s hard for a plant to be economically viable when it was shut down for over two years because of scheduled maintenance, flooding, a fire and various safety violations.  The plant kept moving down the NRC Action Matrix which meant more inspections and a third-party NSC assessment.  A serious cultural issue was how the plant staff’s perception of the Corrective Action Program (CAP) had evolved to view the CAP as a work management system rather than the principal way for the plant to identify and fix its problems.  Click on the Fort Calhoun label to pull up our related posts.

Indian Point 2 and 3

Units 2 and 3 are scheduled to shut down in 2020 and 2021, respectively.  As the surrounding population grew, the political pressure to shut them down also increased.  A long history of technical and regulatory issues did not inspire confidence.  In NSC space, they had problems with making incomplete or false statements to the NRC, a cardinal sin for a regulated entity.  The plant received a Notice of Violation (NOV) in 2015 for providing information about a licensed operator's medical condition that was not complete and accurate; they received a NOV in 2014 because a chemistry manager falsified test results.  Our May 12, 2014 post on the latter event is a reader favorite. 

Palisades

This plant had a long history of technical and NSC issues.  It is scheduled for shutdown on Oct. 1, 2018.  In 2015 Palisades received a NOV because it provided information to the NRC that was not complete and accurate; in 2014 it received a CO because a security manager assigned a person to a role for which he was not qualified; in 2012 it received a CO after an operator left the control room without permission and without performing a turnover to another operator.  Click on the Palisades label to pull up our related posts.

Pilgrim

This plant is scheduled for shutdown on May 31, 2019.  It worked its way to column 4 of the Action Matrix in Sept. 2015 and is currently undergoing an IP 95003 inspection, including an in-depth evaluation of the plant’s CAP and an independent assessment of the plant’s NSC.  In 2013, Pilgrim received a NOV because it provided information to the NRC that was not complete and accurate; in 2005 it received a NOV after an on-duty supervisor was observed sleeping in the control room.

San Onofre 2 and 3

These units ceased operations on Jan. 1, 2012.  The proximate cause of death was management incompetence: management opted to replace the old steam generators (S/Gs) with a large, complex design that the vendor had never fabricated before.  The new S/Gs were unacceptable in operation when tube leakage occurred due to excessive vibrations.  NSC was never anything to write home about either: the plant was plagued for years by incidents, including willful violations, and employees claiming they feared retaliation if they reported or discussed such incidents.

Vermont Yankee

This plant shut down on Dec. 29, 2014 ostensibly for “economic reasons” but it had a vociferous group of critics calling for it to go.  The plant evidenced a significant NSC issue in 2009 when plant staff parsed an information request to the point where they made statements that were “incomplete and misleading” to state regulators about tritium leakage from plant piping.  Eleven employees, including the VP for operations, were subsequently put on leave or reprimanded.  Click on the Vermont Yankee label to pull up our related posts.

Plant with no serious or interesting NSC issues 

The following plants have not appeared on our NSC radar in the eight years we’ve been publishing Safetymatters.  We have singled out a couple of them for extremely poor management decisions.

Crystal River basically committed suicide when they tried to create a major containment penetration on their own and ended up with a delaminating containment.  It ceased operations on Sept. 26, 2009.

Kewaunee shut down on May 7, 2013 for economic reasons, viz., the plant owner apparently believed their initial 8-year PPA would be followed by equal or even higher prices in the electricity market.  The owner was wrong.

Rounding out the list, Clinton is scheduled to shut down June 1, 2017; Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 will shut down in 2024 and 2025, respectively; Oyster Creek is scheduled to shut down on June 1, 2019; and Quad Cities 1 and 2 are scheduled to shut down on June 1, 2018 — all for business reasons.

Our Perspective

Bad economics (low natural gas prices, no economies of scale for small units) were the key drivers of these shutdown decisions but NSC issues and management incompetence played important supporting roles.  NSC problems provide ammunition to zealous plant critics but, more importantly, also create questions about plant safety and viability in the minds of the larger public.

Reflections on Nuclear Safety Culture for the New Year

©iStockphoto.com

The start of a new year is an opportunity to take stock of the current situation in the U.S. nuclear industry and reiterate what we believe with respect to nuclear safety culture (NSC).

For us, the big news at the end of 2016 was Entergy’s announcement that Palisades will be shutting down on Oct. 1, 2018.*  Palisades has been our poster child for a couple of things: (1) Entergy’s unwillingness or inability to keep its nose clean on NSC issues and (2) the NRC’s inscrutable decision making on when the plant’s NSC was either unsatisfactory or apparently “good enough.”

We will have to find someone else to pick on but don’t worry, there’s always some new issue popping up in NSC space.  Perhaps we will go to France and focus on the current AREVA and Électricité de France imbroglio which was cogently summarized in a Power magazine editorial: “At the heart of France’s nuclear crisis are two problems.  One concerns the carbon content of critical steel parts . . . manufactured or supplied by AREVA . . . The second problem concerns forged, falsified, or incomplete quality control reports about the critical components themselves.”**  Anytime the adjectives “forged” or “falsified” appear alongside nuclear records, the NSC police will soon be on the scene.  

Why do NSC issues keep arising in the nuclear industry?  If NSC is so important, why do organizations still fail to fix known problems or create new problems for themselves?  One possible answer is that such issues are the occasional result of the natural functioning of a low-tolerance, complex socio-technical system.  In other words, performance may drift out of bounds in the normal course of events.  We may not be able to predict where such issues will arise (although the missed warning signals will be obvious in retrospect) but we cannot reasonably expect they can be permanently eliminated from the system.  In this view, an NSC can be acceptably strong but not 100% effective.

If they are intellectually honest, this is the implicit mental model that most NSC practitioners and “experts” utilize even though they continue to espouse the dogma that more engineering, management, leadership, oversight, training and sanctions can and will create an actual NSC that matches some ideal NSC.  But we’ve known for years what an ideal NSC should look like, i.e., its attributes, and how responsibilities for creating and maintaining such a culture should be spread across a nuclear organization.***  And we’re still playing Whac-A-Mole.

At Safetymatters, we have promoted a systems view of NSC, a view that we believe provides a more nuanced and realistic view of how NSC actually works.  Where does NSC live in our nuclear socio-technical system?  Well, it doesn’t “live” anywhere.  NSC is, to some degree, an emergent property of the system, i.e., it is visible because of the ongoing functioning of other system components.  But that does not mean that NSC is only an effect or consequence.  NSC is both a consequence and a cause of system behavior.  NSC is a cause through the way it affects the processes that create hard artifacts, such as management decisions or the corrective action program (CAP), softer artifacts like the leadership exhibited throughout an organization, and squishy organizational attributes like the quality of hierarchical and interpersonal trust that permeates the organization like an ether or miasma. 

Interrelationships and feedback loops tie NSC to other organizational variables.  For example, if an organization fixes its problems, its NSC will appear stronger and the perception of a strong NSC will influence other organizational dynamics.  This particular feedback loop is generally reinforcing but it’s not some superpower, as can be seen in a couple of problems nuclear organizations may face: 

Why is a CAP ineffective?  The NSC establishes the boundaries between the desirable, acceptable, tolerable and unacceptable in terms of problem recognition, analysis and resolution.  But the strongest SC cannot compensate for inadequate resources from a plant owner, a systemic bias in favor of continued production****, a myopic focus on programmatic aspects (following the rules instead of searching for a true answer) or incompetence in plant staff. 

Why are plant records falsified?  An organization’s party line usually pledges that the staff will always be truthful with customers, regulators and each other.  The local culture, including its NSC, should reinforce that view.  But fear is always trying to slip in through the cracks—fear of angering the boss, fear of missing performance targets, fear of appearing weak or incompetent, or fear of endangering a plant’s future in an environment that includes the plant’s perceived enemies.  Fear can overcome even a strong NSC.

Our Perspective

NSC is real and complicated but it is not mysterious.  Most importantly, NSC is not some red herring that keeps us from seeing the true causes of underlying organizational performance problems.  Safetymatters will continue to offer you the information and insights you need to be more successful in your efforts to understand NSC and use it as a force for better performance in your organization.

Your organization will not increase its performance in the safety dimension if it continues to apply and reprocess the same thinking that the nuclear industry has been promoting for years.  NSC is not something that can be directly managed or even influenced independent of other organizational variables.  “Leadership” alone will not fix your organization’s problems.  You may protect your career by parroting the industry’s adages but you will not move the ball down the field without exercising some critical and independent thought.

We wish you a safe and prosperous 2017.


*  “Palisades Power Purchase Agreement to End Early,” Entergy press release (Dec. 8,2016).

**  L. Buchsbaum, “France’s Nuclear Storm: Many Power Plants Down Due to Quality Concerns,” Power (Dec. 1, 2016).  Retrieved Jan. 4, 2017.

***  For example, take a look back at INSAG-4 and NUREG-1756 (which we reviewed on May 26, 2015).

****  We can call that the Nuclear Production Culture (NPC).

Is Entergy’s Nuclear Safety Culture Hurting the Company or the Industry?

Entergy Headquarters  Source: Nola.com

A recent NRC press release* announced a Confirmatory Order (CO) issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. following an investigation that determined workers at Waterford 3 failed to perform fire inspections and falsified records.  Regulatory action directed at an Entergy plant has a familiar ring and spurs us to look at various problems that have arisen in Entergy’s fleet over the years.  The NRC has connected the dots to safety culture (SC) in some cases while other problems suggest underlying cultural issues. 

Utility-Owned Plants

These plants were part of the utility mergers that created Entergy.

Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO)

ANO is currently in Column 4 of the NRC Action Matrix and subject to an intrusive IP 95003 inspection.  ANO completed an independent SC assessment.  We reviewed their problems on June 25, 2015 and concluded “. . . the ANO culture endorses a “blame the contractor” attitude, accepts incomplete investigations into actual events and potential problems, and is content to let the NRC point out problems for them.”

In 2013 ANO received a Notice of Violation (NOV) after an employee deliberately falsified documents regarding the performance of Emergency Preparedness drills and communication surveillances.**

Grand Gulf

We are not aware of any SC issues at Grand Gulf.

River Bend

In 2014 Entergy received a CO to document commitments made because of the willful actions of an unidentified River Bend security officer in March 2012.

(In 2014 the NRC Office of Investigations charged that a River Bend security officer had deliberately falsified training records in Oct. 2013.  It appears a subsequent NRC investigation did not substantiate that charge.***)

In 2012 River Bend received a NOV for operators in the control room accessing the internet in violation of an Entergy procedure.

In 2011 River Bend received a CO to document commitments made because an employee apparently experienced retaliatory action after asking questions related to job qualifications.  Corrective actions included Entergy reinforcing its commitment to a safety conscious work environment, reviewing Employee Concerns Program enhancements and conducting a plant wide SC survey.

In 1999 River Bend received a NOV for deliberately providing an NRC inspector with information that was incomplete and inaccurate.

Waterford 3

As noted in the introduction to this post, Waterford 3 recently received a CO because of failure to perform fire inspections and falsifying records.

Entergy Wholesale Plants

These plants were purchased by Entergy and are located outside Entergy’s utility service territory.

FitzPatrick

Entergy purchased FitzPatrick in 2000.

In 2012, FitzPatrick received a CO after the NRC discovered violations, the majority of which were willful, related to adherence to site radiation protection procedures.  Corrective actions included maintaining the SC processes described in NEI 09-07 “Fostering a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture.”

Entergy plans on closing the plant Jan. 27, 2017.

Indian Point

Entergy purchased Indian Point 3 in 2000 and IP2 in 2001.

In 2015 Indian Point received a NOV because it provided information to the NRC related to a licensed operator's medical condition that was not complete and accurate in all material respects.

In 2014 Indian Point received a NOV because a chemistry manager falsified test results.  The manager subsequently resigned and then Entergy tried to downplay the incident.  Our May 12, 2014 post on this event is a reader favorite.

During 2006-08 Indian Point received two COs and three NOVs for its failure to install backup power for the plant’s emergency notification system.

Palisades

Entergy purchased Palisades in 2007.

In 2015 Entergy received a NOV because it provided information to the NRC related to Palisades’ compliance with ASME Code acceptance criteria that was not complete and accurate in all material respects.

In 2014 Entergy received a CO because a Palisades security manager assigned a supervisor to an armed responder role for which he was not currently qualified (see our July 24, 2014 post).

Over 2011-12 a virtual SC saga played out at Palisades.  It is too complicated to summarize here but see our Jan. 30, 2013 post.

In 2012 Palisades received a CO after an operator left the control room without permission and without performing a turnover to another operator.  Corrective actions included conducting a SC assessment of the Palisades Operations department.

Pilgrim

Entergy purchased Pilgrim in 1999.

Like ANO, Pilgrim is also in column 4 of the Action Matrix.  They are in the midst of a three-phase IP 95003 inspection currently focused on corrective action program weaknesses (always a hot button issue for us); a plant SC assessment will be performed in the third phase.

In 2013, Pilgrim received a NOV because it provided information to the NRC related to medical documentation on operators that was not complete and accurate in all material respects.

In 2005 Pilgrim received a NOV after an on-duty supervisor was observed sleeping in the control room. 

Vermont Yankee

Entergy purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002.

During 2009, Vermont Yankee employees made “incomplete and misleading” statements to state regulators about tritium leakage from plant piping.  Eleven employees, including the VP for operations, were subsequently put on leave or reprimanded.  Click the Vermont Yankee label to see our multiple posts on this incident. 

Vermont Yankee ceased operations on Dec. 29, 2014.

Our Perspective

These cases involved behavior that was wrong or, at a minimum, lackadaisical.  It’s not a stretch to infer that a weak SC may have been a contributing factor even where it was not specifically cited.

Only three U.S. nuclear units are in column 4 of the NRC’s Action Matrix—and all three are Entergy plants.  Only TVA comes close to Entergy when it comes to being SC-challenged.

We can’t predict the future but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to plot Entergy’s nuclear trajectory.  One plant is dead and the demise of another has been scheduled.  It will be no surprise if Indian Point goes next; it’s in a densely populated region, occasionally radioactively leaky and a punching bag for New York politicians.

Does Entergy’s SC performance inspire public trust and confidence in the company?  Does their performance affect people's perception of other plants in the industry?  You be the judge.


*  NRC press release, “NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to Entergy Operations, Inc.” (April 8, 2016).  ADAMS ML16099A090.

**  COs and NOVs are summarized from Escalated Enforcement Actions Issued to Reactor Licensees on the NRC website.

***  J.M. Rollins (NRC) to J. McCann (Entergy), Closure of Investigation 014-2014-046 (Jan. 25, 2016.)  ADAMS ML16025A141.

NRC Office of Investigations 2014 Annual Report: From Cases to Culture

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Investigations (OI) recently released its FY2014 annual report.*  The OI investigates alleged wrongdoing by entities regulated by the NRC; OI’s focus is on willful and deliberate actions that violate NRC regulations and/or criminal statutes.

The OI report showed a definite downward trend in the number of new cases being opened, overall a 41% drop between FY2010 and FY2014.  Only one of the four categories of cases increased over that time frame, viz., material false statements, which held fairly steady through FY2013 but popped in FY2014 to 67% over FY2010.  We find this disappointing because false statements can often be linked to cultural attributes that prioritize getting a job done over compliance with regulations.

The report includes a chapter on “Significant Investigations.”  There were eight such investigations, four involving nuclear power plants.  We have previously reported on two of these cases, the Indian Point chemistry manager who falsified test results (see our May 12, 2014 post) and the Palisades security manager who assigned a supervisor to an armed responder role for which he was not currently qualified (see our July 24, 2014 post).  The other two, summarized below, occurred at River Bend and Salem.

In the River Bend case, a security officer deliberately falsified training records by taking a plant access authorization test for her son, a contractor employed by a plant supplier.  Similar to the Palisades case, Entergy elected alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and ended up with multiple corrective actions including revising its security procedures, establishing new controls for security-related information (SRI), evaluating SRI storage, developing a document highlighting the special responsibilities of nuclear security personnel, establishing decorum protocols for certain security posts, preparing and delivering a lessons learned presentation, conducting an independent third party safety culture (SC) assessment of the River Bend security organization [emphasis added], and delivering refresher training on 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.9.  Most of these requirements are to be implemented fleet-wide, i.e., at all Entergy nuclear plants, not just River Bend.**

The Salem case involved a senior reactor operator who used an illegal substance then performed duties while under its influence.  The NRC issued a Level III Notice of Violation (NOV) to the operator.  The operator’s NRC license was terminated at PSE&G’s request.***  PSE&G was not cited in this case.

Our Perspective

You probably noticed that three of the “significant” cases involved Entergy plants.  Entergy is no stranger to issues with a possible cultural component including the following:****

In 2013, Arkansas Nuclear One received a NOV after an employee deliberately falsified documents regarding the performance of Emergency Preparedness drills and communication surveillances.

In 2012, Fitzpatrick received a Confirmatory Order (Order) after the NRC discovered violations, the majority of which were willful, related to adherence to site radiation protection procedures.

During 2006-08, Indian Point received two Orders and three NOVs for its failure to install backup power for the plant’s emergency notification system.

In 2012, Palisades received an Order after an operator left the control room without permission and without performing a turnover to another operator.  Entergy went to ADR and ended up with multiple corrective actions, some fleet-wide.  We have posted many times about the long-running SC saga at Palisades—click on the Palisades label to pull up the posts. 

In 2005, Pilgrim received a NOV after an on-duty supervisor was observed sleeping in the control room.  In 2013, Pilgrim received a NOV for submitting false medical documentation on operators.

In 2012, River Bend received a NOV for operators in the control room accessing the internet in violation of an Entergy procedure. 

These cases involve behavior that was (at least in hindsight) obviously wrong.  It’s not a stretch to suggest that a weak SC may have been a contributing factor.  So has Entergy received the message?  You be the judge.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” ― George Carlin (1937–2008)


*  NRC Office of Investigations, “2014 OI Annual Report,” NUREG-1830, Vol. 11 (Feb. 2015).  ADAMS ML15034A064.

**  M.L. Dapas (NRC) to E.W. Olson (River Bend), “Confirmatory Order, Notice of Violation, and Civil Penalty – NRC Special Inspection Report 05000458/2014407 and NRC Investigation Report 4-2012-022- River Bend Station” (Dec. 3, 2014).  ADAMS ML14339A167.

***  W.M. Dean (NRC) to G. Meekins (an individual), “Notice of Violation (Investigation Report No. 1-2014-013)” (July 9, 2014).  ADAMS ML14190A471.

****  All Entergy-related NRC enforcement actions were obtained from the NRC website.

Palisades: Back in the NRC’s Safety Culture Dog House

Our last Palisades post was on January 30, 2013 where we described the tortuous logic the NRC employed to conclude Palisades’ safety culture (SC) had become “adequate and improving.”  Or was it?  The NRC has recently parlayed an isolated Palisades incident into multiple requirements, one fleet-wide, to strengthen SC.  Details follow, taken from the resulting Confirmatory Order.*

The Incident

A Palisades security manager asked a security supervisor to cover a 2-hour partial shift because another supervisor had requested time off on Christmas Eve 2012.  Neither the manager nor the supervisor verified the supervisor had the necessary qualifications for the assignment.  He didn’t, which violated NRC regulations and the site security plan.  The problem came to light when two condition reports were written questioning the manager’s decision. (pp. 2-3)

How the Incident was Handled and Settled

Entergy requested Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), a process whereby the NRC and the licensee meet with a third party mediator to work out a resolution acceptable to both parties.

The Consequences

Entergy’s required corrective actions include what we’d expect, viz., action to improve and ensure adherence to security procedures.  In addition, Entergy is required to take multiple actions to strengthen SC.  These actions are spelled out in the Confirmatory Order and focus on several SC traits: (1) Leadership, Safety Values and Actions; (2) Problem Identification and Resolution; (3) Personal Accountability; (4) Work Processes; (5) Environment for Raising Concerns; and (6) Questioning Attitude and Proceeding In the Face of Uncertainty. (p. 4)

Specific requirements relate to (1) actions already implemented or to be implemented via Palisades’ Security Safety Conscious Work Environment Action Plan, (2) revising a Condition Review Group procedure to ensure the chairman considers whether the person assigned to a condition report is sufficiently independent, (3) developing and presenting a case study throughout the Entergy fleet that highlights the SC aspects of the event and (4) discussing the SC aspects of the issue with Palisades staff at three monthly tailgate meetings. (pp. 4-6, 11-12)

Our Perspective

The incident appears localized and the NRC said it had very low security significance.  Maybe Entergy thought they’d avoid any sort of penalty if they requested ADR.  Looks to us like they gambled and lost.  The NRC must think so, they are fairly gloating over the outcome.  In the associated press release, the Region III Administrator says: “Using the ADR process allowed us to achieve not only compliance with NRC requirements, but a wide range of corrective actions that go beyond those the agency may get through the traditional enforcement process”.**

Is the NRC using an elephant gun to shoot a mouse?  Or is there some unstated belief that Palisades’ SC is not as good as it should be and/or Entergy as a whole doesn’t properly value SC*** and this is a warning shot?  Or is something else going on?  You be the judge.


*  C.D. Pederson (NRC) to A. Vitale (Entergy), “Confirmatory Order Related to NRC Report No. 05000255/2014406 and OI Report 3-2013-018; Palisades Nuclear Plant” (July 21, 2014).  ADAMS ML14203A082.

**  NRC Press Release “NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to Entergy Regarding Palisades Nuclear Plant,” No. III-14-031 (July 22, 2014).

***  Entergy has had SC issues at other plants.  Click on the Entergy label for our related commentary.

Talking Sheep at Palisades

In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, Alice and the White Queen advance into the chessboard's fifth rank by crossing over a brook together, but at the very moment of the crossing, the Queen transforms into a talking sheep.  Alice soon finds herself struggling to handle the oars of a small rowboat, where the Sheep annoys her with nonsensical shouting.  Now consider the NRC’s Nov. 9, 2012 followup inspection report* at Palisades related to the DC panel event and the Service Water pump coupling failure.  It brings to mind a similar picture - in this case inspectors struggling to propel a small rowboat of substance on a river of nonsensical jargon and bureaucratese.

Reading this inspection report (IR) reveals endless repetition of process details and findings of other reports, and astonishingly little substance or basis for the inspectors' current findings and conclusions.  The IR “assesses” the findings of the Palisades root cause analysis and associated extent of condition and corrective actions.  The discussion is deeply ingrained with yellow findings, white findings, crosscutting this and cornerstone that, a liberal dose of safety culture traits and lots of significance determinations.  Frankly it’s hard to even remember what started the whole thing.  Perhaps of most interest, the IR notes  that much of the Palisades management team was replaced in the period since these two events. (p. 23)  Why?  Were they deemed incompetent? Unwilling to implement appropriate risk and safety priorities?  Or just sacrificial lambs? (more sheep).  It appears that these changes carried significant weight with the NRC inspectors although it is not specifically stated. 

Then there is this set of observations:

“During interviews the inspectors heard that there were concerns about staffing levels in multiple departments, but the site was aware and was actively working with Entergy corporate management to post and fill positions. . . Entergy Corporate was perceived by many on the site to be stifling progress in filling positions.  The many issues at Palisades and staffing problems have contributed to the organization becoming more reactive to addressing maintenance and equipment reliability issues versus being proactive in addressing possible problems.” (p. 23)

Which is it?  The site was actively working with Entergy or Entergy was stifling progress in filling positions?  Without further amplification or justification the IR delivers its conclusion: “The inspection team concluded the safety culture was adequate and improving.” (p. 24, emphasis added)  There is no discussion of how or on what basis the inspectors reached this conclusion.  In particular the finding of “improving” is hard to understand as it does not appear that this inspection team had previously assessed the safety culture at the site.

At one point the IR stumbles into a revealing and substantive issue that could provide significant insight into the problems at Palisades.  It describes another event at the plant with a lot of similarities to the DC panel. 

“The inspection team focused inspection efforts on ... an occurrence when, on May 14, 2012, workers erroneously placed a wire jumper between 115 Volt AC and 125 Volt DC circuits ...many of the actions and behaviors exhibited by the workers involved were similar in nature to the loss of DC bus event that occurred in September 2011...Those similar behaviors included the lack of a pre-job brief and discussion regarding the limitations of the work scope, workers taking action outside of the scope allowed by ‘toolpouch maintenance,’ supervisors failing to adequately challenge the workers, and workers proceeding in the face of uncertainty when unexpected conditions arose.” (p. 21)

So far so good.

“Many of the supervisors and managers the inspection team interviewed stated that the May 2012 near-miss was not a repeat event of the September 2011 event because the May 2012 near-miss involved only a handful of individuals, whereas the September 2011 occurrence involved multiple individuals across multiple organizations at Palisades. The inspectors agreed that the May 2012 near-miss involved fewer individuals, but there were individuals from several organizations involved in the near-miss. The inspectors concluded that the RCE assessment was narrow in that it stated only the field work team failed to internalize the cause and corrective actions from the September 2011 DC bus event. The inspectors concluded that other individuals, including the WCC SRO, CRS, and a non-licensed plant operator also exhibited behaviors similar to those of the September 2011 DC bus event.” (p. 21)

Still good but starting to wonder if the Palisades supervisors and managers really got the lessons learned from September 2011.

“The inspectors determined that, while the May 2012 near-miss shared some commonalities with the September 2011 event, the two conditions were not the result of the same basic causes. The inspectors reached this conclusion because the May 2012 near-miss did not result in a significant plant transient [emphasis added] and also did not exhibit the same site wide, organizational breakdowns in risk recognition and management that led to the September 2011 event.” (pp. 21-22)

Whoops.  First, what is the relevance of the outcome of the May 2012 event?  Why is it being alluded to as a cause?  Are the inspectors saying that if in September 2011 the Palisades personnel took exactly the actions they took but had the good fortune not to let the breaker stab slip it would not be a significant safety event?  

With regard to the extent of organizational breakdown, in the prior paragraph the inspectors had pushed back on this rationale - but now conclude the May 2012 event is different because it was not “site-wide”.  It is not clear how you square these arguments particularly if one goes back to the original root cause of  the DC panel event: 

“...senior leaders had not established a sufficiently sensitive culture of risk recognition and management, which resulted in the plant’s managers, supervisors, and workers not recognizing, accounting for, or preparing for the industrial safety risk and plant operational nuclear risk…” (p. 1) and, quoting from the licensee root cause analysis “site leadership at all levels was not sufficiently intrusive into work on panel ED-11-2.” (p. 13)

It is hard to see how the May 2012 event didn’t exhibit these same causes.  In addition, the “Why Staircase” in the Palisades root cause analysis (p. 21) does not identify or allude to the extent of involvement of multiple organizations - at all.  While we do not believe that such linear, “why” thinking is adequate for a complex system, it is the basis for what Palisades found and what the NRC inspectors accepted.

We’re not really sure what to make of this inspection effort.  On its face it doesn’t provide much of a basis for its conclusion that the safety culture is adequate and improving.  Perhaps the real basis is the new management team?  Or perhaps the NRC doesn’t really have many options in this situation.  If the current inspection found the weaknesses not to have been resolved, what could the NRC do?  Is there such a thing as an “inadequate” safety culture?  Or just safety culture that need improvement?  It seems the NRC’s safety culture construct has created a Looking Glass-like inversion of reality - maybe a convenient trope within the agency but increasingly a baffling and unsatisfying distraction to achieving competent nuclear safety management. 

Bottom line:  The NRC close out inspection is a baaaad report.


*  S. West (NRC) to A. Vitale (Entergy), “Palisades Nuclear Plant - NRC Supplemental Inspection Report 05000255/2012011; and Assessment Follow-up Letter” (Nov. 9, 2012) ADAMS ML12314A304.

NRC Non-Regulation of Safety Culture: Fourth Quarter Update

NRC SC Brochure ML113490097

On March 17, July 3 and October 17, 2012 we posted on NRC safety culture (SC) related activities with individual licensees. This post highlights selected NRC actions during the fourth quarter, October through December 2012. We report on this topic to illustrate how the NRC squeezes plants on SC even if the agency is not officially regulating SC.

Prior posts mentioned Browns Ferry, Fort Calhoun and Palisades as plants where the NRC was undertaking significant SC-related activities. It appears none of those plants has resolved its SC issues.

Browns Ferry

An NRC supplemental inspection report* contained the following comment on a licensee root cause analysis: “Inadequate emphasis on the importance of regulatory compliance has contributed to a culture which lacks urgency in the identification and timely resolution of issues associated with non-compliant and potentially non-conforming conditions.” Later, the NRC observes “This culture change initiative [to address the regulatory compliance issue] was reviewed and found to still be in progress. It is a major corrective action associated with the upcoming 95003 inspection and will be evaluated during that inspection.” (Two other inspection reports, both issued November 30, 2012, noted the root cause analyses had appropriately considered SC contributors.)

An NRC-TVA public meeting was held December 5, 2012 to discuss the results of the supplemental inspections.** Browns Ferry management made a presentation to review progress in implementing their Integrated Improvement Plan and indicated they expected to be prepared for the IP 95003 inspection (which will include a review of the plant's third party SC assessment) in the spring of 2013.

Fort Calhoun

SC must be addressed to the NRC’s satisfaction prior to plant restart. The NRC's Oct. 2, 2012 inspection report*** provided details on the problems identified by the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) in the independent Fort Calhoun SC assessment, including management practices that resulted “. . . in a culture that valued harmony and loyalties over standards, accountability, and performance.”

Fort Calhoun's revision 4 of its improvement plan**** (the first revision issued since Exelon took over management of the plant in September, 2012) reiterates management's previous commitments to establishing a strong SC and, in a closely related area, notes that “The Corrective Action Program is already in place as the primary tool for problem identification and resolution. However, CAP was not fully effective as implemented. A new CAP process has been implemented and root cause analysis on topics such as Condition Report quality continue to create improvement actions.”

OPPD's progress report***** at a Nov. 15, 2012 public meeting with the NRC includes over two dozen specific items related to improving or monitoring SC. However, the NRC restart checklist SC items remain open and the agency will be performing an IP 95003 inspection of Fort Calhoun SC during January-February, 2013.^

Palisades

Palisades is running but still under NRC scrutiny, especially for SC. The Nov. 9, 2012 supplemental inspection report^^ is rife with mentions of SC but eventually says “The inspection team concluded the safety culture was adequate and improving.” However, the plant will be subject to additional inspection efforts in 2013 to “. . . ensure that you [Palisades] are implementing appropriate corrective actions to improve the organization and strengthen the safety culture on site, as well as assessing the sustainability of these actions.”

At an NRC-Entergy public meeting December 11, Entergy's presentation focused on two plant problems (DC bus incident and service water pump failure) and included references to SC as part of the plant's performance recovery plan. The NRC presentation described Palisades SC as “adequate” and “improving.”^^^

Other Plants

NRC supplemental inspections can require licensees to assess “whether any safety culture component caused or significantly contributed to” some performance issue. NRC inspection reports note the extent and adequacy of the licensee’s assessment, often performed as part of a root cause analysis. Plants that had such requirements laid on them or had SC contributions noted in inspection reports during the fourth quarter included Braidwood, North Anna, Perry, Pilgrim, and St. Lucie. Inspection reports that concluded there were no SC contributors to root causes included Kewaunee and Millstone.

Monticello got a shout-out for having a strong SC. On the other hand, the NRC fired a shot across the bow of Prairie Island when the NRC PI&R inspection report included an observation that “. . . while the safety culture was currently adequate, absent sustained long term improvement, workers may eventually lose confidence in the CAP and stop raising issues.”^^^^ In other words, CAP problems are linked to SC problems, a relationship we've been discussing for years.

The NRC perspective and our reaction

Chairman Macfarlane's speech to INPO mentioned SC: “Last, I would like to raise “safety culture” as a cross-cutting regulatory issue. . . . Strengthening and sustaining safety culture remains a top priority at the NRC. . . . Assurance of an effective safety culture must underlie every operational and regulatory consideration at nuclear facilities in the U.S. and worldwide.”^^^^^

The NRC claims it doesn't regulate SC but isn't “assurance” part of “regulation”? If NRC practices and procedures require licensees to take actions they might not take on their own, don't the NRC's activities pass the duck test (looks like a duck, etc.) and qualify as de facto regulation? To repeat what we've said elsewhere, we don't care if SC is regulated but the agency should do it officially, through the front door, and not by sneaking in the back door.

*  E.F. Guthrie (NRC) to J.W. Shea (TVA), “Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant NRC Supplemental Inspection Report 05000259/2012014, 05000260/2012014, 05000296/2012014” (Nov. 23, 2012) ADAMS ML12331A180.

**  E.F. Guthrie (NRC) to J.W. Shea (TVA), “Public Meeting Summary for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Docket No. 50-259, 260, and 296” (Dec. 18, 2012) ADAMS ML12353A314.

***  M. Hay (NRC) to L.P. Cortopassi (OPPD), “Fort Calhoun - NRC Integrated Inspection Report Number 05000285/2012004” (Oct. 2, 2012) ADAMS ML12276A456.

****  T.W. Simpkin (OPPD) to NRC, “Fort Calhoun Station Integrated Performance Improvement Plan, Rev. 4” (Nov. 1, 2012) ADAMS ML12311A164.

*****  NRC, “Summary of November 15, 2012, Meeting with Omaha Public Power District” (Dec. 3, 2012) ADAMS ML12338A191.

^  M. Hay (NRC) to L.P. Cortopassi (OPPD), “Fort Calhoun Station – Notification of Inspection (NRC Inspection Report 05000285/2013008 ” (Dec. 28, 2012) ADAMS ML12363A175.

^^  S. West (NRC) to A. Vitale (Entergy), “Palisades Nuclear Plant - NRC Supplemental Inspection Report 05000255/2012011; and Assessment Follow-up Letter” (Nov. 9, 2012) ADAMS ML12314A304.

^^^  O.W. Gustafson (Entergy) to NRC, Entergy slides to be presented at the December 11, 2012 public meeting (Dec. 7, 2012) ADAMS ML12342A350. NRC slides for the same meeting ADAMS ML12338A107.

^^^^  K. Riemer (NRC) to J.P. Sorensen (NSP), “Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; NRC Biennial Problem Identification and Resolution Inspection Report 05000282/2012007; 05000306/2012007” (Sept. 25, 2012) ADAMS ML12269A253.

^^^^^  A.M. Macfarlane, “Focusing On The NRC Mission: Maintaining Our Commitment to Safety” speech presented at the INPO CEO Conference (Nov. 6, 2012) ADAMS ML12311A496.

NRC Non-Regulation of Safety Culture: Third Quarter Update

On March 17 we published a post on NRC safety culture (SC) related activities with individual licensees since the SC policy statement was issued in June, 2011.  On July 3, we published an update for second quarter 2012 activities.  This post highlights selected NRC actions during the third quarter, July through September 2012.

Our earlier posts mentioned Browns Ferry, Fort Calhoun and Palisades as plants where the NRC was undertaking significant SC-related activities.  It looks like none of those plants has resolved its SC issues and, at the current rate of progress, I’m sure we’ll be reporting on all of them for quite awhile.

Browns Ferry

As we reported earlier, this plant’s SC problems have existed for years.  On August 23, TVA management submitted its Integrated Improvement Plan Summary* to address NRC inspection findings that have landed the plant in column 4 (next to worst) of the NRC’s Action Matrix.  TVA’s analysis of its SC and operational performance problems included an independent SC assessment.  TVA’s overall analysis identified fifteen “fundamental problems” and two bonus issues; for SC improvement efforts, the problems and issues were organized into five focus areas: Accountability, Operational Decision Making (Risk Management), Equipment Reliability, Fire Risk Reduction and the Corrective Action Program (CAP).

The NRC published its mid-cycle review of Browns Ferry on September 4.  In the area of SC, the report noted the NRC had “requested that [the Substantive Cross-Cutting Issue in the CAP] be addressed during your third party safety culture assessment which will be reviewed as part of the Independent NRC Safety Culture Assessment per IP 95003. . . .”**

Fort Calhoun

SC must be addressed to the NRC’s satisfaction prior to plant restart.   The Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) published its Integrated Performance Improvement Plan on July 9.***  The plan includes an independent safety culture assessment to be performed by an organization “that is nationally recognized for successful performance of behavior-anchored nuclear safety culture assessments.” (p. 163)  Subsequent action items will focus on communicating SC principles, assessment results, SC improvement processes and SC information.

The NRC and OPPD met on September 11, 2012 to discuss NRC issues and oversight activities, and OPPD’s performance improvement plan, ongoing work and CAP updates.  OPPD reported that a third-party SC assessment had been completed and corrective actions were being implemented.****

Palisades

The NRC continues to express its concerns over Palisades’ SC.  The best example is NRC’s August 30 letter***** requesting a laundry list of information related to Palisades’ independent SC assessment and management's reaction to same, including corrective actions, interim actions in place or planned to mitigate the effects of the SC weaknesses, compliance issues with NRC regulatory requirements or commitments, and the assessment of the SC at Entergy’s corporate offices. (p. 5)

The NRC held a public meeting with Palisades on September 12, 2012 to discuss the plant’s safety culture.  Plant management’s slides are available in ADAMS (ML12255A042).  We won’t review them in detail here but management's Safety Culture Action Plan includes the usual initiatives for addressing identified SC issues (including communication, training, CAP improvement and backlog reduction) and a new buzz phrase, Wildly Important Goals.

Other Plants

NRC supplemental inspections can require licensees to assess “whether any safety culture component caused or significantly contributed to” some performance issue.#  NRC inspection reports note the extent and adequacy of the licensee’s assessment, often performed as part of a root cause analysis.  Plants that had such requirements laid on them or had SC contributions noted in inspection reports during the third quarter included Brunswick, Hope Creek, Limerick, Perry, Salem, Waterford and Wolf Creek.

One other specific SC action arose from the NRC’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process at Entergy’s James A. FitzPatrick plant.  As part of an NRC Confirmatory Order following ADR, Entergy was told to add a commitment to maintain the SC monitoring processes at Entergy’s nine commercial nuclear power plants.##

The Bottom Line

None of this is a surprise.  Even the new Chairman tells it like it is: “In the United States, we have . . . incorporated a safety culture assessment into our oversight program . . . . “###  What is not a surprise is that particular statement was not included in the NRC’s press release publicizing the Chairman’s comments.  Isn’t “assessment” part of “regulation”?

Given the attention we pay to the issue of regulating SC, one may infer that we object to it.  We don’t.  What we object to is the back-door approach currently being used and the NRC’s continued application of the Big Lie technique to claim that they aren’t regulating SC.


*  P.D. Swafford (TVA) to NRC, “Integrated Improvement Plan Summary” (Aug. 23, 2012)  ADAMS ML12240A106.  TVA has referred to this plan in various presentations at NRC public and Commission meetings.

**  V.M. McCree (NRC) to J.W. Shea (TVA), “Mid Cycle Assessment Letter for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3” (Sept. 4, 2012)  ADAMS ML12248A296.

***  D.J. Bannister (OPPD) to NRC, “Fort Calhoun Station Integrated Performance Improvement Plan Rev. 3” (July 9, 2012)  ADAMS ML12192A204.

**** NRC, “09/11/2012 Meeting Summary of with Omaha Public Power District” (Sept. 25, 2012)  ADAMS ML12269A224.

*****  J.B. Giessner (NRC) to A. Vitale (Entergy), “Palisades Nuclear Plant – Notification of NRC Supplemental Inspection . . . and Request for Information” (Aug. 30, 2012)  ADAMS ML12243A409.

#  The scope of NRC Inspection Procedure 95001 includes “Review licensee’s evaluation of root and contributing causes. . . ,” which may include SC; IP 95002’s scope includes “Determine if safety culture components caused or significantly contributed to risk significant performance issues” and IP 95003’s scope includes “Evaluate the licensee’s third-party safety culture assessment and conduct a graded assessment of the licensee’s safety culture based on evaluation results.”  See IMC 2515 App B, "Supplemental Inspection Program" (Aug. 18, 2011)  ADAMS ML111870266.

##  M. Gray (NRC) to M.J. Colomb (Entergy), “James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant - NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000333/2012003” (Aug. 7, 2012)  ADAMS ML12220A278.

###  A.M. Macfarlane, “Assessing Progress in Worldwide Nuclear Safety,” remarks to International Nuclear Safety Group Forum, IAEA, Vienna, Austria (Sept. 17, 2012), p. 3 ADAMS ML12261A373; NRC Press Release No. 12-102, “NRC Chairman Says Safety Culture Critical to Improving Safety; Notes Fukushima Progress in United States” (Sept. 17, 2012) ADAMS ML12261A391.

Cognitive Dissonance at Palisades

“Cognitive dissonance” is the tension that arises from holding two conflicting thoughts in one’s mind at the same time.  Here’s a candidate example, a single brief document that presents two different perspectives on safety culture issues at Palisades.

On June 26, 2012, the NRC requested information on Palisades’ safety culture issues, including the results of a 2012 safety culture assessment conducted by an outside firm, Conger & Elsea, Inc (CEI).  In reply, on July 9, 2012 Entergy submitted a cover letter and the executive summary of the CEI assessment.*  The cover letter says “Areas for Improvement (AFls) identified by CEI over1apped many of the issues already identified by station and corporate leadership in the Performance Recovery Plan. Because station and corporate management were implementing the Performance Recovery Plan in April 2012, many of the actions needed to address the nuclear safety culture assessment were already under way.”

Further, “Gaps identified between the station Performance Recovery Plan and the safety culture assessment are being addressed in a Safety Culture Action Plan. . . . [which is] a living document and a foundation for actively engaging station workers to identify, create and complete other actions deemed to be necessary to improve the nuclear safety culture at PNP.”

Seems like management has matters in hand.  But let’s look at some of the issues identified in the CEI assessment.

“. . . important decision making processes are governed by corporate procedures. . . .  However, several events have occurred in recent Palisades history in which deviation from those processes contributed to the occurrence or severity of an event.”

“. . . there is a lack of confidence and trust by the majority of employees (both staff and management) at the Plant in all levels of management to be open, to make the right decisions, and to really mean what they say. This is indicated by perceptions [of] the repeated emphasis of production over safety exhibited through decisions around resources.” [emphasis added]

“There is a lack in the belief that Palisades Management really wants problems or concerns reported or that the issues will be addressed. The way that CAP is currently being implemented is not perceived as a value added process for the Plant.”

The assessment also identifies issues related to Safety Conscious Work Environment and accountability throughout the organization.

So management is implying things are under control but the assessment identified serious issues.  As our Bob Cudlin has been explaining in his series of posts on decision making, pressures associated with goal conflict permeate an entire organization and the problems that arise cannot be fixed overnight.  In addition, there’s no reason for a plant to have an ineffective CAP but if the CAP isn’t working, that’s not going to be quickly fixed either.


*  Letter, A.J. Vitale to NRC, “Reply to Request for Information” (July 9,2012) ADAMS ML12193A111.

NRC Non-Regulation of Safety Culture: Second Quarter Update

NRC SC poster, ADAMS ML120810464.

On March 17th we published a post on NRC safety culture (SC) related activities with individual licensees since the SC policy statement was issued in June, 2011.  This post is an update, highlighting selected NRC actions from mid-March through June. 

Our earlier post mentioned Browns Ferry, Fort Calhoun and Palisades as plants where the NRC was undertaking SC related activities.  It looks like none of those plants has resolved its SC issues. 

For Browns Ferry we reported that the NRC was reviewing the plant’s 2011 SC surveys.  Turns out that was just the tip of the iceberg.  A recent PI&R inspection report indicates that the plant’s SC problems have existed for years and are deep-rooted.  Over time, Browns Ferry has reported SC issues including production and schedule taking priority over safety (2008), “struggling” with SC issues (2010) and a decline in SC (2011).  All of this occurred in spite of multiple licensee interventions and corrective actions.  The NRC’s current view is “Despite efforts to address SC issues at the site, the inspectors concluded that the lack of full confidence in the CAP has contributed to a decline in the SC since the last PI&R inspection.”*  We don’t expect this one to go away anytime soon.

Fort Calhoun management had said that SC deficiencies had contributed to problems in their CAP.  During the quarter, they presented actions planned or taken to remediate their SC deficiencies.  On June 11th, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter with a lengthy list of actions to be completed prior to plant restart.  One item is “OPPD will conduct a third-party safety culture assessment . . . and implement actions to address the results . . . .”**  It looks like Fort Calhoun is making acceptable progress on the SC front and we’d be surprised if SC ends up being an item that prevents restart.  Last April we provided some additional information on Fort Calhoun here.

In Palisades’ case, the NRC is asking for an extensive set of information on the actions being taken to improve SC at the site.  The last item on the long list requests the latest SC assessment for Entergy’s corporate office.  (This is not simply a fishing expedition.  Entergy is in trouble at other nuclear sites for problems that also appear related to SC deficiencies.)  After the information is provided and reviewed, the NRC “believe[s] that a public meeting on the safety culture assessment and your subsequent actions would be beneficial to ensure a full understanding by the NRC, your staff, and the public.”***  Back in January, we provided our perspective on Palisades here and here.

New NRC SC activity occurred at Susquehanna as part of a supplemental inspection related to a White finding and a White performance indicator.  The NRC conducted an “assessment of whether any safety culture component caused or significantly contributed to the white finding and PI.”  The assessment was triggered by PPL’s report that SC issues may have contributed to the plant’s performance problems.  The NRC inspectors reviewed documents and interviewed focus groups, individual managers and groups involved in plant assessments.  They concluded “components of safety culture identified by PPL did not contribute to the White PI or finding, and that the recently implemented corrective actions appear to being well received by the work force.”****  We report this item because it illustrates the NRC’s willingness and ability to conduct its own SC assessments where the agency believes they are warranted.

Our March post concluded: “It’s pretty clear the NRC is turning the screw on licensee safety culture effectiveness, even if it’s not officially “regulating” safety culture.”  That still appears to be the case.


*  V.M. McCree (NRC) to J.W. Shea (TVA), Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - NRC Problem Identification and Resolution Inspection Report 05000259/2012007, 05000260/2012007 and 05000296/2012007 and Exercise of Enforcement Discretion (May 28, 2012) ADAMS ML12150A219.

**  E.E. Collins (NRC) to D.J. Bannister (OPPD), Confirmatory Action Letter – Fort Calhoun Station (June 11, 2012)  ADAMS ML12163A287.

***  G.L. Shear (NRC) to A. Vitale (Entergy), Request for Information on SC Issues at Palisades Nuclear Plant (June 26, 2012) ADAMS ML12179A155.

**** D.J. Roberts (NRC) to T.S. Rausch (PPL Susquehanna), Susquehanna Steam Electric Station – Assessment Follow-Up Letter and Interim NRC 95002 Supplemental Inspection Report 05000387/2012008 (May 7, 2012) ADAMS ML12125A374.

The NRC Does Not Regulate Safety Culture, Right?

Last March, the NRC approved its safety culture policy statement.*  At the time, a majority of commissioners issued supplemental comments expressing their concern that the policy statement could be used as a back door to regulation.  The policy was issued in June, 2011.  Enough time has lapsed to ask: What, if anything has happened, i.e., how is the NRC treating safety culture as it exercises its authority to regulate licensees?

We examined selected NRC documents for some plants where safety culture has been raised as a possible issue and see a few themes emerging.  One is the requirement to examine the causes of specific incidents to ascertain if safety culture was a contributing factor.  It appears some (perhaps most or all) special inspection notices to licensees include some language about "an assessment of whether any safety culture component caused or significantly contributed to these findings."  

The obvious push is to get the licensee to do the work and explicitly address safety culture in their mea culpa to the agency.  Then the agency can say, for example, that "The inspection team confirmed that the licensee established appropriate corrective actions to address safety culture."**  A variant on this theme is now occurring at Browns Ferry, where the “NRC is reviewing results from safety culture surveys performed by the plant in 2011.”*** 

The NRC is also showing the stick, at least at one plant.  At Fort Calhoun, the marching orders are: “Assess the licensee’s third party evaluation of their safety culture. . . . If necessary, perform an independent assessment of the licensee’s safety culture using the guidance contained in Inspection Procedure 95003."****  I think that means: If you can't/won't/don't perform an adequate safety culture evaluation, then we will.  To back up this threat, it appears the NRC is developing procedures and materials for qualifying its inspectors to evaluate safety culture.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process is another way to get safety culture addressed.  For example, Entergy got in 10 CFR 50.7 (employee protection) trouble for lowering a River Bend employee’s rating in part because of questions he raised.  One of Entergy's commitments following ADR was to perform a site-wide safety culture survey.  It probably didn’t help that, in a separate incident, River Bend operators were found accessing the internet when they were supposed to be watching the control board.  Entergy also has to look at safety culture at FitzPatrick and Palisades because of incidents at those locations.***** 

What does the recent experience imply?

The NRC’s current perspective on safety culture is summed up in an NRC project manager’s post in an internet Nuclear Safety Culture forum: “You seem to [sic] hung up on how NRC is going to enforce safety culture.  We aren't.  Safety culture isn't required. It won't be the basis for denying a license application.  It won't be the basis for citing a violation during an inspection.  However, if an incident investigation identifies safety culture as one of the root causes, we will require corrective action to address it.”  (Note this is NOT an official agency statement.)

However, our Bob Cudlin made a more expansive prediction in his January 19, 2011 post: “. . . it appears that the NRC will “expect” licensees to meet the intent and the particulars of its policy statement.  It seems safe to assume the NRC staff will apply the policy in its assessments of licensee performance. . . . The greatest difficulty is to square the rhetoric of NRC Commissioners and staff regarding the absolute importance of safety culture to safety, the “nothing else matters” perspective, with the inherently limited and non-binding nature of a policy statement.”

While the record to date may support the NRC PM’s view, I think Bob’s observations are also part of the mix.  It’s pretty clear the NRC is turning the screw on licensee safety culture effectiveness, even if it’s not officially “regulating” safety culture.


*  NRC Commission Voting Record, SECY-11-005, “Proposed Final Safety Culture Policy Statement” (March 7, 2011).  I could not locate this document in ADAMS.

**  IR 05000482-11-006, 02/07-03/31/2011, Wolf Creek Generating Station - NRC Inspection Procedure 95002 Supplemental Inspection Report and Assessment Followup Letter (May 20, 2011) ADAMS ML111400351. 

***  Public Meeting Summary for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Docket No. 50-259 (Feb. 26, 2012) ADAMS ML12037A092.

****  Fort Calhoun Station Manual Chapter 0350 Oversight Panel Charter (Jan. 12, 2012) ADAMS ML120120661.

*****  EN-11-026, Confirmatory Order, Entergy Operations Inc.  (Aug. 19, 2011)  ADAMS ML11227A133; NRC Press Release-I-12-002: “NRC Confirms Actions to be Taken at FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant to Address Violations Involving Radiation Protection Program” (Jan. 26, 2012) ADAMS ML120270073; NRC Press Release-III-12-003: “NRC Issues Confirmatory Orders to Palisades Plant Owner Entergy and Plant Operator” (Jan. 26, 2012) ADAMS ML120270071.

Will Safety Culture Kill Palisades?

To tell the truth, I have no idea.  But the plant has an interesting history and reviewing it may give us some hints with respect to the current situation.

If Palisades were a person, we would think it existed in almost laboratory-like conditions for developing a distinct cultural strain.  It’s elderly, a little “different” and a singleton, with a stillborn sibling and a parent who never really loved it.

Palisades is the 9th oldest of U.S. units that are still operating and was/is Combustion Engineering’s first commercial reactor.  C-E reactors were not as popular as GE or Westinghouse; about 13 percent of the current U.S. fleet uses C-E reactors.  The other old units were owned by companies that developed additional nuclear plants but that didn’t happen for Palisades.  It was supposed to have a big brother, Midland, but the project collapsed, primarily because of construction problems, in 1984 when Midland was about 85% complete, almost bankrupting the owner, Consumers Power (which morphed into CMS Energy and then Consumers Energy.) 

Consumers was looking for someone else to operate or take over the plant as far back as the early 1990s.  Eventually, in 2001, they hired the Nuclear Management Company to operate the plant.  That relationship continued until the plant was sold to Entergy in April 2007.

New managers were able to increase performance in terms of capacity factor (CF).  Under Consumers management, 1996-2000 average CF was 85.2%; under NMC, 2002-2006 CF was 90.0 %; and under Entergy, 2007-2010 CF was 93.0%.  In addition, each of those averages was higher than the average CF of the entire U.S. nuclear fleet for the same period.  (I deliberately omitted 2001; it was a terrible year, with a normal refueling outage followed by a six-month maintenance outage to replace control rod drive assemblies.)

More important from the standpoint of trying to infer something about the safety culture, Palisades kept its nose clean with respect to the NRC.  There were three Severity Level III violations during the Consumers era, and one SL-III and one White violation in 2001.  It looks like three different management regimes were able to maintain an effective safety culture but there has been a recent lapse with three White violations since 2009 and preliminary White and Yellow findings in process.

Conclusion

What does this tell us, if anything?  Has Entergy been squeezing the plant too hard?  Did the CF success under Entergy lead to complacency?  Are there any long-standing material condition problems to sap morale and depress safety culture?  Have there been regular, in-depth independent assessments of organizational issues?  I have no insight into this situation although in our Jan. 12 post, I said it looked like the process of normalization of deviance had occurred.  But there is one thing that should jolt the staff into paying attention to detail, at least for awhile: Some Entergy MBA is carefully watching the numbers.  If the NRC shuts down Palisades, it won’t be long before Entergy folds up its tent and walks away.  No generation means no revenue.  And I can’t believe the PSC or ratepayers in economically depressed Michigan have much interest in bailing out a carpetbagger owner.

Problems at Palisades—A Case of Normalization of Deviance?

The Palisades nuclear plant is in trouble with the NRC.  On Jan. 11, 2012 the NRC met with Entergy (the plant’s owner and operator) to discuss two preliminary inspection findings, one white and one yellow.  Following is the NRC summary of the more significant event.

 “The preliminary yellow finding of substantial significance to safety is related to an electrical fault caused by personnel at the site. The electrical fault resulted in a reactor trip and the loss of half of the control room indicators, and activation of safety systems not warranted by actual plant conditions. This made the reactor trip more challenging for the operators and increased the risk of a serious event occurring. The NRC conducted a Special Inspection and preliminarily determined the actions and work preparation for the electrical panel work were not done correctly.”*

At the meeting with NRC, an Entergy official said “Over time, a safety culture developed at the plant where workers thought if they had successfully accomplished a task in the past, they could do it again without strictly following procedure [emphasis added]. . . .

Management also accepted that, and would reward workers for getting the job done. This led to the events that caused the September shutdown when workers did not follow the work plan while performing maintenance.”**

In an earlier post, we defined normalization of deviance as “the gradual acceptance of performance results that are outside normal acceptance criteria.”  In the Palisades case, we don’t know anything more than the published reports but it sure looks to us like an erosion of performance standards, an erosion that was effectively encouraged by management.

Additional Background on Palisades

This is not Palisades’ first trip to the woodshed.  Based on a prior event, the NRC had already demoted Palisades from the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) Licensee Response Column to the Regulatory Response Column, meaning additional NRC inspections and scrutiny.  And they may be headed for the Degraded Cornerstone Column.***  But it’s not all bad news.  At the end of the third quarter 2011, Palisades had a green board on the ROP.****  Regular readers know our opinion with respect to the usefulness of the ROP performance matrices.


*  NRC news release, “NRC to Hold Two Regulatory Conferences on January 11 to Discuss Preliminary White and Preliminary Yellow Findings at Palisades Nuclear Plant,” nrc.gov (Jan. 5, 2012).

**  F. Klug, “Decline in safety culture at Palisades nuclear power plant to be fixed, company tells regulators,” Kalamazoo Gazette on mlive.com (Jan. 11, 2012).

***  B. Devereaux, “Palisades nuclear plant bumped down in status by NRC; Entergy Nuclear to dispute other findings next week,” mlive.com (Jan. 4, 2012).

****  Palisades 3Q/2011 Performance Summary, nrc.gov (retrieved Jan. 12, 2012).