Safety Culture Traits Validatio

Power Reactors

NRC Public Meeting

Las Vegas, Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada

28 September 2010

G K th K Ph DG. 

Kenneth

Koves, Ph.D.
Why Include this Study in th

Discussion?

• Most formulations of safety culture (IAE

Most formulations of safety culture (IAE

NRC, INPO) were created by a small gro‘experts

’

• This is an attempt to incorporate ‘data’ 

the discussion of the language used to the discussion of the language used to

describe safety culture
Limitations of the Study Limitations of the Study

• Only power reactors Only power reactors• Correlational; not predictive
Questions of the Study Questions of the Study

• How well do the factors from a safety c

How well do the factors from

a safety c

survey align with the safety culture trai

were identified during the Feb 2010 were identified during the Feb 2010

workshop?

• Do the factors relate to other measures 

Do the factors relate to other measures 

safety performance?
Survey Development Survey Development

• Sta ted t t e Ut ty Se ce a ce su 

rted wi

th 

t

h

e Utility Service Alli

a

nce su

based upon INPO’s Principles for a Strong Safety Culture (73 items)

• Edited and added questions to accommod

workshop Traits

• NRC reviewed and suggested edits and ad

items based on Traits, IAEA, ROP, and liter

• Fi l i 110 it ith 7 Final version was 110 items with

7-poit 

n

t s

(strongly disagree to strongly agree w/ Do

Know)
Example Questions Example Questions

• Peo

p gy p 

le are treated with di

gnit

y and res

pec

station leadership

• We have a strong quality assurance proces

organization

• Our performance indicators help us to stay 

focused on the focused on the

‘right things right things

’

• The procedures at this site are generally u

date and easy to use

• Staffing levels are adequate to meet work 

demands
Example Questions Example Questions

• At this station

,p p y eo

ple are routinel

y rewar

identifying and reporting nuclear safety is

• Dialogue and debate are encouraged whe

evaluating nuclear safety issues evaluating nuclear safety issues

• I would not hesitate to take a concern to o

Employee Concerns Program Employee Concerns Program

• Decision-making at this site reflects a 

conservative approach to nuclear safety

• Supervisors are responsive to employee 

questions
Survey Administration Survey Administration

• Online survey Online survey

• Randomly selected sample of 100 perso

from each site from each site

• 63 nuclear reactor sites (97%)• An average of 46 individuals participate

each site

• 2,876 individuals provided valid respon

the ma

jorit

y of items

j y
Survey Analysis Survey Analysis

• Principal Components Analysis perform

Principal Components Analysis perform

identify the “factors” within the data

• Brief non Brief, non

-mathematical explanation of 

mathematical explanation of 

(with apologies to psychometricians and stat
PCA/Factor Analysis PCA/Factor Analysis

• Need: to reduce the set of variables 

( 

item

dataset

– Eyeball analysis– PCA/Factor analysis PCA/Factor analysis

123456

F1 F4 F2 

SF1 SF2 SF3
Survey Results Survey Results

1. Mana

g py ement Res

ponsibilit

y

– Respectful Work Environment– Continuous Improvement Continuous Improvement– Performance Indicators– Resources– Rewards

2 Willi t R i C 2. Willingness 

to 

R

aise 

Concerns 

– Informally– Formally
Results

3. Decision Making

– Decisions are conservative, timely, safetyfocused, g and engender confidence 

4. Supervisor Responsibility

– Communication– Presence/Availability– Coaching– Management Alignment
Results

5. Questioning Attitude

– Situation/Problem Awareness– Process Use– Plant Knowledge

6. Safety Communication

– Safety communication is broad and includ

plant-level communication, job-related 

communi ti k ca on, worker-l l i 

level communica

equipment labeling, operating experiencedocumentation
Results

7. Personal Resp y onsibility

– It is my responsibility to report concerns a

p y ractice nuclear safety

8. Prioritizing Safety

– Nuclear safety is a priority that is seen in Nuclear safety is a priority that is seen in

meetings, expectations, coaching, and de

9 Training Quality 9. Training Quality

– Training is high quality, supported by 

management and encourages nuclear safemanagement and encourages nuclear safe
Factors vs. Traits

Survey Factors Workshop Traits

Management Responsibility for Safety Leadership Safety Behaviors

Respectful work environment Respectful work environment Respectful Work Environme

Respectful Work Environme

Continuous improvementPerformance Indicators

Problem Resolution and MeContinuous Learning

Willi t R i C Willingness 

to 

R

aise 

Concerns E i R t f P bl Encouraging 

Repor

t o

f

Probl

Supervisor Responsibility for SafetyQuestioning Attitude 

Procedure Use Processes and Procedures

Communication Effective Safety Communicat

Personal Responsibility for Safety Personal Responsibility and Decision MakingPrioritizin

g Safet

y

g y

Training Quality
Factors, Traits, Principles, & 

Survey Factors Workshop Traits INPO Principles ROP C

Management Responsibility 

Leader SafetyRespect Work EnvironmentProblem Res & Metrics

2. Leader Demonstrates3. Trust Permeates7. Org Learning

2. Resour5. CAP6. OE

Continuous Learning 8. Nuc Under Cons Exam 7. Self & 

8. Enviro10. Accou11. Cont 12. Org C

Supervisor ResponsibilityPersonal Responsibility Personal Accountability 1. Everyone Personally 

Responsible

Decision Making 4. Decision Making

Reflects Safety First

1. Decisio

Communication Effective Safety Comm 3. Work CTraining Quality Training QualityQuestioning Attitude Work Processes 6. Ques Att is Cultivated

5. Nuc Tech Unique

Willingness to Raise Environment for Raising 9. PrevenConcerns ConcernsPrioritizing Safety 13. Safety 

* 4. Work Practices too broad t
Do the factors relate to othe

measures off f sa

fety per

forman

• Calculated correlations of the factor (an

Calculated correlations of the factor (an

subfactor) for each site with INPO and N

measures related to safety measures related to safety

culture/organizational effectiveness and 

equipment performance equipment performance

• Average correlations in previous metaanalyses were 22 and 31 analyses were .22 and .31 (Clarke 2006; (Clarke, 2006;

Christian, et al, 2009)
Factor-Specific Validities 

Factor ROP Unpln

Crit

Scram

Unpln

Auto 

Scram

Heat 

Remo

Avail

Em

Pwr

Aval

Per 

Safe 

Idx

CI

Scram Scram Avail Aval Idx 

Mgt Respon .30 .29 .34 .18 .26 

(.31)

.23 

(.31)

(

Raising Raising Concerns Concerns .25 .17 .24 .19 .27 .22 Decision Making .32 .28 .38 .22 .24 .25 Sup Respon .28 

( 35)

.15 .22 

( 40)

.35 .30 .19 

( 

(.35) (.40) (

Ques Attitude .18 .27 .26 

(.44)

.16 .37 .32 

(

Safet

y Comm .20 .32 .34 .16 .27 .27 

Personal Respon .05 .16 .21 .20 .14 .25 Prioritizing Safety .21 .24 .30 .23 .17 .22 T ii 12 33 40 14 15 13 Training .12 .33 .40 .14 .15 .13 

(Subfactor scores in parentheses) * Correlations a

* Selected subfactor scores in brackets
General Conclusions General Conclusions

• Results support the existence of the wo

Results support the existence of the wo

traits, however in a slightly different 

configuration

• Factors are consistent with research in 

domains

• Survey factors are related to other mea

of i i l ff i d 

f organizational effectiveness an

d equ

performance in nuclear power plants