3.6 Human Performance Tools - IAEA Programs

NEI/INPO/EPRI Industrywide Benchmarking
Project
LP002


Human Performance Process Benchmarking Report

May 2001

NEI/INPO/EPRI Industrywide Benchmarking Project

Nuclear Energy Institute

Human Performance Process Benchmarking Report

May 2001

Acknowledgements

The Nuclear Energy Institute wishes to thank the following utilities and
industry organizations for providing the personnel and resources necessary
to perform this project.

American Electric Power

Arizona Public Service Company

Carolina Power & Light Company

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Dominion Generation

Duke Energy Generation Services

EPRI

Electricite de France

Exelon Corporation

FirstEnergy

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

North Atlantic Energy Services Corporation

Omaha Public Power District

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

Southern California Edison Company

Southern Nuclear Operating Company

Tennessee Valley Authority

The Detroit Edison Company

TXU

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation

Notice
Neither NEI, nor any of its employees, members, supporting organizations,
contractors, or consultants make any warranty, expressed or implied, or
assume any legal responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of, or
assume any liability for damages resulting from any use of, any information
apparatus, methods, or process disclosed in this report or that such may
not infringe privately owned rights.
Executive Summary

Benchmarking is the process of comparing one's current practices with those
of the industry leaders to achieve improvement through change. This report
summarizes the results of NEI's benchmarking effort to identify the good
practices and common contributors of successful human performance
improvement processes.

The resources for this project came from utility subject matter experts,
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), EPRI and NEI. Following
training in the NEI benchmarking process, the team identified industry
leaders, conducted site visits, and prepared this written report. To
identify the industry leaders, a comparison of survey data collected from
twenty-nine U.S. plants was balanced against the ability of the site's to
support a benchmark visit and the O&M cost. The six sites visited and the
respective most outstanding human performance improvement activity were:

. Brunswick - Human Performance Continuing Training (Appendix E)
. Comanche Peak - Peer-to-Peer Observations (Appendix I)
. Farley - Weekly Human Error Investigation Process (Appendix K)
. Palo Verde - Pre-Job Briefing Database (Appendix F)
. Seabrook - Organizational Communications (Appendix S)
. Watts Bar - Excellence in Performance Program (Appendix U)

Central to human performance improvement is the "VALUE. Model" (Section 2).
It is characterized by a clear Vision and Achievement of business goals and
also by Leadership upholding high standards for performance and
Understanding of human performance such that Event-free performance can be
effectively promoted and attained.

The following common factors are effective mechanisms to improve human
performance:

. Management sponsorship and leadership driven improvement
initiatives
. Business planning process that integrates a human performance
improvement strategy
. Communication that facilitates excellence in human performance
. Training and personal development of knowledge and skills aimed at
error prevention
. Established standards and expectations for use of human performance
error prevention tools
. Immediate positive reinforcement to personnel exhibiting correct
behaviors
. Pre-job briefing process using data base tools and industry
operating experience
. Observation programs focused on the removal of barriers to
excellent performance
. Integrated self-assessment of human performance improvement
activities to improve their effectiveness.

The team developed a Human Performance Improvement Process Map (Section 4)
that may be used as a business tool to assess and adjust human performance
improvement efforts. Additionally, good practices identified by the team
are described in the appendices and annotated to show alignment with the
process map.

Table Of Contents

Executive Summary i


1 INTRODUCTION 1


1.1 Overview 1

1.2 Site Selection Process 2

1.3 Common Contributors 2
1.3.1 Management Sponsorship and Leader Driven 2
1.3.2 Integrating Human Performance in Business Planning 2
1.3.3 Communications 2
1.3.4 Training and Development 3
1.3.5 Reinforcement 3
1.3.6 Human Performance Tools 3
1.3.7 Pre-Job Briefings 3
1.3.8 Observation Programs 3
1.3.9 Integrated Self-Assessment of Human Performance 4

1.4 Plant Visit Highlights 5
1.4.1 Brunswick 5
1.4.2 Comanche Peak 6
1.4.3 Farley 8
1.4.4 Palo Verde 10
1.4.5 Seabrook 12
1.4.6 Watts Bar 13

1.5 Other Good Practices 14

2 Value Model 15


3 Common Contributors 17


3.1 Management Sponsorship and Leader Driven 17

3.2 Integrating Human Performance in Business Planning 19

3.3 Communications 20

3.4 Training and Development 20

3.5 Reinforcement 21

3.6 Human Performance Tools 22

3.7 Pre-job Briefings 22

3.8 Observation Programs 23

3.9 Integrated Self-Assessment of Human Performance 23




4 Process Map 25


4.1 Topical Areas 25

4.2 Terminology 26

4.3 Performance Indicators 26
4.3.1 Personnel Safety (1.1, 1.2, 3.2, 3.7) 26
4.3.2 Personnel Error Rate (1.2, 3.4, 3.7, 3.8) 26
4.3.3 Significant Personnel Error Rate (1.2, 3.4, 3.7, 3.8) 26
4.3.4 Human Performance Awareness (3.1, 3.2, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7) 26
4.3.5 Backlog Management (3.1, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7) 27
4.3.6 Workplace Culture (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7) 27
4.3.7 Learning Culture (3.6, 3.7) 27
4.3.8 Procedure Noncompliance Rate (3.1, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8) 27
4.3.9 Human Performance Success (3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7) 27


APPENDIces


A. SITE SELECTION PROCESS A-1


B. Site Profile Matrix and Organization Charts B-1


C. Task Force List C-1


D. Change Management D-1


E. Human Performance Continuing Training E-1


F. Pre-job Briefing Databases F-1


G. Eliminating Latent Weaknesses in Jobsite Conditions G-1


H. Common Precursors to Errors Report H-1


I. Peer-to-Peer Observations I-1


J. Plant Event Review Committee J-1


K. Weekly Human Error Investigation Process K-1


L. Performance Indicators L-1


M. Management Observation Training Program M-1


N. Health Physics Observation Program N-1


O. "Focus on Five" Prevent Event Briefing Questions O-1


P. Hands-On Safety Behavior Laboratory P-1


Q. Human Performance Marketing Q-1


R. Quarterly Ownership and Effectiveness MeasureS R-1


S. Organizational Communications S-1


T. DeskSTAR T-1


U. Excellence in Performance Program U-1


V. STAR 7 V-1


W. Training Alignment to Improve Human Performance W-1


X. Error-Likely Days X-1


Y. Outage Initiatives Y-1


Z. Glossary Z-1



Figures


FIGURE 2-1 VALUE MODEL 15


Figure 4-1 human performance improvement process map 28


FIGURE A-1 SITE SELECTION PLOT A-2


Figure b-1 brunswick organization chart b-2


FIGURE B-2 COMANCHE PEAK ORGANIZATION CHART B-3


FIGURE B-3 FARLEY ORGANIZATION CHART B-4


Figure b-4 Palo verde organization chart b-5


FIGURE B-5 SEABROOK ORGANIZATION CHART B-6


Figure b-6 watts bar organization chart b-7


HUMAN PERFORMANCE PROCESS BENCHMARKING REPORT


Introduction


1 Overview

Between January and May 2001, a group of industry experts conducted a Human
Performance Process Benchmarking Project. The scope of the process
investigated is sub-process LP-002 as described in the report - A Standard
Nuclear Performance Model - The Process Management Approach, Revision 1,
December 2000.

The objectives of this project were to:

. Perform a baseline evaluation of human performance.
. Identify and develop a process map.
. Select and visit at least six sites.
. Identify specific common practices and individual site good
practices.
. Share process results across the nuclear industry.


This report provides the results of benchmarking visits to Brunswick,
Comanche Peak, Farley, Palo Verde, Seabrook, and Watts Bar sites. The
teams conducted interviews based upon process map areas of interest.
Interviewing teams then obtained additional details to describe the
practices.

The benchmarking process used the aggressive and challenging schedule to
reduce the time required to achieve results. Project task force consisted
of human performance subject matter experts from 17 plants, four
representatives from the Insti