ML060120283
| ML060120283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Issue date: | 12/28/2005 |
| From: | Rhonda Butler Univ of Missouri - Columbia |
| To: | Charemagne Grimes NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR |
| References | |
| EA-02-256 | |
| Download: ML060120283 (25) | |
Text
mlYuI Research Reactor Center -~U Research Park Drve Columbia, MO 65211-3400 University of Missouri-Columbia PHONE (573) 882-4211 FAX (573) 882-6360 wnsrm http://web.missouri.edu/-murrwww December 28, 2005 Christopher Grimes Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Reference:
Docket No. 50-186 License No. R-103 EA-02-0256 University of Missouri Research Reactor
Subject:
Second annual report of Safety Conscious Work Environment Survey and Assessment as required by Confirmatory Order of December 19, 2003 On December 19, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Confirmatory Order, which required, in Section V.2 (a) that the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR):
[Perform] an employee cultural survey developed by an independent consultant or entity. This survey shall be performed annually for not less than two years.
During the two year period, the NRC shall be provided an annual report summarizing the findings of the culture assessment, including the questions used, the methodology applied, and any follow-up actions....
MURR has satisfied the above requirements for the second year survey (2005) by using the same survey instrument used in the first year survey (2004) and reported to the NRC in a letter dated December 29, 2004. The second annual SCWE survey was conducted over the period September 5 through September 19, 2005. The surveys were sent to be scored by the same individual with the Utilities Service Alliance Group (USA Group) who had performed this function for the 2004 survey. The results of the 2005 survey were reported to us in graphical form with the 2004 survey results included for easier comparison.
MURR asked a member of MURR's Ombudsmen Program to provide an independent assessment of the 2005 survey results. The MURR Safety Oversight Committee (MSOC) was also asked to review the survey results and provide an additional assessment. Both assessments were reviewed by MURR's Senior Management Council on December 14, 2005. At this meeting, follow-up actions were developed for fiscal year 2006 to promote and maintain a Safety Conscious Work Environment. MURR's Second Annual Culture Survey Report, consistent with the Confirmatory Order, is provided as Attachment 1.
-o AG FiGHTmG CANCE WIT TOMOROW'S TEcHNOGY.
Christopher Grimes December 28, 2005 Page 2 includes the survey questions used, and a graphical representation of the 2005 survey results, side by side with the 2004 survey results, as provided by a member of the USA Group. The assessments are available for NRC inspection at MURR.
Sincerely, Ralph A. Butler, Director University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor Center Attachments (2) xc: Michael Johnson, Director Office of Enforcement, USNRC Alexander Adams, Senior Project Manager Research & Test Reactors, USNRC Dr. Elson Floyd, President University of Missouri Dr. Brian Foster, Provost University of Missouri-Columbia Dr. James Coleman, Vice-Provost Office of Research, University of Missouri-Columbia State of /IssoM uaj.
County of 13 Bra This instrument was acknowledged before me on Wday of.& 20QŽby.
Notary Publics ignature /_
My Commission Expiens __ _ _ _ < (0
University of Missouri Culture Survey Annual Report, Year 2 December 28, 2005 Attachment 1 A. Methodologv The University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) approached its second year annual requirement to perform a culture survey in much the same manner as year one.
MURR employed the same survey instrument that was used for last year's survey that was modeled after one used by the Utilities Service Alliance group (USA Group) to assess the SCWE at nuclear power facilities. Once again, MURR used this opportunity to assess additional areas of interest at the facility, such as the Corrective Action Program (CAP).
The scope of the survey exceeded that required by the NRC order in that it addressed four general topics: Safety Conscious Work Environment; Employee Safety Concerns and Reporting Process; Management Conduct and Performance and Corrective Action Program. The survey responses were once again sent to a representative from the USA Group to translate the raw survey data into graphical form that we could use to compare to the results of the Year One (2004) survey results. Enclosed are the results from the current year (2005) and the previous year (2004) surveys. (See attachment 2)
B. MURR Evaluation of the 2005 Survey and Assessments For this year's survey, MURR management asked one member of MURR's Ombudsmen Program, a University of Missouri Law Professor, to provide an independent assessment of the survey results. The MURR Safety Oversight Committee (MSOC) was also asked to review the survey results and provide their own assessment. Each of these assessments considered the results of last year's survey (2004) as a benchmark to determine any noteworthy trends.
At a meeting on December 14, 2005, the MURR Senior Management Council reviewed both the independent assessment performed by our Ombudsman and the assessment performed by the MSOC. Both evaluations indicated that there were no obvious trends as the survey results for 2005 were very similar to those of the 2004 survey. On many survey questions both the "agree" and "disagree" responses increased slightly,Awhich may indicate a strengthening of viewpoints (negative or positive) of the persons who had more neutral responses in the 2004 survey.
On a positive note, there appeared to be a continued high concurrence among MR staff that the safety reporting process is working well. The MSOC assessment indicates that management communications, one of our areas of focused attention for 2005, showed a slight negative trend despite our efforts to improve this area. During the year 2005, MURR sponsored two seminars by a professional consultant in the area of organization communications. The title of the presentation was "Communications with Impact". The seminar was presented to our managers and supervisors in May 2005 and then to the remainder of our staff in August 2005.
SCWE Annual Report, Attachment 1 December 28, 2005 Page 2 While the absence of a positive trend despite our efforts in 2005 is disappointing, it would be naive on MURR management's part to think that there are quick fixes for improving organizational communications. This is an area where management will need to remain open to ways to improve our communications on a continuing basis.
C. Planned Follow-up Actions MURR will continue to focus our efforts to maintain a working environment that encourages individuals to identify and raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation.
We understand from both the 2004 and 2005 surveys that improving organizational communications is an area that requires continued effort by management and all MURR staff.
The MSOC assessment recommends that a different survey be developed for the year 2006. The current survey has some questions worded such that interpretation of the meaning is difficult (e.g., some questions are really two or three questions rolled into one). We plan to ask the MSOC to develop a new survey that may provide better feedback to MURR management regarding effectiveness of our efforts in maintaining our SCWE.
The MURR Corrective Action Program (CAP), though not within the scope of the NRC order, is another area where we plan to make improvements in the coming year (2006).
Over the past year we had a CAP Improvement Team develop recommendations on how we can improve this program. We are currently working with a vendor who may be able to upgrade our CAP database to include many of these recommendations. These recommendations also involve improving communications with respect to how we provide feedback to individuals regarding their CAP issues and the status of progress on these issues.
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q1 - As a nuclear/radiation worker, I am responsible for identifying problems and adverse conditions 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
,e I stro l Sept 05 (108) 93% l 7% 0 3% I 0% I 0% 0%
OpO(9)8%13% 3% 1 0% I 0% 0%
P1O g I Page 1 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q2 - I believe a culture exists at MURR that is conducive to raising nuclear safety and quality concerns 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ngly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know ExSept 05 (108) 1 46% 36% 10% 6% 2% 0%
OAprO4 (119) 50% 34% 12% 3% 1% 0%
Page 2 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Co3 Page 3 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q4 - I feel free to approach management regarding any nuclear safety or quality concern 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Keept 05(108) 58% 30% 6% 4% i 3% 0%
DAprO4(119) 66% 23% 7% 3% 1 2% 0%
Page 4 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q5 - I believe that I can raise any nuclear safety or quality concern without fear of retaliation 100%
90o 80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%*
20% -
10% -
0/
_ Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know Sept05 (108) 56% 26% 7% 7% 5% 1%
3AprO4(119) 57% 28% 8% 4% 3% 1%
Co6 Page 5 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q6 - I believe that the MSOC will maintain confidentiality of my concern at my request 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% =_ .
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
- Sept 05 (108) 41% 37% 16% 6% 1% 2%
DApr 04 (119) 43% 33% 19% 3% 2% 3%
COCK Page 6 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q7 - I am aware of the Safety Concerns Process (If I wanted to, I could use the process) 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% -
0% -
lSept 05 (108) 64% 31% 5% 1% 0% 1%
1AprO4(119) 66% 30% 3% 1% 0% 0%
Co]
Page 7 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q8 - I am confident that issues reported through the Safety Concerns Process are thoroughly investigated and appropriately resolved 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% os____1.. A ___ A ____ a!______
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know U Sept05 (108) 25% 46% 20% 8% 2% l 2%
1O3Apr 04 (119) 34% 44% 17% 4% 1% 5%
co%
Page 8 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q9 - I believe that upper management supports the Safety Concerns Process 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
no/
u 70 -- --- __
. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know ESept 05 (108) 50% 25% 15% 5% 5% 2%
DApr 04 (119) 49% 35% 10% 4% 2% 1%
cog Page 9 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q1 0 - I can use the Safety Concerns Process without fear of reprisal 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ESept05 (108) 51% 31% 9% 3% 6% 3%
DAprO4(119) 51% 31% 13% 3% 2% 2%
CPo Page 10 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q11 - Management's expectations regarding safety and quality are clearly communicated 50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
nol Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know
- Sept05(108) 44% 36% 13% 6% 0% 0%
JOAprO4(119) 45% 38% 13% 3% 1% 0%
1 I CPg Page 11 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q12 - Management's expectations are consistent with performance reviews, rewards and discipline 35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% I I I _ _ I_ _ l-I
- - Strongly Agree Agree Neutral I Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know OSept 5(108) 30% 26% 25% 11% 9% 7%
DApr 04 (119) 23% 29% 30% 12% 6% 8%
(1z Page 12 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q1 3 - I believe that management wants employees to report concerns 60%
50%
40%-
30%
20%
10% -
0% -
ESept05 (108) 53% 31% 8% 5% 3% 0%
DApr04(119) 50%0/ 32% 12% 4% 3% 0%
Page 13 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q14 - My management takes corrective actions on employee concerns brought to them 50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% _ I_ I 111_
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know I Sept 05 (108) 44% 33% 18% 4% 1% 3%
OlApr 04 (119) 39% 44% 11% 3% 3% 2%
C R-Page 14 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q1 5 - I believe my work environment is generally professional and open (I.e., free of any harassment, intimidation, discrimination or retaliation) 50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%Oo22 I Stonl Agree l Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know KSept 05 (108) 46% 31% 11% 7% 4% 0%
DApr 04 (119) 43% 30% 14% 8% 6% 2%
Page 15 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q16 - Resolution of potential nuclear safety/quality issues including root cause and broader implications through CAP is effective in our organization 50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% I -- I Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know KSept 05 (108) 20% 42% 23% 10% 5% 1%
[EApr 04 (119) 22% 43% 24% 5% 5% 3%
Cf(P Page 16 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q1 7 - Identification of potential nuclear safety/nuclear quality issues through the CAP is effective in our organization 50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% l _ l I Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know Sept05 (108) 28% 44% 19% 6% 3% 5%
OApr04(119) 31% 40% 25% 3% 2% 2%
Page 17 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q1 8 - I feel free to raise nuclear safety/quality concerns through the CAP without fear of reprisal 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% -
ISept 05 (108) 52% 28% 9% i 4% 7% 0%
OApr 04 (119) 49% 26% 17% 5% 3% 1%
1 Cg Page 18 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q19 - I am confident that issues reported through the CAP are prioritized appropriately, and thoroughly investigated 45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% -i Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know ESept 05 (108) 21% 25% 11% 2% 4%
OAprO4 (119) 34% 26% 29% 10% 1% 4%
CP e
Page 19of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q20 The CAP is utilized effectively by MURR to resolve conditions adverse to quality in a timely manner 45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
ESept 05 (108) 16% 39% 24% 12% 9% 3%
OApr04(119) 16% 36% 34% 8% 7% 3%
Page 20 of 21
MURR 2005/2004 SCWE Survey Comparison December 28, 2005 Attachment 2 Q21 - I know how to write a CAP Report and get it into the system 80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ESept 05(108) 69% 21% 7% 4% 0% 3%
lE3AprO4(119) 63% 24% 10% 4% 0% 4%
C"ZI Page 21 of 21