Text

E-mail from A. Blough of USNRC to D. Vito, H. Miller and L. Jarriel of USNRC, Regarding Amplifying Into on Synergy Results
	ML060580551
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	03/17/2004
From:	Blough A; NRC Region 1
To:	Lisamarie Jarriel, Miller H, Vito D; NRC Region 1
References
	FOIA/PA-2005-0194
	Download: ML060580551 (14)
	v • d • e

j Dayid' Vito -Fwd. FW:amplifying info on Syney resufts Page 1

,,, "-"I---V-.-

I........ --

11 David Ito -

w : ' I inaf o sults

[;

'-"L

v q

v

?

_._ls_.__

S

.1 6

6Page 1 S From:

A. Randolph Blough To:

David Vito; Hubert J. Miller; Lisamarie Jarriel Date:

3/17/04 5:19PM

Subject:

Fwd: FW:amplifying info on Synergy results apparently PSEG had to go to synergy for the answers, which could be telling in itself.

the key tidbit is that, in comparing demographic groups, PSEG had wider than normal variations in how the groups feel.

CC:

Glenn Meyer; Mel Gray; Scolt Barber 2

\\

fl DVitdVito - Fwd-FW resoonses from Svnerav Pace 1 1 I,

-1 From:

Mel Gray eJ To:

A. Randolph Blough; Glenn Meyer Date:

3/17/04 1:15PM

Subject:

Fwd: FW: responses from Synergy As a result of randy's and the resident review of the Synergy Survey, we asked two follow-up questions:

1. For areas of improvement, Synergy identified priority 1, 2,3,4 issues. What criteria were used to bin these issues?

2. The Synergy presentation to PSEG amangement included a slide that showed the deviations from metric ratings by personnel demographic. How did the PSEG variations by demographic compare with industry norms?

Synergy's responses are provided in the attached email. PSEG deviations by demographic were greater than norms.

Mel Gray CC:

Daniel Orr; George Malone; Marc Ferdas; Scott Barber

1.David Vilto - FW: responses from Synergy Page 11 From:

"Gra Melvin K." <Melvin.Gray-pseg.com>

To:

"mxg3@nrc.gov." <mxg3@nrc.gov>

Date:

3/17/04 12:06PM

Subject:

FW: responses from Synergy

- -----Original Message-----

> From:

Sindoni, Joseph M.

> Sent:

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 8:49 AM

> To:

Gray, Melvin K.

> Cc:

Keenan, Jeffrie; Mannon, Steven R.

Subject:

responses from Synergy

Mel

> I have received the following from Synergy in response to your two

questions. Hope this helps.

> Skip

> <<QuestionsNRCPSEG Nuclear 2003 CCA.doc>>

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from PSEG. This e-mail may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. This notice is included in all e-mail messages leaving PSEG. Thank you for your cooperation.

David Vito - Questions NRC PSEG Nuclear 2003 CCA.doc Pane 1 1

" Dai io-Qebns NRC PSEG Nuclear 2003 CCA/cloc

I Page 1 1 SYNERGY RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS PSEG NUCLEAR 2003 CCA Question 1: How did SYNERGY determine the priority levels in the opportunities for improvement section of the ESR?

The assignment of Priority Levels for identified "Targeted Functional Organizations" is based upon specific criteria for key cultural metric ratings, both individually and in combination. The details of this methodology and criteria are provided in Attachment 13 to the ESR.

For the other opportunities for improvement identified in the ESR, SYNERGY used a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria to assign recommended relative Priority Levels.

The process that SYNERGY utilized to identify opportunities for improvement is described in the "Opportunities for Improvement" Section of the ESR. The vast majority of the opportunities were identified based upon a combination of inputs from (1) survey ratings of Topical Areas; (2) individual survey question ratings; and (3) write-in comments. (The rest were in areas identified solely or predominantly through the analysis of the write-in comments.)

From a quantitative analysis perspective, specific numerical threshold criteria were utilized in this process. These criteria vary between the CCA Models (for example, a rating of < 3.50 would trigger identification of a NSC-related opportunity for improvement; a rating of < 4.00 or < 3.30 would trigger identification of a SCWE-related opportunity depending on the specific element of the SCWE that is in question; a rating of < 3.15 would trigger identification of a GCWE or LMS-related opportunity for improvement.) In general, the greater the divergence from a numerical threshold criteria, the higher the Priority Level assigned to that opportunity for improvement.

From a qualitative analysis perspective, as indicated in the "Opportunities for Improvement" Section of the ESR, SYNERGY considered a number of other factors in recommending relative priority levels for specific opportunities for improvement. These included: (1) assigning higher priority lavels for an integrated set of opportunities to address a Major Issue (i.e., a transcending issue that appeared to be significantly adversely affecting a broad spectrum of areas of the organization's culture and performance); (2) relative priority considerations using the concept of "key building blocks" for improvement; and (3) establishing a reasonable balance of priorities between competing opportunities in different areas (e.g., a particular GCWE area versus a particular LMS area). This qualitative analysis relied upon the experience gained by SYNERGY in performing more than 90 cultural assessments within the commercial nuclear industry.

DavidVito - Questions NRC PSEG Nuclear 2003 CCA doc Page 2 Question # 2: How do the "demographic variations" for key cultural metric ratings by "worker category" at PSEG Nuclear compare to industry "demographic variations"?

DATA The "worker category" demographic variation data for the PSEG Nuclear 2003 CCA is repeated below:

TABLE 1 ACTUAL METRIC RATINGS Demorapic verall SCWE 2 ECP GW M

Category NSCt Metric Metric Metric M t r c e_

PSEG 3.73 4.31 3.42 3.40 3.32 Composite Salaried 3.93 4.51 3.67 3.54 3.49 Personnel Hourly 3.88 4.45 3.50 3.67 3.62 Personnel Union 3.35 3.96 2.95 3.05 2.92 Personnel Contractor 4.41 4.41 3.76 3.74 3.69 Personnel Non-3.46 3.97 3.01 3.18 3.06 Designated NOTE: The ratings provided by non-designated personnel are very similar to those provided by Union personnel. Based on this data and additional demographic information available to SYNERGY, it is reasonable to assume that most of the "non-designated" worker category personnel were Union personnel.

TABLE 2 DEVIATION (%) FROM PSEG COMPOSITE RATINGS

'Demorahi, Oeal scWE ECP GW M

Reference:

1) NRC Lett dated January 28, 2004; Wodc Environment for Raising ard Addressing Safety Concenis at the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations

2) PSEG Lettr dated February 13, 2004; NRC Letter dated jarua;y28,2D04; Wo Bnvironm t forRaising and Addreusin Saft Concerns at the Salem and Hope Crk GendatingStations Dear Mr. Mill~er in response to your leftr of January 28, 2004 (Refemee 1), bfis letter provide the plan of Public Savice E rrse Group Incorporated ("?SBG) to conduct an in-depth assesment of the wk aniromment for raising and addsing safety concerns at tie Salenm and Hope Creek Generating Stations. This effort, which is curr*eny being conducted by an lndepmdent Assessment Team, iS utlli~iflg several sources of infbmation including stuctred interviews of personnel at the stations and at PSEG corporate. The [udepemdm Aziessment Team is also reviewing available data, cldg NRC inspection.records to address cross-cutfing issues, and the comprehensiye survey administered by Syneigy n December 2003, and will rcview die rsults of a previously planmed assessment by the Utility Service Alliance ("USA") when they are arailable in mid-March. The assesmnt wil include a review of the impact on the work environment of operational decision-valing and of problem identification and resolution, including timeliness of corroctive acfizn and communication.

04 0"/O06 oo

'J-tkS CI CA.1Jrj-2 In addition to the indpendcent assessmcnt, PSEG has initiated a number of inmmediate actions to emrphasize the importance of a Safety Conscious Work Environment ('SWE") and has begum t) train mnag and ss on the subject.

We are also continuing our existing actions, commenced in 2003 under the new leadership of Mr. Roy Anderson, Presideat and Chief Nuclear Officer and Mr. A.

Ctapher Bakken, l, Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations, to bring fundamental change to the work emiroament As you note in your letter, these ongoing efforts are begnin to make positive change at Salem and Hope Crek These three elements of cur response are discussed below in more detail.

j1. -ideq dent Assessment Team In resonse to the roquest in your let, PSEG has assembled an Independent Assessment Team (Asse;ment Team-). The Assessment Team will (1) assess thework exvfromnent at Salem and Hope Creck, including te effects on the work envirnent of operational decision making and problem identificatiou and resolution, (2) rview the suficincy of nagemt's initiatives to assess thework rvironmnent (3) review the sufficiencyof managements efforts to further enhance the work nvr t (4) review the impact of the corpoamt-site interface on the wolk en at the site and (5) make coxnm-ndations as appropriat to senior n gain The Assessment Team consists of fomer senior industry execvgies and regato, with etensive anagmen, regultr or operatingcxperimce. The Assessment Team is being led by James OHanlon, most recentlyPresident and Cbief Operating Officer of Dominion Eneg, and previously the ChiefNuclear Officer at Dominion. Mr. O'Hardon is also the lead in assessing the sitero interface.

Jacque Dumr, former NRC Region ImanagM, is the lead in addressing workplace issues reflected in thc NRC inpection record. and also the cffects of any uwesolved conflicts.

Wayne Kropp, former NRC tegion El manager, is the lead member for problem identification and resoluio NeilBa, currently the PSEG Nuclear QAmanager, is the lead memberfor assessmetof PS SG Nuclear programs, such as the Employee Conces Program (BCP), and wll coodnate with the USA assment Barry Lefts formerNRC Field Office Director, Office of Investigations, Region I is assisting the Assessment Team in fact-fding intaevieows, includn those associated with unresolvCd conflict-Joseph Callen. fo=r NRC Executive Diector for Operatons, Michal Tuckman, former Duke Power ChieflNuclear Officer, and William Cottle, former Chief Executive at South Texas Nuclear Operating Company, are available to review plans, results and recommendations at the rmquest of the.Asscssment Team or PSEG management.

The independent assessment will involve structured interviews of curcnt and former PSEG pcsomnnel, with nuclear plant site and corporate responsibifies, document revicws, and analysis of the relevant infommaion Tei Assessment Team's review will also encompass the results of rcment PSEG initiatives to better diagnose the site work environment As indicated above, in the fall of 2003, PSEG Nuclear commissioned Synergy to conduct a comprehensive survey of the site in December 2003

3 in order to gain insight into both the safety culture and broader work place issues We rnceived the results of SyneWys survey in January 2004. Synergy's team leader is available to the Assessment Team for adice and consltation regarding the Synergy results. In addition, in late 2003, PSEG lHuclear requested the USA to conduct a safety culture assessment in part to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken by PSEG Nuclear to improve the work ecnrotment. The USA assesment team is currently reviewing relevant documents and the onsite portiOnl ofthc assessment begins next week The preliminary results of the USA assessment are expected in the middle of March The Asssment Team will conduct a review of the following areas and make recommendations:

(a)

Analyses of event iIDnv g operational decision making and unresolved conf iet, including vvents involving the corporate-sit interfice; (b)

Selection of interview pc ulations based upon any such cveats that may have negatively affected the work emvironm:d4, as well as any pockets of concem identified in the Syner survy or thc USA assessmnt. Initially, xiatel6intrews arebeing schedWed. Based ontheresults of these initial intrvews, a determination will be made if additional interviews should be comducted. The interviews have begLm with an emphasis on Operations personel; (c)

ECP Performance Indicaors and survey results; and (d)

The NRC inspection record, including crosscutng issues, and sampling to cs= adequate and 11mely closure of inspection findings and indicated program cnhancements.

The Assessment Team's ans, findings and recommedatio will be developedin alogical framosk condstingofthe fourbasic elem ts of aSCW&- (t) employee willingnes to rais cncmes; (b)anagezent effectiveness in esolving safiety iss; (c) ECP ecf iveness; and (d) managment effectiveness in resolving retaliion and chilling effects issues. This fiamnvork will be augmented by 'Best Practices to Establish and Maintain a Safety Consious Work Environme posted on the NRC's website and other industry-wide guidsce.

The Assessmnt Team will provide recommendations in consideration of the following areas:

(a)

Policis, procedures amd metics implementing PSEG's expectations to maintain a SCWE wits respect to the four basic elements noted above; (b)

Training as to those policies and procedures, including general site access uilif&

periodic refeshc r training& and supervisory skills training;

.rr-O AL g 4

(c)

The effectiveness of the Corrective Action Program (CAP) and any managerect acions to improve CAP cffectiveness; (d)

Ihe effectiveness of the ECP, including, to the extent possible, any correlation to concerns aised to NRC, ECP, and the CAP; (e)

The intrace among Human Resources, Labor Relations, and ine managent In addressing work place issues; (f)

The interfaces and interactions between corporate office personnel and site pesnel and the impact of those interfaces and interactions on the wolk evion n at Hope Creek and Salem; (0

lhe number, nature, and trend in NRC allegations, including NRC refe-red alliw ons and PSEG's response to these referred allegations; and (h)

Claims of retaliation ovt the past several years, including management actions to address any dc ing effect in response to such claims Based upon the composition of the Assessment Team, the methods of assessment and obectiv, We are confiden that the Assessment Team will comprhensively assess the current work environment wihiin PSEG for raising and addressing concens and managements initiatives to address issues in this area We are similarly confidet that the Assessmeot Team will provide meann and constructive recommendations to fither enhance th wok environment.

I anticipate that the Ascessment Tea's fieldwork will be completed by mid-April 2004, at which time-the Aessexment Team will provide its findings and recommendations to me, to Fronk Cassidr President of PSG Power, and to Mesm Anderson and BRIkka Senior PSEG Nuclear leadership witl integrate those remc2mendatims inka ngoing efforti to iMProve the site work evi ronmeat and assure that specific actios a documented in our CAP ar Business Plan as a ppra Mr.

Cassidy and Mr. R Edwin Sclover, SeniorVice President and General Counsd of PSEG, will be resposible for implementing recedatons relaed to the corporae-isite interface. I anticipate that PSE will be m a position to brief the NRC concening our actions by mid-May2004.

As stoed in my February 13, 2004 leter to you, the Assessment Team will kep me informed of its activities. Mr. Cassidy and I will provide close oversight of this effort and continue to report on it to the Nuclear Committee of our Board of Directors. In this regard, the Nuclear Committee and the Board of Directors will hold their March meetngs atthe Salem and Hope Crek site. his vwas previously scheduled as pat of our normal prctice to periodicallyhold fBoard meetings at the nuclear plant site. The meetings will be structured to provide interfae among the Board, senior management and site personnel and to emphasize the importance of safe and reliable operation through all levels of the organization.

,.FEB 27 euuj-q l4:u~.-n S

2, Immediate Actions in Rgsoonse to NR.C 11204 er In order to emphasize the importance of the issues raised in your letter and to give greater impet to our ongoing initiatives, we have taken or have underway the followmg immediate ctions.

(a)

We have beld focused mectings with managers and supevisors to explain the i ce of your January 28, 2004 lette, (b)

Mr. Anderson has already discussed the importance of your leter in two sets of all4mds meetingi where he reinforced his epectation that finding and fixing our own problems is whatU eeps us safe." This was staled in the cntxt of reinforcing PSEG's responsibility to protect the health and safety ofthe public and NRC's role in assuring the public that PSEG meets its obligation; (c)

Durig the second set of the two sets of all-hands meetings, Mr. Anderson stressed ch need to focus on the fundamentals of SCWB, Industrial Safet, Communicatiomr Rlationsbips, CAP Effectiveness and Equipment Reliability, (d)

We are consolidating our eisting requirements for a SCWE into a fimal ovea11 SOWEpolicy. Tbis will assist us in placing emphasis on the impotance of a SCWE and in effectively intgratig our ceistin activities. This Policy will be carefully structured to assmuehat everyone on lb site undrstands his or her responsibility for a SCWE. This policy will be formally adopted in the near future, and a roll-out and training pro will convey itt substance and importance to all site persomnnel, including contractors; (e)

We are continuing to zninforcc the importance of findingifnd fixing our ownproblems through the open letters to site personnel that are written by M. Andeon; and (f)

We bave also modified our plan for this spn's outage at Salem Unit 1 to prioritize &e completion of many on-line corrective maintenance items.

is increased outage scope should help reinforce the priority of safety and reliability over production to the workforce and demonstrate PSEG's commitment to address the Maintenance backlog, operator burdens and control room instrument ovement. In paralle, our broader initiatives indude actions to improve the planning, scheduling and quality of maintenance in orderto improve our effectiveness in resolving equipment issues during outage and mon-outage periods.

I,r.,

"IJ C-,

6

3. Ongoing Actions Under NMw M ement to Improvn Performance PSEG recognizes that it needs to improve and that fundamental and lasting change takes time. We began actively addressing the need for change in 2003 withrnew leadership and a site reorganization. By the summer of2003, the new management had redesigned the site organization and established the new stnrcture. Staffing of the new organization was creully performed to augment existing management personnel with eperienced managers brought in from the outside. Other managers were chosen to fill positions based on their ddlls and the requirements of the position they were selected to filL As we procued, further changes will be made as required to improve accountability, assure that the workforce feels fre to rise issues, that issues are addressed, and tht the results are communicated. The purpose of the reorganization is to align our structure and staffing with our nission: 'We Will Beo Recognized as the Best Run Energy Business Wherever We Compete -We Will Be Kaown for Our Leadership in Safety, Reliabifty Environmental Stewardship, and Shareholder Value" As we completed the rerganization, we designed a hierarchy of metrics to evaluate the performance of departments and jobs. These metrics will provide the wororce a clear undersing of individual roles and responsibilities to improve accountability and create a clear ne of sight from the mission statement to the roles and responsibilities of individual workers. This model has been explained and subsequently reinforced at all-hands mcetings that are regulady held by Mr. Anderson.

We are measuring our progress against these metrics, and we are developing metrics to measure our efforts to enhance the SCOWE. We will anabz the gaps between performance and these standards and bold people accountable for their prformance.

An early step in our newv management teama's effort was to improve the strategic planning process. This effori started in 2003 and is yielding positive resuts in 2004. Specifically, we have in place fully fimded plans to focus and improve sanfty culture relative to the Corrective Action Program, Industrial Safety, Operational FocusDecision Mading and Working RelationshipL We are also taking actions to imprv reliability with actions to esLablish a Cultre of Low Tolernmcc for Equipment Failres, to build a High Performance Maitenance Team, to improve the Effectess of Work Management, to resolve Long Standing Equipment Issues and to establish a Life Cycle Management Program. The next level of detail consists of action plans to address specific aspects of the above areas. For examp1e, a Corrective Action Program improvement plan has been initiated that identifies areas for improvement in CAP.

Additionally, in 2003 we completed more that one thousand actions in our Correcfive Action Program related to improving the plant and industrial safety.

Our planning process is strategically focused over a five-year period and is updated annually during the budget cycle. Tis is intended to aisure that resoures are available for improvemen initiatives and projects that will take more than one yea to complete. The various parts of the Plan were developed by the responsible organizations and approved by the appropriate management The action plans include expected results, schedule and relevant performance indicators Similarly, wo have established seven

'FLUtB ctJUt eC;UYI-I-7 woing level interdisclinary tams to review the results of the Synergy survey and

&dvelop worcable, meaningfil improvements in our work environment Our approach, coupled with our willingness to furher evaluate our plans, rreflects our rcmognitaon that an essential component of assuring safe operaaion is a safety conscious work environment I also recognize hat it is important to provide the capital needed to mairtain and improve the material condition of PSEG's nuclear plants.

Management must provide the resources mid the workforce must see expenditure of those IxUds in a manner consistent with having; safety as the highest priority. In this regard, I previously mentioned in my February 13, 2004 letter to you, our substantial and ongoing plan for maintenance and capital irprovlent at the site.

At the meeting with Regn I min March 2004, Frank Cassidy, along with MessAs.

nderson, Bakken, other key sile leaders. nd representatives from the Assessment Team, will be prepared to bief you on our current improvenent efforts in more detail. They will describe how we plan to measureour progrcs, provide an update on the Assessment Tam's work, and answer your questions. The managemnt team's objective for this meeting is to reach a common pc on the issues and that our plans will address them We wil keep you apprised of our progress. I would be glad to have you come to the site to personally view our progress. I the interim, or at any time as we go foward, if you have any questions or need to talk about any matters, please call Frank Cassidy, Roy Anderson or me directly.

Very truly yours,

ML060580551

Contents

Text

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Reference:

Navigation menu

ML060580551

Text

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search