ML20116G194
| ML20116G194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Neely Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1996 |
| From: | Obannon R Neely Research Reactor, ATLANTA, GA |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REN-A-010, REN-A-10, NUDOCS 9608080012 | |
| Download: ML20116G194 (5) | |
Text
.-
o 00CKETED U S" P.C
'96 JUL 18 Pi2 :27 0 F F,,I C E 07 'i ' ^ 5 T/4 ' Y r
g L L & ",q 1 AN GGhMIZ\\TICN REVIBF W 'IEE NUCEMt RESEARCH CDMR OF ' die GEGUIA IN!7ITIVIE OF 'IEODOIDGY
.=
.2.
- frj i.9. u4.'.
6, s.~r- :-
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9608080012 960624 Docket No. So -/h 0- [6/l EXHlBIT NO.
/O la b '"""*' d A"
"'A>
PDR ADOCK 05000160 G
PDR O statt Erip'piicant O lntervenor o other 2
Gidentified Gaeceived O Rejected Reporter 6.) C td
.26-DateNM[9 6 Witness
[MM
~
w
1 o
An organization Review 4
of the Nuclear Rxarch Center of the Georgia Institute of Technology 4
At the regaest of Dr. 'Ihamas E. Stelson, Vice President for Remtd, and 4
Dr. Ratib A.
Karam, Director, Nuclear Research Center, pemminel "w iated with the Nuclear Researd Center of the Georgia Institute of Technology were interviewed in a brief survey of organizational viability by Dr. R. Michael O' Bannon.
'Ihese interviews were conducted between January 25 and February 2, 1988. 'Ihis report is a summary of finiings communicated vertelly on February 5 and February 7.
h following individuals participated in the series of interviews:
Dr.
Ratib A.
Karam, Dr. Bernd Kahn, Dr. Robert N. Macdonald, Daphne W. Aycock, Robert M. Boyd, David L. Cox, William H. Downs, Steve N. Millspaugh, Judy L.
Rodgers, Paul B. Sharpe, Jerry E. Taylor.
h purposes of the survey included the following goals:
A - - nt of the atti M m and reactions of the personnel tcuard the recent Nuclear Regulatory Ccr=ission Order requiring suspension of certain activities.
j Clarification of any organizational issues or problems which might have contributed to the conditions described in the Nuclear Regulatory Ctmission Order or which night be irpacting
~
i the effectivness of the Center.
l Identification of courses of action which have potential for leading to greater organizational effectiveness.
Interviews were conducted in a open-ended fashion ard lasted one to two hours.
Each interviewee was informed of the purpose of the contact and told that the specifics of individual comments would be kept confidential. All were informed that a su=ary of the opinions and reactions of the group would be prepared, along with the interviewer's opinions and re u.....erdations.
Topics M w ed with each individual included:
i General work history and experience with the 1Mclear Research Center and with other facilities in the nuclear industry.
Characterization of the overall viability and effectiveness of the Nuclear Research Center at the present time.
Observations of historical changes in the organization in recent years.
)
Description of the current work atmsphere, ranagement clinate, ard problems encourfared in the work setting.
i n
n cCD.
)
-w-
- - - ~
+
Ctznments on the factors leading to the developnent or maintenance of organizational problems.
Ideas and opinions concerning the best approach to resolving problems identified.
'Ihe following findings summarize the major issues and opinions which emerged from the interviews:
All interviewees expr==W a mL-g icyalty to and respect for Georgia Institute of Technology as an institution.
Expressions of ocamitment to the Nuclear Research Center varied-along functional lines.
Health Physics personnel expr*==aa reservations about the efficacy of the Center and its i
manayaus,t.
Operations and administrative personnel expressed i
support for the Center and described it as a well-run organization.
t conflict All._._a.rploy_ees_ acknowledged a history of_ interpersonal,has ben 56::n Health _Ph_ysics _and _Oparations. personnel _ilhic, h present~foithe. last.five to41x years.
~-
F Tensions between Reactor Operators and Health Physics officers are often characterized by verbal hostility while. work is being I
done, and there is resentment felt by each group toward the other.
In._ general,h=m al iDteractions_have. declined j.
between the tw po_in_fzaquency. ani_guality. _Jostility.has walated as a result of lack of_ocanmunications....
q j
Attenpts by. the_ Director of the_ Center _to_ reduce..th_e tension have not worked. _'Ihese__have. included _ repeated _ appeals 1ridi_fidualE_ and.gro@s as.Well_as_attaqpts to bui_ld. gro it, thro Q increased ~ 41__# teraction.
Health Physics Officers express frustration wer the reassium s.t of their i w iting relationship to the Centact Director. 'Ihey feel that this limits their ability to do their work, and they do not see him as synpathetic to their goals.
Other personnel see Health Ihysics as increasingly===" ming a "polic:.ng" role and less willing to contribute suggestions or participate in planning.
On the other hand, Health Physics officers feel they are consulted ard invited into d4=== ions 1ess often.
Neither Reactor Operators or Health Ihysics Officers were able to offer realistic solutions to resolving the conflicts.
'Ihe follwing conclusions were drawn based on the information provided by the entire group of interviewees:
No overt evidence of psychopathology was observed in the individuals interviewed.
In the jutement of the interviewer, 5
c,.
't='* * * *.
- me em g,
4 a w.
. o j
additional and more forral ac.aw ent of individuals was not warranted for the purposes of this survey.
)
Sczne lack of skill in handling difficult interpersonal issues is j
evident among the indi.Gduals who have been directly involved in hostile interchanges. mis makes it more difficult for workers to defuse tensions without the intervention of management.
d l
Dr.
. g ls man =L-.-ot style is characterized by close i
EDnitoring and fID@entdnvolvement in day-to-day activities, j
He,1s seen by his enployees as active, interested, and_yery~
C-wofR1Hig.
At _thnag_ he _is m1an =aan_as J anr=4 m ov_erly l
16vo ved in the work at +nn fina = level of detail.
j i
l Rose managers reportincJ to Dr. Karam are not seen bv other j
enployees_as effea la
- vn.
'Ipere appears to be lit 31e eWidenoii_.ofA,_fixit_-lineJnanagement skill._in a4thet_ Health _
l Mrdes or operahnna.
l l-It is typical for groups such as Reactor Operations and Health Miysics to experience some degree of friction in their daily working relationships.
In the_ pwnt =a*+ 4 m;
+h=== tan =inne i
have aealated above an annaptablejevel.
he long history of l
the disagis. nts and the intensity of the feelings has led both groups to.be pessimistic about improving the quality of these j
relationships.
i Se conflict is unigely to be resolved satisfactorilJ within i
~
the,currunGrpiEiizationi[l _confist,,and[wiEEeTiniividuhls~
L currently in place.
i 4
A major factor contributing to the current level of conflict is the absence of first-line management activity in Health Physics
]
of a u.4.t.ulctive nature.
Bis group does not have regular
+
guidance and direction which contributes the overall organizational goals.
In view of the analysis' presented above, the following r+ _ wrdations are offered:
1 It is m-- -rded that the Nuclear Research Center initiate a of continuous self-critique and improvement which gwi-u enlists the active involvement of all enployees. Sucti a program should focus on maintaining quality of operations through identification and elimination of factors which lead to undesirable events or ccniitions.
Se focus should be placed i
upon anticipation, proactive analysis, planning, ard prevention.
i Trainirg in the design and implementation of participatory of this nature would be helpful for the management r wi-u.
l perw.el of this Center.
It is T
_w ded_ that Health Physics P r e nnal ohn unvk j
l directiv with Reactne tinar=+nvo 5
innad to other, i
responsibilitiesjy vuiinta__to th=4v-1 =ual e of skill and l
l N
i s
t e
,.., ~.
i i
t eEEeE em Ihysical separation of the_ york-spaces _of_theD*o groups may_be.131ruMitsure the-hLien et' dysfunctional
~
intamjtens ItJM-+rded that an experienced rmaer be sotrttt;_ fog i
direct supervision of the Helth Ptwsim W
-In addition to using sound criteria for technical knowledge and training, an emphasis should be placed on ability to provide leadership, build teamwork, and maintain stable relationships with other 4
i managers.
It would be helpful for this individual to have a history of work with groups with conflicting goals and to
!=ca" well-developed conflict resolution skills.
l
?
It is rz- -
-1 arded that the performance of all personnel be l
regularly evaluated against standards established in the quality piuga.
'Jhese evaluations should be documented and used w design specific programs of improvement and develgrent for each exployee.
d It _is_ R7.--+rdecLthat_the_Nucl_ ear ppmh Nnter__rericdirally reevaluate._the _ work _at@m_and_.panageme.$ _clirate of the organization.__Siis evaluation._.should be -par'W, by an ifdivfdtial
~
~ side -of-the -Nuclear-Reactor ~ Center. -
It is out rm - d2Ed that the -first-- of these reevaluations occur _
apprekirately six months after.the chosen ranagement strategy is Irplemented.
1 February 18, 1988 R.
chael O' Bannon, PHD i
l e