ML20137E659
| ML20137E659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1985 |
| From: | Long R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Arnold R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| SP-I-TMIA-006, SP-I-TMIA-6, NUDOCS 8508230318 | |
| Download: ML20137E659 (15) | |
Text
l 1
// f s
Intor '3ffico Mcndrcndurt 7 Mio Tvny EwNbir 6 e
PM 2M, uclear Date
" ^ ' "
r MOC Action Item #91 Subject 00CMETE3 U';N N Headquarters R. C. Arnold, Pr sident Location To UUh 'b
/h
- b5 G 22 0 ;C0
[g i l
~
e er v
I have had D. A. Ross and W. P. Werner working on developing information on MOC Action Items #72 (Employee Cooperation) and #91 (Employee Attitude).
I believe that Attachments 3, 4,and 5 are par-ticularly relevant to our upcoming discussion with Dr. D' Arcy.
I have sent him a copy of the memo and attachments in a letter con-firming our meeting on June 15, 1982.
We will alsc review results of earlier JCP&L and GPUSC attitude surveys prior to the meeting.
.t o, --
Robert L. Lo Vice President Nuclear Assurance RLLakg Attachment cc P. R. Clark, Executive Vice President - w/ Attach.
NUCtIAA R[CULATORY COMul51:0N 9
[_ Offwial (sh. No. g/
2 Dodet No.
[
./
M to the matter of "taff ID[NTIFl[0
_[ _
'rplKait R[CilV[D
~)
j
,/ '
m wtervenor _ af REJEC1[D _
aet's Off'r
'entractor CAff _[
_n,iq M me, d f_k/__
we, 0500230310 850103 PDR ADOCK 0500 9
0 aoooo
/
JUH 4 MZ inter-Office Memorandum i Da:e June 4, 1982 PmagmlZ, uc! ear p
Sutyect MOC No. 8 Issue No. 72 - Employee Cooperation To Dr. R. L. Long Location Headquarters Vice President Nuclear Assurance I have reviewed six internal GPUN and T6ED procedures (see attachment 1) to determine if they " effectively encourage employees to cooperate fully in inquiries or reviews by the Company or others".
The procedures I reviewed do encourage cooperation, but total confidentiality of the reporting individual cannot be guaranteed.
In addition, there does not appear to be a confidential resource specifical-ly assigned to address the area of " fraud, cheating, etc."
The Ombuds-man's procedure stresses resolving nuclear or radiation safety concerns.
However, J. W. Sellman and Rick Lloyd told me that the Ombudsman is the resource person specifically assigned to " fraud, cheating, etc.", but I would not know it by reading the Ombudsman's procedure. Therefore, I doubt if other employees would know it.
The " effectiveness" of those procedures reviewed is difficult to ascertain, and I believe would require a survey of those employees most affected, specifically Ti!I, as well as those agencies involved in in-quiries.
I took the liberty of conducting an informal survey of ten to fifteen ThlI employees and found the "ThtI GPUN atmosphere" as viewed by them to be one of fear, distrust, and paranoia.
Because of these feel-ings, I do not believe a survey would accurately reflect the perceived effectiveness of GPUN's procedures unless it ensured anonymity.
In addition to conducting a literature search on " Honor System, Integrity, Florale", I also contacted Lee Twombly, who also researched this issue (see attachment 2), htr. flac Eastburn of American Airlines, and Str. Flartinez of hierck 6 Co.
American Airlines Mr. Eastuurn reports directly to the president of American Air-lines and is in cnarge of safety for that corporation.
He believes that his personnel "do cooperate fully..." because the results of a safety review are used to help avoid a similar " problem, accident, etc."
OMM
Dr. R. L. Long Page 2 June 4, 1982 His department frequently communicates with the sites both by personal visits and in writing.
"Five minutes Safety Lectures" (usually one page long) and the written results of the Safety Board meetings are posted to help employees avoid " problems, accidents, etc."
In addition, he believes that American Airlines' employees have high morale and are not fearful when he conducts an investiga-tion because he is not a punitive agent.
He believes that since "American Airlines has the best safety record of all the airlines",
their program of encouragingemployees to cooperate is effective.
Merck 6 Co. Inc.
Mr. Martin Martinez, Manager. Equal Employment Affairs, be-lieves that Merck employees cooperate fully with inquiries, and to the best of his knowledge he has never heard a negative reaction from those agencies who audit Merck.
He believes that Merck has effectively communicated their required high standards of conduct because they encourage and, in some cases, require Managers and Supervisors to address the concerns of their subordinates.
Major issues are addressed by top level management in a panel discussion-type format.
Topics, questions or issues are anonymously submitted, and the officers respond to the concerns immediately.
This type of interface is encouraged at all levels of supervision but is required at higher levels of management.
This confidential submission and addressing of a concern fosters an openness between management and its subordinates.
Informal 'Dt! Employee Survey In addition to reviewing the six procedures, which I believe
" encourage our employees to cooperate fully...", I had difficulty de-termining the effectiveness of our procedures.
Therefore, I took the liberty to conduct a very limited, non-statistically valid, open ended opinion survey of ten to fifteen TMI employees who attended courses I conducted.
I recognize that the information I obtained re-flects only the opinion of those employees I contacted and may not reflect the opinion of the majority of the TMI employees.
Finally, I recognize that trying to determine the effective-ness of our procedures by conducting this survey may not have been within the scope of this report.
But I could not in good conscience even guess at the effectiveness of our procedures without conducting
~ _ _ _ _.
Dr. R. L. Long
- Page 3 June 4, 1982 this limited survey.
Furthermore, some of those individuals who commentodhave had closer contact with the individuals who have been involved in internal and external " inquiries" than I have had.
Therefore, their perceptions may be more accurate than mine.
Leader Effectiveness Training (LET) Class In the LET class that was conducted at THI, a group of students could not identify a "GPUN Management Issue" to brainstorm solutions to.
I told them that if they wished, they could use the topic " Establishing a Positive Attitude Towards Cooperation and Dis-closure." In addition, I told them they would be helping me with this paper.
l l
After they brainstormed the "needs," they.brainstormed solutions to each need.
(See attachment 3.)
When they finished, I asked for clarification on some of their solutions and they pro-vided it.
When I thanked them, one asked sarcastically, "Do you want us to sign them?"
I said "No."
A couple of them also said, "Ee knows who we are; he doesn't need to have us sign it."
These comments made me think that they are not used to having their anonymity protected when they give their opinion.
In addition, they appear to have great difficulty believing or trust-ing someone outside of their " peers." And even some of their peers they do not trust.
This anxiety is obvious and stressful.
Can you imagine being afraid to make a remark because someone may hear it and misinterpret it? Having read the Report of the Special Master, it appears that information you share with your spouse is also not protected.
Effective Writing Class In the Effective Writing class, two individuals could not identify a topic to brainstorm and write about.
Therefore, I of-fered them the topic "Why GPUN Employees Sky Be Hesitant to Cooper-ate."
Since I felt that there was concern that the " paragraph" would be used?against them, I assured them that what they were writ-ing was a " reaction to an artificial situation" and they were to con-sider themselves supervisors or managers who were told by their su-periors that the NRC made this observation.
They were to " survey their subordinates, brainstorm the issue, and write a report to their manager as to the 'possible causes of the hesitancy."
)
9
/
Dr. R. L. Long Page 4 June 4, 1982 They brainstormed the topic and wrote paragraphs.
For clarity, I inserted some infermation, but I placed it in parenthe-sis.
(See attachments 4 and 5.)
Review of Literature I had the library conduct a literature search on " Factors That May Affect the Effectiveness of Policies and/or Procedures,"
and it appears no one has studied or written about it.
I also reviewed thirty-five articles on " Morale, Integrity, and Honor Systems", and none of these articles speak specifically to that problem.
My review of the literature indicates that an important factor would be upper level management communicating with lower level employees. However, simply communicating downward without a forum for employees to be " listened" to will be less effective, if effective at all.
GPUN began to address that issue in August of '81, but for some reason it was discontinued.
I commented on that meeting to Lee Twombly.
(See attachment 6.)
I hope this response to Issue 72 proves helpful.
If I can be of further service, please feel free to contact me.
G'
.4 Niiliam P. Werner, M.A.
mmunications echnical Analyst WPW:pw Encls.
cc:
D. A. Rose (w/encis.)
l
=
'~~
REFERENCES 1000-POL-1020.01 Rev. 2 (5/2/82) Approved 4/27/82.
Use of the Ombudsman Function for Resolving Nuc1 car or Radiation Safety Concerns 1000-POL-1740.1 Rev. 0 (no date)
Draft Employee Contact with Regulatory Agencies 1000-POL-2002.1 Rev. 0 (no date) Draft Standards of Conduct 1000-POL-2203.01 (no date) draft Appeals Procedure 1000-POL-2604.1 (no date) Draft GPU Nuc1 car Policy Regarding Chcating, Fraud and Misrepresen-tation.
6200 ADM 2600.1 (10/20/81) Approved 10/20/81 Administration of Examinations GPUN Nuclear Group Management Oversight Committec (MOC) Meeting Minutes of Mocting 88, dated July 29, 1981.
(Item 5)
Draft minutes of MOC Meeting #8, dated 7/31/81 Summary of Meeting with Frank J. Landy on 1/6/82, dated 1/14/82.
Lee Tombly's report on MOC No. 8 Issue 72 - Employee Cooperation, dated 5/14/82 Report of The Special Master (ASLB), dated 4/28/82
Inter-Office Memorands Date May 14, 1982 D'mmmen@s, Juclear E
Suutec:MOC No. 8 - Issue No. 72 Employee Cooperation To T.
L. Myers Locahon !!eadquarters On the issue of personnel policies practices that effectively encourage employees to cooperate fully in inquirics and reviewu by the company and others, my research included internal policies, etc. as well as DuPont and American Airlines.
Sum-mary as follows:
Internal GPUN 1.
Issue is not spec'ifically addressed in existing or draft-form personnel policies and procedures.
2.
General information letter on the subject, dated October 9, 1981, was sent to all GPUN employees by R. C. Arnold.
Copy attached.
External 1.
E. I. DuPont De Nemours Company Contacted Mr. Hudson, Corporate Employee Relations a.
No written policy on issue.
b.
Emphasis on cooperation generally understood via in-formal and semi-formal management and supervisory communication.
c.
Long-standing cooperative relationships with auditing /
reguiatory bodies.
2.
American Airlines Contacted Glen Walkar, Corporate Attorney a.
No written policy on issue of verbal communications.
e e
/
MOC No. 8 - Issue No. 72 Employee Cooperation
/
May 14, 1982 To:
T.
L. Myers Page 2 2.
American Airlines (Cont'd) b.
Long-standing relationship with FAA - cooperative.
May verbally require employees to cooperate on c.
specific issues as required.
d.
Sensitive to employee rights issues, i.e.,
if agent has right to ask, employee should respond execpt in questions of personal, legal liability.
I have attached your documents on issue as well as MOC documenps and copy of general employee letter.
bl C. Twombly LCT:mrs atts.
l 7
k
METeusene 3
,o' LET Brainstorming of needs and solutions to
" Developing a positive attitude toward Cooperation and Disclosure" NEEDS 1.
Establish values of right and wrong in the employees.
2..
Establish an atmosphere in which the employee feels free and safe to express himself.
3.
Trust between the employee and the Company.
4.
Establish employce and Company pride.
5.
Recognition of the seriousness of regulations and/or policies.
t
?
' sol #TIONS TO IDENTIFIED NEEDS l
1.
Establish values of right and wrong in the employees.
1 Solutions:
1.
Written policy of ethics.
2.
Teach ethics.
3.
tipper management should practice what~ they preach.
4.
Confidentiality should be guaranteed.
If a person comes to someone, he or she should know immediately if anonymity can and/or will be maintained.
5.
Methods to bring forth valuca.
6.
Policies for ~ offenders. should be clearly written and consistently applied.
7.
Meeting of officers with employees in an informal social-type atmosphere, possibly at night with families, coffee, cake, etc.
Not a meeting where
" preaching".is done.
2.
Establish an atmosphere in which the employec fccis frco and safe to express himself.
Solutions:
1.
Confidentiality has to be assured.
2.
Reward for cooperating and giving full disclosure -
Saying "thanks" to those individuals who " cooperate."
3.
Suggestion Box for submission of concerns-serious commitment.
4 Company is free, open and honest with the employees.
A V.P. tried, but he was frequently " corrected."
5.
Company practice must be -to do the right thing re-gardicss of the consequences.
6.
Danot ostracize individuals who do cooperate.
More moral support from the Company is needed because an individual who " cooperates" may he rejected by his or her peers.
3.
Trust between the employee and the Company.
Solutions:
1.
Company should back up employees who cooperate fully rather than be annoyed when those individuals say things that did not help the Company's position.
"If the Com-pany becomes annoyed, maybe it does not want us to co-operate fully."
. 2.
Pass down accurate information.
3.
Training.
4.
Pass down information in a timely manner.
5.
More company extra-activitics.
6.
Install a sense of pride.
7.
High ranking _ individuals should not become annoyed when an individual says things in hearings that were not told to the Company fi rst.
4.
Establish employee and Company pride.
Solutions:
1.
The Company should stand up for its rights against the news media, the NRC and othcr agencies.
"You cannot
~lx: proud of a 'whimp' who is always on the defensive."
2.
Training.
3.
Rewardo and recognition for doing the right thing.
"Saying 'thanks' to those individuals who did cooperate and were rejected by their peers." "If the Company does not give positive recognition, then maybe it really doer not want us to cooperate.
It only says
' cooperate fully' for the news media."
4.
Get rid of the screwups.
5.
Company should get more involved in the community.
6, Improve. Company and employee relations.
5.
Recognition of the seriousness of regulations and/or policies.
Solutions:
1.
Training on regulatory guidos and policies.
Pcopic should know the policy and the Company position before incidents occur, not punished first.
2.
Copy of Regulations and policies to all employces.
3.
Publish penalties and the reasons for them.
4.
Follow through and publish penalties.
- 5. - Site examples from~other utilities.
6.
Make realistic rules and eliminate petty rules.
7.
Ile consistent with rules and penalties.
RESULTS OF BRAINSTORMIN(;-
why employees may be hesitant to cooperate?
- 1 hey feel the Company won't stand behind them.
- They are out there alone.
Company is looking to keep GPU Nuclear's name clean and docsn't care about its employeca.
- Punishment for the two SS was too severe, but it looked good in the public's cyc.
- Something minor gets blown out of proportion and causes them more ha rassment later.
'Ihcrofore, they will not say anything.
- Our personnel are bitter.
They wonder if it's really worth it -
obtaining and keeping an NRC license is hard work, takes a lot of
. personal time and requirds sacrifices on the part of the family.
- If they make one error, their job is on the line, it's in the news, and their reputation is ruined.
- They don't trust anyone now,
- Meetings would not work.
People have been talked to numerous times (by GPUN management).
They would consider another meeting - just one more meeting.
Unless it was mandatory, they won't attend.
Reasuns:
Nothing is cycr gained from meetings.
1 hey're supposed to be morale boosters, but people come away discouraged.
l Parnernph develoncil from nhove On May 24, 1982, the NRC performed an audit and discovered many of our employces have hesitated in cooperating with the NRC inquirics.
I have talked with our employees and-found that they are very bitter and do not trust the Company or the NRC.
There have been numerous meeting.s in b
,.-n_,.,.
-,-.._,-..-me--
,..n__.,
i
- 2 the past, but nothing has been gained.
By talking to the NRC and the Company, statements are frequently misinterpreted and minor details are blown out of proportion.
Later, the individual is approached to explain something he felt had no significance when he made it.
c-
RESULTS 01: BRAINS *lT)HNING t
Why employces may be hesitant to cooperate?
- Termination of the two shift supervisors.
- You are expected to testify over and over again.
- If your testimony does not agree with your previous statements, its thrown back in your face.
- Possibic loss of your job, license, position, etc.
- Public humiliation.
- Peer pressure.
- 1)iseredit to your professional standing.
- Brings out negative points in your education and experience.
- Takes you away from your home.
- Takes you away from your job and you must make up the work.
- Umotional stress.
- Mentally draining.
- Easy way out not to cooperate.
- Loyalty to fellow employees Paranraph developed from above Employees are hesitant to cooperate fully with inquiries and reviews because of two reasons. They find it easier not to cooperate, and they do not see where they have anything to gain by cooperating.
My research on this topic brought forth some very negative attitudes from fellow employces.
The main concern of most of these people was fear of losing their jobs.
Two employees have been fired, and the reasoning behind this decision is not clearly understood.
The general concenus is that the two employees fired had very good reputations.
Testifying can be mentally and eme-.onally draining.
AttacRm:nt @
~
~
(
Inter-@ffico Momorandun h~Te INIUC5087 r.ii.-
a o., m:.,. :,,, i 3t t
.W Gnhp rf int..rt.u e M. e t i n't H/?l/nl To Leo C. Twombly I'*.nl*r's.ir tier:.
Thank you ror allowinq me to attenel f:he mertinet.
I
"<s u nel i t. <!ui to informativo to hear Mossrs. Clark and Arnolet t t e u ne t.he i r v i e w <;r certain "probicm" areas.
As I mentioned to you, I was apprehensive as to tho " goal" of the meeting, but "I think" it was to present Top Management'n view of
" problem" areas.
If this was the goal, then I believe it was accom-lalished.
Iloweve r, if the goal was "communicatinct", then more than one meet.ing with the saw individuals is necestary, stoth of un commene.ed t.ha t: we fel t a l'ormali ty in t he mee' i tut that m.iy nt>t S.sve-Iv r n
- i re <!
by Mensrs. Clark and Arnold.
Ihit I tw*lieve that. t.h.i t forma l i t.y w.i:.
r.< >
ls-e xsw clesl.
Al l yrtsilps of t!ei r si.it ilf" necil I i m'
- l.es e!' ve l'et..i li e rih enough t. rust. leveJ before trus o!'en comr.tiniicatiein can ciccur.
Thank you attain.
I f T can tw of aeiy liol l . you, til".i :" ca l l t.
Itavo a good dayI
/
William P. Wer:ser fommunic.Oinne. Mkii1. Analynt WPW:kg un:
D.
A.
Itor:n
.