ML20138D199

Special Project97-928S, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Assessments

ML20138D199
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	04/04/1997
From:	Johnson T TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20138D152	List: ML20138D148 ML20138D189 ML20138D199 ML20138D233
References
97-928S, NUDOCS 9705010062
Download: ML20138D199 (6)

Text

. .-

A SENSITIVE INFORMATION .

l Officeof thelnspectorGeneral Special ProjectReport TO the Site Vice President, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant SEQCOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT ASSESSMENTS l

Reviewer Special Project 97-928S Thomas B. Johnson April 4,1997 The informstion contained witNn tNs document is the property of the Tennessee Valley Authority and has been determined to be sensitive. Its contents are not to be further distibuted without prior approval of the inspector General or his designes.

I 9705010062 970429 SENSITIVE INFORMATION PDR ADOCK 05000327 J P PDR

SENSITIVEINFORMATION Offica of the Insp1ctor Gen ral SpecialProject Report TABLE OF CONTENTS i

SUMMARY

...............................................................1 r OBJECTIVE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY..........1 l

l B AC KG R O U N D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l FINDINGS.................................................................3 l

l l

APPENDICES A. SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT ASSESSMENTS -

1997 - POSITIVE PERCENTAGES FOR EACH QUESTION j B.1997 SON CHEMISTRY EMPLOYEE ASSESSMENT C.1997 SON RADCON EMPLOYEE ASSESSMENT l

D.1997 SQN MAINTENANCE PLANNING EMPLOYEE ASSESSMENT l E.1997 SON ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE l EMPLOYEE ASSESSMENT l

l l

l Special Project 97-928S SENSITIVE INFORMA TION l

l SENSITIVEINFoRMATioN offica of thsinsp:ctor G:n:r:I Speci:IProject Report l

SUMMARY

We completed assessments of four target areas at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SON). The target areas were selected as a l result of our review of the Concerns Resolution Program at SON in December 1996. Our assessments were designed to identify situations where management attention is needed to reinforce SON's commitment to open communications and a safe workplace.

Through interviews with randomly selected employees from each area we (1) compared the group responses to the SON and TVA Nuclear responses on questions about the willingness of employees to report nuclear safety or quality problems, and (2) identified prevailing issues relative to open communications about other aspects of the work environment (not confined to nuclear safety concerns). We found that with regard to reporting nuclear safety and quality issues to management, each group's responses were generally as positive as the plant overall. With regard to open communications, three of the four groups highlighted issues which we believe deserve management attention.

OBJECTIVE. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY I

Our reviews were designed to assess (1) willingness of employees to report nuclear safety or quality problems, and (2) openness of communications within each group's work environment. Our scope was limited to interviewing selected members of the target groups. We randomly selected members without differentiation based on grade or job. We first asked the same questions we used in the Concerns Resolution Program surveys of each employee. We then asked other questions designed to more specifically assess the employee's feelings and confidence in the work environment and communications with their management. We tabulated results, comparing them to the other groups assessed and to l the SON and TVA Nuclear Concerns Resolution Program l surveys.

Special Project 97-926S SENSITIVE INFoRMATioN Page1

SENSITIVEINFORMATION offics of ths inspector Gznznl Sp ci:IProject Report BACKGROUND l In the Concerns Resolution Program review, we randomly  ;

! selected and interviewed 307 employees and contractors who l l had access to SON. Similarly, we interviewed 256 randomly I l selected employees from TVA Nuclear in a separate review.

We analyzeo the SON population and reported results in OlG

)

Special Report 97-901S. We performed more in depth  !

! analysis of the SON data and identified some target areas for further assessment. These areas were determined as those groups wherein more than one member of the group expressed i

! a reluctance to engage open communications about work l matters with their supervision or higher management.

Prior to our review of the SON Concerns Resolution Program, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) asked TVA to determine whether a recent adverse Department of Labor l

ruling may have had a chilling effect on employees of SON's Chemistry Department. We assessed Chemistry, along with the other target groups to provide TVA and the NRC an I independent assessment. ]

FINDINGS We found that each group's responses were generally as l_ positive as the overall plant with regard to reporting nuclear l safety and quality issues to management. Discussed below

! are our observations regarding the cumulative responses of j l each group on questions related to work environment.

Chemistry Group This group generally had higher percentages of affirmative responses than any other group. It is noteworthy that 11 of 13 volunteered, without being prompted, exceptionally positive l comments about their manager, while nobody spoke negatively about him.

Radcon Group -This group had mixed responses.

The most notable issue was that lower grade employees i do not enunciate group goals and standards in the same positive terms as upper grade employees. Higher grade employees speak of Radcon as being the best group at SON. Sorne lower grade employees have interpreted this to mean one can not raise issues which might reflect Special Project 97-928S SENSITIVE INFORMATION Page 2 I

l .

SENSITIVEINFORMATION Offics of ths Inspector G:n r:I Speci:1 Project Riport l badly on Radcon without potentially negative i consequences.

l Maintenance Planning Group -This group had mixed  :

l responses. The most notable issue was the stress and l l frustration felt by some who believed they had a heavy l l work load, a broad spectrum of tasks for which they l l were responsible, and an exacting management. ,

)

1 Electrical Maintenance Group -This group had mixed  ;

responses. The most notable issue was the belief by some in an unwritten rule that "If you make a mistake l l

you will be suspended or fired, depending on the i severity."  ;

l Appendix A to this report is a summary of the percentage of l positive responses for each of the interview questions, i l Appendices B-E to this report are compilations of the data for each of the four groups assessed.  ;

l i

l I l

l

• I l

i  !

I l' ,

1 l

l l

, \

Special Project 97-92BS SENSITIVE INFORMATION Page 3 l

l

=

Appindix A

[

Sens'tiva inf:rmati:n Page 1 of 1 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Assessments - 1997 Positive Percentages for Each Question i

Elect. 1996 Chemistry Radcon M, P &T Maint. 1996 SON TVAN EmpI'oyees: 13 15 14 8 221 203 Contractors: 86 53 l Total Interviewed: 13 15 14 8 307 256 Nuclear Safety and Quality Responses 1

1) Would report via some avenue, employees: 100 % 93% 100 % 100 % 98 % 98%

2) Employees that would report to supervisor: 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 99 % 100 %

3) Employees knowing about CRS: 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 99 % 99%

l 3a) Employees that would report to CRS: 92 % 87% 100 % 88 % 93% 93%

5) Employees feeling free to report I&H to CRS: 92 % 77 % 93 % 75% 83 % 91 %

6) Site resolving problems well, employees: 85% 85% 91 % 80 % 84 % 86 %

7) Would report unrelated concern, employees: 100 % 93 % 100 % 100 % 96 % 97%

8) Feel free to express unpopular view, employees: 100 % 67 % 77 % 63 % 80 % 78%

Work Environment Responses

1) Work environment encouragement: 85% 80% 86% 100 %

2) Supervisor encouragement: 100 % 73 % 93% 75%

3) Supervisor's manager encouragement: 100 % 80 % 92% 100 %

4) No associate hindrance: 100 % 80% 93 % 88%

5) Communicate to supervisor w/o fear: 100 % 87 % 100 % 75%

6) Supervisor gives needed support: 92 % 73 % 93% 63 %

7) Adequate briefings and training: 77 % 73 % 36 % 50 %

l i

8) Communicate to supervisor's manager w/o fear: 100 % 67 % 90 % 88 %

9) No concern of blame for reporting bad news: 100 % 80 % 86 % 63 %

10) Treated consistently if making mistake: 92 % 73% 100 % 38 %

l

11) Matters are being reported to the NRC: 100 % 83% 100 % 86%

12) No adverse career affect for reporting to NRC: 83 % 60 % 90 % 63 %

1 Sensitive information