ML20140C881

Forwards Slides Used During 970603 Meeting Presentation, Adjusted to Reflect Discussion Points & Examples Used

ML20140C881
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/05/1997
From:	Beck J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Goebel D NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CO.
References
ITPOP-97-0009, ITPOP-97-9, NUDOCS 9706100102
Download: ML20140C881 (13)

Text

_ . _ . . _ _ _ ._ _ . . _ _ ._ _

k]' NQ &

Little Harbor Consultants, Inc.

Millstone - ITPOP Project OfTice P.O. Box 0630 Niantic, Connecticut 06357-0630 Telephone 860-447-1791, est 5966 Fax 860-444-5758 June 5,1997 ITPOP 97-0009 David M. Goebel Vice President - Nuclear Oversight Northeast Utilities Service Company P.O. Box 128 Waterford, CT C6385-0128

SUBJECT:

June 3,1997 Little Harbor Meeting i

Little Harbor Consultants, Inc. (LHC) presented fmdings and recommendations, developed as a result ofits oversight activities, to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECo) and the Nuclear l Regulatory Commission (NRC) at a meeting on June 3,1997. The meeting was held in the l Millstone simulator building and was open for observation by the public. This letter forwards the slides used during the presentation, adjusted to reflect the discussion points and examples used.

l l Discussions during the meeting indicated that there may have been confusion or misunderstanding l l- in regards to some of our conclusions. The slide for Conclusion 2 on the Programmatic Review of  :

l the ECP has been revised to provide clarification. )

l l l

Very truly yours, l

'W). % l l John W Beck / /

President, LHC Team Leader, ITPOP gh-4 Attachments: Revised June 3,1997 Presentation Slides cc: Distribution llllgj[jj[jjjlll((ll 9706100102 970605 PDR ADOCK 05000245 p PDR

David M. Goebel Page 2, ITPOP 97-0009 Distribution:

P. Loftus, NNECo First Selectmen Bldg 475/5 Town of Waterford Hall of Records K. M. McBrien, NNECo 200 Boston Post Road Bldg 475/5 Waterford, CT 06385 W. J. Temple, NNECo Charles Brinkman, Manager Bldg 475/2 Washington Nuclear Operations ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy, Suite 330 Attn: Document Control Desk Rockville, MD 20852 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. John Buckingham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Public Utility Control Attn: W.D. Travers Electric Unit Mail Stop: 014D4 10 Liberty Square Washington, DC 20555 0001 New Britain. CT 06051 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Citizens Regulatory Commission Attn: P.F. McKee ATTN: Ms. Susan Perry Luston 180 Great Neck Road  ;

Mail Stop: 014D4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Waterford, CT 06385 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deborah Katz, President Attn: H.N. Pastis Citizens Awareness Network Mail Stop: 014D4 P.O. Box 83 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Shelburne Falls, MA 03170 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Honorable Terry Concannon Attn: W.D. Lanning Nuclear Energy Advisory Council

( Mail Stop: 014D4 Legislative Office Building Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hanford, CT 06106 l

l Kevin T. A. McCanhy, Director Mr. Evan W. Woollacott Monitoring and Radiation Division Co-Chair Department of Environmental Protection Nuclear Energy Advisory Council 79 Elm Street 128 Terry's Plain Road Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Simsbury, CT 06070 Allan Johanson, Assistant Director Ernest C. Hadley, Esquire Office of Policy and Management 1040 B Main Street

" P.O. Box 549 4 Policy .>cvelopment and Planning Division 450 Capitol Avenue - MS 52ERN West Wareham, MA 02576 P.O. Box 341441 Hartford. CT 06134-1441

l q.

Communications and Reporting 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Requests ForInformation

- 5.3 Formal Meetings and Written Reports

- 5.4 Issuance of Obsen ations, Conclusions and Recommendations

- 5.4.1 Observations

-5.4.2 Conclusions

-5.4.3 Recommendations Communications and Reporting 5.5 Press or Media Communication 5.6 Communication Related to NRC Oversight of LHC l

4 June 3,1997, Suggested Replacementfor Sections 5 and 6 of Oversight Plan, Rev. O, dated May 2,1997.

5.0 COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTING 5.1 Introduction The oversight team considers stakeholders to be persons or organizations whose self-interest is impacted by the actions of the personnel and effectiveness of the management team at the Millstone site. This would include, but would not necessarily be limited to, the NRC, various state and local governmental entities, neighbors of the Millstone site, grass-roots organizations fonned out of concern with past events or happenings at Millstone, former and current employees and the licensee management.

All of these stakeholder interests must be acknowledged as the independent oversight team proceeds with its activities. The oversight team will seek out and establish communications as early a possible with all stakeholders, particularly with those located off-site. Team members will document contacts and maintain confidentiality if requested.

! 5.2 Requests for Information l

The nature of the Oversight Program is such that there will be a continuing need to request and receive information from NNECo. LHC will use a standard information request memorandum when seeking documents from NNECo. These memoranda will be maintained in LHC files for the duration of the project. There j will be occasions when information will be provided to LHC during the course of l interviews or attendance at site meetings.. These transmittals will be documented

m mterv ew notes or notes summarizmg meetmg attenaance.

5.3 Formal Meetings and Written Reports The NRC Order requires that the oversight organization report at least quarterly I on their activities. LHC intends to provide a detailed, written report to the NRC ]

(provided to all stakeholders) on a quarterly frequency. In addition to the quanerly l report, there will be pre-announced meetings on a frequency determined by the l l

availability and significance of the results of LHC activities. LHC is of the view that the most efficient mechanism for providing such information to the stakeholders is to do so by having public meetings. This will simultaneously provide the information to the NRC, NNECo and the public. The materials l presented in these meetings will be docketed by providing them in writing to the NRC and all parties on the NRC service list shonly after such meetings.

1 l

l .

t In cases where time is of he essence in providing feedback to the stakeholders, LHC will make such information available to the appropriate stakeholders either verbally or in writing, and follow up with verbal or written information to all stakeholders within three working days of such verbal or written notice. This subsequent communication to the public may be at a previously scheduled public meeting ifit occurs within three working days of a time-sensitive need, or in writing by transmittal to the NRC service list. Copies of the summary will be made available to the public at the Waterford public library. Should any member of the public desire furher elaboration regarding the material, a mutually agreeable time and setting for a discussion with LHC personnel will be arranged.

The intent of the LHC team is to reach a consensus for conclusions or recommendations made as a result of the team's work. This objective creates an atmosphere in which team members must vigorously defend their individual representations to other involved team members, snould there be initially differing views. The objective of consensus also tends to weed out potentially extraneous positions quickly and thus raise the level of any debate regarding an issue. Should there be an instance where a team consensus is not established, the oversight repon will include a clear delineation of the issue or issues and any minority views, including the basis for the departure from consensus. The minority views will be prepared by the team member or members who hold such views, thus assuring a full and fair presentation.

5.4 Issuance of Observations, Conc!usions and Recommendations LHC team feedback to the stakeholders will be either in writing er simultaneously presented at public meetings. There will be three categories used:

i 5.4.1 Observations, which will be used to describe a circumstance or emerging issue where the investigation or review has not been completed, but where enough information has been gathered to warrant bringing the subject to the attention of the stakeholders.

i 5.4.2 conclusions, which will be used to describe a circumstance or issue where j the facts are suf6ciently clear and further review or investigation is highly unlikely to alter the facts.

l l 5.4.3 Recommendations, which will be made when conclusions lead the team to specify a change in how NNECo management addresses a particular issue i or circumstance, either by approaching the issue or circumstance in a 1 different manner, or by incorporating previously unused actions. The team will not indulge in providing consulting advice to NNECo management, but will, in accordance with the requirements of the NRC Order, make j

i 2

i a

recommendations as appropriate when circumstances call for them.

5.5 Press or Media Communication Press or media communication will be handled by the team leaders or by their specific direction to other team members 5.6 Communications Related to NRC Oversight of LHC The NRC will be exercising their required oversight of the LHC team by use of telephcne conference calls, site visits and meetings. These communications will not require the presence of NNECo or the public.

l l

l l

l l

l h

a E

. 3 1

1 4

, - r -

. _ . _- -. .- . _ . .- - . _ . .= . _=- -

1 .;

l l

MILLSTO'NE EMPLOYEE Expectation

, CULTURE SURVEY I AE + Ability to Measure Safety Culture

' at Millstone

/ Millstone j

~

[ ,

- 3ene3,'l997 - l 1:00 PM l

\

l Conclusion 1: 1996 FPI Surveys Process for Evaluation Did Not Measure Safety Culture at

• Met With Developer of 1996 FPI Millstone Surveys l

• Reviewed Alternative Safety Culture Survey

. Reviewed Nuclear Leadership Assessment

.. , _ . . . . . . _ .,,- ._.._-.m.

]

Conclusion 3: Nuclear Leadership Conclusion 2: Alternative Safety Assessment Is Not a Safety Survey Will Measure Safety Culture Survey l Culture If

+ Upward Performance Feedback l +NU Adds: Management Tool i

- " Conservative Decision Making" , Employee Concerns Questions Added to Nuclear Leadership Assessment

- Seni hianagement Endorses a Are Redundant Worker's Right to Raise Safety Issues Without Fear' Questions.

• Administration Raises Concerns of Validity

- .... i-,- ~..~i~

I 1

i 4

i

';. , -< PAlternative Safety Culture Survey

- ; Recommendations

1. General importance of Safety at NU

2. Fear of Retahanon

' Survey Must be Properly 3. ManagemeniwiumgnessioLinen Administered to Deliver Meaningful 4. Management's Accountabihty Regarang Safety 8- 8""" "*"" " "'8ams afety s Results 6 Nest Lese! Manager's Onentation Regar&ng Safety

+ Must Be Committed to Act on the t Timeimen of Responu to concerni 8 ' 8 '"i2'" " Ch '"8 E"' '" S")

Results 9. Consenstive Decision Makmg's Effect on Safety

10. Senior Management Endorsing a Worker's Right to Raise Safety issues

.w s .i w t. .m s.r <= w. i .

I I

4 l

s 2

i 4

l i

ITPOP Memorandum Date: May 30,1997 To: D. M. Goebel, Vice President, Nuclear Oversight From: James K. Perry, Jr., LHC{ \ c' u ((

Subject:

Addendum to Survey History - Review of " Safety " Questions Added to l June 1997 Survey

Reference:

Attached 29 May,1997 Letter to Michael Brown from Dr. Robert R. Albright Because of the time sensitivity of this matter, I am providing my conclusions to you in writing.

l Per the draft protocol, the NRC has been sent a copy of this memo and it will be reviewed at the

! public meeting on June 3,1997.

Conclusions-the use of Dr. Albright's " Safety Culture" constructs and their associated test items are found to be a potentially useful enhancement to your current (1996) survey instmment provided that :

I j u They are randomly distributed throughout the other sun ey questions

! in the same manner as was recommended for the NU group of employee concerns questions.

m A " conservative decision making" constmet and associated test items I

is added.

m A " senior management endorses a policy that supports the workers' right to raise safety issues without fear of harassment, discrimination, or intimidation" construct and associated test items is also added, a Be consistent, either use a 4 point scale for ali uke the one used in the FPI survey or convert to a 5 point scale as Dr. Albright recommends.

At'.achment e l

l cc: NRC-Russ Arrighi-Resident Inspector Unit 3 l

i

- . . . . ~-. .. . . ~ . _ .-. .. - - . . ... .- - - - -- - ~

S

\ .

ITPOP Memorandum <

Date: May 30,1997

! To: D. M. Goebel, Vice President, Nuclear Oversight NNECo-Millstone i

l From: James K. Perry, Jr., LHC

Subject:

Addendum to Nuclear Leadership Assessment - Summer 1997 Because of the time sensitivity of this matter, I am providing my conclusion to you in writing. Per the draft protocol, the NRC has been sent a copy of this memo and it will be reviewed at the public i meeting on June 3,1997.

Conclusion-The ten (10) employee concems questions proposed for addition to the Nuclear Leadership Assessment are redundant to the anticipated culture survey.

cc: NRC-Ted Easlick SRI-Unit 1 1

i i

2 4

x . - . ,

1 l

PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW Op .IExpejt'aiions for the ECP e

' NORTHEAST UTILITIES . -

.' ' Independence irom Line Organizations 6E..,MPL.OYEE CON.CERNS l

, PROGRAM (ECP): -

clearir co===aicated to Employees Regarding Scope and Responsibilities Concerns Addressed in Thorough and Timely Manner O: . Millstone -

, by Competent i nesiigators

'7* -

' - . June 3,1997 i

. Timely Correctise Actions Taken for substantiated Co.,,,,,

- 1:00 PM - .

hiechanisms Prnided for Feedback to and F rom Employees

.m nw a. .a .< on us.s .o Expectations for the ECP (Cont.) _ Process' for Evaluating the ECP -

Resiewed the ?ECP $1anual Dated 4/14.97

. Management Oseniew of the Process .

Resiewed the ECP Communications Plan Dated

! . Comprehensive Reports Presiding Trending and M7/97 f.ffectiseness to Management .

Inteniewed besen Members of the ECP Organization Site-wide Consistency for Organizations Outside of .

Discussed Interfaces and Other Protocol M ith 5 Line M ho Recesse and Process Employee Concerns Managers of Organizations Outside the Line M ho Clear 13 Defn ed Interfaces Between the Abuse Receise and Process Concerns Organizations .

Resiewed Drafts of:

. Supenisors/ Managers Tramed in ECP - Rev i to L(P Manual Staff Qualification Standards Iltabhshed and Apphed - Err seir-Assessmeni FCP Monthly Reports

,- nu s. .n . . .. ~,_ .- m.. o . . - ~,

l l

Conclusion 1 The Documented Conclusion 2: The ECP Manual Does Program Contains the Basics for an ,

Not Address the Full Breadth of :

Improvid ECP at Mi!! stone ' Emgoyee Concern Processing I . Senior Management Support is Esident I

lhere Are \o Standards Estabhshed to Ensure

. Is ladependent From Line Organizations and Reports Consistenc < of Eintustions of Employee Concerns to the VP Suclear Oversight %ich Dotted Line to the Performed b) Organisations Other Than ECP President and CEO Sucitar and to the SU Hoard of . Does Not Fally Address Espectations, Training and Trustees Consistencies Between These Organizations ECP Communication Plan is Comprehensise and

.  % Curreni ty Developed Protocol to Gos ern Interfaces C'"PI d' Between Oganisations Addressing Employee l . Describes an Adequate Approach for Receising. c,,,,,,

Priorituing. Insestagsting and Closing Concerns by the ECP Organization ProsiJn for Confidentiahty and Anon)mity

.w i a s.. .n .. u~. , .m om - . .. u ~~

l

1

• 1 i

• l l

l l

4 I

\

L, Conclusion 3: Does Not. Provide for Conclusion 4:'ECP Manu'ai Lacks -

l JExpected Management Overview, , Some Elements 1 l

• hianagement Resiew of Emplo3ee Concerns Is Not

• Manual Does Not Centain Requirement for j Described Conducting an Annual Esternal Assessment of the

• Data Base is Not Adequately Detailed to Contain ECP as Committed to in the CP ( Action Item 1013)

Information Needed to Generate Espected Trending

• Requires All NO Employees to Participate in an Esit

• ECP Monthly Report Lacks Espected Lesel of Detail Interviewt floweser. Site Emit Process Does Not Assure They Will be Directed to the ECP 1

l l

.- ms .u_.-.~ .m um....n _ .< ,_ j 1

l ECP Self. Assessment Identified 1 s Conclusion 4i..ECP ' Ianual Lacks . Deficiencies ,.

Some Elements (Cont.)

• The ECP Concerns Resolution Process Is

• Manual Does Not Address Coserage for Contractors at Flawed in Seseral Key Respects:

Off-Site Locations

• llandhng of SRC Referred Allegations is Not Coscred ocus a tA "s How Insn gadse Findings Are 1ranslated into Correctise Actions Does Not Address Personnel Quahfication and l "'"8

- There is No tarmal Process for Correctise Action Tracking

- There is No Process for Esaluatmg the Effectiseness of Correctise Actions am nuc ai.oe.o  % .m ms .o .o  % j Recommendations NNECo Should Resiew and Resise the LCi' i

Manual to Address the Following:

!

• Develop Common Standards and Criteria for nsure de Unnents Rhned in Processing Concerns by All the Organization, Conclusion 4 Are Addressed j Handhng Employee Concerns a implement Correctise Action for i

• Deselop Clea r Interfaces. Espectations Betw een These Self-Assessment Identified Items Organisations

= lmplement a Management Osersien of the Concern Process

• Preside Comprehensise Monthly Reports to i

%Ianagement Addressing Concerns llandled by All Organiratiens u- i m s... ne. o  %. m im u a.e, o.  %,.,

4

I I

i ECP Interfaces i

NRC dl"m*1.

l i t

>L i

t l

Employee k

1 J u

1 r 1 r 1 r U T

! I Industrial Site System Internal i Human Safety &

Resources Secun.ty Secunty Audits Health

,I JL 4 JL 4 JL i

i i

$i fl fl fi ECP l'

LHC 6/03/97 j

~. .

, . . , . , - - . , . _ . . . . _ , . , , , , , , , , , , , _ _ _ _ , . _ . . . , _ _