ML20199H375
| ML20199H375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1999 |
| From: | John Miller UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC) |
| To: | Caldwell J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136B830 | List: |
| References | |
| GDP-99-0016, GDP-99-16, NUDOCS 9901250194 | |
| Download: ML20199H375 (5) | |
Text
j..l GP PRIORITY ROUTING First Second A Gobal Energy Company vflA fW. RC gDRA 14( C E1C
- DRP iN/;
I January 13,1999 GDP 99-0016 7
lggg Catc 4 I. NM5, ti-O
_DRMA Mr. James L. Caldwell Acting Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP)
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS)
Docket No. 70-7001 & 70-7002 Status ofImprovement Plans Regarding a Safety Conscious Work Environment
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
This letter provides additional information to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the actions taken and planned to address issues identified by the Nuclear Safety Culture Survey conducted by SYNERGY Consulting Services Corporation. The actions being taken at both the Paducah (PGDP) and Portsmouth (PORTS) Gaseous Diffusion Plants address several areas involving general culture and work environment issues. We recognize that some of these issues affect employee attitudes and if not addressed could potentially affect how effective we are at self-identifying and correcting our problems.
The Nuclear Safety Culture Survey documented that nearly all of the employees responding feel a freedom and, in fact, a responsibility to report safety problems and that they would be supported by management for doing so. There were localized pockets of concern identified for management follow-up. However, it is important to understand that the survey did not identify chilling effects in these pockets. Pockets were defined as areas having greater than 20 percent negative response rate and/or a 30 percent variance compared to the site or USEC composite mean. No significant nuclear safety issues were identified in general or in the pockets. provides a discussion of actions being taken to address the broader central themes of the survey findings in general terms. Identified problems and corrective actions for the potentially significant pockets are stated in more detail in Enclosure 2 (PORTS) and Enclosure 3 (PGDP).
USEC requests that NRC withhold Enclosures 2 and 3 from public disclosure pursuant to 10CFR2.790(a)(6), since disclosur.e ofinformation could constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
9901250194 990113 p}l g{
PDR ADOCK 07007001 g;
g u., nouscup ome, Bethesda, MD 20817-1818
. -i-Telephone 301-564-3200 Fax 301-564-3201 http://www.usec.com hj 'i(o-f)fys !
j Offices in Livermore, CA Paducah, KY Portsmouth, OH Washinpon, DC 0
JAN 10 $99 m
l Mr. James L. Caldwell January 13,1999 GDP 99-0016, Page 2 USEC will continue to maintain this initiative as a priority and will periodically assess performance against the desired results. There are no new conunitments made in this letter. Should you have any questions or comments on the enclosed information, please call me at (301) 564-3301.
Sincerely, J
' II. Miller ecutive Vice President 7
ec: NRC Resident inspector - PORTS NRC Resident Inspector PGDP 1
]
o 1
GDP 99-0016 Page1of3
- 1. Summary of the Nuclear Safety Culture (NSC) Assessment performed for USEC by the SYNERGY Consulting Senices Corporation.
l The most positive results of the survey are associated with the NSC and the least positive are l
associated with the General Culture and Work Environment (GCWE) and Leadership Management and Supenision (LMS). For NSC this is supported by survey results showing a very high percentage of employees feel a responsibility to identify nuclear safety concems, write problem reports, and inform their supenisor. They also feel they would be supported by their supervisor for having done so. In the GCWE and LMS areas,35 to 55 percent of respondents (depending on the issue) were negative on issues like quality and quantity of communications on the future of the business; piiorities used to set goals and allocate resources; general openness; and, feedback at the site-wide level. Other issues in this range included the need to improve the performance appraisal process and link performance to compensation; improve discipline policies; improve technical training; improve mutual respect and trust; and, willingness to make decisions. In addition workers would like to see improvemems in plant processes involving the management and control of work; balancing safety, production and cost priorities; and, better resolution of problem reports.
The survey also identified a lack of confidence in the Employee Concerns Program (ECP) relative to the results it produces; the perceived degree of management support; and, perceptions about the integrity with which the program is run. While the number of direct safety issues identiHed to the ECP is very small, management is concemed that the perceptions of the program will cause it to be less effective than desired. While management takes seriously the concerns of the employees, it is worthwhile putting into perspective the work environment leading up the survey that no doubt affected employee responses.
The work environment has been especially challenging since 1996. New processes and major upgrades to existing processes resulted in more requirements, higher performance expectations, larger workloads and tighter schedules. Workers and supenisors alike were concerned about meeting the expectations of a new regulator. A new environment of strict compliance with procedures was replacing a less strict environment, and management was much more demanding on procedure adherence and the need to not make mistakes, including those oflittle or no safety significance.
Managers, supenisors and workers were often frustrated with trying to manage the rapid changes and implement a philosophy of verbatim compliance with procedures. The use of disciplinary action to reinforce personnel accountability further heightened concerns in the workforce.
Faimess and consistency of discipline were topics of worker concern and management attention throughout the transition period. In addition, there were concerns about job security resulting from the imminent privatization of USEC and questions about the impact of Russian supplied product on gaseous diffusion plant operations. The combination of all of these uncertainties certainly had a negative effect on the workers' morale. It should be recognized, however, that
GDP 99-0016 Page 2 of 3 even though morale and job satisfaction were in general low, the NSC was determined to be acceptable and improving. This shows that management was successful in conveying the company's expectation that safety issues be identified and reported by all workers.
While the survey in general identified an NSC that is satisfactory and improving, it also identified a few pockets of discontent serious enough to warrant attention. The actual indicators of discontent varied and there were no chilling effects identified with the pockets. Very low response rates, greater than a 20 percent negative response rate and/or a 30 percent variance compared to site or USEC composite means were used as criteria to identify pockets. The results expressed related to perceived work environment, indicating leadership and communication as the main focus of concerns. Employees in these locations were more concerned with professionalism within their functional organizations, or the site as a whole than within their own work groups, indicating stronger perceptions of the work environment closer to the employee.
These pockets are individually discussed in Enclosure 2 for PORTS and Enclosure 3 for PGDP.
- 2. Corrective actions aimed at site-wide issues in the GCWE and LMS areas.
Survey results were presented to all plant employees to let them know that management had heard their concerns and would be taking action on their concerns. Since many of the concerns centered around a lack of communication /information, a concerted effort was begun to keep employees better informed. More information on current business issues and regulatory issues are being disseminated in plant newspapers and in "all hands" briefings. The latest change involving the cancellation of the LMUS operating contract is being explained in person, or by video to the workers by senior USEC management and formal channels for questions directed to USEC have been established. These include toll free numbers, an e-mail address, etc.
The reporting relationship of the manager responsible for the Employee Concerns Program has been changed. This manager now reports directly to the General Manager. In addition, the policy that all concerns, whether safety significant or not, must be heard and responded to in a respectful, professional manner has been reinforced to all managers. This guidance applies to all concerns without regmd to the vehicle of the concern (i.e., problem reports, employee concerns, etc.). For concerns involving nuclear safety, both sites now assign a senior member of management to oversee the investigation.
Outstanding union grievances are being resolved more expeditiously as part of an effort to improve union-management relations and discipline policies have been reviewed for consistency and fairness. Faimess is a significant consideration in administration of discipline. Written disciplinary guidelines are used as a guide to administer discipline and greater attention is being paid to consistency in discipline across the site.
I A number of new managers have been moved into key positions to provide clearer expectations for the conduct of plant activities. A key component in selecting the new managers was their l
l GDP 99-0016 Page 3 of 3 ability to work with people to develop mutual trust and respect. In addition, in calendar year 1999 the Portsmouth plant will conduct an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Front-line Managers (FLMs) that have hourly personnel reporting to them and take actions to improve management skills based on the findings. The Paducah plant expects to follow with a similar assessment.
To ease the burden on workers and improve efficiency, a number of process improvements are underway. For example, plans are being worked to simplify the procedure change process and the process by which changes are made to the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and other regulatory documents. Some of these changes are planned for the first half of 1999. Some involving NRC approval may not be completed until later in the year. These changes are progressing slower than desired, but when completed should substantially address employee concerns about processes being excessively complicated.
The Work Control process is improving including more discipline in work planning. Recent implementation of a fixed (or " locked down") weekly schedule at Paducah is resulting in increasing worker satisfaction as they are able to prepare for and finish more jobs without priorities being changed at the last minute. Portsmouth expects to follow with a similar improvement.
The Performance Review System is being changed to require managers / supervisors to provide feedback to employees semi-annually so there are no surprises on the annual performance review. More emphasis is being placed on having clear expectations of the employees by providing continual feedback to them on their performance. This year a performance plan is required of all non-exempt employees and not just managers.
It should be recognized from the widely varied topics coming out of the study that the main concerns do not involve a chilling effect, but do indicate the need for management to continue to address the work environment. Management realizes the value of treating employees with respect and making them realize they are a valued part of the team. To fully achieve this goal will require continued efforts to keep the employees informed of the business situation, seek their input on activities involving them and to treat them as valued members of the team. USEC intends to pursue this goal as a way of doing business and not just a one-time initiative.
l Future assessments will be conducted to measure progress and identify new concerns.
1 1
4 l