ML20210R229
| ML20210R229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1997 |
| From: | Beck J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| ITPOP-97-0028, ITPOP-97-28, NUDOCS 9709020352 | |
| Download: ML20210R229 (4) | |
Text
--____ _ _-_ _ - - -
- y.
. l 1
Little Harbor Consultants, Inc.
Millstone - ITPOP Project OITire P.O. Box 0630 Niantic, Connecticut 06357-0630 Telephone 860-4471791, est 5966 Faz 860-444 5758 August 25,1997-Docket Nos. 50-245 50-336 50-423 ITPOP 97-0028 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic-Atta: Document Control Desk l
Washington, DC 20555-0001 I
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1,2, and 3 On August 20,1997, Little Harbor Consultants, Inc. (LHC) met with Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECo) management and representatives of the NRC to share information gathered during the structured interviews conducted at the Millstone station in June and early July.
The information pertained to " pockets"in the Millstone organization which had been mentioned by one or more interviewees as being the location of a " chilling effect", or which had been considered by one or more interviewees to have intimidating or harassing management styles present. LHC also -
presented the results of an investiguion of a potential " chilling effect" that may have resulted from
- a recent dismissal of two contractors asigned to the MOV group at Millstone. -
With regard to " pockets", LHC informed management of fourteen organizational entities which had been mentioned in the context described above. LHC advised NNECo that thirteen of the fourteen entities had also been implicated in one or mor: Employee Concerns Program (ECP) files which were reviewed by LHC in the course of our ECP implementation critique. LHC advised NNECo that the information was not validated, in that LHC has not done any further investigation of those organizational entities to determine the accuracy of the information. Management committed i
to use the LHC input in conjunction with other information to test the validity of the characterizations and take action where appropriate.
With regard to the " chilling effect", LMC advised NNECo of the status of the investigation.
LHC interviewed a total of30 individuals associated with the MOV effort,19 persons in the Design Engineering Group, and the others from management / supervision, Technical Support, field personnel and the two contractors originally terminated for cause. LHC determined that there has been a j
yk(jbl !
O 9709020352 970025 5945L RElE!Ei!ERIEMI
______.a
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P4ge 2, ITPOP 97-0028 substantial " chilling efTect" within the MOV department as a result of the terminations and the acJons of current department management. The perception of those inteniewed was that the terminations occurred because the individuals disagreed with their immediate management, and were viewed as an obstacle by those managers because of their questioning attitude towerd the general approach 3
being taken by management and specific management actions. A majority of those interviewed believed that the terminated individuals were the technical backbone of the organization, extremely dedicated and hardworking, and had made and were continuing to make a substantial contribution to the department. LHC also found that the current lack of NNECo manager's ability to recognize potential retaliation coupled with the lack of controls over the termination process for contractors continues to present opportunities for personnel actions that may be retaliatory terminations.
LHC made three recommendations to management regarding the response to identified
" chilling effects":
1.
NNECo executive management should take further immediate action to contain the situation by insuring that the individuals perceived as having the authority to harm people who raise questions or have concerns cannot take action without some NNECo review of those actions. The review should take place outside the affected management chain.
2.
NNECo executive management should take personal action to assure the MOV department that the schedule constraints imposed on them will not be allowed to undermine the production of a quality product. Management also should gain an understanding of the depth of the technical and schedule problems within the organization.
3.
NNECo executive management should develop and maintain a close relationship with the department in order to counteract the chilling efTect created by the series of terminations, demotions and other actions by current management.
NNECo management was also advised of other issues and opinions that had been identified through the inteniews and investigations.md include the following (the parenthetical numbers represent the number ofindividuals out of the thirty inteniewed who held the view listed below):
1.
A lack of trust in present management and an erosion of faith in executive management's commitment to."do the right thing" (28) 2.
A belief that the contractor management of contractors permits unfettered power to terminate / demote or otherwise influence the continued employment of contract engineers, thus fueling the unwillingness of other engineers to raise " questions" or poim out problems in the approach or schedule commitrnents. (29)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Psge 3,1TPOP 97 0028 3.
The terminations of the two contractors, as well as actions against former engineers, has eliminated the advocates for employees who had concerns. (28) 4.
The view that other employees who have questioned the costs, decisions and actioni of current MOV management will also be terminated. (18) 5.
The belief that the termination of one of the contractors has effectively eliminated the ability of the organization to use a particular software program, since the terminated individual set up the program and is the only engineer with the ability to use the program efTectively. (22) 6.
The belief that the loss of the second contractor has removed the technical ability to address another significant problem within the department. (18) 7.
A belief that the procedures are insuflicient to provide the necessary detailed guidance to the program. Some engineers felt that the procedures are technically inadequate, others are not sure. (15) l 8.
A belief that the present schedule is virtually impossible to complete and therefore meeting the schedule will require release ofincomplete calculation packages and will result in substantial rework and/or CR's being written. (18) 9.
The belief that the schedule is driving the process at the expense of quality and reliable product. (17)
LHC also advised NNECo management that our investigation of possible retaliation related to the dismissals was still underway, that we would be overseeing the NNECo ECP investigation into the dismissals and that we would have the results of those activities and any further recommendations in the very near future.
Very truly yours, John W. Beck President, LHC Team Leader, ITPOP cc: Distribution o
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 4,TrPOP 97-0028 Distribution:
l D.M. Goebel, NNECo First Selectmen l
Bldg 475/5 Town of Waterford Hall of Records P. Loftus, NNECo 200 Boston Post Road Bldg 475/5 Waterford, CT 06385 K. M. McBrien, NNECo Charles Brinkman, Manager Bldg 475/5 Washington Nuclear Operations ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power W, J. Temple, NNECo 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy, Suite 330 Bldg 475/2 Rockville, MD 20852 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John Buckingham Attn: W.D. Travers Department of Public Utility Control Mail Step: 014D4 Electric Unit Washington, DC 20555-0001 10 Liberty Square New Britain, CT 06051 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission j
Attn: P.F. McKee Citizens Regulatory Commission MailStop 014D4 ATTN: Ms. Susan Perry Luxton Washington, DC 20555-0001 180 Great Neck Road Waterford, CT 06385 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: H.N. Pastis Deborah Katz, President Mail Stop: Ol.4D4 Citizens Awareness Network
- Washington, DC 20555-0001 P.O. Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 03170 Mr. Wayne D. Lanning Deputy Director ofInspections The Honoraole Terry Coneannon Special Projects Office Nuclear Energy Advisory Council 475 Allendale Road Legislative Office Building King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Hartford, CT 06106 Kevin T. A. McCarthy, Director Mr. Evan W. Woollacott Monitoring and Radiation Division Co-Chair Department of Emironmental 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 Ofiice of Policy md Management 1040 B Main Street Policy Development and Planning Division P.O. Box 549 450 Capitol Avenue-MS 52ERN West Wareham, MA 02576 P.O. Box 341441 Hartford, CT 061341441
,