ML20216E096
| ML20216E096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1998 |
| From: | External (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216E055 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803170419 | |
| Download: ML20216E096 (34) | |
Text
[ T.
- Docket Nos. 50-245 50-336 50-423 B17098 Attachment 2 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1,2,3 l
Nilsson and Associates Survey Results (Redacted) 3 l
l March 1998 i
9803170419 980312
D E t
SAFETY CONSCIOUS WORK ENVIRONMENT )
(ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT 1/21/98 STATEMENT) l i
I for Mr. Allan L. Elms Millstone Station Safety Conscious Work Environment ,
P.O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385 by .
Nilsson & Associates l 7278 Tascosa Drive l Flowery Branch, GA 30542 ;
February 17,1998
& O
, SAFETY CONSCIOUS WORK ENVIRONMENT (ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR OVERSIGIIT 1/21/98 STATEM ENT)
INTRODUCTION Purpose Nilsson & Associates (N&A) was asked to conduct a study to determine if the events surrounding the release of a list generated by Nuclear Oversight Management containing the phrase, " Inability to ' isolate' cynics from group culture," had negatively impacted the workforce and, in particular, had in any way created a reluctance to raise safety issues at Millstone. This report details that effort which was conducted February 1,0-17,1998.
Report Overview -
This report adaresses the background of the ir' .. . details the methodology Nilsson &
Associates used in conducting the study, d. Ms iht 'alysis effort, and, finally, reports the results of the interviews and draws corv *
'ce on the interview results.
BACKGROUND OF INCIDENT On Wednesday, January 21,1998, the Nuclear Oversight Leadership Team met at the Lighthouse Inn to work on a plan for moving forward as an organization. In preparation for that meeting the Vice President, Dave Goebel, the three Oversight Directors, the Executive Assistant to the Vice President, and a consultant met on Sunday moming, January 11,1998 to brainstorm a list .of Nuclear Oversight's strengths and areas for improvement. As a result of this brainstorming, the team developed a discussion paper ~
entitled " FOCUS:98 DIRECTORNP VIEW OF NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT (1/11/98)".
This paper, designed to g',ve the Leadership Team a sense of the VP's and Director's thinking on Nuclear Oversight's status as an organizatirn, was distributed at the Lighthouse Inn meeting in preparation for discussing improvement initiatives the group would address later in the day. The FOCUS:98 paper nas presented as both an overhead transparency and as a one-page handout.
Upon presentation of the material, a lively discussion ensued in which several people strongly expressed concerns and sought clarification from the VP and Directors regarding three bullets listed under the following headings:
1
a .
AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT Current SCWE Environment and Issues
+ Inability to " isolate" cynics from group culture
+ Too much negative energy (personnel issues)
+ Pockets of negativism The complete document is includedat the end ofthis doctanent as Attachment A.
It was the sense of the group that these words could be misinterpreted as applying to people with safety concerns or those with a questioning attitude. The VP and Directors quickly made it clear that that was not what they intended. They explained they were hoping to elicit ways to improve the culture in a way that would engage negative people and get them to be more supportive. They then thanked the group for their input.
Several minutes of discussion followed on how to change the language to accurately reflect the true intent of the message. Given that the paper was intended solely to provide a data point for the group's work that day and never intended for publication outside the group, there was a consensus in the group to end the discussion with the acknowledgment that the words were poorly chosen and not reflective of the group's beliefs. The suggestion was then made to collect the sheets so that no one back at the site would get the wrong impression if they happened to read the paper. The group reached a quick consensus to collect the papers at the end of the day and the meeting moved on.
Some days later, the paper was circulated to the site and the press, accompanied by claims that a cover up had occurred. In response to those accusations, the Vice-President of Nuclear Oversight, Dave Goebel, held an all hands meeting on 1/29/98 at which he apologized for the language in question and said that he and the directors were not trying to discourage anyone from voicing their concerns. He also took questions and listened to statements of concern from the group. -
METHODOLOGY Tarpt Population Three groups were targeted as the most likely to have been affected by the content of the FOCUS: 98 language:
- Management personnel in Nuclear Oversight
+ Non Management personnel in Nuclear Oversight
+ Customers of Nuclear Oversight services 2
, )
Data Gathering Method Interviewers Nilsson & Associate's, retained by Northeast Utilities to build teams, develop leadership,
. and assist senior management in establishing a safety-conscious work environment, had arrived on site on January 12,1998 and had started working with the Nuclear Oversight organization to improve teamwork and communication. Prior to the January 21 Lighthouse Inn meeting, N&A consultants had interviewed all members of the management team to get their views about the organization's effectiveness, its strengths, and its areas for improvement and had planned to continue the interviews to include most or all of the organization.
Given that Nilsson & Associates was already involved in assisting Nuclear Oversight, it was determined that they would be the logical choice to structure an instrument and conduct interviews to check for the presence of a chilling effect resulting from the Focus:98 language. ,
Interview Guide There were two interview guides-one for Nuclear Oversight and one for Customers.
Both are included at the end of this report as Attachment B. Each consisted of five questions and was structured to accomplish two objectives:
+ . Gather the information needed for Nuclear Oversight team development
+ Check for any chilling effect that might be experienced or perceived by respondents N&A was concerned that respondents might not be inclined to answer a direct question concerning chilling effect in the affirmative ifit were posed as a stand alone question for two reasons. One is fear that their response might be identified as coming from them or-that a "yes" response wasn't the expected or " correct" answer. The other is that they might not fully understand the ways in which a chilling effect can manifest itself in the workplace. In an attempt to address and fully explore the various " symptoms" that might signal the presence of a chilling effect, N&A asked the following five questions as a prelude to asking directly about any reluctance to raise safety concerns.
Has the recent "VP/ Director List " affectedyour:
+ Willingness to voice opinions?
- + Workperformance?
+ Work environment? l
+ Trust level in Nuclear Oversight management (Managers, Supervisors, j Directors)?
+ Trust levelin senior management? :
I 3 i i
l 1
i
I :
4 The final question, not listed on the Interview Guide, addressed the chilling efTect p directly: -
As a result ofthis list, do youfeel any reluctance to raise safety concerns?
The questions were derived from materials obtained from the Safety Conscious Work j Environment (SCWE) Coordinator and Employee Concerns Oversight Panel (ECOP) and i approved by SCWE as likely to gain the desired information. Only the interview data gathered under Question number 5 (which contained the five separate parts listed above) l was analyzed for this research. The data gathered in the other portion of the interview was used - for - the Nuclear Oversight team as input to help develop improvement -
l strategies.
Respondents The Nuclear Oversight interview respondents consisted of a 20% random sample selected from the various groups in the organization. To ensure representative coverage, the. i sample was " stratified," e.g., at least one representative was included fr"om every work group. Large work groups, of course, often had two or more representatives.
Management was treated as a separate group. If those selected were absent, the person whose name appears after theirs on the organizational chart was substituted.
Determining the customer population was more challenging. Since N&A was new to the station and didn't yet know the site personnel, Oversight Management Team members were asked to identify people in the customer population who interfaced regularly with l Nuclear Oversight and were familiar with the way the department operates. After verifying with an independent third party that those on the list were indeed an appropriate list of customers, Nilsson & Associates then contacted those people for interviews. N&A was also prepared to conduct additional interviews in any customer areas where anyone expressed reluctance to raise safety concerns.
I When an affirmative response was received in one group of non management Nuclear Oversight personnel, N&A conducted a follow up interview with that respondent to clarify the role the Focus: 98 list itself played in creating the reluctance to raise concerns.
N&A also added to the number of respondents in the group to' double the sample size to 40% for that group. Another manager from the same group was added to the managers' sample.
ANALYSIS f Following data collection, the interview results were analyzed by first tabulating the "Yes" and "No" responses for each item and listing the individual comments. All "Yes" responses were followed by comments as were some of the "No" responses. All the comments were included in the analysis and are listed in this report. "Yes" comments 4
are typed in bold-faced print to make them easier to identify and read. The individual comments were then analyzed for patterns.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In this section the findings are presented for each interview question. (Since all the questions have the same lead in, the focus of each individual question is highlighted in .
italics.) In each case a table shows the distribution of responses for that question followed by the respondents' comments presented under the three group headings.
Discussion is provided for each set of data. The last question is followed by the results of a follow-up interview conducted to clarify the intent of the respondent's comments. j Following the question breakouts, primary and secondary findings are listed. Finally a concluding statement is presented.
Has the recent "VP/ Director List" affected your willingness to voice opinions?
NUCLEAR NUCLEAR CUSTOMERS OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT NON TOTALS MANAGERS MANAGERS YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO 1 21 0 6 2 28 3 55 CUSTOMERS COMMENTS:
+ Yes, to the degree that I would be watchful or mindful of saying something around someone I didn't know; Around my fellow workers. no...not at all
+ No, have not seen this effect on anyone else either.
+ No, not at all
+ No, absolutely not
+ No, because Dave is not in my food chain. I don't believe the list reflects Nuclear Oversight policy.
NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT MANAGERS COMMENTS:
+ No comments NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT NON MANAGERS COMMENTS: i
+ Yes, not to managers, but would be apprehensive at the Director level and above. l
+ Yes,I'm chilled, but not by the news. I'm chilled by , a peer in the I department. !
+ No, not in the least
+ No, absolutely not!
+ Not at all
+ No, the group is not shy or bashful.
+ No, six months ago maybe but not today; voicing our opinions is not career limiting.
5
+ No, but ifI have the chance to avoid one of these talk sessions, I do, because they're a waste'of time.
+ No, but very unfortunate choice of words.
DISCUSSION:
Three of the 58 respondents said that their willingness to voice opinions had been affected by the list. One person expressed concern about speaking freely around people he didn't know for fear of having his words misinterpreted. Another complained of being " chilled" by a coworker who has been a vocal critic of management. A third said j he would be apprehensive to voice his opinions to the Director level and above, although l he was willing to voice his opinion to those at the manager level. No pattern was l identified in the "yes" comments.
The "No's" were unequivocal in their assertion that the list had no effect and many 4 completely dismissed the notion that their willingness to voice their opinions would be afTected by anything. ,
Has the recent "VP/ Director List" affected your workperformance?
NUCLEAR NUCLEAR CUSTOMERS OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT NON TOTALS MANAGERS MANAGERS YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO 1 21 2 4 5 25 8 50 i CUSTOMER COMMENTS:
+ Yes,it's been on my mind that this incident has occurred. I'm thinking about talking with the man who raised objections at the Shirley Jackson public meeting.
NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT MANAGER COMMENTS:
+ Yes, this issue has consumed a lot of time; it has been a distraction.
+ Yes, made me as a Director concerned that everything I say will be scrutinized.
NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT NON MANAGER COMMENTS:
+ Yes, sent some resumes out afterward; gave the impression we were kind of screwed up and didn't know ifI wanted to be here; felt n if Dave apologized once and that was enough; it was commendable that he felt he owed people an apology and he kind of lost control of that Nuclear Oversight meeting; didn't say what he really meant; by not explaining, he left it open to interpretation what was really meant by those words.
+ Yes, it has been a distraction for several weeks; people are still talking about it (workforce)- not personally.
+ Yes, maybe temporarily. Taken aback a little.
6
+ Yes,it affected my attitude. It hit home.
W Yes,'just kept me away from my work some. Inconvenience talking about it.
+ No, it interfered with the workday (meetings).
+ No, it is embarrassing that this happened.
+ No, absolutely not! ,
+ No, not at all
+ No,it improved it
+ No, not at this point except for the time this issue has taken.
DISCUSSION:
Eight of the 58 respondents said their work performance had been alTected by the list.
Many of these felt the issue has consumed a considerable amount of time in workplace ,
discussions and special meetings. This was the only clear pattern identified in the l responses. Some noted their disappointment when they became aware of the list. One manager expressed a concern for his ability to perform his duties wh'en every werd is being scrutinized. .
Has the recent "VP/ Director List" affected your work environment?
NUCLEAR NUCLEAR CUSTOMERS OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT NON TOTALS MANAGERS MANAGERS YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO 9 13 1 5 10 20 20 38 CUSTOMER COMMENTS:
+ Yes, people are talking about it
+ Yes, management has made a mountain out of a molehill. People now feel they have to carefully select each word. j
+ Yes, it has put a black cloud over the workforce just as things were turning around. Upset it didn't get stopped from the start. Don't believe it was motivated by had intentions.
+ Yes, to the extent that a lot of questions were generated on how management could think that way.
+ Yes, slightly... wasting enery,y talking about it
+ Yes, after Denny gave professionalism talk to control room personnel after someone made a sarcastic comment.
I
+ Yes, only to the degree that we've been discussing it. Should be a dead issue to l
us.
+ Yes, some people still not comfortable; personally, I see it as trivial and accept the explanation.
+ Yes. (No further comment provided)
+ No, more careful in what I say and in the words I say and write.
7
NUCLl;AR OVERSIGIIT MANAGER COMMENTS:
[
i Yes, peopic are having discussions about this. This is making people focus on things other than work.
+ No, people are tired of hearing about it.
NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT NON MANAGER COMMENTS:
- Yes, ambivalent; "not really" some loss of productivity; some loss of credibility
+ Yes,I understand what he was trying to say; I was disappointed in the overreaction to the whole issue; non-productive times
+ Yes, peopic are still talking about it.
+ Yes, everyone is talking about it.
+ Yes, took a little bit of a hit. We keep trusting and keep getting burned. Dragged the whole group down. A dulling effect almost. Very sensitive now.
+ Yes, some embarrassment.
+ Yes,I see people posturing on this issue. The organization is beqoming polarized on the issue.
+ Yes, sick of hearing about it.
+ Yes, don't know why it was said. What it meant wasn't clearly explained.
+ Yes, everyone was talking about it.
- No, it has been a distraction for several weeks; people are still talking about it in the workforce, but it hasn't affected me personally.
+ No, not at all
(
+ No, investigation worries me. Could come out with a negative result.
+ No, can't notice any difference.
DISCUSSION:
Twenty of the 58 respondents said their work environment had been affected by the list.
The one pattern identified in the previous question carried over to this closely related question. Eight people mentioned that a great deal of time had been spent discussing the issue. Others mentioned having to select their words more carefully for fear of having them taken out of context. The rest of the comments expressed concern about what the words actually meant and how management could think this way, erosion of trust and credibility, and the effect the incident has had on peoples' outlook. Many said they were tired of the whole thing.
Has the recent "VP/ Director List" affected your trust levelin N.O. management?
9 NUCLEAR NUCLEAR CUSTOMERS OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT NON TOTALS MANAGERS MANAGERS l YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO l 3 19 0 6 5 25 8 50 l
( l 8 i l
s J
i
! . e i
I CUSTOM,ER COMMENTS:
( + 'Yes, a little bit; indicates a lack of trust to us
+ Yes, a slight loss of trust
+ Yes, don't know what really happened, but wondering how this was overlooked I
and how it ended up in the paper.
l + No, the intent was good but a poor choice of words.
l + No, don't think they have bad intent.
l + No, but I do have a deep-seated doubt about Nuclear Oversight management
- philosophy.
+ No, unfortunate choice of words
+ No,just think it was a goof
+ No, how did we get this careless?
+ No, by having people like Dave Goebel and Wayne Kropp in key positions we are much better off. I have total trust in these people.
NUCLEAR OVERSIGIIT MANAGER COMMENTS:
l + No, not one bit -
l NUCLEAR OVERSIGIIT NON MANAGER COMMENTS:
+ Yes, Senior Management within Nuclear Oversight took a hit. Something was meant by that comment. Lost a little bit of my trust. Not invited to 1/29/98 apology meeting. Chipped off a little bit of trust. Willing to forgive.
l[
l
+ Yes, I was impressed when I found out how the issue surfaced (Manager response). Trust in Directors has decreased due to their involvement. Try truth next time. ,
+ Yes, we need to raise our standards; lost trust in Dave when he responded to !
questions in Nuclear Oversight meeting.
+ Yes, don't have the slightest idea who said it or what was meant by it and what we're doing about it.
l + Yes, but I'd bring up safety issues. I trust my immediate management. , )
+ No, shows that management was not sensitive to the Safety Conscious Work l Environment; however, if management listens to input, then problems can be worked out.
l + No, not at all 1
+ No, trust level is guardedly optimistic anyway; the comments were taken out of j context.
+ No, had lower trust in Goebel to start with.
+ No, it increased trust in Nuclear Oversight management. - never bad to start with. j
+ No, already didn't trust. Didn't change anything. i
+ No, poor choice of words but not a trust issue.
+ No, poor choice of words. Making a mountain out of a molchill. 4
+ No, but I'm disturbed that some one broke trust by maliciously promoting the l distribution of the memo.
+ No,just concemed that Dave needs to get better consultants.
i i
9 L )
i l
. l
[ DISCUSSION:
Eight of the 58 respondents said tha. the list affected their trust level in Nuclear Oversight management.
The comments ranged from simple statements that trust had been eroded to more specific concerns over what the words meant and how the issul handled. Several of the "No's" expressed similar coneems. Some of the "No's" saidj they already distrusted management so the effect of the list was simply to confirm t i doubts. Many said they regretted the poor choice of words, and one respondent w about the broker. trust brought about by the person who distributed the list. No obvi patterns were identified in the responses. i Has the recent "VP/ Director List" affeeted your trustlevelin senior management?
NUCLEAR NUCLEAR CUSTOMERS OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT NON TOTALS
- MANAGERS MANAGERS YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO' 1 21 1 5 3 27 5 53 ;
l
}
,. CUSTOMER COMMENTS:
i
( + Yes, I trust them more. ;
+ No, the whole event was an overreaction; it should have been a non-issue.
+ No, think Kenyon did the right thing.
i NUCLEAR OVERSIGIIT MANAGER COMMENTS:
l +
l Yes, thinkSoverplayed it. Didn't correct the " memo" part in "To the Point" or The Day. Could have used more poh>h in talking with troops.
NUCLEAR
+
OVERSIGIIT NON MANAGER COMMENTS:
Yes, absolutely don't trust Senior Management. Myjudgement is based on their -
actions. j
+
Yes, shaky today, especially because of !
+
issue.
Yes, made me realize there's something wrong there that they would even use the word " isolate"... that they see things as a war rather than seeing the positive side of gathering in other opinions and asking why people are cynical and not trusting.
+ I No, but too soon to tell; need to see what they do now.
+ No, not at all
+
No, no interaction with senior management; no effect whatsoever.
+
+
No, thinigdid not handle th; issue well; thinigshot from the hip.
No, still don't trust Senior Management.
+
No,Wis handlinn situations well.
+
No. don't bla@ to stml with, still bad trust level.
10
4 No,if anything, it's increased it. They jumped at it.
+ No, don't know. Too early to tell based on evolving information.
+ No, I respected the fact they took quick action Dave should have explained what was meant by the words. This is still missing.
DISCUSSION:
Five of the 58 respondents said the list affected their trust level in senior management.
Of those five, three said their trust in senior management was adversely affecied by management's actions. Another indicated that his trust in management had increased as a result of how the issue was handled. Of those who stated their trust level was unaffected, several said they have taken a wait and see attitude. Others said they didn't trust management prior to this incident. No obvious patterns were identified in the responses.
As a result of this list, do you feel any reluctance to raise safety concefas?
5" NUCLEAR NUCLEAR CUSTOMERS OVERSIGIIT OVERSIGHT NON TOTALS MANAGERS MANAGERS YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO O 22 0 6 1 29 1 57 s
CUSTOMER COMMENTS:
3 None NUCLEAh OVERSIGIrf MANAGER COMMENTS:
None l
NUCLEAR OVERSIGIIT NON MANAGER COMMENTS:
+ Yes, based on 2/11/98 talk with Nuclear Oversight, the message was -
there are other things to worry about." There's a lack of sincerity. The Nuclear Oversight / Maintenance issue smells terrible. The way management handled this issue says it all. Things are better than they used to be but my feeling is ifI have a problem, take it to the NRC or find a new job.
Follow up Interview 2/17/98 to Further Clarify 2/11/98 "Yes" response: l
+ should have been punished for his handling of,the HR issues and the OversighUMaintenance issue. Oversi ht and Maintenance should have been together when the notification was mad did not hold his position.
and M ;
The problem on this issue ism not the list. Mis just like his predecessors. I feel sorry for Dave; he seems to be a very nice guy. I feel that Dave is set up to fail because he's new and the Directors don't have a clue. I feel our managers are good as demonstrated by iI
their immediate " push back" in the meeting. I feel comfortable raising safety
(' ' issues 'to my manager but don't think my manager would get support from above.
I question the judgment of Directors and above. I felt reluctant to raise safety issues before, but the hst has made it worse. We are backing up; I'm backed up at least a year as fa. as reluctance to raise safety concerns. There are several reasons for this-the list is just one of them.
DISCUSSION Initially, one of the 58 respondents expressed a reluctaice to raise safety concems. In a follow up interview, it was determined that the respondent's reluctance to raise concerns pre-dated the appearance of the list and that the incident had simply reinforced and intensified this reluctance. It should be noted that in response to an urlier question, the same individual expressed no reluctance to voice opinions to managers ir. the department, but would definitely not voice opinions to the Directors or VP. The respondent repeated this statement with regard to the raising of safety concerns, stating clearly that there was no reluctance to raise safety concems with managers,, but there was an unwillingness to raise safety concerns with the Directors and the VP.
The "No's" were unequivocal in their assertion that the list had no effect and many completely dismissed the notion that their willingness to raise safety concerns would be affected by anything.
Primary Finding: l
+ One respondent out of 58 interviewed indicated a reluctance to bring up safety I concerns but not as a result of the list.
Secondary Findings:
+ Most respondents believe that poorjudgment was exercised by the VP and Directors. - 1
+ People are disappointed, frustrated, and embarrassed that this incident ever occurred. I
+ Many are concemed that the VP and Directors have still not explained what they meant by the language they used.
- People are bothered by the amount of time and attention this incident has commanded.
+ Several respondents expressed concern about the need to be overly careful in choosing their words to avoid misinterpretation.
+ A division of opinion exists in the Nuclear Oversight department as to how serious the incident was, what was really meant by the language, how well the situation was handled, and what should be done at this point, if anything, to help resolve the issue.
+ Most customers and members of the Oversight Department are tired of dealing with the issue.
12
t-Conclusions
-[ -
While there- nave beeri a number of undesirable consequences rising out of the appearance of the VP/ Director list, there has been no chilling effect in terms of a
. reluctance to raise safety concerns as a result of this incident.
I J
s f
i I 's l
I
('
13 ,
( .
ATTACHMENT A I
FOCUS 98: DIRECTOR /VP VIEW OF NUCLEAR OVERSIGIIT )
1 i
g l
a i n
u o r
- d t o s e y )e ne
. t i
v it e s h i
u s d l o kr ts s s t n i b sm asi d t
e e t r
i olu n s o ws t
T n sr n a k s p N
i
't e a h f e a a p d ne w o/ tr e e u e n g m )e E e s s t
/w nn w w M s e min enhl gi u u t
s s so ght ioe g s t
'n r E r e ge cu in wgh t
a m r s i n m t n ot e V t ar ope a ci gs v a e dt e 8
)
O n no l h
t oi s ees l
o r g m sb R st i
aic n u n o nr t s o e el
_ /
9 eo un me n (s m eorg no d tk ve i ns a
e r r p v s sa 1 P s s e ef n o r equ e ie me co e 1
M sis o t r w'norO mo n hi d p
/ i n
1
(
I d n t
svl op eit r( Y rdae o s ot no i g a m rt po G ne i cnlt it fsy :ic u s _
T N am i e o cg Hol c s a er t
or m d
e n
H n t
W d ,Nu ss ege* cc oir
_ I t
lorih e e s lee G D a ant pn dsynm ri ne t eeef i sel gdt e
t s n e t o E mn a o awt y s v sd c n I t S E na ga ce s l aninloa s e i
t i
h e n e ev i l s n eio a
R N om r i n s e r apai a vi "t t if n
u oa l
ui o lt t f rk olp l i n it i
l i
it wro E i vt i t o ag mno ct t a o u r g i
b n dM V S n a h not sge sl smie ot o nt cizt o ow l
i n a p
i n
a y.
A eh t m
i O t sinien at oe nona t
i t Fuu f n sn b a uo m n a r lsh E
i En o honf ocgc d gc a a c e p R pm m "t n n , r o r t R Wi f e yc s it o oin a eesofohe i t
/
s g leo A A Cprt soo r gt ut at c
ie c u nt i t f f uf ct e r
l l
i n bs o
e nr er m yl E Seck etcpaimk i l
o reikk aioomo v o k s l o ni h L r ee nb c ulukm o a p n e of s aao o t r it k m e f -
_ C epwfeumit pno mic aa c apc r
t ccoc aaoa d l
p o mS U r goal k
- r u mfl o e l t l e
e o e c a oS
. mN F
C. .
.
- e . e Ce e t
I n.
. .e . N, P
L oI T. K O 1 2 3 4 S' . 6 7
.W T f E H I o r le s .
V G d i e
s s s I
S o e h e e 'n
- P t d
u t
r a c o N R t n it d n d o
r i
t a
R E a' t n p w' a t
_ ' t V a e a y s O r e
r O e d d h ) )
e T
n n t h s t
r v h t
C R a a i n t e
t e a p o g s c
_ E A dr l l
s e
g o
k c t s e i n
_ R E h a i k
s l
o t o p o r
e s
s
_ I L r kr e
_ .D C kr f f e r o
(
~m h t s _
- o a v i e e e n s 8 U w t i si t h
w in h i a _
_ 9 N o d s* o t
t o l e
t.
r e er S F t tep t o g h f o l o
r a _
U O t
n n sei n i n t h
(
s y e _
C a le alps i l
l t
e e w S
i t
O c tahoe r w g w s k y F E l u _ aameiph e r n y s e a a I
e t n d w T / e e r w av i i l
e e s
r o k
i I
t vt u e b a n L o at o opr i
h n n d e g t A nl leh nf e e eof oi to t
cm e w i
s d -
U r w w,eimy ei r
c r s a
e ve -
Q e a b
eoll gi l
t ga nz r s i i d
d e
u o n oc r n
, 8 9
E lpl opr r jaab ii r n f r k
h w e pa S V n au a oo y e mm U eoie ea ptag pw is t o la n b C
Pe h omcmo i
I v a r l i r r T b eo I r u
pt um o ae t a g e
k c ei i
t e
v vf r O S r s t a ae F O Oe . e . . Gt E In Wc r H Hp P 1 2
3 4
- 5. 6 7
( .
ATTACHMENT B NEEDS ASSESSMENT FORM AND CUSTOMER FEEDBACK FORM
l .
NEEDS ASSESSMENT I( .
mo INTERVIEW CUIDE)
- 1. How would you rate the overall effectiveness of your Work Group?
1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective OK Very Effective
- 2. What are your Work Group's greatest strengths?
)
l
(- 3. What are your work group's greatest aree.s for improvement? -
1
\
- 4. If you had a magic wand and could use it to improve Nuclear Oversight, how ,
would you use it?
l I
r l
l l , 5. Ilas the recent "VP/ Director List" affected your :
l (. ,
Area Yes No Comments i
+ Willingness to voice opinions?
l
+ Work performance? 1 e-
!- + Work environment?
( '
l l
l 4
+Trustlevelin NO Mgt.?
i l
! l l + Trust levelin Senior Mgt.?
l (
I l
,4 .
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
( ,
, (trRERVIDV CUIDE)
I l
I
- 1. How would you rate the overall effectiveuess of the support you receive from '
Nuclear Oversight?
1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective OK Very Effective
- 2. What do you like best about Nuclear Oversight's support?
l i
( .
- 3. How can Nuclear Oversight improve its support?
I
- 4. If you had a magic waud and could use it to improve Nuclear Oversight, how would you use it?
, e .
- 5. IIas the recent "VP/ Director List" affected your :
Area Yes No Comments
+ Willingness to voice opinions?
+ Work performance?
s
+ Work environment?
l i
l + Trust levelin NO Mgt.?
+ Trust levelin Senior Mgt.?
T
- , 9 - .
. Docket Nos. 50-245
( 50-336
- i. 50-423 817098 l
l Attachment 3 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1,2,3 .
l ECP Peer Representatives Survey (Redacted) 4 l
l March 1998
II wac4"" Safety Conscious Work Environment i
Assessment of Nuclear Oversight 1/21/98 Statement Revision 0 1
Employee Concerns Peer Representative and Safety Conscious Work Environment Organization Poll NOTE: Based on ECP Peer Representative request, Aprendix B, Detailed Responsesfor Each Question, ns l considered CONFIDENTIAL since the section lists i the group from which the comments originated.
I March 6'",1998
l a
nr 4 we c=w. Collection of Organizational Reactions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draft Paper Table of Contents EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
. . 3 PURPOSE.. .. . . . 3 OVERVIEW.- .3 INTRODUCTION __ . -3 POSmVE THEMES.. . . . . . . . . . . . -4 NEGATIVE THEMES . . 4 DATA GATHERING PROCESS . . . ..4 QUESTlONS.. .. 4 DATA SOURCES : .. -4 SAMPLE SIZE ., . . . . _ _4 THEMES BY QUESTION . . . . 5 l Q1: WilAT IMPACT IF ANY, HAS Tills EVENT IIAD ON YOUR WORK ENVIRONMENT 7.. . . .5 Q2: WilAT IMPACT HAS Tills EVENT llAD ON YOUR WILLINGNESS TO VOICE OPINIONS ON ISSUES? .. . 5 Q3: WilAT IMPACT HAS Tills EVENT llAD ON YOUR WORK PERFORMANCE 7 - ._6 j Q4: WilAT IMPACT llAS Tills EVENT liAD ON Tile TRUST IIVEL BETWEEN YOUR DOSS AND YOU7 - 6 QS: WilAT IMPACT llAS Tills EVEN T IIAD ON Tile TRUST LEVEL DETWEEN SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND YOU7.. .7 ATTACHMENT A: DEMOGRAPHICS AND DATA GATHERING . 8 ATTACHMENT B: DETAILED RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION .. .. . . 11 Ql: WilAT IMPACT, IF ANY, IIAS THIS EVENT HAD ON YOUR WORK ENVIRONMENT 7.. . .11 Q2; WHAT IMPACT llAS Tills EVENT llAD ON YOUR WILLINGNESS TO VOICE OPINIONS ON ISSUES 7.. - 15 Q3: WilAT IMPACT llAS Tills EVENT !!AD ON YOUR WORK PERFORMANCE 7 .. =17 I Q4: WilAT IMPACT llAS Tills EVENT llAD ON Tile TRUST LEVEL DETWEEN YOUR BOSS AND YOU7 : .- . 20 Q5: WilAT IMPACT IIAS THIS EVENT llAD ON Tile TRUST LEVEL DETWEEN SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND YOU7.. .22 Q6: DO YOU llAVE ANY COMMENTS 7 . :28 i
l l
March 6*,1998 l Revision 0 Page 2 of 40 i
L , :. .
j we ce Collection of Organizational Reactions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draft Paper i
Executive Summary Purpose L This report assesses the Organizational chilling effect of a draft working paper generated by Oversight management. The draft paper contained the phrase, " inability to isolate cynics from
- the group culture." This repon details the polling and results of the information that was collected from February 2" to February 18'h,1998.
Overview This report provides a brief description of the event, summarizes positive and negative theme and the data sources, identifies _. .ues for each question, details the demographics, and categorizes for each question the responses uy polled group. Although individuals are not identified, a polled group requested that their comments not be publicly identified. For this reason, Appendix B of this report is considered confidential and is not to be publicly distributed.
Introduction th On Sunday, January 11 ,1998, the Nuclear Oversight Vice President, the three Oversight Directors, the Executive Assistant to the Vice President, and a consultant met to brainstorm a list of Nuclear Oversight's strengths and areas for improvement. The group developed a draft list titled Focus:98 Director / VP View ofNuclear Oversight (1/11/98).
The draft paper was distributed to the Nuclear Oversight leadership team at an off site meeting on Wednesday, January 21,1998. The paper contained the following information:
I Current SCWE Environment and Issues l
- Inability to " isolate" cynics from group culture l . Too much negative energy (personnel issues) l e Pockets ofnegativism l l
Members of the group quickly noticed these words. The group discussed these ideas, noting that the words could be misinterpreted as the desire to isolate individuals from the group. The leadership team agreed that the draft paper did not represent their thoughts and should be corree %
- The draft paper was distributed to the site and the press. The draft paper had the potential of
! causing anxiety throughout the organization. The Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE)
Group asked the Employee Concems Program (ECP) peer representatives to poll the organization to determine any chilling effect as a result of this draft paper. The SCWE Group also polled parts of the organization that was not represented by ECP peer representatives. This report summarizes the positive and negative themes as determined by the polling. This report also summarizes themes by question, and details the polling demographics.
March 6*,1998 Revision 0 Page 3 of 40
4
,-s .
mcm Collection of Organizational Reactions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draft Paper j Positive Themes e No apparent chilling effect in the majority of the organization
- People want to be able to concentrate on their work, especially restart efforts
- Tmst was not impaired with immediate supervision e Speed of response time wasjudged as positive Negative Themes e Three comments from one polled group indicated a chilling effect
. One anonymous comment indicated a lack of willingness to voice opinions i e Unintended perceptions always need to be considered, especially at Senior Management levels
- Comments indicated that some loss of trust with Senior Management occurred e People need help learning to distinguish between cynicism and constructive criticism
. The faster the investigation can be completed and follow-up actions communicated, the less j negative impact on trust will result Data Gathering Process Questions l
- 1. What impact has this event had on your work environment?
- 2. What impact has this event had on your willingness to voice opinions on issues?
- 3. What impact has this event had on your work performance?
- 4. What impact has this event had on the trust level between your boss and you?
- 5. What impact has this event had on the trust level between senior management and you?
- 6. Do you have any comments?
Data Sources
- All peer representatives were asked to gather data from their work groups (and other work groups) e Additional individuals were queried in departments not represented by peer representatives
- Data gathering included one on one interviews, questionnaires, group meetings, and informal conversations e Responses reflect overall impacts, not only chilling effect impacts Sample Size e Number of work groups sampled: 34 e Number of employees sampled: 270 l March 6*,1998 l Revision 0 Page 4 of 40 j
a mu c eme Collection of Organizational Reactions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draft Paper 1
Themes by Question Q1: What linpact, if any, has this event had on your work environtnent?
Summary regarding chliling effect: "None" Summary regarding other impacts: Concern about how Senior Management could have ccme to use this inflammatory language.
Representative Comments of Concern:
- Incident has been costly in terms oflost time on-the-job e Was initial disappointment in management's poor choice of words; "how could this have happened in light ofcurrent problems?"
- Silence on the issue raises even more question
- Confusion and rumors have been byproducts e Questions / concern by workers that we're not making progress e More cynicism o Caused unrest / disappointment with Senior Management e Concern about whether the incident will impact start up e "The response... has been one of wonder. In their right-minded, seemingly well-intentioned attempts to apologize and explain, they may have said more than they needed."
Representative Positive Comments:
e 9 work groups reported no negative impacts e Management's intention wasn't to isolate and identify specific people e " ..in our branch, there has always been an open channel to voice one's opinions related to safety issues and that quality of... communication has never been threatened."
e "this event has actually had a positive effect. Yes, someone made a mistake, but as soon as that mistake was realized, action was taken immediately to correct it; apology was made."
Q2: What linpact has this event had on your willingness to voice opinions on issues?
Summary regarding chilling effect: A total of three comments noted a chilling effect. (See comments in bold below.) i Summary regarding other impacts: One negative comment was noted regarding lack of l willingness to voice opinions. (See comment in bold below.)
l Representative Comments of Concern:
- ' It further alienates me from my management because I consider myself a skeptic. Note:
skeptic originates from skeptika;s (thoughtful) and skepresthal(to look, consider).
I l
March 6*,1998 ,
Revision 0 Page 5 of 40 j l
- st .
we ca e, Collection of Organizational Reactions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draft Paper 9
e "wouldn't ...ever, ever consider voicing any kind of opinion to upper management.
They still don't get the messages of how to treat, address, think of, or value input from their employees."
e Decreased willingness e Presents a chilling effect
- "For now, some hesitation, but not at the expense of safety or lowering our standards."
Representative Positive Comments:
e 16 work groups noted no negative impacts e " the comments that I hear from peers and some supervisors have made me more aware of what I say to whom."
e "I saw the original remark as a way to help the general workforce and to foster a positive working environment. I saw the response as an over-reaction which was then promulgated by the media."
e "Somewhat positive since this issue was promptly discovered and addressed. This would not have happened several months ago".
Q3: What impact has this event had on your work performance?
Summary regarding chilling effect: None Summary regarding other impacts: None, except the time lost in discussing the incident.
Representative Comments of Concern: I e Diverted time from productive work.
. "None ..other than I wonder how much longer it will take to get past these types issues and get on with ' normal' living/ working."
Representative Positive Comments: ;
- 17 workgroups noted no negative impacts l
. "I've tried not to use double meaning words and to insure the person I speak with walks away l knowing what I had in mind."
e "I was pleased to see how strong and how quick the management response was to get this j information out to everyone."
Q4: What impact has this event had on the trust level between your boss and you? l Summary regarding chilling effect: None (100% of respondents)
Summary regarding other impacts: None March 6*,1998 Revision 0 Page 6 of 40
o a.
we em Collection of Organizational Reactions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draft Paper Representative Comments of Concern:
e "It takes time, but I do believe we're seeing genuine changes. The jury...still remains out about whether or not these positive attitudes will remain when things return to normal. That is the biggest test."
Representative Positive Comments:
e "I have complete trust in my supervisor, manager and director to keep me informed ofissues and to listen and respond ifI have an issue..."
- Trust level remains high.
. "None, other than an increased sensitivity on our supervisor's part to look at how 'what they say' could be misperceived".
QS: What impact has this event had on the trust level between senior management andyou?
' Summary regarding chilling effect: None Summary regarding other impacts: "No impact" to " definite negative impacts" trusting Senior Management to lead effectively.
Representative Comments of Concern:
. Less respect may result if more explanation about the event isn't forthcoming.
. " Negatively impacts trust regarding Senior Management. I feel the current problems were brought on by Senior Management and they still haven't changed their attitudes at certain-levels. I trust Mr. Kenyon and feel he is trying hard to turn the situation around. However, it seems additional changes and/or replacements in some areas are still necessary."
- Makes some employees question theirjudgments.
Representative Positive Comments:
- 10 workgroups reported no negative impacts.
. "None. Absolute trust!!"
e "If anything, the trust has increased. It is noble to admit a mistake and confront it head on."
. Employees appreciated the apology.
. "I do believe that they could have meant something else, but didn't see the full meaning of the words."
e "It's a shame management has to waste time and money responding to crap like this. Let's realize this is a business and allow management to focus on the real issues."
e Several supportive comments were made about Mr. Kenyon's leadership March 6*,1998 Revision 0 Page 7 of 40 l
,s. -
O d
, uce Collection of Organizational Reactions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draft Paper Attachment A: Demographics and Data Cathering l UNIT ONE: l Guy Mendenhall- Funerience Assessment. part of Sunport Services:
Demographics:
N-10= most of his people,1/2 exempt Process:
one-on-one with some, later met with all (including original 3-4) on second day Walter Lits - Maintenance Demographics:
N- 17 Procers:
distributed individual questionnaires, verbatim responses captured anonymously Dwayne Basler - Unit 1. FIN Demographics:
N=10= 100% of his group, varying levels: I sup. for ops.,2 operators, engineer, electrician, maintenance, HP,2 I&C specs., planner Process:
at his regular AM meeting; he read the questions to the group and told them they could also come to him individually lYilli:np Loweth - Eneineering:
Denwgraphics:
N-1 Process: own opinion Fred Altvatar - Unit 1. IIP:
Demographics:
N=4, IIP group Process:
informal, break room l UNIT TWO: l S. Walnlo - Design Engineering:
Demographics:
N=20 Process:
Distributed questionnaires to individuals; verbatim comments captured anonymously.
1 i
i i
March 6*,1998 Revision 0 Page 8 of 40
a4 ~
a . .
wece Collection of Organ.izational React. ions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draf t Paper l UNIT THREE: l Randy Jacobson - Unit 3. Maintenantti Demographics:
N=6 Process:
random talks with individuals Mike Kennedy - Operations:
Demos / process:
N=4, casual conversations N-12, at a shift turnover meeting a few others in casual conversations l NUCLFAR ENGINEERING AND SUPPORT O VER VIEll' l LuAnn Cataudella - Profeggional Devel. Group. Nucl. Tr.:
Demographics: her own personal opinions John Doroski - Technical Chemical Support:
Demographics:
N=4 in his group = ahnost .11 of his group: 1 tech, I scientist, I sr. engineer, I sr. chemist.
Greg D'Auria - Chemistry Technical Sunport:
Demos-two groups surveyed:
- 1. l'is direct reports, N=8 (2 non-exempt), e.g. sr. engineer, sr. chemist, other engineers
- 2. Nucl. Water Chem, N=10 = all exempt engineers Procer.
unofficial group meetings Jeff Taylor - Nuclear Training:
Demogrcphics:
N=7 in Nuclear Training Group Process:
informal discussions I Jim Bennet * - Nuclear Training Demographics:
N-7 Process:
casual conversations in workgroup Jack Barnett/ Rich Badon - Nuclear Engineerino. New Britain !
Demographics:
N=40 l l
Process:
questionnaires distributed, verbatim comments captured anonyrnously l l
l Barbara Tarallo - Emergency Plannine Services Demographics:
N=2 l Process:
March 6*,1998 Revision 0 Page 9 of 40
0 a
neca Collection of Organizational Reactions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draft Paper informal comments in workgroup lNUCIFAR WORKSERVICES OVERVIEW: l Josenh Hockdorfer - Maintenance Services Demos - two groups:
- 1. Joe's group, N=4, exempt and non-exempt
- 2. Group of Millstone employees who report to Joe's boss, N=6-7, I secretary, I construction rep., I work order preparer,1 construction rep.
N=6-7, don't report to Joe; one Process: informal one-on-one Rich Rogorinski- Unit 3. Procurementi Demographics:
N=15, includes 2 exempt Process:
group meeting at start of two days, revisited on two diff. days talked one-on-one Art Flath - Nuclear IT Demographics: N=7 Process: group meeting led Fy his supervisor IN ADDITION TO PEER REPRESENTATIVES.THE FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTS ALSO PROVIDED DATA:
Licensing: (N= 5), questions asked randomly to individuals Waste Management: (N= 9), informal lunchtime conversations; questions not asked directly Documentation and Services:(N=5)
Unit 2, questionnaires distributed to individuals:
Engineer (N=1)
Miscellanious (N=4)
Chemistry (N=4)
Maintenance (N=5)
I&C (N=6)
Engineering (N=5)
Operations (N=7)
Radiological Engineering (N=1)
HP (N=7)
Unit 2 MOV's: (N=2), questions asked randomly to individuals Communications (N=6), informal poll by manager Unit 1 Maintenance (N=17), questionnaires distributed to individuals March 6*,1998 Revision 0 Page 10 of 40
f
'.a v g, b
us:cd"d Collection of Organizational CONFIDENTIAL Rcactions to the Nuclear Oversight Focus'98 Draft Paper Attachment B: Detailed Responses for Each Question Attachment B contains personnel information, the public disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(a)(6),
Attachment B which identifies specific groups from which comments originated, has been omitted to protect personal privacy.
i l
March 6*,1998 Revision 0 Page11 of41