ML20023E221
| ML20023E221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek, Three Mile Island, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1983 |
| From: | Darcy P, Sauer J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023E219 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306150179 | |
| Download: ML20023E221 (56) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- - - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ .
. 'k 4 l
RHR Consultation with ~ GPU Nuclear Management , di \ l s Priority Concerns of Licensad - Nuclear Operctors at TMI and Oyster Creek and Suggested Action Steps 11 k I l
- Final Report Paul F. D'ArcY, Ph.D.
(- . John R. Sauer, Ph.D. . . - - March 15, 1983
=* ,*
e 1 . l 8306150179 830613 PDR ADOCK 05000289 H PDR . R
. . , 9. a Contents
( introduction . Purpose Approach ft The Rep ~ ort I The Executive Report Operators and Public Safety Motivation Capability Priority issues of Concern to Licensed Operators l Priority issue #1: Training of Operators Priority issue #2: Career Path for Operators i Priority issue #3: Improve Cooperation of i Departments with Operators
- Additional Priority issue for Subgroups Pay
, Rotating Shifts l Quality of Management Implementation--A Chronic and Pivotal Problem I l II Explanatory Material Operator and Safety Safety as primary mission I Changes since TMI-2 and Safety Components of Safe Operation Regulatory Environment Procedural Compliance Motivation Role of Operator Morale Concerns about Change Plant comparisons Workload Pay Operator Uniform Disciplinary Sanctions for Violating Regulations Licensing, Requalification and Training Licensing Requalification ! Satisfaction with Training Content of Curriculum '" Training Testing and Ability to Run y ant'
- Requa11fication Training Training needs of Navy Nukes vs. those up through the plant -
Size of Training Department , Career Career Options Career and Rotating Shifts l .
. . e.
r , Career (continued) Supply of Trainees Career Path and Crepensation Job 5ecurity . Working Relationships Betwe'en Departments impact of New Departments on Safety and Workload Problem of Cooperation Between Departments Cause of Problem Difference in Attitude Adequacy of On-site Authority Remedies Interaction with Specific Departments Management and Supervision Supervision s - Job Performance Understanding of Job Responsibility Support - i I i l l e GP i l l .
.k.
.. p ,
,','e
- s Tables
( 1 Safety Action Steps - . qq 2 Three Highest Priority issues, Overall, by License Status and Plant 3 Three Highest Priority issues by License Status Within Each Plant 4 Training Action Steps 5 Career Action Steps 6 Cooperation Between Departments Action Steps 7 Pay Action Steps 8 Rotating Shift Action Steps 9 Quality of Management Action Steps 10 Implementation Phase Action Steps 11 Hean Weights of Operators and Top Management on contribution of Components of Safety to Overall Public Safety s 12 Satisfactoriness of Interaction With People & Policies of Specific Departments by License Status at Each Plant l a f (. e .- O e e
,' Introduction This report describes the work done by RHR consultants with GPU Nuclear manage-wat and with IIcensed nuclear operators at TMI and Oyster Creek coronen6fng Ing
-F the sumer.of 1982. The work was undertaken at the direction of. Bob Arnold.
President of GPU Nuclear on the recorsnendation of the board of the Nuclear Corporation. Rohrer, Hibler & Replogie, Inc. Is the country's largest firm of psychological consultants to business. It had a previous relationship with GPU Inc. Purpose. The purpose of the consultation was threefold: ,
- 1. To assess the attitudes of operators. particularly in reference to safe operation.
- 2. To prioritize operator issues in terms of in-
, portance to the operators.
3 To recomend action steps. , Approach. RHR consultants initially interviewed a small sample of IIcensed operators at THI and OC to discover the range of concerns. After a review of these with GPU Nuclear management, the consultants met with small groups of operators to further refine the issues, to prioritize them and to get their input on action steps. Five such meetings were held at TMI and six at Oyster Creek. In conjunction with this a customized survey was administered to 43 ( at each facility for a total of 86. The results were computer analyzed. . Action steps have been under way since the beginning. Top Management has al-ready received mid-project reports both oral and written. This final report modifies the earlier report somewhat, incoporates the findings from Oyster Creek and includes for the first time the survey results. The consultants requested the opportunity to discuss their findings with all of top management. The GPU Nuclear Corporation considers the licensed.op-- erators to have a pivotal role. It sees the other departments as there to support operations.. The concerns of operators involve most other depart-ments and the recomended action steps require the collaboration of them as well. This report is avowedly to a large extent one-sided. There are always at least two sides to all Issues. The mandate to the consultants was to fo-
# cus on the operators' concerns. The report conveys accurately the current perception of operators. It does not imply that these are entirely Ju1-tified or rea11s31L.
Fortheconvenienceoftherederthereporthasbeenwritten The Report. In two sections: ' 1
- l. The Executive Peport. Contains the essentials of purpose, priorities -
and action steps and is designed to be read in its entirety prior to the March 22nd meeting. , II. Explanatory Material. Contains a synopsis of survey results, material i from the small group meetings and consultant observations. This is designed , to be read and consulted according to need :nd interest. l l m
- l
, 6-
. . . es ,
. I The Executive Report
\
Operators and Public Safety . GPU Nuclear Corporation places such a high value upon the safe operation of its N nuclear power plants that it has made safe performance its orfmarv coroorste ob-Jective. Exploring employee attitudes'toward safe, performance was an explicit' goal of the RHR consultation. Performance = Motivation + Capability Translating this to the present situation, the formula reads: Safe Performance = Operator Motivation (Atti- . tude) + Operator Capability. ' l9 .
- The Interviews and survey suggest that to the degree there is a problem of safe performance, it comes somewhat from both attitude and capability. ,
L , Motivation - We see a largely positive picture on motivation but with an area of concern. Operators have pride in their position, they want to do a good job and have a l strong sense of responsibility. They agree with the high priority given to I safety. l Three_in four of all coerators aaree that their morale is.sggf. There is a notable difference between the two facilities. Over 90% of the operators at TMI aora- that their morale is anad. A_ majority of RO's and SRO's at Oys_ter Creek do not rate their morale as oood. , Capability We see several issues of operator capability to provide safe perfonnance. These issues of capability do not appear to be primary, acute or emergency - Issues; they are rather indirect and contributory. These come from two - sources: the organization; and the Individual.
- 1. Organizational Capability
, A. Procedures: ! i. Growth in procedural complexity, particularly when this Is in emergency procedures. ~ l l 2. Verbatim como1Tanem " ,
- a. Fosters reliance on procedures, which in the minds j oT operators are at times ' Inappropriate. .
Diminishes _ ability to think for self and to handle the exceptional.
- b. Leads to en a rt noncompliance when due to waning t
condition of equipment, procedures are in the minds l of operators, frequently inappropriate. B. Lack of Cooperation Betw aa n.nartmen+=- Affec1ts safety. Especially when it delays readiness of I \
. . , , , l l
l backup equipment. , i C. Union and Management: l Degree of management control over IIcensed operator and equipment operator union members at Oyster Creek In Isr- . .. . plementing constructive programs. . _p D. . Lack of consensus on importance of some ea-annants of safety. Within too manaamment mad katwaan too manaae-ment and IIcensed operators.
- 2. Individual A. Operator Evner tmace:
At THI, lack of expos _ure and experience of newer control room I operators with operatina niant. B. Personal Problems: There are significant personal and family problems among
.' 10-15% of IIcensed operators and indications of a re-luctance of this group to use Stress Control as a slE:
source. l Table I suggests safety action steps. As with all the action steps which will be suggested, some are simple, within the budget and easy to implement. ! Others are more complex, may have budget as well as subtle side implications. The latter deserve more study. The RHR recommendations are suggestions to stimulate further thought and action. RHR has not had sufficient exposure to the total organization to make many of these more than suggestions for ( reflection and review. 1 Priority issues of Concern to Licensed Operators l ( ' One of the main reasons for the small group sessions was to prioritize the concerns of the licensed operators so that the limited resources of GPU Nuclear Corporation could be focused in an informed and reasonable fashion. From the IItany of conc' erns which emerged in the initial interviews, the op-erators with the help of the consultants have been able to prioritize their three dominant concerns; both across the whole population of op within IIcense status groups at each facility. Tables 2 and summarize 3;erators and this data, i f Training, qarger and Cooperation between Denartments in that order are the
- three highest priority concerns for the total population of operators.
Besides examining concerns across the total population It.Is desirable to look additionally at priorities by facllity-and by IIcense status for two ., ! reasons: l . 1. Some serious issues are plant specific. ,
- 2. Operators with different license status have different In-come, different functions, different degrees of manage-ment responsibility and differing sets of Interactions with units outside operations. Out of this come different priority concerns.
9
. . s . g.
Tcblo 1 Safety Action Steps Acticn steps Time Whot . g Procedures Sjmplification of emergenev 1983 Regulatory and Industry operating procedures d3 7 b O' Agencies; Tech Functionsi g yoy 71DhlN,_ Operations %6f Dinlogue on and analysis of 1983 Tech Functions; Oparations precedural compiiance issuesS , . In special cases _ ,y
,Impreva speed of feedback on oro- Tech Functions; Operations cadurn1 change recorrrnendations l1983 adde by ooerators. Establish r giolicy on this *
, improva mechanism of consultations 1983 . Tech Functions; Operations l wlth operations on development of . P COC.edurra g g g s~ . Imp-ova process of review of nro 1983 Tech Functions; Operations caf, es by operations criar to implementation
- . (-
..:. , :: ration Between Departments 6 {F Espscially speed of repair of Operations; Maintenance brekup equipment (o.r)# { ( cp[1983 Unicn end Management
~At Oyster Creek
/ 1983 Top management; Human Re-sources Departments of '
. Service Company, Nuclear
- Corporation and JCPsL l L 2)u.
kI. tr-- - Op7rcter Experience " - - l incresse " hands on" experlince- Early Training; Operations Morra time of trainees in A( gp 1983 g'\ l lpTFnt Eic~ coachinaand with from equipment; shtft
/ '
N de
,y
( l supervisors: ' .
~
IQifina efforts for keeping . O ~ IKstructors of trainees and 1Esnsed_ operators current [ [ >
~
on"7T_ ant equipmeAt, instrumentation cD procedural changes
/ e4 PV isl and Family Problems l l E ..mine utilizat en r=*== hy Early Human Resources l I te'ensed osierators of ~5 tress 1983 iControl services d Nul Y A $4- .
=
%. . , = = = = = = = = .
.g.
- c. .
i -tion Steps Time mo? _ Disseminate information on con- M Early .HumanResources;Operatps fidentiality and on availability ' 7.ad l Ef services throach Stress Control J], fgS83
- cnd alternate sources M, t/f e.
Conser. sus on Components of Safety e l D::velop consensus between top manage- 1983 Top management; Operations ment and operators on those factors ~ contributing to safety on which there is divergence w Davelop consensus within top manage- 1983 Top management r.unt on those factors contributing , 4,, M to safety on which there is diverge ce l O e ,* I e y . . . . . ,, . . . . . ,
l .., ,' Table 2 l . l Three Highest Priority issues ( Overall, by License Status and Plant g License status Plant Overall Rnnk Trainee R0 SRO TMI Oyster Creek f, l
' Cooperation Training Career Betw. Depts. Training Training 1 Training l
Career Training Training Career Career 2 Career Cooperation Between Requal-Pay Pay Training ification Pay 3 Departments I
/
k-. Table 3 Three Highest Priority issues , by License Status Within Each Plant
- TMI Ovster Erne 'c unk SRO Trainee RO $RO Trainee R0 Career s Cooperation
- 1 Training Career Training Shifts '*I"I"8l Betw. Depts.
l Cooperation Between l Career Car.eer s TralM ng 2 Career Training Departments Shifts '. Career & Requals I"*III 'I Training Pay Management 3 Pay Pay Ification = 7 __ .
- Where two are in same space they have equal weights.
6
- +
*L_ '* .
8 9._ e nog 93 e +t * * " " '* " '^ -
.r--4-- --w-------v -'----'wmr-
.gi.
. . v. ,
l -
', Dealing solely with the three general priority concerns will not address some l
i of the needs of significant subgroups. The three additional priority concerns from this analysis are g , Rotating . Shifts and Quality of Management. - 4 Pay is thi third highest priority concern for all trainees, for all R0's and-l overall at, Oyster Creek. Rotating Shifts ties for highest concern among trainees at Oyster Creek. This is a plant specifir concern because of there being only four shift teams there. Quality of Manatement is the third highest concern of SRO's at Oyster Creek. Priority issue #1: Training of Operators Training is of jxceptional Importance to IIcensed operators. This has to do both with their need to pass IIcensing exams as well as the responsibility a s licensed control room operator takes on. The training function, in the eyes of this group, is given more importance than John Sauer and I had to date ex-perienced in any other business environment. Issues of Training fOperatordissatisfactionswithtrainingaremultiple. Among the most critical is the lack of hands on plant experience at TMl for ex-Navy nuclear trainees. This if related to the plant not being operational. At least 80% of the eq-g utpment'Is not in active use. Requalification-_-IIcensing is a heavy burdan. _ There is dissatisfaction with the training for this. Insufficient time is devoted to this. The way repeat courses are frequently handled is boring for the operator and the operator's
" turned off" attitude 'Is hard for the trainer. Requalification testing, I especially the preparation for the comprehensive exam, is a heavy burden -
l for the operator. See Table 4 for action steps. Priority issue #2: Career' Path for Operators f Many cont rnim operators feel " locked in" to a windowless rotattno .h tJt ga re,3,r. This is due to: l I. History of shortage of trainees *
- 2. Lack of visible caregr paths .
Drop in compensation if one transfers out of control room Job 3.
- 4. Olfficulty meeting college degre_e requirements for some management positioris. , .
The survey results today Indicate that almost cne half would be willing to take a pay cut to get out of the job eventually. See Table 5 for action steps.
- Priority issue #3: Improve Cooperation of Departments wich Operators Reorganization has changed the structure of the GPU Nuclear Corporation so
~
- __4. * ,Z..* *_,.m._____.*L,.
_ .# -.,,* w.
l l . . . l #~
- Tcbla 4 i .- .
Training Actlon_ $ 3 i I j Action Steps Time Whof .
. . .. nA -t .
Raqualification - SAW NW fW j geEliminate"comprehensivetant" portion . Regulatory AgaricIts; of requalification test y w*' u ^e =J41983 g Tech Function Assessing;
~
Q Training ep.M $+ *' N. M.de repetitive parts of reaualif f e=' f a7 #y 1983-84
- Training; peraQons t y ning more attractive g e 1 4 , ,.
.q Post schedule _for comino year of reaual- 1983 Training; Operations If icat ion t raini no_Inc ludino nut t ia. _af content on operator Bulletin Board at f 3 M( M e5chfacility,Illt,ll,1,4I{{{jj[ ,
Content and Methods *I Ii l lnclude Industry and Eommunity issuen l
~
,1983-84 Operations; Training es well as GPU Nuclear approach to these Public Relations;' Top issues in the training of operators , Management Reintroduction ctf "syst_ ems anorameA" vy trair.ees to
'a--
lunderstand role of eauto- 4 1983 g Operations; Training ( ._ nt in plant*et/ D - > 7 >F >> d A S8 - l ===*=ry 1983-44 Training; operations ! [gavetoo theorv for_diversified ex-Navvapproach Nuke,s andfor trainees pd coming up M nt Simulator specific to TMI 1982-87 GPU Nuclear Management Davelop method for trainee to gauge his 1983-84 Training; Operations growth in competency to operate during (,u4.5 te , , trotning period Q a t.Q Stendards Tighten standards and evaluation of 3arlyl 0.ce d... Operations; Training trainees Ig ' My Evaluate instructors on pedagogic lll operations; Training; i skIIIs with view to coaching and *** MMidM, 1983 Trainees - ( Improving L_gy. Ty * , Davelop method for monitoring and in-) 1983-on Training'; Operations Proving consistency between training ( ! for licensing and requalification andq testing for the same ph ! tvelop method for monitoring and in- 1983-on Training; Operations
- ,.rsving consistency between training pfe .
i cnd ability to operate .
=-- = =- -
=_ . -
m
.. ~ .
etion Steps Time Whof Task analyses of what operators actually 1983-84 Training; Operations; -. do as basis for training relevance RHR d-l Administration l Fromote improved relationships between Mid 1983 Operations; Training; RHR cperatIons and training personnel M 2- f^4 h Torgeted Interviews in Training 1983 RHR Drpartment to explore issues, prioritize and set action steps
- High priority Q
.. pf tl 3 ,,
1 1 W *%,.'?
- l. . W l
l e j *** . I l l t l l
._,__....,_m,,..__._..__.
, * .. .a * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
.; - , Tcble 5 Career Action Steps I
1 Action Steps Time Who? Entry g [~ . U Ignprove pay diffe'rential between ,,%3-on 1 Human Resources , licensW operators aniother F yOJ g @, yM d:partments V e sl, . Provide some training in theory 1983 Tralping to A0's with potential for R0 y M_ -OL mLp-- College Credentials Ficilitate getting of degrees: ' 983-8,4 1 Training; Human Resources r *- Credits for in-house courses Programs in area colleges T 1 Career Counsel M ,f 8 Cereer Paths f Davelop and publish possible / 1983-84 Human Resources; Depart-ccreer paths and qualifications / ments l for them .I
/ -f
\
M f N k g" w 9
- e
$h t
k l
~
I - r 4 e _____._,_.1 . . , . _ _ '_. ^, - . . , .. --,/.-..,--w. - - - - - - - - -----+---r- - - - - - - - -
--m--- ----'mw-
.s. ,
that operators do not have the control they once had. ,
.c There are multiple problems of coordination between the newly created depart-ments. In addition, the company has added many new people. It is not only larger, but Individuals do not know each other and each other's roles. There is also resistance to change. The interview and survey indicate that the opi ,,
erator believes that the departments are not working well together but at the same time, believes that this can be improved. Things go weII when they know the people in other departments with whom they are dealing. Theywould like to know more about what other departments are trying to do and would Ilke other departments to know more about operations. See Table 6 for action steps. Pay. This is the third highest concern at one facility and among two sub-groups. As one operator put it, "This has become so important because we h(ve lost evarv1hino else". Pay is more frequently than not the highest l a ea of concern among workers. In this case pay differential is a concern
' 5 to operators as they note compensation for other plant fahn which have less hassle. See Table 7 for action sthps.
Rotating Shifts. This is tied for first place among the concerns of Trainees at OC. Rotating shifts are a burden for most but the four shift rotation at Oyster Creek is particularly hard on the Individual as well as on his family. To date there have not been sufficient IIcensed operators to staff additional teams there. Operators are disappointed with management for not having been ( able to deliver the relief management has promised them on this for some ( - time. See Table 8 for action steps. l Quality of Management. Concerns about management are stronger at Oyster Creek than at TMI. It is the third highest priority concern among the SRO's there. The concern extends to top management as well as local management and includes past JCPsl management as well. See Table 9 for action steps. Implementation--A Chronic and Pivotal Issue We strongly reconnend that we have continuing dlalogue with top management i both directly and through its representatives in the planning and implement-Ing of action steps. I implementation is important now that expectations have been raised again by ) . our recent Interviews and survey. Operators in the small groups have been , l spontaneously inquiring whether anything .will come of these interviews. They have been through several such meetings before. From some previous inquires they have seen no action and from others, temporary action which quickly petered out. There is expressed. pessimism that this intervention I , will lead to any lasting improvements in areas of their concern. Visibis action steps are Ilkely to hold down operator turnover just as lack of action is like'ly to increase it. f in terms of management credibility, this 'Is a critical phase. It is also a f critical phase because it is where previous efforts have stalled. See Table l , I 10 for action steps. e I Y
- e*
n -
w
- Tcble 6 Cooperation Between Departments Action Steps 1
Action Steps Time Who? ,
--i .
Emphasis on Cooperation Discussion of issues with depart- Early RHR; Management
- ment heads 1983 Rainforce concept of organizational 983 Top management i
structure that operations is a key l function and other departments have gupport function l Mike cooperation between departments 83 Top management o GPU Nuclear Corporation objective D2velop system for evaluating managers Early Human Resources; RHR; on cooperation 1983 Design Mid 1981 Management; Human Resources implement ygg O Fccilitating Cooperation
' 'dentification of problems at Spring 1983 Departments; RHR I. nterfaces between pairs of de- edr M partments. Intergroup problem solving meetings Educate departments on each Early 1983 Management; Departments; cthers' roles Human Resources; Training Train:
- Supervisors for cooperation Early 1983 Training and each depart-Operators in persuasion vs. g y ment ruthoritarian' approach -
~
t support department members fresh from school in importance of I l cooperation - , o G2t people acquainted across de- Earky1983 Human Resources; Manage-ment p;rtments Post photographs of both IIcen=ad p 1983 Operations; departments; l y Hdnian Resources cpg ators and sunoort department foremen cnisuperviso_rs at _ etach facH Ity with .. name and funcetag. PCirculate current rosters.of depart . (( ment foremen with areas of respons 0 ' s* Qilitylocationandphone .) 3rk toward sufficient flow of trainees 198 Human Resources; Operations so that those with operational experience ccn join support departments
- Migh pr,lority
l -s/- l ., .: - . Teb13 7 Pay Action Steps I { l Action steps Time M
. 78 -
Psy Differentists Develop date on pay 1983 . Human Resources differentials between IIcnesed cperators and other disciplines g Tmv, - at GPU Nuclear Develop data on pay 1983 Hu' man Resources differentials in Nuclear g f. g d. C
- Plants run by other
! utIIItles t Use data to reassess 1983-84 Human Resources; policies and plan ap- . Top Management propriate action steps I l t
- l l
e 1 hf g 9 e i f . e
- - . , .,,.,m , - . - --r ,, ." E $ . -
- - . , . _ ,, d - -.-,-...,_h---.3, - - - E [9 - . - . . . . - _ . . - - - -
Tchle 8 Rotating Shift Action Steps I Action Steps Time Wno? -
-r
- Work to initiate 5 shifts 1983-84 Human Resources; Operations; ct Oyster Creek as soon as Top management possible *
+
Shift scheduling h Study feasibility of each Y 1983 Human Resources; rotation being consistently Operations eight hours later than previous - ct OC. Study feasibility of twelve, 9) 1983 Human Resources; hour shifts Operations l5 Provide advance warning of 1983-on Local operations; changes in shift scheduling ' Management SM
~
i
\
5 e o hf W
. , 't b
?
s \ . t l .
-.r---*-- - -' -- -
* ' " - * ~ ' ' ' ' " - ' ~ ~ '
ey-
, , . , Tcble 9 Quality of Manaaement Action Steps I
Action Steps Time Who? c Interviews with cross-sectJon 1983 Top management; of management on" Issues, con- RNR carns and quality of manage-ment i Assessraent of managers; 1983-on Management; Training Department: davelopmental coaching with Individ0a1 managers; Manage- Outside Training ment training Programs; Human Re-sources; RHR j .
- High priority l .
l t. O 9 YO o h l I t O 9 6
. _ _ , . , , , . . , . . . , , , _ . . , . ., , . , . , . , --.,-% y b y w-- -------wm- --- - - - - - - - - " - ' - "*"" """ " ' - ' ' ' " - "
_y.
~* # '
- Tchla 10 ,
implementation Phase
~
Action Steps e. Action Steps Time .Who? i Presentation of findings to Early Top Management; Departiments; DIpartments (so that Depart- 1983 RHR ments understand background of Action Steps) i Rsview of suggested Action Early Top Hanagement; Departments; Steps to determine feasibility, 1983 RHR timing and participants f p 9. I l i (- I
=
- O
.e*
W
- e f
e
- e a pe .
s.- I *. * - \ , . .: 11 Explanatory Matsrici Operator and safety l , , l ( Safety as primary mission. The mission of GPU Nucle.ar is officially stated as follows:
" Manage and direct the nuclear activities of the GPU system to pro-vide the required high level of protection for' the health and safety 7 of the public and the employees.
- Consistent with the above, generate electricity from the GPU Nuclear stations in a reliable and efficient manner in conformance with all applicable laws, regulations, IIcenses and other requirements In the directions and interests of the owners".
GPU Nuclear top management has gone to pains to spell out Its objectives. How do operators look on this effort? Nine out of ten believe the ob-Jectives of GPU Nuclear are clearly stated. However, there Is majority
, disagreement on this from Trainees and R0's at Oyster Creek.
A 60% majority disagree that objectives are well-communicated. A majority at TMI agree; Trainees and RO's at Oyster' Creek disagree. Only six out of ten consider the objectives to be valid. A majority of R0's at Oyster Creek do not. l A healthy 95% disagreed that safety gets too high a priority here. Yet only a slight relative majority agreed that top management is more concerned about l { public safety than It is about generating electricity. Surprisingly, a sub- f' stantial minority disagreed including a majority of Trainees at TMI and R0's ' at Oyster Creek. Since this ties in with the primary objective of the cor-i poration, there should be more consensus than there is. - From the small group discussions it is clear that while the operators may have been Informed of GPU Nuclear objectives, they are far from being etched on their minds. While precisely articulated by top management, they are only vaguely and loosely reco11ectable by operators. More in-I novative modes of comunicating and reinforcing objectives are required. 111ustrative of this, one operator reconstructed the objectives from his recollection of a GPU . Nuclear bumper sticker which said in three words what GPU Nuclear stood for. Changes since TMI-2 and Safety. Eight of ten agreed that on balance we are better prepared for an emergency as a result of changes since the TMI-2 ac-cident. This agreement is strong across subcategories. There it, however, s slight majority agreeing that the constructive benefits made since the ac-cident are more than offset by the cumbersome procedur66 and organizational structure. Most agree that they are required to do too many things on the .- job which are not giroductive. The exception to this is R0's at TMI. , it is understandable that putting safety ahead of efficiency is in practice a difficult adjustment to make. It requires undoing of habits and values one has grown accustomed to take for granted. While this ordering of prl-I crities is Imperative for the Nuclear Industry. It runs counter to pre-valling patterns in nest other business enterprises. 8
- ,2 _ _
. _a _* .?__
?"
l- =.
- From the small group Interviews and from the survey, it is obvious that the operators are frustrated and to an extent demoralized by the roadblocks and f inefficiencies that result from this ordering of GPU Nuclear priorities. A J L majority of operators, but only a slight one, would not put efficiency second
- to safety. Only one subgroup, RO's at TMI have a majority placing safety ', -
above efficiercy. This 'further confirms some confusion about or disagree-ment wl-th top level objectives. . Nearly three out of four disagreed that operators like themselves lived so closely to their technology that they tended to underestimate the potential danger. It is perhaps significant that one quarter agreed. There were no' significant differences across subcategories on this item. Components of Safe operation. Safe operation is made up of a variety of components. Operators and in this case management as well, rated the con-tribution of 30 factors to overall public safety. The possible range of N ratings was from No contribution through Weak, Moderate to Strong. Table
; 11 gives the mean ratings of Operators and Top Management on each of these l components.
l There was a good deal of agreement on the mean weights. Top management tended ' to rate higher in general. The biggest differences were: i i Operator knowledge of emergency procedures;
- Operator knowledge of theory of plant functioning; Supervisor's tightness of discipline in procedural compliance; Cooperation of departments outside an emergency; RequalifIcatIon exams; e Licensing exams In each case top management rated these items as more important than did the operators.
A second and perhaps more important issue, was the degree of consensus of these grcups on the relative importance of each component. The greatest consensus
. was on those issues with direct operational relationship to safety. Among top managers there was the least consensus on:
Appreciation of the role of support departments; ... - Appreciation of public, regulatory d political concerns about , nuclear safety; . Emergency regulatory standards in the combined group of operators and top managers the least consensus (In i addition to the abov-) was on: te e-- - w-.- ,,.my, ,._* , _ , . . e
- ~-- ~
23-
\
}, *, Tchle 11 i Mean Weights of Operators and Top Management on Contribution of Components of Safety to Overall Public Safety I
- ~~
Degree of item Mean We"ahts Contribution Number Components - Oprtrs Top Mgmt. High 186 Sobriety on the Job 6.6 7.0 Strong 174 Operator knowledge of plant operations 6.5 6.9 196 Supenisors' knowledge of plant operations 6.5 6.6 6 3-7*0 Operator's knowledge of how to diagnose 176 nature of emergency 6.4 6.9
, 175 Operator knowledge of plant equipment 6.3 6.5 Strong 192 Cooperation between departments in emergency 6.0 6.4 5.6-6.2 194 Shift team: quality of working relationships 6.0 6.1 195 Shift team: familiarity with each other's role 6.0 6.3 198 Supervisors: Leadership skills 6.0 6.2 181 Operator's vigliance on shift 5.9 6.7+
188 Operetor morale 5.9 57 Operator knowledge of emergency procedures 5.8 6.7+ (' ' 177 187 179 Operator stress Operator knowledge of theory of plant func-5.8 5.6
~
! tioning 57 6.3+ 191 Operator Job committment 5.7 59 High 180 Operator's length of experience in this plant 5.5 52 Moderate 183 Operator's respect for the potential danger - 4.8-5.5 of the technology 5.5 5.7 , 199 Control room crowding 5.5 4.8+ l 203 Simulator training 5.5 6.1+ l 189 Operator workload 5.2 6.3+ l 193 Cooperation between departments outside emer-gency 5.2 57 197 Supervisors: Tightness of discipline in pro-cedural compliance 5.2 6.2+ 202 On-site training 5.2 6.1+ 178 operator knowledge of emergency regulatory standards 4.9 4.7 Low 201 Licensing exams - 4.7 - 5.6+ Moderate 185 Appreciation of public regulatory and pol-4.1-4.7 . Itical concerns about nuclear safety. 4.2 4.5 200 Requalification exams 4.2 5 4+ 184 Appreciation of the role of support departe ments 4.1 4.4 1 ( _
+ Notable deviation between mean ratings of operators
, and top management.
- i. - ....- . _ .
Boredom Cooperation between departments in emergency I . ~ Contro1~ room crowding Cooperation between departments outside emer-gency . On-site training Requalification exams Morale $1mulator training Workload i Regulatory Environment I l
$gven out of ten have made the adjustment to livino in aggulatory envf ranmartt.
interestinoiv _t.h.e majority of these are at TMI. The majority at Oyster Creek
'- have not. ..
f Two out of three say the organization has too many policies and nracadores which in.r,e.tfere_with doing a good .tob. All subcategories at both plants agree. There is also strong agreement by all subgroups that theterowing procedural complexity is itself a hazard _to safety. Operators strongly agree t Mt they suffer from information overload. A slight majority complain that procedures are too detailed. A majority concur that by and large procedures are up-to-date. Thtre is agreement to this at Teil ( but strong disagreement at Oyster Creek. f Procedural Compliance. There is strong consensus that the poIIcy on compliance is clearly consnunicated. This aareement is stronaer at Ovster treek than TM_f. That the compliance that is held to by management is reasonable gets agreement from a slight majority overall. However, this varies by facility. TMI is in agreement but Trainees, RO's and SRO's at Oyster Creek disagree. A maiority of all subcategories _acree that they worry about breaking some regulation wit _h-out reallrina It.
~
A slight majority agree that despite cumbersome procedures, the GPU Nuclear pol-Icy on compilance is followed. A majority of SR0's at Oyster Creek however, dis-agree. The concept of compilance was discussed in some depth in the small groups. Op-erators at Oyster Creek say that the material condition of their plant and equipment has declined. Procedures are written with the presumption of well-functioning equipment. Many of the procedures at Oyster Creek as written cannot be followed exactly because of the stat.e of the equipment. .'. One senses a certain uneasiness in the small group sessions when the degree of actual procedural compilance is the topic of discussion. The consultant emerges with the lapression that there is some discrepancy between the formal require-ment and what actually goes on in practice. It is not so much that the op-g erators are trying to cut corners, but that Ite ral como11ance in many_ cases. I_t not felt to be realistic _and further that it_is not orar+fe=1 __to wr i e- no all the exceptions. Foremen are said to push their operators to keep things
~ '
. __ JT . -_i_L _:. ..L J 2^2 T *::: L 2 7 -_ - -
. l 4 moving and this requires deviating from written procedures, i
Many operators feel that detailed procedural instructions are valuable for training but are a hindrance in day-to-day operations. They should be sin-- pilfled to take into account the operator's comand of. his art. For ex-ample instead of going through several steps, they should merely tell the operator to turn on the pump. There is also considerable feeling that emergency procedures need to be simplified. l Finally, it is felt that procedures should be written by Individuals famIIIsr I with operations. They recognize that there are organizational mechanisms for l checking procedures out with operations but they feel that these do not work'- out well in practice.
.. Motivation i
The vast majority (all but seven per cent) were proud to be IIcensed operators
. and many strongly so. Four of five felt it was worth the efforts and demands.
Positive feeling on both these issues was strongier at TMI than at Oyster Creek. There is strong agreement among the operators that they are committed to quality I performance. Only six per cent disagree. , Role of Operator. In the eyes of the majority the role of the operator has been I evolving over the last few years in a poor direction. The one exception to this (- is among SRO respondents at TMI. Furthermore, a majority of all subgroups dis-agree that the direction GPU has taken has the operators' interests at heart. Morale. Three in four agree that among them morale is good. This is the case at TMI. it is a bad sign, however, that a majority of RO's and SR0's at Oyster l Creek deny that their morale is good. Morale had hit a low among operators at
- TMI in the recent past. It is encouraging that half the R0's and the majority of the SRO's at-THI feel that their morale is better that it was a year ago.
Three out of four would rather work in a nuclear than a fossil plant. This is most strongly felt by the SRO's especially at TMI. Concerns about Change. GElduelear has undertaken a procram of_ ranid channa v n many fronts. It intentionally selected this policy in preferance to one of gradual change in order to shorten the difficult period of transition. A IIttle over a third find it difficult to adjust to the fast pace of change. Further analysis shows that R0's are having a little less difficulty In ad- Justing than SRO's. Also the less educated, longer service operators on rotating shifts at Oyster Creek have more difficulty adjusting. The average age of SRO's at Oyster Creek is 38. This, Os four and a 'h'alf years more than - the average at TMI.
- The maJc-Ity are afraid that qualifications for the IIcensed operator positten will change to their disadvantage.
There was a number of additional insights into motivation provided by the small g-group sessions. The job has changed a lot over the years and the organizatinn has grown large and Impersonal. Operators feel like numbers. They say It used to be possible to talk with someone if they had a complaint but this Is i
* , ~~~ C _ - - . ._--=?~==. --~~-:-~~r-------p------a-----.w--_------g__-y..- _, . . - _
= '
- e -
less possible now. They complain of working in a paperwork Jungle and being I. under the microscope. Because of the documentation which records all their activities, they feel vulnerable. If they make a mistake, everyone'knows. New operators are expected to perform Ilke ones with ten years experience. - Because of the required documentation, the operators feel the organization is looking to hang them. This climate encourages them to be protective and to play the game by the book approach. At the same time that the or-ganization is becoming w>re threatening, it is becoming less supportive in - enabling them to get things done. Plant Comparisons. Three out of four agree that it bothers them to be told "this is the way we do things at the other nuclear facility". This is much stronger at Oyster Creek than at TMI. From the small group interviews * *
- clear that operators at Oyster Creek blame TMI for a lot of their problems.
They particulairly resent it when TMI is held up as a model. Workload. There is strong feeling among Trainees and R0's at Oyster Creek that operators on the day shift are overworked, although the SRO's at Oyster Creek disagree with this. This is not a big issue at TMI. 1 Pay. 'More disagree than agree that operators are well paid for what they do. They also do not consider themselves well paid in relation to other depart-ments. This is the characteristic attitude of Trainees and R0's but not of the majority of SRO's. , , (' , Operator Uniform. A modest majority accept the operator uniform but there Is strong and vehement minority disagreement. There is some difference between facilities. R0's at TMI are fairly strongly in favor 6f it while those at Oyster Creek are against it. A majority are dissatisfied with the quality of the uniform. The dissatisfaction with quality is stronger at Oyster Creek. In the small group discussions there is a perception among operators that the uniform was imposed by management with-9ut capsultation with operatorg andytehaut sufficientiv researching radiation saYety menarte of__ th- -o.rtC Those who appear to be fastidious about their appearance are dissatisfied with the fit and quality of the garment. They con-sider it below the standard of what they normally wear. Disciplinary Sanctions for Violating Regulations. While this is not a major priority concern of operators, it is one which generated a lot of emotion at , THI when stiff sanctions were promulgated for those discovered bringing mind altering substances into the parking lots at TMI. This was not an issue at Oyster Creek where parking lots are not within a security check zone. There is strong acceptance of regulations ~o'n mind altering substances. How- s ever, a majority disagree that disciplinary procedures are fair. They also / agree that when it comes to disciplinary practices there are two standards: - a tough set for operators and an easier set for top management. i Two out of three agree and some strongly that there is not enough consultation l with operators before disciplinary policies are established. Only one in ; ( three feel they are suffidiently informed on the background of disciplinary ; regulations. l l
~
Licensing, Requalifiention and Training The predominance of training is devoted to preparing Individuals for licensing and to a lesser degree for requalification of their yearly IIcenses. Training is the overall highest priority issue because more than any other issue It touches a11 operators. All cperators depend on trair.ing either to get their original license or to maintain it. Licensing. Operators unanimously agree that IIcensing Is necessary. In the I light of this it is surprising that oplLtwo thirds believe that the pro _ cess of IIcensing promotes safety. This is perhaps because only 60% of those who "rYsponded agreed that the content of the last exams was job relevant and only one third agreed that the oral portion of the exam tested how one would act in an emergency. 1 Exam security has had an unpleasant histor/ among operators partcularly at TMI. i s However, two thirds agree that exams needed to be monitored closely. The same proportion however, agreed that the, precautions taken made them feel not trusted. - l In small group discussions a number of operators felt that some of the pre-cautions taken at the last testing were carried to undue lengths and were de-meaning. Requalification. Nineoutoftenagreedthatrequailficationwasnecessary. This was a high consensus but somewhat less than,the unanimous agreement i there was about the necessity of IIcensing. Again, the majority agreed that (' requalification promoted safety but a significant minority disagreed. Most feel that they learn something useful from this requirement and that the training and testing programs have made them more effective operators. The biggest issue about requalification is the burden which it puts upon operators. Annual retesting to retain one's license may be without parallel in the world of work. Three or four respondents considered it a big burden. Only one in the seven agreed that this became less of a burden over time. Most have a fear of fal11ng, feel that preparing takes too much of their personal time and a strong majority consider the volume of material to be too broad. There is majority agreement that operators are required to , know more that is practical. Only SRO's at OC disagree. l l They would like some relief from this. One form of relief would be to have the exams broken into content sections which would be administered separately after one had prepared for that particular part. This would be in p1&ce of a comprehensive exam. Eight out of ten favored this. A majority would al- ! so favor another approach to solving this issue which would be requalification . on an every other year basis. A significant minority disagreed to this. Satisfaction with Training. Close to three quarters of the operators agreed l that GPU Nuclear has a major comittment to training. However, almost the _ same ' number were dissatisfied with the training for IIcensing and even a greater proportion strongly were dissatisfied with requalification training. R0's were more dissatisfied that SRO's and Oyster Creek was more dissatisfied than TMI. The operators at Oyster Creek appear to get fewer hours of formal g requalification training. To some extent this is related to the fact that they have only four shift crews compared to TMI's six. 1 n -
^~^
.g. -
- l Mo_st considered the' trainina department as not oriented to the needs of ^* .
i nnarators. An overall majority agree that training has been improving al-( , though a substantial minority disagree. Here again, there is a difference ** between.TMI and Dyster Creek. At Oyster Creek RO's and Tralnees do not agree that it is improving and the SR0's while they agree that It is improv ' ing, do so to a lesser extent that at TMI. There is more satisfaction at TMI with training although they are less satisfied with this staff. A asJ-ority agreed that the quality of the training staff was good although Trainees and SRO's at TMI disagreed. Content of Curriculum. More were satisfied than not with the relative en-phasis given to emergency and normal operations. Only a small minority con-sidered there to be too much training in specific procedures. There is, i however, strong agreement that there is not enough training on plant con-ditions.
, Agreement was close to unanimous that reactor theory deserved a place in the training as it was about thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid flow theory.
A slight majority agreed, however, that the latter three were overstressed. In general, the sentiment is against broadening the content of the curriculum. A majority was against including material broader than the technical and op-i erational so that the operators could better understand their role in the In-dustry and in the comunity. There was significant minority dissent. 5lm-
- 11arly, a majority did not consider it important to cover the poIItical and public relations concerns relating to safe operations. Again, there was sig-
{ nificant minority dissent. A slim majority of Trainees and of SRO's at Oyster Creek favored including material broader than the technical and operational. Operators are already responsible for so much material that they are under-standably reluctant to take on more. It is apparently the policy of the i training department to include only material in the training programs on which the coerators will be tested. Operators would understandably be ad-verse to more material on which they would be tested. There is, however, very strong c wsensus that training should include material on which they would not be tested. The consultants favor providing this broader background because~It enables the operator to understand the reason for organizational priorities and ex-plains why certain policies are required which would not make sense outside this context. Their inclusion should lessen resistance and dissatisfaction. Individuals would not have to be tested on these matters, however. u Training, Testing and Ability to Run Plant. Operators complained of a lack of jI convergence between training, testing and. ability to operate the plant. Three , out of four denied that training prepared them for what they actually do. In -
! their perception training prepared Individuals to pass exams and is successful at this but it does not prepare them sufficiently to operate. This is part-Icularly true at TMI where many Trainees have not seen the plant in full op-eration.
8 By policy the one who gives the training is different from the one who makes up the exams. Consequently the examiner a'sks different questions from what ~' has been covered in training. . NN n .. _ - _ _a ._
- 29-l * ,s'. *
( To cwpound this, what is taught in training is different from what they ex-b perience in the plant. For this reason they want trainers with operational , experience and this experience needs to be kept up-to-date. Efforts are made at keeping trainers up-to-date on the plant but these are not as of- - fective in practice as they appear in principle. The shift supervisor should be used on shift to give hands on training to shift members. This, however, is not a high priority with the shift supervisor. . Requalification Training. Operators complain that not enough time is devoted to requalification training. Even what is scheduled is often cance11ed at the , last moment. Requa11fication training presents some special problems in keeping the participants interested and motivated. The material as presented by some instructors, is repetitive and boring. Trainers suggest that these are among the most difficult groups to teach. Some operators attend with a cl'lp on their shoulder. One imaginative trainer uses to good advantage the requalification training periods to get experienced operators to exchange
- their expertise with each other. There appear to be more antagonisms be- i tween requalification trainers and. licensed operators at THI than at Oyster-Creek.
Training Needs of Navy Nukes vs. those up through plant. TAe present tr.ain-in p rogram te amared tolah needs of the Ex-Maww " + =ad ~'t c' aha=* with the need of the coerator who comes up throuah the n1=nt. Those from the Nuclear Navy are versed in theory and the GPU Nuclear training programs builds on this. Those who come up from the plant feel left behind and at a disadvantage. Reports of this further discourage auxillary or equipinent (- operators from applying to be trainess for IIcensing. Conversely, those from the Navy complain that they do not get enough hands-on plant ex-perience with equipment. They compare It to learning to drive a car in a classroom. They would also like to see more systems training to help them understand the role of the Individual pieces of equipment within the total plant. ,
~
Size of Training Department. Many operators have said in the small groups that while the training department has grown dramatica11y in size, the staff assigned l to operator training has if anything shrunk. They believe that the training g department is not staffed to handle the range of operator needs. 1 Career 98% of the operators plan to continue as IIcensed operators for the forseeable future. Career Options. There is strong need expressed tiy the majority for more career
- options. This goes across all subcategorfis. Six out of ten feel " locked in,".
with no path out of their present Job. 971 felt that nore options would be help-ful even if they never used them. Ainost half would be willing to move event-ually to another Job even if it did not pay as much. R0's at Oyster Creek favored this; It was the opposite at TMI. This is related to the difficult shift situation at OC. ( Career and Rotating Shifts. Nine out of ten would not look forward to being on shift for the rest of their careers. Close to two out of five who responded 1 . ? -. =. ..n---=- .-
~:--- - , . .- ---L
~~ '~
~
to this item are currently restless to get out of a rotating shift job. There i is a difference between TMI and Oyster Creek in this respect. The majority at TMl are not restless while those at Oyster Creek are. This is because there are currently six shift teams at TMI and only four at Oyster Creek. The op . erators find the four team rotating shift extremely difficult. It places great strains on family life and is wearing on the individual in others ways as well. ~ A five team rotating shift is livable and a six team one is quite satisfactory. Supply of Trainees. Operators recognize that a steady flow of trainees Is required both to provide more shifts and to free them up for other jobs. They are concerned that not enough equipment operators wnst to be RO's and that not t enough RO's want to be SR0's. More AO's might be interested if there were l more training of their ranks in reactor theory so that they would feel more
- secure in competing with the Navy Nukes. The Union at Oyster Creek has re-l sisted this kind of training. Similarly, there has to be more differential In compensation at a number of transition points to make the added burdens
- l. of the RO and SRO positions worth it. Again, there was resistance from the l Union on addressing these compensation issues.
I - l Career Path and Compensation. Because of operators' relatively high com-l pensation, it is difficult to find a sufficient number of career paths that do not involve drops in compensation. A substantial number of operators while not looking forward to a drop in compensation, would be willing to con-sider it. It is significant that in the survey a majority agreed that al-(* though they would liktto be operational foremen, the efforts = art de==nds qgasLL i t not worth _It. Of all the subgroups, only the SRO's at TMI had a majority disagreeing. Fortunately, a little over a quarter are motivated to move on to foreman. Job Security. One in five was concerned about his job security. This is largely due to the anxiety of requalification and is also related to some concern about the stability of the nuclear industry itself. Working Relationships Between Departments - In the process of establishing and reorganizing GPU Nuclear, some functions were take out from under operations. These functions became Departments which reported to VPs off the nuclear sites. This was to better :omply with the increasing regulatory demands and to take some of the workload resulting from this off the operator so he could focus his attention and energies on the most important operational Issues. Both of these were intended to promote safety. Additionally It removed some of the confilet j of Interest within the operator role. A degree of tension between func-tions (such as between Rad-Con and Operations and between Quality Assurance , and Operations) was anticipated and was a concept of the organizational de-sign. Pt was a system of checks and balances. _ i ! Impact of New Departments on Safety and Workload. Over two thirds of the op-erators agree that the new departments were installed to promote safer op-
- eration. This agreement is stronger at TMI than at Oyster Creek; In fact I the majority of the SR0's at Oyster Creek disagree with this. As to the present structure promoting safer operations, two out of three operators deny that It does.
O e
.. - - , . - .,,-mw-,r,----e
..i. , , - - , - - . -,,...,.-v.., - . , . , , - - . , - - - , - . , - - - -v--- e
As to its impact on workload, respondents feel equally divided'.' A slight maj-( ority disagree overall that it reduces workload either of R0's or SRO's. R0's are evenly divided on its impact on their own workload. Those at Oyster Creek agree that it reduces it and those at TMI disagree. SR0's at both plants deny ) that If it were not for the support departments their workloads would be In-creased., Problem of Cooperation Between Departments. The majority of all subgroups con- , cur that the con =ept of support departments makes sense in theory. There is l strong disagreement that it is working out in practice. This pessimism Is ' particularly strong among SRO's at Oyster Creek. Granted the frustration they l
- cause, a majority at TMI feel better off for the change but the opposite Is 1 true at Oyster Creek. There is strong agreement that the departments have to l find better ways to work together.
- To the degree that there is a problem of cooperation, a majority of the op-erators agree that It is as much their fault as that of the other discipilnes, j A majority of RO's at TMI and SRO's at Oyster Creek admit to this; R0's at Oy-ster Creek and SRO's at TMI disagree. The consultants have been told by managers of other departments that some operators use this issue as an excuse for net holding up their own end. Operators as a group strongly disagree with this.
There is a substantial minority among SRO's agreeing that operators use the
- other departments as an excuse.
l
, cause of Problem. The source of the problem was credited by a majority of responding operators to both structure and management with a little more j
{ . weight to the latter. Trainees alone felt that It was not so much a prob-- tem of structure as one of management. The consultants see the present structure as requring exceptionally strong management talent to make it work. As a result, the structure may need modification. Difference in Attitude. Two thirds of the operators felt that other depart-ments did not have the same sense of urgency as they did. Only the RO's at Oyster Creek felt that the other departments had the same sense of urgency as themselves. TMI more strongly disagreed with this than did Oyster Creek. Again, the majority of operators concur that they do not get action fast l enough on their problems. In the perception of two out of three operators . l other departments do not have the good of the organization as a whole in mind when they go about their daily work. I Adequacy of On-site Authority. In the reorganization authority for certain functions was removed from the control of Operations and 'put under depart-mend heads off-site who had on-site representatives. In the preliminary interviews " Lack of on-site authority" was mentioned as an issue and was In-cluded in the survey in two places. It diil not emerge among the three top , priority issues as a whole or for any subgroup at either facility. l - There is strong majority agreement at both facIIItles that there is sufficient authority on-site to handle emergency situations. This is somewhat stronger at TMI. Similarly, a majority agree that there is sufficient authority on-site to coordinate daily activities. Further analysis shows that a strong I majority agree to this at TMI but at Oyster Creek a slight majority deny that there is sufficient authority on-site. A modest majority agree that they have enough authority to do their Job. SR0's as a group, by a slight O . 4 p -umy . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ~ .... . . .. .
4 ( margin, disagree that they have enough authority to do their job. Remedies. The survey data also supplies some suggested remedies for the prob-lem of Inter-departmental cooperation. 39% agree there would be far less - problems between operator's and support departments if'there were more rJo-ordination between the corresponding supervisors. There is fairly strong disagreement overall that middle managers of operations resist support department programs. A majority of R0's at Oyster Cre'ek believe they do. It is indicative that one third overall perceives this as being the case. There is exceptionally strong consensus that operators do get cooperation when l they know the individuals with whom they are dealing and that It would hinip ' matters if they knew their counterparts in other departments better. Similarly, they strongly deny that they have been given sufficient Information to under-stand and appreciate the roles of the other functions. There is again a strong consensus that they would like to know more about what other depart-5 ments do. Conversely, operators almost to a man believe that members of support departments need more basic knowledge of plant operations so as to better comprehend the results of their actions on operations. Interaction with Specific Departments. Operators rated.the quality of their l Interactions with eight departments based on a) the people they interact with; b) the poIIcles of the department; Table 12 outlines the results of this. 40% of the interactions were rated below the mean in satisfaction. Three quarters of these were for reasons of poIIcy and only one quarter had to do 'with people. ( The department with whom operators had the least satisfactory relationship was Tech Functions followed by Quality Assurance. Rad-Con, Materials Management and Training were tied for the next place. The largest number of un ' satisfactory relationships were experienced by R0's at Oyster Creek followed by SRO's at TMI. In the small group interviews several causes were alleged by the operators for their dissatisfaction with Tech Functions. They did not know and had little direct contact with the individuals in that department. Tech Functions people had IIttle direct' operational experience and there were two sorts of communication problems. Tech Functions did not consult l operations sufficiently before taking action which affected them and they did not give timely feedback on reconenendations submitted to them by op-l eretions. l The reasons for dissatisfaction vary from department to department. based on the functions of each. . That is why there should be dialogue at each Inter-face where thare is dissatisfaction to identify specifically the problem -
, areas from the perspective of either side as a step to agreeing on ap-propriate act!on steps. ,,
l There is a difference between facilities." "THI had its greatest dissatisfaction-with Rad-Con poIIctes and after that equally with Training and Materials Management policies. Dyster Creek had its greatest dissatisfaction with - Tech Functions poIIcy Tech Functions people and Quality Assurance policy j in that order. i Management and Supervision N A relative majority of IIcensed operators do not have confidence in corporate d . l . l
. _. _s. _ _. . . . . .. . .. . . . _ .
., .~ . Tcbis 12 Satisfactoriness of interaction with People and Policies of 5pecific Departments by License Status at each plant I
1 - Type of TMI Oyster Creek Department Interactior 50,0 Trainee R0 SRO Trainee R0 ._ People Rad-Con .X Policies X* X X l People X - Training p,j,cy,, X X X l People X Quality PoIIcles X X X X Assurance People X X X Technical X X Functions Policies X X X (' Maintenance People 5 Construction ' Policies X People X X Materials X X - Management Policies People Security _,_ Policies X Plant . People . Maintenance PoIIcies X
- X is rating below mean in satisfaction e
"*O
-33s-l ..
management. Further analysis shows that a majority at TMl do have confidence ( but that RO's and SRO's at Oyster Creek do not. Confidencie in plant manage-ment is somewhat stronger overall than in corporate management. A majority. have confidence in their plant management. This is much stronger at TMI. A majority of R0's and Trainees at Oyster Creek do not. Only one In five believe that GPU Nuclear management is as concerned about its employees and organizational issues as it is about public relations and tech-nical issues. Nine out of ten deny that their management work together as a team. Four out of five see management as not sufficiently In touch with what is going on at their level. This last Is across all subcategories. Two out , of three deny that management has committed to en accountable organfration which resolves problems at the correct level. Even more disagree that manage-ment sees to it that there is cooperation between departments. Only trainees at TMI agree to this. ( The small group discussions provide more Insight into the operators' perception of management. This still leaves a lot to be understood which could not be gathered by talking to or surveying operators. One would have to explore j this issue with managers themselves. There is always griping about manage-ment among the rank and file and a good deal of this cannot be taken at face value. Management is a convenient target. There Is. invariably a mixture of scapegoating on the one hand and of the workers accurate perception of some real deficiencies. These need to dishntangled. ( The last few years have been painful for those operators who have been around for a long time. More things have gotten worse for them than have gotten better. Contrarily, the operator transferring from the Navy experiences a much improved lot. There is also history and emotion woven into operator reaction to management. The history is different at the two facilities. The operators at TMI were at their low point a year and a half to two years ago. From their perspective things are looking up. There has not been that much change at Oyster Creek nor have things been as had In the past. There is more allenation from management at Oyster Creek than at TMI. Over l the years there has been more of an adversary relationship between operators - and management at Oyster Creek. This is tied in with the differing labor management histories of MET-ED and JCPst. ! GPU Nuclear management is remote; more so at Oyster Creek. There is . vaivalence about this among the Oyster Creek operators. In one way they are happy to have GPU Nuclear management at a distance. They Ilked their l old independence and would prefer not to be Interfered with by outsiders. On the other hand, they suspect they may be getting the 'short and of the stick because of the attention being giveis to TMI. They point to some . l specifics such as the extra bonus at TMI and newly paved parking lots l for employees, but they have more in mind than this. At Oyster Creek there Is resentment of the change in management from JCP&L to GPU Nuclear. One operator estimated that 90% would rather be under JCP&L. They have fcnd' memories of the good days under JCP&L although they are not entirely happy g with them either. They hold it against past management for letting the equipment run down. p3+ .--.
..,..-,........------.--.m . --m n-
w i. Operators, more so at TMI, disapprove of top management's handling both of ( regulatory agencies and of the attacks of anti-nuclear activists:, The de-mands and criticisms of these groups annoy them and they would like to see their management take a more aggressive stand. It leads them to view their top management as wehk,and passive. They see management as unable to deliver on some promises that are of great concern and urgency to them. The operators on the four rotating shifts at Oyster Creek consider this duty a " killer". They have not seen the relief that has been periodically guaranteed to them by top management. Operators at both plants resent some aspects of the way management deals with them. They are not consulted in advance in matters which concern them nor in-formed, sufficiently in advance, of changes which affect their personal Ilves such as shift changes. They feel " dumped on" by management e.g., blamed for things without their relative. inexperience being taken into account. They s miss not getting compliments. They would like to be addressed versus ig-nored when they cross paths with their leadership. At TMI they remember that their management suggested ratesting for IIcensing which has become a big burden for them. l They fault their leadership for crisis management although it is, hard to Imagine a company that has been through a greater succession of recent crises. More significantly, they are concerned about management's design of an organizational structure which creates multiple problems of coordination and the lack of management effort in bringing about coordination within this structure. l ( They keep saying " thera is no one in charge" even though they know that, in a formal organizational sense this is not the case. Some are scandalized by what they consider waste of money and wrong priorities on spending. They cite dead wood in the management ranks and reward of managers for significant failures for which they would have been severely censured. They see a lack of a formal program of training to improve the skills of supervisors and managers. . TMl is farther along in the process of accepting the management structure. As mentioned before, there is more allenation from management at Oyster Creek than at TMI. The manager of Oyster Creek has a priority task to overcome this alienation and restore confidence in leadership. 1 Supervisio_n Almost three out of four were happy with the quality of supervision they re-ceive. The only subgroup with a majority disagreeing were the SRO's at Oy-ster Creek. There was strorag disagreement 'that the supervision of operators is too lax. This was the consensus of all' subgroups with the exception of s SR0's at Oyster Creek who were evenly divided on this point. Similarly, ' there was stong disagreement that the supervisors in this organization' - allowed too many' Infringements of company rules to go by unnoticed. Again, all subgroups disagreed with the exception of SR0's at Oyster Creek of whom a majority agreed. l This issue came up In.the small group discussions at Oyster Creek. It was an 7y .. .. .%.---.7%. -. . - 2= *.-.m--.. .. ,
. , . , , , ,1 .
,. .s.
emotional Issue with strong polarization. Some operators (probably SRO's), are convinced the discipline is too loose, it was felt that an Individual supervisor could not on his own tighten up without being subjected to un-bearable peer pressure from the rest of the operators. It would have to - be a concerted, orchestrated effort in which all supe'rvisors participated. RO's in another small session took strong exception to the need for In-creased discipline. They felt that the facility was already run too much Ilke the naval ships they had known. . As was mentioned under other headings above, there was strong consensus that supervisors could do much more than they are doing to foster cooperation be-tween departments. Also in the small group sessions it was brought out that operators who are supervisors currently get no additional training in how to lead. Sometime ago there had been supervisory training provided by l J CPsi.. I There is clearly great variability in the styles of individual foremen and supervisors and in the control which they exercise. There is such strong bonding between enembers of a shift that it would be extremely difficult for a supervisor to take on the task of tightening discipline on his own. There have been attempts at Oyster Creek to make supervisors more In-dependent by rotating them Independently from the other members of the shift team. . Foremen and supervisors of operations need supervisory training which is ( specially focused on developing skIIIs for gaining cooperation from other units, on persuasive and Interpersonal skills and on exercising greater . leadership and control in relevant areas. Job Performance Several items on Job performance were included in the survey at the re-quest of plant management. Overall, the majority feel their Job conditions have imp' roved over the past-year. R0's and SR0's as well as Trainees at both plants agree with this. R0's and SR0's at Oyster, Creek feel the opposite way. Understanding of Job Responsibility. Nine out of ten agreed that they under-stood their Job responsibilities and that these had been made clear to them. This was consistent across plants and subcategories. Agreement dropped to eight out of ten that others with whom I work understand their job re-sponsibilities. A relative majority of 49% agreed that their concerns re-lated to job responsibility were being ad4ressed. A majority at TMI agreed; a majority at Oyster Creek disagreed. ,
+
Support. Overall.55% agreed to having adequate support (facilities, pro-- cedures, equipment, etc.) for doing their job. However 45% disagreed and some of these strongly. A majority of all categories at Oyster Creek disagreed as did SR0's at TMI. Two out of three overall, agreed that they g had manaoement supoort in helping them do their job. There was a sharp I difference, again, between the two facilities.- The majority of all op-
9 erator categories at THI agreed; a majority of all operator categories at Oyster Creek disagreed. Three out of four agreed that they were being kept current on industry events. Operators at TMI agreed. A majority of SRO's at Oyster Creek disagreed. ' e e
~
( l . e.-
*g S
8'
~
- _v
~
l l less possible now. They complain of working in a paperwork Jungle and being I. under the microscope. 'Because of the documentation which records all their activities, they feel vulnerable. If they make a mistake, everyone knows. New operators are expected to perform Ilke ones with ten years experience. Because of the required documentation, the operators feel the organization is 1 coking to hang them. This climate encourages them to be protective and to play the game by the book approach. At the same time that the or-ganization is becoming more threatening. It is becoming less supportive in enabling them to get things done. Plant Comparisons. Three out of four agree that it bothers them to be told "this is the way we do things at the other nuclear facility". This is much stronger at Oyster Creek than at TMI.- From the small group Interviews it is clear that operators at Oyster Creek blame TMI for a lot of their problems. They particulairly resent it when TMI is held up as a model. - Workload. There is strong feeling among Trainees and R0's at Oyster Creek that operators on the day shift are overworked, although the SRO's at Oyster Creek disagree with this. This is not a big issue at TMI. 1 Pay. 'More disagree than agree that operators are well paid for what they do. They also do not consider themselves well paid in relation to other depart-ments. This is the characteristic attitude of Trainees and R0's but not of the majority of SRO's. e Operator Uniform. A modest majority accept the operator uniform but there is (' , strong and vehement minority disagreement. There is some difference between facilities. RO's at TMI are fairly strongly in favor 6f it while those at ' Oyster Creek are against it; A majority dre dissatisfied with the quality of the uniform. The dissatisfaction with quality is stronger at Oyster Creek. In the small group discussions there l Is a perception among operators that the uniform was imposed by management with-put cgsultation with operator 4 an(yf *haut sufficientiv researching radiation saYety am-ete of_ th. -o rtab Those who appear to be fastidious about their appearance are dissatisfied with the fit and quality of the garment. They con-sider it below the standard of what they normally wear. Disciplinary Sanctions for Violating Regulations. While this is not a major priority concern of operators, it is one which generated a lot of emotion at TMI when stiff sanctions were promulgated for those discovered bringing mind altering substances into the parking lots at TMI. This was not an Issue at Oyster Creek where parking lots are not within a security, check zone. . There is strong acceptance of regulations Y mind altering substances. How-ever, a majority disagree that disciplinary procedures are fair. They also ~ agree that when it comes to disciplinary practices there are two standards: ~ a tough set for operators and an easier set for top management. , Two out of three agree and some strongly that there is not enough consultation with operators before disciplinary policies are established. Only one in { three feel they are sufficiently Informed on the background of disciplinary l l regulations.
- ==v i .
less possible now. They complain of working in a paperwork jungle and being I under the microscope. Because of the documentation which records all their activities, they feel vulnerable, i f they make a mistake, everyone knows. New operators are expected to perform Ilke ones with ten years experience. Because of the required documentation, the operators feel the organization is looking to hang them. This climate encourages them to be protective and to play the game by the book approach. At the same time that the or-ganization is becoming more threatening, it is becoming less supportive in enabling them to get things done. l Plant Comparisons. Three out of four agree that It bothers them to be told "this is the way we do things at the other nuclear facIIIty". This is much stronger at Oyster Creek than at TMI. From the small group Interviews it is clear that operators at Oyster Creek blame TMI for a lot of their problems. They particulairly resent it when TMI is held up as a model, t
- Workload. There is strong feeling among Trainees and R0's at Oyster Creek l
that operators on the day shift are overworked, although the SR0's at Oyster Creek disagree with this. This is not a big issue at THI. 1 Pay. 'More disagree than agree that operators are well paid for what they do. They also do not consider themselves well paid in relation to other depart-ments. This is the characteristic attitude of Trainees and R0's but not of the majority of SR0's. ( , Operator Uniform. A modest majority accept the operator uniform but there is strong and vehement minority disagreement. There is some difference between facilities. RO's at TMI are fairly strongly in favor 6f it while those at Oyster Creek are against it. A majority are dissatisfied with the quality of the uniform. The dissatisfaction with quality is stronger at Oyster Creek. In the small group discussions there is a perception among operators that the uniform was imposed by management with-9ut capsultation with operatorg angtehaut sufficientiv researchino radiation saYetv aca= rte of ek- wart 4., Those who appear to be fastidious about their appearance are dissatisfied with the fit and quality of the garment. They con-sider it below the standard of what they normally wear. Olscip1Inary Sanctions for Violating Regulations. While this is not a major priority concern of operators, it is one which generated a lot of emotion at TMI when stiff sanctions were promulgated for those discovered bringing mind altering substances into the parking lots at TM!. This was not an issue at i Oyster Creek where parking lots are not within a security. check zone. . There is strong acceptance of regulations N mind altering substances. How-ever, a majority disagree that disciplinary procedured are fair. They also
- agree that when it comes to disciplinary practices there are two standards:
a tough set for operators and s, easier set for top management. . Two out of three agree and some strongly that there is not enough consultation with operators before disciplinary poIIctes are established. Only one in { three feel they are sufficiently informed on the backgrcund of disciplinary regulations. e Me e '.--.. ......m-.p. .2..,.~m. e s , . , .
. ? .
,' . .--e less possible now. They complain of working in a paperwork jungle and being
( under the microscope. Because of the documentation which records all their activities, they feel vulnerable, if they make a mistake, everyone knows. New operators are expected to perform Ilke ones with ten years experience. - Because of the required documentation, the operators feel the organization is looking to hang them. This climate encourages them to be protective and to play the game by the book approach. At the same time that the or-ganization is becoming more threatening, it is becoming less supportive In enabling them to get things done. Plant Comparisons. Three out of four agree that it bothers them to be told "this is the way we do things at the other nuclear facility". This is much stronger at Oyster Creek than at TMI. From the small group Interviews it is clear that operators at Oyster Creek blame TMI for a lot of their problems. They particulairly resent it when THI is held up as a model. i
- Workload. There is strong feeling among Trainees and R0's at Oyster Creek l
that operators on the day shift are overworked, although the SRO's at Oyster Creek disagree with this. This is not a big issue at TMI. 1 Pay. 'More disagree than agree that operators are well paid for what they do. They also do not consider themselves well paid in relation to other depart-i ments. This is the characterir. tic attitude of Trainees and R0's but not of the majority of SRO's. e (' , Operator Uniform. A modest majority accept the operator uniform but there Is strong and vehement minority disagreement. There is some difference between facilities. R0's at TMI are fairly strongly in favor 6f it while those at Oyster Creek are against it. A majority are dissatisfied with the quality of the uniform. The dissatisfaction with quality is stronger at Oyster Creek. In the small group discussions there is a perception among operators that the uniform was imposed by management with-put ct gesultation with operatorg and,.yf'haut sufficientiv researching radiation saYety ==aar** of_ 'h- =*=_rf O Those who appear to be fastidious about their i appearance are dissatisfied with the fit and quality of the garment. They con-sider it below the standard of what they'normally wear. l Disciplinary Sanctions for Violating Regulations. While this is not a major priority concern of operators, it is one which generated a lot of emotion at TMI when stiff sanctions were promulgated for those discovered bringing mind altering substances into the parking lots at TMI. This was not an issue at Oyster Creek where parking lots are not within a security. check zone. . There is strong acceptance of regulations N mind altering substances. How- ever, a majority disagree that disciplinary procedures are fair. They also ~ agree that when it comes to disciplinary practices there are two standards: a tough set for operators and an easier set for top management. . Two out of three agree and some strongly that there is not enough consultation ( with operators before disciplinary policies are established. Only one in three feel they are sufficiently Informed on the background of disciplinary regulations. p . .
...o ._- .
~
less possible now. They complain of working in a paperwork jungle and being I. under the microscope. Because of the documentation which records all their activities, they feel vulnerable. If they make a mistake, everyone knows. New operators are expected to perform Ilke ones with ten years -experience. Because of the required documentation, the operators feel the organization is looking to hang them. This cllmate encourages them to be protective and to play the game by the book approach. At the same time that the or-genization is becoming more threatening, it is becoming less supportive In enabling them to get things done. Plant Comparisons. Three out of four agree that It bothers them to be told "this is the way we do things at the other nuclear fa:111ty". This is much stronger at Oyster Creek than at TMI. From the small group Interviews it is clear that operators at Oyster Creek blame TMI for a lot of their problems. They particulairly resent it when TMI is held up as a model.
!
- Workload. There is strong feeling among Trainees and R0's at Oyster Creek that operators on the day shift are overworked, although the SRO's at Oyster Creek disagree with this. This is not a big issue at TMI.
1 Pay. 'More disagree than agree that operators are well paid for what they do. They also do not consider themselves well paid in relation to other depart-ments. This is the characteristic attitude of Trainees and RD's but not of the majority of SRO's. Operator Uniform. A modest majority accept the operator uniform but there Is (' , strong and vehement minority disagreement. There is some difference between facilities. RO's at TMI are fairly strongly in favor 6f it while those at Oyster Creek are against it. A majority are dissatisfied with the quality of the uniform. The dissatisfaction with quality is stronger at Oyster Creek. In the small group discussions there is a perception among operators that the uniform was imposed by management with-putconsultationwithoperatorgan(yf+haut sufficientiv researchina radiation saYetv ben et= of_ th. =+ rt4., Those who appear to be fastidious about their appearance are dissatisfied with the fit and quality of the garment. They con-sider it below the standard of what they normally wear. Disciplinary Sanctions for Violating Regulations. While this is not a major priority concern of operators, it is one which generated a lot of emotion at TMI when stiff sanctions were promulgated for those discovered bringing mind altering substances into the parking lots at TMI. This was not an issue at Oyster Creek where parking lots are not within a security. check zone. . There is strong acceptance of regulations $ mind altering substances. How-ever, a majority disagree that disciplinary procedures are fair. They also
- agree that when it comes to disciplinary practices there are two standards:
a tough set for operators and an easier set for top management. , Two out of three agree and some strongly that there is not enough consultation ! with operators before disciplinary poIIcles are established. Only one In I { three feel they are sufficiently informed on the background of disciplinary regulations. l i . I
.w.n.
rm -
.- ~ , - - - . - - - . . ,
' o l .. i Licensing, Requalification and Training The predominance of training is devoted to preparing Individuals for IIconsing and to a lesser degree for requalification of their yearly IIcenses. Training ' i is the overall highest priority issue because more than any other issue It touches all operators. All operators depend on training either to get their ( original 11 cense or to maintain it. Licensing. Operators unanimously agree that IIcensing is necessary. In the I ! light of this it is surprising that oniv two thirds believe that the pro _ cess of IIcensing promotes safety. This is perhaps because only 60% of those who
're'sponded agreed that the content of the last exams was job relevant and only one third agreed that the oral portion of the exam tested how one would act in an emergency.
Exam security has had an unpleasant history among operators partcularly at TMI. s However, two thirds agree that exams needed to be monitored closely. The same proportion however, agreed that the precautions taken made them feel not trusted. In small group discussions a number of operators felt that some of the pre-cautions taken at the last testing were carried to undue lengths and were de- , meaning. Requalification. Nine out of ten agreed that requal!'fication was necessary. This was a high consensus but somewhat less than.the unanimous agreement , there was about the necessity of IIcensing. Again, the majority agreed that ( ('- requalification promoted safety but a significant minority disaireed. Most feel that they learn something useful from this requirement and that the training and testing programs have made them more effective operators. The biggest issue about requalification is the burden which it puts upon operators. Annual retesting to retain one's Itcense may be without parallel in the world of work. Three or four respondents considered it a big burden. Only one in the seven agreed that this became less of a burden over time. Most have a fear of fai1Ing, feel that preparing takes too much of their personal time and a strong majority consider the volume of material to be too broad. There is majority agreement that operators are required to
~
know more that.Is practical. Only SR0's at DC disagree. They would Ilke some relief from this. One form of relief would % w have the exams broken into content sections which would be administere:- u parately after one had prepared for that particular part. This would be in place of a comprehensive exam. Eight out of ten favored this. A majority would al-so favor another approach to solving this issue which would be requalification on an every other year basis. A significant minority disagreed to this. . , Satisfaction with Training. Close to three quarters of the operators agreed that GPU Nuclear has a major comittment to training. However, almost the . same number were dissatisfied with the training for licensing and even a greater proportion strongly were dissaticfied with requalification training. RO's were more dissatisfied that SRO's and Oyster Creek was more dissatisfied than TMI. The operators at Oyster Creek appear to get fewer hours of formal g requalification training. To some extent this is related to the fact that they have only four shift crews compared to TMl's six. l en 4e - . e. e e , , , ,
*e N 79 * - *
- are es.ee
- - - - - - - - - , , - - - - - - . - - - - - . - , , - - , - - - . . - - - - - - . - - - - . . - . . . , - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - .- - , - - . , - - - -. - - - - - - . , - - - , ~<
= - _ _ _ ._ _
= .
o, .<.y Licensing, Requalification and Training The predominance of training is devoted to preparing individuals for IIconsing and to a lesser degree for requalification of t' heir yearly IIcenses. Training
; Is the overall highest priority issue because more than any other issue It touches a_11 operators. All operators depend on training either to get thstr original IIcense or to maintain it. ,
Licensing. Operators unanimously agree that licensing is necessary. In the j light of this it is surprising that ojllLtwo thirds believe_that the pro _ cess ctf Itcensing promotes safety. This is perhaps because only 60% of those who
' responded agreed that the content of the last exams was job relevant and only one third agreed that the oral portion of the exam tested how one would act in an emergency.
Exam security has had an unpleasant history among operators partcularly at TMI.
's However, two thirds agree that exams needed to be monitored closely. The same proportion however, agreed that the precautions taken made them feel not trusted.
In small group discussions a number of operators felt that some of the pre-cautions taken at the last testing were carried to undue lengths and were de-
' ~
meaning. Requalification. Nine out of ten agreed that requalification was necessary. This was a high consensus but somewhat less than. the unanimous agreement , 3 there was about the necessity of IIcensing. Again, the majority agreed that ('- requalification promoted safety but a significant minority disagreed. Most -
, feel that they learn something useful from this requirement and that the training and testing programs have made them more effective operators.
The biggest issue about requalification is the burden which it puts upon operators. Annual retesting to retain one's IIcense may be without parallel in the world of work. Three or four respondents considered it a big burden. Only one in the seven agreed that this became less of a burden over time. l Most have a fear of failing, feel that preparing takes too much of their l personal time and a strong majority consider the volume of material to be l too broad. There is majority agreement that operators are required to - know more that is practical. Only SR0's at DC disagree. They would like some relief from this. One form of relief would be to have the exams broken into content sections which would be administered separately after one had prepared for that particular part. This would be in p1&ce of a comprehensive exam. Eight out of ten favored this. A majority would al-so favor another approach to solving this issue which would be requalification on an every other year basis. A significant minority disagreed to this. . Satisfaction with Training. Close to three quarters of the operators agreed that GPU Nuclear has a major committment to training. However, almost the . same number were dissatisfied with the training for licensing and even a greater proportion strongly were dissatisfied with requalification training. RO's were more dissatisfied that SRO's and Oyster Creek was more dissatisfied g than TMI. The operators at Oyster Creek appear to get fewer hours of formal requalification training. To some extent this is related to the fact that they have only four shift crews compared to TMI's six. I !I1 -- - -
. . _ _ . . _ . _ ~ ~_ *-- -
l ;'
~
l 8 .- Survey for SRO's,.RO'a and Tra'inama l Purpose of the Survey The GPU Nuclear Corporation would like to know how you feel about your job, about the organization in general and about the running"of a. safe plant. It would like you to help prioritize any concerns you have.as well as suggest possible action steps for dealing with these concerns. Most of you will be participating in small group sessions where you-l will get feedback from the RHR consultants on what a small sample of i ,.s. operators gave as their concerns. You will have a chance to give your own reactions to these issues, suggest which are most important to you and make some recommendations for action. This survey will be adminis- ~ tered in conjunction with these group sessions but will also be administered to those who are unable to attend. How to Fill in the Survey I Read each statement carefully and decide how you feel about it. You l will agree with some statements and you will disagree with others. To help you express your opinions, you are offered five possible answers. For example: ' t* E k $
. E F >
- e t
-
- : s :. hs
- 1. Management encourages us to make suggestions for l
l improvements here. 1 2 (D'4 9
. Near the end of this survey you will find three other small se$tions with different instructions.
! This is Not a Test l There are no "right" answ'ers and no " wrong". answers.. We want your own ! honest opinion. Give your opinions on how conditions are now rather than how they used to be. .
. Work Rapidly But Answer All Statements ,
On the last page we would like your written or printed answers to three. cuestions. We would also welcome any additional comments you would care to make. These comments may deal with things you particularly like or matters you think need attention. Write something in the space even if it is "no comment." Most people will find comments or sug-gestions to make. I General Information Do not sign your name on the survey. Be sure to fill in the blanks for
. general information on.the pages indicated. This,information will be used only to make the results more meaningful. It will not be used.to I find out which survey is yours.
~
e e t-
- Check appropriate blocks: ,
Current License Status: Trainee ( ); RO ( .) ; SRO ( ) Station to Which Assigned: TMI ( ); h)yster Creek ( ) , Nor:.al Assignment: On rotating shift ( ); Not on rotating shift ( ) l Nuclear Power
Background:
' Navy Nuclear experience ( ); -
. In plant experience ( )
I
... A98: , _ , ..
Cu.ulative number of years holding license (RO and SRO) on plant you are assigned to: Highest grade of formal education completed: (circle one) High School College Post Graduate 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 ' 19 Trade School or Military Training School 13 14 15 16 l l * .
~
h S 4
*A e .h<v s tp k tp W ;
ce e tp co l oO u G G oe a ua uu MU CD M M4 . m< < c wo :
~ ~ ~
A. " Licensing
- 1. The licensing process is necessary. 1 2 3 4 ,,
~
"~
l
- 2. Licensing exams. promote safer operation. .1 2 3 4 ,,
- 3. Licensing and requalification exams need to be monitored closely to insure honesty. 1 2 3 4 ,,
- 4. The security precautions surrounding the exams make ,
me feel not trusted. 1 2 '3 4 -
- 5. The content of the last licensing exams was job re-levant. 1 2 3 4 ..
- 6. The oral portion of the licensing exams tests how -
you would really act in an emergency. 1 2 3 4 ,, D. Recualification , ,
- 7. The requalification process is necessary. .
1 2 3 4 ,,
- 8. Requalification exams for RO's and SROs promote safer operation. 1 2 3 4 ..
- 9. Preparing'for the requalif cation exams is a, big
- burden for me. 1 2 3 4 ..
9
% 9_
i - I -
> 0 he
- S e' e4 D Ae G o
On k Oh k 2 CF A ** C' Oe e 5 05 R e' ku k a um et
#U Un a=4 MW oI l
# to sC aC O to O Q s, I
l Requalification (continued) -
- 10. The requalification exams become less of a burden for me with each passing y, ear. ,
1 2 3 4 ',, 9
- 11. Each year I have a fear' of failing the requalifica-
-' tion exams.. -s 1 2 3 4 9 i
- 12. Requalification preparation takes an unfair amount .,
of my personal time. 1 2 3 4 9
- 13. The volume of. material for which we are responsible in requalification exams is too broad. 1 2 3 4 9
- 14. I learn useful material while preparing for my re-qualification exams. 1 2 3 4 9
- 15. Requalification exams should be broken into content sections which are administered one by one over the course of the year (as contrasted with the current '
' single annual comprehensive exam) . 1 2 .3 4 9 I .
- 16. If it were legally feasible, requalification on an overy other year rather than on a yearly basis -
would be desirable. 1 2 3 & 9
- 17. The content of the last requalification exam was ~
job relevant. . 1 2 3 4 9
- 18. The train.tng and testing programs have helped me be a r. ore effective operator.
1 2 3 4 9 C.' Training
- 19. GPU Nuclear has a major commitment to training. 1 2 3 4 ,
9
- 20. I am satisfied with the training for licensing. 1 2 3 4 ,
9
- 21. I am satisfied with the training for requalifica-t,io n . 1 2 3 4
._9
- 22. 'our current training prepares us for what we actually do as operators. , , , 1 2 3 4 9
- 23. The overall quality of the training staf is poor. 1 2 3 4 9
', 24. The training department is not oriented to the needs of the operators. . 1 2~ 3 4 9
- 25. Reactor theory deserves little or no place in the -
training program. . 1 2 3 4 , j J- _ m* , _ _ _ _ _
h 0 he e 4 a o u su o, o z 3- 88 uu 3 u F
. u.
8: .. e
. eo os < v< o "4 4 0 "O O Training (continued)
- 26. Thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid flow theory deserve little or no place in the , training program. 1 2 3 4 . 5
- 27. Thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid flow theory have a place in the training program but are over
^
~ ~ 'n tre s s e d .
1 2 3 4 5
- 28. The training program should include material broader than th'e technical and operational so that operators better understand their role within the industry and community. 1 2 3 4 5
- 29. Training has been improving. 1 2 3 4 5
- 30. In training, too much emphasis is placed on emergency .
and not enough on normal operation. 1 2 3 4 5'
- 31. Sufficient attention is given to requalification ~
training. . l 2 3 4 5
- 32. Operator training does not have a high enough priority among the range of training needs. 1 2 3 4 5'
- 33. We have too much training in specific procedures. 1- 2 3 4 5
- 34. We do not have enough training in analyzing plant conditions. - 1 2 3 4 i
- 35. We are required to know more than is practical. 1 2 3 4 !
- 36. I feel confident my training has prepared me to handle a genuine emergency. 1 2 3 4
- 37. It is important for the training program to cover c the political and public relations concerns relat-ing to safe operation. 1 2 3 4 __t f 38. The training department is right in not wanting to -
train us on anything we are not tested on. 1 2 3 4 , D. Career er
- 39. I plan to be a licensed operator for thd~ foreseeable -
future. 1 2 3 4 - t-
- 40. I feel I have good job security as a licensed operator.' 1 2 3 4 __
- 41. I need more career options. 1 2 3 4 __
O
- , , , . , . - - , . . - - - , - . , , - _ . - . . , , - . , . - . , . , . _ . , . - . , _ , ,,,n,-,-.. .
- n. . . _ - , .. , ,,,, ,-, - . . . . , . , . _ , . . . , -- ?-, ,w,. ,., , , . - - - . - - , , , , , - , . , , - . - , , -
v . -
*8 .
A e ee he
- 4 n
.* <A e e On k Ut h . 2;
_4_ ce e e cc oe e e oe e, ww w a we e 4.8 e et 4 48 1 o career (continued) to at 4 0 to o o*
- 42. It would be helpful to me to'have career alterna-tives within GPU Nuclear even if I never used them. 1 2 3 4 -
9
- 43. I aspire to asivance to management. 1 2 3 4 9 4M.'I would not look forward to being on shift in -
. operations for the rest of my career. 1 2 3 4 9
- 45. I am re'stless to get out of a rotating shift job. 1 2 3 4 9
- 46. I would be willing to move eventually to another job that did not pay as much. 1 2 3 4 9'
- 47. I feel " locked in" to this job with no cereer path cut. 1 2 3 4 9
- 48. Operators who come up through the plants function better than those who transfer in from the Navy Nuclear Program.
1 2 3 4 9'
- 49. Those from the Navy should have more training and
' exposure to plant equipment before working in the control room. 1 2 3 4- 9 > E. Motivation .
- 50. I am/would be proud to be a licensed operator. 1 2 3 4 9
- 51. Being a licensed operator is worth the effort and demands to me.
1 2 3 4 9' l
- 52. I would like to be an operational foreman but the efforts and demands of the job make it not worth'it. 1 2 3 4 9' l .
l 53. It bothers me to be told "this is the way we do l things at the other nuclear facility." 1 2 3 4 9 l 54. I would rather work in a nuclear plant than a fossil l plant. 1 2 3 4 9-55.'My morale at the present moment is good. 1 2 3 4 9.
- 56. My morale is better than it was this time'last year. 1 2 3 4
,, _9
- 57. I am afraid that qualifications for the licensed l cperator position will change to my disadvantage. 1 2 3 4 9:
i
- 58. Operators on the day shift are overworked. 1 2 3 4 9 i
, 59. The operator job on back shif ts is boring. 1 2 3 4 9-l
- l
- -- .. w .-o .
.e .' > e e4mee o
* . e4 O @
On k On k 2 5- se e e co < oe e e oe Er k k e ke o
.* O pi .4 # -4 ce Motivation (continued) va m; A: a to o a
- 60. Operators are well paid for what they do.. 1 2 3 4 ,_
i 61. Operators are well paid in relation to other depart-ments. 1 2 3 4 2
- 62. I would like to see some changes in the Way shifts ,
are scheduled. 1 2 3 4 _ _
- 63. Th's role of the operator has been evolving over the -
last few years in a good direction. 1 2 3 4 _ _
- 64. I feel I am required to do too many things on my job that are not really productive. 1 2 3 4 __
- 65. I feel that the direction GPU Nuclear has taken has the operators' interest at heart. 1 2 3 4 __
- 66. We operators are committed to quality performance. 1 2 3 4 __
l i
- 67. My job conditions have improved over the past year. 1 2 3 4 __
F. Organizational Issues , l 68. The support departments of GPU Nuclear are working . l at cross purposes with operations. , 1 2 3 _4 __
- 69. The new departments we now vork with were installed to' promote safer operation. .. . . , 1 2 3 4 __
- 70. The new organization may lessen the operator's con-trol and authority but it pro. notes a safer opera-tion. 1 2 3 4 __
- 71. Our facility lacks anyone on site with sufficient ,
. authority to handle emerger.cy situations. 1 2 3 4
- 72. Our facility lacks anyone on site with sufficient authority to coordinate daily activities. 1 2 3 4 ,_.
- 73. The concept of support departments makes sense in theory. 1 2 3 4 __
- 74. The support departments are working well.in prac- ,
tice. 1 2 3 4 __
~
- 75. I get good cooperation from other depar.tments when I know the. individuals with whom I am dealing. 1 2 3 4 __
- 76. I may be frustrated by the ' procedures of other de-partments but by and large, we are better off for them. 1 2 3 4 ,_
G o ** *** oe e - . . e
. .. g *
. >i &O o .h 4ee 4
s, a u a. u a c 88 : uu u E 8: a ua w ea e M am c-Organizational Issues (continued) #4 4 A WO C;
- 77. The various departments need' to find better ways to work together. . 1 2 3 4 -
l . . l 78. It would help matters if we knew our counterparts - in other departments better. 1 2 3 4 !.
- 79. Operators have been given sufficient information .
to understand and apprecia.te the roles of the other . functions. 1 2 3 4 _ _!
- 80. The concept of a Shift Technical Advisor is good in theory. 1 2 3 4 !'
s l 81. The STA program is working well i,n practice. 1 2 3 4 !.
- 82. To the extent there is lack of cooperat' ion between departments, it is as much the fault of the opera-tors as of the other disciplines. 1 2 3 4 '
l , ! 83. To the extent there is a problem of cooperation, , it is because of poor organizational structure. 1 2 3 4 !
- 84. The the extent there is a problem of cooperation,
~
it is due to poor management. 1 2 3 i *
- 85. Other departments do not have the good of the whole organization in mind when they go about their **
- daily work. 'l 2 3 4 !
- 86. If it were not for the support departments, RO's would have too much to do. 1 2 3 4 _ _!=
- 87. If it were not for the support departments, SRO's would have too much to do. . 1 2 3 4 '
- 88. Rad-Con should be under the supervisory control of operations. 1 2 3 4 '
- 89. Operators use the support departments as an excuse. 1 2 3 4 !
- 90. I would like to know more about what other' depart- "
~
ments in the company do. 1 2 3 4 ? ! 91. I have all the authority I need to perform my job . j properly. .1 2 3 4.
- 92. I don't get action fast enough' on my problems. 1 52 3 4 _ _!
- 93. Me.mbers of support departments need more basic knowl-edge of plant operations so as to better comprehend the results of their actions on operations. 1 2 3 4 _ __'
I M
"~~
..:--.__._..- _ _ _ _ ._ ...~ ~
% n e4 he a i
. e4 p 6 pk G C
. k 2; o
ce p ce oc e e os u. uw w a ua e
#U m 4 #4 C' ;- orcanizational Issues (centinued) , m <: < a uo c
- 94. There would be far less problems between operators and support departrents if there were more coordina-tion between the ccrresponding supervisors. 1 2 3 4 -
- 95. The support _ depart =ents have the same sense of I
urgency as do the cperators. 1 2 3 4
. . ~ . , - . : - -
- 96. Middle managers of operations resist implementation of support depart. ment programs. 1 2 3 4 _
G.* Recu1atory Atmoschere
- 97. I have adjusted to living in a regulated environ-ment and by and large it does not bother me. '
1 2 ~3 4 __ t
- 98. The growing procedural complexity is itself a l hazard to safety. .. 1 2 3 4 __
l
- 99. By and large, procedures are up-to-date. 1 2 3 4 __
100. Our procedures are too detailed. I 2 3 4 "- 101. We suffer from infcrmational overload. 1 2 3 4 _ 102. There are so many cu=bersome procedures that in practice the GPU Nuclear policy on compliance is - disregarded. - - 1- 2 3 -4 __ 103. I worry about breaking some regulation without realizing it. . 1 2 3 4 10'4.' The compliance f.o procedures that we are held to by our management is reasonable. 1 2 3 4 __ l 105. The policy on procedural compliance is clearly com-i municated to us by management. 1 2 3 4 ,__ 106. Our organization has too many policies and pro-l cedures which interfere with doing a good job. 1 2 3 4 _ _ ! - H. Discipline 107. There is not enough consultation with us before dis-' . ciplinary policies are established. ,, 1 2 3 4 __ 108. We are sufficiently informed on the bacTground of ". disciplinary regulations. 1 2 3 4 ._.
- 109. Disciplinary practices are fair.
1 2 3 4 __ l 110. When it comes to disciplinary policies there are two standards:- a tough set for operators and as easier set for top manager.ent. 1 2 3 4 __ h ~- - -
,=
>, . J n
o
~
m a su Ee uu u 8 eT a Es ua eo e .4 4 -< a Discioline (continued) mg 4 o uo -
- 11. Regulations on mind altering . substances are sound. 1 2 3 4 -
- 12. I accept the idea of an operator uniform. 1 2 3 4 -
~
. 13. I am satisfied with the quality of the operator 1 2 3 4 (
.. uniform. ,, ,
. Management
. 14. I have confidence in our corporate management. 1 2 3 4
. 15. I have confide 6ce in our plant management. 1 2 3 4 _ _
. 16. The objectives of GPU Nuclear are clearly stated. 1 2 3 4 __
. 17. The objectives of GPU Nuclear are well communicated. 1 2 3 4 _ _
. 18. The objectives of GPU Nuclear are valid. 1 2 3 4 __
. 19. GPU Nuclear management is as concerned about its employees and organizational issues as it is about public relations and technical issues. 1 2 3 4 __
.20.~. GPU Nuclear is changing faster t'han I can , adjust. 1 2 3 4' ,_
. 21. I am happy with the quality of supervision I receive. 1 2 3 4 _ _
. 22. Supervision of operators is'too lax. , , ,
1 2 3 4 __
. 23. Our management works together as a team. 1 2 3 4 __
. 24. I feel that top management is sufficiently in touch with what is going on at my level. 1 2 3 4 _.
. 25. Management has committed to an accountable organiza-tion which resolves problems at the correct level. 1 2 3 4 _.
l . 26. Management here sees to it that there is cooperation between departments. 1 2 3 4 _
. 27. The supervisors in this organization allow too many infringements of company rules to go by unnoticed. ,, 1 2 3 4 _
- 7.
- Safety ,
;28. On balance, we are better prepared for an emergency
.as a result of changes since the TMI-2 accident.
1 2 3 4 _
. 29. Any benefits from the cons'tructive changes made since the accident are more than offset by the cum-bersome procedures and organizational structure. 1 2 3 4 _
e ,
--w N- -
-. ? ,
l . m e aeme a. c
..- a e Ot. k Ot k E.
ce cA as cc : os ue ea os me uu um ei MU On we #M Oi Safety (continued) m< < m mo o=
- 30. Our new kind of functional structure may be having growing pains, but is has the potential to function well. , ,
1 2 3 4
, J
- 31. Efficiency of operations shoul'd not take a second j .- place to public safety. m _1 2 3 4 2
- 32. management is more concerned about public safety Top'n tha it is about generating electricity. 1 2 3 4 E
- 33. Because we live so closely with our technology, we cperators tend to underestimate the potential danger. 1 2 3 4 E
.3 4. Safety gets too high a priority here. 1 2 3 4 E l!. Job Performance . .3 5. I understand my job responsibilities and they have ,
been made clear to me. 1 2 3 4 E
.3 6. Others with whom'I work understand their job re-cponsibilities. 1 2 3 4 E .37.- I have adequate support' (facilities, procedures, 2 equipment, etc.) for doing my job. 1 2 3 4 0 .38. We have management support in helping us do our job. 1 2 3 4 @
L39. My concerns related.to job responsibility ar[ being addressed. 1 2 3 4 9 L40. I am being kept current (through required reading of LER, plant changes, etc.) on industry events. 1 2 3 4 S OP I e a l 7 , ---.-- . . . . . ~ .
* * ~
Rate the cuality of your interaction sith the following departments based on: 1
- a. The department pecole you interact with*
- b. The policies of the department Department Department People DepartJnent Policies
- --i 9 9 a> h o ah > c
. ~4 k 4 c ,4 k ak c e0 'S
< *~ 'a N e2
- OE eN
=o au a ao su ee em ce ee o, ee o o, DH 14 H 4 DH to H Q4
! Rad-Con 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
~
g Training 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Quality Assurance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
)8 Technical Functions 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 9 1 2 3 4.5 6 7 9
49-50 Maintenance and - Construction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 2 3 4 56 7 9
~
2 Materials Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Security 1 2 3 4* 5 6 7 , l9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7] 9 55-l 56 Plant Maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 The five highest priority issues which are a concern to me are: (Number from 1 to 5 with 1 being the. highest priority.) 5[. ( ) Career path for operators
- 58. ( ) Cooperation between functions in an emergency
- 59. ( ) Cooperation between functions other than in ' emergencies i60. ( ) on-site control
! 61. ( ) Lack of replacements ,62. ( ) Requalification exams '63. ( ) Training of operators ,64. (- ) Quality of management
- 65. -( ) Quality of supervision
- 66. ( ) Decline in status of operator ,,
- 67. ,( ') Pay - .
- 68. ( ) Ability to make decisions appropriate for my level
- 69. ( ) Pace of change; too much at once -
- 70. ( ) Generation of electricity
- 71. ( ) Current pe'rsonal er family problems
- 72. ( ) Rotating shifts
- 73. ( ) Other:
3 e e
' ^ ~ " *
- _ * ,,
- 1Q__________..__. **C*'_ *
,- . '*****'"**2' ****'**E i-.- -
11 - e JThe recipa for safe nuclear plant opsretions cencicto cf mtny ingredients. S .e suggested ones are the following. Circle the number which describes the contribution of each of the following to overall public safety. Contribution to Public Safety l
.- . . - \
e e .
- G xe G o
. c e u Operator knowledge of: ,, E E E E 174. Plant operations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 175. Plant equipment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 176. how to diagnose nature of energency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l177.
Emergency procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 178. Emergency regulatory standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 179. Theory of plant functioning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Operator's: , l l180. Length of experience in this plant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l 181. Vigilance on shift 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 182. Adherence to procedures - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 183. Respect for potential danger of the tech-l nology - 1 7. 3 4 5 -6 7 ! 184.~ Appreciation of the role of support de-partments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - 185. Appreciation of public,. regulatory and political concerns about nuclear safety- 1 2 -3 4 5 6 7 operator: - l186. Sobriety on the job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l187. Stress , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l188. Morale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l ' 18 9'. Work l'oad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 190. Boredom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 191. Job Commitment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cooperation between departments: l192. In emergency 1 2, , 3 4 5 6 7 1 193. Outside emergency " 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 shift team: . 194. Quality of working relationships - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1195. Familiarity with each others' roles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 9 9 e *
..e. . = e ~m. **
l .. . ,- .
. Contribution to Safoty
, e
' . a s m u e e .ac e o c e e w o e g' a Supervisors: " 8 "
196. Knowledge of plant ' 1 '2 3 4 5 6 197. Tightness of discipline on procedural
.., compliance -, 1 2- 3 4 5 6 7 198. Leadership skills 1 2 3 4 5 '6 7 199. Control room crowding 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 200. Requalification exams 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 201. Licensing exams 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 202. On-site training 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
, 203. Simulator training 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- 1. What things are we already doing at GPU Nuclear to improve the safety of our operation?
. . m d
t . l
- 2. What things should we stop doing at GPU NucYe'ar to iinprove the safety of our operation? ,
, 3. What things should we start doing at GPU Nuclear which we are not now doing to improve the safety of our operations?
@M l
Comments: . e 0
- - - . - _ _ _ . _ _ , - . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _}}