Jamnes Wiggins - EG Leadership Presentation on SWEt Results _age 1ij

From: Marc Ferdas lTo: Anne Passarelli; Daniel Collins; Daniel Orr; George Malone; Mel Gray; Scott Barber;Theodore WingfieldDate: 5/24/04 7:16AMSubject: PSEG Leadership Presentation on SCWE Results

Attached you will find the presentation being used by PSEG management to roll-out the results of theirSCWE assessments.

On Friday, PSEG started to conduct group sessions w/ all levels of the organization. These meetings willcontinue over the next several days as the roll-out continues.

The presentation is honest and open, and provides an accurate description of the assessrrent results. Itpaints a picture that improvement is needed and Salem/Hope Creek performance is bottom quartile. Thepresentation also provides a list of the top 5 items PSEG will go after over the next several years toimprove performance at the site. The five areas are: SCWE, Corrective Action, Work Management, Roles& Responsibilities of Supervision at all Levels, Facilities/Housekeeping.

The last page of the presentation provides a time line describing PSEG's plans going forward in rolling outthis information. They are looking to have a press release once the information hits ADA%1s andavailable to the public. We may need to coordinate w/ them on this.

-Marc S. FerdasResident Inspector - Hope Creek

CC: A. Randolph Blough; Brian Holian; Daniel Holody; David Vito; Hubert J. Miller;James Wiggins; Richard Crlenjak; Wayne Lanning

7Z\

I C:VTEMP\GW)00Q01.TMP -- ___

Mail Envelope Properties (40B1D970.3CI: 22: 10166)

PagI -1

Subject:Creation Date:From:

Created By:

PSEG Leadership Presentation on SCWE Results5/24/04 7:16AMMarc Ferdas

MSF2@nrc.gov

Recipientskplpo.KPDO

ARB CC (A. Randolph Blough)BEH CC (Brian Holian)DJH CC (Daniel Holody)DJV CC (David Vito)HJM1 CC (Hubert J. Miller)JTW1 CC (James Wiggins)RVC CC (Richard Crlenjak)WDL CC (Wayne Lanning)

owf4_po.OWFNDODXC 1 (Daniel Collins)

nrc.govkplpo.KPDO

AEP (Anne Passarelli)GJM2 (George Malone)GSB (Scott Barber)JDO (Daniel Off)MXG3 (Mel Gray)TVW (Theodore Wingfield)

Post Officekplpo.KPDOowf4_po.OWFNDOkpl_po.KPDO

Route

nrc.gov

Files Sizemgmt_assessmentrollout_052004.pptMESSAGE 1931

Date & Time32102405/24/04 07:16AM

05/24/04 06:56AM

OptionsExpiration Date:Priority:Reply Requested:Return Notification:

NoneStandardNoNone

r C A~~VNP \ GWV}aOO --17Y wI i A -1,1, 1

______________ �age�

Concealed Subject:Security:

NoStandard

Management Assessment Rollout

Synergy Survey

USA Assessment

Independent Assessment Team (IAT)

I

Improvement Model

Synergy Assessment

USA Assessment

IAT Assessment

Issues from the Assessments

Focus Areas

, eAt WmI hA ow te lof

2

*

2103 - Survey by Synergy12/04 - USA Assessment)5104 - IAT Assessment

3

Synergy Survey

PSEG Nuclear Assessment Results

Wtat=X 00"

Plant appears to be in a degraded condition dueto long-standing and recurring problems

Situation appears to be worsening

Contributors:

* Work management program ineffectiveness

* Corrective action program timeliness andineffectiveness

* Communications ineffectiveness

* Perceived lack of commitment

5

_______

Nuclear Safety Culture

Nuclear Safety Values,Behaviors, Practices

3.54 Good 1 1th %

Safety Conscious Work 4.31 Very Good to 1 1th %Environment Excellent

Employee Concerns Program 3.41 Adequate to Good 16th %

CAP program effectiveness ratings particularly lowConfidence in employee concerns program needsimprovementWorkload appears to have an impact on our ability toresolve concernsSenior leadership commitment to resolve issues is notwhere it needs to be - "walking the talk"

6

General Culture/Work Environment

3.40 Adequate toGood

26 %

Areas with lowest ratings

* Effectiveness of work management process

* General communications

* Change management

* Performance recognition

* Performance appraisal

7

Composite - LMS Behaviors / Practices 3.32 Adequate toGood

33%

Leadership Behaviors / Practices 3.19 Adequate 11 %

Business Management Behaviors / Practices 3.18 Adequate 11 %

Personnnel MAnangement eahaviors ! Prat-ices 'A .1 (Gonnrl AA %4

Areas with lowest ratings* Confidence in management* Management of resources* Management of systems and processes* Management of change* Ineffectiveness of leadership to provide clear direction

8

-. -.-- -- t-� -, N

- . - -- - PSEG N UCLEAR L LC

USA Assessment Results

PSEG Nuclear Assessment Results

.. .�

�z..

F�i:c�K� - - - - .. i�:4.e

________ �-...

i0 PSE(''-;:'':')',ro'a', i ucea:LX .

Overall - NO STRENGTHS

Ratings given on a scale of 1 to 5

1 = Needs much improvement'2 = Needs some imnrovement

3 = Competent

4 = Strength

5 = Exceptional

10

2.19 Plant Control2.33 Equipment Reliability2.40 Corrective Action Program2.46 Monitoring I Trending2.48 Work Management Process2.60 Resource / Schedule2.61 Management Involvement2.61 Problem Identification - Questioning Attitude

2.70 Staff Capability2.84 Safety Over Production2.85 Oversight Capability2.96 Operating Experience

11

Independent Assessment Team - IAT

PSEG Nuclear Assessment Results

Ineedn Asesmn Team Revew

Reviewed SCWE implications* NRC's inspection record

* Corporate / site interface* Events involving operational decision makina

13

Reviewed 20 Hope Creek & 28 Salem reports

Conclusions - record reflects failure to

* Consistently translate engineering informationinto work documents

* Consistently take prompt and effectivecorrective action

* Adequately identify and properly classifyprocedural violations

14

Conclusions* Perceived pressure from corporate to place

production over conservative decision making* Roles and responsibilities in the areas of HR,

labor relations. budaet. and financial Dianningare not clear

* Employees perceive the incentivecompensation process places a greateremphasis on production than on conservativedecision-making

15

No events in the report involved reactor operationsputting either the plant or public at risk

14 events identified sent mixed message to workforceregarding raising and addressing issues

Events demonstrate some in management and theworkforce:

* Place greater emphasis on production thanconservative decision making

* Tolerate degraded equipment conditions

* Tnlprnte nronr.diirqI non-adhermncr

16

Some management personnel

* Do not clearly communicate standards or therationale behind decisions

* Take actions or fail to take actions. causing achilling effect on the willingness of certainemployees to raise concerns

* Become involved in decisions moreappropriately the responsibility of operations

17

L

22MS42Z.Steam Leak

Circ Water.System Level 7xInstrumenta-;tlon

Start-up i

Without Fivebi

oumps

FeedwaterRegulating X X X X XValve

Early Liftin g.of Poweroperated X X X X X X XRelief Valve

Head VentPrOcedure IX

Change _ _ _ _ _1 l 1 1 1 1____

18

Sub

FeeiPufnVibr

x x x

x x x x x xtion

I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4� 4

erator ,wast leak

x x x x x x x

High Off Gas XFiow~

Event X X XXXXX

Turbine x x x x§Bypass Valve X

Los of (CoreMonitoring X X X X X X X XSystemEi :i :

Lightning IStrike& iX X X

_ _ _ __k : ._ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J

19

: m%

I Reactivity Management

Work Management

30 Corrective Action Program

4 1' Safety Conscious Work Environment

6 Rewards / Recognizing Behaviors

7 Eng. Work Management I Eng. Rigor I Design Control

8 Long standing equipment reliability

9 Facilities (Housekeeping I Material Condition)

10 Role I Effectiveness of Supervision at all levels

1i O perations Department doesn't trust Mgmt.

102 Communication (decision making and "Why's")

13 No accountability for not following processes20

Production takes precedence over safety

15 Lack of individual accountability for outcomes

18 Don't have a Strategic Plan for workforce of future19 HR related topics

2 0- Relationship as opposed to a process driven culture21- Tolerance for low standards

22 TContractor oversight and controlCorporate ISite inteface

241E ] Lack of visible Human Perf. Improvement Strategy

25 Perception that we don't have adequate resources2610 Ineffective use of "Change Management"

2T Attitude toward QA21

Synergy Survey

USA Assessmen

IAT Assessment

SCWE

Corrective Action

Work Management

Roles andResponsibilities ofSupervision at all levels

Facilities/Housekeeping

22

May 21

May 21

May 21

May 24

May 25

May 25 (TBD)

May 25 (TBD)

May 25 (TBD)

June 8

June 15

June 16

June 16

June 21 (TBD)

Employee Rollouts

Letter from Roy Anderson

Assessment Documents on SCWE Web Page

Hub Miller Visit / Interviews

Operational Excellence Review (OER)

Reports Posted on NRC Web Site on ADAMS

Cover Statement for Press

Local Officials Communications

Bi-Weekly Manager's Communication Meeting

Board of Directors Meeting at Nuclear

All-Hands Meetinas

NRC Public Meeting

Submit NRC Commitment Letter23