ML062210544

E-Mail from Meyer to Johnson, Survey PSEG

ML062210544
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	03/09/2004
From:	Meyer G NRC Region 1
To:	Johnson S NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062210544 (5)

Text

lShoron JAohnson - Fwd:.Surve PSEG Page I

From, To:

Date:

Subject:

Glenn Meyer 0-Johnson, Sharon 319104 11:15AM Fwd: Survey PSEG FYI lij c.ia~.eed accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions C

/10

Sharon J.hnson - Fwd: Surve PSEG Page 1 From:.

David Vito To:

SALEMHCSCWE Date:

2/5/04 7:23AM

Subject:

Fwd: Survey PSEG

- SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION -

- PROTECT ACCORDINGLY -

See the attached. The alleger and Dave L. have received (and provided to us) the preliminary. results of the Synergy survey.

Sharon Johnson - Fwd: Survey PSEG Page 1 From:

To:

<MV@nrc.gov>, <EXN 1 @nrc.gov>

Date:

2/4104 6:59PM

Subject:

Fwd: Survey PSEG Dave and Eileen, Attached is a scanned copy of the preliminary Synergy survey results from PISEG.

I've not shared a copy with anyone other than you two and Dave Lochbaum.

Here is his summary of key points:

I finished reviewing the PSEG survey. PSEG cannot hope to pretend that all is well. The survey shows significant problems and problems getting worse, not better. The survey was taken in December 2003 and results reported in January 19, 2004. How can Anderson be "disappointed" by the NRC's letter when he had evidence that the problems were worse than suggested by the NRC?

Among the key parts, in my view:.

1) 2003 CCA PSEG Nuclear Composite a) 51.07% negative response for "effective work management process" b) 40.51% negative response for making progress in past 18 months c) 30.69% negative response for corrective action process being timely d) 29.15% negative response for corrective action process being effective e) 25.30% negative response for pursuing resolution of long standing equipment and material problems that could adversely affect nuclear safety

2) Attachment 9a, Key Nuclear Safety Culture Metrics a) The Employee Concerns Program (ECP) results for EVERY SINGLE ORGANIZATION AT SALEM AND HOPE CREEK is low (less than 3.5) b) The CNO Staff & Support gave ECP a 4.23 (highest overall) and Managers gave ECP a 4.09 (second highest overall). Obviously, management cannot fix an ECP problem it does not recognize.

c) The Nuclear Safety Values, Behaviors, and Practices (NS VB&P) for almost EVERY SINGLE ORGANIZATION AT SALEM AND HOPE CREEK is low (less than 3.5)

3) PSEG Nuclear 2003 CCA - Employee Concems Program a) 21.42% negative response for the ECP being better than 1 year ago b) 22.03% negative response for concerns raised to ECP being appropriately resolved

,Sharon Johnson - Fwd: Survey PSEG Page 2 c) 20.79% negative response for confidence in the Employee Concerns Program Lots more can be "culled" from this "preliminary" data. I don't know what else will be available that I may be able to obtain.

I'll keep you posted.

Thank you again for your thoroughness.

Kymn

I Sharon Johnson - Survey Iraae 1i I I

w 4 m

taqe i i From:

Da Ldlochbaum@ucsusa.org>

To:

Date:

/04 5:27PM

Subject:

Survey Hello Kymn:

I scanned the survey. Attached are electronic copies.

Thanks, Dave