“Cognitive dissonance” is the tension that arises from holding two conflicting thoughts in one’s mind at the same time. Here’s a candidate example, a single brief document that presents two different perspectives on safety culture issues at Palisades.
On June 26, 2012, the NRC requested information on Palisades’ safety culture issues, including the results of a 2012 safety culture assessment conducted by an outside firm, Conger & Elsea, Inc (CEI). In reply, on July 9, 2012 Entergy submitted a cover letter and the executive summary of the CEI assessment.* The cover letter says “Areas for Improvement (AFls) identified by CEI over1apped many of the issues already identified by station and corporate leadership in the Performance Recovery Plan. Because station and corporate management were implementing the Performance Recovery Plan in April 2012, many of the actions needed to address the nuclear safety culture assessment were already under way.”
Further, “Gaps identified between the station Performance Recovery Plan and the safety culture assessment are being addressed in a Safety Culture Action Plan. . . . [which is] a living document and a foundation for actively engaging station workers to identify, create and complete other actions deemed to be necessary to improve the nuclear safety culture at PNP.”
Seems like management has matters in hand. But let’s look at some of the issues identified in the CEI assessment.
“. . . important decision making processes are governed by corporate procedures. . . . However, several events have occurred in recent Palisades history in which deviation from those processes contributed to the occurrence or severity of an event.”
“. . . there is a lack of confidence and trust by the majority of employees (both staff and management) at the Plant in all levels of management to be open, to make the right decisions, and to really mean what they say. This is indicated by perceptions [of] the repeated emphasis of production over safety exhibited through decisions around resources.” [emphasis added]
“There is a lack in the belief that Palisades Management really wants problems or concerns reported or that the issues will be addressed. The way that CAP is currently being implemented is not perceived as a value added process for the Plant.”
The assessment also identifies issues related to Safety Conscious Work Environment and accountability throughout the organization.
So management is implying things are under control but the assessment identified serious issues. As our Bob Cudlin has been explaining in his series of posts on decision making, pressures associated with goal conflict permeate an entire organization and the problems that arise cannot be fixed overnight. In addition, there’s no reason for a plant to have an ineffective CAP but if the CAP isn’t working, that’s not going to be quickly fixed either.
* Letter, A.J. Vitale to NRC, “Reply to Request for Information” (July 9,2012) ADAMS ML12193A111.
On June 26, 2012, the NRC requested information on Palisades’ safety culture issues, including the results of a 2012 safety culture assessment conducted by an outside firm, Conger & Elsea, Inc (CEI). In reply, on July 9, 2012 Entergy submitted a cover letter and the executive summary of the CEI assessment.* The cover letter says “Areas for Improvement (AFls) identified by CEI over1apped many of the issues already identified by station and corporate leadership in the Performance Recovery Plan. Because station and corporate management were implementing the Performance Recovery Plan in April 2012, many of the actions needed to address the nuclear safety culture assessment were already under way.”
Further, “Gaps identified between the station Performance Recovery Plan and the safety culture assessment are being addressed in a Safety Culture Action Plan. . . . [which is] a living document and a foundation for actively engaging station workers to identify, create and complete other actions deemed to be necessary to improve the nuclear safety culture at PNP.”
Seems like management has matters in hand. But let’s look at some of the issues identified in the CEI assessment.
“. . . important decision making processes are governed by corporate procedures. . . . However, several events have occurred in recent Palisades history in which deviation from those processes contributed to the occurrence or severity of an event.”
“. . . there is a lack of confidence and trust by the majority of employees (both staff and management) at the Plant in all levels of management to be open, to make the right decisions, and to really mean what they say. This is indicated by perceptions [of] the repeated emphasis of production over safety exhibited through decisions around resources.” [emphasis added]
“There is a lack in the belief that Palisades Management really wants problems or concerns reported or that the issues will be addressed. The way that CAP is currently being implemented is not perceived as a value added process for the Plant.”
The assessment also identifies issues related to Safety Conscious Work Environment and accountability throughout the organization.
So management is implying things are under control but the assessment identified serious issues. As our Bob Cudlin has been explaining in his series of posts on decision making, pressures associated with goal conflict permeate an entire organization and the problems that arise cannot be fixed overnight. In addition, there’s no reason for a plant to have an ineffective CAP but if the CAP isn’t working, that’s not going to be quickly fixed either.
* Letter, A.J. Vitale to NRC, “Reply to Request for Information” (July 9,2012) ADAMS ML12193A111.