ML18149A287
| ML18149A287 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/29/2018 |
| From: | NRC/OIG |
| To: | |
| References | |
| DNFSB-18-A-05 | |
| Download: ML18149A287 (5) | |
Text
Audit of the DNFSBs Implementation of Its Governing Legislation DNFSB-18-A-05 May 29, 2018 All publicly available OIG reports (including this report) are accessible through NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-2901 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL May 29, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO:
Glenn Sklar General Manager Christopher Roscetti Deputy General Manager FROM:
Dr. Brett M. Baker /RA/
Assistant Inspector General for Audits
SUBJECT:
AUDIT OF THE DNFSBS IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS GOVERNING LEGISLATION (DNFSB-18-A-05)
Attached is the Office of the Inspector Generals (OIG) audit report titled Audit of the DNFSBs Implementation of Its Governing Legislation.
The report presents the results of the subject audit. Following the March 26, 2018, exit conference, the Board provided formal comments, which have been included in Appendix B, DNFSB Formal Comments. OIGs response to the formal comments are in Appendix C, OIG Analysis of DNFSB Formal Comments.
Please provide information on actions taken or planned on each of the recommendations within 30 days of the date of this memorandum.
We appreciate the cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during the audit. If you have any questions or comments about our report, please contact me at (301) 415-5915 or Beth Serepca, Team Leader, at (301) 415-5911.
Attachment:
As stated cc: R. Howard, OGM
Office of the Inspector General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Results in Brief Audit of the DNFSBs Implementation of Its Governing Legislation What We Found The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) did not find any evidence that DNFSB is not operating in accordance with its enabling statute, the National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year (FY) 1989, and any amendments thereto. However, OIG identified improvements DNFSB should make in order to more effectively accomplish its mission. Specifically, OIG noted a stark disagreement among Board members, on how and when reporting requirements should be issued, as illustrated by the FY 2016 and 2017 notational voting records.
Additionally, OIG identified that multiple agency-wide surveys consistently illustrate low employee and a lack of collegiality and/or cohesion among the Board members. While OIG did not identify any specific instances of DNFBSs mission being impacted by these two issues, they should be of concern to the Board. Low employee morale and lack of Board collegiality are significant organizational challenges for DNFSB. Moreover, the Board sets the tone at the top for DNFSBs guidance values and principles.
Whatever tone the Board members set as an effect on DNFSB employees.
What We Recommend We make two recommendations that address the findings identified during the audit work.
Why We Did This Review In 1988 Congress created the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) as an independent executive branch agency to provide independent analysis, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding adequate protection of public health and safety at the Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities.
There are 14 major defense nuclear facilities under DNFSBs jurisdiction. As of March 31, 2018, DNFSB has 117 full time employees, including 4 Board members. DNFSB is supported by an annual budget of approximately
$31 million.
DNFBSs enabling statute allows it to establish reporting requirements for DOE. These reporting requirements are binding upon the Secretary of Energy, may accompany a report DNFSB staff have prepared on safety issue, may request a briefing from DOE, or be a standalone request for information from a Board member.
Our audit objective was to review the role and structure of DNFSB to determine whether the Board is (1) operating in accordance with applicable laws and (2) whether the role and structure is effective to facilitate the agencys mission.
DNFSB-18-A-05 May 29, 2018
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.......................................................... i I. BACKGROUND................................................................................ 1 II. OBJECTIVE...................................................................................... 6 III. FINDINGS........................................................................................ 6 I. Lack of Agency Policy for Issuing Reporting Requirements........................................................................ 7 II. Employee Morale is Low and the Board Does Not Demonstrate Collegiality................................................. 9 IV. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS........................ 17 V. DNFSB COMMENTS...................................................................... 18 APPENDIXES A. OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY............................... 19 B. DNFSB FORMAL COMMENTS 22 C. OIG ANALYSIS OF DNFSB FORMAL COMMENTS....25 TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, OR ABUSE............................................. 26 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS.......................................................... 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation i
DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board DOE Department of Energy FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey FY Fiscal Year GAO United States Government Accountability Office LMI Logistics Management Institute NAPA National Academy of Public Administration OIG Office of the Inspector General ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 1
Establishment of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) and Agency Mission In 1988 Congress created the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board as an independent executive branch agency to provide independent analysis, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding adequate protection of public health and safety at the Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities. Congress established DNFSB in response to growing concerns about the level of health and safety protection DOE was providing the public and workers at defense nuclear facilities.
DNFSB was established to provide the public with assurance that DOEs defense nuclear facilities are being safely designed, constructed, operated, and decommissioned. To accomplish this, the agency is assigned 5 major functions (see Table 1, §2286.a(b)(1) - (5)) and granted a series of powers in the statute (see Table 1, §2286.a(c)(2)(A) - (C)).
DNFSB must review and evaluate the content and implementation of health and safety standards, as well as other requirements, relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of DOEs defense nuclear facilities.
As of March 31, 2018, DNFSB has 117 full time employees, including 4 Board members1. DNFSB is supported by an annual budget of approximately $31 million.
1 Chairman Sean Sullivan resigned from DNFSB effective close of business on February 2, 2018. Under DNFSBs enabling statute, the Vice Chairman, Bruce Hamilton, is Chairman on an acting basis.
I. BACKGROUND
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 2
Agency Jurisdiction There are 14 major DOE defense nuclear facility sites under DNFSBs jurisdiction, 10 of which are active and 4 are closed. Figure 1 depicts the location of the 14 sites.
Figure 1: DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Source: DNFSBs public Web site.
Board Responsibilities The Board2 (when at full capacity) is composed of 5 members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, who are respected experts in the field of nuclear safety. The President designates one member as Chairman. No more than 3 Board members may be of the same political party. Individual Board members have equal responsibility in establishing decisions and determining actions of the agency, and have full access to all information relating to the performance of the agencys functions, powers, and mission.
2 The term the Board" refers to the presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed Board members serving staggered 5 year terms. Any reference to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board or DNFSB refers to the entire agency.
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 3
Agency Functions DNFSBs enabling statute sets forth specific functions it must perform.
These functions are set forth in Table 1.
Table 1: Agency Functions Articulated in Enabling Statute Statute Section Agency Function
§2286.a(b)(1)
Review and evaluate content and implementation of standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities.
§2286.a(b)(2)
Investigate any event or practice at DOE defense nuclear facilities that may adversely affect public health and safety.
§2286.a(b)(3)
Systematically analyze design and operational data, including safety analysis reports.3
§2286.a(b)(4)
Review of facility design and construction for new DOE defense facilities.
§2286.a(b)(5)
Make recommendations to the Secretary of Energy, which the Secretary is not required to accept, but is required to answer.
Establish policies regarding the appointment and supervision of DNFSB employees.
Establish policies regarding the organization of any administrative units established by the Board.
Establish policies regarding the use and expenditure of funds.
Source: National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989.
3 This section states, The Board shall have access to and may systematically analyze design and operational data, including safety analysis reports, from any Department of Energy defense nuclear facility. This section was referenced with a footnote because it uses to the term may to describe Board action.
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 4
DNFSB Communication of Issues to DOE The Board and its staff routinely communicate with DOE and its contractors about various aspects of DOEs operations and oversight of the defense nuclear complex through formal and informal communications. Recommendations, reporting requirements, technical reports, and public meetings are considered more formal communications and occur less frequently, whereas staff-to-staff interactions are informal and happen more frequently.
In any given year DNFSB issues several formal correspondences via official letters to DOE. Generally, these letters (a) transmit a formal recommendation, (b) issue a reporting requirement, (c) provide a report to DOE, (d) advise DOE that DNFSB is conducting or has completed a safety review, (e) notify DOE that DNFSB has identified specific safety issues, and/or (f) identify concerns with the implementation of a previously issued recommendation. For example, on October 12, 2017, DNFSB provided DOE with a technical report that included an analysis of DOEs proposed strategies to address safety issues associated with flammable gas and criticality.
In the past 2 fiscal years (FY), the following were issued by the Board to DOE:
In 2016, 1 recommendation and 26 formal correspondences.
Analysis and Information Papers. Of these 26 formal correspondences, 13 included a staff request to issue a reporting requirement, and 8 were approved by the Board.
In 2017, 15 formal correspondences.4 Of these 15 formal correspondences, 5 included a staff request to issue a reporting requirement, and 2 were approved by the Board.
4 These 15 formal correspondences, include a draft recommendation on Emergency Preparedness at Los Alamos National Laboratory. On June 23, 2017 the Board decided not to transmit a final recommendation.
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 5
Power of DNFSB - Reporting Requirements Under its enabling statute, DNFSB may establish reporting requirements for DOE. Specifically, [T]he Board may establish reporting requirements for the Secretary of Energy which shall be binding upon the Secretary.
Reporting requirements require a response from the Secretary of Energy and can include requests for classified information.
Reporting requirements may accompany a report DNFSB staff have prepared on a safety issue or request a briefing from DOE. Or, could be a standalone request for information, initiated by a Board member, not accompanying a staff report. In May 2017, the staff proposed a formal letter that would require DOE to report to the Board supplemental actions planned to ensure safety oversight is not degraded at defense nuclear facilities prior to implementing a DOE Order. This reporting requirement was approved by the Board. In contrast, in July 2017, DNFSB staff proposed a Board correspondence that requested a briefing from DOE on practices at the Savannah River Site. This reporting requirement was not approved by the Board.
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 6
The audit objective was to review the role and structure of DNFSB to determine whether the Board is (1) operating in accordance with applicable laws and (2) whether the role and structure is effective to facilitate the agencys mission. Appendix A contains information on the audit scope and methodology.
OIG did not find any evidence that DNFSB is not operating in accordance with its enabling statute, the National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989, and any amendments thereto. However, OIG identified improvements DNFSB should make in order to more effectively accomplish its mission. Specifically, OIG noted a stark disagreement among Board members, on how and when reporting requirements should be issued, as illustrated by FY 2016 and FY 2017 notational voting records.
Additionally, OIG identified that multiple agency-wide surveys consistently demonstrate low employee morale and a lack of collegiality and/or cohesion among the Board members. While OIG did not identify any specific instances of DNFSBs mission being impacted by these two issues, they should be of concern to the Board. Low employee morale and the lack of Board collegiality are significant organizational challenges for DNFSB. Low employee morale leads to a challenging organizational culture, lack of cohesion, and possible hampered mission effectiveness.
Moreover, the Board sets the tone at the top for DNFSBs guiding values and principles. Whatever tone the Board members set has an effect on DNFSB employees.
II. OBJECTIVE III. FINDINGS
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 7
A. Lack of Agency Policy for Issuing Reporting Requirements DNFSBs enabling legislation allows it to establish reporting requirements, without considering administrative burden to DOE. However, Board members possess conflicting viewpoints on how and when reporting requirements should be issued as there is no internal policy identifying the circumstances that warrant issuance of a reporting requirement. Thus, when reporting requirements are not approved, there is no formal and transparent assurance DOE will provide the information sought to DNFSB.
Even if DNFSB staff then obtained the requested information through informal communication with DOE, the information would not be transparent to the public.5 DNFSB Enabling Legislation 42 U.S.C. § 2286.b(d) of DNFSBs enabling legislation grants the Board authority to establish reporting requirements for the Secretary of Energy.
Reporting requirements can include requests for classified information, safeguards information, and information protected from disclosure. Most importantly reporting requirements require a response from the Secretary of Energy. DNFSBs enabling legislation is silent regarding whether administrative burdens to DOE should be considered when issuing reporting requirements.
Notational Voting OIG analyzed notational voting records for FY 2016 and FY 2017, and identified a sharp decline in the Board approved reporting requirements from FY 2016 to FY 2017. In FY 2016, 13 reports with reporting requirements were put forth to the Board for review and approval, and 8 5 OIG acknowledges that there is no legal obligation for DNFSB to make public informal inter-agency communications or its internal deliberations. However, OIG notes that a reporting requirement issued by the Board, would be made public as would DOEs response thereto.
What Is Required What We Found
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 8
were approved. However, in FY 2017, 5 reports with reporting requirements were presented to the Board for review and approval, and only 2 were approved. Thus, 9 proposed reporting requirements (for the last 2 FYs) were disapproved by the Board that may have provided DNFSB with important insight on the adequacy of DOE actions at defense nuclear facilities.
Divisive Board Members Action on Issuing Reporting Requirements Currently, there is stark disagreement among Board members, on how and when reporting requirements should be issued. This is illustrated by the FY 2016 and FY 2017 notational voting records pertaining to reporting requirements. Two Board members routinely disapproved staff reports that included reporting requirements and instead proposed amendments to remove the reporting requirements. Board member comments that accompanied these notational votes indicated an unwillingness to issue reporting requirements. Specifically, one Board member repeatedly maintained the Board should practice a narrow interpretation of the enabling legislations reporting requirement authority, while the other Board member stated that reporting requirements are an undue administrative burden to DOE.
In contrast, two other Board members typically supported staff reports containing reporting requirements and did not agree with other Board members proposed amendments to remove them. The remaining Board member generally approved staff proposed reports with reporting requirements in FY 2016; however, in FY 2017, this Board member routinely abstained from voting on reporting requirements. Consequently, those staff proposed reports with reporting requirements were not approved by the Board.
No Internal Policy DNFSB has no internal policy that identifies the circumstances that warrant issuance of a reporting requirement. Currently, the only basis for issuance of reporting requirements is the enabling legislation, which is not specific, and has been interpreted differently among Board members.
Why This Occurred
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 9
Lack of Accountability and Transparency A reporting requirement creates a formal DOE commitment to provide DNFSB with information related to the adequate protection of public health and safety at DOE defense nuclear facilities, or any information that it deems necessary in fulfillment of its mission.6 In addition, a reporting requirement provides transparency to the public on the issue identified by DNFSB and DOEs commitment to provide a response. In contrast, an informal request to DOE for the same information, which could occur between DNFSB and DOE staff, does not hold the same level of accountability, because DOE is not required to formally respond.7 Recommendation OIG Recommends that DNFSB
- 1.
Develop and implement agency guidance for issuing reporting requirements.
B. Employee Morale is Low and the Board Does Not Demonstrate Collegiality It is the responsibility of agency management to demonstrate attitudes and behaviors that are expected of all agency employees. Employee surveys are an excellent tool for gaining insight and data that deserves attention by agency management. However, employee morale is low and the Board does not demonstrate collegiality. This is because the Board has not taken sufficient action to address issues identified through employee 6 OIG acknowledges that the Board can hold a public hearing to gain information it needs to accomplish its mission.
7 DNFSB staff routinely communicate with DOE at both headquarters and field offices. These exchanges could provide a means for gathering the information requested by a reporting requirement that was not approved by the Board. OIG acknowledges that there is no legal obligation for DNFSB to make public informal inter-agency communications or its internal deliberations.
Why This Is Important
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 10 surveys. As a result, DNFSBs culture can impact its ability to attract and retain highly qualified staff.
Agency Management Leads By Example The Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book), published by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO-14-704G, states, The oversight body and management8 lead by example that demonstrates the organizations values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and through the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system.
Thus, agency management has the responsibility to demonstrate attitudes and behaviors that are expected of all agency employees. Management should reinforce the commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance to comply with applicable laws and regulations, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders.
Additionally, employee surveys are an excellent vehicle for gaining insight and data that deserve attention by agency management. Agency management should be committed to listening to and, most importantly, acting on what employees are saying through surveys.
8 The Green Book defines management as Personnel who are directly responsible for all activities of an entity, including the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entitys internal control system.
What Is Required
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 11 Survey Data Indicates Low Employee Morale and Lack of Collegiality Multiple surveys conducted by various entities, one of which was retained by DNFSB management, consistently indicate (1) low employee morale and (2) a lack of collegiality among Board members.
- 1. Employee Morale is Low Employee morale at DNFSB is low and has been for the past several years. Survey data from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) for FYs 2014 - 2017 demonstrates that employee morale has been low and diminished further in the last year. Specifically, FEVS questions 40, 69, and 71 demonstrate how DNFSB employees feel about their organization and job.
Figure 2: Employee Responses to FEVS Question 40 Source: OIG Analysis of FEVS Results.
33.03 46.14 52.66 34.73 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 2014 2015 2016 2017 Percent Positive Year Question 40. I recommend my organization as a good place to work.
What We Found
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 12 Figure 3: Employee Responses to FEVS Question 69 Source: OIG Analysis of FEVS Results.
Figure 4: Employee Responses to FEVS Question 71 Source: OIG Analysis of FEVS Results.
Additionally, in the spring of 2015, OIG hired an independent contractor, Towers Watson, to conduct a survey to evaluate the culture and climate of DNFSB and to facilitate identification of its strengths and opportunities for 42.26 56.91 62.88 53.88 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2014 2015 2016 2017 Percent Positive Year Question 69. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
29.84 43.96 48.35 31.52 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 2014 2015 2016 2017 Percent Positive Year Question 71. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 13 improvement.9 As part of its work, Towers Watson prepared a report (Towers Watson Report) of key findings and identified that morale is low.
Interviews with Board members and agency employees, support that employee morale continues to be low and that Board collegiality remains an issue for DNFSB.
- 2. Lack of Board Collegiality Reports generated from survey data identified a lack of collegiality among Board members as an organizational challenge for DNFSB.
In December 2014, the Logistics Management Institute (LMI), contracted by DNFSB management, published an Assessment of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Workforce and Culture, (LMI Report).
Specifically, LMI was tasked to independently assess DNFSBs workforce, with emphasis on the relationships between management~leadership and employees and the culture of the workplace. The LMI Report conveys the results of the assessment.
The LMI Report made recommendations that address the underlying causes and impacts of the agencys organizational challenges. Interviews with Board members and agency employees, support that employee morale continues to be low and that Board collegiality remains an issue for DNFSB. One of the recommendations addresses the lack of cohesion and collegiality of the Board members:
Recommendation 2: Improve the cohesion of board members and increase the boards capacity to act as a unified body. Personnel perceptions of the boards lack of cohesion and collegiality are contributing to and exacerbating organizational instability.
Additionally, the Towers Watson Report indicates an issue with Board collegiality stating, There are opposing views amongst members of the Board, creating a disjointed leadership team. There is also a belief that the Board and staff relationship is not as professional as it should be. There is 9 The full report name is DNFSB 2015 Culture and Climate Survey Executive Overview and Key Findings and it is located at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1524/ML15245A515.pdf.
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 14 concern that some Board members are over-stepping their role and trying to control more than is allowable.
Finally, the Partnership for Public Service annually publishes The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government, which is drawn from the FEVS results, and ranks the agencies based on the results. The Best Places to Work offers an assessment of how Federal public servants view their jobs and workplace, providing employee perspectives on leadership, pay, innovation, work-life balance, and other issues.
Over the last 2 FYs, DNFSB has ranked low, compared with other small agencies.10 In 2016, DNFSB posted an index score of 53.6. In 2017, DNFSBs index score dropped to 38.6, ranking it last in the small agency category.
The Board Has Not Taken Sufficient Action To Adequately Address Low Employee Morale and Lack of Collegiality The aforementioned issues are longstanding because the Board has not taken sufficient action to adequately and directly address these issues.
Specifically, the Board has not, to date, addressed (a) the recommendations in the LMI Report; (b) the 2014 - 2017 FEVS results, or (c) the findings of the Towers Watson Report. Interviews with Board members and agency employees, support that employee morale continues to be low and that Board collegiality remains an issue for DNFSB.
10 Agencies are categorized based upon their size. Agencies with more than 100 and fewer than 1,000 employees are included in the small agency category.
Why This Occurred
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 15 Organizational Culture Challenges and Potential Inability to Attract and Retain Highly Qualified Candidates Low employee morale and the lack of Board collegiality are significant organizational challenges for DNFSB. Low employee morale leads to a challenging organizational culture, lack of cohesion, and possible hampered mission effectiveness. Moreover, low employee morale leads to employee disengagement, which is costly to an organization, as disengaged employees have higher absenteeism and lower productivity.
Additionally, there is the potential inability for DNFSB to attract and retain highly qualified candidates, based upon its agency ranking in the Best Places to Work, as compared with other Federal agencies. Specifically, the DNFSB Partnership for Public Service 2017 ranking - number 28 out of 28 small agencies - could deter qualified and talented applicants from seeking a position with DNFSB. It also presents DNFSB with the challenge of retaining highly qualified staff.
Lastly, the tone at the top sets an organizations guiding values and principles. If properly implemented, it is the foundation upon which the culture of an organization is built. Whatever tone the Board members set has an effect on DNFSB employees.
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
On March 26, 2018, DNFSB contracted with NAPA to provide an organizational assessment of its operations. The assessment will consider the current state of DNFSB and assess opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Areas for evaluation and potential recommendations include DNFSBs focus, execution of its statutory mission, organizational alignment of human capital, and agency culture.
Why This Is Important
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 16 Recommendation OIG Recommends that DNFSB
- 2. Develop and implement a plan of action to address the issues of (1) low employee morale and (2) Board collegiality as documented in the FEVS Surveys, LMI report, and Towers Watson Report.
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 17 OIG recommends that DNFSB
- 1.
Develop and implement agency guidance for issuing reporting requirements.
- 2.
Develop and implement a plan of action to address the issues of (1) low employee morale and (2) Board collegiality as documented in the FEVS Surveys, LMI report, and Towers Watson Report.
IV. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 18 On March 5 2018, OIG provided DNFSB with a discussion draft of this report prior to the exit conference which was held on March 26, 2018.
Board members and agency management provided supplemental information via informal written and verbal comments that have been incorporated into this report, as appropriate.
On May 15, 2018, the Board provided formal comments to the draft report that indicated general agreement with the findings and recommendations.
Appendix B contains a copy of DNFSBs formal comments. Appendix C contains OIG analysis of DNFSBs formal comments.
V. DNFSB COMMENTS
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 19 Appendix A Objective The audit objective was to review the role and structure of DNFSB to determine whether the Board is (1) operating in accordance with applicable laws and (2) whether the role and structure is effective to facilitate the agencys mission.
Scope The audit focused on DNFSBs implementation of its governing legislation.
OIG conducted this performance audit from June 2017 to December 2017 at DNFSB headquarters in Washington, DC. Internal controls related to the audit objectives were reviewed and analyzed.
Methodology To accomplish the audit objective, OIG reviewed relevant Federal laws, regulations, reports, and guidance including Enabling Statute of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 42 United States Code, 2286 et seq.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013, Stat. 1632, Public Law 112-2239 National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016, Legislative text and Joint Explanatory Statement. Stat. 1356, Public Law 114-192 OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 20 Improving the Identification and Resolution of Safety Issues During the Design and Construction of DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities, A Report Prepared Jointly by DNFSB and DOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board: The First Twenty Years DNFSB Strategic Plan FYs 2014 - 2018 Additionally, OIG reviewed and analyzed the following surveys, reports, and rankings:
DNFSB 2015 Culture and Climate Survey Executive Overview of Key Findings (August 2015) (Towers Watson Report)
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results for 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 Assessment of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Workforce and Culture (December 2014) (LMI Report)
Best Places to Work in the Federal Government, agency rankings, published by the Partnership for Public Service OIG performed an analysis of the Boards notational votes for FYs 2015-2017 on staff proposed reports with reporting requirements.
To gain an understanding of the role, responsibilities, and structure of the agency, auditors interviewed the Board members and staff from the Office of the Technical Director, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of the General Manager.
Throughout the audit, auditors considered the possibility of fraud, waste, and abuse in the program.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 21 reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
The audit was conducted by Beth Serepca, Team Leader; Kristen Lipuma, Audit Manager; Felicia Silver, Senior Auditor; Chanel Stridiron, Auditor; and Magdala Boyer, Management Analyst.
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 22 Appendix B DNFSB FORMAL COMMENTS
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 23 Appendix B DNFSB FORMAL COMMENTS
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 24 Appendix B DNFSB FORMAL COMMENTS
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 25 Appendix C DNFSB provided formal comments, which are included in Appendix B DNFSB Formal Comments of this report, which generally agree with the audit findings and recommendations. OIG feels that the comments in Appendix B are responsive to the audit recommendations.
OIG ANALYSIS OF DNFSB FORMAL COMMENTS
Audit of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards Implementation of Its Governing Legislation 26 Please
Contact:
Email:
Online Form Telephone:
1-800-233-3497 TTY/TDD:
7-1-1, or 1-800-201-7165 Address:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Inspector General Hotline Program Mail Stop O5-E13 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 If you wish to provide comments on this report, please email OIG using this link.
In addition, if you have suggestions for future OIG audits, please provide them using this link.
TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, OR ABUSE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS