ML20138D189
| ML20138D189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1997 |
| From: | Howard V, Johnson T TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138D152 | List: |
| References | |
| 97-901S, NUDOCS 9705010057 | |
| Download: ML20138D189 (19) | |
Text
_
IUS Officeof thelnspectorGeneral SPECIAL PROJECT REPORT To the President, TVA Nuclear, and Chief Nuclear Officer f
CONCERNS RESOLUTION PROGRAM-SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT
{
PrincioalContributors Audit 97-901S Verdis N. Howard February 1997 Thomas B. Johnson
~
!!85188!!!?888327 P
Office of the Inspector General Soecial Project l
l l
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXEC UTIVE S U M MARY...................................... 1 f
l i
OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY..... 2 R EVI EW R E S U LTS.............................................. 2 l
Review of Closed CRS and ECP Files............... 2 1
Survey Interviews With 307 Respondents.......... 3 i
i Information Given in Addition to the Standardized o
l Re s p o n s e s......................................................... 6 l
Actions Taken in Response to Our Previous l
Review...............................................................7 Ad d itio n al I nfo rm a tio n......................................... 7 l
4 i
I Project No.97-901S l
I.
l Office of the insoector General Soecial Project i
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
l In 1986, TVA committed to the Nuclear Regulatpry Commission (NRC) that this office would periodically review TVA's Concerns Resolution Program. Since then we have l
conducted annual reviews of the program. For the past l
three years, we used a standardized suntey approach which enables us to compare and trend survey results.
In December 1996, we performed an extensive review of the l
Concerns Resolution Program at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant l
(SON). We interviewed 307 SON employees (about one-fifth of the work force) and reviewed 26 program files..
Our statistical survey was designed to provide 98 percent confidence that the survey results would be within 6 percent of the total population results.
The results of the 1996 survey were consistent with results from our last two surveys. In general, SON employees and l
contractors felt free to raise nuclear safety concerns to their supervisors and management, and the overwhelming majority know about and would use the Concerns Resolution j
l Staff (CRS) or the contractor Employee Concern Programs (ECP),if needed. Additionally, we found that CRS and ECP generally followed procedures in addressing concerns. This i
collective evidence indicates the Concerns Resolution l
Program is operating effectively at SON.
The survey results deviated somewhat from last year's survey, not in the answers to the standardized questions, but, rather, in the additional information respondents l
volunteered which explained or expanded their answers.
The difference was in comments related to " downsizing".
About 12 percent of the employees gave comments related to downsizing (there were none last year). These respondents linked downsizing to matters such as employee morale, contractors replacing employees, reduced emphasis on plant quality, and opportunities for management to j
remove from employment those who express differing staff views.
As a result of these comments, we plan to perform follow-up assessments at SON. We intend to look more closely at organizations where more than one employee implied or Project No.97-901S Page 1
l I
i Office of the insoector General Special Project suggested possible management misconduct relative to l
expression of staff views. We also plan to review recent j
adverse personnel actions at SON to determine if those l
actions could have had an effect on willingness to report differing staff views.
t i
OBJECTIVE. SCOPE. AND METHODOLOGY i
Our primary objective was to determine whether the program has effectively been accomplishing its intended mission.
Program effectiveness, in general, may be measured by the extent (1) TVA employees and contractors feel secure in raising questions about nuclear safety at TVA installations and (2) the program resolves nuclear safety issues when l
they are raised outside of line management.
We reviewed the program by (1) examining all CRS and ECP files closed since our last review (November.1995),
(2) conducting 307 face-to-face interviews with randomly selected site employees and contractors, and (3) reviewing i
CRS and ECP actions taken in response to our previous review.
l l
REVIEW RESULTS l
Review of Closed CRS and ECP Files l
We reviewed 14 CRS files for evidence of handling l
consistent with program requirements, in each file, we l
identified: (1) the issue at hand; (2) steps taken to address the issue; (3) steps taken to refer the issue, when needed; and (4) steps taken to reply to the concerned individual, when appropriate. There were six files addressing nuclear safety or quality concerns, three addressing personnel matters, two addressing intimidation or harassment, and three tracking Department of Labor filings alleging employment practices in violation of the Energy l
Reorganization Act, Section 211.
We also reviewed 12 ECP files. There were three files addressing nuclear safety or quality concerns, four addressing personnel matters, and five addressing industrial Project No.97-901S Page 2 l
Office of the Insnector Generl Snecirl Project safety concerns. Our review concluded that CRS and ECP generally followed procedures in addressing concerns.
1 Survey Interviews With 307 Respondents In November 1996, we contracted with The University of Tennessee Statistics Consulting Center to review and comment on our survey program and methodology. Their report stated, "In summary, it is clear that much hard work l
and careful thought has gone into the design and execution of this study. With one possible exception, the questions are well written and unbiased." They also pointed out that our sample size calculations were correct but conservative. To l
address their suggestions, we adjusted the wording of the question identified and reduced the sample size.
During December 1996, we interviewed about 20 percent of the personnel assigned to SON. This sample size allows us to project our results to the entire SON workforce, generally, l
with a 98 percent confidence level and a margin of error of
+/- 5 percent. We also asked each interviewee to complete an anonymous feedback form, thus giving another opportunity to provide additional information about the program or any other issues of concern to them. We conducted similar surveys at SON during November 1995 and May 1994, as did the NRC in August 1993.
During November 1996, we also interviewed 256 workers of TVA Nuclear (TVAN)in a separate survey. This survey, designed with a 95 percent confidence level and a margin of error of +/- 5 percent, sampled workers from four TVA nuclear plants, including SON, and other TVAN sites. The data from our TVAN survey will be addressed in a separate report; however, summaries are included for comparison with the SON survey on page 18.
i Our SON survey results, along with comparisons to previous l
SON surveys, are presanted in the charts beginning on l
page 8. The results of our 1996 survey were consistent with our 1995 and 1994 surveys, with the following exceptions:
(1) Employee opinions that " site problems are being resolved well" decreased by 9 percent and (2) employee opinions that "CRS is ineffective" increased 3 percent.
Project No.97-901S Page 3 l
Office of the Inspector General Soecial Project These changes may be. attributable to changes in the site environment. For example, when we interviewed in November 1995, the site had just completed a successful outage; and when we interviewed in December 1996, the site had recently undergone a significant reduction in force.
Furthermore, it was well understood during the 1996 survey at the site that more reductions were coming.
Based on our survey interviews, the overwhelming i
majority of employees and contractors felt free to report nuclear safety or quality problems at SQN. Specifically, l
only 5 individuals out of 307 employees and contractors (1.6 percent) interviewed at SON said they might hesitate to report a problem, if they knew of one, through some avenue. However, four of the five, when asked, said they l
would report a problem to their immediate supervisor.
l Furthermore, only 3 of the 307 (1.0 percent) said they might hesitate to report a problem to their immediate supervisor, j
though two of them said they would use other avenues. The employee's and the contractor's immediate supervisor was 4
the first choice for reporting concerns for 93 percent and 87 percent, respectively.
Of the employees interviewed,98 said they had reported a problem to their supervisor, and only 2 of them (2 percent) said they would not report again under similar circumstances.
Of the contractors interviewed,14 said they had reported l
a problem to their supervisor, and only 1 of them (7 percent) said they would not report again under similar l
circumstances.
The majority of employees and contractors surveyed i
said they would go to CRS or ECP,if needed.
Ninety-nine percent of employees interviewed said they
(
knew about CRS, and 93 percent of those said they would j
bring an issue to CRS, if needed. Fifteen respondents said they might not use CRS. Nine respondents cited negative reasons for not using CRS-one cited fear of expressing staff views, three expressed concerns about confidentiality, and five expressed concerns about CRS effectiveness. Four respondents said they would report concerns through other avenues.
Project No.97-901S Page 4
l Office of the insoector Generml Soecial Project l
One hundred percent of the contract employees surveyed knew about ECP, and 96 percent of those said they would report an issue to ECP, if needed. Three respondents said they might not use ECP-one expressed concem about ECP effectiveness and the other two said they would report concerns through other avenues.
We also found that for the contractors,96 percent knew about CRS, and 96 percent of those would use this i
organization for reporting concerns,if needed. Three l
respondents said they might not use CRS-two expressed concerns about CRS effectiveness and the other one would report concerns through other avenues.
i The majority of employees and contractors surveyed said they felt free to raise intimidation and harassment (l&H) issues with CRS or ECP. Eighty-nine percent of the l
TVA employees surveyed said they felt free to raise an I&H issue with CRS, while 6 percent indicated they might not and cited a negative reason. Of those citing reasons,13
)
mentioned fear of expressing staff views,1 mentioned l
concern about CRS effectiveness in addressing the issues, j
l and 2 said they would report issues elsewhere.
l Ninety-four percent of the contractors surveyed said they felt free to raise an I&H issue with ECP, while 5 percent said they might not and cited a negative reason. Of those citing reasons, three mentioned fear of expressing staff views and J
one was concerned about personnel matters.
l The majority of employees and contractors surveyed i
appeared to have a general understanding of the purpose of CRS or ECP. in addition, most employees who had a basis for an opinion indicated their program's staff was effective. Of the TVA employees surveyed, 51 percent of the responses indicated the primary purpose l
of the CRS is "an additional or alternate path to management," while another 14 percent indicated the primary purpose of the CRS is to " investigate or record nuclear safety concerns." Six percent of the employees characterized the CRS as ineffective. The 6 percent result is a 3 percent increase from our last survey, a difference within the limits of sampling deviation, but also a difference to be noted. We believe this difference could be related to changes in site environment, as noted above.
Project No.97-901S PageS I
_ _... _. _ ~ _. _. _.. _ _ _ - ~ _ _
i Office of the inspector General SDecial Project Of the contractors surveyed,22 percent of the responses I
indicated the primary purpose of the ECP is "an additional or alternate path to management," while another 23 percent indicated the primary purpose of the ECP is to " investigate or record nuclear safety concems." Only 1 percent of the contractors characterized the ECP as ineffective in its roles.
With respect to how well the respondents thought nuclear l
safety or quality problems are being resolved at SON, 84 percent of the employees and 94 percent of the contractors who had an opinion thought the problems were being resolved well or very well. Our 1995 survey results indicated 93 percent of the TVA employees thought problems were being resolved well or very well. _We believe the decline in positive responses may be attributable to changes in site environment, as noted above.
Information Given in Addition to the Standardized Responses During the course of our interviews, we recorded 127 additional substantive comments from 95 respondents about theirjob at SON. These comments were volunteered by respondents to explain their responses or to remark on additionalissues. Of the 307 interviewees,16 percent commented on management matters other than downsizing, 12 percent commented on downsizing,4 percent commented on positive' aspects of SON, and 2 percent commented on budget concerns.
With the exception of comrnents related to downsizing, the comments about management were consistent in quantity and subject matter with those received in last year's survey.
L The comments on downsizing were new this year. (There were no comments specifically mentioning downsizing in last year's survey.) Comments about downsizing were linked to such matters as employee morale, contractors replacing employees, reduced emphasis on plant quality, and opportunities for management to remove from employment those who express differing staff views.
We believe the comments merit additional attention, j
We recognize that a downsizing environment may have Project No.97-901S Page 6
Office of the Inspector General Specimi Project
~
a negative impact on the confidence and trust of the workforce. But, it is also essential that everyone working at SON know that differing staff views may be raised without career repercussions, even during declining employment.
Consequently, we plan to perform follow-up assessments at SON. We intend to look more closely at organizations where more than one employee implied or suggested l
possible management misconduct relative to expression of j
staff views. We also plan to review recent adverse
)
personnel actions at SON to determine if those actions could l
have had an effect on willingness to report differing staff views.
l l
Actions Taken in Response to Our Previous Review i
In our previous review, we noted that filing improvements were needed for Bechtel's ECP files. In the 1996 review, 1
we found that Bechtel had implemented our prior year recommendations.
l Additional Information l
We received 307 anonymous survey feedback sheets. The i
feedback was very positive. Of the 65 anonymous written comments,6 were about the plant or the program, and we forwarded these to SON management. The remainder l
commented on the interview or interviewer, t
l We provided information pertaining to an allegation of l
inappropriate contractual relationships to OlG Investigations who had previously received similar information on the issue. We also forwarded three concerns with nuclear safety or quality implications to the CRS.
l l
Project No.97-901S Page 7
1996 SQN Concerns Resolution Survey TVA Employees who would report nuclear safety concerns to management.
NO l
0.9%
i l
1 i,
l l
YE 99.1 %
i l
N = 221 Interviewees
}
j Previous SON Surveys i
i 1995 TVA Survey l
1994 TVA Survey i
NO 1%
1993 NRC Survey
{
l NO j,
NO 1%
i i
i' YES i
99 %
YES N = 278 Interviewees 99 %
t YES
,1 N = 235 Interviewees 98%
N = 129 Interviewees i
l 8
1 I
s
,I 1996 SQN Concerns Resolution Survey i
i TVA Employees who would report nuclear safety concerns to CRS.
l l
NO l
7%
i i
I f
l l
i YES I
93 %
N = 219 Interviewees t
i Previous SQN Surveys l
1995 TVA Survey 1994 TVA Survey N$
1993 NRC Survey G G*
no
?e i
NO 5%
I l
YES l
92 %
YES i
N = 277 Interviewees I
YES N = 232 Interviewees es%
N = 129 Interviewees 9
1 3
e*---4
wn w-w
-es, a
rg-.--a
.,-1 y--,-
- i--
-cm--.
i j
1996 SON Concerns Resolution Survey l
To whom would TVA Employees report a nuclear safety concern?
i AllOthers 7%
i First Choice immediate l
Supervisor i
93 %
l l
N = 217 Interviewees 1
i I
Avenues For Reporting a Concern Top Three Choices i
208 200 --
' Econe or Third 1
i 157 choice of eachTl
)
{
' respondent i
150 --
Yl i
1 100__
87 j
57 3
39 i
t 50 --
25 10 4
j i
i i
i i
i"i 1
0 tmm Spyr Site Other CRS NRC Corr OlG Spyr Mgmt Mgmt Act i
10
}
N = 217 Interviewees
1996 SON Concerns Resolution Survey TVA Contractors who would report nuclear safety concerns to management.
NO 1.2%
YE 98.8 %
i i
N = 86 Interviewees 8
Previous SON Surveys 1995 TVA Survey 1994 TVA Survey 9NO 1993 NRC Survey 100 %
N = 65 Interviewees us N = 97 Interviewees N = 92 Interviewees 11
I 1996 SQN Concerns Resolution Survey TVA Contractore who would report nuclear safety concerns to ECP.
I NO 4%
YES 96 %
N = 68 Interviewees Previous SQN Surveys 1995 TVA Survey 1994 TVA Survey
,7,
1993 NRC Survey-
["
~
N = 92 Interviewees 12
)
/
l 1996 SON Concarns Resolution Survey i
l To whom would TVA Contractors report a nuclear safety concern?
i All Others 13%
i l
j First Choice i
l i
immediate I
Supervisor 87 %
i l
N = 85 Interviewees i
l I
Avenues For Reporting a Concern Top Three Choices 80 __75 60 -
cnoice or..cn 39
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - (( ;
- respondent Y) 40 --
34 i
27 1
i 20 1
i i
i i
l l
l 1
Imm Spy r Site ECP CRS Other NRC OlG 1
Spyr Mgmt Mgmt i
i 13 N = 85 Interviewees b<
j 1996 SQN Concerns Resolution Survey The majority of TVA Employees understand the role of CRS.
i PURPOSE OF PROGRAM i
j A d ditio n.l o r A n.,n.t. P.th 133 i.M,..
j in... un..... wo. i..,
36
.... i y C.,.., n.
l
,,........n.r..,T.
23
......,e.n..,n.
C.t.n C o n.., n... f.. T n. y 19 4
......,,..i...
n.n dl. M g m tJP. r..n n.1 1
11 A n ein.,.
41 f
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 j
N = 263 Responses i
I l
The majority of TVA Contractor employees understand the role of ECP.
I PURPOSE OF PROGRAM i
j A d diti.fi.I., A n.,n.t. P.t h g
- 7. M g t.
I in v.. I.s R..., d Nd. i..,
23 j
...,e.n...
P,. v,d.
.f.
- n...., T.
8 A. g s.t., C o n.. r n.
C.t.h C o n s. r n... f.. T h. y 13 I
n.n.i. M. or....nn.o 4
i.....
a.,.,
ini.......n.n.
3 n.,,.....n.
Anoin..
25 j
0 10 20 30 40 l
14 N = 98 Responses a
TVA Employees' perception of CRS effectiveness.
1996 SQN Survey 1995 SON Survey Ef'ectve Effective 40%
44 %
NO NO Not Opinion Not Opinion Effective Or Basis Effective Or Basis 54 %
3%
o3%
6%
N = 194 Interviewees N = 271 Interviewees f
>we.aw+-emp A.
,%e e.e yes o.
4 eee,w e
,e
%.m,.,:4mee.e.+we, TVA Contractors' perception of ECP effectiveness.
1996 SON Survey 1995 SON Survey Effectve i
e e
o Ef' y Or is 2',6 1a 57 %
N = 70 Interviewees N = 61 interviewees 15
-...~
l TVA Employoos/ Contractors who fool free to report Intimidation & Harassment issues to CRS/ECP.
l l
5 Employees to CRS E Contractors to ECP 94%
l 100% --
89 %
l Employees = 219 l
80% --
Contractors = 83 l
60% --
l Those Who Feel Those Who Would Not 40% --
Free to Report I&H Report For a Negative l
Reason l
20% --
6%
5%
0%
l l
l 1996 SQN Concerns Resolution Survey i
i 95 %
l 100% --
86 %
Employees = 276 80% --
l 60% --
Those Who Would Not i
40% --
Those Who Feel Report For a Negative Free to Report l&H Reason 20% --
7%
3%
l 0%
I i
j 1995 SQN Ooncerns Resolution Survey l
94 %
100 %
88 %
Employees = 231 80% --
Contractors = 96 l
60% --
Those Who Would Not 40% --
Those Who Feel Free to Report I&H Report For a Negative 20% --
3%
5%
0% -
i4 i
1994 SON Concerns Resolution Survey i
l 16 i
i
According to TVA Employecs and Contractors, how well aro probisms bcing rcsolvad?
1996 SON Concerns Resolution Survey
" 120 103 l 120 --
100 --
[ 100 --
80 --
g 80 --
60 --
8 60 --
42 k 40 --
24 5 40 -- je
} 2r
- nus, i
j
- m : E i - -- i 2
2 o
i i
i Very Well Fair Poor Very Very Well Fair Poor Very Well Poorly Well Poorly N = 184 Interviewees N = 65 Interviewees 1
35 of the respondents indicated they did not have enough 21 of the respondents indicated they did not have enough experience with the program to formulate an opinion.
experience with the program to formulate an opinion.
1995 SON Concerns Resolution Survey 121
" 120 - 105 8 120 -
100 --
{ 100 --
80 --
g 80 -
m 60 --
2 60 --
k 40 --
5 40 -- 22 30 f 20 --
2 1
20 -
2 0
0 g
0 I
I O
I I
w i
o Very Well Fair Poor Very Very Well Fair Poor Very Well Poorly Well Poorly N = 243 Interviewees N = 54 Interviewees 35 of the respondents indicated they did not have enough 11 of the respondents indicated they did not have enough experience with the program to formulate an opinion.
experience with the program to formulate an opinion.
17
)
i
\\
TVA Conctrns R:sciutien Program Survsy - 1996 1996 Concoms Reentbe $urvey., Employeset 221 278 235 203 569 904 1996 SON. t995 SON t 994 SON 1996 TVAN 1995 Total 1994 Tota:
ceneresseret u
ni E
u 141 na i
' Tessit 307 343 332 268 1110 1760 Wouso recort vis sorne avenue. employeet 98 2 %
100 %
99.1 %
97 5**
1009.
99%
WoWd recon ve eorme aves,e contractort 98 8 %
100 %
90 0*.
t 00*h 100*.
996*.
Empioyees tnat wouc report to supervisor-99.1 %
98.9 %
99.1 %
99.$t.
99.5*.
994 Contractors that would tocort to sucevso-98 et.
100 %
100 %
100 %
99 8 %
99%
Supevoor as frst cnoece, employees:
93*,.
94 %
89%
92*.
93%
Oct.
Sucemsor as first cho co. cont ac*orr 87%
88*.
93%
83t.
93 %
91 %
Supervisor responssve. employees-95%
93*.
88*.
97t.
94t.
91%
Wowc report to supv. agasi. empiovees-98 %
10C*.
97*.
99%
99 %
97*.
Supemsor responswe, contractzs.-
92*.
100*v 96 %
92*.
93t.
85*b Wouirf reoort to suev again cotactors.
92*.
100 %
100 %
85t.
96 %
959 Emosoyees snowine accut C Ali:
99%
99%
99*.
99%
99%
98 %
Contractors knowing acout ECP:
100t.
96*.
97t.
100*.
99*.
96t.
Contra: tors knoweg aoout C AS-96 %
95 %
95t.
100%
92*.
90 %
Empeoyees that wouto report to C AS:
93 %
92 %
91 %
93 %
95 %
92%
Contractors tnat would report to ECP:
96ts 94%
97%
96*.
95%
9t*h Contractors tnat woud recort to C A9 96 %
9 7*'.
96*.
96*e 96*b Det.
Employees teenne free to repart t&M to C AS:
8 9*.
06%
88%
91 t.
90 %
85%
- would riot reDort for negat'Ve featort 6%
7%
3%
7t.
6%
6*4 Contractors feehne free to report t&H to ECP:
94 %
95%
94*h 94 %
95*.
90 %
- would rot cecort for eegatwo reasom 5 *.
St.
5%
4%
2%
7%
C AS wvMeetwo. empioyees.
6%
3%
4%
6 *.
3t.
4t.
ECA me9e two contractors 1%
2t.
3%
2%
3%
6%
Sde resovmg proDrems won, empioyees 84*.
93t.
80**
86%
90 %
86 %
SRe rescheng oreo>eme wet cont actys-94*.
D6t.
90 %
96 %
919 8 7*.
immeo. Supv Top In se, empicyees-96 %
96 %
95*.
96 %
95 %
95%
lmmet Suev 700 three. contractors:
88%
88%
94%
8 5*.
95 %
94 %
- nt-a y purpose attemate patn, erPpicyees 5 t t.
49%
39%
48 %
43*.
40t.
Pnma'y purpose-rucaer sa'ety, emo oyees' 14?.
25 %
15 %
15%
26%
17%
Anrea'y putscse-a'te nate patn, contractors-22*b 29%
18%
24t.
20*.
23*.
Armary puroese nuclear safety. contra: tors:
23*.
38 %
28*.
22*.
38%
319 C AS (Empioyee1 Fass Aev'owest 14 15 17 82 103 110 ECD Contractort Nos Reviewet 12 21 13 33 117 95 Wousa report unro6sted concem, empeyees 90 %
95 %
97%
Would reeoft unrelated concem cont' actors' 90 %
97%
96 %
Feef t'ee to express unpopuur vow, empoyees:
83%
79%
78 %
Feel free to express unpopular view. contractors:
90 %
91%
89%
18
_