ML20138D233

Special Project Rept Audit 97-920S, Concerns Resolution Program-TVA Nuclear, Feb 1997

ML20138D233
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	02/28/1997
From:	Howard V, Johnson T TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20138D152	List: ML20138D148 ML20138D189 ML20138D199 ML20138D233
References
97-920S, NUDOCS 9705010069
Download: ML20138D233 (21)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _

IUA Officeof thelnspectorGeneral SPECIAL PROJECT REPORT To the President, TVA Nuclear, and Chief Nuclear Officer CONCERNS RESOLUTION j PROGRAM -

TVA NUCLEAR

)

PrincioalContributors Audit 97-920S Verdis N. Howard February 1997 Thomas B. Johnson

pomme,

Office of the Inspector General Specimi Project TABLE OF CONTENTS EXEC UTIVE S U M M ARY .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . 1 OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY.....1 R EVI EW R E S U LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Review of Closed CRS and ECP Files ............... 2 Survey Interviews With 256 Respondents.......... 3 Information Given in Addition to the Standardized Re s po n s e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Additional Information ........ ........................... ...... 6 Project No.97-920S

.. - ._ ~= .. .

I l

Office of the Insnector Geneml Special Project

! EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

l In 1986, TVA committed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that this office would periodically review TVA's Concems Resolution Program. Since then we have

conducted annus' reviews of the program. For the past three years, we useu c standardized survey approach which enables us to compare aed trend survey results.

In November and December 1996, we performed an extensive review of the Concems Resolution Program at TVA Nuclear (TVAN) sites. We surveyed TVA employees and contractors at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN),

i and Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SON). We also interviewed corporate TVAN employees located at Chattanooga and Muscle Shoals. In total, we interviewed 256 people for this survey. Our statistical survey was designed to provide 95 percent confidence that the survey results would be l within 5 percent of the total population results. In addition,  !

l we conducted a separate survey at SON to address recently expressed NRC interests.

The results of the 1996 survey were consistent with results from our last two surveys. In general, TVAN employees and  ;

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

' Staff (CRS) or the contractor Employee Concem Programs (ECP), if needed. Additionally, we found that CRS and ECP generally followed procedures in addressing concems. This collective evidence indicates the Concerns Resolution Program is operating effectively at TVAN.

! Further, on matters unrelated to nuclear safety and quality, i

employees at SON and Chattanooga did not feel as free to express unpopular views. We are addressing issues at these locations with follow-up assessments.

OBJECTIVE. SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY Our primary objective was to determine whether the program has effectively been accomplishing its intended mission.

l Project No.97-920S Page 1

- - _ . . - _ - . , - - - ~ .

Office of the insoector General Soccial Project 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 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) and (2) conducting 256 face-to-face interviews with randomly selected employees and contractors.

REVIEW RESULTS Review of Closed CRS and ECP Files We reviewed 82 CRS files for evidence of handling consistent with program requirements. In each file we 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 44 files addressing nuclear

safety or quality concerns,12 addressing personnel matters, l l

9 addressing intimidation or harassment,4 addressing )

industrial safety issues, and 13 tracking Department of Labor filings alleging employment practices in violation of the

Energy Reorganization Act, Section 211.

l We found one file where the concerned individual had not received adequate feedback at the completion of the l investigation. In that instance, the CRS referred the matter l to TVA's OlG for investigation since the allegation was l l

based on sexual harassment. The CRS is addressing this programmatic deficiency. Other than this, our review concluded that the CRS generally followed procedures in addressing concems.

We also reviewed 33 ECP files. There were 16 files i addressing nuclear safety or quality concerns,8 addressing l personnel matters,2 addressing intimidation or harassment, and 7 addressing industrial safety concems. Our review l

concluded that the ECP generally followed procedures in

, addressing concerns.

l Project No.97-920S Page 2 l

Office of the laspector General Soecial Project l

Survey Interviews With 256 Respondents l In November 1996, we contracted with The University of Tennessee Statistics Consulting Center to review and i comment on our survey program and methodology. Their l report stated, "In summary, it is clear that much hs.rd work l and careful thought has gone into the design and execution

, of this study. With one possible exception, th e questions are well written and unbiased." They also pointed out that our sample size calculations were correct but conservative. To address their suggestions, we adjusted the wording of the 7 question identified and reduced the sample size.

During November arid December 1996, we interviewed '

about 5 percent of the personnel assigned to TVAN facilities.

This sample size allows us to project our results to the entire l TVAN workforce, generally, with a 95 percent confidence 1 l level and a margin of error of +/- 5 percent. We also asked l each interviewee to complete an anonymous feedback form, thus giving another opportunity to provide additional information about the program or any other issues of concem to them. We conducted similar surveys at TVAN locations during 1995 and 1994, as did the NRC in 1993.

During December 1996, we interviewed an additional 234 workers at SON (for a total of 307) in a separate survey

! to address recently expressed NRC interests. This survey, designed with a 98 percent confidence level and a margin of error of +/- 5 percent, was used to measure program I effectiveness specifically at SON. The data from our SON survey is reported in Special Report 97-901S (dated l

February 1997); however, summaries are included for l comparison with the TVAN survey on page 19.

L Our TVAN survey results, along with comparisons to previous TVAN surveys, are presented in the charts beginning on page 7. The results of our 1996 survey were generally consistent with our 1995 and 1994 surveys, within

! the allowable margin of error.

Further, on matters unrelated to nuclear safety and quality, employees at SON and Chattanooga did not feel as free to i

express unpopular views. Specifically, a lower percentage Project No.97-920S Page 3

Office of the Inspector General Special Project i

of SON and Chattanooga employees felt comfortable with l i the idea of " expressing unpopular views" than at the other locations. We are addressing issues at these locations with follow-up assessments.

l l Based on our survey interviews, the overwhelming majority of employees and contractors felt free to report nuclear safety or quality problems. Specifically, only

5 individuals out of 256 employees and contractors .

(2 percent) interviewed said they might hesitate to report a )

l problem,if they knew of one, through some avenue. l I

However, only 1 of the 256 (0.4 percent), when asked, said they would not report a problem to their immediate supervisor. The employee's and the contractor's immediate supervisor was the first choice for reportir.g concerns for l 92 percent and 83 percent, respectively.

Of the employees interviewed,90 said they had reported  !

! a problem to their supervisor, and only 1 of them (1 percent) said they would not report again under similar circumstances.  :

l Of the contractors interviewed,15 said they had reported l a problem to their supervisor, and only 2 of them (13 percent) said they might not report again under similar l circumstances.

The majority of employees and contractors surveyed l said they would go to CRS or ECP, if needed.

l Ninety-nine percent of employees interviewed said they knew about CRS, and 93 percent of those said they would bring an issue to CRS,if needed. Fifteen respondents said l

they might not use CRS. Nine respondents cited negative l reasons for not using CRS-two cited fear of expressing staff j views, two expressed concerns about confidentiality, and

! five expressed concerns about CRS effectiveness. Four respondents said they would report concerns through other avenues.

l

[ One hundred percent of the contract employees surveyed (who had an ECP) knew about ECP, and 98 percent of those said they would report an issue to ECP, if needed.

Only one respondent said they would not use ECP. The

! respondent expressed concern about ECP confidentiality.

i Project No.97-920S - Page 4

Office of the insoector General Special Project l

l We also found that for the contractors,100 percent knew about CRS, and 96 percent would use this organization for reporting concems,if needed. Two respondents said they might not use CRS-one expressed concern about CRS effectiveness, and the other one would report concerns through other avenues.

The majority of employees and contractors surveyed said they felt free to raise intimidation and harassment (l&H) issues with CRS or ECP. Ninety-one percent of the TVAN employees surveyed said they felt free to raise an l&H  ;

issue with CRS. Seven percent indicated they might not and cited a negative reason, and 2 percent said they might not because they would report I&H issues elsewhere. Of those  !

citing reasons,13 mentioned fear of expressing staff views, 2 mentioned concern about CRS effectiveness in addressing l I

the issues, and 3 said they would report issues elsewhere.

Ninety-four percent of the contractors surveyed said they felt I free to raise an l&H issue with ECP. Four percent said they 1 might not and cited a negative reason, and 2 percent said they might not because they would report l&H issues I

elsewhere. Of those citing reasons, two mentioned fear of expressing staff views and one said they would report issues elsewhere.

The majority of employees and contractors surveyed 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 employees surveyed, i

48 percent of the responses indicated the primary purpose of the CRS is "an additional or alternate path to management," while another 15 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 in its roles.

l l Of the contractors surveyed,24 percent of the responses indicated the primary purpose of the ECP is "an additional or alternate path to management," while another 22 percent indicated the primary purpose of the ECP is to " investigate or record nuclear safety concerns." Only 2 percent of the contractors characterized the ECP as ineffective.

Project No.97-920S Page5 L - --_

Office of the Inspector General Special Project With respect to how well the respondents thought nuclear safety or quality problems are beitig resolved at their plant, 86 percent of the employees and 96 percent of the contractors who had an opinion thought the problems were being resolved well or very well.

Information Given in Addition to the Standardized Responses During the course of our interviews, we recorded 110 additional substantive comments from 84 respondents about theirjob. These comments were volunteered by respondents to explain their responses or to remark on additionalissues'. Of the 256 interviewees,11 percent commented on management matters other than downsizing,

! 10 percent commented on downsizing,7 percent commented on positive aspects of the plant, and 4 percent commented on budget concems. With the exception of 3 comments related to downsizing, the comments were

consistent in quantity and subject matter with those received I

in last year's survey. The downsizing comments are predominantly attributed to personnel at SON and are addressed in Special Report 97-901S.

l Additional Information We received 490 anonymous survey feedback sheets from l I

l the combined TVAN and SON surveys. The feedback was l very positive. Of the 108 anonymous written comments,7 were about the plant or the program, and we forwarded these to TVAN plant management. The remainder -

commented on the interview or interviewer.

l l We provided information pertaining to an allegation of l l inappropriate contractual relationships to OlG Investigations who had previously received similar information on the i issue. We also forwarded three concerns with nuclear l safety or quality implications to the CRS at SON and one at BFN.

l Project No.97-920S Page 6

l

) 1996 TVAN Concerns Resolution Survey i

TVA Employees who would report nuclear safety concerns by some avenue.

l MAYBE l or NO l 2.5%

l 1

l l

j YES 97.5 %

N = 203 Interviewees Previous TVA Surveys i

i i

i 1995 TVA Survey 1994 TVA Survey

! MAYBE or MAYBE or

! NO NO 0% 1%

! l YES YES 100% 99%

! N = 569 Interviewees N = 904 Interviewees i

j 7 1

k

4 l 1996 TVAN Concerns Resolution Survey 1

4 i TVA Employees who would report nuclear safety concerns to management.

NO 0.5%

l 1

i i YES 99.5 %

i N = 203 Interviewees Previous TVA Surveys i

i l 1995 TVA Survey 1994 TVA Survey No l ,,, 1993 NRC Survey NO YES 99.5 %

! YES

{ N = 569 Interviewees 99 %

YES N = 904 Interviewees 96 %

j N = 438 Interviewees 8

i i

.l

1996 TVAN Concerns Resolution Survey TVA Employees who would report nuclear safety concerns to CRS.

NO 7%

YES 93 %

N = 202 Interviewees

- - - - - . . . . . . - - - - - ~ . . - . -_

Previous TVA Surveys 1995 TVA Survey 1994 TVA Survey NO 1993 NRC Survey g

NO O5% @Mi YES 95%

N = 563 Interviewees 9:Pr.

N = 881 Interviewees 95%

95Y, N = 438 Interviewees 9

1996 TVAN Concerns Resolution Survey To whom would TVA Employees report a nuclear safety concern?

AllOthers 8%

First Choice immediate Supervisor 92 %

N = 200 Interviewees Avenues For Reporting a Concern 191 Top Three Choices 200 143  : s, cone or rnire 150 -- , cnoic.or..cn Ls."[$" I"! ..- . ..I 100 -- i 70 63 51 50 --

22' 13 0

Imm Spvr i

Spvr Mgmt i

II Site Mgmt i

Other i

CAS i

NRC

' " i "" i Corr Act g

OlG 10 N = 200 Intenilewees i

1996 TVAN Concerns Resolution Survey TVA Contractors who would report nuclear safety concerns by some avenue.

)( MAYBE or NO 0%

(

YES 100 %

N = 53 Interviewees

[

Previous TVA Surveys f

f 1995 TVA Survey 1994 TVA Survey MAYBE or MAYBE or NO NO 0.4%

(

(

YES 100%

O0% YES 99.6 %

N = 856 Interviewees N = 541 Interviewees r

s f

1 1996 TVAN Concerna Resolution Survsy TVA Contractors who would report nuclear safety concerns to management.

NO 0%

1 l YES 100 %

( N = 53 Interviewees

{

Previous TVA Surveys 1995 TVA Survey 1994 TVA Survey NO

, 1993 NRC Survey YES 90.2%

99.8 %

N = 541 Interviewees YES 91.3%

96.7%

YE g

N = 856 Interviewees

, N = 550 Interviewees 12 r

L 1996 TVAN Concerns Resolution Survey i ,

! TVA Contractors who would report nuclear safety concerns to ECP.

l No i 2%

t l

l 1

i 1

.) WS i 98 %

i j N = 40 Interviewees i

!; Previous TVA Surveys i

I j 1995 TVA Survey 1994 TVA Survey

NO 1993 NRC Survey i 5% NO l "*

NO j 5%

$ YES 95 %

l i N = 461 Interviewees 91 %

i YES

} N = 810 Interviewees 95%

j N = 550 Interviewees 13 i

1996 TVAN Concerno Resolution Survey To whom would TVA Contractors report a nuclear safety concern?

AllOthers 7%

First Choice immediate Supervisor 83 %

N = 53 Interviewees Avenues For Reporting a Concern Top Three Choices 40 -- Isecond or Third j choice of each i respondent 30 -- 26 '

Q("4 .

21 l

I 20 -- 15 12 12 -

0 imm Spn i i i i i i i i Spn Mgnt Site Mgnt ECP CRS Other NRC 010 14 N = 53 Interviewees

1996 TVAN Concerno Resolution Survey The majority of TVA Employees understand the role of CRS.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM

,, 33g c.... . 38

,,....... o.,.. 1.

.....,e....,.. 25

"'.!*"'*!",',.'l'!.'"" M 1 6 H. . .l. N g m ./, e , n.. I le.u .. jj

{ "'"%",T.t.l," '"' 3 6 a n o,. . ..

35 ,

0 to 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 N = 250 Responses ,

The majority of TVA Contractor employees understand the role of ECP.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM

...nion.g,4,gn....in 34

'"' 11Ml "'n'c."fn'.'"' 13

"' " ..'*f.i!'."n*,'.',*n'.

M 6

• n,.

" * * " * ,n

' ' ."p', .'n'O *. 6 H.n.l. M p ./P. r s on n. l.

" * ".',",'O',f."l,"

H '" ' 4

[

an o,n. ,.

13 O 10 20 30 40 N = 59 Responses 15 b

TVA Employees' parcoption of CRS effectiveness.

1996 TVA Survey 1995 TVA Survey Effedse 51%

{ 51 %

Effective 9 NO NO Opnion Opinion f Not Or Basis Not Or Basis EffectNe 43 % EffectNe 46 %

6% 3%

N = 196 Interviewees N = 526 Interviewees

(

(

TVA Contractors' perception of ECP effectiveness.

1996 TVA Survey 1995 TVA Survey Effectke EffectNe 60 % 54 %

NO NO Opinion

{ Not Opnion Or Basis l Not 43 %

Effectke Or Basis Effectbe 2% 38 %

3%

N = 50 Interviewees N = 495 Interviewees 16 s

l TVA Employcos/Contractoro who fool frco to report

{ intimidntion & Harassment issues to CRS/ECP.

5 Employees to CRS B Contractors to ECP 100% -- 91 % 94 %

Employees = 201

[ 80% -- Contractors = 51 60% --

Those Who Fee! Those Who Would Not 40% -- Free to Report J&H Report For a Negative Reason 20% -- 7%' 4%

0%  !  !

1996 TVAN Concerns Resolution Survey

(

95 %

100% -- 90 % Employees = 563

[ n s = 522 80% --

60% --

Those Who Would Not 40% -- Those Who Feel Report For a Negative Free to Report l&H Reason 20% -- 6% 2%

0% I i

[

1995 TVAN Concerns Resolution Survey 100% -- 85% 90 %

r Employees = 878

( 80% -- Contractors = 831 60% --

Those Who Feel Those Who Would Not 40% __ Report For a Negative Free to Report l&H Reason

[ 20% -_ 6% 7%

0% i i 1994 TVAN Concerns Resolution Survey 17 W

According to TVA Employacs and Contractors, how wcil aro problems bcing recolvad?

1 I 1996 TVAN Concerns Resolution Suwey 120 --  ! 120 -

100 - 81 80 , 72 [ 100 --

3 80 -

w 0 I I E4 i I1 3

3 0 l l 2

l 0

l 0

l

{

Very Well Fair Poor Very Very Well Fair Poor Very Well Poorly Well Poorly N = 178 Interviewees N = 48 Interviewees 25 of the respondents indicated they did not have enough 5 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 TVAN Concerns Resolution Suwey 250 ,,

260 5 250 -

• 250 --

g k 200 -- 185 g 200 -- 145 d 150 j 150 --

[ 100 - 3 100 --

{ 50' 8 8 50 - 32 6

E O l lM I } -- - l [ 0 l l l - l--

2 l

Very Well Fair Poor Very Very Well Fair Poor Very Well Poorly Well Poorly N = 482 Interviewees N = 445 Interviewees 83 of the respondents indicated they did not have enough 90 of tne respondents indicated they did not have enough experience with the program to formulate an opinion.

experience with the program to formulate an opinion.

18

TVA Canc:ms Res:luti:n Pr: gram Survey - 1996 1996 Concorre Nesoluton Survey 1996 TVAN t 996 Total 1994 Total 1996 SON 1995 SON 1994 SON f W" 203 569 904 221 278 235

[ M commamarer u itt aan na n RI Tg8d: 25e 1110 1 74o 307 343 332 Would report ye some avenue, employeet 97.5% 100 % 99% 982t. 100 % 99.1 %

Would recort we some evenue, coritractors: 100 % 100 % 998*. 98.8% 100*h 99.0%

Empio>ees tnat wowa report to s4emsur: 99.St. 99.8 % 99% 99. t t. 98 9 % 99.1 t.

Contractom that would report to sucerwsor 100 % 99 89 99% 98 8 % 100 % 100*4 Seevoor as trat cno ce, employeet 92% 93*. 90*. 93 % 94t. 89%

S oemeer as first enonce. cont actors- 83*. 93% 91*. 87% 8 8*. 93 %

S4ervoor responave, empeyser 97% 94 % 91% 96% 93% 88%

Would report to s4v. agas), employeet 99*. 99*. 97% 98 % 100 % 97%

Seervoor ressorswe, contractort 92*. 93% 85% 92*. 100 % 96 %

Woud report to saov again, cors* actors 85% 96*. 95 % 92% 100 % 100 %

E mpeyees itnowing aDout C AS: 99% 99% 98 % 99% 99% 99%

Contractors knowmg about ECP: 100*h 99% 96*. 100 % 98 % 97*.

Contractors knowirig abod C AS 100*. 92% 90% 96 % 95t. 95 %

&mployees tnat wouis report to CRS: 93t. 95t. 92% 93t. 92*. 91%

Contractors that would report to ECP: est. 95 % 91*s 96 % 94 % 97*.

Comractors that woud reoort to C AS 96t. 96 % 96t. 96 % 97% 96 %

Ernpioyees fee;mg tree to report i&M to C AS: 91 % 90*,. 85% 89% 86 % 88%

--would not report for negsave reason: 7% 6*b 6% 6% 7% 3 *.

Contractors fee 9ng free to report !AM to ECP: 94 % 95% 90% 94% 95 % 94*6

--would not reoort for negat+ve reason- 4*4 2*. 7% 5% 3t. $ *.

C AS meffectwo. employees' 6% 3t. 4% 6% 3% 4%

ECP it'et'eetwe. contractors- 2% S t. 8% 1% 2*. 3%

Sao reso ving procisms well, empeyees. 86% 90 % 86 % 84t. 93*h 80%

Sne resolving preetems well contra: tors' 96 % 91% 87*. 94t. 96 % 90%

immei Supv. Top inres, empeyees. feet. 95t. 95% 96 % 96 % 95 %

immed $4v Too three contractors' 85% 96*h 94*. 88*. 88% 94*b Primary purpose-anemate patn, employees 48% 43 % 40t. 61 % 49% 39%

Primary purpose-nuclear safety. employees: 15% 26 % 17*. 14% 25% 15%

Pnmary purpose-alternate patn, contractors 24% 20*. 23% 22*h 29t. 18%

Pnmay cu recse euclear sa'er v. contractors' 22*b 38*4 31% 23*. 38*. 28%

CRS 4Empeyee) F.es RevieweJ: " 82 103 110 14 15 17 EC# (Contracton Fdes Reviewet 33 117 96 12 21 13 Woulo report unrelated concem, empoyeer 97% 96 % 95%

Would recort unrelated concem, com* actors 96*6 9et. 97*.

seel tree to express unpopsar view, empioyeet 78 % 80% 79%

Fee; free to emocess uncoouiar view, comractors- 89% 90 % 91 %

19 1

L e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .