ML20148J536
| ML20148J536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1988 |
| From: | White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803300306 | |
| Download: ML20148J536 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______
o TENNESSEE val' LEY AUTHORITY 6N 38A Lookout Place Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 March 24, 1988 Mr. Stewart D. Ebneter, Director Office of Special Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MS 7D24
. Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Ebneter:
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-327 Tennessee Valley Authority ) $0-328 Reference Letter from Bennie L. Edwards, Area Director, Department of Labor, dated March 11, 1988, Andrew Bartlik v. Tennessee Valley Authority I are pleased to respond to your March 16 letter on the above subject.
I believe that Bennie L. Edwards's finding that TVA had refused to extend or renew Andrew Bartlik's contract (a contract that was in fact with American I Technical Associates) because he had expressed safety concerns is not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, I have asked TVA's attorneys to '
appeal to the Secretary of Labor for a hearing, which they have done. In the meantime, the enclosure provides the answers to your questions regarding:
(1) the basis for the employment action regarding Mr. Bartlik, and (2) the actions taken or planned to ensure that this employment action does not have a chilling effect in discouraging other licensee or contractor employees from raising safety concerns. l l
Very truly yours. l TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY A i Manager of Nuclear Power i
Enclosure cc See page 2 8G03300306 880324 )
PDR ADOCK 05000327 p PDR An Equal Opportunity Ernployer
_g_.( .l. _ - --
o e
l Mr. Stewart D. Ibneter March 24. 1988 cc (Enclosure):
Mr. K. P. Barr, Acting Assistant Director for Inspection Programs TVA Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ,
101 Marietta Street NW, Suite 2900 l Atlanta, Georgia 30323 i l
Mr. G. G. Zech, Assistant Director for Projects TVA Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike --
Rockville, Maryland 20852 Sequoyah Resident Inspector Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 2600 Igou Terry Road Soddy Daisy. Tennessee 37379 l
l l
o
?
l ENCLO'SURE
- 1. The basis for the employment action regardins Mr. Bartlik Mr. Andrew Bartlik was an employee of two different contractors. Gibbs and Hill, Inc. and American Technical Associates. Inc., over the period from April 1985 to November 1987 working on TVA Appendix R issues. He was one of approximately 2,800 contract employees working for more than 100 different companies in TVA's Office of Nuclear Power (ONP) with the vast majority supporting the Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE). These contracted employees were managed by TVA supervisors and augmented TVA's regular staff.
These contractor employees were used as helpers. Their companies had no ,
responsibilities for products (deliverables), and the total management burden was on TVA. Furthermore, since the contractor's fees were included in the hourly rates of these "helpers" (commonly referred to as staff augmentees),
there was no motivation to complete high quality work on schedule and within reasonable costs. In fact, these contracts worked to the disadvantage of TVA because the longer the contractors stayed, the larger was the fee.
Af ter a review of the situation in 1986, we decided to change this nonproductive situation and to implement a new way of doing business with contractors. At the earliest possible time in 1987, we initiated competition for contracts for the engineering work required to fix TVA's nuclear units.
TVA received about 400 proposals for the various scopes of work required. The new way of doing business used performance centracts which included award fee provisions meaning the fee would have to be earned by providing quality products, on schedule, and within approved cost estimates. The contractor's hourly dollar rates for labor and overhead were quoted in the competitive offers without fee and were fitsd so that they could not change for approximately 2-1/2 years.
1
9 The best qualified, in terms of most value for the dollar, of the competing companies were selected from these 400 proposals. The selections were made by evaluation panels made up of technical, management, financial, and contracts representatives of the appropriate TVA organizations. The panels scored the competitors in accordance with TVA evaluation and selection procedures. The new contracts required the companies to provide deliverables to TVA's specifications, and the winning contractors to manage their own employees to provide these products to TVA's requirements. The fixed hourly labor and overhead rates f rom the winning contractors were about 25 percent below previous "staff augmentee" rates, and this alone has saved the TVA ratepayers
$231 million.
In addition, it is estimated that the improved productivity which we are realising from these companies will save an estimated additional $200 million for a total of over $400 million saved by changing the way we were doing business with contractors. Furthermore, TVA's ONP managers are far more effective now that they no longer have to manage nearly 2,800 contractor helpers. Companies now must manage their own people. In 1987 TVA phased out all but about 200 of these staff augmentees who were supporting TVA managers in the late 1986 and early-1987 time period. In other words, between May 1987 and December 1987 about 2,600 contractor staff augmentees were phased out.
Mr. Bart11k was one of these contractor staff augmentees who was phased out, and we are informed that Mr. Bartlik was offered a regular TVA job af ter the decision was made to eliminate contract employees. 'de are told that he refused.
Af ter he declined a regular job, the Mechanical Engineering Branch sought an exception to retain him as a staff augmentee. It is not uncommon for TVA lower level managers to seek a contractor to assist with their work.
Uppsrlevelmanagementteckahardlineadainstgrantingcnyexceptionstothe phase out of staff augmentees because we realised there would be a push to continue relying on these "helpers" which would have significantly increased the costs and defeated our objective to mobilize the contractors and to work in a competitive envire ment under performing oriented contracts. Exceptions to this policy required the approval of either the Manager or Deputy Manager of ONP and were only made when the ongoing task was nearly complete or when the specific expertise was not available elsewhere and was critical to our restart schedule.
Two exceptions were sought for Mr. Bar:likt one was refused by the Project Engineer at Sequoyah; the second, a contract for Bellefonte, was disapproved by ONP's central office in Chattanooga. Both exceptions were denied in view of TVA's policy against such exceptions. Mr. Bartlik's contract was allowed to expire on November 25, 1987, in accordance with this policy. TVA has
{
refused to extend or renew all but a very small number of the 2,800 contract ;
, employees because of the transition to our competitively awarded and l incentivised performance contracts. l j
Af ter it became apparent that Mr. Bartlik would not accept regular TVA employment and could not be retained as a staff augmentee. TVA's Meetinical Engineering Branch considered a performance contract for the Appendix R work.
In order to obtain such a contract, a TVA manager was required to clearly define the scope of work that needed to be done, obtain budget approval, and solicit and obtain competitive proposals to accomplish the specific tasks.
Because Appendix R work suggested by TVA's Mechanical Engineering Branch was not viewed at that time as a restart item, this request was not pursued to completion.
f
o i ?
i l
As this summary indicates, the decisions affecting Mr. Bartlik's employment at TVA were made in accordance with established and well defined TVA policies.
TVA does not believe it discriminated or retaliated against Mr. Bartlik or any other individual in implementing these policies.
- 2. The actions taken or planned __to ensure that this employment action does not h4Ve a chilling effect in discouragina other licensee or.
contractor employees from raising safety concerns As stated in Volume 1,Section V of the Nuclear Performance Plan, the TVA ONP has an extensive program designed to ensure that there is no intimidation and harassment in the workplace. In the presentation to the NRC Commissioners on March 4, 1988, our basis for concluding there is no climate 6f intimidation and harassment was provided. We have aggressively and systematically eliminated the root causes which could have led to a perception that intimidation existed. Previous improper policies have been rescinded and compensation made to those wronged under these policies. Individuals found guilty for past offenses of intimidation and harassment have been disciplined and counseled. All managers are attending the basic skills training sessions which include a module on preventing intimidation and harassment. When warranted, special training sessions focusing entirely on eliminating even the perception of intimidation and harassment have been conducted.
It is very important that TVA continue the progress made in the last two years enhancing employee trust and confidence in management. TVA has repeatedly said that TVA will not tolerate intimidation and harassment in the workplace.
o .-
l 1
TVA managers must constantly work to ensure that nothing is done to chill or discourage our employees or contractor employees from raising safety concerna.
If there are any indications that a chilling effect is created from the particular event discussed, or for any other reason, TVA will take appropriate corrective action.
There is TVA currently is appealing tho' DOL finding concerning Mr. Bartlik.
no reason to believe that Mr. Bartlik's allegations will have an adverse j
effect on the comprehensive program that TVA has undertaken or the progress that we have made in the area of intimidation and harassment. .
l l
l l
s - +
,, --m , v