Submitting OIG:
Report Description:
In March 2016, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Chilled Work Environment Letter for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The NRC concluded a chilled work environment existed in the Operations Department because of a perception that operators were not free to raise safety concerns using all available avenues without fear of retaliation. According to the NRC Policy Statement for Nuclear Employees Raising Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation, "A reluctance on the part of employees to raise concerns is detrimental to nuclear safety." The Nuclear Oversight group, through the Quality Assurance (QA) function, should provide reasonable assurance that plant safety functions are performed in a satisfactory manner. Additionally, Nuclear Oversight's Employee Concerns Program (ECP) is charged with providing an independent avenue for employees to raise concerns. With these key roles, it is crucial that employees in Nuclear Oversight feel free to raise concerns without fear of retaliation.
The OIG found the work environment for Nuclear Oversight is not always conducive to raising concerns without fear of retaliation. Most QA employees felt free to raise concerns or problems without fear of retaliation; however, one QA employee informed us that although they would report a nuclear quality problem or concern, they would not report these problems or concerns to their management. While most QA employees felt free to raise concerns or problems, most ECP employees did not without fear of retaliation. Our interviews with QA and ECP personnel identified issues that could be impacting employees' willingness to report concerns, including (1) distrust of management, (2) past concerns being overridden or ignored, (3) work being influenced, and (4) QA rotational positions.
Short / Alternative Report Title:
Work Environment for Nuclear Oversight
Date Issued:
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Agency Reviewed / Investigated:
Submitting OIG-Specific Report Number:
2016-15398
Location(s):
Agency-Wide
Type of Report:
Inspection / Evaluation
Questioned Costs:
$0
Funds for Better Use:
$0
Number of Recommendations:
5
View Document:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
2016-15398.pdf | 1.03 MB |