Federal Reports

We evaluated FSA’s process for ensuring the continued protection of Federal funds at Guaranty Agencies (GA), oversight of the GAs’ ability to perform their duties, and actions necessary for the GAs’ successful participation during the phase-out of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). We found weaknesses that included (1) FSA’s methodology for calculating a GA’s Federal Fund reserve ratio did not comply with Federal requirements, which, as a result, inflated the GA’s reserve ratio and understated the level of financial stress a GA may be under; (2) Although FSA monitored the GAs’ ability to perform their duties, it did not establish criteria for GAs to use to develop required financial projections, and FSA did not document the procedures for actions it should have taken on information that identified GAs under possible financial stress; and (3) FSA’s initial methodology and then the modified methodology it used to select successor GAs for GAs ending participation in the FFELP contained deficiencies related to projected fund balances, relied on subjective factors, and did not provide a rationale for why the variables FSA selected to predict GA financial solvency were the most relevant variables.

Objective: To evaluate Title II auxiliary beneficiaries who did not have their own Social Security number and quantify incorrect payments to those who died.

This review was initiated as a follow-up to Inspection 2010-13530, Review of TVA's Fossil Fire Protection Systems, issued September 30, 2011. Fire protection systems are a combination of mechanical and electrical components and like power generation equipment, need regular attention. The objective of our review was to determine if the fire protection systems were adequately maintained and mitigating actions were taken to minimize the impact of fires at TVA fossil plants.We found TVA's maintenance of fire protection systems was improving; however, there was heightened risk of damaging fires at TVA sites due to (1) restoration times for certain priority systems exceeding TVA targets; (2) delays in addressing fire protection work orders; (3) instances of noncompliance with TVA's inspection, testing, and maintenance procedure; and (4) difficulties in maintaining aging equipment. We noted improvements were made to minimize the impact of fire, such as equipping fire trucks for each plant, replacing the fire brigade room at Kingston, and updating a portion of personal protective equipment for brigade members. However, many issues noted in the original inspection remained. For example, fire brigade members continued to have concerns about fire response preparedness and lessons learned were not shared consistently across the fleet. We also found Fire Protection Self-Assessments presented the condition of TVA's fire protection systems in a more positive manner than other sources might suggest was warranted.We recommended the Senior Vice President, Power Operations, (1) take steps, as appropriate, to restore impaired fire protection systems to service and determine if additional personnel or resources are needed to expedite repairs of fire protection systems in the future; (2) determine the equipment needs of fire brigade members and take steps to provide that equipment; (3) identify additional training needs for fire brigade members and take steps to provide that training; (4) determine whether increased staffing is warranted for fire brigades; (5) create and implement a formal process for capturing and sharing lessons learned from fire events across the fleet; (6) amend the Fire Protection Self-Assessments to include ratings of fire protection system equipment, provide a more objective means for determining whether preventive maintenance was performed, reflect prioritization of impairments and work orders outstanding, and provide a synopsis of additional drivers of fire risk at each site. TVA Management agreed with the findings and recommendations.

As a result of findings in a recent evaluation 2012-14845, Review of TVA's Nuclear Power Group Preventive Maintenance, we conducted a review of coal plant preventive maintenance (PM). The objective of our review was to determine if PM was performed in accordance with established schedules and if not, what effect the deviations were having.We found compliance with PM schedules varies by plant, and the PM compliance metric captured may not fully represent all PM activities not completed. The monthly PM compliance percentage varied from 10.5 to 100 percent. The most common reasons cited for not completing PM or adjusting the PM schedule was resource driven and/or due to emergent/sponsored work. We also found if a work order did not have the correct reconciliation code, a canceled PM task would be counted as completed, which skewed the data. Reconciliation codes are essential for accurate reporting, but they are not a required field in Maximo.We found that both uncompleted and unestablished PM contributed to equipment failures. In a review of 65 Problem Evaluation Reports (PERs), we identified six PERs linking failures to PM issues. Four of those PERs related to equipment for which no PM schedule or requirement had been established, and two PERs related to uncompleted PM tasks. We also found plants were making progress implementing the new Maintenance Basis Optimization (MBO) but had seen some delays in achieving target dates. Support of outages had impacted some sites' abilities to complete its MBO phases. Additionally, we found the absence of PM requirements could make it harder to manage equipment reliability risk.We recommended the Senior Vice President, Power Operations, (1) increase PM completion/reduce deviations from PM schedules and reinforce the importance of PM activities, (2) develop a way to more accurately capture and report PM compliance and other appropriate PM tracking metrics, (3) expedite MBO efforts, and (4) consider the potential impact of having PM governed only by guidelines and not requirements. TVA management generally agreed with the recommendations in the report.