DNFSB Considering Establishing An Ombudsman Capability

By Martin Schneider

Board Working To Address Staff Morale Concerns

Mike Nartker
WC Monitor
4/11/2014

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is considering establishing some sort of ombudsman capability as part of its efforts to address staff morale concerns, DNFSB Chairman Peter Winokur told WC Monitor this week. A new ombudsman was one of several recommendations developed by a committee of Board employees assembled to examine morale issues in the wake of a staff survey that indicated a sharp drop in employee satisfaction. “I made a commitment we’re going to look into that,” Winokur said on the sidelines of a House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing. “Setting up an ombudsman technically can be a very difficult process. We will have something, hopefully in a short period of time, that will basically set up that function.” He added, “We definitely want to give the staff an opportunity to have somebody they can speak to they know will have management’s ear. I’d like to believe they have my ear, but we want to give them those kinds of assurances.”

The survey of Board employees, conducted last spring by the Office of Personnel Management, found a significant drop in positive responses in a variety of categories compared to previous years, highlighting apparent concerns among Board employees with job satisfaction and the agency’s leadership. A follow-up assessment conducted by the Board employee committee found “continuing significant concerns in the topical areas of performance management, awards and recognition,and agency policies and leadership,” according to a heavily redacted version of the executive summary of the committee’s findings that the DNFSB made public. The full version of the committee’s findings, obtained by WC Monitor, stated, “What has caused significant concern is the communication from management to the staff: in particular, inconsistent feedback; and the disproportionate amount of the negative feedback the staff receives from management, especially in comparison to the marginal and infrequent positive and/or constructive feedback communicated to the staff. This appears to be a core reason for low morale and employee dissatisfaction.”

Other recommendations in the employee committee’s report focused on improving how feedback and awards are provided to staff and improved communication skills for senior managers. “We had some challenges with getting good communications between senior executives at the Board and workers. We’re working on that,” Winokur said, adding that the Board is also looking at “quality of life issues.” He said, “The report, in total we listened to the whole thing, and we’re responding to our staff. We want to be responsive to what they’re saying.”

Board Will ‘Work Effectively’ With New IG

During the Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing, Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) questioned Winokur over reports of a potential disagreement between the Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Inspector General’s Office, which lawmakers earlier this year tasked with also providing IG services for the Board. “I’ve also heard that the IG and you disagree on how it should carry out its work. My question is, will you assure this subcommittee that you and your organization will fully cooperate with the IG and provide the information access and resources the IG needs to carry out its job?” Rogers asked.

In reply, Winokur said the Board will “work effectively” with its new IG. “I can assure that the Board and the inspector general will work together effectively in efficiency. I don’t see any disagreements at this time between the Board and the inspector general,” he said. “I’ve heard that there were some of these discussions on the Hill. Quite frankly, sir, I don’t believe there’s any validity to any of those comments. The Board and the inspector general will work together effectively. We understand their role very well. And we’re very confident we’ll be able to work with them.”

Winokur told WC Monitor on the sidelines of the hearing that there have been “discussions” between Board attorneys and those at the NRC about “exactly how funds are expended in this relationship.” He said, “We can’t violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, so we have to be 100 percent certain what we can pay for. So there are a few technicalities there, and we’re going to work those out. It’s really not an issue at all.”

High-Consequence Accident ‘Can Happen’ at DOE Sites

Also at this week’s hearing, Winokur outlined what he described as his “top concerns” with safety in the DOE complex, such as questions over the use of contractor assurance systems. “In the final analysis, the contractors have to be able to get the job done. I mean, there’s always going to be a need for federal oversight and the Board to [perform] independent oversight, but the contractors have to get the job done. These contractor assurance systems in my opinion are not improving, not maturing, the way they need to. And they have to in the long run,” he said. Winokur also said he is concerned over “formality of operations” at DOE sites. “The Board wrote a recommendation on safety culture. I think formality of operations is one of the better measures of safety culture,” he said. “We see some improvements by the Department, but a lot more has to happen in the operational space to have confidence.”

DOE also appears to be overly confident that accidents will not happen at its sites, according to Winokur. “The thing I’m concerned about is the fact that accidents do happen and we really do need to learn better lessons from Fukushima.” he said, referring to the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster. “I still think there’s a sense in the complex that these accidents won’t happen. But I think the job of the Board and the job of the Department is to make sure they’re prepared for what I always refer to as a low-probability, high-consequence accident. … It can happen. It will happen. And these sites are very complicated. And there are many different facilities and many different operations, and a lot of things can go wrong, so it’s going to require a lot of drilling, a lot of planning and a lot of coordination.”

Comments are closed.

Nuclear Security & Deterrence Vol. 18 No. 15
Visit Archives | Return to Issue PDF

Nuclear Security & Deterrence Monitor

Article 7 of 14

April 11, 2014

DNFSB Considering Establishing An Ombudsman Capability

By Todd Jacobson

Board Working To Address Staff Morale Concerns

Mike Nartker
NS&D Monitor
4/11/2015

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is considering establishing some sort of ombudsman capability as part of its efforts to address staff morale concerns, DNFSB Chairman Peter Winokur told NS&D Monitor this week. A new ombudsman was one of several recommendations developed by a committee of Board employees assembled to examine morale issues in the wake of a staff survey that indicated a sharp drop in employee satisfaction. "I made a commitment we’re going to look into that," Winokur said on the sidelines of a House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing. "Setting up an ombudsman technically can be a very difficult process. We will have something, hopefully in a short period of time, that will basically set up that function." He added, "We definitely want to give the staff an opportunity to have somebody they can speak to they know will have management’s ear. I’d like to believe they have my ear, but we want to give them those kinds of assurances."

The survey of Board employees, conducted last spring by the Office of Personnel Management, found a significant drop in positive responses in a variety of categories compared to previous years, highlighting apparent concerns among Board employees with job satisfaction and the agency’s leadership. A follow-up assessment conducted by the Board employee committee found "continuing significant concerns in the topical areas of performance management, awards and recognition, and agency policies and leadership," according to a heavily redacted version of the executive summary of the committee’s findings that the DNFSB made public. The full version of the committee’s findings, obtained by NS&D Monitor, stated, "What has caused significant concern is the communication from management to the staff: in particular, inconsistent feedback; and the disproportionate amount of the negative feedback the staff receives from management, especially in comparison to the marginal and infrequent positive and/or constructive feedback communicated to the staff. This appears to be a core reason for low morale and employee dissatisfaction."

Other recommendations in the employee committee’s report focused on improving how feedback and awards are provided to staff and improved communication skills for senior managers. "We had some challenges with getting good communications between senior executives at the Board and workers. We’re working on that," Winokur said, adding that the Board is also looking at "quality of life issues." He said, "The report, in total we listened to the whole thing, and we’re responding to our staff. We want to be responsive to what they’re saying."

Board Will ‘Work Effectively’ With New IG

During the Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing, Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) questioned Winokur over reports of a potential disagreement between the Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Inspector General’s Office, which lawmakers earlier this year tasked with also providing IG services for the Board. "I’ve also heard that the IG and you disagree on how it should carry out its work. My question is, will you assure this subcommittee that you and your organization will fully cooperate with the IG and provide the information access and resources the IG needs to carry out its job?" Rogers asked.

In reply, Winokur said the Board will "work effectively" with its new IG. "I can assure that the Board and the inspector general will work together effectively in efficiency. I don’t see any disagreements at this time between the Board and the inspector general," he said. "I’ve heard that there were some of these discussions on the Hill. Quite frankly, sir, I don’t believe there’s any validity to any of those comments. The Board and the inspector general will work together effectively. We understand their role very well. And we’re very confident we’ll be able to work with them."

Winokur told NS&D Monitor on the sidelines of the hearing that there have been "discussions" between Board attorneys and those at the NRC about "exactly how funds are expended in this relationship." He said, "We can’t violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, so we have to be 100 percent certain what we can pay for. So there are a few technicalities there, and we’re going to work those out. It’s really not an issue at all."

High-Consequence Accident ‘Can Happen’ at DOE Sites

Also at this week’s hearing, Winokur outlined what he described as his "top concerns" with safety in the DOE complex, such as questions over the use of contractor assurance systems. "In the final analysis, the contractors have to be able to get the job done. I mean, there’s always going to be a need for federal oversight and the Board to [perform] independent oversight, but the contractors have to get the job done. These contractor assurance systems in my opinion are not improving, not maturing, the way they need to. And they have to in the long run," he said. Winokur also said he is concerned over "formality of operations" at DOE sites. "The Board wrote a recommendation on safety culture. I think formality of operations is one of the better measures of safety culture," he said. "We see some improvements by the Department, but a lot more has to happen in the operational space to have confidence."

DOE also appears to be overly confident that accidents will not happen at its sites, according to Winokur. "The thing I’m concerned about is the fact that accidents do happen and we really do need to learn better lessons from Fukushima." he said, referring to the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster. "I still think there’s a sense in the complex that these accidents won’t happen. But I think the job of the Board and the job of the Department is to make sure they’re prepared for what I always refer to as a low-probability, high-consequence accident. … It can happen. It will happen. And these sites are very complicated. And there are many different facilities and many different operations, and a lot of things can go wrong, so it’s going to require a lot of drilling, a lot of planning and a lot of coordination."

Comments are closed.