TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - A Chilled Work Environment - Failed Safety Culture or NRC Lip Service? UPDATE - November 10, 2016 Falsification and Destruction of Fire Watch Records at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - NRC Says Low Severity? Retaliation??

TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, has boasted about the first new nuke plant in many a year. Actually it isn't new and it cost about 7 billion dollars to complete over 43 years. There are other costs, a "chilled work environment," contributing factor, STRESS to get the plant on line. The question - has safety been compromised? Photo by TVA - Fair Use for non-profit news reporting and commentary.

UPDATE - NOVEMBER 10, 2016

FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS, NRC SAYS LOW SIGNIFICANCE?? WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000390/2016003, 05000391/2016003 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND OI REPORT NUMBER OI-2-2015-039

ADAMS Accession No. ML16315A344 (It will take a few days for this document to be posted on the NRC's info library.) ADAMS Reference link: http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/  or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/

Document Date: November 10, 2016

This report released today after the "Chilled Effects" meeting last Thursday, Nov. 3, 2016 regarding the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Low significance?? Notice of Violation for willfully falsifying Fire Watch Records and destroying said records.  There may have been retaliation by a contractor involved in this incident regarding an employee refusing to sign a falsified report.

Quote: "Severity Level IV. The NRC identified a Severity Level IV violation of 10 CFR 50.9 "Completeness and Accuracy of Information," for the failure to maintain continuous compensatory fire watch information that was complete and accurate in all material respects. The licensee’s actions of creating falsified fire watch completion records...(from page 6 under Findings) "According to the testimony received by the NRC OI, on the morning of April 28, 2015, the licensee contract fire watch foreman attempted to persuade four fire watch laborers to sign fire watch records indicating that they performed the missed fire watch from the day before. Three of the individuals each signed the fire watch turnover records. However, one fire watch laborer refused to sign the fire watch turnover records. A meeting was held with the contract fire watch foreman, the contract fire protection specialist, and the TVA fire protection foreman. When it became clear that one individual would not sign the fire watch turnover record, the contract fire watch foreman disposed of the paperwork. The missed fire watch was reported to management, prompting investigations about the root causes of the missed fire watch. The licensee initiated condition report 1019953. The falsified fire watch record was never recovered." 

The NRC fined TVA $70K for falsifying Fire Watch Records at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, op-ed from Pam Sohn back in April of this year.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/times/story/2016/apr/08/sohn-regulators-ice-tvchilling-effect-letter/359272/ 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, March 23, 2016

NRC to TVA

As discussed during the public meeting held on March 22, 2016 in the RII office(ML16083A403), we initiated a review in late 2015 at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant into the environment for raising and addressing safety issues. We began this review in light of information received through our inspection and allegations process associated with the Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) within the Operations Department and its influence onthe safe operation of the plant. Our review includes information received through allegations, inspections, and interviews of your staff over the past few months. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, has concluded that a Chilled Work Environment exists in the Operations Department because of a perception that operators are not free to raise safety concerns using all available avenues without fear of retaliation. We have not identified any serious safety violations or instances involving significant plant safety issues, but the information gathered has led to concerns about the impact the work environment is having on plant operations raises

questions about your commitment to emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure protection of people and the environment. We want to ensure that TVA has a clear understanding of the scope of our concerns and to communicate specific requests and expectations for your response.

The Safety Culture Policy Statement (76 FR 34773; June 14, 2011) sets forth the Commission's expectation that licensees establish and maintain a positive safety culture commensurate with the safety and security significance of their activities and the nature and complexity of their organizations and functions. The NRC defines nuclear safety culture as the core values and behaviors resulting from a collective commitment by leaders and individuals to emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure protection of people and the environment. A safety conscious work environment is defined by the NRC as an environment in which “employees feel free to raise safety concerns, both to their management and to the NRC, without fear of retaliation” and is one trait of a strong safety culture. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 05-018, “Guidance for Establishing and Maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment,” dated August 25, 2005, further describes the NRC’s expectations in this area. More on this letter: http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1608/ML16083A479.pdf

News Links and Reports

1) March 2016  "TVA addresses ‘chilled’ work environment at Watts Bar" http://archive.knoxnews.com/business/tva-addresses-chilled-work-environment-at-watts-bar-2ea58296-1aaa-7e48-e053-0100007f1279-373126401.html

2) April 2016  "Watts Bar received more safety complaints from employees this year than any other U.S. plant" http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2016/apr/06/watts-bar-faced-more-safety-complaints-employees-2015-any-other-us-plant/359170/

3) May 2016  "TVA vows to thaw chilled atmosphere, better handle employee safety concerns" http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2016/may/25/tvtries-thaw-chilled-atmosphere-employee-conc/367469/ 

4) September 2016  "TVA OIG Report on Work Environment for Nuclear Oversight"  The bottom line of the OIG report regarding nuclear oversight -  Employees should "feel free to raise concerns without fear of retalliation." http://oig.tva.gov/reports/16rpts/2016-15398.pdf

5) Public Meeting Scheduled in Athens, Tn. regarding the Chilled Work Environment at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant on November 3, 2016, videos listed below.

The Problem With The Regulator, NRC, and the Nuclear Industry

Failures of nuclear safety culture are not enforceable actions. Comprehensive report on Safety Culture: 

http://allthingsnuclear.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130900-blanch-regulatory-compliance-report-.pdf

"Nuclear professionals, members of the public, Congress, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and concerned non-industry stakeholders agree on one issue: nuclear plant safety is paramount and must be the number one priority. However, the actions, and inactions, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and nuclear plant owners, have led to financial considerations taking priority over nuclear safety. The current focus on nuclear safety via what the industry and its regulator call “safety culture,” unless redefined and clarified, is a dead end. To truly achieve nuclear safety, “regulatory compliance and enforcement ” must be the frame used to gauge Nuclear Safety Culture." Paul Blanch (PE) Energy Consultant, author of the linked report.

Part 1 Selected Citizen Comments - The NRC would not disclose any retaliation events or occurrences. An employee states she has witnessed retaliation in the work place and discriminatory activity. Ann Harris, Retired TVA Employees who worked at Watts Barr for many years, describes her experiences in this video.  

Part 2 All Worker and Citizen Comments


Part 3 NRC Opening and Comments


Part 4, TVA Comments


Part 5 NRC Closing

Misapplication of Public Policy Involving Public Officials - Demolition by City Government on Private Property Which Increases Property Value of a Public Official's Relative

House demolished by the City of Scottsboro due to being an unsafe structure located at approximately 602 E. Willow St., Scottsboro, Al. (Google Earth photo 2014, Fair-Use rights for non-profit news reporting)

UPDATE - March 22, 2016 - Cost List of Demolition of Homes in Alabama and across the nation are listed. For this area the cost are listed for a similar structure's cost runs from $5500 -  $7500.00. That does not include leveling the property, reseeding and mowing for half a year. Cost estimates do not consider disposal of asbestos containing shingles or other hazardous materials such as lead pipe. Utilizing the demolition list estimates, this property's demolition and reconditioning would be near $12,000 for this area. 

http://www.hometowndemolitioncontractors.com/demolition-cost/building-demolition/house-demolition

Misapplication of Public Policy and Law by Scottsboro City Officials - Abatement of Public Nuisances on Private Property by Demolition or Repair, not in accordance with the laws of the State of Alabama Regarding 11-53B MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO REPAIR OR DEMOLISH UNSAFE STRUCTURES. Which may be found at  http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama/1975/coatoc.htm

Results of the Public Nuisance, Unsafe Structure file inspection regarding the Gross property located at approximately 602 E. Willow St., Scottsboro, Al..

1) When viewing the file the appropriate Alabama Code citation was misstated, 11-53A was utilized in part, that is improper according to the City Attorney as the City of Scottsboro is not a Class 5, 6 or 8 municipality. It is a class 7 in accordance with the 1970 census which the law is based on.

2) There was no itemized list of the property demolition cost, i.e. man hours spent, fuel used, hauling cost to land fill, equipment usage, etc.

3) There was no fixation of cost per resolution of the City Council/governing body as required by law - COA 11-53B-5.

4) There was a city cash register receipt of $3,150.00 but no indication of a check copy.

5) As stated in the City Council meeting the Mayor sent Councilman Smith to Mrs. Margaret Gross in secret, mother of the property owner, and a public official as appointed by Mr. Smith to the Electric Power Board, at Hardees, where they eat breakfast together, outside of the legal process, and offered city equipment, manpower, and resources to her for the demolition of an unsafe house on her property, the demolition increased the property's value.

6) The house which was demolished was an old structure with what appeared to be asbestos containing shingles, there was no test to determine if asbestos was present in the structure.

It is my opinion that some public officials within the City of Scottsboro are attempting to cover up this possible ethics violation and misapplication of public policy and law.

MY THOUGHTS - What a deal, if you're a city official's friend plus public official, you get your unsafe house demolished, hazardous materials disposed, lot cleared, leveled, reseeded and maintained for $3150.00, thus increasing the private citizens property value many times over. Such honest political leaders we have, NOT. Does the city apply this special treatment fairly to everyone as the mayor claims? My inquiries reveal the answer to be NO. This abuse of taxpayer resources may be an ethics violation, reference - "Section 36-25-5 "d) No person shall solicit a public official or public employee to use or cause to be used equipment, facilities, time, materials, human labor, or other public property for such person's private benefit or business benefit, which would materially affect his or her financial interest, except as otherwise provided by law."

All of this came to light when I received a call about a Scottsboro Mowing Crew at the property of Mrs. Gross's daughter on East Willow Street. This resulted in me asking questions about the property and why was city equipment being utilized for the benefit of private citizens. The City council President stated this was all unintentional, as Mrs. Gross said, "I guess this was an accident." referring to the mowing crew taking care of the private property.

BOTTOM LINE - The City of Scottsboro should not be involved in the demolition, repair, or mowing of private property. Repair or demolition of private property is the responsibility of the property owner. If repair or demolition becomes necessary to protect the public from a public nuisance then the work should be contracted out and the city utilize the law to recover costs.

The excuse according to the Mayor, "We do this all of the time is an example of non-accountable political official's excuses. It is my observations the Mayor is not being truthful. Council Member Keith Smith's personal attack on me for bringing this issue forward is a further example of non-accountable political officials, it is Smith who met in secret with Mrs Gross to broker the deal in conjunction with the mayor to purposefully increase the property value of the Gross property. The statement of Smith, "She (meaning Margaret Gross, public official and mother of property owner) didn't come to us we went to her," is remarkable. It demonstrates the extent some political officials in Scottsboro will go to deceive the public and benefit friends and the wealthy while having a lack luster attitude toward the poor and average citizens in Scottsboro, Alabama.

My reporting to the City Council of inappropriate application of law and possible ethics violations has resulted in harassment and false accusations from Council Member Keith Smith when bringing these issues forward. Harassment appears to be an unprofessional, unethical policy practice of city officials. This misconduct trend has carried forth into the application of management policy as it has been applied to the employees of the City of Scottsboro, Alabama. This is indicative of a wider problem involving non-professional conduct and misbehavior of elected and appointed city officials which includes sexual discrimination, retaliatory conduct and harassment.