We wrote in June about steps we are taking to improve our “non-concurrence” process, which is a way for NRC staff to air a variety of views before final management decisions are made. Today, we’d like to fill you in on steps we are taking to improve our Differing Professional Opinions (DPO) process—used to bring NRC staff views on agency decisions to the highest levels of NRC management.
Both processes are important to creating an environment where NRC employees feel they can speak up when they disagree—the same safety conscious work environment we expect from our licensees.
First, a little context. The NRC makes hundreds if not thousands of decisions each year. To reach the best decisions, the agency encourages staff to bring their views forward throughout the process. This active engagement is essential.
NRC expects all employees to promptly discuss their views and concerns with their immediate supervisor on a regular basis. Employees are expected to raise concerns and propose solutions as early as possible in the decision-making process. In addition to informal discussions, which should be sufficient to resolve most issues, individuals have various options for expressing and having their differing views heard by decision makers.
In the vast majority of cases, an informal conversation is sufficient. But if not there are a number of avenues for elevating concerns. We have an Open Door policy that allows the staff to request a meeting with any manager at the NRC—including the Chairman and Commissioners—to raise concerns. This policy encourages employees to resolve their concerns informally. There is also the non-concurrence process, which allows the airing of issues through the concurrence chain before a decision is made. An employee who disagrees with an established position can use the DPO process.
The NRC is unique in not only having and promoting these programs, but in assessing them and reporting the results to the public. This transparency helps ensure that differing views do not get lost in the shuffle.
To gauge how well these processes are working, we used a variety of tools to measure user satisfaction and process effectiveness. As with our assessment of the non-concurrence process, the DPO assessment shows the process is sound. NRC staff knows about it and most would be willing to use it. Also like the earlier assessment, the DPO assessment has helped us to identify areas for improvement.
There have been 28 DPOs filed since 2004, or an average of two to three cases per year. In that same time frame, one DPO was withdrawn and 24 DPO decisions were issued. Given that so few NRC employees have direct experience with the process, we were encouraged to see from our agency-wide safety culture survey that only 15 percent of NRC employees would be unwilling to use it. While this number is small, it shows we have some work to do. We want all NRC employees to feel they can use the process, and that it will be effective and lead to better, more informed decision-making. We are also concerned about the 18 percent who worry using the process could impact career development and the 46 percent who are unsure.
These numbers present an opportunity to do more outreach and education to ensure NRC leadership is committed to the DPO process. We will also need to; develop clearer guidance and better tools and support the process; ensure training is readily available to all employees (including a focus on improved communications); and identify ways to address concerns about real and perceived negative consequences for using the process.
As we work to make these improvements, we can also celebrate the things that make our DPO process strong. From looking at other agencies with similar processes, our assessment shows the NRC is unique in making summaries of our DPO decisions public and, if asked by those who file DPOs, releasing key DPO records.
We are also pleased by the feedback from DPO submitters. We surveyed the 12 who remain at the NRC and received nine responses. All nine reported their views were heard by management. Eight said the DPO panel was sufficiently knowledgeable, independent, impartial, timely, and thorough. The same number said they were understood and treated fairly. Seven said the process added value to the final decision, their views were fully considered, and their management was supportive. Six said they were recognized with a Special Act award or an NRC Team Player award.
As we move forward, we will build on these strengths and take additional steps to foster an organizational culture where employees take personal responsibility for their actions, feel part of a community and work toward shared goals. We value the feedback from these self-assessments and commit to responding constructively so we can continuously improve our performance.
3 thoughts on “Improving NRC Processes—Part Two”
The survey we cited is an agency-wide safety culture survey that the NRC’s Office of the Inspector General has been conducting about every three years since 1998. Employee confidentiality is integral to the survey and is repeatedly emphasized to employees. In the 2012 survey cited here, out of 3,755 NRC employees who received the survey, 2,981 responded, representing a 79% response rate. This high response rate gives us a high degree of confidence in the results.
I would not be quite so sure if the 15% figure is correct. Did you do this via a truly anonymous survey? And did the participants believe it was truly anonymous? With the recent history of what happened to courageous whistle-blowers in the FBI, the SEC and other large security- or safety-related organizations (of which the NRC surely is one), one may doubt if differing opinions are really forthcoming as easily as you seem to believe. Many such surveys often are answered the way the respondents expect you want to hear them answer …
Thanks, it is interesting to see how NRC processes compare to the corresponding processes used by the licensees. Along those lines, I would be interested in a similar description of the NRC corrective action program – what do the agency employees do when they find an error or mistake in their work or processes?
Comments are closed.