Todd Jacobson and Mike Nartker
NS&D Monitor
1/31/2014

Tensions are running high at the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board amidst personnel changes in a set of key management positions and a sharp drop in employee satisfaction over the last year, as well as a more recent Inspector General’s investigation in response to a complaint about the management style of Chairman Peter Winokur and a decision to put the Board’s General Counsel on administrative leave. But exactly what the recent developments suggest about the trajectory of the agency that oversees nuclear operations across the weapons complex is up for debate, Board staff and several officials with knowledge of Board operations said in nearly a dozen interviews with NW&M Monitor.

Some argue the apparent strife is the result of a new Performance Management System that demands more accountability from Board staff and is reflective of “growing pains” of an organization that is “growing up.” Others, however, paint a more troubling narrative that raises questions about the overall leadership of the agency. “I think everyone is scared and confused because of all the constant changes, the firings and the moving of management and folks in the Senior Executive Service,” one DNFSB staffer told NW&M Monitor this week. “People kind of can’t get their bearings anymore.”

For his part, Winokur declined this week to comment on the IG investigation or the personnel actions, but did stress that the Board continues to perform at an “extremely high level” in a statement to NW&M Monitor. “The quality of the DNFSB’s work remains exceptionally high,” Winokur said. “I am proud of the outstanding work the Board continues to do to ensure adequate protection of public and worker safety at DOE’s defense nuclear facilities. I’m confident our upcoming Annual Report will demonstrate the scope and breadth of the Board’s accomplishments that’s indicative of a high-performing organization.” Winokur noted a series of significant changes at the Board in recent years, including Congressional modifications to the Board’s statute, the introduction of an Inspector General, the new Performance Management System, and improvements to programmatic internal controls. “We are trying to pace ourselves but this is a set of significant challenges for any organization and we are no exception,” he said.            

Year of Upheaval

Over the last year, the Board’s management has gone through significant upheaval. General Manager Marcelyn Atwood was fired in 2013 after joining the Board in January on a probationary period and Technical Director Tim Dwyer was demoted to serve as a Group Leader after serving on a temporary assignment, according to officials familiar with Board issues. Steven Stokes, who had served as the Group Lead for Nuclear Facility Design and Infrastructure, replaced Dwyer on a permanent basis in August after having served as the acting technical director for several months. Earlier this month, General Counsel David Jonas, a retired Marine Corps officer who previously served as the National Nuclear Security Administration’s general counsel, was placed on indefinite paid administrative leave by Winokur while a hostile work environment in the Office of the General Counsel is investigated.

Meanwhile, NW&M Monitor has learned that the Postal Service Inspector General began an investigation into the Board’s operations in late December based on a complaint filed by Jonas. That investigation appeared to have slowed when Congress this month required that the NRC Inspector General serve as the IG for the DNFSB, though NW&M Monitor has learned that the NRC IG is expected to resume the investigation begun by the Postal Service IG in February. The complaint to the IG raised concerns about whether Winokur properly investigated sexual harassment and retribution allegations made by some Board employees, alleged that Winokur directed information to be withheld from some Board members, and alleged financial mismanagement tied to the continuing service of DNFSB member Joseph Bader, who has not worked at the Board since having major surgery in August.

Former Member: Allegations Merit Full Investigation

When asked for comment this week, former DNFSB member Larry Brown said he was “astonished at what I have heard is going on at the Board.” Brown resigned in 2011, in part, due to tensions with other Board members caused by how the DNFSB investigated safety culture concerns at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant project. “The allegations merit a full and fair investigation by impartial observers, and illustrate the importance of external independent oversight, transparency in the conduct of federal business, and meticulous compliance with the intent—and not just the letter—of federal law,” Brown told NW&M Monitor. “Obviously, I care a lot about the Board and its mission. In fairness, everything I know is second hand, and requires verification. But I intend to press every button I know to ensure the allegations are thoroughly investigated. I want the Board to succeed in its mission.”

Employee Survey Results ‘Sobering’

At the same time as the personnel moves and various investigations were occurring, employee satisfaction at the DNFSB has taken a nosedive. A 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. For example, 36 percent of those surveyed provided a negative response when asked, “Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?” compared to an 8.4 percent negative response in a 2012 survey. Approximately 30 percent responded negatively when asked how satisfied they were with their jobs, compared to negative rate of 8.9 percent in 2012. And 29 percent responded negatively when asked if they would recommend the Board as a “good place to work,” compared to 6.7 percent in 2012.

The survey also indicated significant employee concerns with Board leadership. More than 47 percent of those surveyed responded negatively to the item, “In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce,” compared to a negative response rate of 24.8 percent in 2012. Approximately 30 percent responded negatively when given the statement, “I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders,” compared to a negative rate of 10.9 percent in 2012. Slightly more than 45 percent of those surveyed responded negatively to the statement when asked, “How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders?” compared to 8.4 percent in 2012.

In a white paper, the Board described the results of last year’s employee survey as “sobering,” attributing them, in part, to “a period of significant change” underway at the agency. “Some changes have been dictated by external forces, but many of the changes have been directed from within. In fact, several of the most important changes—new performance management systems, expansion of the Board’s telework program, training to improve supervisory/management skills—were implemented as a result of employee feedback from previous surveys. Change of this magnitude is difficult to manage under the best of circumstances,” the white paper says, adding, “But the Board is also dealing with employee morale issues, exacerbated by several years of no pay increases, hiring freezes, elimination of most awards, proposed reductions in employee benefits, and general budgetary uncertainty. The recent government shutdown will only increase employee discontent.”

‘New Focus on Accountability’ for Board Staff

Winokur said this week that he was concerned by the results of the survey, but stressed that the Board has begun to take action in response. “I am certainly concerned about the employee satisfaction survey because I want morale high. I am working to address issues raised in the survey and have formed an Employee Committee to engage throughout the organization and provide recommendations to address concerns,” he said. Winokur called the implementation of the Performance Management System the most significant change at the Board. “I think changes in our statute and the introduction of an IG represented important changes at the Board. However, the biggest change from the staff’s perspective has been in the Performance Management System, which is understandable. Our Employee Committee should be reporting out shortly, so I’m going to wait to review their recommendations before I address the staff’s concerns,” he said.

The 2013 employee survey did indicate a number of concerns among Board employees with how performance is assessed. Almost 45 percent of those surveyed responded negatively when given the statement, “In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way.” Approximately 35 percent responded negatively to the statement, “Creativity and innovation are rewarded,” while almost 40 percent responded negatively to the statement, “Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs.”

One official with knowledge of Board operations said the issues are tied to the Board “growing up.” The official added: “There is a new focus on accountability for the staff. That is not the way the Board has operated for the last 15 years. There are some people who are struggling with that.” Another official with knowledge of the Board’s operations said the management issues “exist and I do have the opinion that the chairman is not a good leader, but I don’t attribute that to anything evil in his nature. I just attribute it to that it’s not his forte.” The official added: “There’s some leadership that is not being done, some of the things that good leaders need to do, and it’s creating a lot of heartburn.”