All Reports

The Office of the Inspector General previously conducted an evaluation of the Human Resources (HR) organization (Evaluation Report 2016-15445-05 issued September 26, 2017) to identify operational and cultural strengths and risks that could impact HR’s organizational effectiveness. Our report identified several strengths and risks along with recommendations for addressing those risks. The objective of this follow-up evaluation was to assess management’s actions to address the risks included in our initial organizational effectiveness evaluation.

The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the Paradise Combined Cycle Plant (PCC) to identify operational and cultural strengths and risks that could impact PCC’s organizational effectiveness. We identified strengths that positively affected the day-to-day activities of PCC’s personnel and performance including, (1) organizational alignment, (2) teamwork, and (3) management support.

Tennessee Valley Authority business units are expected to find, analyze, and fix conditions that affect personnel safety, asset reliability, adverse trends, or other conditions that do not meet expectations. Condition reports (CR) are created to record how problems are found, analyzed, and solved.

Due to the importance of the clearance procedure to plant personnel safety, and in response to recent fatalities resulting from clearance violations, we initiated a review of TVA’s coal operations’ clearance procedure. We determined the clearance procedure was being performed for work requiring clearances.

Due to concerns with the high number of hearing loss claims filed by employees, we performed an evaluation of the actions taken to minimize TVA’s financial exposure for hearing loss claims. We determined some Hearing Conservation Program requirements were not met, including: (1) personal noise monitoring and noise surveys in nuclear and (2) annual audiograms and training.

We evaluated Nuclear Oversight to determine if the work environment was conducive to raising concerns without fear of retaliation. We found the work environment within Nuclear Oversight is not always conducive to raising concerns without fear of retaliation. Specifically, while all Nuclear Oversight employees indicated that they would report nuclear safety or quality problems and concerns, some expressed fear of retaliation for raising issues.

The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant’s (SQN) Site Security (SS) organization to identify operational and cultural strengths and risks that could impact SQN SS’s organizational effectiveness. Our report identified strengths within SQN SS related to (1) organizational alignment, (2) teamwork, and (3) frontline management support. However, we also identified risks that could impact the effectiveness of SQN SS to achieve its responsibilities in support of the Nuclear mission.

The Office of the Inspector General audited the controls for key Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) spreadsheets to determine if the controls are sufficiently defined, appropriately designed, and operating effectively. The audit’s scope was information technology general controls for the SOX critical spreadsheets within TVA. We identified several issues that could provide a stronger control environment for critical spreadsheets.

As part of our annual audit plan, we audited costs billed to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by CLEAResult East Operating, LLC (CR) for providing services to assist TVA in the Valley-wide implementation of its energy efficiency programs under Contract Nos. 5586 and 6632. Our audit included approximately $45.9 million in costs paid by TVA between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2016. Our audit objective was to determine if the costs billed to TVA were in compliance with the terms and conditions of Contract Nos.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we examined the cost proposal submitted by a company for civil projects and coal combustion residual (CCR) program management work at TVA's steam electric power plants. Our examination objective was to determine if the company's cost proposal was fairly stated for a planned <br> $25 million contract.In our opinion, the company's cost proposal was overstated.