A report by Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority STUK has flagged employee concerns over the quality of management at the Finnish-Russian nuclear power firm Fennovoima. Workers interviewed for the audit claimed to have been put under pressure, sidelined, or even "smoked out" for drawing attention to safety concerns or questionable practices.
The findings were detailed in a safety audit that STUK began in late autumn last year and which is still ongoing. Fennovoima needs a clean bill of health from the audit to qualify for a construction permit in 2018. The company hopes to complete the nuclear power plant in 2024.
In an initial report that it completed in December, STUK expressed concerns about whether or not safety was a priority for Fennovoima, and whether or not the company’s management team had adequate experience in the nuclear energy sector.
Pressure and exclusion on the job
Part of STUK’s audit involved a personnel survey, in which 74 percent of the workforce at the time responded. Some respondents accused the management of ignoring safety issues. These employees said that individuals who questioned matters or raised safety concerns "were pressed to get on with it", "sidelined" or "smoked out of the company" (direct quotes from the document).
STUK did not say how many respondents provided negative feedback, but its report referred to several individuals. Experienced employees provided more critical assessments of the company than more recent hires, the report found.
"Some of the more experienced respondents had highly critical views and worrying observations about the organisation’s operations," the reported declared.
The document also noted that as early as the beginning of 2015 two employees had lodged complaints about being pressured.
Signature changes, amateur management
The employee survey responses also revealed suspicions that the company had changed the signatures on documents relating to nuclear safety. The report indicated that "some documents" had been approved by changing signatures, if the original experts had not agreed to sign off on them. According to STUK several respondents corroborated this claim.
Employees also spoke of scheduling pressures that seemed to influence the actions of the management more than safety issues.
The authority’s audit also focused on the management’s apparent lack of experience in the nuclear power field. Of the team’s eight members just one – nuclear safety director Vesa Ruuska – had any experience in the sector.
It also described communication within the management group as conflicted. STUK’s review found that members of the management team had different views on safety matters.
STUK: Audit report not public
Yle called on STUK to provide a copy of the shortcomings flagged in the report it drew up last December. However the nuclear safety watchdog refused to hand it over, saying that the audit was still ongoing.
The authority said that the December report is part of a more comprehensive safety probe that it is conducting for the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. STUK is expected to wrap up its work by the end of 2017 so officials can determine whether or not to grant Fennovoima a construction permit for the proposed nuclear power plant.
Fennovoima rejects claims
Fennovoima has rejected workers’ allegations that they’ve been pressured or threatened. The company said that earlier this year it had handed over a report to STUK addressing the deficiencies raised in the report.
"We do not concur that there has been pressuring or threats at the company. But we have attempted to improve communication and the allocation of responsibility," commented Fennovoima project director Minna Forsström.
Forsström said that the documents that appeared to have altered signatures related to nuclear contractor Rosatom’s leadership structure and its approval by Fennovoima. She asserted that the claim that signatures had been tampered with for the purpose of approval is incorrect. Russian state-owned Rosatom is a part-owner of the project and the lead contractor charged with constructing the plant.
"In the cases that we recognise it has been a matter of re-organising responsibilities. For this reason, signatures have changed from one person to another. This because there have been changes in the rapidly-growing organisation. Some employees have had very heavy burdens and [responsibilities] had to be shared," she added.
Fennovoima stressed that the documents that had been called into question related to leadership structures and were not technical documentation. An internal audit turned up four cases in which responsibilities had changed. According to Forsström they dated back to 2014-15.