ML060610361
| ML060610361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/2004 |
| From: | Blough A NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Meyer G, Miller H, Wiggins J NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML060610361 (3) | |
Text
'}Glenn Meyer - Fwd: Anderson Letter re. NRC letter 1 bi Page 1 f From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
A. Randolph Bloughv/
Gwm-hjm1j JtwI\\
2/3/0Fw: A2:49nr P-Fwd: Anderson Letter re. NRC letter alleger is now criticizing Roy's letter....
...we could have expected this.
I C "I I
,\\
4' i
-1 \\
\\ , X t
J,.
I I
Infogmatio in this red was d0ea4 in accordance with the PFrIeON 0IM"1100 Act, exemptions
'7 l
FOIAk
"°°22 L/
A/
IGInn Meyer - Anderson Letter-re. NRC letter Page1 From:
AI To:
ZE-XN 7nrc.go Date:
2/3/04 12:04PM
Subject:
Anderson Letter re. NRC letter As discussed. This was forwarded by a PSEG employee whose words are in blue.
Subject:
FW: A Letter from Roy Anderson I My Views on the NRC Letter of Ja nuary 28 Boy, does this new "Leader" have it all wrong. see NRC Letter first and then Roy's comments.
Original Message-----
From: Nuclear Communications Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 5:35 PM To: ENTNBU
Subject:
A Letter from Roy Anderson I My Views on the NRC Letter of January 28 My Views on the NRC Letter of January 28 My Views on the NRC Letter of January 28 On Wednesday, the NRC sent us a letter, the upshot of which was, that based on interviews with former and current employees, the NRC has real questions about how decisions and events of the past may have affected employeesrQo attitudes and how we may react to safety issues.
The letter states that the NRC has rqCnot identified any serious safety violationsrCV. However, they go on to say, rFQCollectively, information gathered has led to concerns about the stationrQ, s work environment, particularly as it relates to the handling of emergent equipment issues and associated operational decision making.rFQ The letter itself is posted on the NRC Web page, and I am attaching a copy so you can all take a look.
I was disappointed to get this letter. Not surprised at what it said, but that it was sent. The things the NRC points out are the reason we reorganized, we re-staffed, we put responsibility and the wherewithal to get things done together, and performed the attitude study.
WhatrFqs critical is the question the NRC has posed in their letter to Mr.
Ferland: rFQHave we assessed the impact of various events over the past few years on the attitudes of our workers?rFQY The fact is, that if there is this level of concern, then there is something behind it, and we need to go after it.
WhatrFQOs curious about this question is that it comes down to the opinions of each of us. Do we feel we can bring up issues and that they will get addressed? In our business, werQOre here because we protect the health and safety of the public. Part of doing this is knowing that each of us can stand up and
tGlenn Meyer - Anderson Letter re. NRC letter Pa speak our minds.
There is no metric for this. ThatrqOs why we did the attitude survey conducted by Synergy. The results of the survey are what we said about ourselves.
The results will tell a lot about what werFOve accomplished and how far we still need to go.
WerQOve been on a course to improve our business and wer(;Ove been marching through the model we have previously discussed. We have restructured our business.
We have staffed the new organization. We have identified the metrics to measure our business. We have surveyed ourselves. We will identify our gaps and we will do something about it. It is time to work.
- Regards, P.S. Each of us should view this letter and its content as a wakeup call.
The opportunity to improve rests with each of us individually and the choices we make.
N. Kymn Harvin, Ph.D.
Smeal Executive MBA Program Gregg Conference Center Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 610 542 5858 (office)
~(cell)
CC:
CC:<DJV~nrc.gov>, <dlochbaum(Ziucsusa.org>