ML060660315
| ML060660315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/2003 |
| From: | Vito D Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| To: | Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML060660315 (1) | |
Text
r I Daniel H010aY - Kecord of Hub-s phone call w/alleger on 1 2/1 6/03 P~age 1I
_aie t-ooy-_cr rMD nn aiwaigro
~iI~rg From:
David Vito \\J To:
SALEMHCSCWE Date:
12/16/03 11:03AM
Subject:
Record of Hub's phone call wialleger on 12/16/03
- SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION -
- PROTECT ACCORDINGLY -
In response to an e-mail letter from the alleger last week, Hub contacted her this morning to generally discuss our current actions regarding her allegations and also to be responsive to some comments made in the e-mailed letter. I listened in on Hub's portion of the call (I was not on the squawk box).
Hub informed her that we were continuing to make a priority of the issues she provided to us, and assured her that he was keeping tabs on what his staff was doing on a frequent basis. He indicated to her that we are continuing to closely monitor activities at the site by way of the inspection program, and that that oversight has included assessment of the new managment regime (Anderson, et.al).
Hub emphasized to her that we are paying close attention to plant activities and that we would take prompt action if we identify actions that are unsafe. He reminded her that the concept of a safety conscious work environment is a complex one and involves many inputs and variables. Hub emphasized that we intend to continue with a methodic, deliberate review of this matter, and that we will not rush or make a precipitous decision.
After the phone call, Hub told me that she had reiterated similar comments to those she had made to me last week after she provided us with a copy of PSEG's response to her state court discrimiantion complaint Specifically, she had pointed out that Mr. Keiser's response to the complaint contained contradictions to information that she had taped and provided to us previously. It was her opinion that finding these contradictory statements by a company official at Keiser's level should be sufficient for the A
f NRC to make a decision to take action against FPSEG.
During the phone call, Hub responded to her that the response provided by Keiser contained legal language that was not uncommon in these circumstances, but that she should be assured that we are evaluating it closely within the context of the broader SCWE review.
asQ;x