ML060690418

Teator Notes of Interview of Ford

ML060690418
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/31/2003
From:	NRC/OI
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML060690418 (4)

Text

IPREPPElDs ir c HUNSEL AS TO HOW TO ANSWER QT FROM COUNSEL/DID YOU INFORM YOUR MGMT OF THIS TO BRIEF THEM ABOUT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED?

"I -

HA4)'Od - NA%

OUESTION AREAS describe union management relationships  %-grLA Subject will raise concerns and has done so -

Subject would raise concerns if .

,avf concerns-why?

Others do raise concerns - I "I- -JA /J Others don't or hesitate to raise concerns -. _  %-

Experienced retaliation for raising concerns (if yes, give brief summary of circumstances.

Identify for self or others) -

If subject discussed incidents/events, briefly describe the incident and identify what they offered the incident as an example of. for example:

POTENTIAL SALEM SCWE ISSUE , >

SPECIFIC ISSUES \,v 'if,9 %VN v.>

• Coming out of Salem 1 Spring 2001 outage - at full power for very short time - had generator trip, turbine trip, reactor tripped. GARCHOW told CS that they nee edl-to.ts Information inthis record was deleted l "&-

inaccordance with the Freedom of Infoamation 7 C1.

Act exemptions '7 dc, 7 D

.,W, X- v

- Z ,.

the reactor by a particular date or their NRC performance indicator was going to go to White if they don't.. told GARCHOW they were going to start reactor when4v)~'

thought within a day of actually bringing steam into the turbine bldg. - because not going to start reactor with main steam stopned hut per the safety analysis. That was not a good place to be. (9-14) lU feeling that -'ias not going to fit in at Salem. When GARCHOW said this tc.$Oftey didn't know exactly what caused the generator trip. I on 1 conversation. If;&had done what was requested it would not have been a violation of 10 CFR, station procedures or license requirements. GARCHOW then asked-overy day when was the reactor going to be started. "I am not trying to put pressure on you, but I want to know whenu.are going to start the reactor up." A-felt that GARCHOW was putting pressure o t*f start reactor.

PORC reviewed and came to same conclusion a anid when informed GARCHOW.-

GARCHOW said he wanted another PORC meeting. Took another week beforevallowed rector to start up. GARCHOW accepted PORC ornmendation - but he was not happy withS<

not starting up the reactor. After hearing this It mgmt style was not going to be what was advertised which was 1. Safety 2. Reliability, 3 . ' indicator at safety wasn't their #1 priority. (Pages 9-29) Pretty much from this incident forward ,;tarted getting excluded by GARCHOW and O'CONNOR from more and more, to include VP level meetings becauspt was going to go along with everything they said (p. 37-39)

O -I SE WITH VES 4/5 AND 12/13 NS T TG DONE TO DETEMN IF ITASAP OBF IN MADE BA G R(AND

• • • SALE GRASSING ISSUE - EARLY MARCH 2003 SOME SisANTED MORE CIRCU ATORS (4 INSTEAD OF 3) - O"CONNOR FELT THOSE IVIDUALS WE "HOLDING THE PLANT HOSTAGE"???

WAS IN ON SOME PHO 'LLS AND MEETINGS BUT SINCE SALEM - NOT AS MUCH - MORE EXP WI HC

KEEPING REACTOR POWER AT ROPER LEVEL WITH SITUATION DETERIORATING /

SUPV BY COMMITTEE LESS EMOTION TURBINE VALVE ISSUE - RIGHT THING WAS DONE -

WAS IT TIMELY D~ ISION - "YES" FELT GOOD ABOUT WHERE AND HOW THEY GOT THE BUT FROM A O P CTIVE - WAS PROBABLY A SCWE ISSUE - HE BROUGHTOUP T REASON

_- NAA w-PCHECMS?-

• • OCCASIONS WHERE THEY HAD TO DJYBAT9 A POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE/EQUIPMENT OPERABILITY OR-INOPERABILITY ISSUE FOR 4-6 HOURS BEFORE COMING TO A DECISO i COULD BE PERCEIVED THAT THEY WERE NOT BEING FIRM IN DEC ION ON HOW THEY WERE OPERATING THE PLANT

• • THE ECONOMICS TAKING PRECEDENCE 0 ICISION MAKING REGARDING PLANT OPERATIONS AND OPERATIONS D IONS. DID NOT MEAN ECONOMIC PRESSURE TO KEEP PLANT UP. NEVER EN IN MEETING THERE WHERE THAT WAS VERBALIZED.

• • Says even after receiving INPO 3 in 2002, uni adership still positive , but plant mgmt was disappointed - said that after meeting plant fo was not changed to where production over rode safety.

If the subject offered information regarding other problems with SCWE. briefly identify (such as the CAP, the processing of notifications. handling of routine maintenance)

DINGER OT ACT" FOR WAY THEY WROTE IC S?? - DAE SHAVER NCO AN HE SPUSH ISSIFVEARING ERUSSION3 F OF BE NFOR RVSK; AN ICStE?

EVER FELT HE COULDN'T RAISE AN ISSUE/CONCERN?

• • DO NLOs - TELL YOU THEY FEEL FRUSTRATED THAT IN ID SAFETY ISSUES - THEY CAN'T GET IT FIXED TO THEIR SATISFACTION IN A TIMELY MANNER. SEES THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ID BY NLOs BUT ARE NOT -

MAYBE THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN UP RAISING ISSUES.

EVER SAW/HEARD/FELT PRODU OOER SAFETY DIRECTIVE?

EER SAW/HE WRK MGMT D TOR SUPERVSON AT PLAN EARDIG ETY/START UP/S ROWN?

BELIEVES UNION LEADERSHIP WO NOT A BIG CHANGE FOR WORSE IN WORK ENVIRONMENT SINCE 7 - CONTRARY TO ALLEGER ASSERTION

• • NO PLANT MGR FOR LAST 3 YE EDHOSE IN CHARGE" MENTALITY

- MANAGEMENT/DECISION BY C 1R1MITTEE LED TO MUCH INPUT BY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD NO ON AUTHORITY OVER ISSUE I