ML061770563

OI Interview Report

ML061770563
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/04/2003
From:	Neff E NRC/OI
To:
References
1-2002-042, FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML061770563 (3)

Text

l1iN1zMV Ir_.W A*IVII On November 4, 2003, Iwas telephonically contacted by the Reporting Agent (RA) as a result of his interview with the kA at the reekmfacili on October 26, 2003, for which he was accompanied by a union representative.

fI. *

.vas asked if he had been able to answer the questions without restraint due to the fact that he was accompanied by other union personnel.

indicated that his responses were not restricted in any manner due to the union's presence.

4ýaid he thought further about the RA's questions regarding his knowledge of individuals retaliated against for having raised concerns. During the October 26 interview, he did not consideruide f management when he reported that apart from one individual, a form he was not aware of instances of alleged discrimination for having raised concerns. He provided the following information, in substance, in regard to seven non-management individuals that have claimed they were retaliated against:

1)

"a Hope Creek**rsigned o that he felt harassed by both union and managemen becaue

"~h-ought-thisgccurred-around-December2002zJanuary 2003 and believed that supervision, at the CRS level, got involved and wrote a notification. The persorn who hung the switc was discilined, but the comany escalated the discipline and it was the subject of a grievance.

inot vany specific examples of the harassment he felt even th a

asked him for that,

'did ot see' anything himself.

ssued email and talked to ihe roup on s-shift about harassment of individuals.ater told he appreciated his actions; but h"e was going to leave th.e corn tht switched shifts, then resigned to work at 111l=

MW W[

qas someone."always on the verge of quitting"and noted

-- i--t-hie did not*em*itiin on ab-e job mr than..........

2Hope Creek libelieves he was harassed by management by being pDace for s

sThe situation is currently in the grievance process, w

asinvolved in the off-gas situation earlier this year a*d was very yocal during the shift meeting in.pointing out the appropriate procedures and plan.

ONiU co ts his outspoknness with this'event to the remediation he was assigned primarily becaus ainvolved with both 'issues l.

tried to talk wi egarding his position on the off-gas issue.

e es t

rejqejthe notion thatbe being harassed, but there were no other incidents reported to

• ylI if~ereVd J his personal opinion as the incidents are not connected, though he bglievese rievance to be valid. He. believes management simply Hope reginig cnsevaue decision man 9 Informatioii ifi ti*.: [LL.Ufc was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions ý'

FOIA-

,__ _ -/_ ?_ K n die onUIlU Rouom.

Lw proUmp ted by a new core cor

monito-nn system that allowed the plant to come up in power a little due to the flow of water.

elt that without the system functioning due to a computer crash, they should decrease !

o remain under 1000 ower to ensure the technical specification limits were not exceeded. '4I

told, that he was harassed after writing the notification, but

• .ould not recall, that he was told who was involved.or what form the harassment took. He recalled that he did not see the connection and there was no justification to file a grievance in this matter.

• a Hope CreekW lescribed this as unusual, but possible. At o p

t epted a pos to a supervisor and was in the license class when he changed his mind and returned to hi He dropped out of the license training in December 2001 or January 2002.

onnected his dropping the class with the unusual amounl of testing but had no additional incidents to report tI No grievance was filed anT said he had difficulty linking the issues due to the time lapse.

5a FMu Hope Creek#*believes he was harassed for being procedure and ed overan issue in-Febr M

2002.

Z" d

gavya direct order twice to go on plant historian to trend power.questioned the order each time and was escorted off-site when he questioned it the second time.

e-lx--ldiuid-the--systenf-r-cords-thousands-of temperatures, pressures and status and has the ability to pull up a particular point in time.

However, *i December or January just prior to this ieciden t.,in ade the statement that he wanted the NCOs to physically monitor tie boards.

The night before

'wsescorted off-site ol heC havin1 trouble with etfin o go on0 storian.

ued that'i was not what eant and would talk vwia they would have to follow what dIa until they receivedtdiffie t instructions. He then tol1 ut this 4discussio'n. The'next night is Wwhen dietdon~~itran again. Prior to this time, they would try to get ll!to go on thecomputer, but he would have someone else get the data.

emain off-duty for one week and the union had him returned to work s a A couple of months later he returned to his origijial position..gil.Q considers this harassment of himself in that it was unreasonable action taken by mana erent.n He does not associate it Wi

any, ecific issue, bu he. anattribute it t being compliance mind Q someone who raises concerns, but prefers for 01 to questio egarding any other adverse actions or ongoing issues.

eves he was harassed because he is vocal and re arry raises union issues. In late 2002 as fired over a FFD issue and later returned to his job. Just prior to this inciden hturt his arm and his doctor allowed him to return to light duty. At the time the company wanted employees placed back to work in some capacity, if possible. There was a pending outage and the availability of light duty work A(II

-ý C

- as easy. Management did not pla jb._ck on duty an ot involved as the could not come ack to work.

nded, "We can't contr responded to ting tha as a worker and that he raises issues when he feels it is' appropriate.

did n a

this directly, but said Vould not come back.

elievs

-egretted his previous remark.

id not come back to work on light duty, but one month after he returned to work, he was fire over the FFD issue.

AGENT'S NOTE:

]was interviewed by 01 on October 23, 2003. He provided additional information regarding how management views and treats him based on his activity as a lead union steward.

r.*

"~

'l v

R tbelieves he was harassed, but is not aware of why.

It harassed by being sent into containment to check oil levels on reactor feed pumps. This was within his job function, but not his assigned duty and the duties had to be switched aroundrvision (unknown) for this to occur. This situation does not usually happen ai is not aw of any reas on for the switch. Heh not certain what particular incident cause this an laimed tha efinitely raises safety issues-Hebelieved-thaj jji rshould be asked more-specific-questions.-A-Mrevance-was filed regarding this issue, bd oes not recall the outcome.

till raises safety issues in spite of the alleged retaliation.

AGENT'S NOTE: 7as interviewed at his own request regarding these assertions and other issues on November 6, 2003.

• W*wanted to make it clear that these situations came to his attention and any

'intimidatiodn" felt would have to be expressed directly by the individuals involved. He added that he does not personally feel intimidated or harassed and will voice concerns and bring up issues as he sees them; especially with the safety of running the plant.

Reported by:

Eileen Neff, Special Agent16 Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Cas0.

-2002-042