ML062000214
| ML062000214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/2004 |
| From: | Teator J NRC/OI |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 1-2003-045, FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML062000214 (2) | |
Text
INTERVIEW REPORT OF On the evening of August 11, 2004 as interviewmdby.t lephone by the reporting agent as part ofInvestigatibn No. 1-2003-045.
- as specifically r ep o rti n g a g nh epa t orne'.
1 W 1 interviewed to obtain his knowledge of whether Kymn tt RVIN'sjob as eliminated and/or her last day of work was moved up because she en.a, ed nNRC protected activity.
)
was initially called on tis cellul hone but due to storms in th
,ahell" was discontinued unt able to reac his residence whereupon the interview began in earnest.
ý egaun his employment at Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations in f.
~~~When he left his employment there he was thel.'
... W*
the Salem...and Hop"*
"-*'te Cree k units. His supervisor was i* Since March 200.e
- =-:-,,,*.,,
Hi~s work telephone number is" gl.i.. l,*.S
.:r.._-
provided the following information:
He does not have any first hand knowledge to support or prove that HARVIN's job was eliminated or that her las&t&yPfgork was moved up because she engaged in NRC protected activity, although'it i 3belief that the adverse acts were taken against HARVIN because she did engage in protected activity. Specifically says that although there were job reductions in the Information Technology (IT) and Business Services Departments at the plants because there was a duplication of effort in those functions at PSEG headquarters, there was no such duplication in HARVIN's work by anyone else. That makes him believe that the decision to eliminate her job was not based on business reasons/cost reduction. He added that until HARVIN began raising safety concerns he observed good interactions between HAelieves**.
ahat after HARVIN began raising safety concerns her relationship wit an
)tumed sour," but he has no first hand knowledge or pr to su at the relationships soured after HARVIN began raising safety concerns. Also, as not able to offer any specific examples to show that the relationships soure believes that HARVIN did herjob well; employees confided in her; and she was honest with emp oyees; and with her assessments of the work at the plants. He indicated that her work helped the plants receive an INPO recognized strength, and that!'touted her job and function to INPO as a plant strength. He indicated that in his 9iU working in the nuclear power industry, he had not seen a person/job function who had been viewed as a strength by INPO one day, and the next day there position was eliminated. He also believed that, due in part to HARVIN's work, the plants had a strong year [in 2002].
summarized his beliefs by stating that it did not make any business sense to eliminate her jot, it did not make any sense from an INPO standpont eliminate herob [you are supposed.to keep your strengths], coupled with his belief tha Iand(
lack inuiaul-aion in this record was deleted
'-KT in e xm d a pc e n si o t.o r e e d....f Gtio n
E X H I I O t
Act, exemptions 2C PAGE OF )
-PAG.E(S3)
F" integrity, leads him to believe that HARVIN's job was eliminated and her last day moved up because she engaged in NRC protected activity.
- Repo, Jeffre' Teator, Special Agent Office f Investigations Field Office, Region I Case No. 1-2003-045 2