ML062000712

Interview Report of Individual

ML062000712
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/07/2003
From:	NRC/OI
To:
References
1-2003-045, 1-2003-051F, FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062000712 (2)

Text

1-2.003-051F Interview- of Date: November 7, 200 November 13, 2003 Position/L h-tion:

Number of years: started * # " \-

Special Duties heli ..... --Wwl.7-,...

Interview on 11/07/03 regarding 1-2003-045:

ecalled the (involved .

1W*that a lot of people thought was no handled correctly. This-~is not the first unsafe action / as aware of and he claimed a lot of things happened that are not the safe way to go. The q)handling was thought to be "typical" behavior of PSEG MAST in the way they handle things while at the same time lecturing the union on how safe they should be. It raised a "big stir" that "got ugly" and came down to a lot of animosity over "do what we say and not what we do." This particular action was so unsafe and this became a big event. He described himself as not quiet when it comes to'having a concern. He also thinks the concerns were raised about this on all of the shifts to the point where the superintendents were upset and through their chain of command it got to, He believes Kymn HARVIN had a meeting with all five shifti. HARVIN said there would be some type of synopsis or gathering of.information with plans to get back to the people involved. R-id not recall getting any verbal or documented feedback regarding this meeting. He added that he did not expect any action and thought they were just being placated. He may even have said at the meeting that HARVIN's job was to pacify and "wait out the storm." He asked her what she did to improve things with Maintenance and I&C to make things safer. She had no examples of anything made safer or better, but he believes she was trying.

He recalled email to HARVIN. The concerns noted in the email dated September 24, 2002, are not specifically recalled, but the

')is part of that. He believes they probably involved nuclear safety issues and thought the itself "bordered" on some of that. He recalled a lot of concerns were aired, and thought the issues had to do with procedures, tech specs, equipment, conduct of operations and maybe, industrial safety. -He could not give specific procedural issue problems and indicated t&hey are getting better at resolving them more timely. He will look for other emails and documentation that he may have.

Miexpaineý,xplnd his statements about asking for information where action~staen by( operations adverse to the saf. operation of a nuclear generating station and with the needed level of conservatism needed for the industry. He said that focused mostly on the N AWANO".) He meant by his statement about "actions that might have a Informatij in = 04 Aitnsi record was deleted ,

inaccordance with the Freedom of Infotmation Act, exemptions2N/

FOI4-

negative impact on the station should any outside influence get word of it" that it was his belief that things could get glossed and filtered and cleaned up before put into a final report. He referred to the grassing that almost shut them down and the recent BFi9 incident. He is talking about them doing anything and ever thing to keep the unit running and gave as an example the4=;)that existed for hours, was 20 feet and "deafening" and was the worst he has ever seen. The plant should have been shut down (Sept. 02).