ML062000719

OI Interview Notes

ML062000719
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	06/15/2004
From:	NRC/OI
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062000719 (69)

Text

I:

I.

I~.

Ii;

/3oC f?//)

(.~.

(I Inwormafuun.

-ýxurd was dele' ed in accordance:With 4e freedom of Information Act, exemption 0/11

~~

44~J

£

~1.~

'V

/

(&/~'~

7a

!II..............

1 iI.

~

[

1.i

~S~AJ~/

7..

,22 It-qLl lrj I -- \\loýý

.1.

.1 47~~

VJr-J d-,

)ý s cAV-1p, r a, ýý l..j 10 K

li.

Iz I,

/

V

Ii.

ii U,

MY

.1,-7.

Aall AL

~

dA ~P/kILI p

A v

r oC A

t

. i P\\ ý'

I.

1./

I.

I.

'iJ"i~)

fr(~

~t4

+ ~yj/

4k..

i, (Z.

~--~

• M~

N II iiII (6~

ii II...

'I II

/

I

/

/1!....

.4 N

I 4

I.

IWI p

-Alm W-lipm,63 w-o*r4-&-

owýj

/_j 6"J m\\J

• ma\\A-i A.

• .. rA 4"A%,

I

-1 t I I -

AP..

0

/

Pk1A cll-q,ý

~<

3ILLI

~F~'v~3 C-ý <-A V/0. )ýý A~LP ~(

7

~

~4 9f4/

~

~4

&0 t.ý,

,v<

,'4

Allegation Receipt Report Page 1 of (Use also for Staff Suspected Wrongdoing)

Zt't Date Received: September 27 and 28, 2004 Allegation No. RI-A-

Received via: [X] Telephone I] In-person [I] Letter [I] Facsimile (leave blank)

Employee Receiving Allegation or suspecting wrongdoing (first two initials and last name): JA TEATOR Source of information (please check one box): [X] licensee employee [X] former licensee employee []

contractor [] former contractor [] anonymous [] news media [] private citizen [I] federal agency Rstate agency []

NRC staff [] licensee identified [] special interest group Alleger Name: 'NNW3 ""

K..--. Home Address:"

To Home Phon City/State/Zip:

• Alleger's Employer' Alleger's Position/Title:'.

• Do not complete these sections for Issues o staff 9 spected wrongdoing.

Facility: SALEM/HOPE CREEK Docket No. or License No.: 50-272,311,354 Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy?

Yes _ No X If H&I was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights?

Yes _ No-N/A X If a licensee employee or contractor, did they raise the issue to their management and/or ECP?

Yes X No_ NIA_

Does the alleger object to referral of issues to the licensee?

Yes _ No Provide alleger's direct response to this question verbatim on the line below:

Was confidentiality requested?

Yes _ No X Was confidentiality initially granted?

Yes_ No-N/AX Individual Granting Confidentiality:

Criteria for determining whether the issue is an allegation:

Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropliety or inadequacy? Yes / No Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities?

Yes / No Is the validity of the issue unknown?

Yes / No If No to any of the abovequestions, the issue is not an allegation and should be handled by other appropriate methods (e.g. as a request for information, public responsiveness matter, or an OSHA referral).

Allegation Summary or staff suspected wrongdoing: (Recipient of the allegation shall summarize each concern here - provide additional detail on reverse side of form, if necessary. If entering allegation electronically, highlight Allegation Summary in bold and use larger font size)

[1]

ALLEGATION

SUMMARY

-1.

ISAGREES WITH THE STAFF'S CONCLUSION THAT ITH THE HOPE CREEK "B" RECIRC PUMP WERE UNSUBSTANTIATED.

AID THAT IF THE LICENSEE RUNS THE PUMP AS IS THE VIBRATION WILL CAUSE A LOCA.- THE TEMPORARY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS/TROUBLE SHOOTING JUST TO CHANGE OUT THE MECHANICAL SEAL THAT ARE PLANNED TO OCCUR

ýob IN THE OCTOBER REFUEL OUTAGE WILL CAUSE A COLLECTIVE DOSE OF 4.5 TO 7R TO THE 1 bk_

W IsK RS LL NOT FIX THE VIBRATION PROBLEM. HE ADDED THAT THE.

F OM TI N AVAILABLE TO THE LICENSEE [IN THE ROOT CAUSE REP9 INITIATED IANG

-TEItLING THEM THAT THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION), TO CHANGE OUT TH.i'P, BUT THE LICENSEE CHOSE A DIFFERENT COjUR OF ACTION BECAUSE OF THE COST.OF-RS.P-LACING-THE-PUMP'.

HE FEELS THAT THE"WcORNEEDS ADDITLONAL OVERSIGHT AND/OR INTERVENTION BY THE NRC BEFORE THE'QUTAGE BEGINJý HE WOULD LIKE THE STAFF TO CONTACT HIM SO THAT HE CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO HELP

THE NRC IN ITS REVIEW OF THIS WORK AND THE VIBRATION PROBLEM.

WOULD LIKE FEEDBACK FROM THE NRC REGARDING THIS ISSUE.

LAIMS THAT IN CONTRAST TO THE LICENSEE'S STATED POSITION, THE SCWE IS AT SALEMIHOPE CREEK IS NOT GETTING BETTER IN LIGHT OF HIM BEING TOLD BY A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND AT LEAST ONE FIRST LINE SUPERVISOR THAT THEY ARE AFRAID TO RAISE ISSUES, AFRAID TO "ROCK THE BOAT" BECAUSEMANAGEMENT DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR OF PROBLEMS OR ISSUES AT THE PLANTS.

CITED GENERAL CONCERNSIISSUES WITH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM, WORK ORDER CLOSURES BEING CLOSED TO ANOTHER WORK ORDER WITHOUT THE WORK BEING PERFORMEIRND WORK PLANNING ISSUES. BASED ON DISCUSSIONS HE HAS HAD WITH CURRENT LICENSEE E&PLOYEES, THEY ARE AFRAID TO WRITE NOTIFICATIONS OR THEY ARE WRITT RAYTO AVOID-BFING PERCEIVED AS THEM BRINGING UP "ANOTHER BIG ISSUE CLAICLAIMS THAT INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED [TO INCLUDE THOSE LISTED IN THIS ALLEGATION REPORT] DURING THE SCWE I*EVIEW "HELD BACK" ON PROVIDING ALL OF THE INFORMATION THEY WERE AWARE OF.

wINDICATED THAT THE STAFF NEEDS TO ASK LICENSEE EMPLOYEES IF THINGS AR4/

CHANGING-AND IF THEY FEEL FREE TO BE ABLE TO RAISE ISSUES.

3. SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT EMPLOYEEP E

INDICATED THAT WHILE POWER WASHING'THE HOPE CREEK SERVICE WATER COMPONENTS IN PREPARATION FOR AN INPO INSPECTION, SQME OF THE9SUP WERE SO CORRODED TI-AT THEY WERE POWER WAS I

.WAY PEFC A

LAIMS THAT A CONCERN WAS RAISED ABOUT THES kOfiTRUC T'RES AND THE ENGINEERI,*

REP NSWERJDIT BY TAKINGCRITFOR THE REMAINING SUPPORTS TG*U'JP*O H

T.HSYS-TW.

WAID THATOULD LIKE TO BE CONTACTED AT HOM O

"A-HE CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS ISSUE AND0N IsSUE -wITH A-N-ISSVE WITH THE HPCI SYSTEM [AS DESCRIBED BELOW IN No.j].

4.-

H.

AID THAT SALEM SHARED WITH HIM A CONCERN ABOUT THE SALEM HPCI SYSTEM, SPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE WORK WAS ACTUALLY PERFORMED [OR IF IT WAS TIED TO OTHER WORK ORDERS AND CLOSED WITHOUT BEING PERFORMED] AND WHETHER ALL OF THE CORRECT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO ALLOI V FOR THE SYSTEM.. 0

-D TO-ERVICE SHORTLY BEFORE THE 30 DAY LCO DATE.

ACCORDING TID NOT INDICATE THAT THIS IS AN IMMEDIATE SAFTY ISSUE, BUT THIS CONCERNI FOR FEAR OF BEING SUBJECT TO RETRIBUTIONs

5.

SAID THAT LIGEtISEE-EMPLOYf S-ASSIGNED-T"-

PERFORM A ROOT CAUSE I ANALYSIS ON A-Dt9EILC AN O D VENDOR WAS BROUG TO ASSIST WITH THE ANALYSIS AND WAS PROVIDING LUABLE ASSISTANCE, BUT THE VENI WORK WAS STOPPED DUE TO FUNDING ISSUES.AN Tr E ROOT CAUSE WAS UNABLE TO BE COMPLETED IN A TIMELY FASHION AND WITH THE SUFF CIENT DETAIL TO CONCLUDE THAT Ti PROPER AND CORRECT ACTIONS WERE TAKEN. HE OF RED THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRJR*WOR MANAGEMENT A D WORK ENVIRONMENT ISSUES NC FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.<

I A

1/

,HTD'III POR 4J T

vi!

\\JNCA j\\)

iA, A I c_~

Page 2 of Functional Area (please check one box):

[ I Academic [ I Decommissioning Materials [] Decommissioning Reactor [ I Exempt Distribution

[ I General Licensee [ ] Gun Sights [ I Irradiators [ I] Medical [ I] Nuclear Gauges [ ] Nuclear Laundry

[ I Nuclear Pharmacy [X I Power Reactor [ I Radiography [ I Research and Development (R&D)

] Research/Test Reactor [ I Safeguards [ I SNM [ I Teletherapy [ I Transportation [ I Vendor I] Veterinary Non-human [ I Waste Disposal [ ] Well Logging [ I Other:

Discipline for each concern (place the concern no(s). (either 1, 2, 3, etc.) in the box provided):

[ I Chemistry [ X I Chilling Effect [ X I Civil/Structural [ I Construction [ X I Corrective Action

[ I Discrimination I I Electrical [

I Emergency Preparedness [ I Employee Concerns Program

[ X I Engineering [ I Environmental [ I Environmental Qualification [ I Falsification f I Fire Protection I I Fitness-for-Duty I] Health Physics [ ] HVAC I I Industrial Safety [ I Inservice testing I ] Instrumentation and Control I I Maintenance I I Mechanical [ ] Misadministration [ ] NDE I Operations [ I Procurement [ I Quality Assurance [

I Radviaste [ I Safeguards I I Security I[ Source disconnect [

I Startup testing [ I Training/qualification [

I Transportation I I Unsupervised Radiography [ I Wrongdoing [ I Other:

Detailed Description of Allegation or staff suspected wrongdoing: (Do not state the alleger's name in this section - simply refer to the individual as the alleger) SEE ABOVE When taking the allegation, ask questions such as WHAT IS THE ALLEGATION?

WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT/VIOLATION?

WHERE IS IT LOCATED?

WHEN DID IT OCCUR?

WHO IS INVOLVED/WITNESSED?

HOW/WHY DID IT OCCUR?

WHAT EVIDENCE CAN BE EXAMINED?

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE LICENSEE'S ACTIONS?

How did the alleger find out about the concern(s); other individuals NRC should contact for additional information; records NRC should review; whether the alleger raised the concerns with his or her management; alleger's preference for method and time of contact.

JL~

Si.V

"*7

-.0-7 C.

I'J z,9A 7""

5t7

.,bLdV '/-$,f*,6ev.l "77,,

,#,*,**"+*

z.*

,,o,3T. L/.4J1 C

4.-

,7 /

/

4I 7-1 C..

j.(.ý,.t-4

,,,i*

/472M-

'9 (67-'9f S~L~r

/S 4CŽ~#

Itfj

- ~77 h(A],j4j(~~c/J c~7~,7r 7b ~;~ S*~~

-7 I~l *

• l*

z&t~'r *',*-;

. "'7',,,,IKC' A-'

,_(*

/;,,

/r en* -

,.,A*,

.~,.

C',,<

uc/.A"-1 AFt'"-

,Ae.9,,13 7*.(-A 7 -r,

&q/:z~u

- ]2( "T,.-.

(14+j C 7~

.j4 1

~

A"J :7~-?~

.1 4 S~,~fr

'ii)

AC ~,~1'1,J /AIT.

~),(TL2. &e~J

~~I5L/Vt((4VI

-4~I

(,.-A.s~.

A 'C~jrj 41VV Ieitvz

--~1

~. J-1.~.

4~tLJQ t~ K '11 c~.r A 'Aj7. -

f~7~7 I')

rk' O.ii~

~'

'~-~

~.

d

/

~1 /1/A:,2

I" lqt'f

./i --

Is '16

-:/,7/:

/4 i4;r~

1/~Lii-re-

-7,,i-)/

s/y~ -ii44 A'~

4 r7 c

-T/AZ 6.L,'fJr-

/A-1

.. Ve /

-*'/,e

• ~MA~7W>S d

_jrY i,re;.

(

/14i tI~ 1+

i

)4 (ILN 1/2y ~~~?A I ~~cIk ~

J.

L dI.

r L-1I r~L JT,-kl r

'-A-i OW/N*:s ;

r~ IA.

cgAIE

.5e47ZVi COl AL' 5

7LAL(/ob 77'~i2ot1vVt~A

~Ci~r~i3 L

- I#,*,

I Ixz p

~

)~...

4P~~l T#~K7i-Ao4 7

t

\\i

'~J 76~~~

&JVA~oiE-JT77

-big@

1J(-,JT-

,,r Y,--

7D Id 4 L~g-116

-. m'ýTýN 07t r-,,1 NT-O2c~,4i~~~

1 -r

'~774-r i

q,~A~,i i~~sr/ii 1 z~<.-*c/ rF i~z,*~

4 4-r,,,'.h 4

Ld. /

iM/osT -17I IT*~

4Jo7 (v-F.

L(,/7

. j,,,/

4 LC L-064

~

(:7

,f, e

'C-(741,1A'

/7.

A0I (I

( Z71. bt-b-

/

re-.

'1 ~

C *-

7

/~CAJ4 CJCL-~ZWL TIF

-S/

7K 66ro

&"i~dc

~~

,LC L

~- A~-~ ~

~j'1~-i I

- b4~Y 42.. '~

SC.A-~5L2#

'6-

~j4i A

.2 /

6

-~

A /

°.

I'l

C15L: vilo"

~\\A1~J WI

-IL

.p Qg S'/

D M& -ý lokl'I KG 4'cq-cfl I7 1 /1/i~1/24?1oJT16a}T 10

/03,9(k/

k/1NS1zi v 4-er(SC 4c v~-s.

I tL4c~*

'(p

-~

(

kjmA f L; "7.

4-)(z~,

Az~

(~*J4 A.0, 10 Mili Pet" lov

• ~fl.-,~

1! &-e-A

,.7

/ - j, 5';

), 1 2, 7 Ic.3 ILL d~iz-~~~-bi

."IL,-

-/

AreL Z-v.

~zt-KW e.L/

~1cx

/L &~~d

toe,

~

1A A.J~

4$7

/1,-,

~~03) vý?

'-CI-

-rt 77-5,~.g A

o t(M.. (",4/-

IICZ77/VVZ

/

0

',<A

• r-,0l

,v i

/*

..A,-- --

P1k S*A-7,tCAfj-

iA-,ý czyx

.-515-6 0-px -ffl(L.

~4~A 4 ~ LC

/

/b 4g ~,

A~. ~~~'-~4r1 2-

-~

~

..w-.-

.L/

7'1JP zefýL tq

-.Os

(ý I I ý ýot-7q (-

N SQs

/

a e - m s aif 'I W Q S

'3111 6(v,l**

POSITION ELIMINATION FIRST KNOWLEDGE T 11AADE, A DECISION TO ELIMINATE KH POSITION DOWNSIZING -N*IGN STUDY en A'

.AY*tq LtHERI NO LATER THAN JANUARY 17, 2003 -

WHEN FIRST SCUSSION SHE HEARD/LEARNED OF THAT KH POSITION BEING ELIMINAT KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER BS BEING OFFERED TO KH AFTER INFORMED HER POSITION BEING ELIWATED?

C

-*SEE HR GENERALIST/HR, CONSU T POSITION DESCRIPTION DATED 3/3/03 YOUR UNDERSTANDING FOR SA OR THAT DECISION

• • QUESTIONS ON TERMINAý/9 LETTERISEPARATION AGREEMENT **

SIGNED BY KH 2/26/03 - IN YOUR PPREENCE?

Y THEN - WHO ELSE THERE?

WHO DRAFTE THEM BASIS FOR LANG AGE IN THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT/ STANDARD LANGUAGE?

DRAFT AGREEMENT DATED - BRUARY 2003 -

WHO DRAFTED IT WHEN WAS IT D TED? ASK FOR COMPUTER RECORDS SHOWING EXACT DATE IT WAS INITIAL' DRAFTED...

WHY 2 DIF ERENT DATES ACCELERATION FIRST LEARNED THAT A DECISI9 HAD BEEN MADE THAT KH LAST DAY ON SITE WSA NOT GOING TO BE 4/16 5BT GOING TO BE IN 3/21-3/28 TIMER FRAME??

DflD 4*.

JARE THHYOU DISCUSSION HE HAD WITHMMAND

/18 OR 3/20 REGARDING KH ???

3/18 MEETING/DISCUSSION BETWEEN iAA WHERE THEY TO TO TELL KH SHE NEED TO START FINDING ANOTHER JOB - WHY WAS THAT DIRECTION GIVEN -f SAI WANTED KH RELIEVED OF ALL HER HEARD ANY COMPLAINTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT HER EMOTIONAL STATE OR IT EFFECTING/CAUSING CONCERN AMONG PEOPLE AT PLANT?????

- SEE P. 16 MýSAYS WýAS INVOLVED IN THE DECIS 0N-SAY ATLSITE TO MEET WITHON 3/20 - - AND fANDJ TALKED TO qFCONCERN KH CONTINUING TO GET INVOLVED IN MORE HR ISSUES - LIKE WHAT???

WHY DIDN'Ti TELL HER THAT 3/20 WAS HER LAST DAY???? AND NOT UNTIL 3/24 DID VA"TELL HER

RELATED TO HER CLAIMED BUSINESS EXPENSES PART OF DISCUSSIONS WHERE THAT DECISION WAS MADE?

DO YOU KNOW WHY HER REMOVAL FROM SITE WAS ACCELERATED?

DO YOU KNOW WHOSE DECISION IT WAS TO DO THAT?

ever link it to her raising concerns in general ever link it to her raising nuclear safety concerns

.WHENDID-YOU FIRST LEARN OF THE HXRIN TO ETTER 2

HOW DID YOU LEARN OF IT WERE YOU INSTRUCTED TO TAKE ANY ACTION TO ADDRESS THE DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION IN THE LETTER?

DID YOU TAKE ANY ACTION TO ADDRESS THAT?

BLACKBALLED CONCERN VOICED BY KH??

-2

\\,I "

U-NXo i<l~

(v~ ~4LJ1~

.A3w&j~\\AJ ;;~-

4

~A'~r.)

sývlu/7 6x ko

-7;4\\,v AA htAg JiG

K~ 6(9 Ia

~%\\*

0#A Q-l-.

Yt-f ~

ON L

~NJ~

~&iACL~LL/

'%NjrjS

ýrws *

-A1,1T A-A

&a -/ Pik,

\\

K t (AAA 91,4,,

L

Vv~rlI AfL~.~

1

,..F-..

0

(~ r~~-

L c-c

-- Mo..-

ý4,0 C-i: ý " el QPCV A e -) p7IJ-t

(/r

(~:1 I 6Qtj4, K;A\\-J Qtl, 4,

I K

(/5 41.4

'-73 t

(

ýj v

z;:L,/

-J a

A-Iat Q~(71

~ci

\\

% I f MI1)

U Q'~

4-4~ ~)

j~- 12~

Ix ti

ý,

4C-J (y,

41,

~V

.t-A-6;:k~c~$$

j((. (i

-3 b

IýL z

I

(

HOPE CREEK QUESTIONS INTRO VOrJ~TARY (f

SPELL IYAME 7 HOME ADDRE S

-~

HO~FE LITARY WRK HIST9R HOXL/J6 AND SUP HO LIG "'N P051 IO

,I,

TIMELINE.

12/12/02 - 1307 4 EDGS DECLARED INOP 12/13/02 - AT 1120 AM DISCOVERED TS REQ NOT MET ON "A" AND "C" EDG 12/14 - QT 1120 AM TS REQ TESTING NOT COMPLETED NOR WAS ACTION TAKEN TO RESTORE AT LEAST 1 EDG TO OPERABLE STATUS WITHIN 2 HOURS OR TO INITIATE HOT SHUTDOWN WITHIN THE NEXT 12 HOURS TO MEET TS 3.8.1.I.e PER SCOTT BARBER PLANT SHOULD HAVE SHUTDOWN AT 1120 PM ON 12/14/02 SSDI TEAM STATED THEY BELIEVED THEY BELIEVED THAT PSE&G SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED FULL SCOPE TS TESTING OF ALL THE INPUTS (10) TO 3 EDGs LOCKOUT RELAYS. THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THE NEED TO DO THE TESTING, BUT IN 3 SEPARATE INSTANCES DID LESS THAN THE TS SURVEILLANCE TESTING MANDATED.

LICENSEE IN BOX ON MONDAY - DIESEL "C" OUT OF SERVICE

TARP REVIEW - EXPLANATION OF WHAT TARP IS?

INTERNAL INVESTIGATION REPORT - DISCIPLINE AGAINST H.C. EMPLOYEES?

IMPRESSION THAT DRAVES WAS LEFT TO MAKE DECISION ON TESTING vs NOT TESTING WHO WAS AOM IN 12/02 CORRECTIVE ACTION - ORDER # 70028618 AND CORRESPONDING NOTIFICATION #

7???

CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDER # 70028630 -

NOTIFICATION 20124539 ??? = FAILURE TO PERFORM DIESEL SURVEILLANCE

JNVEnG~ojq/'4--j~)(_

tfljdý( Ur,0541;j un(A/&

UAL rNYETIGTIO//~J~hC(it~t~,J~cJL~-A~~jL

91) (jig RELATIONSHIP WITH KIM HARVIN AREAS TO EXPLORE HOW DID SHE COME TO WORK ON IGNMENT AT SALEM/HOPE CREEK IN 98/99 TIME PERIOD - AT YOUR UEST????

INPUT/WRITE VIN PERFPOE PARTNERSHIP/JOB PERFORMANCE APPRAIS OR THOSE YEARS?

U-HOW DID SHE COME TO BE TRANSFERRED TO NBU AT SALEMIHOPE CREEK IN LATE 2001 TIME PERIOD AT YO Q*ST DID HER WORK RESPONSIB1L ES7CHANGE AS RESULT OF THAT DID SHE NOW REPORT TO OU IN AN OFFICIAL EMPLOYEE TO SUPERVISOR CAPACITY

(<2 LRE YOU TO WRITh HER6B PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE CALENDAR AR 2002 WHAT ELSE THE TRANSFER MEANT

I~~AYS IT WAS ONLýY&TIg JOB - CONFRONT WITH NO CHAGE EMPLOYEE STATUS CODE -

CH SAYS PERMANENT EMPLOYEE GO TO EMAILS FROI AND HAVE THEM EACH EXPLAINED ROTATIONAL ASSIGNMENT OR PERMrANT NATURE OF THE JOB DID YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC CONVERSý' ONTf RE YOU TOLD HER OR WHERE IT WAS EXPLAINED TO HER THAT HE/OB WAS TEMPORARY AND WOULD COME TO AN END AT-SOME POINT?.

EVIDENCE TO OFFER THAT SHE WAS E AWARE OF THAT ASK IF: AFTERHARVIN TOLD OF TEMP NATURE POSITION IN MID 2002 BY

- DID HARVIN THEN ASKR IF IT WERE TRUE??

BEING PLACED ON TEMPORARY LWING EXPENSES ISSUE

()

1Ic

WAS SHE STILL TO BE KEPT ON PER DIEMfIEtMPORARY LIVING EXPENSES FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2002 - EVEN FTER TRANSFERRING TO NBU IN 1/02??

A A~qT.R POP A 7.T.0WfhThr~r OR

.nvr~ r T14AT T9 A

)

PROTECTED ACTIVITY "DID HARVIN EVER TELL YOU THAT THE CULTURE AT SALEMIHOPE CREEK W2

-NOT-CONDUCIVE TO GOOD LABOR RELATIONS AND GOOD SOUND POWER PLA FUNDAMENTALS. AND TO THE EXTENT THE CULTURE AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT WOULD MANIFEST ITSELF AS IN ISSUES OR PROBLEMS IN THE POWER PLANT, THAT WAS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT ALWAYS WAS UNDERSTOOD ANY TIME WE HAD THESE TYPE CONVERSATIONS. IT WAS NEVI CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AND EARMARKED AS SPECIFICALLY -I HAVE A NUCLEA SAFETY CONCERN ISSUE. BUT THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THAT WAS REALLY.

THE HEART OF HER ISSUE." B-ý MN7 PSEG LEADERSHIP WEAKNESS EMPLOYEE RAISED CONCERN:

EMPHASIS ON PRODUCTION 0 3ES, FAILING -INADEQUATE ATTENTION TO S, NON SERVATIVE OPERATING DECISIONS, VE

AFETY, INGS - DID HARVIN ATTEND? FREQUENCY/

TAFF meeting where she said si~e management is a nuclear period - CONFRON OUT THIS - AND DID KH present at

-ELL NOT HAVE HARVIN ATTEND ANY FURTHER "MEETINGS AFTER THIUS ()*???

- WANO debriefi-on th elssues being identified - and what company did to address the these issues. - see p29 a

p. 4 DOWNSIZE/POSITION ELIMINATION 80- GAP//Navian study found them to be a large delta

°ini labor costs -

• had resp to take the study and t pe it into site going forward and give

,r

' (2recowmendation on where they should impli ent it - and then decision was*** WAS KB POSITION ID, BY AS'A LUS - AND WHEN????- TO SAYS THERE WERE 3 AREAS THEY WANTED T ROVE UIDERDERSHIP 1. TOP QUARTER IN SAFETY 2. RELI ITY AND 3. COS COST WAS ONE THEY HAD MADE NO PROGRES so that is what ini ed the NAVIGAN study i late 2002 which resulted in reduc9on in f2 and 3/03 an ne, July and August (under IN 2002 DID YOU HAVE STAJF'FPOSITIONS/EMPVLOYEES WORKING DIRECTLY FOR YOU?

PURPOSE OF Y...

WAS YOUR ORGANIZATIO VIEWED IN AN EFFORT TO LOOK FOR POTENTIAL POSITION ELIMINATION

A i

ASK HIM.TO EXPLAIN HOW HIS NEEDNIEW OF HARVIN VALUE CHANGED BETWEEN 10/31/01 EMAIL T 0*- LATE 2002 WHERE HE DIDN'T NEED HERANYMORE???? -IN ONE YEAR TIME - EXPLAIN HOW IT CHANGED???

DID YOU TELL HER THAT SHE WAS NOT DELIVERING RESULTS/CHANGE??

POSITION ELIMINATION 9~~ ~~~~~oc (D(\\hij1 Y~~~-~~

WHEN DID YOU DECIDE TO ELIMINATE HARVIN'S POSITION??

BASIS Lot %AwA 0(c oF V-3)

TO i

AID THAT THERE WAS CORPOtRATE APPROVAL ELIMINATE HARVIN POSITIO OR FAL E??

DISCUSSIONS WI IN

-2 TIME PERIOD?

c_

J.ARY TIME PERIOD?

, CONCI 3ARDING HARVIN'S ANDING OUT HER BOOKS COMPLAINTSIJHAD WITH HARVIN??? --

$$$$ PLAY TAPE - AND QI Nk)N1BMRJJ~ N120 H

I EWI UNTIL 2/26/03 TO TELL-HAR&VIN OF IONI ELIM1N A~Q?

3

~-

,2 14'k 7-b i46 LVd Tts (o ("q, ý,qs 6,d k t A

HARVIN 2002 JOB PEREORMANCE AP PR AL ISSUE/AREA ASK4

- 0 EXPLAIN SCOMMENTS JANUARY-2003 MEETING A !.ýRESIDENCE I-

/

Qn-PURPOSE,-. r 4 V\\N\\NmJ-j)ýj -

~4C WHT GENE YDICSED-.

or F??

WAS KH JOB PERFORMAN*E ISCUSSED - IN WHAT WAY - DID SEEK INP1 HIS DIRECT REPORTS ALL THEIR DIRECT REPORTS".

WAS THERE, A SENSUS T HAD KH EFFECTIVENESS SIGNIFICAN DIMINI5D'-ý WAS YOUR VIEW AND DID YOU SHARE WITH THE GROUP)

T OF 7LZ (APV-c\\i FROMOTRAN Says 1d most negative feedback**

had passed on some confidential info to her and she tjhen passed it on to others -Wupset about integrity issue. There were positives and neg t1ves about all discussed. Says some felt she was unsat and some felt she was NI - almost ce ain felt she was unsat was rated unsat, 1 was rated as NI.

nfirmed that he fel-A.re.in bottom grouping

,-I )ý) jr \\-)

( A

• T*(c.

6,"-3..

N)

WAS THERE AN AGREEMENT AMONG GROUP AS TO HER PERFORMANCE FOR 2002

- WHAT WAS IT?

WHY DID YOU ASK FOR THEIR INPUT IF Oi'HAD ALREADY MEADE DECISION IN 12/02 TO ELIMINATE HARVIN POSIT

???

C TIME FOR KH TO MOVE 01??

,ý4,vllcoj WHYMEET WHY TELL HER AT THIS MEETING THAT HER C MARCH 20,2003 MEETING WITH KIM HARVIN ELIMINATED

$$$ PLAY TAPE $$$

,. *,*jvt:,**.N-5

MAC 2,03 LATE-AFTERNOON MEETIG WTH AN -

/DID, YOU TELLA THAT HARVIN HAD RAISED CONCERNS TO YOU THAT MORNING???

DID*TELL YOU THAT 3/21 WAS GOING TO BE HARVIN'S LAST DAY???>

7L-7

1-.

DECISION rC PART OF DISCUSSION RE THAT DECISION WAS MADE?

DO YOU KNOW WHY HER REMOVAL FRO S TE GEL DO YOU KNOW WHOSE DECISION IT WAS TO D LETTER ORIGINAL UNDERST, 4/16 - DID YOU AGRZE WHEN DECIDED K1W6 ING TO WORK THE FULL 45 DAYS UN(

3lY$-ALLOWED AND WHY CHANGED????

ECISION AFTERW LETTER - BASIS FOR WHY INVOL' SEEMS TO HAVE OCCU THAT NOT THE CAUSE

COMPLAINTS REGARDING KIM HARVIN PERFORMANCE TERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE AT SITE OR IN HQ

- acting as line manager - overstepping her bounds - confused people as o her role

- spoken to number of times because of it

• 4 asking Vps if facilitators were worth $$ in making forward prog ess - on getting improvement in alignment with mgmt.

-view that K-becoming less effective as time went on - seeing le s and less effectiveness "thinks" it was decided based on KH job performance/not g tting results/no value and her job being "over" decided that it was in excess in comparison t industry - says they probably both lined up and was basis for decision to eliminate the position says he heard ad always said KHjob was a year by ear type of thing - KIT probably thought it was for forever. *** Says it was clear in VPs minds i was yearly ind~are getting -feedback from people that were inte facing with KH that this -is not a good situation for us or her - she is extraordinarily emotiona and trying to lobby with anyone to see if they can find job for her and because being told she w snot qualified, she broke down and cried d people were saying they did not know how to de, with it and that feedback got tdwl&

and and they said"maybe we shou move up her leavi g date" HE IS PRETTY SURE THAT FEEDBACK CAME FROM

- knows of nothing that would suggest that the decision o eliminate her position was the result of a response to information KH provided on nuclear s ety or that caused hero be escalated -

but says that KH date moved up was caused from feed ack he got from about KH around the site personal business while at work A..

- intimidation

- making people cry at neetings

- threw around power

- treated individuals badly

- HEARD ANY COMPLAINTS 9R CONCERNS ABOUT HER EMOTIONAL STATE OR IT EFFECTING CAUSING CONCERN AMONG PEOPLE AT PLANT?????

Cal Ic.-

INTRO SWEARIN

/

ATTORNEY 3/27/03 TELCON /

i CA/\\

I.--

/

,.NTRO

?C8WEAR IN

'*TORNEY QUESTIONS j"B~p H

.4p, I

jj-ff-..

t*

XL I "

T AWARE OF ISSUES OR CONCERNS RAISED WITH KH JOB PERFORMANCE, INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE, THROWiNG HER WEIGHT AROUND, EXPENSES?

)

AND WHO S WT EVER S WITHW'.....

r-k p2t) 55 TRANSFER FROM CORP 0 TE TO NBU

• • 10/31/01 email r4F KH TRANSFE 'OSITEINBU WHEN.AND T DID IT MEAN STEMP ASSIGNMENT - AND AT END 2002 DECISION MADE ON

t. TO CONTINUJE HER SERVICES

'NEEDING KiH FOR ALL OF 2002 -

AR DISCUSSIONS ON

/7

'A.0~

&~fL~

JpgtAi BUDGETED FOR 2003???

L NOLAqJ;iq-iARY 17, 2003-WHE1~H~ý3' ION~,H ARE 9FfT KIPOFTOWEING ELIý.kT D5

ý KNOWLEDGE 0 THER JOBS BEING..OFFERED TO KH AFTER INFORMED HER OSITION BE BLIMINATED?--

- SEE HR GENERSTR CONSULTANT POSITION DESCRIPTION DATED 313/03

-5 YOUR UNDERSTANDING FPASTF R T DECISION J\\LK

BASIS FO.LA(GUAGE IN THE PARATION AGREEMENT/ STANDARD LANGUE?

DRAFT AGREýE DATED FEBRUARY 2003 -

WHO D TDI WHEN WAS IT DRý IT WAS INITIALLY WHY 2 FOR COMPUTERRECORDS SHOWING EXACT DATE ION HAD BEEN MADE THAT KH LAST DAY ON SITE UT GOING TO BEe 3/21-3/28 TIMERE "

??

3/18 MEETING/DISCUSSION ETWEEN WHERE THEY TOLD 4O TEL!-

SHE NEED TO STARTX IND,,

ANOTHER JOB - WHY WAS THAT DIREgRON GIVEN-.SAID SHE Vr KH RELIEVED OF ALL HER DUTIES WHyP..?

HEARD ANY COMPLAINTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT HER EMOTIONAL STATE OR IT EFFECTING/CAUSING CONCERN AMOG-.P-EOPLE AT PLANT?????

IC AND NOT UNTIL 3/24 RELATED TO 1HER CLAIMED BUSINESS EXPENSES NLMADE?

it to her raising

• V-LA LEARN OF THE HARVIN TV ETTER HOW DID I

LEARN OF IT

(

WERE YOU INSTRUCTED TO TAKE ANY ACTION TO ADDRESS THE DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION IN THE LETTER?

'I'

'U INTRO/VOLUNTARY SCWE INTERVIEW/WITNESS I-.

SWEAR IN BIO-BUT Qf.UICK Q

OUESTION ARZEAS

{.

[V\\

• k*

describe union management relatioAship?

Experienced retaliation for raising concerns (if yes, give brief suriu.

Identify for self or others) -

.V "l:

ýWjkS 'THERE AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN SAFETY AND PLANT OPERATIONS IN DEREGULATED ENVIRONMENT

- YOU DON'T GET IT - DISENFRANCHISED PEOPLE - LED TO TARP PRO ESS - DECISION BY COMMITTEE - EVENTUALLY LED TO SMWOPS NOT FEELING EMOWERED TO MAKE OPERATIONS CALLS --I.E. SHUTTING PLANT

• • THE ECONOMICS TAKING PRECEDENCE OVER DECISION MAKING REGARDING PLANT OPERATIONS AND OPERATIONS DECISIONS. DID NOT MEAN ECONOMIC

\\,

PRESSURE TO KEEP PLANT UP. NEVER BEEN IN MEETING THERE WHERE THAT WAS VERBALIZED.

&&& OCCASIONS WHERE THEY HAD TO DEBATE A POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE/EQUIPMENT OPERABILITY OR INOPERABILITY ISSUE FOR 4-6 HOURS BEFORE COMING TO A DECISION - COULD BE PERCEIVED THAT THEY WERE NOT BEING FIRM IN DECISION ON HOW THEY WERE OPERATING THE PLANT

&&& PRODUCTION OVER SAFETY - HAVING TO PROVE IT'S INOP, vs PROVE IT'S OPER PRWTED Sms TO MEET WITH TO DISCUSS - UNDER REGIME.

BELIEF THAT SAFETY IS NUMBER PRIORITY AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T IMPACT SCHEDULE OR GENERATION. IF SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE IT TENDS TO BE SAFETY. THAT IS THE IMPRESSION.

&&& -LOSS OF-TRUST BETWEEN AOMs Sins AND SR OPS LEADERSHIP DURING REGIME

&&& GENERAL - DIRECTION THAT OPERABILITY DETERMINATIONS MADE BY TARP - I.E. IT HAS TO'BE PROVEN INOPERABLE BEFORE AN ACTION CAN BE TAKEN - vs> WHAT EXPERIENCED AT OTHER PLANTS THAT IF CAN'T PROVE OPERABLE - IT-IS INOPERABLE POTENTIAL SALEM SCWE ISSUE SPECIFIC ISSUES

&&& APPROX 2 YEARS AGO - ISSUE WITH SALEM SJ CHECK VALVES 4/5 AND 12/13 LEAKING. SOME Sins AND AOM WANTED LEAK TESTING DONE TO DETERMINE IF T W S A PROBLEM - DECISION MADE BY)minm (AND PROBABLY*

To NOT TEST - BUT TO "ENGINEER IT AWAY"

d I intervieweM on 2 issues on 1/22/04. During the SCWE portion of the interview, aid that he believesthe Salem SJ valves in question were declared operable (after leaking was detected) without a sound technical basis.k

)oes not believe the conservative thing was done and he does not believe that technical specification compliance was met with how they handled the issue.

said that at artificial island, Operations made operability conclusions and pressure/pushbak on the SJ valve issue came from Specifically Lold 0

that they were not in tech spec compliance on this issue and res.ponded that engineering had done an evaluation

- and pushed back on afer old him he believed it was inoperable.

Eileen and I heard a similar concern raised regarding these valves by uring a 12/16/03 interview. We have now heard this from 2 high level sources -

wiih indications that there may have been a violation of tech specs. I will not receive the Jranscript for about 10 days - but wanted to get this info to you so that a formal determination can be made thru the allegation process on whether a violation occurred here. If it did, there are clear indications rom ANA-

_estimony that it is potential deliberate misconduct.

Qrj.mnber 16, 2003, and JanuaxY22, 2004, the Sinre m rvie e as part*&td Assist to Staff 1-2003-051F regarding the SCWE at the Salem and Hope Creek sites. During the interviews both discussed that in the 2001-time-period-the Salem Unit 2 SJ 4/5 and 12/13 -injection valves were leaking significantly (in violation of technical specification 'surveillance requirements)' but it could not be determined which valve was leaking without doing additional testing. Specifically.

-U ndicated that testing was planned to determine which valve was leaking. Initially, 34E Salem/Hope Creek Operations Director agreed that the planned testing needed to be done, but ultimately he "pushed back"/disagreed with the a

de the decision that the testing was not going to be conducted, even iftsr-be y~a1 t

-hit-th-ere not in co-m-pliance with technical specifications on the issue. "

aid that the valvei were declared operable without a sound technical basis and due to th hey w J.

ompliance with technical specification surveillance re ie t

ndicated the problem was"engineered away."

Jesti!

this matter is ocated at pages 52-65 and 117-119.bn his transcript of interview.

estimony is located at pages 20-35.

L),

1A~j

/k

&&& SWITCHYARD ISSUE 9/03 WITHM 7.4 - say§WW Winvolvement iHectrical arcing in switchyard issue was not inapproriate-sa s how this was handled is example of good vs. bad - in how old v.s. new finctions, iad earlier said - the unit is going to have a strong likelihood of tripping that night - there were follow up discussions on who was resp for cost of clean-up plant or corporate but that night makes decision to shut down - CONFLICT WITH OTHER TESTIMONY OBTAINED BY 01 -

WITH..*-ZT AUTO.ZAI-FROM THE CONTROL

--- M WITH

~T AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CONTROL ROOM I",(--

&&& SALEM 1, 24 STEAM GENERATOR FEED REG VALVE (FRV) 24BF19 FAILED approximately mid this as a production over safety issue (p. 12-17+).

TO RE§JSD-THE--NCOs

_ANDA.T LEAST-SRO-O(N SHIIFT BELIEVED THE VALVE WAS MECHANICALLY BOUND... MGMT DIDN'T WANT TO DECLARE IT MECHANICALLY BOUND AND THEREFORE INOP BECAUSE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A LCO 3.0.3 SHUTDOWN. MGMT ELECTED TO PURSUE A CONTROLS FAILURE... SHUTDOWN DELAYED FOR ABOUT 36 HOURS.

AN USED A METAL BAR TO PRY A CIRCULATING WATER P TBAR INTO ITS ENERGIZED CUBICLE.

low, TALKED OF 4 POTENTIAL SCWE ISSUES 3

SALEM GRASSING ISSUE - EARLY MARCH 2003 WAS IN ON SOME PHONE CALLS AND MEETINGS BUT SINCE SALEM -NOT AS MUCH - MORE EXP WITH HC KEEPING REACTOR POWER AT PROPER LEVEL WITH SITUATION DETERIORATING

.ýk-\\

I

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

WAS IT TIMELY DECISION - "YES" FELT GOOD ABOUT WHERE AND HOW THEY GOT THERE BUT FROM A NLO PERSPECTIVE - WAS PROBABLY A SCWE ISSUE - HE BROUGHT UP FOR THAT REASON SALEM GRASSING ISSUE - EARLY MARCH 2003 SOME Sms WANTED MORE CIRCULATORS (4 INSTEAD OF 3) -.

FELT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WERE "HOLDING THE PLANT HOSTAGE"???

KEEPING REACTOR POWER AT PROPER-LEVEL WITH SITUATION DETERIORATING SUPV BY COMMITTEE LESS EMOTION THAN TURBINE VALVE ISSUE - RIGHT THING WAS DONE -

WAS IT TIMELY DECISION - "YES" FELT GOOD ABOUT WHERE AND HOW THEY GOT THERE BUT FROM A NLO PERSPECTIVE - WAS PROBABLY A SCWE ISSUE - HE BROUGHT UP FOR THAT REASON N/A A START-UP CHECKLIST??

&&& LEAK OF #12 NUCLEAR SERVICE WATER PIPE - UNDERGROUND - JUST AS PIPE ENTERED BUILDING.. INITIAL OPERABILITY DETERMINATION = OPERABLE BUT DEGRADED - BY ENGINEERING - WEEKS IN DURATION - BUILT HUT FOR NEOs TO OBSERVE - DID EXCAVATION - DID SHUT DOWN - BUT TOOK TOO LONG IN

SOME EYES - ABLE TO DO TEMP REPAIR WHILE ON LINE - THEN PERMANENT FIX DURING SHUTDOWN.

&& Says after receiving INPO 3 in 2002, union leadership still positive, but plant mgmt was disappointed - said that after meeting plant focus was not changed to where production over rode safety.

&&& EVER SAW/HEARD NEWARK-MGMT DIRECT OR SUPERVISE A-DECISION AT PLANT REGARDING SAFETY/START UP/SHUT DOWN?

&&& NOPL-ANT MGR-FOR'LAST 3 YEARS -LED TO "WHOSE IN CHARGE" MENTALITY - MANAGEMENT/DECISION BY COMMITTEE LED TO MUCH INPUT BY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD NO DECISION AUTHORITY OVER ISSUE

&&& REMEMBERS THAT4 WAS CHALLENGING EVERYONE. DOES NOT THINK FELT OPS WAS ASKING ALL THE QUESTIONS AND HAD THOUGHT THINGS THRU -

&&& NO NLOs TOLD HIM THIS EITHER - BUT 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.

&&& NO PLANT MGR FOR LAST 3 YEARS -LED TO "WHOSE IN CHARGE" MENTALITY - MANAGEMENT/DECISION BY COMMITTEE LED TO MUCH INPUT BY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD NO DECISION AUTHORITY OVER ISSUE

-DEREGULATION -

HOPE CREEK TURBINE BYPASS VALVE ISSUE 3/17/03 MEETIN*I*SON WIT I

C ICENSE HOLDER -NO CORPORATE PARTICIPATION THAT HE HEARD LENGTH OF DISCUSSION ON WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE WAS EXCESSIVE - ATTENDEES THOUGHT BLACK AND WHITE/STRAIGHT FORWARD THAT NEEDED TO SHUT DOWN TO INSPECT/FIX VALVE WAS ONLY ONE WHO KEPT CHALLENGING - DO WE HAVE ALL INFO -THOUGHT THAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION COULD BE TAKEN WRONG WAY - BUT DOES NOT THINK IT WENT OVER THE LINE

(

.- /\\

Tlýcoo( k3 ATTORNE QUESTIONS DPO~.

SSN HOME 1c, COLLEGE HIRED AT PSEG JOB TITLE HIRED 4/02 A

~

II)

I~

KH RAISING OF SAFETY CONCERNS PSEG LEADERSHIP WEAKNESSES, FAILINGS, INADEQUATE ATTENTION TO EMPLOYEE RAISED CONCERNS, NON-CONSERVATIVE OPERATING DECISIONS, EMPHASIS ON PRODUCTION OVER SAFETY, KH being at a meeting where she said site management is a nuclear safety issue. In 2002 time period -

- WANO debrief-on those issues being identified - and what company did to address the these issues. - see p. 29 and p. 4 DOWNSIZE/POSITION ELIMINATION 80 - GAP/Navigan study found them to be a large delta in fixed labor costs -

• had resp to take the study and shape it into site going forward and give

• fecommendation on where they should implement it - and then decision was

• asked GAN study**.LEAD -

e1

ý surpluses were - LEAD - RITERVIEW Q - WAS KH POSITION ID BY

• AS A SURPLUS - AND

????

TO SAYS THERE WERE 3 AREAS THEY WANTED TO IMPROVE UNDEIW LEADERSHIP 1. TOP QUARTER IN SAFETY 2. RELIABILITY AND 3. COST - AND COST WAS ONE THEY HAD MADE NO PROGRESS IN so that is what initiated the NAViGAN study, in late 2002 which resulted in reductions in f2 and 3/03 and June, July and August (under IN 2002 DID YOU HAVE ANY STAFF POSITIONS/EMPLOYEES WORKING DIRECTLY FOR YOU?

HEARD OF NAVIGN/GOODNIGHT STUDY AT SALEM HOPE CREEK PURPOSE OF STUDY IN THE SUMMER AND INTO THE FALL OF 2002 DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE NAVIGN/GOODNIGHT STUDY.

WAS YOUR ORGANIZATION REVIEWED IN AN EFFORT TO LOOK FOR POTENTIAL POSITION ELIMINATIONS

IF NOT - WHY NOT??

IF NOT - WERE YOU AWARE THAT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WERE BEIGN REVIEWED IN AN EFFORT TO LOOK FOR POSITION ELIMINATIONS?

SPECIFICALLY STAFF POSITIONS WAS THERE TALK OF ELIMINATION OF OTHER STAFF POSITIONS AT THE SITE SPECIFICALLY THOSE THAT REPORTED TO JANUARY 2003 MEETING AT RESIDENCE PURPOSE WHAT GENERALLY DISCUSSED some felt she was unsat and some felt NI - T or F??

WAS KH JOB PERFORMANCE DISCUSSED - IN WHAT WAY - DID*EEK INPUT OF HIS DIRECT REPORTS ON ALL THEIR DIRECT REPORTS??

HAD KH EFFECTIVENESS SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISHED FROTRAN 1/03 Saturday morning review a Ouse - all direct reports were there N

"M NOT PRESENT)- KH also discussed. Say Ilad most negative feedback" *`had passed on some confidential info to her and she then passed it on to others -.

upset about integrity issue. There were W *tives and negative.s about all discussed.

s some felt she was unsat and some felt she was#- almost certain elt she was unsat.

was rated S\\.

u~nsat,' ill lwas rated as onfirmed that he feltl, and K-were in bottom grouping PERSONAL EXP WITH THAT -EXPLAIN? ON HER SHARING INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT TO BE SHARED REGARDING POSITIONS BEING FILLED AND/OR ELIMINATED WAS THERE AN AGREEMENT AMONG GROUP AS TO HER PERFORMANCE FOR 2002

- WHAT WAS IT?

TIME FOR KH TO MOVE ON???

POSITION ELIMINATION when first heard discussion of the possibility or learned it was a made decision??

DISCUSSION IN 2002 OF ELIMINATION OF KH POSITION (SAYS NO RECALL OF THAT-SEE P. 12)

ACCELERATION OF HER LEAVING THE SITE? ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THAT DECISION PART OF DISCUSSIONS WHERE THAT DECISION WAS MADE?

DO YOU KNOW WHY HER REMOVAL FROM SITE WAS ACCELERATED?

DO YOU KNOW WHOSE DECISION IT WAS TO DO THAT?

KEENAN - NEED NAV STUDY, COMPANY CONTRACT NOT EXTENDED IN 2003, OTHERS LET GO EARLY LEAD INTERVIEW

• OWN ABOUT OTHERS BEING MOVED UP*** Says*

called him every day looking for help in finding her says on 3/23 (a Monday) this discussion/knowledge of KH being informed COMPLAINTS ON HARVIN

- acting as line manager - overstepping her bounds - confused people as to her role

- spoken to number of times because of it 4

,-asking Vps if facilitators were worth $$ in making forward progress - on getting improvement in alignment with mgmt.

saying there would be certain jobs which would be reviewed every year to see if they still needed them

-ever hear d say 'staff" jobs w*ould be reviewed every year

- did he provide written or verbal input into KI-I performance partnership - FOR WHICH YEARS??

- view that KH becoming less effective as time went on - seeing less and less effectiveness

40. "thinks" it was decided based on KH job performance/not getting results/no value and herjob being "over" decided that it was in excess in comparison to industry - says they probably both lined up and was basis for decision to eliminate the position.

-7Ways he heard lhad always said KH job was a year by year type of thing - KH probably thought it was for forever. *** Says it was clear in VPs minds it was yearly ando.-.are getting feedback from people that were interfacing with KH that this is not a good situation for us or her - she is extraordinarily emotional and trying to lobby with anyone to see if they can find job for her and because being told she was not qualified, she broke down and cried and people were saying they did not know how to deal with it and that feedback got to1 and' and they said"maybe we should move up her leaving date" HE IS PRETTY SURE THAT FEEDBACK CAME FROMW

- knows of nothing that would suggest that the decision to eliminate her position was the result of a response to information KH provided on nuclear safety or that caused her to be escalated -

but says that KH date moved up was caused from feedback he got fromM about KH around the site personal business while at work

- intimidation

- making people at meetings cry

- threw around power

- treated individuals badly

- HEARD ANY COMPLAINTS OR CONCERNS ABOUT HER EMOTIONAL STATE OR IT EFFECTING CAUSING CONCERN AMONG PEOPLE AT PLANT?????

N~

~

-y~W N

'14k bkL~s