ML062210081
| ML062210081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/2004 |
| From: | Lohmeier A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML062210081 (2) | |
Text
Al Lohmeier notes/comments on thelawwterview (01-21-04)
The following are my observations/questions of th,
-10`01 Interview 01-21-04.
-7
- ~T~E ON,
- ~INC),Oi
- -,::c.
Am MPu.L iui.
-C-. -
N(W HYVviNOTETC7.-)
Will raise concerns and has done so before?
YES Change in reactor operator control Raises concerns for others?
YES Supports his safety concern Believes others raise concerns without hesitation?
YES See Below Knows of someone who has experienced retaliation for N/A Not specifically addressed during interview raising concerns?
Bins for Issues:
- 1 - PERCEIVED LACK OF FREEDOM TO RAISE SAFETY CONCERNS TO PSEG MANAGEMENT
- 2 - PRODUCTION OVER SAFETY ISSUES
- 3 - SCHEDULE PRESSURE ISSUES
- 4 - LABOR - MANAGEMENT ISSUES
- 5 - INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ISSUES OTHER UNSPECIFIED ISSUES/COMMENTS
- 1 - PERCEIVED LACK OF FREEDOM TO RAISE SAFETY CONCERNS TO PSEG MANAGEMENT (p. 12) Comfortable with ability to raise concerns to management and receive responses to that (but not always the way you want it).
(p. 13) Other personnel feel same way.
- 2 - PRODUCTION OVER SAFETY ISSUES (p. 15) Dropped license because he felt the.OS's were hesitant to take conservative action because It would affect their pay. Wanted to operate98% to ensure theL were not exceeding 100%when we lost CMS computer and had to rely on nuclear Instruments which can have 5% error.
(p. 16) OS'. lot willing to do that and felt OS 'Teated them differently after that.
(p. 16 - 24) Discusses safety aspects of Instrument operation (p. 25 - 27) management issues orders that if you lose CSM, reduce power by 2% vindicating alleger.
(p. 28 - 32) New rules issued that reduced authority of hCC.to make operation decisions believed related to INPO like other plants for consistency making reactor operators feel like no longer in charge. Other similar problems, but 2% issue was worst nightmare.
(p. 51) Above field supervisor, pay, bonuses based on power production.
(p. 53 - 59) since deregulation, pay based on reactor power performance.
(p. 99) Production pressure Is excessive (p. 105) It is INPO vs NRC
- 3 - SCHEDULE PRESSURE ISSUES (p. 62) Some problem repair delayed (putting things off) because of time or cost of reduction of power level.
Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Page 1 of2 2 Act, exemptions 12
'VJ FOIA.
ZVof-/
{_/
Al Lohmeier notes/comments on th terview (01-21-04)
- 4 - LABOR - MANAGEMENT ISSUES (p. 48 - 49) "... [the situation between Mo m
and Shift Managerc'was viewed as 'us against them']... I don't know why that occurred_.
e managementteaim ihat was there before the previous regime was very well liked and very well respected... something occurred [during the previous regime] where the trust level went south"
- 5 - INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ISSUES (p. 74 - 95) People skills and technology skills lacking in many supervisors, need more experienced people(not just young people) who can jump in for unusual operations problems. Arbitrary assignment of lead personnel.
OTHER UNSPECIFIED ISSUES/COMMENTS In general, from overall review, example of 2% safety margin operating power level is used to indicate strained relationship between management and personnel brought about by the effect of deregulation on management efforts to improve effectiveness of personnel performance changes In rules and regulations.
Page 2 of 2