ML062210193
| ML062210193 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/2004 |
| From: | Vito D NRC Region 1 |
| To: | - No Known Affiliation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML062210193 (3) | |
Text
Dai io w : A d ro ete e
R etrP a
ý [pa-vid Vito - Fwd: Anderson Letter re. NRC letter wPa6e *i I From:
David Vito To:
SALEMHCSCWE Date:
2/3104 12:59PM
Subject:
Fwd: Anderson Letter re. NRC letter
- ALLEGATION MATERIAL ATTACHED -
PROTECT ACCORDINGLY -
Some Initial feedback from the CNO and a comment by an unamed empoyee. Interesting.
Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of lnformatt, Act, exempUons '0 "
FOIA.
___o o_.,
1<
FD-;;vid`Vij6-- Anderson Letter re. NRCjiýttý l
Pqnp I I David Vito - Anderson Letter re. NRC letter Pagejj From:
To:
<EX 1@nrc.gov>
Date:
2/3104 12:04PM
Subject:
Anderson Letter re. NRC letter As discussed. This was forwarded by a PSEG employee whose words are in blue.
Subject:
FW: A Letter from Roy Anderson I My Views on the NRC Letter of Ja nuary 28 Boy, does this new "Leader" have it all wrong. See NRC Letter first and then Roy's comments.
-Original Message--
From: Nuclear Communications Sent Friday, January 30, 2004 5:35 PM To: ENTNBU
Subject:
A Letter from Roy Anderson I My Views on the NRC Letter of January 28 My Views on the NRC Letter of January 28 My Views on the NRC Letter of January 28 On Wednesday, the NRC sent us a letter, the upshot of which was, that based on interviews with former and current employees, the NRC has real questions about how decisions and events of the past may have affected employeesr(;O attitudes and how we may react to safety issues.
The letter states that the NRC has rQEnot identified any serious safety violationsr(¥. However, they go on to say, rQECollectively, information gathered has led to concerns about the stationrQOs work environment, particularly as it relates to the handling of emergent equipment issues and associated operational decision making.rQ¥ The letter itself is posted on the NRC Web page, and I am attaching a copy so you can all take a look.
I was disappointed to get this letter. Not surprised at what it said, but that it was sent. The things the NRC points out are the reason we reorganized, we re-staffed, we put responsibility and the wherewithal to get things done together, and performed the attitude study.
WhatrQOs critical is the question the NRC has posed in their letter to Mr.
Ferland: F(-EHave we assessed the impact of various events over the past few years on the attitudes of our workers?rFQ(
The fact is, that if there is this level of concern, then there is something behind it, and we need to go after it.
What-QOs curious about this question is that it comes down to the opinions of each of us. Do we feel we can bring up issues and that they will get addressed? In our business, werQOre here because we protect the health and safety of the public. Part of doing this is knowing that each of us can stand up and speak our minds.
Dai o-Anderson Letter re. NRCleer-ag2 There is no metric for this. ThatlQOs why we did the attitude survey conducted by Synergy. The results of the survey are what we said about ourselves.
The results will tell a lot about what werQOve accomplished and how far we still need to go.
WerlQOve been on a course to improve our business and werQOve been marching through the model we have previously discussed. We have restructured our business.
We have staffed the new organization. We have identified the metrics to measure our business. We have surveyed ourselves. We will identify our gaps and we will do something about it. It is time to work.
- Regards, P.S. Each of us should view this letter and its content as a wakeup call.
The opportunity to improve rests with each of us individually and the choices we make.
N. Kymn Harvin, Ph.D.
Smeal Executive MBA Program Gregg Conference Center
~jyg Mawr, PA !9 CC:
CC:
<DJV@nrc.gov>, <dlochbaum@ucsusa.org>