ML062210194
| ML062210194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/2004 |
| From: | Neff E NRC/OI |
| To: | Vito D NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194, RI-2003-A-0110 | |
| Download: ML062210194 (1) | |
Text
Daid Vit
- Re: Phone calls from the RI-2003-A-01 10 SalemHLC alleger Pae From:
Eileen Neff/
To:
David Vito Date:
2/4/04 11:51AM
Subject:
Re: Phone calls from the RI-2003-A-0110 Salem/HC alleger
-7
>>> David Vito 02/04104 11:17AM >>>
- SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION -
- PROTECT ACCORDINGLY -
The alleger called me twice this morning. She called at 8:00 a.m. to ask if anyone from the NRC had provided her name and information about her lawsuit in NJ state court to NJDEP (Jill Lipoti). I told her that we did not. (I believe she later learned that Norm Cohen had informed NJDEP about her lawsuit). We did not discuss anything new in terms of the allegation review during this first phone call. However, she did provide some feedback about the request that Dave Lochbaum made to Randy Blough in a 2/2)04 e-mail about meeting with a group of workers. She provided me with the following information:
She indicated that through a "circuitous route," several employees had contacted Dave Lochbaum a couple of weeks ago about the possiblity of going public about the work environment problem at Salem/HC. (Many of you will recall this from discussions that occurred the weekend before the 1/28/04 letter was sent to the licensee). With the action being taken by the NRC, Dave L. suggested to the workers that they consider talking to NRC with a high level NRC person present, vice going to the media.
The workers agreed and left it to Dave to begin contacts with NRC for arranging the meeting, hence the 2/2/04 e-mail. The alleger indicated to me on the phone call that the spokesperson for the group of workers was still looking to have the discussion relatively soon. I asked her what that meant and she provided me some specific days when the workers indicated they would be available to have the discussion with Randy B., et al. (specifically, in the evening on either Thursday 2/5, Monday 2/9, or Tuesday 2/10). I contacted Scott Barber who informed Glenn Meyer about the alleger's comments.
Glenn has since spoken to Dave Lochbaurn (see attached e-mail) and learned that things were not as urgent as described by the RI-2003-A-01 10 alleger, and has put the ball in Dave L.'s court to talk with the workers about arranging the meeting sometime in the near future.
During the second phone call mm n alln er.R
.d nforma~tionýabtork env t
") (
problems affecting two Salem S
indicated that bothh ddncetr being given o em y boss Specifically, theted that they were being pushed to clorders, even when work wot con*w ted. The supervisors took their concern to ECP. but within a few days were cha tised b iki or raising the issue. The alleger deduced that ECP must have gone directy t ith the concem, instead of making an efffort to asses the issue without compromising the identity of the concemees. Alleger said that this is another example that calls into question the of ECP_, andwhECP is not trusted throughout the site. She suggested that we interview thepM I I told her that I would give the information to those performing the NRC review.
The alleger also stated that she had received the initial results of the Synergy survey, and was providing them to Eileen Neff.
CC:
Ernest Wilson Y
information in this record was deleted V
in accordance with the Freedom of Informaft Act, exemptions
-I.
FoIA-_
C9O12J -' Z