ML062210462
| ML062210462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/2004 |
| From: | Barber S NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Holody D NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194, RI-2003-A-0110 | |
| Download: ML062210462 (15) | |
Text
[SC.t be Fwd: RI-200-A-0110 Ack. Letter. & Ack. Letter Excerpt re:Initial SCWE Response Page1 From:
Scott Barber To:
Daniel Holody Date:
5/26/04 1:31PM Subject; Fwd: RI-2003-A-0110 Ack. Letter. & Ack. Letter Excerpt re: Initial.SCWE Response i 0 *,,
i
,ý"
ý
. *._`
-U.';.- "U in accordance wmh the Freedom of information Act, exemptions
- 0'
rScottBaIber - RI-2003-A-O1ii Ak. Letter.& Ack. etter Exerpt re: Initial SCWE Response.
Page 1 From:
David Vito To:
Hubert J. Miller Date:
10116/03 1:35PM
Subject:
RI-2003-A-01 10 Ack. Letter. & Ack. Letter Excerpt re; Initial SCWE Response SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL - PLEASE TREAT SENSITIVELY
- Hub, See attached.
Saow -9iber - 2003011 Oackletterexcerpt..wpd
-~.
Page Salem/Hope Creek Allegation RI -2003-A-01 10 - Acknowledgment Letter Excerpt Initial Response to Alleger's SCWE Concern and Request for NRC Action (i.e. shutdown):
We have begun our evaluation of the information you provided with regard to SCWE at Salem and Hope Creek. We are sensitive to your concerns about the continued safe operation of these facilities and have informed responsible Region I personnel about the nature of your concerns.
The NRC has noted inconsistencies in perfomance at Salem and Hope Creek for some time.
As a result, we have provided heightened attention to site activities, including a much higher than normal amount of inspection. In fact, the inspection resources expended at Salem for this year through September have exceeded the resources expended at any of the other 15 operating sites in Region I. We have maintained four full-time resident inspectors, treating the plants as two sites even though PSEG has merged operations for Salem and Hope Creek.
Additionally, senior Region I management has made a number of extensive site reviews over the past year involving direct interaction with senior corporate and site management. In our last annual and mid-cycle assessments of overall site performance, we have identified substantive cross-cutting issues in problem identification and resolution at both Salem and Hope Creek.
This means that due to weaknesses noted in PSEGs identification and effective resolution of problems, the NRC will focus more closely on these areas.
In your September 30, 2003, letter mailed electronically to the Regional Administrator, Region I, you requested an immediate shutdown of the Salem and Hope Creek facilities. Although we also have concerns about operations at the site, based on our extensive oversight, we have concluded that acceptable safety margins still exist and that a directed shutdown of these facilities at this time is not warranted. This conclusion is based on our inspection of events and day-to-day operations during the last 12 months. We have had a number of inspection findings during this period, but all of these findings, with the exception of a Salem Unit I diesel generator failure, were of limited safety significance.
In light of our concerns about inconsistent performance, the regional stsff, including the Office of Investigations personnel, are reviewing your concerns as a matter of top priority. You have provided additional insights into the PSEG decision making process for some events and issues at the site, which we will consider in our review of the SCWE issue. We informed you during the interview on September 9, 2003, that, for the most part, our inspectors were aware of the related technical issues and PSEG's response efforts. However, it is our intent to reassess these items in light of the work environment context you have provided to determine if additional technical review is warranted. If additional technical review is performed, we will inform you of the results of that review.
_Scot Barber - 2003011 0ack.wpd Page 1 N. Kymn Hlarin, Ph. D.
RI-2003-A-0110
Subject:
Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Salem/Hope Creek
Dear Dr. Harvin:
This letter refers to your conversations with me on September 3-4, 2003, during which ypu expressed concerns related to Salem/Hope Creek. You were concerned about the work environment for raisin safety concerapotential discriminatory action against you, and RAfter our initial contacts, we interviewed you at the RCRegiI office on September 9,20'03, to obtain additional specific detail from you regarding your concerns. NRC Office of Investigations (01) personnel participated in that interview. You have had a number of subsequent conversations with me and other members of the NRC staff since that time and have provided the NRC with a significant amount of documentation related to site activities (e.g., transient review (TARP) reports, Nuclear Review Board (NRB) meeting summaries and input documentation) that you believe will provide additional insight into the work environment at Artificial Island. Additionally, you sent a letter (via e-mail) to the NRC Region I Regional Administrator on September 30, 2003, reiterating your overall concern about the work environment at Salem/Hope Creek, and requesting that the NRC consider immediate significant action against PSEG (i.e., plant shutdown). Lastly, you provided additional concerns in e-mail messages to me on October 9 and October 11, 2003. to this letter documents your concerns as we understand them. We have initiated actions to examine your concerns and will inform you of our findings. If we have misunderstood or mischaracterized your concerns as described in Enclosure 1, please contact me so that we can assure that they are sdeq, srtely addressed prior to the completion of our review.
In evaluating your concern related to the work environment for raising safety concerns at Salem/Hope Creek, and any technical matters related to that concern, the NRC intends to take all reasonable efforts not to disclose your identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. However, I would like to point out that NRC licensees can and sometimes do surmise the identity of individuals who provide information to us because of the nature of the information or other factors beyond our control. In such cases, our policy is to neither confirm nor deny any licensee assumption as to the source of the information. Additionally, you should be aware that your identity could he disclosed regarding this matter if the NRC determines thnt disclosure is necessary to ensure public health and safety, to inform Congress or State or Federal agencies in furtherftnce uf NRC responsibilities under law or public trust, to support a hearing on an NRC enforcement matter, or if you take actions that clearly indicate that you have no objection to being identified as the source of the concerns (such as providing information to the media).
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Scott Barber - 20030 110ack.wpd N. K. Harvin, Ph. D. 2 RI-2003-A-0110 Uasty.
because you have raised a concern of employment discrimination for raising safety concerns, an evaluation of this matter without identifying you would be extremely difficulL Therefore, your identity will be disclosed as part of the NRC's investigation of your discrimination concern. We understand that, in addition to raising your discrimination concern to the NRC, on September 29, 2003, you filed a civil discrimination suit against PSEG in Morris County (NJ) Superior Court. It is likely that your name and the concerns you raised within your civil suit will become a matter of public record.
During a conversation on September 5, 2003, I informed you of your right to file a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), since DOL, not the NRC, is the federal agency with the authority to order back pay, reinstatement or compensatory damages in such matters. In order to protect ones's right to file a discrimination complaint with DOL, one must file a written complaint with DOL Regional Offices for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) within 180 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory action or the date one receives any notice, in writing or otherwise, of an adverse personnel action, whichever occurred first A complaint must describe the safety issues raised, the resulting adverse personnel action taken, and the causal relationship between the two. While you informed me that it was your choice to file a civil suit in this matter, as opposed to filing a discrimination complaint with DOL, I am enclosing a copy of ritie 29 CFR Part 24, DOL's "Procedures for Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes" for your information.
If a request is filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to your areas of concern, the information provided will, to the extent consistent with that act, be purged of names and other potential identifiers. Further, you should be aware you are not considered a confidential source unless confidentiality has been formally granted in writing.
Enclosed with this letter is a brochure entitled "Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC." which provides a description of the NRC process in these matters.
Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. We will advise you when we have completed our review. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me via the NRC Ssfety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403.
Sincerely, David J. Vito Senior Allegation Coordinator Enclosure(s): As stated
§-ScottBarb e-:20030!10ack.wpd 4
ENCLOSURE 1 RI-2003-A-01.10 DESCRIPTION OF CONCERNS Concern 1:
You indicated that there are significant problems with the Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE), i.e., with the willingness of personnel to raise nuclear or radiological safety concerns, at Salem/Hope Creek. You indicated that your position as Manager, Culture Transformation, afforded you access to senior management at PSEG, and you observed that the focus of certain senior level managers was one of production over safety. You indicated that your efforts to raise awareness about work environment concerns to management were ultimately received with negative responses from management, and resulted in the termination of your employment (see Concern 2 below regarding your discrimination concern).
During conversations with members of the NRC staff, including a transcribed interview with you on September 9, 2003, you described circumstances which you feel illustrate a poor safety culture at Salem/Hope Creek and PSEG management's emphasis on production over safety.
The following is a summarized listing of the information you provided to illustrate this concern:
- a. Summaries of meetings/conversations (some taped) with managers, including comments depicting low opinion of safety culture, and lack of ability to practice or apply safety
- indifferent comments from ing a January 10, 2003, meeting wit
'bout ;6negative results from a ijren tety culture survey....... "We used to care, now we don't That's what people tell us. We say stuff (about safety)....people don't believe it The survey shows we don't care about safety. If we cared about safety, what would it look like?"
- your March 27, 2003, meeting with th xpressed concern that "fossil" managemen is now in charge an (with a nuclear back roL!nd) Is now gone. It wa not r t*
in henw r nrt now reports throu
,ehe fported directly to-your M 19ch 1,2003, conversation wmith WIN
.U. L....
.f, You indicated tha ated that the site was...."from a nuclear
.tandpoint. dangerous....We cTo-n't co7me from -fety They don't trnust any of us..... The 4 f' people who want to be part of the solution get marginalized.
dded that this could be grounds for the NRC "taking the keys away" (in reference to actions in repponse to March 17, 2003, bypass vwlvp prnblmc Pnd ra.ctivity event).
-Siiflt d.idger/Assistant Operations lVMdf1age riuebiiags (Jail.-Feb. 2003) -
communications/accountability problems - communications gaps between management and workers in the field - management tolerates long-standing equipment issues -
mindset that things are OK, without understanding the big picture.
4 I.
~6~rbr2003011 Oack.wpd Paa 3 I
kt II N. K. Harvin, Ph. D. 3 RI-2003-A-O 110 bcc: Allegation File No. RI-2003-A-0110 DOCI.JMFNT NAME:
To receive a copy of this document. Indicate In the box: *C" = Copy without attachmentlenclosure
'E" = Copy with attachmentlenclosure N = No copy OFFICE ORA/SAC -
DRPIRPB3 OI:RI/FOD ORAIRC DRPIDD NAME I DVito GMeyer Wilsnn/Niff KFarrar ARBIough DATE 10/
12003 10/
/2003 10/
/2003 10/
/2003 10!
/2003 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY I.
I O
ac03 ack. wpd.
.Page b
I.
ENCLOSURE I RI-2003-A-0110
- You indicated that discussions with several high level managers during the week of March 17, 2003, indicated that there was considerable pressure from senior management to return Hope Creek to service following its forced outage (problem w/bypass valve closure). While appropriate action was eventually taken in that the plant was shut down to repair the valve, you received feedback from Operations supervision that the excessive discussion of this matter was inappropriate and that it should have been a simpi2 e9ion to bring the plant down to repair the valve. You indicated that you informedl ibout these comments during your March 20, 2003, discussion with him, and he dismissed them.
ted that at your March 20, 2003, meetn wit you informed him of dangerous" comment. You stated th responded..."That's a bunch of bullshit."...and..."We have operators that don't know shit from Shinqla, and they want to hide behind the safety banner because they don't know what they're doing."
- You stated that you were informed during your March 20, 2003, discussion with
- that PSEG management lacks "defense-in-depth" thinking, and that decision Wn-aMn ction to human performance events are not based on safety. Y tated tha also informed you that he was not surprised at the reactions to Opea-'RmilRepartment comments about the March 17,2003, event at Hope reek (see item above)
You indicated that at a Spring 2001 PSEG management meeting, you made a statement that "leadership at this site is a nucle.Ar safety issue" qnd subsequently received a cold response from managers during ahd after the meeting.
- You indicated-that monthly leadership meetings held b and also by his predecessor'*
were dreaded by participants because oft e harsh, intimidating environment oe meetings.
- You indicated that the currer focus on appeasing employee *s"safety concerns vs. resolving nformed you that "we em."
- In your letter to the NRC Region I Regional Administrator sent electronicallo 3
t 3, you indicated that on September 29, 2003, dii nformed you that issues at the site, including nuclear safety, "aren't going to be brought up. The environment is not conducive to bringing issues to the forefront. People who spoke up have been berated too long. We are deteriorating under the surface, just like Davis-Besse. I don't know who is 'watching the store' now. Most of 5
Scott Barber
- 2003011 Oack.wpd oPage6 ENCLOSUREI RI-2003-A-0110 those who did are now gone."
- You indicated that on October 8, 2003, you spoke with a former Hope Creek manager (unnamed) who, in observing the number of events that have taken place at Hope Creek in 2003 alone stated..."It's a wonder the NRC is still letting them operate." You Indicated that the individual's concern was that the lack of organizational stability (following this recent reorganization) and "known leadership" did not bode well for Hope Creek turning this trend around.
- In a list of PSEG contacts you provided to the NRC, you made note of other comments provided to you by some of the listed individuals regarding safety culture/work environment at Sale e, eek as indicated below.
9010%2...
expressed concerns to you about how the site was being led and a lack of engagement by key leaders, and particularly the Production Maintenance Director'
- ..... V Ij-"Ktold you he would not go to management because they -make ~
dI~t r~~
a told you that he thought the senior anc]niddle management team ws ut to lunc regarding nuclear safety old you..."We invest in what keeps us. roductive, not eeps us safe.". He also indicated to you that he did Sperational decision-making (nuclear safety wasn't first) but did trus r tional decision-making.
- aformed you that he "didn't trust leadership. People are lying to my face."
- b.
Other Comments and Items of Input With Regard to SCWE at Salem/Hope Creek
- your March 2ý5, 2003, letter tol after you were informed that your employment wn. to be terminated, reiterating yo~ir concerns about the wnrk environment at Artificial Island, and describing the retaliatory action against you
- your "fictional article" using NASA shuttle disaster as a parallel - You ieel that the work environment at Salem/Hope Creek is similar, i.e. production vs. safety pressure has been so long-standing that it Is part of the culture.
- You indicated that the current reorganization/downsizing at Artificial Island is being used as a guise to get rid of individuals who espoused safety (e.g.
- You provided itiaernal PSEG documents, including Nuclear Review Budrd (NRB) documentation, regarding periodic performance assessments in the plant functional areas, which included discussion of communications problems and other impediments to the safety culture.
6
I*cottarber-20030110ack.wpd..
Page 71
!I ENCLOSURE I RI-2003-A-0110
- ECP SCWE survey results (including specific comments received from 41P Quarter 2002/1st Quarter 2003) - negative commentary
- You noted that Salem has had a "revolving door" of Operations managers. You indicate that many of these indivi uals left because of concerns about the company's approach to safety (e.g.
- You do not feel that the Employee Con emgProgram (ECP) has had a stro track record, primarily since ECP reported to mnd many people were afraid
- You indicated that you have spoken with all of the Salem Operations crews and were given feedback that management doesn't pay attention to their safety concerns. You noted that after the September 24, 2002, valve manipulation (industrial safety) issue, many individuals said they would not bother reporting issues. You indicated that you asked the NEOs if they were ever asked to do anything that was unsafe, and that all responded affirmatively.
- You noted that ainted very negative picture of work environ enflat Salem/I-lope Creek.
a
- Regarding your efforts to improve the work environment at the facility, you indicated that things improved until 2002, but entered sharp decline after mid-2002, when the site again received a&NPOArdating in this area (not obvious to INPO that any perceived improvement in work environment was sustainable). You portrayed the work environment as moving from "toxic" when you arrived In 1998, to a "middle stage" in mid-2002, then falling backward. You indicated that after the mid-2002 INPO rating, AMost faith in his management team, and became disenfranchised, distant, invisible.
- You indicated that in Fall 2002, an individual who was observing a Maintenance training class informed you thit t~chnicians in the class spoke up about thei insisting that they do "unsafe" things to keep production high and meet schedule. You suggested that the Individual discuss the comments wi supervisor, who purportedly did not take the issue seriously. You indicated that some complaints about this matter may have been submitted to ECP.
I.
I.
- Other comments provided to you:
- safety concerns are given lip-service
- managers are pressured to defend their safety choices
- many operatnrs (,Irlnzed and non-licensed, primarily Salem) infnrmed yotu that there is pressure to make non-conservative decisions
- work pidce ciarduterized by fedr and intimidation
- management spends a lot of time trying to dire NRC and INPO away from issues
- a "kiss up, kick down" work environment
- "you can build a case around the answer you want.I IM 7
FS~a~Her-200301 loack.wpd Pg8 ENCLOSURE I RI-2003-A-0110
- c. Plant Events/Evolutions/Conditions Illustrating the Safety Culture/SCWE Problem 2
J 18,Em2003v Desel Generator (EDG) jacket water leak - the MENCO........ hose not to follow an instruction from e
ot to commence a plant shutdown when neanng the end of a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> technical specification limiting condition for operation (LCO) action statement. Yo ýerceived th th was under pressure frofm upper managemen and ao produce ower. (Power was reduced to 40%, contrary t instruction.) You noted thaikhas since resigned.
in the Salem control room (2002), told an to "N/A" a procedure step to rnove forward with plant startup - you-did not kno' PSEG investigated this matter or if a Notification was written to document the occurrence. You indicated thtat you learned about this in management meetings and noted that it was an example of Oprtions personnel bein ressud to take a non-conservative action.
You added ths ried to g -fired because of this incident, but was unsuccessful.
- April 2003 "grassing" event at Salem - management wainidto assign three workers around the clock (to clear grass intrusion). A manager spoke up, asking if lessons had been learned from previous experience vif5grass intrusion at the Salem intake.
elt that management was not following protocol from the previous event informed you that he fell unheard and afraid to go up the management chain.
I.
I.
fl~
I TU;
- 1 I'
- You received information from NEOs indicating excessive use of temporary logs (workarounds) to monitor degraded equipment
- Tritium issue.
- "higher than they ought to be"...."a serious issue that had to be hnndled with kid groves to keep iu-otut of trouble." Yo indicsted thst you did not have a lot of specific detail about this issue, but offered thatifclgglMCould provide additional insight.
- You indicated that sinc ook over, there was an offgas issue at Hope Creek. You hearu tndt rddiation safety concerns were expressed. You indicated that you did not know the details of how this matter was handled, but that concerns were raised to you about the inattention of management to issues raised.
- Hope Creek reactivity management event during bypass valve shutdown. You indicaled 8
tSc ott Ba rber - 2003011 Oack.wpd Page ENCLOSURE 1 RI-2003-A-0110 that you were informed by a at the response to this event was ill-conceived, ill-planned, and th perators didn't feel they had the power to stop the evolution. You stated that informed you that senior leadership didn't give the right level of support.
- You indicated that in 2001, an enginedeg reportedly went to*Mkith safety issues and was treated very harshly, was subsequently demoted, then transTerred to the fossil side of PSEG. You did not know the specific issues raised by the engineer.
- You indicated that shortly after you left the site, a Hope Creek employeM was asked by management to modify a Notification about "in-leakage." You dicFnot know any additional detail about this matter, but indicated thaj
ýcould provide that information.
- You indicated that there is a current issue at Salem 2 involving an Inservice Inspection (ISI) relief request (S2-12-RR-A1 6) regarding ultrasonic examination of Salem 2 system piping. You have heard that there is concern that PSEG is not being truthful and that some kind of "cover-up" for a bigger problem is happening. You indicated that you would attempt to obtain additional information about this matter.
Partial Response to Concern 1:
We have begun our evaluation of the information you provided with regard to SCWE at Salem and Hope Creek. We are sensitive to your concerns about the continued safe operation of these facilities and have informed responsible Region I personnel about the nature of your concerns.
The NRC has noted inconsistencies in performance at Salem and Hope Creek for some time.
As a result, we have provided heightened attention to site activities, including a much higher than normal amount of inspection. In f.tct, the in.p.ction resources expended at Salem for this year through September have exceeded the resources expended at any of the other 15 operating sites in Region 1. We have maintained four full-time resident inspectors, treating the plants as two sites even though PSEG has merged operations for Salem and Hope Creek.
Additionally, senior Region I management has made a number of extensive site reviews over the past year involving direct interaction with senior corporate and site management. In our last annual and mid-cycle assessments of overall site performance, we have identified substantive cross-cutting issues in problem identification and resolution at both Salem and Hope Creek.
This means that due to weaknesses noted in PSEG's identification and effective resolution of problpms, the NRC will focus more closly on thase areas.
In your September 30,2003, letter mailed ele.,trunrically to the Regional Administrator, Region i, you requested an immediate shutdown of the Salem and Hope Creek facilities. Although we also have concerns about operations at the site, based on our extensive oversight, we have concluded that acceptable safety margins still exist and that a directed shutdown of these facilities at this time is not warranted. This conclusion is based on our inspection of events and I
9 I..
91
4 ScottBarbler,- 200301 loack.wpd...........
- Page, ENCLOSURE 1 RI-2003-A-0110 day-to-day operations during the last 12 months. We have had a number of inspection findings during this period, but all of these findings, with the exception of a Salem Unit I diesel generator failure, were of limited safety significance.
In light of our concerns about inconsistent performance, the regional staff, including the Office of Investigations personnel, are reviewing your concerns as a matter of top priority. You have provided additional insights into the PSEG decision making process for some events and issues at the site, which we will consider in our review of the SCWE issue. We informed you during the interview on September 9, 2003, that, for the most part, our inspectors were aware of the related technical issues and PSEG's response efforts. However, it is our intent to reassess these items in light of the work environment context you have provided to determine if additional technical review is warranted. If additional technical review is performed, we will inform you of the results of that review.
Concern 2:
You stated that your em=e
, te.inatedafter raising concerns to the i
n subsequently to the[
ia letter dated March 25, 2"3, about the work environment for raising safety issues at Artificial Island. A subsequent Artificial Island ECP investigation was conducted, which concluded that you were not discriminated against, but rather that your position was eliminated.
More specifically, you indicated that you were called to a meeting with the aon I
February 26, 2003, purportedly to disc ur bonus." However; after dtscussing y"our work environment concerns with the -
i ou were informed that your employment was to be terminated. You indicated that you were initially told that you could stay on board until April 16.
2003, but later learned that immediately after speaking with the
-n February 26, 2003, he directed that your departure be "accelerated."
You ndded that after being informed about the termin.tion of your 'employment on February 26, 2003, you submitted a letter to th ated March 25, 2003. reiterating your concerns about the work environment at Artificia Island, and describing the retaliatory action a.ainst you.. You indicated that you were contacted the following day (March 26, 3003) by the_,
o_
j..
II ho informed you that wanted you "out by Friday" (March 28, 2003). You left the site on.March 28, 2003.
ou eel that this was additional retaliation for writing the letter to then Regarding the ECP investigation conclusion that your position was eliminated and that you were nnt discriminated against, you indicatpd that after yi o dopqrtfure, ppnpl, were brotught in immediately to perform the function you were performing.
Partial Response to Concern 2:
The NRC Office of Investigations (01) has initiated an investigation to determine whether you were discriminated against by PSEG management for raising concerns about the safety culture/
10
- i.
Scott Barber 2003011Oack.wpd
.Page.
11 ENCLOSUREI RI-2003-A-01 10 work environment at the Salem/Hope Creek facility. We will also be monitoring and assessing any findings rendered by the Morris County Superior Court with regard to your civil suit, as part of our review of your discrimination concern. When we have completed our investigation, we will notify you our findings and final resolution.
Concern 3:
When you initially contacted the NRC. you indicated that PSEG has a tendency to destroy documents that are not in their favor, but you did not provide specifics at that time. During the subsequent interview with you on September 9, 2003, and in information given to the NRC after the interview, you provided additional information with regard to this statement and oiher items that may involve potential wrongdoing as indicated below.
a.
- b. You Indicated that people Informed you that a number of their comments which were rellective of the negative work environment at Salem/Hope Creek were eliminated from the final documentation developed by a Winston and Strawn review.conducted after you filed discrimination/work environment concerns with ECP in March 2003.
- c. Tn the Salem control room (2002), told a o"N/A" a procedure step to move forward with plant startup - you did not. kno 'if PSEG investigated this matter or if a Notification was written to document the occurrence.
d.
U1'
-. o *_-
_5V*.M the end of a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> technical sp(
statement. You perceived that thi manageme. ntand contrary t
,nstru-tior Diesel Generator (EDG) jacket water leak - the N
rchose not to follow an instruction from ot to commence a plant shutdown when nearing 2 *
- n limitin condition for operation (LCO) action w**as under pressure from upper fto produce power.. (Power was reduced to 40%,
e YOU indicated that shortly after you left the site, a Hope Creek emplny ej..
was asked by management to modify a Notification about "i-leakage." You d-o krf5N any additional detail about this matter, but indicated thai ouid provice that information.
- f. You indicated that there is a current issue at Salem 2 involving an Inservice Inspection (ISI) relief request (S2-12-RR-A16) regarding ultrasonic examination of Salem 2 system 11 1*
__________________ I
=
Scott Barber -200301 l0ack.wpd Page 12 Scott Bafber - 2003011 Oack.wpd Page 12 ENCLOSUREI RI-2003-A-0110 piping. You have heard that there is concern that PSEG is not being truthful and that some kind of "cover-up" for a bigger problem is happening. You indicated that you would attempt to obtain additional information about this matter.
Partial Response to Concern 3:
We will be performing preliminary assessments of the circumstances surrounding these incidents to ascertain whether sufficient evidence of potential wrongdoing is presented to warrant the initiation of an investigation by the NRC 01. If such evidence exists, 01 will initiate investigation(s) to determine whether a violation of 10 CFR 50.5 (deliberate misconduct) or 10 CFR 50.9 (the provision of false or inaccurate information regarding NRC regulated activities) occurred. If we determine that there is insufficient evidence to warrant initiation of an 0!
investigation, we will continue to assess these matters within the context of the SCWE concern (Concern 1). In any event, enforcement action will be considered, if necessary.
12