ML062540190
| ML062540190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/2003 |
| From: | Rutigliano K Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML062540190 (3) | |
Text
Al PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Rm:* 2.6-f. IL:~,k.I
' :.W 5t,:
'2 Mza-ch25, 2003
) PSEG
,\\-' ',, I..(;
PSEH 80 Park Plaza Newark, NJ 07102 via facsimile and certified US Mail Dear Uii I an. writing to call PSEG's attention to nuclear safet is e a,,
vithout success, to raise with my immediate supervisor, PSE Indeed. as set out.below, I have been subj tounlawful rprisals for mhy attempts to raisc these issues.
In my -position as Manager, Culture Transformation, I have repeatedly expressed at formal and informal meetings and discussions among managcrnent at PSEG Nuclear that leadership weaknesses, failings, and inadequate attention to.employee-raised issues at our site is a mattcr 6f nuclear fety.
Begi ning.in about the Spring of 2001, at a weekly staff meeting convened bhe.
1.**int-bl k stated this concern, and uio m e t'E*nd informal meetings Wit**I hav*e called attention to the increasing risk of nucl]dr. safety errors at. these facilities related to the alienation, poormorale, and lack of empowerment felt.by numerous leaders and workers. I have repeatedly called atterfion to the lack of engagement and involvement by critical 4leaders with nuclear sa,.tv.
responsibiDlIes and have discussed these matters with e-each I U*r:
21c r.;
I hav-e pointed out the disenfranchisement of emplo-yees, the irerifo F7stakes in judgment and action given the frustration, anger and bitterness (especially with the Salem Nuclear Equipment Operators), concerns that the site is being mismanaged. and that safety concerns are paid lip-service, not real attention. As a high-level manager put it, "We focus on appeasing employees' safety couicerns vs. resolving them."
Our declining industrial safety performance in 2002 gives credence to these views.
Since I first raised these concerns wit have b~
ar wingly marginalized.
I spent the better part of an Fir-long meeting witht!i
) on February 28, 2003 reiteratinc these concerns. At the conclusion of the meeting, informed me that m mployment with the Company would be termn'inated, effective April 16, 2003t Pinformed me that I had the option of continuing to work at PSEG Nuclear upo th p-ll '16 termination date.
Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the F eedorn of Informotion Act, exemptions I
M arch 25, 200.3 Pagie 2 Last Thursday, March 20, imet again with('
I tolcd him again about my nuclear safety concerns based on information 1 had r vd f m other members of management at the PSEIG nuclear facilities.
I told that the Company's production-at-the-expense-of-safety approach has concerned and pressured embers of manmagement to have to defend choices that honor safety first. I tolýhat these concerns have been voiced b management employees at various levý1sucng SROi7c" licenseholders. I toldi that one of these individuals, whoMhas told me he trusts and es t
that morning called PSEG Nuclear's current state "danecrous." I told hat this individual and others have told me that they are reluctant tO come for*Ward witt their concerns for fear of reprisal. I asked what we should do about this. Hfe said, "We don't do anything because, you know, it is everythin
'you would expect to see...i:'s a bunch of bullshit." Toward the end of our meeting
.sa.id the. words "I appreciate the dialogue." However, his demeanor and tone ttroughlut the. meeting gave a very different message.
Later that evcning, I met vith.
h arcd w7it h many -of his concerns, including safe operations of our 7:1tciities s
'" told me he is concerned about. our lack of defense-in-depth thinking, our not consistently coming from safety in our decision-making and our under-reaction to human perfor-mance events.
He also meiftioned "other events" that have resulted from these points of concern. They are a matter of record and were summarized in several documents given to the managementteam. He also confided in me-that he has to do the "thinking" for the entire site and is too often the last line of defense. He said, I believe we are one step avay from the NRC taking thkeys away.'.'urged him to gUet "2
help. He told me he did not k"now where to turn sie,6
.... _f PSEG Power had nIo bee supportive and wasn't allowin.gbim to make any personnel moves.
I told about my converation with iincluding the bottom line.
that tese concerns were "bullshit."
id not seem surprised. Fle.simply shrugged his shoulders.-.
The following d, nrch 21, Ic
'call from Human Resources asking me to meet with te Mondav. I was told the topic was "your layoff." I Met withi yesterday. He told me tha&t(had instructed HR to "accelerate" my departure date to the end of this week.. I to dI that 1 wanted to keep working until April 16 in accordance with the termination documents I had received from the Company and in accordance withl express representation to me at the time he told me of the temination.
S-iiid that ow wants to b >sure I know that my position was eliminated. I to]
ýat I hd been told by iat the incoming.a the 7( 2
March 25, 2003 Page 3 working until April 16 as planned.
said thhad told him that I no longer have this choice and that r ha'eto leave active ethployme.nt by this Friday, March It is clear, that my employment was te minatedb band I am now being asked to leave active employment earl, at,,ehest, because I expressed to him the safety, mismanagement and leadership concerns outlined above. PSEG's actions towards me arc inconsistent with its own Standards of Integrity, and they are diaumetrically opposed to your expressed commitment to a PSEG workplace in which safety concerns should be voiced and addressed without fear of this kind of reprisal.
The employee handbook advises that these issues should be raised through the Employee Concerns Department.
For this reason., am co yino them on this letter.
Howevcr, since this depa-tment ultimately repors to.......I an addressing this letter, these issues, and my concerns about safety at PSEG Nuclear to you.
I have retained legal counsel to represent me in discussions with PSEG Nuclear regarding my separation from employment. They are Stephen Long and Scott Carroll of Drinker Biddle & Reath. "11e Company's Law Deparitfment should exp'ect to hear from them shortly. If PSEG or its lawyers wish to contact my attorneys, they may reach them at Drintker Biddle & Reath's office in Florham Park.
In the meantime, I believe it is vital that the PSEG Nuclear saflety issues be the subject of a thorough, impartial and independent investi gation.
Too many know-ledgeable, respected management personnel at both sites have told ine that the safcty situation is getling out of hand. I urge you to cause an independent investigation to occur without delay.
Respect y
Kvm ari'n Rutigliano, PI:t.D.
Ivianagor-ulture Translormation PSEG ý'tJear cc:
SEG Nuclear Employee Concerns