ML062550197

Allegation Review Board Disposition Record

ML062550197
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/18/2003
From:	NRC Region 1
To:
References
1-2003-A-0110, FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062550197 (6)

Text

g:\\alleg\\panel\\200301 l0arb7.wpd ALLEGATION REVIEW BO0ARD DISPOSITION RECORD Allegation No.: RI-2003-A-Q110 Site/Facility: Salem/Hope Creek ARB Date:

12/18/2003 Branch Chief (AOC): -Meyer Acknowledged: Yes Confidentiality Granted: No Issue discussed:

Current Actions on Tech Issues and SCWE Alleger contacted prior to referral to licensee? Issue will not be referred to licensee ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS Attendees: Chair - Crleniak! Blouoh Branch Chief (AOC) - Barber (Act) SAC - Vito 01 Rep. - Neff. Wilson RI Counsel - Farrar Others - Holody. Urban, Wingfield DISPOSITION ACTIONS:

1)

Complete the interviews of the remaining shift managers and other key operations staff. Upon completion of those interviews determine whether additional licensee staff interviews are needed, make an initial assessment of the work environment, and consider whether NRC action is needed to address any environment concern's (example, SCWE inspection, manage.ment meeting, 'chill effect letter, demand for information, 'ord er, etc. for the purpose of obtaining information regaLcling licensee 's actions, taken or planned, to address those environment concernsyý..3'shift manage~rF '

.have been interviewed, the rest to be completed over the next severa-TWeeks).

Responsible Person:

Meyer/Barber Closure Documentation:'--______

ECD:

-1/30/04 Completed:____

2)

Review survey results from the recent ECP SCWE surveys, Gallup 012 survey and Winston and Strawn assessment of SCWE for the purpose of understandi ng the licensee's response to the alleger's. issue brought to the licensee previously. NRC reviewers will provide an 'assessment of the adequacy of PSEG' 's SCWE reviews and the legitimacy of PSEG's conclusions. (Review completed summary to be provided to appropriate staff and results evaluated in conjunction when interview results are completed).

Responsible Person: Meyer/Urban Closure Documentation:

ECD: 1/30/2004 Completed: ___

3)

DRP will continue to update the summary of technical issues on weekly basis considering information from additional information from interviews, and information from review of transcripts of completed interviews. DRS has completed review of TARP reports and NRB documentation and will discuss atithe next ARB panel.

DRP/DRS to assess.

0 uE

(~0 L.

.4-E.E~

Responsible Person:

Meyer/Jackso'n_

Closure Documentation:

ECD: -Ongoing Completed: ___

4)

No indications of potential wrongdoing (other than the alleged H&l issues) have been identified to date. Repanel if indications of wrongdoing are identified.

Responsible Person:

Meyer/Barber ECD: Bi-Weekly Closure Documentation:

________Completed:

ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AT THE ARB

2

5)

SAC to develop a listing of attributes/behaviors that represent a good safety culture/SCWE, to be used as a point of comparison for outcomes of the SCWE review, and possibly considering how other events/activities/inspection findings at the site feed into that comparison. To be developed and distributed for next update meeting (1/8/04).

Responsible Person:

SAC ECD: 1/08/2004 (a-2:00 p.m.

Closure Documentation:

________Completed:

6)

DRP to discuss w/DRS, provision of DRS staff to support reviews of interviews transcripts. Transcripts need to be reviewed and summarized in terms of safety culture/SCWE issues discussed as well as technical issues. Summaries are needed to facilitate future documenation of findings.

Responsible Person:

BloucihlLanninci ECD: 12/24/2004 Closure Documentation:

________Completed:

7)

Next periodic ARB Responsible Person: SAC

'ECD: 1/08/2004 @.2:00 im Closure Documentation:

________Completed:

SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT:

SCWE Review PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION:

High If potential discrimination or Wrongdoing and 0 snt opening a case, provide rationale here (e.g., no prima facie, lack of specific~indicati~on of wrongdoing):

Rationale used to defer 01 discrimination case (DOL case in progress):

ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION (only applies to wrongdoing matters (including discrimination issues) that are under investigation by 01,-DOL, or DOJI:

What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement?__________

When did the potential violation occur?____

(Assign action to determine date, if unknown)

Onice date of potential violation is established, SAC Will assign AMS action to have another ARB at four (4) years from that date, to discuss enforcement statute of limitations issues.

NOTES: (include other pertinent comments. Also include considerations related to licenseeý referral, if abpropriate. Identify any potential _generic issues)

Next ARB will include a discussion of suggestions. for binning inputs related to SOWE (e.g.,

management production vs. safety pressure, non-conservative decision making, union pressures to suppress concerns identification, etc.) And how that will feed into the overall SCWE assessment.

Distribution: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Individuals (original to SAC)

SALEM/HC SCWE HIGH LEVEL

SUMMARY

Unsafe Operations To date, there ha~s been no contemporary information that has been conveyed through interviews or through inspection that would rise to the level of unsafe acts on the part of licensee management or operations that would warrant prompt and immediate action by the NRC. This aspect is evaluated in an ongoing and continuous manner.

There have been issues where production over safety pressures have been evident.*

If true, this would be an apparent violation of the PSEG Conduct of Operations procedure. More interviews are needed to review this matter. There were other examples, as well.

The PSEG Work Environment To date there has been no information conveyed through interviews or through inspection that indicates that personnel would not raise safety issue's to management. Thus, PSEG meets.

minimum standards for implementing.a Safety. Conscious Work Environment at Salem/H C.

AlthoUgh the interviewees to date have all indicated that' interviewees would not.hesitate to raise safety issues to management, they have indicated that senior management's response is often one to directly challenge* the issue' as being a safety. issue or to-recharacterize it as minor or to take-action to minimize the importance of the concern. Some Shift Managers (SMs)indicated that there had been a paradigm shift under thE 7'WM1'v 1,'*

e~.I, era in which they Were being asked why they couldn't take an -actio'n'Ptoimp'rove production r'ather than b~eing asked if it was a proposed action was safe or not..- These SM 's provided examples of situation in w *hich they were asked to either delay a shutdown or to proceed with startup or power ascension even when they were reluctant to do so. According to the SMs, none of these examples constituted a violation of the license or technical specifications, but management's approach was diametrically opposed to past practice in these instances. Cost pressures appeared to have been a contributor to the paradigm shift.

PSEG Industrial Safety Issues Many Nuclear Equipment Operators (NEOs) interviewed raised a number of industrial safety issues that have not been adequately addressed. They indicated that they had wrote notifications but thiat they either were never addressed or addressed in an inadequate manner.

In some instances, they indicated that management did not want to hear about there problems and considered it "whining" on their part.

PSEG Labor-Managiement Issues One inte,ry iewsi Durinjg the interview, he stated that he had been on days off and had traveled to t h,,,,e s ite o n his own time to resolve other labor management issues. He was requested to take

-yen though hewcse with operations managemenf~at that time. The X

odn m

and to not worry about' hich he did. He subsequently got a cal frma told to come in for the wNhich he subsequently did. Later, he was told he was being Tiredr for FFD rule violations. WMen asked why this occurred during the interview, he indicatedý tha iýhd told another manager that "We're going to make an example out and we're going to show the union that management is running the station and not the union."

There were other examples where union members indicated that management was generally unresponsive to industrial safety issues rased by the union. One union member witIMUM on-site indicated that hie and others had to protect the plant from management's "good ideas"'

By anecdote, he also commented that "PSEG has the right management team in place for t.he sixth time".

PSEGý's Corrective Action Pfocess(CAP)

Some interviewees indicated that.the CAP provides a shield or a convenient excuse for why action has not been taken to address equipment problems or personnel safety issues. On occasion, NEOs have been told to reenter thief concerns in the system. When the'y have done so nothing changes.

NRC Considerations During interviews, we listen very carefully to issues that may be safety significant and try to develop questions that sufficently probe the issu'e so that it's significance is fully understood.'

WE use this approach as part of our ongoing litmus test to determine if any unsafe acts hai~e been idnetified:

Recent interviews have applauded th regime as being effective at addressing emerg cocrns both slafety and otherwige) from all levels of the organization.

The removal o II166o m

positions of power has been Viewed as bdpgn relief to Mý prev)iously unhealthy work e'nvironment. However, *one potential contributor~

othis environm'ent'still wields significant management influence power on-site.-We plan to cohntin~ue to understand both his positive and negative contribution to the SCWE at Salem/HC.

Salem-HC SCWE Summary.wpd Dcme 8 03(:1M December 18, 2003 (1:31PM)

Salem & Hope Creek Update Agenda December 1 8th, 2003 Package Contents:

o Update Agenda o Attachment A (Assessment Status Table) o Attachment B (interview Status) o Attachment C (Regulatory Activity Schedule) o Attachment D (External Q&As) o Attachment E (internal Q&As)

1. ANY NEW EVIDENCE OF UNSAFE OPERATION? NO 0YES 01 a) Operating review of Salem & H-ope Creek -NO RECENT REPORTS & NO NEW EVENTS

.2. STATUS a) Allegation (detail In Aft. A) i) Interview Status (detail in Aft. C)

11) What has changed since last ARB

- Alleger contacted DaVe Lochbaum & potentially 60 minutes

- Internal & External Q&As were updated and distributed throughout the agency

- William Travers (EDO) is the designated respondent if any interviews are requested b) Court Case - Copies received of Alleger comrplaint & PSEG response i) In the "discovery phase"

11) NEXT - Set date for end of "discovery phase" C) External O&A's I) UPDATED DUE TOTHE ABOVE (potential 60 Minutes, D. Lochbaum)

3. UPCOMING REGULATORY ACTIVITIES a) Review schedule (see Aft. B)

4. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS a)

G:.\\BRANCH3'iAJlegation SCWE\\Sa~em-HQ_.Agerda.wpd

IF THE ISSUE IS MADE PUBLIC BY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES...

(Information that~may be discussed with the public and media.)

4. Can the NRCshut down Salem and Hope Creek ff you like?

NRC has regulatory authority to order licensees to shut down reactors if the situation merits such action. Our Inspection activities to date Indicate that the Salem and Hope Creek plants are safe. Although we have Identified some performnance Issues for the company to address, Inspection of events and day-to-day activities over the last 12 months has shown that the proper actions have been taken to assure reactor safety and that an acceptable margin of safety exists.

5. Iheard thata lawsuit was filed in which an individual was fired for ra ising safetyconcerns at the fadlity. Is this true?

If so, what Is the NRC doing about It?

We are aware that recently a civil lawsuit was filed in New Jersey, which claims that the affected person was discriminated against for raising safety concerns at Salem and Hope Creek. The NRC is aware of the lawsuit and is reviewing the specifics in light of the regulations prohibiting a licensee from taking discriminatory actions against an Individual for raising nuclear safety concerns. The NRC will continue to monitor the legal proceedings for any new developments. As of Dec. 8h', 2003, PSEG owes an answer to the complaint.

6. Will the NRC be required to testify if requested?

While NRC testimony is always a possibility, we have found that it generally isn't necessary because NRC findings and positions are a matter of public record.

-Z. The legal complaint raises, severallabor/nianagement concerns. What is the NRC position on these matters?

The NRC has four fu~ll-time resident Inspectors at Salem and Hope Creek. While they are aware of the various labor/management Interactions (not u ncommon in the Industry), the NRC Reactor Oversight Program addresses the results of management and staff interaction without directly evaluating the 'acceptability' of labor/management working relationships.

8. r heard that NRC investigators are working on the same case t hat t he lawsuit against PSEG addresses.ý Can you confirm tha t for us?

If the NRC had knowledge of any open investigation at Salem and Hope Creek, or any other site, we would not be at liberty to discuss it, because it Is against NRC policy to comment on such matters.

The results of investigations completed by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) a re publicly available. Since January 1, 2002, three 01 investigations at Salem and Hope Creek have been completed; two addressed discrimination for raising safety issues and were not substantiated, and one addressed a bogus urine sample from a supervisor and was substantiated with a Severity Level III Notice Of Violation to the Individual.

G:\\8RANCH3\\A11egatfon SCWE\\Salem-HC..AttD-E-xtemalQ&As.wPd Rev. Date: 12)10f3 Atcmn ae2t Attachment D Page 2 of 2