ML062510387: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:'g'-\alle.0\receipt\200301 1 Orcv.wpd Allegation Receipt Report Date Received:
{{#Wiki_filter:'g'-\alle.0\receipt\200301 1Orcv.wpd                 Allegation Receipt Report Date Received:               September 3-4, 2003                                       Allegation No. RI-2003-A-0110 Received via:                 (X] Telephone [X] Facsimile [X] E-Mail Employee Receiving Allegation: JohnsonNito                     Source of information: [X] former contractor A leger Name:                 DL               'arvn Ph.D       Home Address:                                             _
September 3-4, 2003 Allegation No. RI-2003-A-0110 Received via: (X] Telephone
Cell Phone:                                     .             City/State/Zip:
[X] Facsimile
E..Mail Address:           *W                                                                                V.
[X] E-Mail Employee Receiving Allegation:
[Individual currently in South Carolina at Oconee until 915103 when she will move back to her home address in NJ on 9/12/03.]
JohnsonNito Source of information:
Alleger's Employer: PSEG (private contractor)                   Alleger's Title: Manager, Culture Transformttion Facility:             Salem/Hope Creek                         Docket Nos. 50-272, 311, 354 Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy?                         Yes If H&I was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights?                         Yes (Filing a Civil Suit - has attorney -
[X] former contractor A leger Name: DL 'arvn Ph.D Home Address: _Cell Phone: .City/State/Zip:
not interested in filing wlDOL)
E..Mail Address: V.[Individual currently in South Carolina at Oconee until 915103 when she will move back to her home address in NJ on 9/12/03.]Alleger's Employer:
If a licensee employee or contractor, cid they raise the issue to their management?                                 Yes Does the alleger object to referral of issues to the licensee? No Provide alleger's direct response to this question verbatim on the line below:
PSEG (private contractor)
No objection to NRC requesting a written response from PSEG on this matter as part of the review. (from 914/03 telecon w/SAC)
Alleger's Title: Manager, Culture Transformttion Facility:
Was confidentiality requested?                                         .       No Was confidentiality initially granted?                                           No Criteria for determining whether the issue is an allegation:
Salem/Hope Creek Docket Nos. 50-272, 311, 354 Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy?If H&I was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights?Yes Yes (Filing a Civil Suit -has attorney -not interested in filing wlDOL)If a licensee employee or contractor, cid they raise the issue to their management?
Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy?                     Yes Is ":he impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities?                   Yes                    (0 Is t:he validity of the issue unknown?                                                         Yes Allegation Summary:                                                                   ..
Yes Does the alleger object to referral of issues to the licensee?
: 1. Alleger indicated that there are significant problems with the Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) at Salem/Hope Creek. Alleger's position (Manager, Culture Transformation) has afforded]ei                     ,c access to high level management at PSEG (up to and including the Chairman of the Board). Alleger indicated that the focus of these higher level managers has been production over safety, and that her efforts to raise work environment concerns to them have not been received positively (see specific information in Detailed Description of Allegation below).
No Provide alleger's direct response to this question verbatim on the line below: No objection to NRC requesting a written response from PSEG on this matter as part of the review. (from 914/03 telecon w/SAC)Was confidentiality requested?  
: 2. Discrimination - alleger's employment was terminated after rae in                     s about the work
.No Was confidentiality initially granted? No Criteria for determining whether the issue is an allegation:
              ,environment forrais     ae,,y issues at Artificial Island to th                 nd subsequently to the
Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy?
        .,*_*                                  P%subsequent ECP investigation was conducted, which concluded that the alleger was not discriminated against, but rather that the alleger's position was eliminated. Alleger was employed as contractor for five years.
Is ":he impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities?
3.
Is t:he validity of the issue unknown?Yes Yes Yes (0 Allegation Summary: ..1. Alleger indicated that there are significant problems with the Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) at Salem/Hope Creek. Alleger's position (Manager, Culture Transformation) has afforded]ei ,c access to high level management at PSEG (up to and including the Chairman of the Board). Alleger indicated that the focus of these higher level managers has been production over safety, and that her efforts to raise work environment concerns to them have not been received positively (see specific information in Detailed Description of Allegation below).2. Discrimination  
Functional Area: [X] Power Reactor Dis.zipline for each concern: [1] Other: SCWE [2] Discrimination [3] Wrongdoing                     WIHWIL,.L Detailed Description of Allegation:*                                                       PAC      ~E4OF.~PAGE(&)
-alleger's employment was terminated after rae in s about the work ,environment forrais ae,,y issues at Artificial Island to th nd subsequently to theP% subsequent ECP investigation was conducted, which concluded that the alleger was not discriminated against, but rather that the alleger's position was eliminated.
Safety Conscious Work Environment Issue:                       . 20  j,       0 4 5 '°"-
Alleger was employed as contractor for five years.3.Functional Area: [X] Power Reactor Dis.zipline for each concern: [1] Other: SCWE [2] Discrimination
-ELxamples provided:
[3] Wrongdoing Detailed Description of Allegation:*
: a. 9/02 - Salem equipment operators raised concerns to alleger about
PAC Safety Conscious Work Environment Issue: .2 0 j, 0 4 5 '°"--E Lxamples provided: WIHWIL,.L~E4OF.~PAGE(&)
 
: a. 9/02 -Salem equipment operators raised concerns to alleger about  
        -   "                                                 2
-" 2.keep the plant operat7VM vs. s ndown e plant. Ailegerin cated that the concerTns of the NEOs were dismissed by PSEG management
                                                                                                  . keep the plant operat7VM vs. s     ndown       e plant. Ailegerin   cated that the concerTns of the NEOs were dismissed by PSEG management
: b. Alleger indicated that high levels of management consistently pressure licensed operators to make non-conservative decisj ps. Example: alleger td that a member of Hope Creek Operations manageme -directed an operat.not to commerice shutting down the plant in accordance w'i-Wan LCO shutdown action s ate operator did not commence shutdown of the plant until another SRO (would not provide name over the phone) came into the control room and instructed the operator to adhere to the conditions of his license and commence shutdown of the plant and not to be pressured to take the wrong actions.c. Alleger indicated that discussions with several high level managers during the week of 3/17103 indicated that there was considerable pressure from upper level management to return Hope Creek to service following its forced outage. Indicated that this production vs. safety ' LAr.as coming from the highest levels of management.
: b. Alleger indicated that high levels of management consistently pressure licensed operators to make non-conservative decisj ps. Example: alleger             td   that a member of Hope Creek Operations manageme                     -directedan operat.not             to commerice shutting down the plant in accordance w'i-Wan LCO shutdown action s             ate         operator did not commence shutdown of the plant until another SRO (would not provide name over the phone) came into the control room and instructed the operator to adhere to the conditions of his license and commence shutdown of the plant and not to be pressured to take the wrong actions.
Alleger indicated that she informed th M R1about these -comments during her 3/20/03 discussion withe him (see below), and he dismissed them.d. The alleger indicated that at her last meeting (March 20, 2003) with th right before his retirement, sist informed him that high levels of management were telling hQrliat "we are dangerous."I iI is reported to have stated have operators that don't know shit from shinola, and they want to hide behind the safety banner because they don't know what they were doing." e. During a 3/20/03 discussion with th alleger was informed that PSEG management;
: c. Alleger indicated that discussions with several high level managers during the week of 3/17103 indicated that there was considerable pressure from upper level management to return Hope Creek to service following its forced outage. Indicated that this production vs. safety ' LAr.as coming from the highest levels of management. Alleger indicated that she informed th               M R1about these -
-lacks "defense-in-depth" thinking,-decision making and reaction to human performance events are not based on safety;-we are one step away from the NRC "taking the keys away;" and-Was not surprised at the reactions of above)[NOTE: during telephone conversation with SAC on 9/4/03, alleger indicated that she had taped a number of the conversations she had with managers in late March 2003. Alleger indicated.that her former attorney had informed her that "one-way" taping of conversations was permitted in New-Jersey.]
comments during her 3/20/03 discussion withe him (see below), and he dismissed them.
Other comments:-safety concerns are given lip-service
: d. The alleger indicated that at her last meeting (March 20, 2003) with th                       right before his retirement, sist     informed him that high levels of management were telling hQrliat "we are dangerous."IiI        is reported to have stated *'we have operators that don't know shit from shinola, and they want to hide behind the safety banner because they don't know what they were doing."
-high level managers have informed the alleger that "we focus on appeasing employees vs. resolving-their concerns."-managers are pressured to defend their safety choices Alle~ger indicated that she would equate the SCWE at PSEG to that of Millstone (formerly) and Davis-Besse. She indicated that the situation at PSEG is just as bad.Potential H&I AllEger was called to a meeting with the 2/28/03, puirrte to.discuss "her bor~us." However, after discussing her 'work en.ironment c6ncerns with tp-he informed her that: her employment was to be terminated.
: e. During a 3/20/03 discussion with th                                     alleger was informed that PSEG management;
Alle er i.£ted that she was initially told that she could stay on board until 4/16/03, but later learned that the fhad directed that her departure be"accelerated" and she left the site on 3/28/03. Afrditional details of alleger's employment terminatioh are provided in the documentation attached to the Allegation Receipt Report. A\LL Regarding the licensee/ECP assertion that the alleger's positibn was eliminated and that she was not discriminated against, the alleger indicated that people were brought in to perform the function she was performing immediately after her departure.}}
      -   lacks "defense-in-depth" thinking,
      -   decision making and reaction to human performance events are not based on safety;
      -   we are one step away from the NRC "taking the keys away;" and
      -   Was not surprised at the reactions of       *see            above)
[NOTE: during telephone conversation with SAC on 9/4/03, alleger indicated that she had taped a number of the conversations she had with managers in late March 2003. Alleger indicated.that her former attorney had informed her that "one-way" taping of conversations was permitted in New-Jersey.]
Other comments:
  - safety concerns are given lip-service
  - high level managers have informed the alleger that "we focus on appeasing employees vs. resolving
-their concerns."
  - managers are pressured to defend their safety choices Alle~ger indicated that she would equate the SCWE at PSEG to that of Millstone (formerly) and Davis-Besse. She indicated that the situation at PSEG is just as bad.
Potential H&I AllEger was called to a meeting with the                                 2/28/03, puirrte     to.discuss "her bor~us." However, after discussing her 'work en.ironment c6ncerns with tp-he                           informed her that: her employment was to be terminated. Alle er i.£ted that she was initially told that she could stay on board until 4/16/03, but later learned that the fhad                   directed that her departure be "accelerated" and she left the site on 3/28/03. Afrditional details of alleger's employment terminatioh are provided in the documentation attached to the Allegation Receipt Report.                                             A\LL Regarding the licensee/ECP assertion that the alleger's positibn was eliminated and that she was not discriminated against, the alleger indicated that people were brought in to perform the function she was performing immediately after her departure.}}

Revision as of 15:19, 23 November 2019

Exhibit 2 to 1-2003-045, Allegation Receipt Report
ML062510387
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 09/03/2003
From:
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
1-2003-A-0110, FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062510387 (2)
v • d • e


Text

'g'-\alle.0\receipt\200301 1Orcv.wpd Allegation Receipt Report Date Received: September 3-4, 2003 Allegation No. RI-2003-A-0110 Received via: (X] Telephone [X] Facsimile [X] E-Mail Employee Receiving Allegation: JohnsonNito Source of information: [X] former contractor A leger Name: DL 'arvn Ph.D Home Address: _

Cell Phone: . City/State/Zip:

E..Mail Address: *W V.

[Individual currently in South Carolina at Oconee until 915103 when she will move back to her home address in NJ on 9/12/03.]

Alleger's Employer: PSEG (private contractor) Alleger's Title: Manager, Culture Transformttion Facility: Salem/Hope Creek Docket Nos. 50-272, 311, 354 Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy? Yes If H&I was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights? Yes (Filing a Civil Suit - has attorney -

not interested in filing wlDOL)

If a licensee employee or contractor, cid they raise the issue to their management? Yes Does the alleger object to referral of issues to the licensee? No Provide alleger's direct response to this question verbatim on the line below:

No objection to NRC requesting a written response from PSEG on this matter as part of the review. (from 914/03 telecon w/SAC)

Was confidentiality requested? . No Was confidentiality initially granted? No Criteria for determining whether the issue is an allegation:

Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy? Yes Is ":he impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities? Yes (0 Is t:he validity of the issue unknown? Yes Allegation Summary: ..

1. Alleger indicated that there are significant problems with the Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) at Salem/Hope Creek. Alleger's position (Manager, Culture Transformation) has afforded]ei ,c access to high level management at PSEG (up to and including the Chairman of the Board). Alleger indicated that the focus of these higher level managers has been production over safety, and that her efforts to raise work environment concerns to them have not been received positively (see specific information in Detailed Description of Allegation below).
2. Discrimination - alleger's employment was terminated after rae in s about the work

,environment forrais ae,,y issues at Artificial Island to th nd subsequently to the

.,*_* P%subsequent ECP investigation was conducted, which concluded that the alleger was not discriminated against, but rather that the alleger's position was eliminated. Alleger was employed as contractor for five years.

3.

Functional Area: [X] Power Reactor Dis.zipline for each concern: [1] Other: SCWE [2] Discrimination [3] Wrongdoing WIHWIL,.L Detailed Description of Allegation:* PAC ~E4OF.~PAGE(&)

Safety Conscious Work Environment Issue: . 20 j, 0 4 5 '°"-

-ELxamples provided:

a. 9/02 - Salem equipment operators raised concerns to alleger about

- " 2

. keep the plant operat7VM vs. s ndown e plant. Ailegerin cated that the concerTns of the NEOs were dismissed by PSEG management

b. Alleger indicated that high levels of management consistently pressure licensed operators to make non-conservative decisj ps. Example: alleger td that a member of Hope Creek Operations manageme -directedan operat.not to commerice shutting down the plant in accordance w'i-Wan LCO shutdown action s ate operator did not commence shutdown of the plant until another SRO (would not provide name over the phone) came into the control room and instructed the operator to adhere to the conditions of his license and commence shutdown of the plant and not to be pressured to take the wrong actions.
c. Alleger indicated that discussions with several high level managers during the week of 3/17103 indicated that there was considerable pressure from upper level management to return Hope Creek to service following its forced outage. Indicated that this production vs. safety ' LAr.as coming from the highest levels of management. Alleger indicated that she informed th M R1about these -

comments during her 3/20/03 discussion withe him (see below), and he dismissed them.

d. The alleger indicated that at her last meeting (March 20, 2003) with th right before his retirement, sist informed him that high levels of management were telling hQrliat "we are dangerous."IiI is reported to have stated *'we have operators that don't know shit from shinola, and they want to hide behind the safety banner because they don't know what they were doing."
e. During a 3/20/03 discussion with th alleger was informed that PSEG management;

- lacks "defense-in-depth" thinking,

- decision making and reaction to human performance events are not based on safety;

- we are one step away from the NRC "taking the keys away;" and

- Was not surprised at the reactions of *see above)

[NOTE: during telephone conversation with SAC on 9/4/03, alleger indicated that she had taped a number of the conversations she had with managers in late March 2003. Alleger indicated.that her former attorney had informed her that "one-way" taping of conversations was permitted in New-Jersey.]

Other comments:

- safety concerns are given lip-service

- high level managers have informed the alleger that "we focus on appeasing employees vs. resolving

-their concerns."

- managers are pressured to defend their safety choices Alle~ger indicated that she would equate the SCWE at PSEG to that of Millstone (formerly) and Davis-Besse. She indicated that the situation at PSEG is just as bad.

Potential H&I AllEger was called to a meeting with the 2/28/03, puirrte to.discuss "her bor~us." However, after discussing her 'work en.ironment c6ncerns with tp-he informed her that: her employment was to be terminated. Alle er i.£ted that she was initially told that she could stay on board until 4/16/03, but later learned that the fhad directed that her departure be "accelerated" and she left the site on 3/28/03. Afrditional details of alleger's employment terminatioh are provided in the documentation attached to the Allegation Receipt Report. A\LL Regarding the licensee/ECP assertion that the alleger's positibn was eliminated and that she was not discriminated against, the alleger indicated that people were brought in to perform the function she was performing immediately after her departure.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML062510387&oldid=2186690"