ML062210075

From kanterella
Revision as of 13:40, 13 July 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Jamie Benjamin Notes/Comments on The... Interview
ML062210075
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 01/15/2004
From: Jamie Benjamin
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062210075 (2)


Text

Jamie Benjamin notes/comments on th interview (01-15-04)

The following are my observations/questions of thr"..."terview held on 01-15-04.E______________________

.. .. ... .ON.(WHY; WYOXNOT, ETC.)Will raise concerns and has done so before? YES feels he would raise safety Issues. The reason he would not raise a safety issue Is because he feels it may not do any good.. (I.e. pg7, pg38, 143)Raises concerns for others? YES Same as above. Individuals feels they would raise concerns however the reason they would not would be because they feels nothing may be done with issues raised.Believes others raise concerns without hesitation?

YES & See Below NO Knows of someone who has experienced retaliation for YES & See Below raising concerns?

NO Bins for Issues:#1 -PERCEIVED LACK OF FREEDOM TO RAISE SAFETY CONCERNS TO PSEG MANAGEMENT

  1. 2 -PRODUCTION OVER SAFETY ISSUES#3 -SCHEDULE PRESSURE ISSUES#4 -LABOR -MANAGEMENT ISSUES#5 -INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ISSUES OTHER UNSPECIFIED ISSUES/COMMENTS
  1. 1 -PERCEIVED LACK OF FREEDOM TO RAISE SAFETY CONCERNS TO PSEG MANAGEMENT 0 NONE#2 -PRODUCTION OVER SAFETY ISSUES* (p. 24) "... he! Chas impressed me so far"* (p. 25) "... in th years was .. run It until it breaks and somebody shuts you down ... [with ([if] it's broken, let's fix It... [I don't thlnkLINNI wanted to be [effective at fixing things.] It's cheaper to run. It' easy to run.'Hey, IIl explain why it broke later'.. production over all else"* (p. 101 & 102) A lot of cost pressures to keep the units operating contributes to the shift In safe operating philosophy away from one of "safety first" (p. 103 -109) 0 w I st took put past the FSAR limits. Engineering given time to evaluate the Issue vice taking action (i.e S/D). ' erpretation of the correct action to take would have been to S/D the unit and search for the cause. Turnd out to be'a condenser leak (p. 113 & 114) Recent decision not reduce power to remove a reactor feed pump from service that had high vibration, as directed in the procedure, exemplifies management's emphasis of production over safety. The decision was made to allow engineering an opportunity to evaluate the condition prior to taking action in accordance with the procedure. (The plant would have had to go down to 95 % power to take the pump out and evaluate/fix It.)(p. 127) "I've seen in the last year or two a [greater]

emphasis on engineering evaluation

... I get the impression that they [managers]

are driven In the direction that would maintain the plant running.#3 -SCHEDULE PRESSURE ISSUES 0 NONE#4 -LABOR -MANAGEMENT ISSUES* (p. 164 -168) Some SRO supervisors have expressed that"they need to keep [certain union people] in the union because they [the union guys] are people that do bring up concerns ... because [the supervisors]

have to be careful of what they say ... [union members] are not Intimidated

... they [are protected from adverse consequences]." Management people who express concerns are viewed as not being "team players.'.Information in this ord Wa InlacCOrda fce w., rec S d eetq Act, exI "dc Wth the Fr Page 1 of 2 FOIA. emption.. " eedom of Informat,,,o 3amie Benjamin notes/comments on the interview (01-15-04)

"-#5 -INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ISSUES 0 (p. 8 -10) The situation with the CO leak in the Hope Creek'B' Diesel room "was handled very poorly ... we dropped one guy. He came out and threw up, fell down. And before the guy got to the hospital, they started running it again ... a couple of weeks later ... ran it again, one of the supervisors

[observing the run locally, passed out driving home in his car and originally attributed it to the EDG] ... [then] later on ... [claimed that it] could have been ... working nights ...blah, blah, blah."* (p. 10 -15) After they had two (one potential) industrial safety incidents they required workers to were SCUBA during runs. It was fixed for months. Length of time may have been based on production (72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LCO not met and S/D action statement)

  • (p.15 -18) Seems to have been many safety meetings, lots of discussion and precautions taking while the leak was active (i.e. scuba and CO monitoring during runs)0 (p. 19) Did eventually fix It within a 36 hour4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> window (on-line)OTHER UNSPECIFIED ISSUES/COMMENTS
  • NONE Page Z of 2