ML062510108

Allegation Background/Chronology

ML062510108
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	02/12/2004
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062510108 (4)

Text

[ -Salem/Hope Creek Allegation Background/Chronology I Issue/Event Date Description Feb. 18', 2004 101t1 ARB Feb. 171", 2004 Feb. 11, 2004 I' ARB for "Spin-Off' Allegation (#20040010 ... Conduct of Maintenance Issues)

Jan. 29', 2004 9"'ARB Jan. 28', 2004 Issued a "significant letter" to PSEG providing them with interim results of our ongoing SCWE review (they have until February 27"' to respond with an action plan).

Jan. 28', 2004 Jan. 27", 2004 Initial interview With "Nine Mile Spin-Off Alleger" Jan. .8',2004 8'h ARB Dec. 3 t12003 A between Dec. 2 1d and Dec. 18'", 2003 7'h ARB Nov. 17', 2003 6"'ARB Nov. 13"', 2003 5'h ARB Nov. 12"', 2003 Nov. 71, 2003 4 'hARB m

Information in this record was deleted inaccordance With the. Freedom of 1nformation Act, exemptions .

R~ev. Date: 2/12/04 F~ev.Date 211/04 Page of 4 age I of

Salem/Hope Creek Allegation Background/Chronology Issue/Event Date Description Nov. 40, 2003 Interviews conducted between Nov. 4th and Nov. 7th

,fo!low-up re union representation issue, developed additional information)

Deci pto (follow-up interview at l s request) 7 (1 I

Oct. 28"* 2003 3 rd ARB Oct. 240, 2003 Interviews conducted between Oct. 24"h and Oct. 291h Oct. 23d, 2003 Interviews conducted on Oct. 2 3k" One confidentialtsource Oct. 22 ,nd2003 Interviews conducted on Oct. 2 2nd Oct. 16"Y'2003 Certified acknowledgment letter sent.

Oct. 14th, 2003 Interviews conducted bitween Oct. 14"h and Oct. 2 1st li'and Atty. Jeff Keenan re ECP and Gallup surveys)

More email received from alleger.

Oct. 110, 2003 More email received from alleger.

Oct. 91h, 2003 Oct. 2w', 2003 2Dd ARB Sept. 30', 2003 Alieger sends a letter via email to the NRC, Region I, Regional Administrator indicating thatthe UOMMM_ -M thought that issues at the site "aren't going to be brought up ... just like Davis-Besse."

Sept. 29, 2003 Alleger filed civil discrimination law suit against PSEG in Morris County, N.J.

Sept. 251, 2003 Interviews conducted between Sept. 2 5 th and Oct. 9 th FRev. Date: 2/12/04 Page 2 of 4

Salem/Hope Creek Allegation Background/Chronology Issue/Event Date Description Sept./Oct. 2003 PSEG decision making process relative to #14 Steam Generator (SG) Feed Regulating Valve (FRV) believed to be stuck at .74%open. This concern related primarily to the timing of a decision to enter TS 3.0.3. An NEO and RO have asserted that it should not have taken 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to enter 3.0.3. However, once the licensee's troubleshooting plan showed that FRV was stuck they immediately entered the LCO and followed the SD requirements. Although non-conservative decision making was a possible root cause, there was no TS violation.

Sept. 9', 2003 Initial recorded interview with alleger & 1"Allegation Review Board (ARE).

Sept. 5"', 2003 Alleger informed of right to file a discrimination complaint with the-Dept. of Labor (DOL).

Sept. 3 rd& 4 "I,2003 Initial allegation contact between RI-2003-A-01 10 alleger & Dave Vito.

June 17"', 2003 Hope Creek - EDGleakage exceeds LCO time; pressure to avoid shutdown; directed operator' 0o not shutdown; shutdown commenced within acceptable time frame and met regulations. There was time pressure to delay the shutdown as long as possible to allow engineering time to come up with an adequate operability justification. Although non-conservative decision making was a possible root cause, there was no TS violation. The HC Ris were fully engaged with the issue as it unfolded.

March 17.', 2003 1. Hope Creek Reactivity Event - Manipulation of Electro Hydraulic Control (EHG) system caused an unanticipated rise in reactor power 6 1/2/2 % to 13 % ... not discovered until Wednesday (3/19/03).

2. Entering a planned shutdown to repair 3 technical/mechanical failures (late Sunday / early Monday morning).

3. Monday morning (0800) Turbine pass Valye St,* (47o%). TBV closed fully during subsequent testin rgued withb bout whether or not a shut down was required.. The concern here was btwhis department heads..

He apparently "harassed" (from interviews witl Uth ,them for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> on why a shutdown to repair the TBV was necessary whenall of the department heads believed that shutting down was a "no brainer". Although non-conservative decision making is a possible root cause, there Was no TS violation.

4. Heated discussions about the duration of the forced outage.

Mar. 28"', 2003 Alleger's last day on site (employment officially terminated this date).

Mar. 26', 2003 Alle er told (by th- , - -- that thn

% wanted the alleger "out by Friday" (March 28"', 2003).

Mar. 25"', 2003 Alleger submitted letter tjW reiterating work environment concerns and describing the alleged retaliatory actions.

Feb. 26"a, 2003 Alleger met with former M to purportedly discuss [the] bonus. But, after discussing concerns about the work environment at Artificial Island, the alleger was informed of future terniination (originally planned for April 16"'). It was also alleged that the formeimthen directed that the termination be "accelerated."

Nov. 2002 Higher Tritium sample concentration in Spring 2003 - "a serious issue that had to be handled with kid gloves to keep us [PSEG] out of trouble'9 ju Rev. Date: 2/12/04 Page 3 of 4

'I " Salem/Hope Creek Allegation Background/Chronology Im Issue/Event Date Description Fall 2002 to have an~~n fired but was unsuccess ul.

o NAee anstartup checklist step.

ation received 7e2 MiEs alleged activity may Fave actually occurred whe directed to "NA" a surveillance step for the Reactor Vessel Vent en a single valve indicated dual indication during this routine stroking evolution. was allegedly told by the Operation Crew that they would not "NA" the step. arlier information from interviews suggested that the concern involved "NA-ing".a second ver'ification containment walkdown to be done by a VP-OPS level person step. This steD*was added to the SU procedure as a lessons learned from the Davis, esse issue. According t this walkdown was actually done by himself and and startup was delaye b' d because of leaks that they found from some SG wet layup level indication valves. So, the step was actually completed contrary to the alleger's assertion.

Sept. 2 4 ', 2002 Based on the size and location of a significant steam leak ()0'to j40lum r e. bonnet of a Feed Water Pump steam admission valve), th agreed with the shift operators that the plant should be shut down taffect r s.airs. Lto 1 spak wjith "upper mana ge nt and,, upon*biretur,,subsequentl

'rur '.'.r,~.. -

\confidential report substantiates allegation, Th*dStep Grieevanw. I without regard to his own personal safety, without a Nuclear Equipment Operator (NEO),

and without the permission/knowledge of control room personnel).

Spring 2002 Salem grassing approach (i.e., heroic efforts) deviated from expected approach / lessons learned from 1994 grassing. This concern relates to a decision to keep one of the Salem unit's on during a period o heavy grassing. Interviews have suggested that this may have been done for one day, but when it occurred on a second day the unit was taken off-line.

Spring 2001 In the Spring 2001 outage, a Salem Unit I reactor trip was causedby a main generator current transformer failure...Th .I MI.-- told operations that they needed to get the reactor started u by a particular ate or their NRC performance indicator was going to "go white."

tgmallegedly harassed o erat'ns daily by asking day "when are you going to start the p ant". Operations then tol hey would start up when the thought they were within a day of putting steam into the main turbine. Although insisted that operations should start up the reactor with the MSIVs shut, operations re used to doso because it was contrary to their safety analysis.

Not Specified Excessive use of temporary tags Not Specified Salem 2 In-service Inspection (ISI) relief request re: piping UT (coverup?)

Not Specified Hope Creek offgas issue afte ook over. Rad safety concerns expressed but not resolved Not Specified Hope Creek employee allegedly asked to modify a Notification re: "in-leakage" GI)M\R'BRANCH3\A1Iegation 5wE\Salem-HC-Chronologymwpd Rlev. Date: 2/12/04 Page 4 of 4