ML052490461

Open Branch 3 Allegation Status Summary

ML052490461
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	08/10/2004
From:	NRC Region 1
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314
Download: ML052490461 (2)

Text

Open Branch 3 Allegation Status Summary

'I .7 .7

%9. No. Site Description Status/Actions 4 4 13 =I4-0026 HC 1. New procedure for Initiating Notifications Is restrictive In that it Initial ARB on 4/1/04. Enclosure 1 for referral letter requires notification of management before an Issue can be a,

submitted to the corrective action program. This Is forwarded to SAC on 4/17/04 for items 1 and 4. Ron Nimitz discouraging people to initiate concerns. NRC will likely see to provide an update for item 5.

':n1=rE a significant drop in the initiation of Notifications In the near

=u 5-CD°

= £; future. Alleger indicated that some have specifically been told not to write notifications or that they shouldn't have written a Notification because it could cause trouble for a co-worker.

I2n CDa

2. Contractors are not being interviewed as part of the NRC review of safety culture at site or of recent PSEG Internal.

fta review (IA of safety culture. ConsideJNn 12W =

ote: The fP ep ye a oontracto Ir Note: These are ~P Vemployees and not contractors)).

3. Safety culture Is bad. Employees (especially older employees) are afraid to raise Issues for fear of reprsa Man aPerienced people are being fired (exampll

4. Training has fallen off for new people. Comers are being cut to save money for upcoming outages. Site specific training Is being shortened. Security background checks are being done, but qualification credentials are not being checked.

5. NRC should talk to the 'estuary folks" regarding tritium wells, as well as a seismic gap between the auxiliary building that Is being filled with wafer and the possibility of tritium In the water. Related work was curtailed for a month within the last two months. (3/6/04) 2004-0029 S/HC UCS made a work environment allegation: 1) PSEG Initial ARB on 3/11. Ack letter with closure of concerns 1 violated 50.9 because they did not Include the results of a and 2 in concurrence on 4/7. Concerns 3 & 4 will be Synergy survey in response to NRC's January 28, 2004 reviewed as part of NRC's ongoing review.

letter, 2) PSEG made overly positive statements about 3)

PSEG safety culture Is worse than Davis-Besse and elsewhere, 4) PSEG safety culture is inadequate by

._ __ ._ _ industry standards (3/9/04) l

/V-11:.1;z NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE August 10, 2004 (10:49AM)

. II Open Branch 3 Allegation Status Summary Alleg. No. I Site I Description I StatuslActions 2004-0036 Salem 1) Overpressurizing and damaging of the Salem steam First ARB conducted on April 1, 2004. ARB suggested generator blowdown process radiation monitors (Rl9s). Is referring concerns 1 & 2 to PSEG since alleger did not due to tagging process inadequacies and not system procedure problems. object. Concern 3 relates to H&M. However, the alleger is not making a formal complaint at this time. His/her DOL

2) On Feb ruay 27, 2004, control room operators incorrectly rights will be included with Ack. Ltr. The Ack letter was in entered an ODCM action statement for an inoperable plant concurrence on 417104.

vent process radiation monitor, 1R41. The action statement for an Inoperable vent stack flow rate monitor should have been entered. The alleger was approached by his/her supervisor to revise all l&C radiation monitor work procedures to Include specific technical specification and ODCM action statement references. The alleger disagreed with the supervisor's assertion that the changes would be editorial and nature and indicated that PSEG does not have the resources to Implement the corrective actions or procedure revisions in a timely manner. The alleger also mentioned that the supervisor asked another procedure writer that he perform a station qualified review for a particular procedure/equipment issue that he/she was not qualified to perform. The alleger intended to take his concerns on this Issue to ECP.

3) The alleger stated that he had less fear of retaliation compared to his coworkers because he Is a 2f 01. The alleger has been maintaininrga nordbo-ok for the last several years In defense of potential harassment and intimidation Issues. The alleger did NOT allege any current H&I. The alleger referenced a potential H&l issue from several months ago and stated that it was satisfactorily resolved through ECP. The alleger referenced a H&l Issue from 1994 in that he was excluded from becoming a qualified I&C technician because of his own high maintenance standards which would Interfer!i on.

The alleger was then assigned to the He did not pursue the H&l at the time. The al eger s9Dke highly of his Involvement with ECP but believed that !rlm

_____________ I ________

Lake, the ECP manager Isoverwhelme ;(3/23/04) J NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE August 10, 2004 (10:49AM)