ML062210057
| ML062210057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/2004 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML062210057 (2) | |
Text
lDafelqrr.. Salem-HC SCWE Summary.wpd Page 1 SALEM/HC SCWE HIGH LEVEL
SUMMARY
Unsafe Operations To date, there has 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 odigoing and continuous manner.
There have beenijssue where
- rduction
,ver s fey ressures have been evident. In one C
'.as alleged to have taken an action tn**6 n the steam supply to main fe water without approval of the operating shift. This w s done to avoid taking the unit off line to effect repairs.
-ember 31, 2003 interview with the responsible Salem Shift Manager confirmed that th id not have permission to operate the valve. Thus, thistis n a,
ohe G.onduct o f O p e r a t i o n s ro c e d u r e
- R J e _ c m e n s*-
k.
In a recent HC interview, a HC reactor operator related a situation where he wanted to take a conservative action because he had lost reactor power indication (from a computerized calorimetric calculation) and wanted to lower power to a known state (approximately a 1%
power reduction) and was prohibited from doing so by the operating supervisor (OS). More interviews are needed to review this matter.
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 issues to management. Thus, PSEG meets minimum standards for implementing a Safety Conscious Work Environment at Salem/HC.
Although the Salem 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. In a HC case, there appeared to be a desire to maximize generation in the face of uncertain reactor power conditionsapar(SMsid~ica~ted that there had been a paradigm shift underth era in which they were being asked why they couldn't take an action to improve production rather than being asked if it was a proposed action was safe or not. These SMs provided examples of situation in which 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.
Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Informatlou Act, exemptions FOIA*
~~ZeOS-14
4b n*.ele!.rr-Salem-HC SCWE Summary.wpd Page 2 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 that 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-Management Issues On terview On i
,11 U
g ei-nterview, he sta'ted that he hadbe on ay off and had traveled to thp site o-n is own time to resolve other labor management issues. He was requested to take a even though he was off which he discussed with operations management at that tim. Theiftd, to o home and to not worry about it which he did. He subsequently got a ca I from an was told to come in for the test which he subsequently did. Later, he was told he-as When asked why this occurred during the interview, he indicated thti
-~had
'toldMaother manager that "We're going to make an example out of*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 djndicated that he 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 the sixth time".
PSEG's Corrective Action Process(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 thier concerns in the system. When they 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 issue 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 have been idnetified.
Recent interviews have applauded the egime as being effective at addressing emer
.c ncerns (both sahety a rn.herwise from all levels of the organization.
The retirement o and the removal o from positions of power has been viewed as brin in r lief t)o thereviously unhealthy work environment. However, one potential contributor to this environment still wields significant management influence power on-site.
e plan to continue to understand both his positive and negative contribution to the SCWE at Salem/HC.
Salem-HOC SCWE Summary.wpd January 8, 2004 (9:36AM)