Thanks for the responses. Marlin, here's basically how the NRC described the SCWE (scab) thing (quote sanitized):
"there were numerous indications of weaknesses in corrective actions and management efforts to establish an environment where employees are consistently willing to raise safety concerns. Some utility staff and managers felt that the company had emphasized production to a point which negatively impacted the handling of emergent equipment issues and associated operational decision-making. Additionally, management had not been consistent in its support of Station staff identifying concerns and providing alternate views. We found examples of unresolved conflict and poor communication between management and staff, as well as underlying staff and management frustration with poor equipment reliability. The equipment issues stemmed, in part, from weaknesses in implementation of station processes such as work management and corrective action." - Not my words, a quote from the NRC
There have also been cross-cutting issues dealing with having good procedures and following them.
I haven't read or heard of any malicious compliance issues.
Yes, it may have been just a question to see how I think.
When asked the "tricky" question, I went with a nonnuclear power experience answer. Why didn't I go with a nuclear answer to try to get all the points? Because when I worked there before and now, the expectation for procedural compliance and bringing up safety issues was, on paper, and from the mouths of the upper management, the same. While I do believe it's gotten much better (based upon conversations with mgmt., and worker friends that still work there), without some real time there on site, (and some retraining) I wouldn't be able to determine just where the culture currently sits with respect to what constitutes procedural compliance etc.. I didn't want my answer about "stretching or lowering my standards" experience that's over a decade old to be viewed through the lens of what procedural compliance etc. means today. We had should/shall/may in place when I was there before.
I wasn't, and still aren't sure the question was a proxy for a procedural compliance violation question.
I can't say I pulled the thread to conclusion, although F/B I got from one of the SRO's that interviewed me (direct), and from another SRO friend I know in the plant (grapevine) was that I did very well during my interview, but the competition was very stiff, and they only hired half the EO's they originally were planning to hire.
I'm looking forward, not looking back. I'm scheduled for another test tomorrow, and if I pass it, will likely have another interview for a different job shortly. I'd like to be able to better spot the "trick question", including understanding just what they're asking me.
