ML20129G739
| ML20129G739 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/18/1996 |
| From: | Teator J NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129E434 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-359 NUDOCS 9610030135 | |
| Download: ML20129G739 (10) | |
Text
- .. . . - - - - . . - . - - - - - - . - . ._ __
s.' , . -
'h.N b Wy o
REPORT OF INTERVIEW
.' ~gpyMh WITH 9 THGMAS F. DOUGHERTY .
- .a DOUGHERTY was interviewed by Senior Investigator Richard J.
On April 20, 1995, %
j Walsh and the reporting investigator. The interview was conducted, under 123 Main oath in DOUGHERTY's office,12thDOUGHERTY floor, New York provided Power Authority (NYPA)information:
the following Street, White Plains, New York.
et
! DOUGHERTY as n on
. ivers I ber His social securi e radua df
)V j number is -In
- 51. He resides.a he graduated 4
a Ba or o thenia ics.. neering. .
Queens College witfrom Columbia University with a Master of Science in Nuc -
DOUGHERTY was l red by NYPA in June 1979.
the Vice President of Nuclear Engineering.
i DOUGHERTY was que;tioned as to why Ken VEHSTE'DT was transferred White Plains Office (WPO) to the Indian given responsibility for fire protection (FP) . issues.
Point 3 Nuclear Po Through hearsay, DOUGHERTY heard that former IP3 Resident Manager John GARRITY wa that the FP issues would "get out of control,"< and cost as much as the 60 million dollars spent on the ' James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JA issues.
DOUGHERTY heard that NYPA employee Sal ZULA, and Paul BORER (o j
i i
from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) .E i transferred to IP3 to be responsible for FP issues.DOUGHERTY believes.
GARITTY's request. 'i th Manager, Les HILL, selected VEHSTEDT to be the IP3 TechnicaluServices a l $E l DOUGHERTY and others at NYPA were concerned with VEHSTEDT's GB trans the Nuclear Engineering Department's Fire Protection Group would not -
aM be in control of the IP3 FP issues, even though they were 3E the ac i
organization. 34)
)g IP3 and WPO, because they had different interpretatioris'tf FP issues. e &
DOUGHERTY added that'VEHSTEDT Joseph DUBE was was a technically the head of FPcompetent at y.s pers worked in the NYPA Licensing Department. ;Eg I IP3, and VEHSTEDT was put under DUBE's supervision to try to;ye' add VE l i
technical and licensing knowledge of Appendix R to the resolutionqoff the yk FP
- 8-issues, 7M2d
- .s .e S DOUGHERTY also offered that relying less on contractors to perform NYPA work.
in The1993 new NYPA he Chief led a task force l
Executive Officer, FREEMAN, also felt that NYPA should rely le 1 contractors.
a mistake by having contractors put together NYP
.' when a contractor left the company.
BORER asked him to
' In September 1993, DOUGHERTY became BORER's assistant.DOUGHERTY chaired the attend a March 29, 1994, FP budget meeting. DOUGHERTY provided a He said that it was his job to keep the meeting focused. DUBE,
, copy of the meeting minutes (attached), which lists the a DOUGHERTY l
- ivM & ,
, -M-9610030135 960918 PDR FOIA PDR g / ,
7 g.
I MORGAN 96-359
said that the purpose of the meeting was to get the FP issues on the table, '
and to discuss the budget availability. They needed to decide what wbrk could be done in 1994, and what could be deferred until 1995. They also needed.to decide what were start up issues, and what were not. Prior to the meeting, Project Engineer Bob VENTURA told him of the budget costs of the FP issues.
4 VENTURA was in charge of the FP budget.. .
DOUGHERTY said that, at some point during the meeting, he believes that he .
brought up whether the 1994 funding for the FP 080 safeproposed It was shutdownthat analysisthe could be used to pay for some other FP issues.DOUGHERTY said that there were strong, analysis work be deferred until 1995.
opposing views voiced about the proposal, and at times, the conversation became "confrontational" frca a " budgetary standpoint." It is DOUGHERTY's guess that VENTURA, DUBE, and VEHSTEDT held the view that the analysis should be deferred until 1996, with the already budgeted funds used to address other !
FP issues. DOUGHERTY said that he does not recall TARPINIAN saying anything DOUGHERTY could not recall what VENTURA, DUBE,' and during that meeting.VEHSTEDT wanted to use the money for, but DOUGHERTY was a issues had come up. He added that the estimated cost of the budgeted work was DOUGHERTY did not know if NYPA had committed greater than had been budgeted.to the NRC to do the DBD/ safe shutdown anal DOUGHERTY believes that VEHSTEDT stated during the meeting that heDOUGHERTY didn't have any more time to talk about problems, because he had some to solve.
said that during the meeting he saw VEHSTEDT get up, and walk over to TARPINIAN, and say, "see you later pal or bud." DOUGHERTY does not remember.
what caused VEHSTEDT to do this, but he believes that VEHSTEDT was frustrated DOUGHERTY said during the meeting, and frustrated with the issues in general.that VE wanted the meeting to end. DOUGHERTY believes that the meeting lasted from 10:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. He believes that VEHSTEDT believed that the meeting was a waste of time, and that NYPA didn't need to do the DBD. .At the DOUGHERTY believes time, DOUGHERTY did not view VEHSTEDT's actions as wrong.
that TARPINIAN could have perceived that he.would lose his job if the DBD was deferred. '
, v '.;[
DOUGHERTY said that, until TARPINIAN spoke to hi.m, he did not-view VEHSTEDT's t %.
actions as inappropriate. To DOUGHERTY's knowledge, there was no intent . o cause TARPINIAN any harm by trying to get the safe shut down analysis deferred until 1995. Since that meeting, he has seen no evidence to change that opinion.
DOUGHERTY stated that he has known VEHSTEDT for 12 years.
He'said that some He described VEHSTEDT as people have problems with VEHSTEDT's work style.VEHSTEDT is the kind of person wh smart, sharp, and very opinionated.
his mind, and is not afraid to challenge people if he believes they "are off." '
From 00GHERTY's perspective, if VEHSTEDT did that to him, he would have viewed it as a sign of friendship. VEHSTEDT has done that sort of thing to him. DOUGHERTY said that VEHSTEDT openly displays his feelings, and that DOUGHERTY added that VEHSTEDT was people know when VEHSTEDT is "getting mad." That led to the first person to identify JAF's Appendix R compliance issues. ;
Case No. 1-95-019 ,2 p o,;~ ;.- f i _
1 .
DOUGHERTY became aware of an issue regarding an Ebasco employee, Walter -
WITTICH.
WITTICH had been called by a NYPA emaloyee who complained about TARPINIAN.
As a result of that, DOUGHERTY spo(e to WITTICH, who refused to DOUGHERTY recalls that he told give him the name of the NYPA employee.WITTICH that, "the day may come DOUGHERTY said that he may have asked WITTICH if it was VEHSTEDT who DOUGHERTY is not aware of any disciplinary complained to him about TARPINIAN. action taken against WITTICH, but said tha if WITTICH's access badge to IP3 was revoked for not cooperating with the NYPA investigation. DOUGHERTY could provide no more specific infonnation regarding that incident.
24, 1995, about a DOUGHERTY said that he was called by ETTLINGER on January conversation that Steve WILKIE had with TARPINIAN regarding a letter.sent Dn January by Robert POLLARD, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, to CAHILL.DOUGHERTY said 25th, he called ETTLINGER from JAF, and then called CAHILL.
that CAHILL was very upset, and wanted to know if WILKIE was a " good guy."
DOUGHERTY said that he convinced CAHILL that it was probably an innocent thing i between WILKIE and TARPINIAN. DOUGHERTY told CAHILL that WILKIE was a very l hard worker and a good person, because CAHILL talked about firing WILKIE.He got DOUGHERTY then telephoned WILKIE from JAF to talk about the situation.
WILKIE's side of the story. He told WILKIE that they would meet when he got On January 27th, DOUGHERTY met with back to White Plains on January 27th. From that discussion, ETTLINGER and WILKIE to discuss the situation. He saw DOUGHERTY determined that WILKIE did not intend to harass TARPINIAN.
no evidence that WILKIE had been prompted by VEHSTEDT to ask TARPINIAN about the POLLARD letter. DOUGHERTY informed WI!KIE that he (WILKIE) had to view the incident from TARPINIAN's point of view as another indication that he was being harassed.
DOUGHERTY then met with TARPINIAN and ETTLINGER. He recalls that TA said that he was not concerned with the incident and felt that it was TARPINIA:? did not want anything to happen to WILKIE. DOUGHERTY innocent.
said that he told TARPINIAN to bring his harassment concerns to the NYPA Speakout Program.
He also asked TARPINIAN te put his concerns in writing.
CAHILL agreed with DOUGHERTY on that course of action.
DOUGHERTY was then asked some questions regarding NYPA employee Andrew BARTLIK.
DOUGHERTY said that BARTLIK throws problems out on the table without all of the facts. DOUGHERTY had a " confrontation" with BARTLIK when BARTLIK DOUGHERTY asked BARTLIK what he told him that a building at JAF was not safe. DOUGHERTY meant, and BARTLIK said to him, "you don't want to hear about it."
told BARTLIK, 'come on, we will call fire protection now and evacuate the -
~
building" if it is unsafe. DOUGHERTY told BARTLIK to write up the concern.
DOUGHERTY also asked Hugh GILMARTIN to follow up on that request to BARTLIK.
A memorandum was also sent to BARTLIK asking him to document his concern.
BARTLIK has not documented the concern, but BARTLIX brought up the issue again one month ago.
DOUGHERTY said that BARTLIK came to him on July 29, 1994, about a draft performance review. BARTLIK "got spun up" about it, and thought that the poor BARTLIK told him that ratinrwas the result of him raising FP issues at IP3.
3 Case No. I-95-019
- pm . .
w a den
_ . . _. . _ _ _ . __ ._ _ . _ - . . . _ . _ . _ . ~ _ . . _ . . .
he was going to "go to somebody" about the review. DOUGHERTY inferred from the conversation that BARTLIK felt that he was being told to not raise safety problems. DOUGHERTY later met with BARTLIK, who told him that VEHSTEDT suppressed safety issues ind was dishonest. BARTLIK also told him that DOUGHERTY said that he VEHSTEDT had complained to Ebasco about someone.
informed William J0SIGER, CAHILL, and NRC Senior Resident Inspector Glenn TRACEY of that information.
DOUGHERTY reviewed his work diaries in an attempt to provideDOUGHERTY.said specific dates.
During the interview, he was unable to provide those dates.that he wo DOUGHERTY the allegations of harassment, intimidation, and discrimination.
will be re-interviewed by the reporting investigator.
Jeffre A. Teator, Investigator Office hfnInvestigations Field Pffilfd, Region I ,
' I j i Yu,W Y
~
l I l .2* bd
()k attachments:
as stated 4
Case No. 1-95-019 EM'"":T w 4 wTeam
\*
'. ,a T.4hh gaps L
TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL SHEET ELECTRICAL / INSTRUMENT & CONTROL DESIGN ENGINEERING .
Date: N /3 MS -
]f Sending No: 914-734-6080 Confirmation No: 914-736-6070 To: 6 r77 b i
i l
l l From: c) o l
l l
j l l l Number o <pages inicuding transmittal sheet:
' h s, ///-
W YAAcks %4 i i 9C/b /Yb
- / o
! ?
l l
i r.' V - 'e is w' E , . *I s.'.
l r to a se can m 01 t'ai w < .s sus rsa m . m ' st:ii mi_u e