ML20197J295

Partially Deleted, Interview Rept of M Gosekamp, on 970121 Re Allegation That Former Plant Employee J Massey Was Discriminated Against Because He Had Raised Concerns W/Design Change for Plant Advanced Off Gas Sys

ML20197J295
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	01/21/1997
From:	Teator J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197H509	List: ML20197H506 ML20197J270 ML20197J276 ML20197J295 ML20197J310 ML20197J351 ML20197J361 ML20197J369 ML20197J376
References
FOIA-97-365 1-96-005, 1-96-005-01, 1-96-5, 1-96-5-1, NUDOCS 9801020141
Download: ML20197J295 (8)

Text

- . - - - - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

i I

INTERVIEW REPORT ..

( OF MICHAEL GOSEKAMP On January 21, 1997, GOSEKAMP was interviewed by the reporting agent. The interview was conducted under oath in Conference Room C, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant (VY), Training Center, Brattleboro, VT. GOSEKAMP was represented during the interview by J. Patrick HICKEY. C3 quire, Shaw, Pitman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 1128.

HICKEY's office telephone number is (202) 663 8103. HICKEYstatedthathe represented GOSEKAMP and VY during the interview. GOSEKAMP stated ttiat it was his choice to have HICKEY represent him, and he understood that HICKEY might share with VY management information discussed during the ..iterview, and that HICKEY represented other titnesses in the investigation. GOSEKAMP stated that he was not under any pressure from VY management to have HICKEY represent him.

GOSEKAMP provided the following information regarding an ellegation that former VY employee James MASSEY was discriminated against because he had raised concerns with a design change for the VY Advanced Off Gas System (A0GS).

-GOSEKAMP was born in umbe Hiv rivers

• e esi s att fication numbei is E/)Q Fis /

te hone n ri e His office number is ) 258 4161.

GOSEKAMP served in the United States NaYy from 1980-1984 on nuclear powered submarines, and received a: medical discharge with the rank of E 5, Machinist

{. Mate. He was hired by VY in August 1988. He is currently an Engineering and Maintenance Training Supervisor. His supervisor is the Nuclear Training Department Manager, Brian FINN.

GOSEKAMP was named as' a team member, along with VY Engineer David McELWEE, and Yankee Atomic Energy Company (YAEC) Quality Assurance Manager Russell CLARK, of VY's investigation into allegations contained in an anon;mous, undated letter that had been sent to the Brattleboro Reformer news) aper. GOSEKAMP stated that the team's job was to thoroughly investigate tie allegations and report back to VY President Gary WIEGAND. The team was formed on December 29, 1995, and the investigation began immedistely thereafter.

GOSEKAMP stated that he was present for the team's interview of MASSEY, although initially he understood that MASSEY was not going to allow the teac tointerviewhim.~MASSEYdidmeetwiththeteem,butinformedthemMathis attorney had told him to not talk with them; however, MASSEY did answer some of their questions, as indicated on the interview stanary sheet (attalched).

GOSEKAMP said that, after NASSEY leTt the interview room, the team believed that MASSEY did not believe that there was a safety issue with the A0GS, and NASSEY did not tell them that he had a safety concern with the A0GS design change, nor did MASSEY state that he had any type of health or safety concern for the public because of the A0GS. When asked to explain what the team did to further investigate MASSEY's answer to quertion number 3 on the interview summary sheet, which reads, "No releases but went on to say 'there is a lot more than meets the eye to A0G,'" GOSEKAMP said that the team explored the A0GS to see if there was any hidden safety concern with the system, but they C did not finu any. ,

EXHIBIT' h M. '

1-96-005 PAGE / OF__7 PAGE(S) 9801020141 971225 ,

f- j *[ 0 0N

-- Y2b93_TL__ ,

- - - .- . . . - _ - . . - . - - . . - - -- . . . - - - . =

3 .

GOSEKMP said that the team review MASSEY's handwritten note at the end of i  ; CORBETT's June 20, 1994, memorandum (attached), which documented a June 9, 1994, discussion with MASSEY, and realized that NASSEY's position, as stated:

in the note. c>nflicted with the information he had provided-to the team 1

~

during the interview.- (OSEKMP said that conflict caused the team M do  ;

-additional work. GOSEKAMP said that the team found.that MASSEY's supervisor, d I

Pat CORBETT, and VY Vice President Don REID had also attempted to ascertain what MASSEY's safety concerns were. GOSEKMP said that, in each case. the team came to an' independent conclusion that the plant was o)erating sefely and that MASSEY's concerns had a low probability of impacting tle safe operation

- of the plant. In relation to that. GOSEKMP said that tlie team asked all of the interviewees guestion number 3 which reads, "Do you believe A0G is not working correctly? If so, why?" He explained that, if the system was working correctly, there was no plant operational safety issue.

GOSEKMD said that, although' MASSEY did not provide them with much information.

during the interview, the team looked at any documentation that they could locate on the A0GS and the design change. He said that every time the team heard or saw the word " safety," a " red flag went up," and the issue was -

thoroughly investigated, however, the same conclusion was reached, that there was no plant safety issue regarding the A0GS or the design change.

GOSEKAMP stated that at the completion of the team's investigation. the

> evidence showed that there was no nuclear safety issue with the A0GS. He said that the team investigated MASSEY's issues and independently verified the A0GS

-release of radioactive material information, but did not find anything that would suggest that there were any releases in violation of any )lant-or NRC limits. GOSEKAMP added that NRC inspectors, including Jason JAG, inspected l(- the release:information and came to the same conclusion and did not uncover any safety issues with the A0GS. GOSEKMP also added that the team concluded that no one disagreed that there were wiring errors in the A0GS, but those errors did not cause any nuclear safety issues. GOSEKMP also odded that the wiring errors were identified and understood by VY employee Eugene VAN B0WHAN in 1991. but the team did not find any evidence that anyone who had those c types of concerns was harassed or retaliated .gtinst for raising those issues.

Reported b >

l

^

f)

Jeffrey A Teator, Special Agent Office of Investigatior.r Field Office, Region I

-Attacnment:

As stated y - $ld X= Case No.'l 96 005 2 EXH IT h PAGE '

0F 7 PAGE(S) 4

Interview 20 C The person interviewed indicated he had nothing to say to the Team without his legal council present.

We went on ud did get the response to some quations asked as follows:

1. Do you know there was a design change developed to modify / upgrade the AOG system?

Yes

2. What is your involvement with the AOG system (operate, maintnig engineer)?

Plant Engineer

3. Do you believe AOG is not working correctly? If so, why?

N3 releases but went on to say "there is a lot more than meets the eye to AOG"

4. Do you believe the design change should have been canceled? If so, why?

No response k-

5. Do you believe the design change was canceled for financial reasons?

No response

6. Was the basis of cancellation of EDCR adequately communicated?

No response

7. Do you know of any unreported releases of radioactivity?

No

8. Have you gone to management in the past with an issue and felt you were not given a reasonable response?

Yes - this issue C '

WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790j EX IT U' ,

PAGE -OF_ 7 PAGE(S)

9. Do you feel comfonable going to management with a concern?

Yes

10. Do you knpw there is a Safety Suggesdon Program at Vermont Yankee?

No response

11. Do you know you can go to the NRC with concerns?

Yes but why would I need to - I have a chain of conunand

12. Do you feel threatened going to management with a safety concem?

No - feels he's being punished by management for being honest s

e WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790 EXHJiIT PAGE V 0F PAGE(S)

4 aia .  :- _- .__ a .e A -

- _ _ _ . . 4 EJM/PBC MYETING 6/9/94

' Purnese Document results of meeting between EJM & PBC on 6/9/94 related to AOG Improvements and to document expectations related to the project. As a result of differences of opinion that exist, and as a result of EJM memo of 6/6/94, it is necessary to document that resolution of the concerns and the agreed upon approach to moving forward with the project.

Discussion Items:

• Prior to independent assessment by PMM/GJH it was my gut feel that the drawing / design issues were significant but that they could be resolved in conjunction with Design preparation and 2 implementation. This was based on discussions with those the drawings &

involved and some limited knowledge of equipment.

• Because of EJM concern (loud and clear), I commissioned an independent look to assess whether we could safely proceed with the design.

• Reviewed results of PMM/GJH effort

+ significant drawing / design issues

( + Two different efforts were underway

+ need coordinated CRP 9-50 effort

+ Delay design and I&T

+ extra 94 Fishbach resources

• Since EJM had been out & I had training on 6/6, I sent message and lef t copy, that I wanted to discuss the results of PMM/GJH effort. My message indicated my opinion that the design could be accomplished and noted that teamwork with YNSD was critical to success.

• Reviewed that EJM issued memo on 6/6 prior to discussing the results of the independent review effort, I conveyed that I interpreted the memo issuance to mean that EJM couldn't or wouldn't support the design in conjunction with resolving drawing discrepancies. NOTE: EJM & I had discussed a draft version of the memo prior to its issuance. EJM indicated that wasn't what he meant. His opinion was that the risk associated with performing the modification with the drawing uncertainties was unacceptable in his opinion and that resolution of the drawing discrepancies should be performed first. EJM also noted that he was afraid that the Plant would spend significant resources on the project and that the AoG system may still not work as desired and have trouble during f startup. EJM expressed a willingness to do whatever the Plant

( wants and indicated that Be would work to his full extent to EXH IT b PAGE OF 7 PAGqS)

4 4 make the project a suesess.-

I' indicated that I was glad that we had discussed the issue as h' .'*

I - had interpreted the EJM mano issuance -as. a lack of i willingness to support the Design and that-if this was the t case that I was coming to the conclusion that kJM needed to be removed from the- project. LTM's- feedback indicated that He would support the plants decision but was concerned that even working very hard that we could still have trouble getting- AoG back on line because design problems could be created as a

- result of existing wiring errors. .

l

• For the project to be a success it is critical that good teamwork be este.blished and maintained with YNSD. It was noted that PMM/GJH specifically saw that there were two different efforts and suggested the combined CRP 9-50 resolution effort not only to resolve the drawing / design discrepancies but as a .

way to develop some teamwork and common objectives.

L

• I noted that based on PMM/GJH report that I had done the

-following:

+ obtained rough estimate from Fishbach for what it would cost for Rick Routhier for the rest of 1994 and for j

approximately 8 weeks of Fishbach Mechanical Engineering Support (approximately 90K).

+ Advised Management of the anticipated additional 1994 costs and estimated-1995 costs

_(, + Made a formal request to extend the Design date until 7/31/93 and the IET date until 10/31/94.

• The meeting ended on a generally positive note and EJM seemed genuinely committed to moving forward with the project.

Future remetations (not discussed at the meeting)

1) Establish good teamwork with YNSD and actively support them during design development.

L 2) Promptly pursue processing and approval of the Project Scope C' ,

Memo.- (in routing for approval by 7/1/94)

3) Prepare RTR by. 7/1/94 for additional required 1994 funding. , ,; -

4). Prepare periodic project reports to be issued approximately every.2 weeks (first report issuance by 7/15/94).

l

-5) Actively pursue arranging for Mechanical support for the project (ME&C and Fishbach)

6) Actively pursue drawing / design discreparcy resolution in

-[ conjunction with Design change activities and throughout the duration of the project. It needs to be recognized that not llU 181T b

'l 0F1PAGE(S)

I PAGE 4

I.

l i

ll , -. . 1 all- drawings need total verification and update but efforts-need to be focused where required with priority given to areas ,

' C= .. needed to support Design and I&T development.

7) Maintain and demonstrate a positive attitude towards project completion. ,

f, Prepared by:

/ &c b

/ d movieved ny, f J. bow fd.2tgy /

J.aaie A p m , n H s j - ;.,f - +. s .f 4 y A .c w G b 6 J .,L L.

+y

& a m P ep u r ) , A T '. '" h , 4 A f. A y

. ops x & a n y wp/M W ~em.

,(,,,.., y g g yw } / . d)y .

74., .

.c :

bh w '= Q Ae* b r<4

wsaA g& A &.XA*r M j 4- ph

W+ m 4 a.2:tc,,,.,J.77

,Qp c14( A .

" M a m H j M e d A .x4 q w ).71.

m me- bz< skT' 1 W" 4 c A ,'r f

coculi,'r

& a aA D .)" .] &

&wwl, .4 n .i c ~ x & m J u + . ,, A yo'<, ,2 pn/ C & n M e 1. u u . -

do u, s o c-

.?oWA VA y4 i< .24.-, n A ny su-p/ 4ue,.,

P My N .A- s.-el zu . day 44em +& /~W k .La- pL~r/Le a A Av..asars'A cyas-uC~ '

ny/Avy .

A w.rac. M ,

{

EXH !A i' PAGE OF [P GE(S)

- - . - , - , . . . - , . , . _ . , - , - . - . . - - -__ . . _ , - _ .....s.. . . _ - . . . . _ _ ~1-_ w +-. .

G NI C

+

EXHIBIT 7

( .

a ,; c. 93

- - : ,- : :a.n :: :,;:ctm:fea

,; - ? L

\

n. : -

. pg g7--- -- .

Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 7 l

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ - - - - _ - - - _ _ -