ML20197J351
| ML20197J351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1996 |
| From: | Teator J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197H509 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-365 1-96-005, 1-96-005-03, 1-96-5, 1-96-5-3, NUDOCS 9801020152 | |
| Download: ML20197J351 (20) | |
Text
--
I INTERVIEW REPORT C-OF -
DAVID PHILLIPS 17, 1996 PHILLIPS was interviewed by the reporting agent. The On December interview was conducted under oath at the Vermoat Yankee Atomic Power Plant (VY) Energy Information Center, Governor Hunt House, Vernon, VT, ~PHILLIPS provided the following information regarding an allegation that former VY employee James MASSEY was discriminated a ainst because he had rais d concerns wit he VY Advanced Off Gas System (A0GS.
p I
1 security F/
PHILLIPSi His home P
numberid a
i r is is drivers license n is He served in d Sta
' Navy from 1965 until 1978 and ed a1 honorable discharge with the rank of Chief Petty Officer.
-rece PHILLIPS was an Electronics Technician and served on nuclear powered submarires.
gra:'aated from the University of the State of New York Regents Program in with a Bachelor of Science in Liberal Studies. PHILLIPS was hired by VY 1980. He has been a Senior Instrumentation and Controls (I&C)
Technician since July 1996. Mike WATSON, VY I&C Deaartment Manager, is his current supervisor. PHILLIPS' office telephone num>er is (802) 258 5449.
From the beginning of 1992 until the end of 1993 PHIL*.IPS was the VY Electrical Engineering and Construction (EE&C) Fanager, and during that time 3eriod he supervised MASSEY.
In January 1994, he was transferred to a Project C
.ngineer assignment at VY's Brattleboro, VT, office.
PHILLIPS stated that he did not supervise MASSEY during MASSEY's assignmeilt to the A0GS design change project, because MASSFY's involvement in that project did not begin until sometime in 1994. PHILLIPS stated that, had be remained the Electrical Engineering and Construction Manager, he also would have assigned MASSEY to be the Project Manager (PM) or Plant Cognizant Engineer on that project because:
- 1) MASSEY 1ad previous involvement in work on the A0GS: 2) MASSEY was knowledgeaale of the problems with the A0GS 9 50 control room electrical sanel, as a result of his work on it in the early 1980s; 3) MASSEY was more (nowledgeable and had more experience with the A0GS than the other em31oyees in his department; and 4) MASSEY was good friends with VY's Bill WITT4ER, who installed the VY A0GS in the early 1970s. He added that WITTNER supervised MASSEY when WI1TNER was the VY Construction Superintendent.
PHILLIPS said that in 1980 MASSEY transferred from the VY Engineering Departmen tlie VY Construction Department because MASSEY didn't W e 4R enginesri of work and MASSEY preferred doing the " hands oli " out in the field type o work.
PHILLIPSdeTe~ribedMASSEYasagoodworker,butonewhowasstubborn,tothe point where if he got something in his head, he wouldn't look for any alternative to what he believed was correct. PHILLIPS said that if MASSEY had confidence in someone's abilities, he would consider that person's input or recomendation. But, if MASSEY didn't know or respect a person, then tw wouldn't listen to that person.
AGENT'S NOTE: According to testimony provided by Yankee Atomic Electric j
EXHlBIT M CASENO. 1-96-0051 p3es / oFN PAGE(s)
(
9001020152 971223
^
b U k0
\\#
- p. f6) p@@
1 Com>any (YAEC) Engineer Lou CASEY, and VY Contract Engineer r
Ri n ROUTHIER, MASSEY didn't appear to have respect for CASEY's
(
abilities to address the ADGS wiring problems and dismissed CASEY's work out of hand.
PHILLIPS said that what got MASSEY in most of his trouble was his " mouth,'
meaning that MASSEY said what he felt, and many times opened his mouth without PHILLIPS recalls that during a 1992 luncheon between VY using his head first.
employees and VY President Gary WIEGAND, MASSEY basically accused WIEGMD of impropriety in the awarding of a contract.
PHILLIPS verified his signature on MASSEY's job performance evaluations for He said that MASSEY had the necessary the years 1992 and 1993 (attached).
abilities to be a successful PM, and that MASSEY had the ability to develop He and implement a design, but believes that MASSEY didn't like to do it.
described MASSEY as veay detailed, meticulous, and sometimes overly thorough and stubborn. He added that MASSEY was a stickler for wanting correct drawings of the systems that he was performing work on.
PHILLIPS said that in 1991 James PELLETIER. VY Vice President of Engineering, reorganized the department, combining the Engineering and Construction That reorganization brought Departments into one Engineering Department.
PHILLIPS stated that prior to MASSEY back into the Engineering Department.
the reorganization, the Electrical Engineering Department performed all of the engineering and design for the electrical projects at VY, and then gave the aroject to the Construction Departneent to install. After the reorganization 4ASSEY was given responsibility to perform engineering and constructi n tasks.
(..
He said that while he was MASSEY's supervisor, he tried to assign MASSEY construction types of projects and activities to keep MASSEY happy and to use his construction expertise.
PHILLIPS said that his su>ervisor, Bernie BUTEAU, " jumped on him" for not properly supervising MASSEY because some of the things that NASSEY did embarrassed BUTEAU. PHILLIPS said that, because MASSEY embarrassed BUTEAU, BUTEAU was out to get MASSEY. Specifically. PHILLIPS recalled en incident where MASSEY verbally abused a VV Security Supervisor.
PHILLIPS said that he spoke to MASSEY about his behavior, but did not officially document it or discipline him.
When BUTEAU found out about it, BUTEAU directed him to give MASSEY a formal written rearimand (attached). PHILLIPS also recalled thai-BUTEAU was upset with MASSEY for violations of safety procedures and the long length of his coffee breaks.
PHILLIPS said that BUTEAU " reamed him out" about MASSEY on one thing after another. PHILLIPS believes that BUTEAU's disapproval of his supervision of MASSEY led, in part, to him (PHILLIPS) being removed from his Electrical Engineering and Construction Department Manager position at the end of 1993.
PHILLIPS said that BUTEAU raised these issues only on MASSEY. and not the other employees that he (PHILLIPS) supervised, because MASSEY was an embarrassment to BUTEAU and PELLETIER for the following reasons:
- 1) MASSEY said what he felt like saying, offering MASSEY's accusations against WIEGAND as an example: 2) BUTEAU and PELLETIER took MASSEY's every little infraction as a personal affront; and 3) MASSEY didn't like the plant bureaucracy Case No. 1 96 005 2
EXM IT N O PAGE OF N PAGE(S)
interferingwithhimdoinghisjob. PHILLIPS does not recall MASSEY raising
(
at.y nuclear safety concerns during the time period that he supervised him (January 1992 to December 1993).
PHILi.IPS also stated that MASSEY and PELLETIER had "run ins' for years, and it is PHILLIPS' opinien that PELLETIER and BUTEAU were out to get MASSEY, and were looking for a reason to get rid of him.
PHILLIPS added that after the 1995 outage BUTEAU was put in charge of another VY reorganization which recreated the Construction Department, but BUTEAU did not reassign MASSEY to it.
PHILLIPS said that MASSEY never discussed with him in detail the concerns he had with the A0GS design project, other than MASSEY showing him the control wiring drawings (CWDs) produced by CASEY, that he (MASSEY) believed were incorrect. PHILLIPS said that he reviewed the drawings, and agreed with MASSEY that they were incorrect. He also agreed that, if the design change had been implemented using the incorrect drawings, the A0GS would not have operated pro >erly, although PHILLIPS did not view that as a nuclear safety issue. PHIL.IPS said that Mike TESSIER, Jim CALCHERA, and Bill WITTHER could provide additional information regarding the incorrect drawings.
PHILLIPS added that MASSEY brought the ' white tag" High Pressure Coolant Injection System and Reactor Coolant Injection System motor operated valve and pump issues to CORBETT's attention and CORBETT didn't do anything about them.
PHILLIPS recalls seeing MASSEY reviewing the updated CWDs provided by CASEY to insure they were correct, but MASSEY found that the crawings had a lot of (x
Errors, PHILLIPS comented that YAEC designs and drawings comonly have errors in them. PHILLIPS felt that MASSEY had to walk down the A0GS wiring to know exactly what was there because, when the system was installed, the wiring was changed from what had been intended, but the documentation had not been changed to document what had actually been done.
AGENT'S NOTE:
PHILLIPS said that it was " bull" referring to CASEY's allegation that MASSEY did not review the u> dated CWDs that CASEY gave MASSEY. PHILLIPS added that he was in MASSEY's work area ap)roximately once a week during that time period, and every time he was t1ere, he saw CO., all over MASSEY's office. PPILLIPS said that Mike TESSIER could sup> ort his testimony that NASSEY reviewed the CWDs that were provided by CASEY.
PHILLIPS commented that MASSEY is very thorough and ' picky," but MASSEY knew the A0GS. He added that every design that MASSEY was responsible for. MASSEY went over the system drawings with a " fine tooth comb" because MASSEY wanted the design to be correct before beginning the implementation process.
Referring to CASEY's claim that HASSEY
- shirked" his responsibility on the ADGS design change, PHILLIPS said that it would be out of character for MASSEY to do that on a project. PHILLIPS said that when NASSEY was given an assignment, MASSEY took it very seriously. He added that NASSEY's previous job performance reviews are not consistent with the poor performance stated by VY management on the A0GS design change.
He said that NASSEY's performance was good on the projects that he assigned to MASSEY.
C Case No. 1 96 005 3
EXHIBIT Md PAGE A OF N PAGE(S)
I PHILLIPS was asked to comment on MASSEY's relationshii, with PELLETIER.
PHILLIPS said that in 1983 PELLETIER threw New England Power Service Company (NEPSCO) employees off of the VY site and replaced them with contractors from Fischbach,Inc.
PHILLIPS said that HASSEY had been a vocal supporter of NEPSCO and maybe PELLETIER's and MASSEY's difference over that was a source of the " historical" problems between them. PHILLIPS added that there was no doubt in his mind that PELLETIER and BUTEAU didn't like MASSEY [long before MASSEY raised any concerns with the ADGS design change].
PHILLIPS stated that, to his knowledge, MASSEY did not have an alcohol addiction problem, although he knew that MASSEY lost a lot of body weight, PHILLIPS because he (MASSEY) worried a lot about VY trying to get rid of him.
said that MASSEY told him that VY attempted to get him to take a lower grede position in the Maintenance Department, with no loss of salary, but MASSEY didn't want to take the position.
PHILLIPS said that MASSEY never discussed with him any disciplinary actions that VY took against him as a result of his performance on the A0GS design change.
On January 30, 1997, PHILLIPS was re interviewed by telephone by the reporting agent and stated that MASSEY told him that he (MASSEY) felt that VY had retaliated against him for raising safety concerns with the A0GS design change project. PHILLIPS believes that HASSEY told him that in December 1995 or January 1996, when MASSEY received his job performance appraisal for the 1995 calendar year.
Repor :!d l y:
3
{
d/
f
-fdA.i 40 4i, Jeffrey A. Teator. Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Attachments:
As stated C
Case No. 1 96 005 4
EX l IT PAGE_
0F /'/ PAGE(S)
m--_
_ _ _ _m_
)
1 l
C VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION MANAGEMENT PERFORhiANCE REVIEW Employee Name:
E.J. Massev Position
Title:
Senior Electrical Engineer Date assigned to present position: 4/8/91 Date assigned to this reviewer:
4/8/91 Date of Performance Planning:
(
Date of last Performance Review:
The purpose of Performance Reviews at Vermont Yankee is ta provide a systematic method for Supervisors and Employees to define job expectations, evaluate performance, discuss development planning opportunities, and provide a rational and consistent basis for Personnel actions throughout the orgamzation.
Such discussions frequently produce improved job performance and job satisfaction..
Nb EXHIBIT PAGE 8 OF /M PAGE(S)
I.
Performance Revieu A.
DEFINITION OF JOB Priority Assignment Thas eacdon resoeds previously 3 o Eghest prionry deternuned performance 2 = High pnorry requiremeras and provides I = Moderate pnority C
add 2kmal *Preroaa*Y 80 clarify what is espected of this employee and how performnnes wal be measured.
B.
EVALUATION OF JOB Katlng PERFORMANCE 9 io owuiandinst Resord the descripnon of the Ezeepuonal angloyee's achievemoras in 7 8 Very Good entrying out the requiremerus s4 Meets R4 as/
of the job. How did the employee Funy sedefectory do? Record trends and changes in s.4 Below Espectatiord performance. t' appvoprieta.
Needs improvement idenufy constraining forces 12 Poor /Unendsfactory
[
aniwion ingestatig
/
rmance.
Goals / Performance Evaluation Goal Descriotion Pdority
- 1. Manage expenditures f or projects under your control to be ec;ual to or less than the approved budget. For this goal it is ac cnowledged that PRF revisions wil be required to address the new organization and project management directives and will be applied based upon those revisions.
Evaluation Rating M
/ L Jim makes every effort to maintain the budget and insure that the cost are proper for the installation. The changes required to the budget on the main transformer project were due to extemal factors that were totally outside of lus control.
(.
PRIORITY X RATING = RATING POINTS Goals / Performance Evaluation Goal Descriotion Priority
- 2. Manage the projects assigned to insure that milestones for the 1992 outage are met and the outage is properly prepared for.
Evaluation Rating stones relative to assigned design change wem met. In addition,Eperformed All Outagom'icduling for EE&C projects insuring that they were properly scheduled and th y~
the outageT5e adequate time was alowed for the mstallations. This was in addinon to maintaining his sc.r.
project on schedule. On the main transformer project he has made every attempt to prepare for the installation and due to his diligence and perseverance the project is proceeding and will be able to be installed in the time allowed during the outage.
PRIORITY X RATING = RATING POINTS
(
eso PAGE y? 0FN PAGE(S) e 0'
I
l Goals /Perfonnance Evolustion I
Priority E Goal Descriotion l
- 3. Become personally involved in improving VY perfcamance 'm industdal safety and l
radiological protection areas by insuring that you and any peramel working with you are I
following the plant safety polices.
Rating M QI Evaluation Jim attended first stop training; class, and has performed the department supervisor saferv inspections. The one detractor in Jim's performance is his attitude toward safe,ty he fects are excessive. If he does not personally see the importance of the rule he is sometimes not as aggressive in following it.
i
- e as. :. 9C
= RATING POINTS
,5 a
d Goals / Performance Evaluation Pdority k I
Goal Descriotion productivity of the
- 4. Propose 1 improvement in processes or practices that enha result in higher rating.
Evaluation Rating Jim's rnajor productivity improvement this year was incorporated into the design of the ma transformer replacement. At Jim's insistence the new transformer was designed such termination pomts would be as close to the existing transformer as possible. His was don two purpo.es. One to make the replacement as easy and error free as possible, and s make future use of the old transformer possible without having to have a design change since the existing plant drawings showing all mterconnections are the overall plant productivit rovement and thus rated under this goal.
~
= RATING PONTS Goals / Performance Evaluation Goal Descriotion Priority
- 5. Insure designs under your control are prepared, reviewm1, and approved to meet the agre to schedule. Any deviations from the schedule will be identifieJ immediately upon identificatio and if appropriate a memo discussing will be arepared to identify the area of concern an schedule will be provided to the proposed actions to reduce the impact. Upcates to the deparJmegrhsor in a timely manner to insure the design change sched up to date.
i
(
Rating M Evalu2 Hon Jim was assigned one design over this year, the Main Transformer Replacement. He was a major contdbutor to design and is directly responsible for the design was inexperienced in numerous errors in design and insured that they were addressed. He also addressed numerous C.
Items in the design which, when included as part of the design, will greatly enhance future maintenance efforts.
b EXHylT_
PAGE ~1 OF /Y PAGE(S) 1
--~------__-_
Goals /Perf:rmance Evaluation Goal Descriotion Priodty &
- 6. Meet commitments on the agreed to schedule. Commitments win not be considered met if C
~
they are technically or programmatically incomplete or incorrect. This includes commitments which are implicit in the job description. Rsung shall be based upon the timeliness and completeness of responses, eg. On time =5 6 carly=7+, Late with no pre warning =5.
Evaluation Rating M Due to the magnitude of the main transformer project Jim was not assigned any direct commitments. He was active however in providtng assistan, to other englneers in the installation area. Several of engineers in the depanment have not had direct experience in construction activities and dealings with the contractor. Jim was assigned the task of providing assistance to others in this area and has proved to be a reservoir of knowledgfin this area which he has willingly shared to the benefit of all. The main detractor to Jim's performance in this area is his resistance to assuming non-construction administrative duties.
PKIORITY X RATING = RATING POINTS 1b Goats / Performance Evaluation Goal Descriotion Priority M ing proficiency directed toward the increased use of the plant computer system
- 7. Improvepwork efficiency.
for improv Evaluation Rating. O L
Jim has made steady progress in this goal. His typing, speed and accuracy has improved over this period. For someone who has hat little past expenence with the computer he has been to make use effective use of the MPAC system foi his projects.
, PRIORITY y ' ATING = RATING N)INTS 0
II. Overall Rating Steps:
- 1. Add P.ionty Points '
/Q
- 2. Add Rating Points e
W
- 3. DividWty P to arriv at overall rating and enter:
_h /..
AA EX IBIT cru Overall Rating PAGE OF N PAGE(S)
III. Additional Supervisory Comments Jim is a tireless worker on tuk which he believes in. He has provided willing suppon to me inva]pport of the new organization and has performed all task assigned. His insu
(
Jim's performance is his attitude toward rules / policies whic1 he finds excessive or unnecessary.
He is resistant to following these rules and sometimes is overly vocal to the point that it has an affect on junior members of the department. This attitude cannot conunue and must be addressed m the near term for the good of the department.
_,t
' MANDATORY INFORMATION Employee has/has not demonstrated unusual behavior pattem changes.,
(Check One):
C
.2L. Has Not no comment required Has - comment on separate memo to Plant Manager or applicable Depanmee Supervisor if Corporate Staff.
- 4. DEVELOPMENT /DtPROVEMENT ARIAS un sp.cir, n ds io be udt.s d for improm.m in am.ru y inauding anna w uwi.d e or skin quir.4. difrer nt i
- b. haviors / style /saatude desir.d.
- 1. Jim has a tendency to make quick decisions based upon his past experience in the power ied industry and is somenmes not open to the ideas of others. He needs to be more open m and consider all alternatives before he makes a decision. This has been discussed with Jim, and improvements are being inade.
- 2. Jim must improve his attitude and acceptance of the new policies and procedures associated with his position in the current organization.
- 3. Jim is reluctant to get up in front of a group and make presentations. For example he is very resistant to present items to PO:1C.
- 4. Jim needs to improve his computer usage to improve his efficiency. His goal for 1992 is to learn and use more of the processes available through the computer.
- 5. DEVELOPMENT OF ACTION PLANS 1,ist what steps are to be taken to addr.as developrnent ar.as listed in M. on the job <onsider sp.cid amignments. projects.
coeching and guidance. off the job. consider company training outside education. self study, etc.
- 1. Jim has been scheduled for additional management training in 1992.
- 2. Jim's progress in dealing with others, acceptance of restrictive policies, and making presentations to PORC etc. will be monitored and counceling provided to improve these areas.
- 3. Jim will receive additional training on the VAX programs to increase his use.
- 6. CAREER DESIRES (Preparing for the Future)
A. Employee's stated interests and aspirations (satisfied with current position, interest in other areas, etc.)
VP d
$n e,.
/
B. Manager's assessment cf employee's stated interests and aspirations.
& 's e < s % Hen e a _cr ~ lA y eskM ulo& o% yesrIlle c + M% 4'-* #
EX IT.M PAGE OFN PAGE(S)
~
Employee's' Conunentst j
(If employe* e.ishes to do so, any comments concerning the i
performance plan, evaluation or career direction may be C
written in or attached.)
/ 'e, oy Employee's signature does not necessarily mean agreement with content of documentation but does indicate Pedormance Review took place and documentation reflects an accurate representation of meetmg.
5,Y hLGw 2 92.
Date limpjoyee Si~ naturef g
LW%?idDr 2/.WfA Date Supervignature' 2 4-C
, 2,.
Next Management Level Signature Date
(
C EXHIBIT ofd PAGE /d CF /Y PAGE(S)
=
C VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPOFATION MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE REVIEW Employee Name:
Jim Massev Position
Title:
Senior Electricai ngineer Date assigned to present pc' an:
4/8/91 Date assigned to dis reviewer:
4/8/9
(-
Date of Performance Planning:
4/21/92 Date of last Performance Review:
2/3/92 The purpose of Performance Reviews at Vermont Yankee is to provide a sys:ematic method for SuperviNrs and Employees to definejob expectations, evaluate performance, discuss development planning opportunities, and provide a rational and cor.sistent basis for Personnel actions throughout the organization. Such discussions frequently produce improved job performance and job satisfaction.
I C
EXHIBIT O
PAGE// OF / k PAGE(S)
..u................ DEFINITION OF JOB Pritrity Assignment d.
' A.
This section swords vremensh doesnained performance 3 o H;hca pneney nquimnsnts and pre idas addermal apparamiry to cienfy 1 e High pnonty
.u
. m.,4ofe,i.
- ,w no.,rf.,m
...u=
i u m.,enann swssu,rd C
~
Rating B.
EVALUATION OF JOB PERFORMANCE
,4 w.ac e -w R..,4 m d n,u
.f u
,ioy<..
i.
u v.,y o s Eartysig SAL U118 ftdratrumetu af $bs job. How dai ois employ.
M Matu Requements/
. do? Raord trends and ebenges is perfarmance. if appreynsia fuuy lausfe wry
.1-4 Scione Espectauant issaufy consvamms fortsa is organunnan especung Needs bacivvenwns performance.
i.1 v au f==,y Goals / Performance Evaluation
. Gal,DuclirJan Priority
- 1. Manage expenditures for projects und:r your control to be equal to or less than tne approved budget.
Spend only approved dollars. Ensure that Type 25 estimates are presented and approved as type 5 or 10 estimates prior to commencing installation.
Rating k
(
hahmlirJ1 Jim managed the projects under his contrcl to complete the projects in the most cost effective manner within the constraints placrd upon him. All but one project was completed for less than the budgetec amount. The one exception was the Main Transformer Rer'
- nt. This project was the exception and
(
was largely a result of forces beyond Jim's control and would have threater.ed the project completion except for Jim's diligence and dedication.
= RATING POINTS Goals /Perforn:ance Evaluation' Priority k g
Oml Descriotion
- 2. Manage the projects assigned to insure the 1992 outage is properly prepared or and that projects are implement:d as planned during the outage.
Evaluation Rating b
All of Jim's projects were properly prepared and were implemented during the outage. The Main I
nt%as especially difficult to prepare for due to the late selectron of the
__*fransfort.1er replac. im overcame this difficulty r.nd many others during the implementation to insur installation contract that the installation was completed as scheduled during the outage. Jim's performance in this area would have been outsianding except that he sometimes becomes to involved directly in the project instead of managing the project overall.
P RATING =; RATING POLNTS
(
EXHlBIT $
/
PAGE IN DY/ PAGE(S)
. Goals / Performance Evaluation Priority 8.
+-
Goal Descriotion
(' p. Become personally involved in improving VY performanc
.3 rotection areas by insuring that you and zay personnel working with youre following the plant safety polices.
. Rating. O Evaluation Jim's support for the industrial safety policies has improved over the year. He still some:jmes is not a active in his support of policies that he feels are unnecessary and sometimes p' aces project
~
implementation above safe work practices.
y RATING POINT,5 %-
- P
~:
es Goats / Performance Evaluation Goal Descdotion Priority
- 4. Insure designs under your control are of high quality and prepared, reviewed, and approved to meet the agreed to schedule. Any deviations from the schedule will be identified immediately upon identification and if appropriate a memo discussing will be prepared to identify the area of concern and the proposed actions to reduce the impact. Updates to the schedule will be p'rovided to the department supervisor in a timely manner to insure the design change schedule is maintained up to date.
Rating will be based upon the quality of the design relative to the satisfaction of the end users, the
(
number of significant comments relative to design quality, schedule milestones, and timeliness of
- updates.
Evaluation Rating
]
Designs under Jim's control were actually prepared during 1991 and implemented in 92. They were of high quality and met the agreed to schedule. Designs assigned for work in 1992 were delayed due to higher priority plant support work and were not completed in 1992.
' t e. : 84 X (. ut G ::: RATING POINTS
)
Goals / Performance Evaluatien e
- Q
- %& Goal Descfictid Priority
-5. Commitments shall be met on the agreed to schedule. Commitments will not be considered met if they are technically or programmatically incomplete or incorrect. This includes commitments which are implicit in the job description. Rating shall be based upon the quality, timeliness and completeness of responses. eg. Ca time =5-6 carly=7+, Late with r3 pre warning =f-C
- EXH, dd j
PAGE /M,BITG.F N PAGE
i peatuation
,m... r, -
h Jim's comtr.itment have been met on schedule. He was involved in several plant suppen projects this l
year. He performed the evaluation of the RUPS problems and designed the moduica: ions required to address the problems. He kept the NRC appraised of the projert status and followed it through to j (
completion.
l P
- RATING POINTS Goals / Performance Evaluation s
Goal Descriotion Priority M I b
C
- 6. Propose one improvement which will improve depanment productivity.
s Rating will be based upon the significance, feasibility, completeness of proposal and implementation nethod proposed, and number of the improvements proposed.
Evaluation Rating h
Jim worked to insure that the design of the new n.ain transformer replacement was identical to the original transformer such that should' future replacement be required that the original :rar.sformer can i
be reused with a minimum of rework. This will result in a significant savings in the. ture.
= RATING POINTS b
,[
/
f(
Goals / Performance Evaluation Goal Descriotion Prierity M h
7.
Become proficient in the use of the plant computer system, eg. WordPerfec: for document composition (memorandums, one for-one evaluations,LER's, etc.) and WordPe:fect Mail for correspondence.
Rating O
]h Evaluation Jim has made some improvement in computer use over the year but he still has a tendency to avoid computer usage when possible. This goal will be continued into 93.
'^ h
= RATING POINTE--
')
4.y g
.g EXHIBIT Nh f
PAGE M6R /IPAGE(S)
n
~
Priority M Uo41$/1'ertormance cvatuouvas E.tggi Description 8.
Improve proficiency in new areas of re.ponsibility assumed during the consolidation of the engineering and construction departments, eg. PRO evaluations.1.ER preparation one for-or.e -
evaluations. etc.
I(
s Rating.. M
/
Eva!uation Jim has been involved with a variety of projects over the year which task him in additional areas. These projects have involved engineering evaluations and PORC presentations. In all cases the. projects have been completed utisfactory.
e : so. :. sig
=. RATWG POINTS
)
AG s
Goals / Performance Evaluatien x
]g Ciga) Descriotion Priority i
- 9. Improve PORC presentation skills. Rating shall be based upon observed performance and feedback from other PORC members.
- b-Evaluation Rating Jim has improved his PORC presentation skills over the year. He has had several projects where it was necessary to make a presentation to PORC over the year. These presentritins have imprcved over the year and the one observed by me at the end of the year was effectively presented.
P* e ; 6 i
x= RA G POINTS
{,,,,
s II. Overall Rating b
dd Priority Points
- 2. Add Rating Points
- 3. Divide R by P to arrive-at overall rating and enter:
Overall Rating e
- g. Additional,Sugotry Comments Jim is a taler.ted individual with a wealth of knowledge he is willing to share with his coworkers. He is however somewhat-dissatisfied in his present position and sometimes lets his negative feels become to apparent to his coworkers. Jim must work to control this better to insure the smooth functioning of the department.
raos /$Hfte /Y AGE (S)
EX P
f,
~~'-------.e,-
- 'MANk)ATORY INFORMATION i
Employee has/has not demonstrated unusual behavior pattern. changes.
(
(Check Oner.
XX., Has Not no commer.t required Has - comment on separate memo to Plant Manager txt appb=itne Department Supenisor if Corporate Staff.
- 4. DEVELOPMENT /IMPROVDIENT AREAS List specific needs to be addressed for improvementin currentjob including additional knowledge or skill required differer.:
behaviors /styleratutude desired.
- 1. Jim t.as made some gains, but still needs to work on improving his performance in the non-traditional construction areas.
- 3. Jim still needs to improve his usage of the computer system to achieve better efficiency.
- 3. Jim must still improve bis compliance to what appear to him as restrictive plant policies ar.c procedures.
- 4. Jim needs to work on incorporating the techniques taught in the Project Meagement training which was provided this year. While he normally knows what needs to be accomplished for a project it is very difficult for him to track hi:, progress and milestones.
- 5. DEVELOPMENT OF ACTION PLANS List what steps are to be taken to address development areas listed in #4. On the jobsonsider special assignments, projec s.
coaching and guidance. Off the job <onsider company training, outside education, self study, etc.
- 1. Jim has been scheduled for additional management training in 1993.
- 2. Jim's progress in dealing with others, acceptance of restrictive policies. and making presentations to PORC etc. will be continue to be monitored and counseling provided to improve these areas.
- 3. Jim will receive additional training on the VAX programs to increase his use.
P. 4. Jim's use of projeYt management techniques will be monitored on the Vernon Tie Upgrade prcjec:
and counseling provided if required.
- 6. CAREER DESIRES (Preparing for the Future)
A. Employee's stated interests and aspirations (satisfied with current position, interest in other areas, etc.)
7?m is 4e,.pr mo~
.c Ma k 4,> pe ra t,oowwo.
b& S/*'f/ pa.ssN*
.1 sWo wa/ 4e Ab odu.n/ peres o / /r.<Mwv4, C
EXHIBIT NA l
PAGEh0F8 PAGE(S)
=
~ ~ - - - - - - -
,B.
Manager's assessment of employee's stated interests and aspiranons.
(
I T es com m ~ t, m
.~e,s.,t Emplo. vee's Comments:
If employee wishes to do so, any cornments concerning the performance plan, evaluation or c direction may be written in or attached.
0M f
LS -r,
- a.g, AL 1.A AAk A
rA L,D./ A. A J.
Employee's signature does not necessarily mean agreement w meeting.
- 0. W
._R - ?
- ) 2 Empigee Sign 1Ture
/
Date
.{
USA %
2/3//)
Date Supervis'or's Signfiture 11-9%
s Date Next Management Level Signature O
EXHIBIT PAGE_ /YOF /9 PAGE(S)
COhYIlJENTIAL M E M OR.AN D U'M V3RMONT TANKEE - VERNON To:
E.J. Massev Vernon Dates 9 Sectember. 1993 From:
D.L.
Phillins Vernon F12a
Subject:
Written notification of unorofessional work behavior This is te inform you that your conduct in the performance of your duties on 30 August, 1993 was unsatisfactory and unscceptable.
Your interactions with the Security Manager, Greg Morgan, while he was attempting to correct an apparent security problem was totally inappropriate.
You refused to listen to Mr. Mcrgan's side of the issue. Instead you attempted to dominate the conversation in a loud, uncooperative and combative manner. With no consideration given to Mr. Morgan's authority in security matters or his position on the issue at hand, you became increasingly rude, confrontational and disrespectful.
c The conduct you exhibited in this situation is a clear case of unacceptable work behavior. This type of unprofessient.: demeanor l
reflects negatively on you as well as the Electrical Engineering s
and Construction Department.
i I wish to make it clear to you that continued behavior of this nature will not be tolerated and if it continues will lead to i
farther disciplinary action up to, and including, termination of l
your employment.
cc:
BR Buteau i
s EXHIIT Y b jr *(
PAGE /, OF N PAGE(S) f@i af a uWATrOY A T.
___-a,
..e VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION
\\{
uEuOnamou TO:
D.
PHILLIPS VY VERNON DATE: 4 SEP 93 FROM:
G. MORGAN VY VERNON FILE: VYSD
SUBJECT:
MASSEY.
E.J.
The f ollowing memo addresses some concerns I have regardir.g the the reliability of Mr. Massey.
The poor demeanor and perhaps observations are based on his actions displayed on the evening of 30 August 1993.
I observed some practices regarding protected area (PA) identification badges which were in conflict with the Vermont Yankee Physical Security Plan.
Af ter correcting the immediate problem I was directed to Mr Massey as the supervisor who provided the conflicting instructions to the work party.
My first contact I started to describe the with Mr._Massey was on che telephone.
problem, when Mr. Massey interrupted and asked, "who's in charge of security tonight?"
I told him I was the Security Manager.
Mr.
Massey
- t. hen stated, "I need to see you, your boss and your boss's boss to straighten this out! I don't have time for this."
I instructed Mr. Massey I would meet him in your office, in the next On arrival at your office Mr. Massey was present and few minutes.
centinued to be belligetent not allowing any dialogue.
I requested that he leave the office so we could resolve the problem.
With very little effort following his departure the issue was resolved.
Observed behavior of this nature makes me question the reliability of the of Mr. Massey working in the highly regulated environment protected area of a nuclear power plant.
He appears to have a lack of regard for authority (authority manifested as the Physical Security Plan) even in the most benign situations.
CC:
'.BUTEAU, B. R.
HERRON, J.T.
EX IT PAGE/
OF/f PAGE(S)
,,7
/
O,
^.
c i
i I
EXHIBIT 21 c
l.
l' l
l i
l l
t
,. 4.;
,'g;- p f v--
.,,. u
.a ",;. c. a,a U ia;cmM!M.
\\
.,.. p. - ; 7.c _,
l Ful;r.
97 36s Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 21
,