ML20198K624

Interview Rept of Ej Massey. Telephonically Interviewed on 960619 to Obtain Clarifying Info Re 960605 Interview

ML20198K624
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/19/1996
From:	Matakas R NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198K582	List: ML20198K579 ML20198K624 ML20198K670 ML20198K677 ML20198K686 ML20198K759 ML20198K804 ML20198K831 ML20198K852
References
FOIA-97-365 NUDOCS 9801150058
Download: ML20198K624 (12)

Text

_ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _

7 ..

1 3 pqs.- 1 1

I 1

a INTERVIEW REPORT op

[h; G

y EDWIH JAMES MASSEY ,

,('

E. James-MASSEY was telephonically interviewed'by the reporting i

y .

? agent on June 19, 1996. He was contacted at his Vermont Yankee

(VY) work station, (802) 258-5655. MASSEY was previously interviewed by the office of Investigations (01) and staff i u engineers' from the NRC, Region I- (RI)i on June 5,1996, in Brattleboro, VT (transcription made). The purpose of this i interview was to obtain clarifying information relating to tha June 5,.1996, interview. During his June.5th interview, MAS E indicated-his belief that all of the discriminatory actions thst 4were taken against him while he was involved in the modification e of the VY advanced off-gas system (AoGS) were a result of his .

derogatory review of a VY sec,urity gatehouse upgrade / modification l that took place in, or Around, 1992. MASSEY expressed his views

? =to the gatehouse contractor, Jim IONEY, who latar won a large f =sonatary settlement against VY over the matter in or about 1954, >

'during the same time frame that MASSEY was assigned as the i project manager for Me VY off-gas system modification (deposition, pp. 37-36, 68 and 74).

[ Specifically, during the June 5, 1996, deposition ('oncerning the i security gatehouse modifleation/ upgrade) MASSEY stated:

'C U '

So I took the specifications and the prints and I spent about six hours. It was the worst design I Lad ever seen.

It was not ready to go out for bid. Nobody could -- nobody could do it, nobody. There wasn't a contractor in the

world, other than God, that could have done that job. I shipped it back to Mike and I told him, I says, I want to comment on that job, specifically. So, he did the best job

he could.

I then took the design. I wrote six pages of commerts up.

l In there, I said that the job is not ready to go out for any F type of bid. That it was going to take a lot longer to do the job. This job, I estimated to be about a hundred and i ten day job. It took thou over a year. And it's going to  !

l cost Vermont Yankee-a lot more money. (at pp. 39-40) in -When_ asked for specifics during the June 19th interview, MASSEY l said'genarally that.the printe did not match the specifications l and it would be very hard for a contractor to put it together.

Specifically,1he recalled that the transformer was the wrong 7 sise,-the structural' design was not adequate, but he could not ,

. recall further details at: ths time. J MASSEY was asked how the_ problems-he noted related to NRC

[l 5- .

requirements,.and he responded that they had "nothing to do with NRC requirements" and he did not think the NRC "had any

? 't requirements for it," the upgrade / modification to the security l

' 9001150058 971231 I PDR FOIA HICKEY 97-365 PDR EXHIBIT (/

CA3ENO.- 1-96-005~ r PAGE / OFof PAGE(S) jkoIt5ooN 1 r.

d g pc/

• e,T.

gatehouse.

End of Report of Interview with E. James MASSEY dociumented on June-19, 1996, by the reporting agent.

o ; IIy N~ich A. Mattkas s-special Agent, 01:RI USNRC .,

. e J

' 2 Case NO. 1-96-003 EXHIBIT

}

/1 PAGEdOF d PAGE(S)

1 C

l 4

h cs EXHIBIT 1 -

i i

i  :

f:

y .

A.\

v  :

Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 1

+ .-. -. . . . .- _ . . . . . --. _ _ _ . . . -

-o; T R) SUI' ON -N R' B IC UE

, INVESTIGATION STATUS P.ECORD 1

. (3 Case No.: I-96-005 . Facility: VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER

% STATION (VYNPS)

Allegation No.: RI-95-A-0222 Lase Agent:- MATAKAS '

' Docket No.: 50-271 Date Opened: 02/12/96-Source of- Allegation: ' ALLEGER (A) i Notified by: VITO (OAC) Priority: NORMAL Category: IH Case Code: RP Subject / Allegation: ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES IN THE VYNPS OFFGAS SYSTEM AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ENGINEERING PERSONNEL WHO ATTEMPTED TO CORRECT THE DEFICIENCIES BY UNIDENTIFIED PLANT MANAGEMENT Remarks:-

Monthly Status Reoort: -

02/12/96: On January 3,1996, Region 1 paneled an anonymous allegation that was rovided to the NRC by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Poll tion, Inc. (NECNP). In substance, the allegation concerns the fcilowing:

[-

. The VYNPS offaas system has been allowed to deteriorate and is discharging illegal amounts of radioactivity:

- Planned refurbishment of the sy. stem was canceled and those engineers who spoke but iglihst thi ciheillitio6 icFre "jFunished" and had a " bad report" inserted'in their personnel file;

. .The offgas system was recently declared "out of operation" because the monitoring equipment was out of calibration; and

- The Yankee Atomic Vice President is aware of the above problems but won't act. ,

At the panel, it wu understood that the matter was already under review by the licensee, and thus, the decision to refer it to the licensee for investigation and have OI review the final report. The formal NRC referral to the licensee took place on February 9,1996.

On the same date, the Regional Administrator and 01:RI F00 discussed the opening of an investigative file to more formally provide for 01 tracking and review of the licensee's efforts in this matter.

Status: FWP ECD (90 days): 05/96.

EXHIBIT /

PAGE / OF / PAGE(S)

EENO. 1.961005:

u _,

b'#

1 - & .-

n 4

EXHIBIT 2A c

i() V, y Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 2A

h

$ 4?

ke ,p h IMAGE EVALUATION //

((jjp%p 46#

'4

///  %, f/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) f <

p+/

~

f Vjg's,jy 1.0 E 2 UA y 'j llE a

l*l E L:

m RE HiDill I

" 'Pi" 1.25 1.4 1.6

!4 150mm >

< 6" >

4

1. h

%,, /<$<>

k &

y

<9

/

PHOTOGRAPH C SCIENCES CORPORATION

~4 yp pp P.O. BOX 338 WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 4 (716) 265 1600 r

A" 4* 49 '

IMAGE EVALUATION qQ72 *#@p/ f/ %,. TEST TARGET (MT-3) ////pg s3 $k, '

M 39' kh / <f3" 1.0 lf 2 L'4 5!NE I.I E." E 1.8

~""' l.25 1.4 1.6

- , 1-4 150mm >

4 6" >

4 4%

1. d / % ,,f

<$<*4% A og A/s/ PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIE CES CORPORATION

1. su/AN\

!,D" 9 p o

j mesj,g,3;*;useo e

5*&3 1 ,

$g'(.>\94

/ g#4 IMAGE EVALUATION i ,  %#, TEST TARGET (MT-3) ['g,'\NN j/

l$4 '~' * " p

%$/

\f/7,,? ~'k,, %g

~

gp I.0 'd 84 L?a

@ @ IL4 ii E e.:

= lillE

~~2

• l.25 1.4 1.6

- =

4 150mm >

4 6" >

N, $<%,%

,(// ___

-,ggl:- .>

A-

/ lNo N

p %> +@

9 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3)

///// /

4, y

Y I.0 E2Ela

=

u M g'2.2 "

If tu l-l $M u

bdb p ,3 I EEili

' -v > l.25 1.4 1.6

< 150mm >

< 6" > ,

dI+

.& >, , PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION

1. n'4> 4

'A h 770 BASKET ROAD P.O. BOX 338 g. h' t,

'i WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 4

,, (716) 265 1600

' 7

. *.- * . 1 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM Tus E.J. Masse / DATE: 11/15/94 TROM: P.B. Corbett susu1CT: Written Notification of Unacceptable Job Performance

References:

A) Jcb Description, Senior Electrical / Mechanical Engineer B) W Policy WP:113, Requirements for the Use of Procedures l C) IJM/PBC Meeting Summary, 6/9/94  !

1 NOTE: This memcrandum was prepared in draf t and was the subject of a meeting between BRS, PSC, & EJM on 11/14/94. In attempt to fairly represent the discussion thnt tock s place EJM feedback is summarized at the end of the memorandum.

Purpose The purpele of this memorandum is to document that your recent parformance is not meeting job performance expectations for your position and title.

Pcrformance Expectations Not Being Met

1) Preduca cualitv desiens, directiv coerdinate and sure--ri s e imele-entatien of assicned croiects. mannee orcieets within accreved carameters (reference A1

2) Sur e--ri s e directiv er coordinate the werk of eersennel er centracters encaced in assiened orciects as recuired (reference A) -

As Project Manager for the ACG Improvement project you have been provided with adequate resources such that it would be reasonably expected that the design change would be ready for approval by this time and the I&T procedure would be in advanced stages. Contrary to this, the design was delivered to me in an incomplete, unacceptable '

condition. Your dedicated assignment to this project and 2.e contractor resources made available to you should have been adequate to allow review of the design and incorporation of comments in a quality fashion. Significant efforts were required t:

be expended by others to rework and complete the package. Even when significant problems were identified you did not take the lead role in resolution of the issues as would have been expected of the Project Manacer.

I&T procedure development for the project hac not progressed to the appr:priate extent and contractor resources have not been effectively veilized in this direction. On 10/26/94 I inquired as to the state of the I&T procedure and specifically what was Dave Houde doing. Your response indicated anot much". At this time I reiterated your role as Project Manager and your responsibility to effectively utilize contractors. Your response and lack of progress on the r&T procedure deocustrate that you are not effectively managing the contractor resources assigned to the project.

EXHlBIT CASE NO. 1-96-005 -

PAGE / OF._8_ PAGE(S)

[h rsU

-p f .)4 min aff"a7hercuer kewleden - of and assure comellance MtK ~

l J. eedes2 mies--reculations and license .Provimiens T~4~.,.annLicable.

.f rederance - A) , Use ^ med comeliance with nrecedures is a cendition of T ,

amnlevmant and is ar eered 'f rom every emnleven (refereren B);

m .

T  ; contrary to,theLexpectation,- the AOG Improvement design change did =

~

E z- . net have' the- comment resolution and minor l change process performed '

j. J in accordance with A7 5004.- When this was. discussed during several-G f= meetings on 11/3: and 11/4/94 you demonstrated that you fid not have 1 -an- understanding of;some _ of' the basic procedure requirer.ents.-

J.

W 14)) Prenare neriedic cre d eet reeerts'te be issued acercrimatelv'everv 4 2-weeka. first reeert by 7/15/94) freference C)t-

_ Contrary to: the -expectation only. 2 - periodic- reports have been Lissued since 7/15/94.

Future Expectations 1 Thai following; changes -. in job performance are required. - If you do not improve - your performance you will subject yourself to further dicciplinary action up to and including termination.- ,

• ' . resolve: design _ change issues and pursue approval _by 11/30/94.

• effectively. manage ccmpletion of I&T procedure for aperoval by

'12/30/94, H_,gg t Merkwn%E Athe., cuyla.a) w *Mr (no.f & j .. n sd i.+ fo .fn,.n vd, 5 b

• perform. activities in' accordance. with applicable procedures and f policies prepare and issue periodic reports approximately every 2 weeks 7,yi ku, g -

humanary of ' EJM Position / Response (by PBC)

• . EJM opinion is that adequate resources have not been applied to the job.. EJM had originally projected much greater manpower requirements.

• -In response to the use of contractors for I&T generation, E.1M noted i; that I&T -was mainly electrical in nature and that was why Dave

. Houde_ wasn't used for the I&T.

1 * -- EJM noted that he had been under significant pressure to get the 4 -design out and that was the cause of the procedural issues and why -i the design was= delivered for. approval without drawings.

b EJM expressed opinien thac cancellation of vacation was not P Lappropriate - unless it was for a reason- that :was absolutely s _'

necessary, i:

• EJM' expressed that he needed to look at the expectation relative to l R I&T generation to confirm that. it was ach4 vabfe[

Yt I g t.c E Manag ?

lA3'  % p t, J

?,=! .M* . J /Q.af42.L.

EmpYoyee Receipt Ac edged

'STRIBUTION: EJM,-BRB, MVs'sa- 7

.e

!9 '- .-

$ EXHIIT M ,

PAGE OF cM PAGE(S) 6 - N+ 4+.4 d-= _ ; .

.,m ,_, ,_ . -eee - - * ~ ~ - - - + -"

r i

1

\

i l

1 1

i 1

1 i

1 c; EXHIBIT 8 L I

l l

(Y Case No. 1- % 005 -Exhibit 8

._;=.=.-

O C.

NOT F PU {C, DI SU E*

'IT _ D. BUT INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD n

j h- Case'No.: 1-96-005  : Facility: -: VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER-STATION (VYNPS)_

Allegation No.:- RI-95-A-0222l

. Case Agent: :MATAKAS ~

Docket-No.:' 50-271-- Date Opened: 02/12/96 Sou% s of Allegation: ALLEGER'(A)

[ Notified by: VITO(0AC) Priority: NORMAL'

- Category: Case Code: RP IN l

Subject / Allegation: ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES IN THE VYNPS OFFSAS SYSTEM AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ENGINEERING PERSONNEL WHO ATTEMPTED T0 CORRECT THE DEFICIENCIES BY UNIDENTIFIED g PLANT MANAGEMENT- ,

Remarks:

l Monthly Status Renort: Page 2

}

1 02/29/96: 0! has received / reviewed the licensee's investigation and this ,

i matter will be repaneled in Region I during March 1996. Status: ,

, FWP ECD (90 days): 05/96.

03/31/96: The potential discrimination victim was identified and contacted during this reporting period. To date, he has declined to confirm or deny that discrimination was an issue related to the time that he was the offgas system project manager at VYNPS. Numerous attempts to schedule an interview with the individual, through his attorney, have been unsuccessful during the reporting period. The individual l

has been given until April 5, 1996, to contact 01 (if he has a legitimate complaint) or this matter will- be closed. Status: FWP

-ECD'(90 days): 05/96.

L F 0413019F: During this reporting period the Offgas System Project Manager's l

(0SPM) attorney contacted 01 and stated that the OSPM now wanted to

. talk with 01._ Through coordination with the Division of Reactor Safety (DRS) and the OSPM's' attorney, it was decided that both 01 and a representative of DRS would interview the DSPM after he had a chance to review the DRS inspection. report concerning the Vermont Yankee offgas system. The interview is pending the OSPM's review of f

--the inspection report and his contacting OI through his attorney.

Status:: FWP- ECD-(90 days): 05/96.

L 05/31/96: Interview of_ alleger scheduled for June 5,1996. Status: FWP L ECD:11/96.

L 7e .-

EXHIBIT f PAGE g g 7 ,:g g 0 0 5 - / OF / PAGE(S)

LI TED DISTI g

~

I ---

T'F BL D UR WI 01 P AL

, .s. .

e n

E *g 9

e i

P 4

6 I

c EXHIBIT 10 0

\

l j

l i

(:.

4/

\

Case No. 1- % 005 Exhibit 10.

)  ;)Measg a j y ;k UNITED STATES )

is 'l.! 3 L

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

f;. .'d 1

OFFICE OF INVEaT10ATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION 1 478 ALLENDALE ROAD

_g KtNG OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19404 f .

e ,

MEMORANDUM FOR: Karla D. Smith -

Regional Attorney 1 Office of Regional Adm1 trator 1 THRU: Barry R. Letts, Director j Office o Investigations i d Office, Region I

FROM

Richa takas, Special Agent

. Offic o Investigations Field Office, Region 1

SUBJECT:

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (01)

CASENO1-96g Enclosed is a June 19, 1996, Interview Report, and a June 5, 1996, deposition.

'{-

providing information from E. James Massey. The Interview Report should be read first, as it p ovides you with the appropriate deposition excerpts to address-the 01 concern.

Based on the two interviews, it would appear that (according to Massey) the adverse actions taken against him were as a result of Massey causing Vermont Yankee (VY) a financial loss as a result of his actions relating to the modification / upgrade performed on the VY security gatehouse, and not as a direct result of his activity relating to the modifications made to the VY advanced off-gas system. This beliet is further supported by the fact tha+

Massey did.not seek out the.NRC with allegations of discrimination. The allegation was first reported by a local Vermont newspaper via an anonymous source-and the NRC sought Massey out. It would appear, through a reading of his complaint, that the concerns which he expressed relating to the-security gatehouse are not a protected activity related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy

Reorganization Act and enumerated under 10 CFR 50.7.

Please review the enclosed documents and provide an opinion.

Enclosures:

-Interview Report of E. James Massey, June 19, 1996 Deposition of E.-James Massey, June 5, 1996 CASENO.

1-96-005+ EXHIBIT _ Ib u# PAGE I OF_ l PAGE(S)

O t' f

I i

b 4

i t

!~

i

c EXHIBIT 12 1

l l

i 1

1 1 1

4 a

2 l 1

l A

6

, Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 12- ,

"' ~ -

m - - - - - - _ , , , , , , _ , _ ,