ML20198K670

Forwards 960619 Interview Rept & 960605 Deposition Providing Info from Ej Massey Re Case 1-96-005.W/o Encl

ML20198K670
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	07/10/1996
From:	Matakas R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Daniel Shapiro NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
Shared Package
ML20198K582	List: ML20198K579 ML20198K624 ML20198K670 ML20198K677 ML20198K686 ML20198K759 ML20198K804 ML20198K831 ML20198K852
References
FOIA-97-365 NUDOCS 9801150065
Download: ML20198K670 (2)

Text

- . . . . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

p p k- .[ , UMTeD STATES j-

" "I u

- NUCLEAR REQUI.ATORY. COMMISSION

.}

" ornce CF INVeeTIGATIONS MELD OPMCa. MeOCN 1 4FS ALLeNDALe ROAD -

• • • • • - DUNO OF PRUeSIA PeNNeyLVANIA 194e4 G

July 10. 1996 MEMORANDUM To:- Daryl-M. Shapiro, 5 Attorney Office of the General 11 THRU: Barry R. Letts, Director Office f Investigations Field Office, Region I k .

, FROM: Richa . kain,kas,-SpecialAgent Offic investigations Field Office, Region I

'5UBJECT:

OFFICEOFINVESTIGATIONS(01)CASENO.1-96g

.  : Attached is a June 19, 1996, Interview Report and a June 5, 1996, deposition providing informati-n from E. James Massey. The Interview Report should be

! read first, as it provides you with the appropriate deposition excerpts to address the 01 concern.

Based on the two interviews, it would appear that (according to Massey) the

adverst actions taken against him were as a result of Mas

ey. causing 4

Vermont Yankee (VY) a financial loss as a result of his actions relating to-

.{-

the modification / upgrade performed on the VY security gateho'ise, and not as a direct result of his activity relating to the modifications made to the VY advanced off-gas system. This belief is further supported by the fact that .

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 4

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 attached documents and provide an opinion.

Attachmenti.:

As stated 4

9801150065 971231 hiNKE 365 PDR g

M5END- 1-96 005' pAse / OF / PAGE(S)

Oqoh5 & l0kW"

j ;.-

Ik.

• I

t u ,

r ..

k i

+

,n

?

A i i i

, p d

f 7 EXHIBIT 14 i

?

.+

Case No. 1-96-005 Exhibit 14

. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . - , , - . .,-,.m.. .-...,m...--. -- _ _ _ , - . . _ _ - , , . . . . _ . -

l:h.

' MEMORANDUM T0:' File 196 005 P gf .

FROM:- - Jeffrey A. Teator, Special Agent 4 A

llj Nt Office of Investigations Field Offi , Region I

SUBJECT:

MASSEY'S ALLEGATION / SAFETY CONCERN THAT VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (VY) EMPLOYEES RECEIVED ELECTRICAL SHOCKS AS A RESULT OF INCORRECT WIRING DRAWINGS WHILE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE WORK ON THE ADVANCED OFF GAS SYSTEM (A0GS)

At the reporting agent's request, VY researched their workers compensation and lost time accident files to determine if any employees received electrical shocks while working on the A0GS. On December 18, 1996, VY provided a list of individuals who had received electrical shocks, not specific to the A0GS, based on a review of worker co.npensation claim files (attached). VY did not locate any additional information regarding individuals who had been shocked other than what is listed on the attachment.

On January 14, 1997, the reporting agent conducted a telephop interview of VY Instrumentation and Control Technician Joe WARD (whose name ap, ears on the attached list).

WARD stated that he was working on the process radiation monitor, a part of the A0GS when he received his electrical shock. He stated that he had to take a detector out of the system so it could be calibrated, and in the process of doing that he received an electrical shock, but was not injured. He stated that the shock was not caused by incorrect wiring drawings. He stated that the injury was a recordable event per the VY Safety Manual.

WARD informed the reporting agent that P. ANDERSON (whose name appears on the list) left VY's employment a> proximately three years ago, and that ANDERSON is now living in Michigan, WAR) believes that ANDERSON suffered the same type of electrical shock as him.

WARD was asked if he knew of any other VY erployees who may have received an electrical shock while performing work on the A0GS, and he replied, "no."

WARD then polled I&C Technicians Steve SMIlh, Mike CROWLEY, Norm LEVESQUE, and Jim HALVEY who were with WARD in the I&C shop. The reporting agent heard all of them answer "no."

Based on the above information, the reporting agent concludes that MASSEY's allegation that a lot of employees were shocked while working on the A0GS due to inaccuracies in the wiring drawings is not supported by the evidence that has been gathered.

Attachment:

As stated CASE NO.

1-96-005' EXHlBIT M _n PAGE / OFA _PAGE(S)

. h y~#

+\w

. ...,_c . - . _ . _

. . . ~ . . . , . - , _ . . . _ . , _