ML20198K759

Interview Rept of L Casey

ML20198K759
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	01/27/1997
From:	Teator J NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198K582	List: ML20198K579 ML20198K624 ML20198K670 ML20198K677 ML20198K686 ML20198K759 ML20198K804 ML20198K831 ML20198K852
References
FOIA-97-365 NUDOCS 9801150092
Download: ML20198K759 (5)

Text

. . _ _ _ . .. _-_.- . .. .

I INTERVIEW REPORT OF

LOU CASEY On January 27, 1997, CASEY was re interviewed by the reporting agent. The interview was conducted under oath at Yankee Atomic Energy Com>any (YAEC), 580 Main Street, Bolton, MA 01740, CASEY was represented during t1e interview by  ;

Jeremiah O'SULLIVAN, Attorney at Law, Choate Hall & Stewart, Exchange Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 2891. 0'SULLIVAN's telephone number is (617) 248 5000. When CASEY was asked if O'SULLIVAN personally re> resented him during the interview, O'SULLIVAN instructed CASEY to not answer tie question.

When asked if CASEY understood that O'SULLIVAN represented other individuals that would be interviewed. O'SULLIVAN instructed CASEY to not answer tlie question. CASEY stated that he was not under an pressure from YAEC management to have O'SULLIVAN represent him duri the interview, CASEY provided the following information regarding an a legation that former Vermont Yankee (VY) employee cames MASSEY was discriminated against because he had raised concerns with a design change for the VY Advanced Off Gas System (A0GS).

CASEY. stated that MASSEY did not work more closely with him, nor was there better teamwork established between them, after VY Electrical Engineer Pat McKENNEY and YAEC Instrumentation and Control Senior Engineer George HENGERLE issued their June 3,1994, assessment re) ort on wt. ether the A0GS design change project should proceed. CASEY said t1at, in the June or July 1994 time >eriod, it became apparent to him that he was not going to got much help from 4ASSEY, and that MASSEY was simply not interested in moving the

, {-

design change process forward.

CASEY said that he informed his supervisor, Roger VIBERT, of the conflict that he was having with MASSEY, arobably in March 1994, but he does not know what actions VIBERT or other YAEC management took to resolve the conflict. CASEY opined that VY management should have taken disciplinary action against MASSEY l sooner than they did. CASEY recalls telling MASSEY's supervisor Pat CORBETT that MASSEY wasn't meeting his project milestones, this in an attempt to

. inform CORBETT that MASSEY did absolutely nothing to resolve the issues or l problems that he (MASSEY) raised, and that something had to be done about it.

CASEY recalls CORBETT essentially saying that he would do what he could to resolve the problem.

CASEY believed that he received adequate resources from YAEC to successfully complete the project, but not from VY. CASEY explained that a project manager (MASSEY's position on the A0GS design change) is a critical com)onent on any project, and MASSEY was not the right person for that job. CASEY based that perception on: 1) MASSEY having a great many personal problems which were manifested in grossly unprofessional behavior during the project: and

2) MASSEY having been made a p oject manager, when MASSEY was not comfortable being in that position, althou h MASSEY never asked to be reassigned to a l different project. CASEY stat that besides naming MASSEY as project

! manager, VY provided the necessary resources in all other areas. CASEY also i commented that during VY's early 1990's reorganization MASSEY, a

" construction guy," was placed in an engineering position, which in NASSEY's l (r

case was not a suitable arrangement.

0R o EXHIBIT.

HICKEY 97-365 PDR 6' j" "# 'N l CASENO.

1-96-005"

. . . WO? 50Wl - Nb'Y .

J i j' . . .

(

r

(-  !

o i ei CASEY stated that YY h.d ' absolutely' adequately addressed NASSEY's concerns with the A0GS drawings. He s61d that when MASSEY raised a concern, VY gave

.U credence to it and listened to MASSEY, including having McKENNEY and HENGERLE perform their independent assessment. CASEY said that MASSEY's concerns were o

given a ' full hearing

• by VY.

CASEY was then asked whether he felt that MASSEY met the ' FUTURE

? EXPECTATIONS.' as listed by CORBETT in a document signed by CORBETT on  !

4 June 20, 1994. CASEY stated that MASSEY did not establish good teamwork with  !

YAEC and did not actively support them during design development. CASEY said  !

". that MASSEY

• absolutely" did not promptly wrsue processing and approving the  :

project scope memorandue. CASEY does not (now if MASSEY prepared the request i

for resources prior to July 1 1994 as expected by CORITTT. He does not know  !

ect reports every t'.c weeks, as expected t if MASSEY by CORBETT. Mpreprod Y does notthe periodic know if proj,MASSEY actively pursued arra -

I mechanical supert as expected by CORBETT, but believes that was done by VY j contractor Ric( ROUTHIER. CASEY said that he and ROUTHIER pursued the design i

. work, and the only input provided by MASSEY was his acceptance of the work i performed by ROUTHIER: with the point being that, contrary to CORBETT's  !;

expectation, MASSEY did not perform the work he was supposed to perform, instead, MASSEY delegated that work to ROUTHIER. j

. CASEf stated that during the 199s refueling outage ROU7NIER and another  !

i electrician performed a complete walk down of the A0GS and corrected any discrepancies in a two week time period. MASSEY felt that the walk down would cost six hundred thousand dollars and take two electricians working full time '

i a year to complete. i Reporked by:

l

. l f

f)I Jefffey A. Teator Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I ,

4

C. Ca o . 1. 00s 2 EX IT PAGE OFdPAGE(S) 1

. ..I C

4 d

i 4

5 e

l 1 l i

c. EXHIBIT 40A i

i l

l l

l l '

i i

t G

Cj\

Case No. 1 % 005 Exhibit 40A

t es &

O  ;

i

. 2/.gp4 < w e,c4 oc kn c uo 5k'.' '

', ~

u o.m m % . m t nA w Kt?Uck bh' ' '

.. a ens mk.v A.<J 4 ~ at ae-

~~ -L J w w) fo U %3 %+

U mi -+f~ J- he SaJ14 4f ~ J

~~

'~ &x 6.) e g.g_ _ y S n u

~~ L J- LJ e> ~ ,a s ..J

&  %.vt.A b.ddMuC) ra k #bf/biL

" ra tm K L w L

. . _ A.ad a " d u'

( "ge- MG th.o- YYn

' &a;scredW s ud M a s~s.ISA/3 An

~~ b) + . % ' a ? b a eb + . n f-w4f,u 6 LM 4 ole.

~

6vgvJ/tVNsb 1

?

Joa.<9 Wik ago %

~

f-- .

d as q

ikspi -

Reaea-ed EL a . cJJ &~ DGb&d

~ / _au .-t , E O + - i n .- u (vh #ht a4

< coycle)kt-a w.d--e f p: L d W'lf4

. he e a dr 2 t.es cw L i d-p.v.u uka A&$ & wha 5_ca>~~p/.u:wuy._/.s.sif& du6n cd- ,

46 f  ;

. (r g {y.v &d d 46 44 6x&-ha-/y/d =.F ^ d d

.g--

_ ____..__..._....._...._._-- exsisir eh4 --

S9_0_ .. - 9 9..# 0 9 f . ..

1 . . _ . f4*?' PAGE / OF / PAGE(S) - - - - -

t ly k 9 v

-t b

I o

c EXHIBIT 45 ,

4 t

i r

Y?

Case No. 1 % 005 Exhibit 45

, _ _ .