ML20199C833
| ML20199C833 | |
| 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 | |
| ML20199C790 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-365 NUDOCS 9801300104 | |
| Download: ML20199C833 (6) | |
Text
.
C d
EXHIBIT 36 c
(
qN 9eotaogto499012e HICKEY 97-365 PDR Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 36 au;>.;wy
INTERVIEW REPORT 1C 0F PATRICK McKENNEY On January 21, 1997, McKENNEY was re interviewed by the reporting agent. The interview was conducted under oath at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant (VY), Nuclear Training Center, Brattleboro, VT, McKENNEY was represented during the interview by J. Patrick HICKEY, Esquire, Shaw,-Pitman, Potts &
Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 1128.: HICKEY's ofr a telephone number is (202) 663 8103, McKENNEY stated that it was his choice to have HICKEY represent him, and he understood that HICKEY represented other i
parties associated with the investigation.
McKENNSY stated that he was not under any >ressure from VY management to have HICKEY represent him. McKENNEY
- provided tie following information regarding an allegation 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).
McKEWNEY stated that he and Yankee Atomic Energy Company (YAEC) Engineer George HENGERLE decided to go beyond the scope of what Pat COR8ETT expected I
them to do during their assessment of whether the A0GS design project should proceed, dessite problems with the electrical wiring drawings. McKENNEY said that he and 1ENGEltLE wanted to develop a " rap' and project milestone that MASS. I coy 1d use to help successfully complete the project.
McKENNEY was questioned regarding his knowledge of whether his and HENGERLE's
{-
recommendations in the " Schedule section of their June 3,1994, report (attached) wsre adopted anc completed. McKENNEY commented that he was not really involved in the issue after completing the report, but he believes that: 1) a coordinated effort between the VY, YAEC, and Fischbach employees assigned to the project was initiated, but that the personality conflict between MGSEY and YAEC Engineer Lou CASEY was not resolved:- 2) the drawing discrepancy resolution effort was continued throughout the design change project, up until the project was canceled: 3) the Installation and Test (I&T) guidelines that MASSEY and ROUTHIER were responsible for presaring. never really got off of the ground; and 4) the Engineering Change htice was completed.
.McKENNEY also was questioned regarding his knowledge of whether his and HENGERLE's recommendations in tlie "ResoJrces" section of their report were adopt 9d and completed. McKENNEY said t1at: 1) he is unsure if the Mechanical Engineering )ersonnel became involved in the >roject: 2) the dedicated contracted F)S (Fischbach) enginser was Rick t0VTNIER, who was assigned to the project for the remainder of 1995: and 3) he is unsure whether a Fischbach contract Mechanical Engineer was added to the materia 1' procurement and preparation of the I& project to assist in the T.
McKENNEY stated that, based on the assessment, he concluded that MASSEY was-not involved in addressing or resolving the discrepancies with the electrical wiring. drawings..He got that sense form discussing the CASEY. and Fischbach contractor George WRIGHT (ROUTHIER' project with ROUTHIER,
~
s supervisor), and also from observing the work that was being performed in the trailer used by h:
MASSEY during the pro ect. He discovered that ROUTHIER made a " punch list" of the wiring discrepanc es, and that ROUTHIER worked directly with CASEY on EXHIBIT b1 CA3INO.. 1-96~005*
PAGE / OF1PAGE(S)
( %, a
e resolvi99 the discrepancies, and although MASSEY was aware of the C
discrepancies, he did not get involved in the details of revwing the drawings. McKENNEY feels that CASEY and ROUTHIER had a bette.' sense of what the real problems were on the drawings, and he and HENGERLE put more weight in what they told him, that the project could proceed. McKENNEY said that he also found that during talks with MASSEY, MASSEY called CASEY a *pinheaa" and that MASSEY did not put any confidence in CASEY, McKENNEY said that he found that MASSEY had a negative attitude about working with CASEY.
McKENNEY stated that he had prevSusly raised safety concerns to CORBETT's attention and that CORBETT always addressed them. He stated that CORBETT never threatened him or retaliated against him for raising those issues.
McKENNEY stated that.s the outage approached, and as a follow up to the A0GS project cancellation, he was assigned to insure that the discrepancies in the VY control room 9 50 par,el were resolved. He stated that during the outage he supervised Fischbach contractor Rick ROUTHIER and CASEY in their work on that verification. McKENNEY added that the work didn't take as long, or cost as much money as MASSEY believed it would, because only a very small number of wiring discrepancies were found.
Re arding MASSEY's concerns with the motor heaters being disconnected from the Hi h Pressure Coolant Injection and Reactor Coolant Injection systems.
Mc ENNEY believes that MASSEY first raised the issue in October 1995 (well after MASSEY received his poor job performance evaluation and disciplinary letter for poor job performance).
3 Repor e b:
1%
~
JeffthA.TeatorSpecialAgent i
Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I
Attachment:
As stated
(
ftL Case No. 1 96 005 2
E om_dXH ITor 6 PAGE J
~.
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION MEMORANDUM TO: PB Corbett VERNON DATE: 6/3/94 FROM: GJ Hengerle/PM McKenney t *i ll s i
SUBJECT:
Assessment of EDCR 94-402, AOG Improvements, Q -
p' Drawing issue
References:
a)
Memorandum, PB Corbett/EJ Massey to Distribution, EDCR 94-402 AOG Improvements, Drawing lasue, dated 4/11/94.
b)
Memorandum, LJ Casey to JT Harron, Scope Memo for EDCR 94-402, AOG Modifications, dated 4/25/J4.
- )
Memorandum, PB Corbett to Distribution, EDCR 94-402, AOG Improvements Drawing issue, dated 5/25/94.
Background:
As requested in reference (c), an independent assess. ment has been performed to determine if EDCR 94-402 can be safely and successfully implemented during the 1995 Refueling Outage given the status of the plant drawings for the AOG System.
(
There is varying opinion that the design should not be implemented until a significant drawing field verification effort has taken place, some of which would take place
(
during the 1995 Outage.
Discussion:
-During the week of 5/30/94 GJH and PMM performed interviews at VY and YNSD with the personnellisted belcw:
s Personnel Interviewsd:
EJ Massey (VY)
R - Routhier (FPS)
- LJ Casey (YNSD)
GA Wright (FPS)
Additionally, a cursory review of the scoping memo and drawings was performed in order to gain an appreciation of the magnitude of the proposed design change electrical scope.
Based upon the interviews and the design documents reviewed, we have developed a list of observations and conclusions.
WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790 EXHIBIT PAGE d 0FdPAGE(S)
e Cbservationst' Wiring problems within the AOG System exist.
They are likely a
,(
significant contributor to the operability issues identified by the scope
= team effort.
^
The EDCR Scope (electrical portion) will primarily address instrumentation wiring problems in CRP 9 50.
The instrumentation loop wiring changes proposed by the design change appear to be adequately separated from the control circuitry; therefore modifications to the instrumentation loops should not adversely effect the existing controlloops.
The ability to implement the mechanical portion of the project is not in 3
question (ie: reference (b) items 3,4,5 & 6).
There appears to be two differert philosophies /two different directions relative to the design change preparation / drawing verification _ efforts.
==
Conclusions:==
s
-Based on the objective assessment performed, it is believed that the -
7 AOG Modification Project could be completed and safely implemented if the following items are addressed:
t Schedule:
Initiate's coordinated effort between EE&C, YNSD, and FPS at VY to incorporate all presently identified and resolved drawing discrepancies into the 16 new CRP 9 50 CAD drawings. After design delivery, the CAD' drawings- _would be used exclusively for further wiring _
verifications / mark ups. In order to support this effort, reschedule the EDCR delivery date from 6/30/94 to 7/31/94.
Following design delivery, continue drawing discrepancy _ resolution effort Maintain focus primarily on instrumentation circuitry required to support outage design implementation (ie: CRP_ S-50). However, field
- verifications of JB's 100, 200, 300 and equipment skids should be considered to restore drawing confidence and to improve future circuit trouble-shooting capability. Estimated duration 6/30/94 to 8/31/94.=
Prepare-detailed Installation and. Test Guideline (s) to-support a
-streamlined installation approach following the drawing improvement
. effort, start date approximately 8/31/94. Reschedule I&T review date to 10/31/94.
WITHHOLD FROM FUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790 EXHlBIT b PAGE M OF 5 P5GE(S)
- 4 Plac for an ECN to the EDCR to incorporate all drawing changes
(.
Identified during the drawing review effort. Proposed schedule delivery of 10/31/94.
Resources:
The scope of this design is far reaching and encompasses several different unique electrical and mechanical modifications.
It should be recognized that the mechanical portion of this project is significant and will require ME&C Department personnel involvement following design delivery.
As discussed above, a dedicated contracted (FPS) electrical engineer will be needed to support the electrical drawing review and I&T preparation activities for the remainder of 1994.
it is estimated that a contracted (FPS) mechanical engineer will be needed for appror.imately two months in 1994 to assist in the mechanical material procurement activities and mechanical I&T preparation.
M. W l k t -_=- E 6 C M / (o5 M +
t GJ Hengerie, YNSDJ
{
QA I
( n wj'N lLIs %4 1.-
s Approved by:
O
/
PB Corbett, EE&C Mana'ger
' I cc:
Vernon: BRB, EJM YNSD: SRM, JRH, RTV, LJC C.
WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790 EXHIBIT PAGE_dOF D PAGE(S)