ML20199D042

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Deleted Interview Rept of R Vibert, on 970129 Re Allegation That Former Plant Employee J Massey Was Discriminated Against Because of Raised Concerns W/Design Change for Plant Advanced Off Gas Sys
ML20199D042
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 01/29/1997
From: Teator J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199C790 List:
References
FOIA-97-365 NUDOCS 9801300126
Download: ML20199D042 (3)
v • d • e


Text

e

?

(

b gar -

c EXHIBIT 32 9001300126 980128

.o v: ... . . a ,3 r . . ,, , ,

C n accordaace v..th the freevoca c.,,,.,c,. .,,sa A:t. exemptions 2

(

F0lA- 97-3 (J

{h Case No.1 % 005 Exhibit 32

/ 7.

(,tI i> e(d7 (r

~

INTERVIEW REPORT

OF -

ROGER VIBERT On January P9, 1997, VIBERT was interviewed by the reporting agent. The interview was conducted under oath at Yankee Atomic Power Company (YAEC), 580 Main Street, Bolton, MA 01740. VIBERT was represented during the interview b Jeremiah O'SULLIVAN, Attorney at Law, Choate. Hall & Stewart Exchange Place,y 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 2891. 0'SULLIVAN's telephone number is (617) 248 5000. VIBERT stated that it uns his choice to have O'SULLIVAN represent him during the interview and that he understood that O'SULLIVAN represented other parties involved in the investigation. VIBERT stated that he was not under any pressure from YAEC management to have O'SULLIV/d represent his during the interview. VIBERT provided the following.thfomation regardi an allegation that former YY employee James MASSEY was discriminated against ause he had raised concerns with a design change for the VY Advanced Off Gas System (AUGS).

VI' in His Number a

res r1 Hi t ne He Q /

number is ne r is (508) 568 385. He graduated rom st ersity i th a Bachelor of Science in Systems Engineering. He has been employed since September 1985. He is currently a Lead Electrical /Instrtamentation and Controls Supervisor, and has been in that msitio.1 for the last four or five years. He was YAEC E ineer George HENGER.E's supervisor during HENGERLE's and VY Engineer Pat H NEY's assignment to assess whether the A0GS design project should continue.

' ( VIBERT stated that YAEC Engineer Lou CASEY (who he also supervised) infonned him that he was having problems and was frustrated with working with MASSEY, I

prior to HENGERLE and McKENNEY performing their late May to early June 1995 assessment. VIBERT said that CASEY told him that MASSEY wasn't cooperating in getting the design work done, and that, to CASEY, MASSEY did not seem interested in >erforming the work that needed to be done. He said that CASEY told him th'at %SSEY believed that a complete walk down of the A0GS wiring needed to be performed before He said that CASEY told him that he couldn'tproceeding get MASSEY with to the design provide work.

input or connents on the u Mated drawings that he (CASEY) had provided to MASSEY. VIBERT commented t1at NASSEY's refusal to cooperate, provide input, and comments, caused the project to be delayed, but he dces not know if some of the missed completion milestones were caused by that.

VIBERT commented tha't the project was s msed to be a team effort between CASEY and MASSEY. VIBERT added that Ra1 1 MOSCHELM , another YAEC engineer that he supervised, told him that he al had friction with MASSEY while working together on another design change. He recalls HOSCHELLA telling him 6 that he end MASSEY disagreed on how the work should be perfonned, and that he T (MOSCHELLA) and MASSEY both got upset with each other.

{.

VIBERT recalls that some errors with the p probably by ROUTHIER, CASEY, or NASSEY, du sed design were discovered, the design process, but VIBERT commented that was not unconnon in a design angeproject. VIBERT does not g 8, recall ROUTHIER telling him about the significant errors that ROUTHIER

{ informed the reporting investigator of during a December 18, 1996, interview. N AGENT'S NOTE: During a December 18, 1996, interview, ROUTHIER informed the reporting egent that, *. . . after he realized that MASSEY wasn't going to review the design drawings, approximately two to four weeks if CASE NO. 1-96-005^ .,o g/m

after the drawings had been on site, he took them and began doing a point by point review and found significant wiring errors with the control logic in the drain tank, power distribution and neutral wires were crossed. ROUTHIER said that it became apparent to him that CASEY should have had assistance in designing the power feeds. R0llTHIER said C.. that he made a * >unch list

  • of the problems and ave it to MASSEY, but MASSEY never looted at it, althou h MASSEY was ' leeful' when he told him of the problems. ROUTHIER sa d that at that point, he got DAYTON '

reinvolved in the project and he told CASEY's supervisor, Roger VIBERT, that the drawings needed to be fixed because the wiring was a mess. <

ROUTHIER said that VIBERT came to VY and reviewed the dranings with he and CASEY, but that HASSEY did not take part in the review. He said that VIBERT concurred that there were problems and asked ROUTHIER if they could be corrected. R0llTHIER said he told VIBERT that they could be corrected, and that VIBERT told CASEY to work at the site for as long as it took to fix the design."

VIBERT stated that he travelled to VY to assist in correcting some of the design text and drawing changes, and agreed that there were things in the designthatneededtobechtnpd. VIBERT said that he would not call the design problems "significant. VIBERT said that he does not recall telling CASEY to stay at VY for Ls long as it took to complete the design, but he may have said that.

It is VIBERT's opinion that MASSEY did not perform as he should have to successfully complete the design change, and offered three examples of that:

1) VIBERT recalls that during a visit to VY, he and CORBETT met with MASSEY to '

discuss the )roject and to inquire how the design was proceeding. VIBERT said that before w or CORBETT could say much. HASSEY started yelling and screaming, accusing him and CORBETT of checking un on him. MASSEY tilso stated that he felt that he and CORBETT didn't trust him. VlBERT recalls that he was embarrassed for CORBETT over the incident: 2) VIBERT opined that MASSEY was not familiar with the YAEC or VY procedures required to make changes to a design change. He stated that the use of those procedures were required and needed to meet certain pro that a VY Project Manager,like ject deadlines.

MASSEY, wasVIBERT opined not familiar with that thosehe was surprised procedures; and 3) MASSEY didn't cooperate with other individuals on the work that needed to be performed on the project.

When asked what he had done to resolve the conflict and problems that existed between CASEY and MASSEY, VIBERT stated that he spoke to CORBETT about what should be done, and he believes that discussion led to McKENNEY's and HENGERLE's independent assessment of the project. He added that, other than that, he didn't take any other acticns to resolve the problems between CASEY and NASSEY.

Repc by:

h /^

(\

Jeffrey A. Teator, Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I M

ase N . 005 EXHIBIT 2

PAGE M _OF di PAGE(S)

, ..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20199D042&oldid=3336640"