ML20247G400
| ML20247G400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1998 |
| From: | Matakas R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247F347 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-365 NUDOCS 9805200246 | |
| Download: ML20247G400 (11) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __ - - - - - - - - -
INTERVIEW REPORT OF EDWIN JAMES MASSEY l E. James MASSEY was telephonically interviewed by the reporting 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 (OI) and staff engineers from the NRC, Region I (RI), on June 5, 1996, in Brattleboro, VT (transcription made). The purpose of this interview was to obtain clarifying information relating to the June 5, 1996, interview. During his June 5th interview, MASSEY indicated his belief that all of the discriminatory actions that were taken against him while he was involved in the modification of the VY advanced off gas system (AOGS) were a result of his derogatory review of a VY security gatehouse upgrade / modification that took place in, or around, 1992. MASSEY expressed his views to the gatehouse contractor, Jim LONEY, who later won a large monetary settlement against VY over the matter in or about 1994, during the same time frame that MASSEY was assigned as the project manager for the VY off gas system modification (deposition, pp. 37-56, 68 and 74).
Specifically, during the June 5, 1996, deposition (concerning the security gatehouse modification / upgrade) MASSEY stated:
So I took the specifications and the prints and I spent about six hours. It was the worst design I had 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 comments up.
In there, I said that the job is not ready to go out for any 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 ten day job. It took them over a year. And it's going to cost Vermont Yankee a lot more money. (at pp. 39-40)
When asked for specifics during the June 19th interview, MASSEY said generally that the prints did not match the specifications and it would be very hard for a contractor to put it together.
Specifically, he recalled that the transformer was the wrong size, the structural design was not adequate, but he could not recall further details at the time.
MASSEY was asked how the problems he noted related to NRC requirements, and he responded that they had "nothing to do with NRC requirements" and he did not think the NRC "had any requirements for it," the upgrade / modification to the security 9805200246 980512 e / E PDR FOIA j HICKEY 97-365 PDR
. l l
gatehouse.
End of Report of Interview with E. James MASSEY documented on June 19, 1996, by the reporting agent.
a Rich a
A. Matakas Special Agent, OI:RI USNRC l
1 1
i l
l Case NO. 1-96-003 2
V OKY.
E X P R 1 L. A G M7 AT I O 6 C .t B N 7 E AS T
0 WO 5
3 N
_ 0 2
K4 NOM i
n5cf7 u f .r
- g l i AecR ol aei flr c e Oh
- PnRfa rde u a g Id r
slun sel vM i aea aRtst
, 'o o t a
- arik
_ Pdyga A C at ,s oi il 1 noS u
i 9 nnp il 4 ise l
l 0 s c il 6 sFi iia i.
oel il nl i
il dA _ ,
l g
l i
Oe i fn i
i ft , ,
l
_ i il i
c '
ii ,e i
_e ill R il i
g e
. i
,. i i
i il o n
ll i
1 ii i
ll ' **
i i
l ,
_ i il ~]
_ il ,
~
il l
['
i il i ::
ll
EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION The undersigned hereby authorizes Richard A. Matakas, inves-tigator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have full access l to and to examine or copy and to obtain copies or abstracts of any and all personnel records relating to my employment with Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, or any office notes or memoranda or other information pertaining thereto, and to confer with any administrative persons or other persons having to do with my employment at said company.
Dated at Brattleboro, Vermont, this /7 day of June, 1996.
1
. /L M 1(1 bbO 1 E.JpsMassey s/
1
- 9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . - . _ - . _ _ . - _ _ _ . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . ~
j, e
i DOWNS RACHUN & MAREN, PC Attaanxis At L. A w l
OucoN .loim lha.narrx Holix. 14 Lamm= Nmmt PO Box 0 = Beam.r.iumu . W;nuont 05302 anos NU 238 :llnu = rAX 802 284 4875 i
l July 19,1996
,BY FAX AND REGULAR MAIL David A. Gibson, Esq.
Gibson Law Office 10 ParkPlace P.O. Box 1767 l Brattleboro,VT 05302 i
Re: Massey- Vermont Yankee DearDavid; '
l l
1 was extremely distressed by your voice mail message left on my ma4Ma at 9:14 18,1996.
l I do not consider your direct contact with my client a " boo-boo? By-passing couns l and speaking directly with a client ofopposing counselis a serious breach of the Canons of Ethics. While I will accept your apology this time, I really don't understand why you decid l contact my client directly. Obviously, this cannot happen again.
1 was further perplexed by the substance ofyour comments. My client has assured me that no or e at Vermont Yankee has advised Mr. Massey "not to return to work at this time." In fa Vermont Yankee is not even sure where Mr. Massey is. Nor did Vermont Yankee fail to unxi Mr. Massey any forms The problem has been created by Mr. Massey's failure to czecut :o stine forms which were sent to him weeks ago. Moreover, I'm not sure what question you think l Orris answered. Under the circumstances, please let me know the cract substance ofyou recollecdon ofyour conversation with Jon Orris.
Fmally, while I am always available to you for discussion about Mr. Massey's concerns, it is L-yyn.,eiste for him to use you to commimicate with Vermont Yankee on work matters We have already di=mW Mr. Massey's obligation to bring work issues, ia4'd% safety questions l
directly to the attention ofthe appropriate Vermont Yankee officials. Sinnlarly, ifMr. Mas has lost leave fonns or forgotten which forms to fill out when absent from work, he should call his supervisor or Human Resources It is inappropriate for lawyers to be handha such issue s.
In that regard, please und. ud that your ill-advised call to Jon Orris did not reheve Mr.
Massey of his responsibility to contact Vermont Yankee.
99 IkWUN33N Yr St,,loppetmrur VT gu6 ma en n7s um.n0N NH so 74s ass.
ma s44 win
_ _n - ~~ -- - - - - --
j ..
DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN. PC bavid Gibson, Esq.
Page:2 July 19,1996 If you have questions, please call me.
Very truly yours, 0
PeterB Robb l
l'BR:rh cc: Jon Orris DRN006522.0t t
I i
l I
I
^ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
, ........ ...., ..........~ ;.- ....Z --.~
e .-
( GIBSON LAW OFFICE l onym A. GiseCM 10 PARK PLAct P. O. S0X 17e7 AEHTH 84. WWINER mmATTLsmomo, venasoNT os3ca t.EGAL ASSISTANT ~
803-a54-401e nax eaa-as.-asca l
l July 29, 1996 l
Peter Robb, Esquire Downs, Rachlin & Martin P.O. Box 9 Brattleboro, Vermont 05302 )
l Re: Massey - Vermont Yankee
Dear Peter:
In response to advised as follows. your Whileletters of July attending the17 and 19, annual please be conference of Uniform Law Commissioners in San Antonio, Texas, I was informed by my office that vermont Yankee was pressing Mr. Massey for*
information relating to his health and work situation. It was not clear to me just what Mr. Massey needed to do to respond to Vermont Yankee's request, and so I decided to place a call to Mr.
Orris, with whom I had had prior discussions before you were retained to represent vermont Yankee in connection with Mr.
Massey's, employment situation.
l i
I should not have attempted to contact Mr. Orris in order to find ont what form or other information needed to be submitted in order to place Mr. Massey on sick leave. Mr. Orris rightly was not certain he should s; peak with me, but he did kindly inform me that the weekly disabil; .ty income claim form was what was needed.
I then immediately called to inform you of my mistake and I again apologize to you and to Mr. Orris for having called Mr.
Orris from Texas.
Mr. Massey continues to wish me to assist him in connection with this matter. Accordingly, I am submitting the claim form to vermont Yankee through you and request that it be processed so as to have Mr. Massey placed on sick leave status. The delay in getting this form to Vermont Yankee should not have occurred, but I am requesting Vermont Yankee to accept and act on it at this time despite the delay.
\h f
l!
/ , ' (_ { f fl') {
L--- - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _____ _ , ___ c ,,,
f 1
1 Peter Robb, Esquire July 28, 1996 Page 2 I understand that you prefer that Mr. Massey contact vermont Yankee directly with respect to work-related matters. Mr. Massey prefers to have the communications made through me at this time, however.
1 Your truly, t
(
vi A. Gibeo l
l
! l l
l l
c l
l 1 I
DOWNS RACHuN & MARTIN. PC A f t o r s t: ss .g t I, s e Dt:vm Jom litaan fliosr. 14 f.iNnt:s Smn . PO Pm 9 13R sm.inmo . t >:wsmi one .=m m:2 2Pa Xa. vn *r12M a7..
July 30,1996 BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL Jonathan Orris Director of Human Resources Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
R.R. 5, Box 169 Brattleboro, VT 05301 Re: Massey - VT Yankee
Dear Jon:
Enclosed please find the originalletter dated July 29,1996 to me from David Gibson. Also, please find the Authorization To Exchange Information and Medical Records along with the Weekly Disability Income Claim Form for Edwin Massey.
Very truly yours, SW B M/hwa Peter B. Robb Enclosures l
l I I N
r
[]!(g...C. .
- a. .. .,,, w = i,mou er vr in.tm w
Dons RacHuN & MARTIN. PC t r r . x s ,: i , sr i. g a W A TF 9 ,
j lll.: \mN .h nl\ li qawis.A lha g .181 Noa prxt /T e l11 b is fi e lk \rft.uniwo . \ > k\ hist ii' af inne tuu 27n ami . ts :mi? ;,a utn July 31,1996 l l
4 David Gibson, Esq.
Gibson Law Office 10 Park Place PO Box 1767 I
Brattleboro, VT 05302 Re: Massev - Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Com.
Dear David:
I have received your letter dated July 29,1996, which was apparently hand delivered to my office on that date. As recited in my previous letter, I have accepted your apology for by-passing )
counsel and contacting my client directly. Unfortunately, the effects of that ill-advised communication apparently remain. My client has informed me that your recitation of your conversation with him is inaccurate. Importantly, Mr. Orris did not inform you that the weekly . {
disability claim form was only what was needed. l 1
I am also somewhat fmstrated that you continue to attempt to use me as a conduit for matters which Mr. Massey should be discussing directly with Vermont Yankee. While I have no problem with Mr. Massey's desire to seek your assistance and counsel, Vermont Yankee will not agree to make a special exception for Mr. Massey to discuss work-related matters through his attomey. Althcugh I have transmitted the forms you sent me to Vermont Yankee, I cannot excuse Mr. Massey's delay in submitting any forms or his failure to follow procedures /instmetions. Vermont Yankee will be contacting Mr. Massey directly about those matters. If Mr. Massey refuses to communicate with Vennont Yankee about work-related matters, please be advised that Vermont Yankee will treat him the same as it would any other employee in that situation.
I still think it would be helpfulif we met personally. I am free most mornings next week. Please let me know if any days are convenient for you.
Very truly yours, 0 '
Peter B. Robb BRTiOOO6700 01
/t /b l
Bewuw m m Vr St Jouwton Vi inTumm NH l ma ma rir, nH7 74N HM4 (M 44407 M l
,7 g--- ggg, -
g,,
GIBSON LAW OFFICE n fG W$
DAVID A. GLBSON toPAme< w ATTORNEY
, ,} P. O. nox 3 767 JUDITH Ne WARptfMER LEAAL ASSISTANT M 3c2 254-soit PAX 902-254-2602 9
August 30, 1996 i
Peter B. Robb, Esquire Downs,. Rachlin & Martin, P.C.
P.O. Box 9 Brattleboro, Vermont 05302 Re: Massey - Vermont Yankee
Dear Peter:
I have your letter of August 27. I am astonished that you have refused to transmit the statement from Dr. Sommer and Dr.
, Ross to Vermont Yankee. As I indicated in prior correspondence, the level of trust between James Massey and the personnel office at vermont Tankee is such that Mr. Massey prefers to communicate through my office.
If you prefer me to do so, I can send the form directly to Mr. Orris. However, I do not wish to do so without your authori-zation.
I look forward to your advice as to whethereyou wish me to communicate directly to Mr. Orris on this matter.
Your truly, ,
David A. Gib DAG:k1h
\
WO kKING FILE COPY jl ( l ({
September 17, 1996 l
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-029-DCOM
)
(Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
)
NRC STAFF'S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENERS' SEPTEMBER 13.1996 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY INTRODUCTION On September 13, 1996, Citizens Awareness Network and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (CAN/NECNP) filed a motion for leave to reply to the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (Staff's) response to Yankee Atomic 8
2 Electric Company's (YAEC's) motion for summary disposition in this proceeding.' In 8
"NRC Staff's Response in Support of Yankee Atomic Electric Company's Motion for Summary Disposition," dated September 9,1996.
2
" Conditional Motion for Summary Disposition ('New Dose Argument'),"
" Memorandum in Opposition to late-Filed'New Dose Information' and in Support of Conditional Motion for Summary Disposition,"and " Affidavit of Russell A. Mellor,"
dated July 10, 1996, as supplemented by " Memorandum of Yankee Atomic Electric Company in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition," " Supplemental Affidavit of Russell A. Mellor," " Affidavit of Dade W. Moeller, PhD.," and " Statement of Uncontested Facts," dated September 3,1996.
' " Citizen's Awareness Network's and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Conditional Agreement to Unauthorized Filing of NRC Staff's Response in Support of YAEC's Motion for Summary Disposition, and Motion for 1. cave to Reply," dated September 13,1996. CAN/NECNP styles its pending motion as " conditional agreement" (continued...)
G 6 CGycuc 6g, w f? s v
support of its motion, CAN/NECNP argues that the Staff's September 9,1996 response to YAEC's motion for summary disposition was not contemplated in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (Licensing Board's) order establishing the litigation schedule for this proceeding.' For the reasons discussed below, the Licensing Board should rule that the Staff's September 9,1996 filing was au'brized by LBP-96-15 and reject CAN/NECNP's motion for leave to reply.
DISCUSSION On July 31,1996, the Licensing Board issued an order in which it admitted a single contention and established an expedited schedule for further litigation. LBP-96-15, slip -
op. at 64. As part of that order the Licensing Board decided to hold YAEC's pending j l
" conditional" summary disposition motion in abeyance to permit CAN/NECNP to obtain discovery from YAEC and the Staff before responding. Id. at 56-57. The Licensing Board also provided an opportunity for YAEC to supplement its pending summary disposition motion and thereafter an opportunity for the "other parties" to respond thereto i and for YAEC to reply to any responsive filings. Id. at 59-60; Appendix at 1.5 The l
l 5(... continued) l to the Staff's September 9,1906 filing on the condition that CAN/NECNP be allowed to i i reply. Motion it 1. If the Licensing Board denies its motion for leave to reply, CAN/NECNP requests "immediate notice" so tint it may file an objection to the Staff's filing. Id. at 2. j d
Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-15, 43 NRC (July 31,1996).
5 He Licensing Board also provided an opportunity for the Staff to file its own motion for summary disposition at the same time provided for YAEC to supplement its pending motion for summary disposition. LBP-96-15, slip op. at 59.
F .
3-Licensing Board's schedule in LBP-96-15 did not provide for CAN/NECNP to reply to responses by other panies supporting YAEC's motion for summary disposition. The only reply filings provided for are from YAEC and from the Staff, if the Staff had elected to file a summary disposition motion. Id. at 60; Appendix at 1. CAN/NECNP concedes l
l this point in its motion for leave to reply. Motion at 2. CAN/NECNP argues that, l
because the Staff had an opponunity te file its own motion for summary disposition, a Staff response to YAEC's motion was not contemplated in LBP-96-15. Id. at 1-2. As-discussed below, the argument is without merit.
Nothing in LBP-96-15 can be read as limiting the Staff to the opportunity only to file a motion for summary disposition, as CAN/NECNP urges, or to remove the Staff's .
enti'lement, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a), to serve an answer supporting or opposing a motion for summary disposition filed by another party.' The Staff is a party in this proceeding. The fact that the Staff did not choose to file its own motion for summary disposition did not cause the Staff to forfeit the opportunity provided to the "other parties" in this proceeding to respond to YAEC's supplemented motion for summary disposition.7
' After a party moves for summary disposition on the pleadings, the Commission's regulations provide: "Any other party may serve an answer supponing or opposing the motion, with or without affidavits ..." 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(a).
7 CAN/NECNP attempts to read LBP-96-15 so as to exclude the Staff from the "other panies." Motion at 1-2. If one adopts CAN/NECNP's view, one must ask who are the "other panies" to whom the Licensing Board refers in LBP-96-15 at 59. The Licensing Board understands that the State of Massachusetts is appearing as an interested l governmental entity under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.715(c). See Prehearing Tr. 242. Clearly, YA.EC, as the movant, would not be afforded an oppodunity to respond to its own motion. That leaves only the Staff and CAN/NECNP. If it had been the Licensing l
Board's intention to exclude the Staff, as NECNP urges, it would have used either "CAN/NECNP" or " interveners," rather than "other parties."
l
\
CAN/NECNP also argues that fairness requires that it be provided an opportunity to. dispute the Staff's arguments and assertions, but provides no authority for this I 1
assertion. Motion at 2. The Commission's regulations provide that an opposing party may only respond to "new facts and arguments presented in any statement filed in support i
- of the motion (for summary disposition]." 10 C.F.R. 6 2.749(a). Nothing in LBP-96-15 alters this design, and CAN/NECNP's motion for leave to reply is devoid of any assertim that the Staff's September 9,1996 filing contains new facts or arguments.' Accordingly, CAN/NECNP's motion for leave to reply should be denied.
l l CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Licensing Board should rule that the Staff's .
1 \
September 9,1996 response to YAEC's motion for summary disposition was authorized and deny CAN/NECNP's motion for leave to reply.
Respectfully submitted,
. _a Euge J. Holler -
Marian L. Zobler Counsel for NRC Staff I
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 17th day of September 1996
' CAN/NECNP maintains that the Staff's response in support of YAEC's summary disposition motion "should have been made at the same time YAEC filed its summary disposition motion, so that interveners might have an opportunity to respond to them."
Motion at 2. Putting aside the fact that the Commission's regulations provide opposing parties an opportunity to respond only to "new facts and arguments," CAN/NECNP fails to explain how the Staff could respond to a motion simultaneously with the filing of the motion.
\
l i
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
In the Matter of )
) l YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-029-DCOM ;
, ) I l (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENERS' SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by hand delivery with a conforming copy deposited in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or, as indicated ,
by an asterisk, by facsimile transmission with a conforming copy served by United States mail, first class, this 17th day of September,1996:
G. Paul Bollwerk III, Chairman Office of the Commission Appellate Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Adjudication Panel Mail Stop: Ol6-G-15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (1)
Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Franklin County Commission
- Ieslie B. Greer, Esquire
- Courthouse - 425 Main Street Assistant Attorney General Greenfield, MA 01301-3330 Office of the Attorney General Trial Division 200 Portland Street Boston, MA 02110 1
l l
i i
L Office of the Secretary (2) Diane Curran, Esquire
- Mail Stop: Ol6-G-15 Harmon, Curran, Gallagher & Spielberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 l
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, DC 20009-1125 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch l
Jonathan M. Block, Esq.* Adjudicatory File ;
Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 566 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Putney, VT 05346-0566 Washington, DC 20555 l
Dr. Thomas S. Elleman* Thomas G. Dignan, Esquire
- Administrative Judge R. K. Gad, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ropes & Gray l Panel One International Place l I
704 Davidson Street Boston, MA 02110-2624 l Raleigh, NC 27609 -
P&
Eugene'I. Holler Counsel for NRC Staff i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _