ML20199D069

Partially Deleted Interview Rept of G Hengerle, 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

ML20199D069
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	01/29/1997
From:	Teator J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199C790	List: ML20199C786 ML20199C833 ML20199C978 ML20199C980 ML20199C995 ML20199D014 ML20199D026 ML20199D042 ML20199D048 ML20199D054 ML20199D062 ML20199D069 ML20199D077 ML20199D085 ML20199D101
References
FOIA-97-365 NUDOCS 9801300133
Download: ML20199D069 (3)

Text

-

D 4

c . .

Y x.

1 -

b 1

L c EXHIBIT 37 -

F 7801300133 980128 PDR FOIA HICKEY 97-345 PDR

~

Inforrn (!Cn in this rcccid W3s do!cted

" in accordaace Eth tr.e Freedo.T. Of aformation O Act, exemptions 7C E01A- ._9 ff% _ y Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 37 r? I r

INTERVIEW REPORT OF

( GEORGE HENGERLE Ori January 29, 1997, HENGERLE was interviewed by the reporting agent. The interview was conducted under oath at Yankee /.r.omic Energy Company (YAEC), S80 Main Street, Bolton, MA 01740. HENGERLE was represented during the interview by Jeremiah O'SULLIVAN, Attorney at Law, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Exchange Place, 53 State Street Boston, MA G2109 2691. 0'SULLIVAN's telephone number is (617) 248 5000. HENGERLE stated that O'SULLIVAN personally represented him >

during the interview and that he ,ias not under any pressure free YAEC management to have O'SULLIVAN represent him during the interview. HENGERLE -

provided the following information regarding an allegation that former Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant (W) employee James MASSEY was discriminated against because he had raised concerns with a design change for the VY Advanced Off Gas System (A0GS).

in He reside is e ne number is

'a r r and drivers license identificat or He served in the United States Navy from 1971 until 1077, and r is

/JD rece notable discharge with the rank

• ectronics Technic,'an II.

He graduated from Worcester Junior College in with an Associate in Applied Science in Hechunical Engineering. graducted free Central New England College of Technology in 19h? with a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. He graduated from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1992 with a Master of Business A &inistration. ;ie was hired by YAEC in 1984. He is

(. currently a Senior Instrumentation and Control (I&C) Engineer. Roger VIBERT, 7

Lead Electrical and I&C Engineer is his supervisor. (

HENGERLE said that VIBERT assigned him to work with W Engineer Pat McKEhNEY on an independent assessment of the VY A0GS design change. HENGERLE caid I their assignment was to objectively assess the design change project, with no preference on whether it should continue or not. He recalls that the assignment was to review the design and investigate the issues raised by - -

MASSEY, and determine whether the design ' -)oe and schedule should continue as -

it had originally been scheduled. HENT4 i said his assessment showed that the design should continue as scheduled, although some of MASSEY's issues were valid technical issues. He also felt that an effort should be made to iny stigate the drawing discrepancy problems in the W control room 9 50 panel and that the wiring verification should continue.

RegardingtheJune3,199a,assessmentreprt(attached)producedbyhimand -

McKENNEY, HENGERLE was axed whether the Schedule" recommendatiens were adopted. He stated that: .1 a coordinated effort between VY and YAEC was initiated: 2) he_is not sure if the drawing discrepancy resolution lias continued after the A0GS design change was delivered to Vf: 3) he believes that detailed Installation and Test (l&T) guidelines were done, this is basei on his experience that every time a design charge is proposed an I&T is produced; and 4) that an Engineering Change Notice' was not produced for the design change. Regarding the " Resource" recommendations. HENGERLE stated

, that: 1) although unsure, he does not believe that VY Hechanical Engineernx]

t Department personnel became involved in the project: 2) he believes that EXHIBIT -

M5ERO. 1-96-005' , p PAGE / OFdPAGE(S)

, m __--_-_

s r (U

ROUTHIER became the Fischbach contract engineer dedicated to the project, and

3) although unsure, he does not believe that a Fischbach conirect taechanical

_ engineer was assigned to the project. HENGERLE said that he did not know whether YAEC had applied the a ropriate resources necessary to complete the

>roject, and added that YAEC E ineer Lou CASEY never told him that he

)elieved that they had not appl ed' appropriate resources,.

On page 2 of the assessment report, it is written that, " Wiring p%1 ems within the ADG System exist. They are likely a rit operability issues identified by the scope team ef.pificant contributor to the ort." HENGERLE stated that because of the way in which the A0GS wiring was originalb installed, it became very difficult for VY to isolate a particular instrument in the system, without isolating the entire electrical loop. HENGERLE said that if plant operators de energized a portion of the system, it was not available for.

service, which left only one of the two A0GS trains available for operation.

He said that-was the operability 1stue which was mentioned in the assessment report.

l HENGERLE believes that it was MASSE 1's belief that a complete walk down of the-ADGS electrical wiring was required before proceedir.g with the design. He does not recall anyone else having that belief. HENGERLE believes that MASSEY bordered on having very little res)ect for CASEY's engineering ability, and

- that there was a general feeling t1at there was conflict between CASEY and MASSEY.

HENGERLE believes that the conflict was on'e of the reasons that t

caused the assessment to be perforined. He said that no one told him that MASSEY have w6s not doing his job on the project. HENGERLE opined that MASSEY may l

the gten too focused on the wiring discrepincies and ignored the rest of

~

design scope, to include the mechanical and non wiring related work.

HENGERLE based that on not finding any evidence that MASSEY focused on the mechanical portion of the project, and the fact that MASSEY did not discuss

- any part of the design other than the electrical wiring, nENGERLE said that MASSEY seemed to be involved in the electrical drawings and was " keyed" into the wiring discrepancies.

HENGERLE stated that MASSEY never told him or indicued to him that he had a nuclear safety concern with the design change or.the-fact that it was moving forward without first performing a e lete walk down of the entire A0GS electrical system. He said that if

.been documented in the assessment _ report.

SEY had stated a concern it would have Report  : i w if  ;

1 Jeffrey A. Teator, Special Agent Office of Irvestigations Field Office, Region I

Attachment:

As stated C. (4 Y Case No7 1 96 005  ?

EXHlBIT PAGE N _OFdPAGE(S) 6g