ML20199D062

Partially Deleted Interview Rept of P Mckenney, on 961218 Re Allegation That Former Plant Employee J Massey Was Discriminated Against Because of Raised Concerns W/Design Change for Plant Advanced Off Gas Sys

ML20199D062
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	12/18/1996
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 9801300131
Download: ML20199D062 (4)

Text

.

c c EXHIBIT 35 l

$g130 1 980128

)

HICKEY 97-365

(

PDR

, .4 ,

, , t .,. , 3 , ,

H r . .' : . . . .: . :he i.ew; a g :n;ctm3 Son Act, exe.rl! ss . _

f.01A _ Y7-NJ Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 35 c, p I c, o'N 7) )

t INTERVIEW REPORT OF C PATRICK McKENNEY On December 18, 1996, McKENNEY was interviewed by the reporting agent. The interview was conducted under oath at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant (VY), Energy Information Center, Governor Hunt House, Vernon, VT. McKENNEY was represented during the interview by J. Patrick HICKEi, Esquire, Shaw, Pitman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 1128.

HICKEY's office telephone ne ber is (202) 663 8103, HICKEY stated that he represented McKENNEY and VY during the interview. McKENNEY stated that it was his choice to have HICKEY represent him, and he understood that HICKEY might shcre with VY management infomation discussed during the interview. McKENNEY stated that he was not under any pressure from VY management to have HICKEY represent himr McKENNEY provided the following infomation regarding an allegation that former VY employee James HASSEY was discriminated against because he had raised concerns with a design change for th: VY Advanced Off Gas System (A0GS).

y s His home te ephone n r ra rom he es a nster Institute of Technology, oston, ,

ith a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering. He was hired by January 1985. He is currently a Lead Electrici.! Engineer in the Performance Engineering Department. Dennis LEGERE has been his supervisor s/nce OctWr 1996. From January 1994 until January 1996, his supervisor was Pat CORBETT, which includes the time neriod that he worked on the A0GS.

McKENNEY stated that, on or about May 25, 1994, CORBETT assigned him and George HENGERLE to perform an independent review of the status of the design change, focusing on whether it should proceed in light of concerns that KSSSEY had raised with the project. He recalls that CORBETT asked him if he w:mid have a >roblem performing the assignment because he and NASSEY were peers. He- - ,

told CORBETT, "no." McKENNEY stated that he was not given any instructions on _

how to perform the review, other than those described in the May 25, 1994, memorandum (attached) from CORBETT. After completing that review, he did not have any further technical involvement in the ADGS design change.

McKENNEY stated that, as documented in the June 3, 1994, memorand a (attached), the review concluded that the A0GS Modification Project could be completed and safely implemented during the 1995 refuel outage if their _

recommendations were addressed. McKENNEY said that the review was perfomed because MASSEY was implying that the problems with the control wire drawings (CWDs) were so severe that the design change couldn't be easily im

• during the outage, without possibly extending the outage's length.plemented - ~ He added that NASSEY felt that a complete walk down of the A0GS was required before the design could proceed, but he -is not aware of anyone else having that concern or belief, and as concluded in his and HENGERLE's review, the project could continue.

McKENNEY said that NASSEY had a " hands off" attitude regarding the design C change, which left Vi contractor Rick R0lfTHIER to perform most of the EXHlBIT b a3tE. 1-96-005' y;; PAGE / OF /k PAGE(S)

fieldwork, however. P.0! miler felt that the project could be completed during the outage.

McKENNEY said that the design change focused on the A0GS instrumentation, which is a less significant part of the system than the control side, although a few of the modifications were on the 9 50 control room panel. McKENNEY said '

that the 75 discrepancies that MASSEY found on the 9 50 control room panel were being addressed and inspected by ROUTHIER in June 1994, but that certain

)ortions could not be inspected-during plant operations. McKENNEY said that t00THIER reported to him during the March 1995 outage, and during the outage ROUTHIER rformed: 1) an "as built" re/iew of the panel and the corres ing Clos: 2) a walk down of the panel: and 3) closed out the 9 50 contro room panel discrepancies which had not been addressed. McKENNEY said that ROUTHIER found only two wiring errors while completing all of that work, and that ROUTHIER completed it in about 2 days, as opposed to the massive effort that SSSEY felt was needed.

McKENNEY said that through his review he found that MASSEY: 1) was not being very cooperative in working with Yankee Atomic Energy Company (YAEC) Engineer Lou CASEY: 2) had little respect for CASEY: and 3) and did not have a very I

working relationship with CASEY. Md(ENNEY said that hu recommended that l

Y spend more time at VY working with MASSEY, who he feit was not being a team player by virtue of putting ROUTHIER (a contractor) in a position where ROUTHIER was dealing directly with CASEY, instead of MASSEY dealing with l

CASEY. McKENNEY believes that MASSEY " shirked" his responsibility on the l

i project and did not give it his best effort because MASSEY did not involve himself in the day to day review of CWDs. He said that MASSEY saw that-(. ROUTHIER found 74 discrepancies in the CWDs, and MASSEY used that as a validation of his concerns with the CWDs of the whole A0GS system. McKENNEY said that finding those types of probles.s is not uncommon in 3 *non. safety" system. He added that NASSEY saw the drawing discrepancies as a chance to act in an overview position for a complete review of the A0GS. instead of

" buckling down" and working to get the design change campleted. McKENNEY believes that NASSEY's removal from the project was justified because NASSEY's eversight of the project caused VY to waste money and resources. McKENNEY still believes that the design change could have been implemented as scheduled during the March 1995 outage.

Regarding NASSEY's relationshi) with VY Vice President of Engineering Jim PELLETIER, he opined that 4ASSEY didn't like PELLETIER, because ne heard MASSEY say negative things about PELLETIER over the years, although he never saw a verbal exchange between them. He is not aware of any infonnation which leads him to believe that PELLETIER and the Engineering Director, Bernie BUTEAU, were out to get rid of MASSEY. McKENNEY opined that, based on what he knew, MASSEY was not discriminated against because of his position on the A0GS design change. He believes that the actions that VY management took against MASSEY were based on NASSEY's poor job performance.

MdCENNEY stated that, during his discussions with MASSEY. MASSEY did not state that he had a safety concern with the A0GS. - He said that MASSEY did have a concern with the design change tively impactin' g the length of the outage.

He said that the culmination of 'SEY's fears would have been that the

(

Case No. 1 96 005 2 EXHIBIT M PAGE_Q2 OFM PAGE(S)

/

problems with the CWDs would hold up the plant and extend the outage.

Regarding his January 11, 1996, memorandum (attached) to David McELWEE and i

Michael GO5EKAMP, McKENNEY stated that during VY's investigation of the

allegations that speared in the Brattleboro Reformer newspaper, he was asked

' by McELWEE if MASSEY's concerns with the ADGS had been addressed. McKENNEY stated that NASSEY's concerns were addressed and corrected by R0lmilER during the 1995 outage, as documented in ROUTHIER's May 3, 1995, memorandum (attached).

McKENNEY reviewed the notes of his interview by the VY independent investigation team (attached). He stated that the notes (yes and no answers) are an accurate representation of what he told the interviewers, but that he may have provided them with more information than what is indicated on the notes. He said that his response of, 'Yes was not ready to 90 " to question No. 4, "Do you believe the design change should have been canceled? If so, why?" was made because, at that time, the design was not ready to go and should have been canceled.

Regarding the VY gate house issue, McKENNEY stated that he did not hear any VY manager state anything negative about MASSEY regarding the information that MASSEY provided to the plaintiff's attorney. He added that he is not aware of the results of the litigation between VY and the contractor hired to build the gate house, other than he knew that VY had reached a settlement with the contractor.

AGINT'S NOTE: MASSEY, alleged that the information that he provided to

(- the contractor caused VY to lose the suit-filed by the contractor, and that his involvement in that issue caused the beginning of his problems-with VY management.

f [ ,

y b)-

Jeffred A;.ITeatcr, Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Of*1co, Region I Attachments:

-As stated

' $l

. (- Case No.- 1 96 005 3 EXHBIT N PAGE $ OFd$ PAGE(S)