ML20197J361

Partially Deleted, Interview Rept of B Wittmer, on 961217 Re Allegation That Former Plant Employee J Massey Was Discriminated Against Because He Raised Concerns About Design Change for Plant Advanced Off Gas Sys

ML20197J361
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	12/17/1996
From:	Teator J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197H509	List: ML20197H506 ML20197J270 ML20197J276 ML20197J295 ML20197J310 ML20197J351 ML20197J361 ML20197J369 ML20197J376
References
FOIA-97-365 1-96-005, 1-96-005-04, 1-96-5, 1-96-5-4, NUDOCS 9801020154
Download: ML20197J361 (5)

Text

--______

w INTERVIEW REPORT t 0F BILL WITTMER On December 17, 1996, WITTHER was interviewed by the reporting agent. The interview was conducted under oath in Conference Room C, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant (VY), Training Center Brattleboro, VT. WITTHER 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 office telephone number is (202) 663 8103. HICKEY stated that he represented WJTTHER and VY during the interview. WITTHER stated that it was his choice to have HICKEY represent him, and he understood that HICKEY might share with VY management information discussed during the interview. WITTMER stated that he was not under any pressure from VY management to have HICKEY represent him. WITTMER provided the followir.g 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).

rn on Mynuinberis /

j,W" pr His home telephone '

['

a ber i His office tel r is-(802) 258 5662. His rivers license identifica - number i He graduated from olorado State University in with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering. He was hired by VY in August 1974. He has been the Maintenance Production Supervisor since January 1995. From early 1990 until January 1995

(, he was an engineer in the corptrate Engineering Support Group. He did not have any direct involvement in the A0GS design char.ge that was scheduled to be implemented during the 1995 outage.

WITTHER stated that he has known MASSEY for close to twenty years on a professional and personal level. He said that MASSEY has been a friend, peer and subordindte of his. He stated that MASSEY worked for him from 1982 to 1984 while he (WITTMER) was the Maintenance and Construction Superintendent.

He also supervised MASSEY from 1987 to 1990 while he (WITTHER) was the Construction Superintendent. He described MASSEY as a gcod, strong, dedicated, and above average employee. He never knew MASSEY to shirk his job responsibilities. He also said that MASSEY was not the type of employee who would keep quiet if he felt sorrething was wror.g on a job.

WITTNER stated that he was not involved in the installation of the A0GS in 1973, although he has performed work on the A0GS occasionally, begipning in the ear.ly q $0s when a minor design cl.ange was made to it.

2g AGENT'S NOTE: VY employee David PHILLIPS infonned the reporting agent that WITTHER installed the VY AOCS.

WITTHER said that he has a pretty good familiarity with how the A0GS works, but does not consider himself to be the VY eaployee who is must knowledgeable about the system. He said that VY Operations Department Planning Coordinator, Eugene VAN B0WMAN, is another ertployee who has knowledge of the system.

WITTMER stated that MASSEY is very knowledgeable of the A0GS control wiring C. .irawings (CWDs) and schematics, but is not nearly as knowledgeable of the EXHIBIT $

CASEND. 1-96-005- ,

PAGE / OF_N PAGE(S) 9001020154 971223 g D C

[ N365 _PDR

e la overail operation of the A0GS. WITTHER added that when he supervised MASSEY in the early 1980s, MASSEY was assigned to work on an A033 design change, and they both recognized,_ at that time, that there were problems with the wiring.

C From his perspective, the VY control room operators understood how to operate the A0GS, but the design was not as good as the other systems in the plant, He commented that he is not surprised by the problems that MASSEY discovered on the A0GS Recombiner Condenser (Recombiner) during the 1994 design change project, but added that if he went through each plant system he would find that the CWDs would not match with the actual installed wiring.

WITTHER said that while he was assig'ned to the Engineering Support Group, part of his duties involved work at the plant [VY), and when he was working at the plant he shared a tra'ier with MASSEY. During his (WITTMER's) time at the plant, MASSEY consulted with him on the A0GS design change. Specifically, he performed reviews of the ".ecombiner Condenser circuitry, design specifications and the updated CWDs provided by CASEY, Based on that review, and the feedback he received from plant electr' ians, he found some inconsistencies between how the original specifications said the system should work, compared to the schematic diagrams. WITTHER said that MASSEY gave the plant electricians the Recoutbiner schematics and asked them to do a wire by wire, point by point review of how the system was actually wired in the olant, and found that the system was not operating as it was designed. WITTMER said that could cause difficulty in the control room when the control room operators fli) ped a switch, as they may not have gotten the action that was desired, altlough the recombiner system still would aerform its intended function.

WITTMER recalls that during discussions witi MASSEY MASSEY ap> eared to be very uncomfortable about how the Recombiner system was wired, )ut MASSEY never told him that he believed it was a perso.inel health or plant safety problem.

( WITTMER felt that the problems with the Recombiner did not constitute personnel or plant safety problems, but could cause problems in the performance of maintenance on the system.

WITTHER said that he agreed with MASSEY that the A0GS drawings were not correct, based on MAS $EY showing him pieces of the updated drawings that were incorrect. When he was in the trailer, he witnessed MASSEY reviewing the CWDs, including the criginals, and those produced by CASEY. He recalls MASSEY commerting that he was very dissatisfied with the quality of CASEY's CWDs because he found many errors in them, which he (MASSEY) believed CASEY should have caught before providing them to him (MASSEY) for his review. WITTMER recalls that early in the project, MASSEY complained about the focus of the project, in that MASSEY felt that they needed to check the entire wiring of the A0GS before implementing the design change. WITTHER said that, based oa what he reviewed on the Recombiner, if the wiring wasn't checked before implementation of the design change, it would only fix the symptoms, and not the cause of the problems with the A0GS.

WITTMER was then asked to verify whether he witnested a conversation that allegedly took place between MASSEY and MASSEY's supervisor, Pat CORBETT.

AGENT'S NOTE: According to MASSEY, CORBETT told him in January 1995 to take the design to the VY PORC and NASSEY told CORBETT that he didn't have the marked up prints yet. CORBETT again told him to bring the

( Case No. 1 96 005 2 EXH BIT $

PAGEt OF M PAGE(S)

a design to PORC, and MASSEY refused because the prints weren't narked up yet. CORBETT told him again to bring it to PORC, stating "take it to

-( PORC, no one looks at the >rints anyway,' MASSEY still refused to do "

it, and CORf,ETT told him tiat-they had to be " politically correct _ and bring it to PORC. HASSEY told CORBETT all he wanted to do was be correct, WITTHER confirmed that he was 3 resent for that conversation and that CORBETT made those statements, althoug1 he cannot recall CORBETT's exact words.

WITTHER also recalls CORBETT stating to NASSEY thtt they had to be "pelitically correct," in the context that CORBETT- was very concerned about meeting the project schedule. WITTHER also recalls that, at that time, MASSEY had many written sages of concerns and problems that he had identified with the A0GS design clange.

AGENTS NOTE: MASSEY also alleged that WITTHER told him in July 1994 that VY was out to get MASSEY.

WITTMER confirmed that he did tell MASSEY that, based on his perception of what was going on betwee1 MASSEY and his supervisory chain [CORBETT), in that MASSEY was not getting the hela that he needed to be successful on the A0GS

)roject. WITTHER opined that 4ASSEY's supervision could have supported 4ASSEY, and the design effort, much stronger than they did. WITTHER felt that, if the support and resources could not be provided because it was required on other projects, that information was not adequately communicated to MASSEY.

WITTIER was then asked to comment on MSSEY's rel.:tionshi) with VY Vice

( President of Engineering Jim PELLETIER. WITTHER stated tlat he was not sure of the cause of the problems that existed between them, but the relationship starting deteriorating in the mid 1980s. ' TTHER. stated that PELLETIER wanted conformity, and in his management style PELLETIER expected every engineer to te able to perform the same whether the engineer fit that management style or not.

He recalls that PELLETIER criticized his supervision of MASSEY.' WITTHER said

- that MASSEY was not a degreed engineer, that MASSEY was from "the old school."

unorthodox, but with a wealth of knowledge. He said that PELLETIER preferred that MASSEY perform his job duties in a more orthodox manner, but that he (WITTHER) gave MASSEY more latitude on goals and procedural compliance, when PELLETIER did not want that type of latitude given to any employee. WITTHER said that his strongest disagreements with PELLETIER. over his supervision of loyees, occurred as a result of his supervision of MASSEY. He said that emblF PE MR questioned MASSEY's viability to the com>any several times during the 1980s. WITTMER said that he was removed from lis position in 1990 because his management style ccriflicted with PELLETIER. He added that MASSEY is a purist who wants things to be correct and right, but that MASSEY is also reasonable if you go through an issue and explain it to him. He said that HASSEY did not raise any-nuclear safety issues that he and MASSEY were not able to resolve between them, specifically during the time that he supervised MASSEY.

( .

Case No. 1 96-005 3 EXH BIT N PAGE , - CF M PAGE(S)

J. 4 e at 44 ,

- - u- - - 4 4+-

1 e'

WITTMER said that MASSEY's and Engineering Director Bernie BUTEAU's

' relationship was " rocky' right from the beginning of BUTEAU's supervision of

{ MASSEY in late 1989 or early 1990.- He said that, as a result of the 1991 VY.

reorganization, BUfEAU was named the Nuclear Engineering Director. WITTMER to take PELLETIER's direction and implement described BtJTEAU as "very willing'TMER it down the management chain. WIT said that BUTEAU. and MASSEY's direct-supervisor, Pat CORBETT, had the same management style as PELLETIER.

WITTMER does not believe that VY management took disciplinary action against MASSEY because he pursued his concerns with the A0GS design change, but took the action because of the way in which MASSEY pursued his concerns. He said that MASSEY: 1) is bull headed: 2) did not beat to the same drum as VY management wanted him to; and 3) was going to do the job the way he felt it needed to be done, rather than working as a team with others assigned to the project. WITTMER feels that MASSEY, and those who disagreed with him on the A0GS design, were both talking, but neither side was listening to what the other was saying. He felt that VY management was telling MASSEY to do the

-design their way, when MASSEY warted to do it his way. WITTHER added that there was a lot of miscomunication by both sides, but that MASSEY did not

" tow the party line" as i.o how they wanted to do business.

WITTMER said that he participated in the independent review team review of MASSEY's 1995 job perfore nce evaluation. He believes that he was ) laced on the team at MASSEY's request. He said that the review team found tlat both sides failed to-communicate, and they were not happy with the way in which l either side acted on the pr4 ject. although they found that the evaluation that l MASSEY received was justified. He said that MASSEY was unhappy with the result of the review, because MASSEY was looking for a more technical review

( that MASSEY hoped would confirm that what he had said about the A0GS was correct. WITTMER said that he was not put under any pressure to conclude that MASSEY's evaluation was justified, and agreed ' wholeheartedly" with the assessneent and its conclusion.

Reported p&x -

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

$W

C Case No. 1 96 005 4 EXHIBIT l _

PAGE Y OF_ N PAGE(S)

. -s , 4.

~D c

t d

EXHIBIT 22 1

3 infer n :.:a o in cc

., ..a,,- _

aa:r., :n :he itu;m of i.,;ct,nai on \}

Act. cxe.npJ:ns '70 FolA. Y7-3 6 5 CaseNo. 1 96 005 Er.h1 bit 22

--_:-_-__:_ . _ _ _ _ _ .