ML20197J276

Partially Deleted, Interview Rept of D Mcelwee, on 961217 Re Allegation That Former Plant Employee J Massey Was Discriminated Against Because He Had Raised Concerns W/Design Change for Plant Advanced Off Gas Sys

ML20197J276
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, 1-96-5, NUDOCS 9801020137
Download: ML20197J276 (6)

Text

---

-- - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

9 IKTERVIEW REPORT

f. e OF .

( DAVE McELWEE On December 17, 1996. McELWEE 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. McELWEE 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 McELWEE and VY during the interview. McELWEE stated that it was his choice to have HICKEY represent him, and he understood that HIGKEY might share with VY management information discussed during the interview. McELWEE stated that he was not under any pressure from VY management to have HICKEY represent him. McELWEE provided the following 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).

WEE was born on His r is ho, me O //  !

L b He resides a eldphone i drivers license i ntification number is is office ph r is (802) 258 4112. He graduated from Westminster College in ith a Bachelor of Science in Electronic Engineering Technology. He was hired by VY in October 1981. Since 1989 he has been an Engineer in the Operations Su) port Department, and is responsible for being the technical interface wit 1 the State of Vermont's Nuclear Engineer. Robert 9)JKA, VY Operations Support Manager, is his

{, supervisor.

McELWEE said that he was assigned by VY President Gary WIEGAND to be a member of an investigation team that was responsible for investigating allegations reported in the Brattjeboro Reformer newspaper that: 1) "the advanced offgas system has been allowed to deteriorate over the years and as a result the plant is discharging illegal amounts of radioactivity;" 2) "in order to save money plant mangers canceled a plan by the engineers to refurbish the system during the 1995 refueling;" and 3) "the engineers that spoke out against the canceling were punished and had a bad report inserted in their personnel file " McELWEE said that an immediate review of i;he allegations was performed by the VY Operations, Engineering, and Radiation Protection Departments to assess any potential safety concerns.

AGENT'S NOTE: VY's initial review found no evidence to subsuntiate that VY was discharging illegal amounts of radioactivity. Th investigation concluded that the three allegations were entTre y unfounded. An October 30 to November 3,1995, NRC inspection of VY's radio' active effluent control programs did not identify any violations of NRC requirements.

McELWEE was asked to provide the notes of the team interviews of MASSEY which would sup) ort the footnote on page six of the report (attached) which reads, "During tie interview with the Project Manager [:4ASSEY], he specifically told the Investigation Team that he did not have a safety concarn regarding the C A0GS and r.ever had." McELWEE was asked to review the typed notes of the g10 7 971223 HICKEY 97-36S PDR EXHlBIT b" M 0. 1-96-005 ,

PAGE / OFdPAGE(S) grSo t o ui s p - -

• l interview of MASSEY (attached), because the notes do not. support the statement in the footnote. -McELWEE said that he and the other two team members Michael

(. GOSEKAMP and C. Russell CLARK interviewed MASSEY, but the handwritten notes 0F MASSEY's interview were not maintained by the team members. McELWEE stated that, generally, all of the individuals interviewed during the investigation were asked the same questions, but that did not limit other questions that could be asked. He said that a written interview sumary was not generated for any of the interviews. He said that, altnough some of the typed notes of other interviews contain additional information other than the answers to the specific answers, he does not know why MASSEY's comments on not having a safety concern with the A0GS were not included on the typed notes.

AGENT'S NOTE: The interview questions do not include a question of whether the interviewee had a safety concern with the A0GS. To the cuestion, "Do you believe A0G is not working correctly? If so, why?"

>ASSEY replied, "No releases but went on to say 'there is a lot more than meets the eye to A0G.'"

McELWEE said that, based on the information provided by MASSEY, they concluded that MASSEY didn't have a personnel or plant safety issue with the A0GS.

4 Re c ed -

% W I! 4 )

frby '. Teator, Special Agent

(- Je Office of Investigations Field Office Region I attachments: as stated C,. Mu-Case No. 1 96 005 2 PAGE EXHI OF IT_b_ _PAGE

4 package was reviewed and Management decided to dedk.m addinottresources, two weeks and $100k, to estry out work during the J995 outage tim woJd prepare for pa age completion during the 1996 outage. The Department Mar,aget infonned the Project Manager of the decisions on January 25,1995. On January 31,1995, the Project Manager issued his comments on the decision to limit the scope of the AOGS project. The Department Manager again discussed expectations and deadlines concerning the use of the additional resources committed by management. On February 7,1995 the Department Manager met with the Project Manager to discuss some comments contained in the January 31,1995 memo on the decision to limit scope, t.that memo, the Project Manager had questioned the "safery" of the project, and he was asked specifically about his safety comment. As recorded by the Department Manager, the Project Manager explained that the comment referred to " job

< . saf,.ty, confidence in the oatcome.*' They also d;scussed the Project Managers presious statement that there was no way he could accomplish anything useful with the two weeks and

$100k allotted by management. At that time the Deartment Manager informed the Project Manager that he was removing him from the project.

The Project Manager received his performance review on February 17,1995. The overall rating was unsatisfactory and he was notified that termination was a possibility. The Project Manager formally responded to the performance review on April 27,1995 and requested an independent review by management. This review was completed on June 21,

( 1995 and upheld the original findings. The independent review results were accepted by senior management on July 24,1995.

Following the removal of the Project Manager from the project, another W Engineer assumed the role of Project Manager and completed wiring verifications, drawing revisions and correction of wiring errors during the outage. A summary of the wiring verification project was documen'ed in a memo, May 3,1995.

On August 17,1995 a memo was issued formally canceling EDCR 94-402. The projects originally captured in the EDCR would instead be completed as Minor Modifications and placed on the Major Projects Worklist for consideration during future outages 8

1n context, the InvesuFauon Teun interprets the Project Manager's,respoine to mean that he used ' safety

• to refer to either or both of the concepts (i) that initiatmg the undertalmg would;g cause an enlargement of the RFO schedule or (ii) that undertalmF the project arf meumnF its costs would not resuh a failure to achieve the benefits that had been expected. It is clear to the Team in context that the Project Manager was not referring to nuclear safety and it seems clear in context that the Project Manager was not refemog to worker safety. During the intersiew wi h the Project Manager, he specifically told the Imesti ation F Team that he did not have a safety concem regardmg the AOGS ard oeser had. Ordmarily, the invest 3Fation Team would have retnterviewed the Project Manager to remose any ambifuity m h s comment, but the point dd not seem to wanant such effort

( .s.

EXHIBIT d<

PAGE_dOF d PAGE(S)

. . - ._ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _. _ _ ._ _ _._ __. _ _. .._ _ _

ki -'

i ' y ' g,] ' &\yA MhSSCT 5 {kli;o 'J'UY O _7

+

Interview 20:  ;

The person interviewed indicated he had nothing to say to the Team whos his legal cooncil present.

. We went on and did get the response to some questions asked as f6110ws: f A

- 1.' Do you know there was a design change developed to modify / upgrade the AOG system?

~

.Yes J

i

2. What is your involvemem with the AOG system (operate, maintain, engineer)?

V Plant Engineer

s. . . . ,

3, - Do you believe AOG is not wr' king correctly? If so, why?

No releases but went on to say ' there is a lot more than meets the eye to AOG" 4, Do you belie.ve the design change should have been canceled? If so, why?

No response

(

5. Do you believe the design change was canceled for financial reasons?

4 No response

' 6. _ Was the basis of cancellation of EDCR adequatefy communicated? j No response 7.-- Do you know of any unreported releases of radioactivity?

4 No

8;- Ha've you gone to management in the past with'an issue and felt you were not given a ,

' reasonable response?

-(u A[ gj - tvh i-

_ Yes - th. .is issue g..N '1 t

- STfY1 hY )

E' - WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790

' EXHI IT PAGE - 0F[PAGE(S)

t

. e ,

.I c ,

9. - - Do you feel comfortable going to management with a concern?

Yes r

4

10. - Do you know there is a Safety Suggestion Program at Vermont Yankee?

No response i 1. . Do you know you can go to the NRC with concerns? '

-i Yes but why would I need to - I have a chain of command

12. Do you feel threatened going to management with a safety concern?

No - feels he's being punished by management for being honest - O id

~

QWT n

(

1 s w .).

1 WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PER 10CFR 2.790 --

EXHlBIT O PAGE 5 ors PAGE(S)

1 c

e c

EXHIBIT 6

..w . . . ..:.4 s eaf 0 .vas de.:.ed

- m accordance with the Freedom of luformation Act, exempti]ns T C.

F0lA 4'1 4 5 l Case No. 1 96 005 Exhibit 6

_ _ -