ML20154C729

Requests Dept of Labor Rept & Related Matls Re Alleged Discrimination Against R Parks.Extension of 30 Days After Matls Received Requested to Respond to 850812 Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

ML20154C729
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/09/1985
From:	Phyllis Clark GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20151K348	List: ML20151K343 ML20154C632 ML20154C656 ML20154C698 ML20154C729
References
FOIA-85-700, RTR-NUREG-0680, RTR-NUREG-680 4410-85-L-0190, 4410-85-L-190, NUDOCS 8603050304
Download: ML20154C729 (4)

Text

.c  ?

a~. 6

(

f a s, -

,P g GPU Nuclear Corporation UCEMI lo0 interpace Parkway Pars,ppany. New Jersey o 7054 1141 (201)263-6500 TELEX 136-482 Writer s Direct Dial Number' September 9,1985 4410-85-L-0190

~

Office of Inspection & Enforcement Attn: James M. Taylor, Director ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 7055S Re: Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, Dated August 12, 1985

( Alleged Discrimination Against Richard D. Parks)

Dear Sir:

We have reviewed the referenced Notice of Violation

("NOV"). We have noted that the NOV refers to an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations ("01") and to an investigation by the Department of Labor (" DOL"). It also refers to a list of the reports of the 01 investigations in NUREG-0680, Supplement 5; the latter refers to 01 Report H-83-002 as the 01 Report relevant to the subject NOV.

We have also reviewed the letter, dated May 18, 1984, of the Director of OI to the Commissioners forwarcing 01 Report of .

Investigation H-83-002 and what appears to be a copy of that 01 Report of Investigation. There are attached as Appendices 1 and 2 respectively, the only portions of those documents (as distinguished from the Exhibits to the 01 Report) which relate to Mr. Parks. The 01 Report refers to a report by a DOL compliance officer and states that that report and its attachments are annexed as Exhibit 102 to e the 01 Report. There is annexed as Appendix 3 to this letter the redacted version of Exhibit 102 (without its attachments) which we

{@

, received with the 01 Report. Unless there are additional materials )

l n

related to that O! Report which we do not have, it would appear that 1 o 01 did not make an independent investigation of Parks' complaint.

Q This appears to be confirmed by the statement at page 12 of the 01 g Report that:

n u.co 8Q "The scope of the 00L investigation of PARKS' I ore complaint, which found for PARKS, was deemed

$@2 sufficient for NRC purposes and is included in this report for regulatory and enforcement consideration." ,

GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Pubhc Unhties Corporation y j

, ' l

. ~

! We recently received another redacted version of Exhibit 102 to the 01 Report, a copy of which is annexed as Appendix 4. While that second redacted version includes some additional material that was not contained in the first redacted version, it is still not complete. That second redacted version of the DOL report sets forth conflicting accounts of events relating to Parks which transpired in February and March 1983. In many instances the identity of the individual to whom statements are attributed (or even of his employer) is not set forth. Moreover, that second redacted version does not set forth with any clarity which accounts the DOL compliance officer believed or what cofroborative or conflicting evidence was available to him. The final three pages, which presumably reflect the conclusions and reconmendations of the DOL compliance officer, are omitted from both the first and second redacted versions. Consequently, we respectfully suggest that the two redacted versions of the D0L compliance officer's report do not substantiate the violations charged in the NOV.

In the discussion of this matter in NUREG-0680, Supple-ment No. 5, it would appear that the conclusions reached are largely based on the 00L report. At page 10-5 of Supplement 5, there appear ,

quotations from pages 11 and 13 of the DOL report which, as noted above, are missing from the two redacted versions of the DOL report. We are unable to put those quotations in context or to ascertain their factual predicate.

The 01 Report states (at page 77) that Parks and Bechtel reached an agreement regarding Parks' 00L complaint and that Parks withdrew his complaint and DOL dismissed the matter. This would appear to undennine whatever probative force the DOL report may have had. In other words, the NOV appears to be predicated on the assumption that the DOL had established the accuracy and completeness of the charges made by Parks, whereas the dismissal of ,

the DOL proceeding would indicate that it did not resul t in an adjudication and that any conclusions reached in that proceeding have no binding and possibly no evidentiary effect.

Against this background, we are not in a position either to affirm or deny the violation alleged in the NOV. We, therefore, request that a complete copy of the DOL report (and, if there are other material s not identified above upon which the NOV is predicated, a copy of such materials) be made available to us and 4

3 that we be granted an extension of time for good cause to respond to the NOV as required by 10 CRF 2.201 and to file an answer to the proposed penalty as provided in 10 CRF 2.205 to a date thirty days after those materials are made available to us.

i Very truly yours, ff.

^

P. R... Clark l

i mak 0556 cc: E.Blake, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge i H.W.Wahl, Bechtel Power Corporation 4

Enclosure i

1 I

i i

1 0

9

September 9, 1985 4410-85-L-0190 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty 4 Dated August 12, 1985 Appendix 1 to GPU Nuclear Letter to NRC, dated September 9,1985:

NRC memorandum from Ben. B. Hayes, Di rector, Office of Investigation to Chairman Palladino, et.al, dated May 18, 1984;

, subject: THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 2,

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DISCRIMINATION FOR RAISING SAFETY RELATED I -

CONCERNS (H-83-002).

i 556/4 i

J s

i l

l i

I e

1

. ', l l

1

/ 'o, UNITED STATES

$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGToN, D. C. 2C515

\..../ May 18, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chaiman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal .

FROM: B n B. Hayes, Director fice of Investigations

SUBJECT:

THREE MILE ISLAND NGS, UNIT 2 ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DISCRIMINATION FOR RAISING SAFETY RELATED CONCERNS (H-83-002)

~

Enclosed is the Report of Investigation on this subject. The O! investigation concerned allegations mede by the fomer Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2)

Plant Enoineering Director, Mr. Edwin H. Gischel; the fomer THI-2 Site Operations Director, Mr. Lawrence P. King; and a former Bechtel start-up and test engineer working at THI-2, Mr. Richard D. Parks. ".his report closes 01's investigation of this matter. ,,

-The investigation established that Corporate Stress Control Inc. (Stress Control), a contractor to General Public Utilities Nuclear (GPUN) provided GPUN Mr. confidential medical information furnished to the clinic psychologists by Gischel.

Stress Control notified GPUN of both Mr. Gischel's medical condition and neuropsychologicaltheirexamination.

opinion that Mr. Gischel should be required to und6rgo a Stress Control claimed this action was justified because Mr. Gischel implicitly waived his confidential status by seeking to have GPUN pay for the neuropsychological exam. The examination was required by Stress Control since their concerns regarding Mr. Gischel's post-stroke physical condition and his emotional reaction to that physical condition had called into question his ability to maintain unescorted access to the facility.

This was ostensibly done to meet the security requirements for " unescorted access" to the facility. However, the investigation revealed that no such exigency existed. Further, testimony furnished by the two physicians irdicated Mr. Gischel's medical condition was of a physical nature (stroke) rather than psychological. As stated above, Stress Control notified GPUN without attempting to either contact or to seek Mr. Gischel's permission to discuss his medical issues with the company.

The fomer GPUN President, Mr. Robert C. Arnold and General Public Utilities Corporation (GPU) Chaiman, Mr. William Kuhns upon the recomendation of Stress Control also required Mr. Gischel to take the neuropsychological examination in order to determine if the stroke-imposed, conditions affected v UrM3 -

Gischel's ability to perform his assigned duties. Arnold added that.the r r& 'ssue was not one regarding any " apparent abberant behavior." Coincidentally, N N this did not become a requirement until after Mr. Gischel raised safety issues concerning the THI-2 recovery program. This employment requirement was oursued .

- .- .. .- _- .- = -- ... -_ -- . . _ _ _ --

I i

Comission '2 May 18, 1984

' despite the fact that Mr. Gischel's supervisors did not consider that his physical impairments seriously affected his work performance. The examination ;!

requirement was also in conflict with the medical opinions furnished by both i

Mr. Gischel's personal physician and a GPUN contract physician. Both doctors i

- examined Mr. Gischel and concluded that he was fit to perform his assigned duties at THI-2. The neuropsychological examination issue was never resolved

• since Mr. Gischel accepted another position within GPU. Mr. Gischel was also told by Mr. Arnold that his attendance'and possible testimony at an upcoming congressional hear.ing could negatively affect his TMI-2 relationships.

1 i

The investigative evidence on this matter disclosed:  !

(1) Stress Control did not keep Mr. Gischel's post-stroke medical  !

condition confidential, or stand by the original agreement to have 1

Mr. Gischel submit voluntarily to the examination.  !

(2) Testimony from supervisors and two physicians described Mrl Gischel as being able to perform his duties satisfactorily.

I (3) The requirements to take the neurophychological examination appears i

to be more in response to something other than plant safety concerns ,

.and coincidentally follows Mr. Gischel's raising safety issues concerning the TMI-2 recovery program.

The investigation also revealed that the former TMI-2 Site Operations Director, Mr. King, was suspended without pay and eventually terminated by t Mr. Arnold for not,infoming GPUN of his association with an engineering consulting firm, and the fact that this fim had hired GPUN employees.. The i termination came after Mr. King raised safety concerns regarding the TMI-2 i recovery program. In addition, the termination action was the result of inquiries into Mr. King's outside business affiliations by Mr. Thiesing. Mr.  !

Thiesing, Manager of Recovery Programs, was the individual in charge of the i program that was the subject of Mr. King's safety concerns. I i

Mr. Arnold predicated the suspension and termination action against Mr. King i

on the information described above. Although this action may have been l'

. appropriate based on information developed during an internal investigation initiated after Mr. King's temination, the evidence of alleged impropriety which was known at the time of the termination was not irrefutable. Mr.

Arnold's suspension of King became immediately effective even though Mr. King could have been confronted on this matter in a scheduled meeting the next day with GPUN Executive Vice President Philip Clark.

This investigation disclosed that the outside affiliation with the consulting firm was not in conflict with any written GPUN policy or GPUN's Conflict of Interest Statement. Interviews also disclosed that there was no evidence of

• Mr. King utilizing his GPUN position to proselytise GPUN employees. Infoma-j tion obtained from former GPUN employees hired by Mr. King's consulting firm revealed that they were not solicited and had voluntarily sought employment with the firm. -

i -

. i l

Commission 3 May 18, 1984 On the other hand, information obtained during the course of the investigation did reveal that the subsequent GPUN internal investigation discovered that Mr.

King had directed two GPUN employees, to conduct business for the consulting firm. These individuals took leave from their GPUN duties, and did in fact provide consulting services at the request of Mr. King. As stated above, this information only became available after Mr. King's termination.

'The Bechtel start-up and test engineer, -Mr. Parks, alleged that he was dis-criminated against by Bechtel for raising safety concerns on the TMI-2 Recovery Program. This allegation was investigated by the Department of Labor

~ (DOL) pursuant to a complaint filed by Mr. Parks. Labor's investigation substantiated the allegation. An agreement was reached during the recon-ciliation process between the company and Mr. Parks that resulted in Park's

' reinstatement elsewhere in the company. The 00L Report of Investigation on this matter is submitted as an exhibit to this report.

i i The DOL Report on the Park's matter (exhibit 102) as well as the DOL Report on the King allegation (exhibit 85) are included in this Report of Investigation and cannot be released outside the NRC without DOL permission.

Neither this memorandum nor report may be released outside the NRC without the permission of the Director. 01.

be on a need and right-to-know basis.Internal NRC access and dissemination should

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ encl:

W. J. Dircks, EDO (3 copies)

7. E. Murley, RI -

R. K. Christopher, 01:RI I

1 l

1

. i September 9,1985 4410-85-L-0190 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Dated August 12, 1985

~

Appendix 2 to GPU Nuclear Letter to NRC, dated September 9,1985:

Pages, 9,10,11,12, 77 and 78 of NRC 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT OF, INVESTIGATION H-83-002, dated May 18,1984;

Title:

Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, Allegations Regarding Discriminatory Acts For Raising Safety Concerns On Safety Related Modification, Quality Assurance Procedures And Use Of Polar Crane.

I 556/5 j .

4 l

i

'l t

I s t suspended Mr. KING without pay because Mr. KING admitted to an association with an outside engineering firm and acknowledged that the firm employed

{ former GPUN employees. Mr. ARNOLD suspended Mr. KING, even though he did not l condone Mr. THIESING's action in this matter, because, if in fact Mr. KING was i

involved in recruiting GPUN employees, this represented a serious breach of Mr. KING's responsibility to GPUN.

Mr. ARN0LD did not consider it viable to

, personally consult with Mr. KING about his version of involvement with Quiltec j

for Mr. ARNOLD was in Parsippany, New Jersey at the time. Mr. ARNOLD was

aware that Mr. Philip R. CLARK, GPUN Executive Vice President was to meet with Mr. KING at TMI-2 the following day.

Mr. ARNOLD stated that he was not concerned with the specific role that Mr.

! KING had in recruiting the former GPUN employees. Mr. ARNOLD stated that Mr.

i KING's March 23 termination was due to Mr. KING's failure to report t'o GPUN

' his association with Quiltec and Quiltec employment of former GPUN employees.

Mr. Arnold stated the termination was based on Mr. KING's responsibility to protect and enhance GPUN resources and Mr. KING's unwillingness or failure to j j

recognize that his association with Quiltec created a conflict with this i f \ responsibility. Mr. ARNOLD acknowledged that there was no written policy or l

regulation that required Mr. KING's disclosure of Quiltee but felt that Mr.

KING's position as Site Operations Director required the promotion of GPUN resources, thus making such disclosure necessary. ~

Mr. KING was terminated on March 23, 1983. A GPUN investigation into, among others, Mr. KING's Quiltec activities, was initiated on Mirch 25, 1983.

j Start-up and Test Engineer l

Mr. Richard D. PARKS, fonner start-up and test engineer for Bechtel North '

Anerican Power Corporation at TMI-2, submitted a March 21, 1983 affidavit and 4

subsequent statements to NRC, alleging that he was discriminated against by Bechtel for raising safety concerns on the polar crane refurbishment program.

Mr. PARKS also submitted a complaint, with accompanying affidavits, to the Department of Labor, alleging discrimination for engaging in protected activ-

) ities on the polar crane.

d

t 6 i . . ,

1 Labor's investigation of Mr. PARKS' complaint found that Bechtel had discrim-insted against Mr. PARKS. Pursuant to the NRC and Department of Labor Memorandum of Understanding, the 00L Report of Investigation was reviewed by

, O! and is being submitted for NP.C regulatory and enforcement consideration on I

\

the PARKS' allegation.

0 6

l W

6 1

r APPLICA8LE REGULATIONS

) -

l Investigation Regarding the Allegations of Harassment and Intimidation for j

i Raising Safety Concerns on the Polar Crane Refurbishment Program raised by Messrs. GISCHEL, KING, and PARKS.

1 -

1 Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations:

Part 50.7 Employee Protection i

(a) Discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an appli-cant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcon- ,

tractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an  !

employee for engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited.

Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to i compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The protected activities are established in section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under '

the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act.

l

! (d) . Actions taken by an employer, or others, which adversely affect "

i an employee may b.e predicated upon nondiscriminatory grounds. The j s prohibition applies when the adverse action occurs because the

employee has engaged in protected activities. An employee's engage-i ment in protected activities does not automatically render him or 3 her issnune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons or

from adverse action dictated by nonprohibited considerations. -

i I

Part 50, Appendix 8--Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power j Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants i 1

1.

1 Organization . . . The persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and t organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions. t

Such persons and organizations perfonning quality i assurance functions shall report to a management level such that

< this required authority and organizational freedom, including

sufficient independence from cost and schedule when opposed to ,

j safety considerations, are provided . . . Irrespective of the  !

i organizational structure, the individual (s) assigned the respon-

! sibility for assuring effective execution of any portion of the

! quality assurance program at any location where activities subject to this appendix are being perfonned shall have direct access to i such levels of management as may be necessary to perform this function.

J l

l l 1 l

. DETAILS On September 1,1983, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) issued a pending Report of Investigation for this investigation. That report dealt with alle-gations concerning the noncompliance of technical procedures, administrative controls and management failures in the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 recovery program.

The September report mentioned. the pending investigation of allega-tions by Messrs. GISCHEL, KING and PARKS concerning GPU Nuclear and Bechtel

. management reprisals against them for raising these safety and management con-cerns. This report details the investigative findings concerning those alle-gations of reprisal.

l Messrs. KING and PARKS filed complaints with the Department of Labor's ,(DOL)

Wage and Hour Division alleging the management's reprisals were in violation of Department of Labor and NRC laws and regulations. Pursuant to NRC and Depart-ment of Labor's Memorandum of Understanding, the Office of Investig:tions re-viewed the Wage and Hour Division's Reports of Investigation concerning the KING and PARKS complaints. The scope of the investigation of KING's complaint was not A

, broad enough to be sufficient for NRC purposes. However, the 00L King Report of Investigation, which found against King, is included and referenced in this re po rt.

The scope of the 00L investigation of PARKS' complaint, which found for PARKS, was deemed sufficient for NRC purposes 'and is included as part of this report for regulatory and enforcement consideration.

This Report of Investigation references exhibits from an independent investiga-tive report regt.ested by GPU Nuclear on the allegations of Messrs. GISCHEL, KING and PARKS.

The report is entitled TMI-2 Report, Management and Safety Allegation and was prepared by Edwin H. STIER, November 16, 1983. This 01 Report of Investigation only references from the Stier report sworn statements and documents of record with the GPU Nuclear Corporation. These referenced exhibits a_re not included with this Report of Investigation, but are on file, as part of Mr. STIER's report, in the NRC Public Document Room, the Offices of {

Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Region I Regional Administrator. Copies of Mr. STIER's report have also been furnished by GPU l Nuclear to each of the NRC Comissioners and to the Appeal and Licensing

. Boards. t

. . )

1 f

- INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS REGARDING THE PARKS' ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS ON THE TMI-2 RECORVERY PROGRAM Pursuant to the NRC and Department of Labor (DOL) Memorandum of Understanding, the 00L Wege and Hour Division's Report of Investigation (Ex.102) of Mr. PARKS' 00L complaint is submitted, with attachments, for NRC regulatory consideration.

Mr. PARKS' Nrch 23, 1983 letter to 00L, lodging the complaint, and his April 22, 1983 letter to DOL with attached supplemental affidavit are included as exhibits 103 and 104. Mr. PARKS' March 21, 1983 affidavit, which give his initial account i

' of alleged reprisal activities, are listed in the September 1,1983 Report of Investigation under this file, attachment 0-1. Mr. PARKS' statement of July 25, 1983, further clarifying certain aspects of the reprisal matter, are included in this report as exhibit 97.

O l

e e

~ '

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION In August 1983 the Department of Labor notified the Office of Investigations that Mr. PARKS and the Bechtel North knerican Power Corporation reached an agreement concerning Mr. PARK's 00L complaint and consequently Mr. PARKS withdrew his complaint and 00L dismissed the matter (Ex 105).

In late January and early February 1984. Mr. PARKS and his attorney Thomas DEVINE notified Mr. Meeks and related that Mr. PARKS was to be released Bechtel employment. They explained that part of the settlement between Mr.

PARKS and Bechtel North American Power Corporation was the reassignment of Mr.

PARKS to work at a Bechtel project in southern California. Mr. PARKS was reassigned to this project in early August 1983. Messrs. PARKS and DEVINE stated Mr. PARKS' subsequent dismissal from this project was under suspicious circumstances and a violation of the settlement terms, and therefore another discriminatory act by Bechtel.

Mr. PARKS related that he was not going to refile with the Department of Labor" because he needed to pursue future employment opportunities right away and did not want the additional grief and tunnoil that a refiling would bring. Mr.

PARKS related that he would make a formal allegation to NRC in the future about this alleged additional discriminatory act by Bechtel.

On July 25, 1983, Mr. PARKS submitted a statement (Ex 98) to O! about the missing TMI-2 master punch list for open items on pre-operation tests before TMI-2 was on line. Also alleged to be missing were the original procedures documentation on pre-operation tests. This statement by Mr. PARKS was forwarded to NRR.

During February 1984 Mr. Meeks had several phone conversations with Mr. and Mrs. KING regarding documents which in their view indicated that Mr. ARNOLD was discriminatory in his handling of the Quiltec matter. Mr. and Mrs. KING stated that they were in possession of the documents but could not locate them

, because of a pending household move that was in progress. They explained that the documents were packed away but would attempt to locate them during the

September 9, 1985 4410-85-L-0190 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Dated August 12, 1985 Appendix 3 to GPU Nuclear Letter to NRC, dated September 9,1985:

Page 1 through 13 of Exhibit 102 of NRC 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS

, REPORT OF INVESTIGATION H-83-002, dated May 18,1984;

Title:

Three

Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station,- Unit 2, Allegations

Regarding Discriminatory Acts For Raising Sar'ety Concerns On Safety i

Related Modification, Quality Assurance Procedures And Use 0f Polar Crane.

4 556/6 1

l 1

)

- . , , . . -. , . - - - - - - , - - . . , , , - , - . . , - - , . . . , , , , _ . , , , , . - , - . -s , - - - ~ .- -- - . - - - -

. t g -

siehe-f D. 8a-es' Whistleblowee Cosas1aint (ERA) acatast '

be:ntei at*t" A*ecitan FO-e- O'DC'etion at Tnroe msie Island ,

1 s reno-t c:n:e-ns the concillation effort and the investigation conducted .

,g-s,a nt 1: CIR 2f. Fart 26 in the ca:31siat of Richard D. Parks. Cated 3/21/$3. and his sus:ien.enul cor"Disint. Sated 4/12/83.

Recr;-evad!_

- nr. sarts was hired by lechtal North AmeMcan Fewer Corporation (techtal)

• as tenior Startup Engineer. Greee 25. en 5/2d/82. le the Startup Engineering Ces4* rent at the Three Mile Island (TMI) jobsite. Me was given various . .

res;sasitt11 ties incluctag Alternate Startue and Test Su,pervisor for the earaged Onts !! reactor. His beginning salary was $3100 eenthly. Bechtel acts as a contracter or subcontractor for General Public Utilities Nuclear I

.(P.*:). a Itcensee of tae Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and techtal l mu brougnt to ta eefuel the reactar. In g/82 thers was a management res ; ant:stion out*.tng lechtel in caarge of an integrated program with the site owner. EPJM. for cleanus activities. Pa-ts was sedittenally assigned a.s e>erations engineer in the Site Operations Department (50). headed by its Director. Lawrence P. King, who later apootnted Parts primary 30

' representative en tne Test Working *roup (1"ar) for the Reacter lutiding Polar Crane Prtjec*. Parks' duties included eversignt and review of plant modification anc new syster s. and interf acing with task groups to ensure car:11ance with suncaros, eterational capabilities, and NRC rules. Under

• E7'Jh's N4 license. 50 is directly responsible for the safe shut down concition during tne recovery progena. Thus. Parts' job involved revies of tis ac:leye . Se:r.tal's. pace work ta meet strictures and requirenenu.

Paru' selecticn by King for this wort involved. King states. Pertts' integrity.

F :r 11/22. 5: sarticipated in ce Head 1.if t Task Force interdepartsenul g- =. resacasitle' for planning the rs'noval of the reactar vessel head. .

• sau at to 17C ::es were ta be.lif ted by the reactar's " polar crane'.

Ic. coe stet hige on trave satte supports running fully around the e::s- builcing. Tne crane sewed laterally on a trolley crossing tM

- ciaretar of tne builcing. thus p-oviding caseplete positional access below.

Thers we , disagree enu between 50 and other Head Ltf t Task Force members or. neec for confor sty with procedure manuals on sodification of Unit !!

piar systes (U-1043). and Unit !! tasting (AP 1047). Further progress -

be:re vr. settled following a 1/6/E3 tecnnical memorensas reporting greater ractation unse* the reactar vessel head than previously estimated. The polar crane readiness sate was advanced to perwit its use in esamining this radiatioe pre:1e.s. 50 disputed this advance. A question ae:se wMtter the sslar crane. having been turned over to techtel to fiz. =es a project given thers, and requiring 50's approval af ter the crane's return i to P'J't. and set reout ring SC's overview in the pro:ess of repair. (E.sh.

81. Freeme ear. intarview) The polar traneegain became en issue in 2/83 emen as;rsval was sought for a safety tvaluation Report (5CR) on reverifying the radietten level under the reactar head by use of the crane.

Paru. with SC. had objections to claimed program and engineering eefit.

t eact es and refused ta aspeeve the SER. (Ezh. C-3) There was subseovent Ns* cisasproval on several polar crane aspecu (Esh. C-4). The claimed

disc-isinatory actions taken against Parts arise from his reactions ta Ats perceived pressures to yield. and his unwillingness to de se en such

, allped , safety-related issues. He had received a performance evaluatten I

i i .

l l

1

. . . 1

. s ,

. l 1

1

~ ' '

[

-2*

Ceeslaints:

\ Parts. th*ough his at*.orney Tha us Devine. of the Government Accountability Project, filed a corr.laint with the Secreury of Lamor by letter sated 3/23/E3 and further sunlemnted by let*.ar dated 4/22/83. Parks' com.

plainss claimed he was discriminated against in the terms. cDnditions and irrivileges of his employment as follows:

1. On 2/23/83 he wer informed he had been relieved of his duties as Alternata Startup and Test Supervisor at TMI. unit II.

2. On 3/14/83 he was interrogated by a techtak azecutive and an

• internal suet ter as part of an investigation into violations of -

alleged employee confitet-of-interest standares. *

3. On 3/17/t3 he was replaced as the primary 50 Department resres-enutive on the TWC for the Reactor Building polar Crane Project.

4 On 3/24/E3 he mes placed on leave of absence with pay and prohib-ited entry to the jobsite without permission from lechtal.

Conciliation Effort:

• Parks and his attorney. Thomas Devine wished to conciliate Parks' return ta his job from the inoefinite leave of absence with pay status he was in.

The Compliance officer (CD) met at TM1 on a/27/13 with Mr. tennedy P.

Richareson. Attorney for Sechtel and Mr. Ronald Freeme man, techtal's Recove*y Program DirecteN followingeffort for an earlier C.aally satis-factory meeting date. Neitner Mr. Parts nor his attorney we-t present.

Mr. Parts

• 4/27/33 *make whole" position (E.an. A-3) was presented by the CD. Eechtel, through its resresenutives rtjected the position. Attorney Richer: son stated snat the wnale matter involving Parts was under internal stasy by 5ecatel. and aces:ingly he rejected these propesals that had been swou:itted. Mr. Ricne-eson N encace in any blacklisting of 74-t1.fi.rt%- " " ad m" asentet eute set s

IrveS*ica*ioM?

1. On 2/Z3/13 Parts was infor ed he had been relieved of his dettes as Alternate Startup and Test Supervisor at TMI-Unit 11.

Parks' complaint relatas a series of events he believes led to the above.

as follows.  !

Parks states in his cocolaint that on 2/17/83 he was asked

' by 10 01 rector King to review the polar crane load test procedure. With King's concurrence he issued his corrents to Mike Raas111. Polar Crare Tast Terce leader. centarirg on lack of conformity with the procedares as provided for by AP.1043 and AP.1047. , forts relates managtsent rtjected r

t to discuss Parts

• polar crane cortwnts.. Tne following say. anctaer meeting. widely attenced, was held to discuss AP.1043 and AP-1047

a s ,

. 3 O

a:slicantlity for the entire polar crane refurbistwent and test prog-na.

l N. he and otheas nas not seen we instruction before nor had signed it.

It wovid na.e oveeriden the entire EPUM system of Quality Assurance (OA) controls, an violated M's 1043 and 1047, and circunvented the entire review and appesval cycles. Parts argued the opsitcastitty of the tme D's, ud tne need to comply with the QA manuals. He says he pointed out a legal seens to approve the polar crane tast via use of a TW" to evaluate the erecedure. *

/

~

meetings, and had the st*itude that if you did your job correctly and persevered in the truth about it, all would wort out all rignt, ,

l

\ ,  !

1 I

L l

)

tec;e of both test and ac:.inistrative procedures, so the thro responstbi, lities_ for nie were su;:lemental D

~

= . .

• 4 f 4

. 4 .

is that eithough te:hnically ,

V -

in directi[55. which has charpe of approving tne same as mentions also siettar), dual confrontational jobs held by ,_

~~~

2. On 3/14/83 Parts was intarrogated by a techtal executive and an internal auctter as part of an investigation into violation of unteentified asolayee conflict-of-interest standarts.

This complaint relates to the af tareath of the dismissal from GPUN emoley. j eent en 2/24/83 of Sita Operations Director Lawrence P. King. Eing had 6 been Parts' boss in, this overs,igh.t group' j

Parks sutes that on 2/24/83. the day following his rerieval as altarwata

• Sursus and Test Supervisor for Unit !!. King appointed his the primary Sits Operations resresenutive on the TWG for the polar crane project.

l 1

~

- Parts, as 50 representative, sutes he continued ta voice his safety concems at meetings that folic.ec and on 2/28 sought to include a

. variety of issues on the agenaa of a blue ribbon Readiness Review Cornittee .

for the polar crane. 8

/

)

. only a person of limited inteliigence would think otherwise.'

belief is that the esclusion of the cable was beuuse it was too late to fully inspect it without removing it completely from the dr.m. On 3/4, at the first polar crane TWE meeting the QA people esplained various defic.

tencies found in their review. Parks sutas he identified various open items in the crane's no-load test procedure, and along with others raised nwrae*ous additional concerns. including the use of 'demy fuses" instand of operational fuses.

• Parts sutes that on 3/t. Lawrence Kine called his following a discussion

, _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .. . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ , , . , _ - ,..._8. . - . . . . . _ .

. s o

. 5 -

- fra Oviltech. nor had any business involvement with it. Two friends.

inc19eing ting, own the conceny. Parks stated he was weset that GPUN ar.c lechtel w3.10 t y ta estand such a *pretestual, shabby seear* to oestroy his career, when he was net even a part of Outitach.

On 3/11/13. Parks went to the NR: to discuss the N He suted it was another manage. ment act to intimidate hir. or reseve ata fres the island. He requested a special investigation. Parts states *

- tr.at Mr. Jesean heibe of MRC gave the Department of Labor's adddress and .

talephone numser to him. a4 suted MRO Could not get involved as this is an egioyer. employee mattar, and he should go ta..the 00L. . .

l Parks repor.s that on 3/14/83. his superior from Bechtel's regional

\. hesequarters in Gaithersburg. PC. Ancy Wheeler. and Lee hoffman, of techtal

, Ir.te-nal Affairs. frw the $4n Francisco main office, were on site to ,

ir.te-view him. Paras wanted an ir.:per.141 witness, rejected the suggestiefts eJ ee to have sqrc - w -- He was fi nall'y allowed to bring .h _g of the Gaithersburg of locatel office 8t3 & D. who hadthere.

previously -

cour.se see Parts tmat he was ressected ano needed. On 3/14 Parts was L .,,,

interrogated. He relates the main tapic was his ~

alleged invc1, cent with Oviltech. He explained not being part of Owiltsch, bat had had a peripheral canuct via friendship with an cnnner. He explained this contact involved his finding an on.sita troist for King to do some af ter-howrs ty;ing, for which he received no financial gain. Parts rtlatas i

I I l

L l

Parts' cor,.laint states that on balance he believes the interrogation was  !

- a further atte et to retaliate and intteidate his and to force his to bact off of his safety concerns about'the polar crane.

__ j '

. 6 ,

.. g

(*

. . 6 . j LawMoce King. in his 4/26/83 statWnt before the House Intarier and

. Insular Affairs Committee (bh. F-1), stated he never made any secret of Quiltach's asistance during the previous 1.5 years the company was in business while he was at TMI. Like Parts. he states. he received no training or counseling at TM! on conflicts of interest, and that none of his wort wita Guiltech violated G7UN's written guidelines, which prohibit

• rtlationship with cw; antes that do business with GPUh, He relatas that the day before his dismissal a lechtal egloyee asse several calls ta offer Ow11 tech a joo at TMI. which he distained to respond to. ha also azaressed the feeling of intimidation about his safety contarm.

Parts wrota two letters to techtal about the Quiltach interrogation .

~

M forse that serves as techtel's conflict.of. interest docurent, a d

~

snat Parts claims had not been presented until af ter the Qwittect. examination.

it is techtel's policy to look into conflict.

g of.intertst proolems via the special internal,youp based in San Francisca.

l

/

Parks in his 5/2/83 intarview (Dh. l.7) claims that the investigation was a form of harrassment. An isolated. innocent incident was seised upon four days af ter he had conolained to NM persistant qwestioning about Parts' knowledge of Quiltech's activities.

e

. .. \

I I

E. .

(

(.

7

% 3. On 3/17/33 Parts was replaced as the primary Site Operations Department representative on ue Test Wort Grows for the Reactar Building Polar Crane Project.

Three says af ter his interrogation by leent:1 representatives about any involvement in the Quiltec.n matter. Parts lost his remaintne ma.ier resoonsihtlity in the Unit !! reactor cleanus. *

~

1

~

)

' Parts had already.' befort this meeting signed we cts:wtec proceswes "Desed on technical content of the procedwr e only*.

'- taws not ic;1 ping car:pliance wim t pical coverage or quality analysis.

's pur;:se of stifling his cDjections to polar crane proc-e%re, this sesed on his own cuervation that for a month matters were -

getting pretty heatet 4Dowt the pelar crane, and that the empicier had set tae tone for tais, not Parts. M I

) L \

l l

l i

^

a .

)

3 .

1 s

~

i

/

v L-)

i I

l N. '

\._ ' .

1 4 On 3/24/83 Parts was placed on an indefinite leave of absen:e with pay and fortidden entry to the jobsits witAout permission from Sechtet.

This action saa taken a week af ter the orter causlaint incident. Parts' i

\

1 L .

On 3/23/83. Pads held a press cor.ference. releasing his whistleblowing affidavit of tAat data. On 3/24/13 he was sent a letter from Richard A.

Idheeler, Chief Star *.up Engineer (Eah. 3 appended to Lah. A.2), ack.newledging

[l

.I e ,

• 9

• being informeg of Parts' 00' . concisint about harrassment and intiridttion.

and serying its occurrence. It statas. "In orser to insulate you from

%. even the sopearance of such conduct. and to assure the continues effective.

ness of all personnel at the site. we are placing you on an incefinite leave of absence with Day, effective isnedtately. until we have had the e:Dortunity to review this metter further." A letter dated 3/25/83 free f.erald Charnof f. Estt.. Washington, D.C. wrote steilarly about Part.s to DO*. Secretary Raymond Donovan.

Y ) ,5

~

) s

\,

encerpts fria the House toenittee, in unica Mr. Kanga, when asked wny Mr. Part.s was suspended stated.*Mr. 7 Parts was suspended because it became rather difficult for hie to operata at Three Mile Islandaf ter he went public with SAF*. Sechtal's Mr. Sanfort /

is also shown en this aahlbit to have stated then. *There were neerous professional pecole that he associatas with and worts with on tne Island.

and there were allegations made that have created an stresphere up there that would be very difficult for us to conduct ourselves in an ef fective manner, if he was among that group.*

. It is noted that ierediately following conclusion of the conciliation effort on 4/27/83. the CD initiated the investigation and indicated to Mr. Richardson the need for employee interviews in privata en TM! premises.

Mr. RichaNson soon af ter advised that techtal insists that he be present at such interviews. The CD stated this arrangerent is not administret.

Tvely possible. and pointed out CTR 24.4 (b),(c) provisions concerning intervi ews. The CD advised that if. when privately intervie-ed and a state.

ment taken. the ecolayee rMacs a copy it would be given. Mr. Richaecson asked if the CQ would give advance notice of wne will be interviewed on the premises, so that the employer can have discussion with the employee

,. *l '

. ~

f. .

s.

. . 10 - - - .

I prio- t the interview. The CD stated this would not be conducive to c:jective interviews, and advised taat if off-plant interviews be:ame

\' necessary because of esployer coMitions on site interviews, they neuld have te be limited in view of the statutory strictures on duration of D0i action. On. site intervie-ing was planned for. to begin on 5/3/83 Mr. Ricna-tson nescing to return to his principal offf ee. On 5/3 he met the C3 at the TF.* gate te advise his prtsence during plant interviews is still insisted upon. It was decided to afford techtel the opportunity in the remair.ing time to represent its viewootats through erustoyees.

without setting pre:reent. By its sele: tion of two ranking egioyees for joint inte view witA the CQ and Mr. Richartison. Mr. RicAardson

• agreed and sele:ted Mr. Sahmen K. Kanga. and Mr. Ron Freemerusa. .

e e

o s

I e

I O

e s

)

l l

n .

- 31 .

e CC9: 1954 0M and Effeartendaticeg; O

e ce S

e l

s. ,,.

• 1 e

s l

l

/

i I

e 9

e *

- . .a -.,,.-- - - - - - - -

d ,

e e

O G S ,

. u.

i 1

i 9

e i .

i .

e e

4 I

s a

L M e

-e

~

\ .

~. 1 I

l 1

i

'I I e I

d l

i

]

l

\

I

,I I

1 i

I l e t ,

0

, . , . . ..-n.~ . - . _ . - , . - - . _ - _ , ,m_ _ - , , - - ----,,_-,,,,,-,&,,., -,,,.-,,.,.,,._.,,,,,,,n-,-.__e_~- , ~ - - ---n.n,,. , , - - . -

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

, s s , ,

1 . ,

. t .

q

.

• 13 . . . , . .

i 1,

i I

l i .

I I

t

(

4 t

1 .

i . .

i i i '

I a

I

'\

i, G

1 I

a j

l 4 I I

(r..

~.

s i

J

' {

1 I

r I

I Devid Fefabeg

]-

Camellante OffIcar 0

l .

1 1

4 l

1 a

~ , - .

September 9,1985 4410-85-L-0190 i.

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Dated August 12, 1985

, Appendix 4 to GPU Nuclear Letter to NRC, dated September 9,1985:

Presumed copy of redacted version ,of U.S. Department of Labor

! Report on conciliation effort and the investigation conducted j pursuant to CFR 29. Part 24 in the complaint of Richard D. Parks,

, dated 3/23/83, and his supplemental complaint, dated 4/22/83.

. 556/7

'l 1

I 1

i 4

l I

. **" o o T*-

..'., r.,L.

Ricnard D. Parts' Whistleblower Complaint (tRA) Against pecnlel Neta Ame ican Power Corocration at Three Ole Island

.=

This report concerns the conctitation effort and the investigation condwcted pursuant to GTR 29. Part 24 in the complatnt of Atchard O. Parts, dated 3/23/83 and his supplement,41 complaint. dated d/22/83.

sees eewad:

Mr. Parks was hired by Bechtel'Morth american Power Corporation (Bechtet) as sentor Startup Engineer. Grade 25. on 5/24/82. In the Startwo Engineering Departrient at the Three Mile Island (TN!) jobstte. He mas given various responstbtittles including Alternate Startwo and Test $wnervisor for the

. damaged Unit !! reactor. His beginning salary was $3100 monthly. Bechtel acts as a contractor or subcontractor for General Put1tc Utt1tties NwClear (GPUN). a Itcensee of the Mwclear Regulatory Cosentssion (MAC); and Bechtel ses browsht in to defwel the reactor. in g/82 there was a management reorganisation putting Bechtel in charge of an integrated program with the site owrer. GPUM. for cleanup activities. Parks was addittonelly assigned as operations engineer in the Site Operettons Department (50) headed by its Otrector. Lawrence P. Ethg. who later appointed Parts petaary 50 representative Polar on the Test Working Group (TWG) for the Reactor Butleing Crane Project. Parks' dwttes included oversight and review of plant modtf tcation and new systems, and interfectng with task growos to ensure compilan e with standards. operational capabilities, and NRC rules. Under

\ GPUN's hRC license. 5015 directly responsible for the safe shutadown condition during the recovery progree. Thws. Parks' job involved review of his employer. Sechtel's, paperwork to meet strictures and requirements.

Parcs' selection by King for this work involved. King states. Park,s' integrity.

. Frort 11/82. 50 participated in the Need Ltf t Task Force inteedepartmental growp. responsible for planning the removal of the reactor vessel head.

Loads up to 170 tons were to be lif ted by the reactor's

• polar crane *,

which operated high on traverssole s.: Ports running fully arownd the reactor butiding. The crane moved laterally on a trolley crossing the diameter of the billding, thws providtng complete positional access below.

l There mere disagree-ents between 50 and other Head Lif t Task Force me+ters on need for confomity with proced,*e manw als on modtf tcation of Unit !!

( plant systees (AP.1043), and Unit !; testtag (AP.1047). Furtner prog *ess i

t>eca e unsettled follo=teg a 1/6/83 technical meeorand.m re:ceting gevater radiation under tne reactor vessel head tnan prewtowsly esttrated, ime l polar crane readteest this radiation problee.date50was advaate: to cemit its use in esaminin; dispwtet tnts advance. A o.estton acese unetner the ociar crane, having been t.enec over to Beentet te fin. =as a l crojec t given thee, and reswiring 50's a:croval af ter tne crane's re*..en to GM. and not regwiring 50's ovea.te= in the process of re:str.

ine pola* craeeagain became se isswe in 2/83 enen accroval mas sought for a tafety tvalwatton Repoet (1(a) on 1 revertf ftng too radiation level unde

• the reactor head by use of tre crane.

perss. with 50s had objections to clatred p*ogram and enginee tng cef tc.

tencies and refused to approve the 5(a. (tan. C.3) There was swtsetwent haC etsacaroval on several polar crame aspects (Lah. C 4). ine ctatews discrietnatory actions taken agatest 8 arts arise from his reactions to .sts Perceived c'essures toissues.

allejed safety.relateo yield, and nts .n=tlltagness to do so on swch He nad reCetved a perforNace evaIwatton on 8/21/82. indicating ne met or esteeted all reawtrements, acceg the

'enceeds* Ca*.egories were job knowle relations, initiative, and crettee. ana;e. lysis.fles tbility coope'atton client Overall he was rated 4 "taceeds Ret.trecents'. ($ee tan. 01), t f

a

['

2 (or;1statst Parks, throsgt his attorney Thomas Devine. of the Goverranent Accountability Project, filed a complaf at with the Secretary of Labor by letter dated 3/23/83 and further supplemented by letter dated 4/22/43. Parks' com.

plaints c14tmed he was discristnated against in the terms, conditions and privileges of his employment as follows:

1.

On 2/23/83 he was informed he had been relieved of his duties as Alternate $tartup and Test $wpervisor at TMI. Unit II.

2. On 3/14/83 he was interrogated by a Bechtel esecutive and an internal auditor as part of an investigation into violettons of

. alleged employee confilet.cf. interest standards.

l

3. On 3/11/83 he was replaced as the primary 50 Department repres.

entative on the*'TidG for the Reactor Building Polar Crane Project.

4 On 3/24/83 he was placed on leave of absence with Day and prohib.

tied entry to the jobsite withowt permission from Bechtel.

Conct1tation (fforti Parks and his attorney. Thomas Devine utshed to conctitate Parks' return to his job from the indefinite leave of absence with pay status he was in.

N The Compliance Officer (CO) met at TMI on 4/21/83 with Mr. Kennedy P.

Richardson. Attorney for Bechtel and Mr. Ronald Freerwriran. 8echtel's Recovery Program Director, followinidffort for an earlier mutually satts.

factory meeting date. neither Mr. Paris nor nts attorney were present.

Mr.

CO.

Parks' 4/21/8) "make whole* position ((sh. A.3) was prelented by the

. Becntel, throwgm its representatives rejected the position.

Richardson stated that the =nole matter involving Parks was under internalAttorney study s.tpitted.

been by lechtel, and accmingly he rejected these proposals tnat had Mr. Richardson fur ther stated that Bechtel would not engage in any blacklisting of Paris. he provided the C0 a letter dated 4/21/83. responding to the complatnt itswes. and describing Beentet's views of the actions of Mr. Parts. ($ee (sh. A.4)

Invest Matton*

l

1. Ce 2/23/83$tartJo Alte*nate Paris .as andinfo-ed he nas been Test $wpe'viste ret teved at IMI. Unit !!.of his duties as i

Paris' as foliccorolaint

s. relates a series c' events ne believes let to (Pe *ttsve.

Parts states in his caes'atet tnat on 2/11'33 he was asbet ty $0 Otrector sing's concu iting to reite. tne sciar craae load test pas.es.re. Witn I last force leader, centeeing on lacerrence he tss.ed nts c n eets to Mike Radt I as provided for by AP.1043 and AP. D41, of conformits e

attn tne Decced res arts relates erana;e ent re estes I these corrwnts, and that on 2/18. I: sitter. $wpervisor of startup and test.

l cwestioned = mat Paras was dotagend indicated woper managerent's dissatts.

faction to the point snat he (attle-) had been asked what has to be done i to get Paris transferred off tne site.

Paris states ilttler recested tee l tnreat before two other persons including Ling, and ettler attributed l St to nica Ga11agner. Assistant Otrector of it te [nginee te . Parks says re felt threatened, and that morning asaed an on.stte 'IAC of flC141 hem to reoort a reertsai snreat per advice received. Paris states ne socie to Joel mette of NAC Inspection and Inforcement. no espressed A " die v't.'

of transfer and the posstatitt/ of I & [ Investigation.

l

'anager of Recovery Programs , anddanga. lanean E.8 arts states that o wiretter of Unit i

to discuss Parts' pciar crane corrents. Ine folloitng day, anotner l..

l meeting. etdely attended. =45 neld to discust AP.lC43 and A81047 I

3 applicablltty for the entire polar crane refurbishownt and test program.

Parks states Freemerman argued the AP's did not apply and distributed copies of a F/82 Constrwetion Dept. Project Instruction for all to sign promptly, saying all departments had previously agreed this document poverned all Bechtet work; inc1wding the polar crane. But. Parks consents.

he and others had not seen the instruction before nor had signed it.

It mov14 have overriden the entire GPUN system of Ovality Assurance (QA) controls, and violated AP's 1043 and 1047. and circumvented the entire review and approval cycles. . Parks argued the applicability of the two AP's, and the need to comply yt th the 04 manuals. He says he pointed out a legal means to approve the polar crane test via use of a lVG to evaluate the procedure, Parks states that during the meeting he had said that in his current role as alternate startup and test supervisor he was still resconsible to identify potential 04 audit deficienciest that Theising interjected to infore him he no longer had to worry about thats a memorandum had just been issued appointing a new alternate. thus relieving Parks ([mh. A.1) when intervf ewed, stated Parks always spoke his etnd at meetings, and had the attitude that if yuu did your job correctly and persevered in the truth about it. all would work out all right. He described Parks' competence and knowledgeability. He said that he had cawtloned Parks that since he worked for Bechtel, who were pressing for shortcuts he was resisting, his employer would make trouble for him.

\

. also #otes the disagreement Parks had with lechtel on the polar crane load test i program. He states Parks was objecting to the administrative aspects involvtrg safety, but lechtel was seeking to use authoritation dotwments lacking offectailty.

- Bechtal's attorney Althardson, in his complaint response dentes any causal connection betweenbyParks' and any espression Parks relief of hisas alternateempressed previewsly startwo and test sweervisor.

views. Richard-son states that Parks was assigne1 to the 50 Departrent performing the dwttes of an operations enginee*, reporting daily to the Manager of Plant Ocerations. At tee same ttee he was assigned to the Recovery Programs Oe;artrent under the swpervision of Ideerd Kitler. Startwo and Testing Sucervisor, and in this capacity tittee had designated Parks as his alter-note dwr ing absences. And that in Jar.ory or early Februa*y. Kitler's 11te tagineering swceriors advised ete that Parts' designation as alternate made no sense frorr. an orgaettatteral vie.cotnt and snowld te co+ectes by sostituting an:tmer engineer,%i;mt ha16er, as alternate tw:ervise'.

On 2/18 siller made the change. It =as af ter this caganizational charge that the NRC inte* viewed BeChtel ettnesses abowl a possible transfer of an ee loyee of f IN!. twt the ee;lcyte ses not identified.

. states that Parks' working as 46 opera attons engleter in 10 did not in any may conflict organt24ttonelly or othePWise with his allignment at 41ttenate startup and test suce* visor.

The two assigreemts were fully C3*:stible. Since Parts had intimate know.

ledge of both test and administ*ative O'oCe$sr et, so the two responsist=

lilies for him mere supplemental, j

states that Parts

• era;? ope' manted to taae away Parns' auth'e rity in aDDroving the wort alDects betawse of Mis CClfctions to procedwral and testing plans, states that Parts' re* oval as alternate startwD and test supervisor had the pwe pose of #1tmtnating a source of procedural cojections Doug made.

9 9

=

e .

. 4 .

.. e Parks' further esplanetton of this change is that although technically he did have both sides u regretent. he sat sought out by Ettler at the end of 1982 lo l>e his alternate. Killer eventually planning to leave and wanting someone to take over as twpervitor. Also. a year earlier. Parks was Startup and Test $weervisor for the Unit il Swtsnerged Dominera11 stton System, and thus was espertenced. Parks states many others have dwal dutiet.

strikingly the managment official John Barton. who 15 now Deputy Of rector of Unit II. and thus in charge of all work done here, and also het duttet in directing 50. which has charge of approving the same work. Parks mentions also similarly dual confrontational jobs held by Ron Warren and Swbte Marshall. Parkt states his reitef as alternate startup and test supervisor came without any prior Indication and that no other such reshuffitng has been done.

. 2. On 3/14/83 Parks was interrogated by a Bechtel esecutive and an internal auditor al part of an investigation into violation of unidentified employee conflict of. interest standards.

This complaint relates to the af termath of the dismissal from GPUN empicy.

ment on 2/24/83 of Site Operettont Of rector Lawrence P. King. King had been Parks' best in this oversight group. and both had consistently opposed what they perceived as a steady derogation of concern for procedural and technical p*inciples including safety in the Unit 11 cleanup.

Parks states that on 2/24/83. the day following his removal at alternate Startup and Test $wpervisor for Unit II. King appointed him the prieery s $tte Operations representative on the M for the polar crane project.

He states that at quitting time that day. John Sarton asked Etag if he was President of Quiltech Company, and being to advised. Barton tulpended King. Quiltech is a " job shop

• for the nuclear power industry, skin to

,' agencies that furnflh labor to employers. GPUN. Parkt states. law this activity as a conflict of interest.

Parks, as 50 representative. States he continued to voice his safety concerns at meetings that follower an$ on 2/28 lowght to include a variety of filwel on the agenda of a b1we ribbon Readinett Review Corv'tittee for the polar crane. Further, ca 3/1. he and King's replacement. Joseph Ch=astyk. rejected the findings of the startup and test twpervisor that the polar crane load tett proceut wel esempt from the administrative manwall. Parkt states they istwee a mencrander indicating the contwreence of the eead of QA in this and of'e ing leveral twggestions for procedwe al solution to the p*otlee. In a 3/3 meeting to discult the agenda for a polar crane presentation dry rwn for the Readiness Review Comittee tnat mat to meet. Mr. Theising stated t*e scenentation thould emplain any tne Stew etweal netwee of the crane and its moon are covered by0A and C conteel rules. b.t that the crane's catie inat Itf ts tne noon 15 not. Ports states me q.estioned tnis, emplat*tng =ny tne wnole acca*at.s mat*tesortant to safety, and Mr. Theising replied only tee Crane's strwetwre mat. and only a person of lietted intelligence =owid think otnerwtte. Pares' teltef is trat tee esclutton of tne cable at becawte it eat too late to fully inntect it uttnout re*9ving it corsletely from the drA On 3/4 at the flett polar crane N meettag the GA people esclained wartout defic-tenciet found in their review. 8 arts states ne identified warlown ocee.

Iteas in tne crent'l no* load test procefwee. and along ettm otners ratted n # erown additional concernt. Including tne wie of *dw e ry futet" taltead of cGarational futes.

Pa*kt Statet tPat on 1/g. Called nim. following a allcuttion

=)th Rotect Arnold. President of M. Said me tnowg'it Mr. Arnold mal atte*pting to imp 1tCate Parkt =1tn OwiltecN. In order to fire Mir at sell. Said Arnold M3d gltgg abowt tnote at Id with prior knowledje of Owtitecn. Ina reportedly. Arnold asked. *= mat soovt 8 arks?" and ConttRwed to 1mell on that aloect. PeloCele, reDorte$ly mas tnat ne =al vneware enetner eerst tr.ew of OwltteCS. Darnt states me tnen advited that he thould have inclvded him on tne litt becawle a year ago me job after hovenad

l. nel3ed King find a typilt on site uno would do lame typteg Parts Statet he never received any financial gain 1

i

e . .

.. v from Quiltectt, nor had any business involvement utth it.

including ting, own the Cogeny. Parks stated he was upsetTwo friends.

that GPUN and Bechtel would try to catend such 4 *pretestual. theaby smear

• to eestroy his career, when he was not even a part of Quiltech.

On 3/11/83. Parks went to the NaC to discuss the Arnold conversation.

He stated it was another management act to intimidate him or remove him from the island. He requested a special Investigettan.

Parks states that Mr. Joseph Weibe of not gave the Departrent of Labor's adddress and telephone ewnber to him. and stated NRC Could not get tavolved 45 this is an onpicier employee matter. and he should go to the DOL.

! Parks further states that phoned him in the evening to advise thtt called to say he was worried about Parks because his

• wife was trying to get some dirt on (hlm) that could be used to take away custody of (his) chtidren'. Parks' wife had died three years s his two sons.andHe creviewsly, he says he took this call as a concany threat affecting states tMat until then he had been.struggitng within the system. but would now seek counsel f rom the Government Accountability Project.

It is noted that Parks states that af ter a substowent* break tn atodistantly his acertment and located rifling of his papers he sent his sons to Itve utth relative.

l

• Parts reports that on 3/14/83, his sweertor from techtel's regional headquarters in Gaithersburg. MD. andy Wheeler. and Lee Hof fman, of Bechtel Internal affairs. from the San francisco main office. =ere on site to Interview him.

made to have Mr. Range or the besc of the Gaithershwrg He was of f finally allo =ed to brino Mart cces of techtel R3 4 D.

interrogated. =tth robt as a et tsess. .

On 3/14 Parks =as alleged involveeemt ettn Cwt 1tecn. ne relates the matn tocic =as his but nas nas a certemeral contact via fetenasmic ith ar. o=r.ea.He esclaines this cortact involve? his finale; a* on* site typist for K'eg to Ce some re en:tatae:

af ter-how's tyDing. for wnich he retet ved no f tmancial gain.

It is nctef that on $/4. tne C0 s:sgnt am teterv ie. =ttn tott =$$ advisec Pe Pad been apprcached for interv ie=s =11n vaatows saattes and to te f at e to all ne =ented to clear tne C0's ret.est =tth his er;1cier. Be:etel. Taee was no response to later calls 1: 8:31 farvs' C3nalaint states that on talance he belteves the interrQ r

a offfeof ther attemst his safety concernsto retaliate about theand polarintimidate crane. Ate and to force nte

s . .

, )

.c

. 6 +

advises industry from that there is one contractor to aanother.

constant movement of employees in this He believes there were other persons bestees King who acted at times as job shoppers to accomodate these movements.

of Parts atton againstfor his alleged Parks. .

connection with Quiltech was an ac Lawrence King. In his 4/26/83 statement before the House Interter and Insular Af fairs Committee ' . stated he never made any secret of Outttech's esistence during the previews 1.5 years the company was in bustness while he was at TMt.'

Lthe Parks. he states. he received no

. training or counseling at TMt on confittts of interest, and that none of his work with Owlltech violated GPuN's wettten gwidelines, inich prohibit

, relationship with compantes that do business with GPUst.

He relates that the day before his dl5mittel a techtel employee made several calls to offer Owlltech a job at TNI. which he distained to respond te. He also empressed the feeling of intimidation about his safety concerns.

Parks wrote two letters to techtet about the Out1 tech laterrogetton -

on 3/16/83 to tah. (tah. I appended to tah. A.1), and on 3/21/83 (tah. I appended A.2).

In the fenner letter he tought reconcillation with Sechtel.

stating he appreciated their sonstttutty to confittts.of. interest, declared he has not and will not seek gain from th15 source. and requested a of the conf 1tct.cf.tnterest standard. He also offered to reconsidercopy his challenges to procefurt, but that until responded to he finds it difficult to do 50.

in his or to respond to presswres without esplanation of the flaws analysts.

s open door invitation to report continwed acts of harrassmen the "pretentual investigation" of hit twoposed involvement with Quiltech.

[ah. 2. appended to A.2. ts an *Agreeanent and Acknowled;ement of 061

, atton" form that serves as techtel's conflict.cf. interest document and that Parks clates had not been presented until af ter the Outltech esamination.

Mr. tenga stated it is techtel's policy to look into confitet.

of. interest orcetees via the special internal group based in San francisco, and are not celginated in the Gattee rsbweg office he reports to.

Parls had asked hiri why Such a big deal is being Nde of this issue.He said Bechtel eeployees do nothing to e-:arass (11ents.Kanga state .

Attorney Richardson's corrents ((an A.3) emplein that in the course of investigating Ltng's "fla; rant tonflict of interest" It was leareed that Parks. a close friend may have has tore involvement, and it was deteret his role showld t,e investigated to see if any Bechtel pollctes had been violated, f u r ther , ta a:ctedance eith standard procedwr es. Bechtel ramagement who may have athed the nternal Avoit group for investtgation of its e*pt bees had invcIve*ent.

8'c*arcsan relates Pa'tt' being advMed of htl etgnt to cec)tne to coo;erate altBowl retaliation or The Internal Awdttor fewed 8arkt rafand that Parks mas questio 24 eee r.

have stolated techtel's policy bet thePg ggPg mjg{gggjpg (jegypgggn(gg gn$ ng $tggjgljngry g(((Qn ghggIg gg taken.

Richardlon states Parks Caanot twoport hit inference that hit particitation in protected condwCt =as the motivating factor in the decision to intee vte. him. He said there is no evidence connecting the inter.

Po9ation of him attM any retallation for having gone to tne 98C. also, that the events af ter tne 3'14 meeting are devold of any Bechtel herrassteet or retallation against Parts for engagtrg in $rotected con 3stt . he was

> given promot access to senior techtel P.snagement, and responsible persenne etre mace availaole to revte. and esplain mil concerrt.

Paras.

claim % that the investigatton was w:en a foMt of MaPfal%*ent. An ilolated. Innocent incident was letted four da/s af ter he med comolair.ed to 4R0 abowt Robert Arnold' 9ersistent 0.etttoning aLowl 8 arts' knowledge of Quiltec'I'l activittet.

i 4

k--

e o e e s w -

• 1 ,,

3.

On 3/17/03 Parks was replaced as the primary $lte operations Decartmen Crane Project. representative on the Test isort Group for the teactor Sullding P Three days after his interrogation by Sechtel representatives about any involvenent in the Outitech matter. Parts lost his remaining major responstttitty in the Unit'!! reactor cleanup.

14r. Ranga, reported above, concerning the alleged confilet.of.interestTh matter occurred in early morntag.

Parts' complaint reports a fwether door if Parks should feel threateaed or intimidated. discussi that Mr. Ranga warne him not to go pubitt with his concerns, and thatAlso. Pa once that and before pas things "hwaillated". bad gotten much worse for an employee who had tried Polar Crane Task Force leader, accused his of a the test procedures on the polar trane.

• later discussed utth Joseph Chwentyt. the new acting 50 head, the tencies in the procedure's test cycle.

he was called back to Mr. Kanga's office foe a meeting together withP Chwestyt.

He was there given an interoffice memo from Chwestyt stating that Mr. Swbba Marshall would foolace him as the primary 50 memter on the N TWG. only for the polar crane project, and that this action is appropriate for thatthe present meeting. Parks situation writes,and tan is not a negative reflection on Parks.At was not an act of intimidation ga asked him twice to,alree that his removal Intent it well defined." Parksand Parts responded. In my opinion the had already, before this meettnf signed the disputed procedure ' based on technical content of the r procede e on thws not implying compliance with topical coverage of qwality analysts .

1 - of Parks had the purpose of stifling his objections to polar trane proc.esp edure. this based on his con observation tha getting pretty heated abowl the polar crane.tand for a senth eattert were that the ar*ployer had set the tone for t'ils, not Parks.

e Attorn y RfChardson's realy to ints cPolaint (Ish. A.)) engends tne escianation of events teactag to Paris' decotton, 3/17/83, Parts came to see Ch.astyt. Atting 50 ne states that on the polar crare matter. and it be:4 e apsarent to Ch astiDirector, pro k that this to discwst Cn= gram was cawstng Paret " severe entional stratn" . so Ncn to trat astsk feared that Pa*ts . tgnt outt and teave *M:. Ch astyt tnen, resortedly. s 11ested tt P,.ts cro:Ung tw as 53 representative or*

tnat T.3. bwt only wt te Parts' consent, an3 in a manner not to re' lect 4Joersely onAnd solwiton. Perts. then who af ter a while agree $ (nl$ mas a ScritCriow$

on hti whtCh Parks Nde sorg minoe cnantes.Ch=astyt wrote a draf t ann 3we signing, (hwestyk restened the editer with Pr.Inen ef ter typing ano te8ere of the mutwality of 4Cproval, and then CPeattyk signe$ Ranga,the asswrtng eim mea tot on 3/22. Parts gave tanja his 3/II letter claiming harrassmen.n,or intim.

Idation botn as to v the 1/17 action and the QuitteCn la v estigation.

Stenardson contf a es, tenga esteo Pa*ts any he had not prestowsly . ind1 ated feeling threatened, and e rks replieg me "had time to (Mtnt a

81cnardson ooser abowl it" ves (nat unat did heL;en was that Parts had swtWeltted af fidavit on untCn (mis investigation is based.to the attorne a

it w able to cannect the TWG c*amge altn tne protecteds cond CtAltmarelon st to tee CO tnat nat napsenec .4s not e.en a personnel action, mnechstate:

less an att of dtscrimination. u l

_ _ _ ~ _ _ _

e e .

6 9 . =

l 8.. ..

Relative to Chwantyt's claim of Parts' showing of

• severe emotional strain

• In distunning

• the project. we have the general ettervation of that *$lte Operations is a s=ll group with little resources. and the others can mutter 4 large force . tt 45 necettery for us. including Parks to townd off to overcome this ipealance." Also, the observation of ~

that

• Parts and Ch=altyk and Barton all had the tendency to emprest themselves loudly and torie het profanely and colorfully, when they wanted to espress disagreement about the work....This behavior was not unconvuon at meettogs on the tiland...

I nottced that Parkt. however the tituation got nastier.* *,It is of interest thatmaintained . ahis compotwre scre multl.

i degreed engineer, has now resigned his TMI job

' Hit statemnt relates. *lt was getting to be like a medhowse to get anything done.

t Plant Cngineering and $lte Operationt*, Sechtel seemed to want 12 newter 1

~

Richard Parks' version of the 3/11/03 events in his $/2/83 statement.

15 that in reaction .to Mthe Radbill's accusation of his having a " personal vendetta

• he went to Ch=4styt to esplain way he could not Stgn the polar crane procedwre. and Chwattyk tald he uowld try to figure out a solutton.

Parts ttgn thesays he twggested that perhaps his alternate, Swbba Marshall, wow 14 procedure.

care of St. Then heChwaltyk sold he would write up something to take wrote a memoranhn, telling the secretary to type it, and bring it to stanga's office. Then Chwantyk left the room. and Parks atted the secretary to let him read it, which he did. Fernt continwet.

he was called to tenga*1 office but was met outside by Chualtyt who laid

\ the memo wow 1d take care of the problem. Range then read the memo to Parks o.estion. and athed if he agreed he was not being harratted, and repeated the hc= to reply.Parks states he had jwit filed the D0t complaint and wat wature his complaint. por to abandan the complaint.He Heneither did statutshed to keepto htt alleviate his

. job.

l He laid he realised that Chwattyt. who three weeks before had agrees Me now14 not sign off on the polar crane procedure, was now abandoning htm.

ThttDevine.

Mr. was a compitcating event an$ ne med no treediate accent to hil attorney Thus, he said, he gave the truthful but non coret ttal salmer to Kanga's Qwettion,*The intent it clear *.

that day He late he did cal) Cevine and it was decided to teclude this demotion in the Comalaint.

4 On 3/24/t) tarkt eat places ca en tacefinite leave of ableNe alth Cay ano fero Sen entry to t*e 'o:st te =ltnowt ;eentston fear lethiel Ints att10r sat take* 4 mete afte? ina 3710P cc 4 4 tat inctoent. #4 rag' coF;14 tet attent.m of a/22/B) ([an 4 2) relates trat on 3/22. 4 tea re 8 med gtwen Mr. 8enga his w events oce.ried. ritten c Teats on t*e 1/11 reeting. 4 etteelltaf c' GattnertD.rg c"t ce regrelentativet viit tet 1: re;;rt ntsne 45 estee*ation wished. on Fw the Qwtitecn mattee. and he could re*ain at IM: at long occu r. ether taey altvec Partl no *fwether resettelt" would and attet for a litt of htt safety concernt. Parts continv et that they atted if he wanted an Intearst af'atr$ tevestigation of mara;e eat.

and that Pe agreed this wowld be at:rcteta te.

Paats Statet that =* Areeld has previc.tly confirmed to him trat hit meSe was on a litt for Ccegretttee41 teewiry. abowt unten a meettag 45 Scaet. led for later that day. Paret rotates tre feeling at tne reeting tnat tne ingwiry concerats ta**y L'a ditetstal. Parnt states tnat just afteaward Mr. manga atte: at t a. t: re:cet to nts of fice. =nere sneeler ans a swblic relattoel of ficer. 8e:e11. =ere c'etent eest day.. tnat le4e11 atted if f ares nac 4 me=1 cartference Schei.'ed Ve cuo'atet. Pa*ts states ne conha e1 tnis, ans that ne sat f tNS a D.

init =at nts first disclot.re of tnet fact.

a On 1/23/81, af hiavt e t of thatrntdate.

meld a prell conference releasing att entsties' wag On 1/2a/13 ne =at tent a letter f *oet o'cnaet 4 4 reeler. Chief Start.D (ngineer (tan. 3 apsendes to (an. A.2) . acte:=Iespag ,

l i

1

e .

e , , ,

_ --( _

being informed of Parks' 00L conolaint about harrassment and intimidation, and denying jts occurrence, it states. 'In order to insulate you from even the appearance of such conduct. and to assure the continued ef fective.

ness of all personnel at the site. we are electag you on en indefinite leave of absence with pay. ef fective tsunedtately. watil we have had the opportunity to review this metter further.' A letter dated 3/25/03 from Gerald Charnef f. Esq. , Washington. 0.C. = cote similarly about Parks to 00t Secretary Ray =iond Donovan.

. relates that when Parks filed his comp 14 tnt.

Mr. Arnold. GPUN President called a meeting attended by tenga. Barton.

Bechtel people, and the entire sentor staf f, totalling 25 to 30 persons.

He said Mr. Arnold and Mr. unga esplatped what was happening; that Mr.

. Barton became angry and recomunended firing Parts, they spone of restricting

, Parts' activities, and later decided to suspend his with pay.

The justification foF suspending Parks with pay is urged by Attorney Richardson in his 4/21/83 letter (tah. A.3) on the basis that ' Parts made grave acces.

ations concerning the professional competence and integrity of several of his coworkers and colleagues at TMI.* He states these accusations to public news media enjoy no statutory protection and have cauted severe harm to the Individwals involved. He concludes Parts has lost his ability to function as a member of a professional organisation on this project.

Mr. Richardson's coments about Parkt' acculottons focus on his convents s on pages 36 and 37 of his 3/23/83 complaint, concerning Mr. George Kunder, whose clained weaknest 45 chairman of the PORC/$4fety Review Group in not objecting to violations was attributed by Parks to Kunder's avoidance of involvement. Parks further identif tes twnder as the rumored 'systery

\

men

• who ordered the safety injection pumps turned of f dwrtng the 1979 accident at Unit !!. and who was responsible for the stoppage of coolant tnat cawsed a great portion of tee damage. Richardson states a 14. firm is investigating Parts' clates and hat, as yet, found no supporting evidence against r undern and he potnts to tarry King's stateeeet before the Howse Comittee on page 24. *l cannot identify who the 'rystery man' was who shut off the peps.'

i

+

Mr. Devtee nas fwrntined (tan, f.2) encer:ts f ree tne Newte Corsa ttee.

ta .nica me, asega. -mee assed aw r Mr. Parts =at t speece: Stated.*Mr.

I Parks est suspences because it teca*e ratrer dif ficult for him to ocerate at inree Mile Islandaf ter he weat p.nlic witn CAP". teetel's *r. Sanford is also sno n on tnis enhtt,tt te tave stated then. *fmere =ere neerows professional people tnat he associates with and worst alth on the Island.

and there werd allegations made tnat have created an atectomere un there i that sowld be very dif f tewlt for us to condwet oweselves in an ef fective j e.anner. If he sat areng that grown.'.

I l lt 16 noted tnat imediately follo tag conc 1witon of tne coactitation ef fort on 4/21/83 tne CD inttuted tne investigation, ans indicated to me, nicnardson tne need for emptoiee intervte.s in private on f*! pretitet.

Mr. Ricmardson soon af ter adulted tnet tecntel intttti that he be present at swen intervte=t. !Me C0 stated this arraegement 11 not admintitrat-

' liel t panttble, and pi ated l owt CFR 24.a (b),(c) provistoms concersing I n '.e r v i e.g . fne CO adelled inat if. =nen privatelf Intervie ed and a state *'

rent taten, the employee regwat a copy it owld be ghen. Mr. Ricmaraton atted if the (Q .0w14 give advance notice of uno will be intervlened on the premites, to that the ercloyer can Mase dlicultion alth the e*plopte

a . e e a s .

10 -

prior to the interview. The C0 stated this wow 1d not be conducive to objective interviews, end advised that if off plant interviews became necessary because of employer conditions on site intervtews. they would have to be lletted in view of the statutory strtctures on duration of 00L action. On.stte interviewing was planned for. to begin on 5/3/83 Mr. Richardson needing to return to his principal of fice. On $/3 he met the CO at the TMI gate'to advise his presence dwetag plant interviews it stt11 insisted upon.

It was decided to afford Bechtel the opportunity in the rematning time to represent its viewpoints through employees.

without setting precedent by.tts selection of two ranking emotoyees for joint interview with the C0 and Mr. Richardson, me, etchareson agreed and telected Mr. Bahman E. Kanga. and Mr. Ron Freemerman.

4 6

l I

l l

t i

l l

4 '

4 6 i

. 11 .

(OnCIW110R$ and ItC omeade t tont !

e l

i O

I

\

e t

l l

• 1 I

n I

e I

__.---,a4- - .-ma - -,im__- _a-.A %._ - _ . - - - - - - . . .e -..a. - . . - - , _ e - ._-_ __ - .,e 4_a . ~._

4 ( .,

} e a

'b .

O 4

se g*

St .

i J

{

l e 1

9 k

l I

i .

i I

a e

I A

r l

s l

I l

r I f r

5 I I

e

+

I i

.l i

(

' t I t I

I O

l 1

I J

1 I

f 9

l l  ;

I l 4 i i

i I

1 1

I J

I t

i i e I

r I t' i

l , ,

I k

(

4 * $#

0 ~ W 5

- 13 .

• e q*

6 i

l e

9 1

1 I

e e

e e'

4 e

e A

a.td retreerg C r:Itance Of*tcer i i f

4 t

i l

P e

j d

,