ML20197H699

Notice to Commission,Aslab,Aslb & Parties of Rc Arnold Re Ofc of Investigation Investigation of Former TMI-2 Employees King,Gishel & Parks.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20197H699
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	06/14/1984
From:	Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 8406190150
Download: ML20197H699 (3)

Text

'

RELATED COry_SPONDENCE,t,

[0 durthy}g, 98 q :,.~..., _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ?. rf :c32 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'."1'

~

In the Matter of

)

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-289

)

(Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

Station, Unit No. 1)

)

9 NOTICE TO COMMISSION, APPEAL BOARD, LICENSING BOARD AND PARTIES I enclose for information of Commission, Appeal Board, Licensing Board and parties copy of letter dated June 8,

1984, from R. C. Arnold to Chairman Palladino related to an OI investigation concerning former TMI-2 employees King, Gishel and Parks (Report H-83-002, dated May 18, 1984).

Respectfully submitted, Lss. ora.

Ernest L.

Blake, Jr'.,

P.C.,

Counsel for Licensee DATED:

June 14, 1984 cc:

Attached Service List OOkfg9 50, "a

e

s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the. Matter of-

)

)

METROPOLITAN' EDISON COMPANY.

)

Docket No. 50-289 SP

)

'(Three:MileLIsland Nuclear

)

(Restart - Management Phase)

~ Station, Unit No. 1)

)

SERVICE LIST Nunzio J.-Palladino, Chairman _

Administrative Judge

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H. Buck Washington, D.C._

20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission

- U.S. Nuclear : Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington,-D.C." 20555 Administrative Judge

' Thomas M.'

Roberts,. Commissioner Christine'N. Kohl U.S.l Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C.

L20555 Board

.y Commission U.S. Nuclear Regula' James.K.;Asselstine, Commissioner-Washington, D.C.

2v555:

U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory; Commission' washington, D.C.-

20555 2 Administrative Judge Ivan W.

Smith, Chairman Frederick Bernthal,= Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S... Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.LNuclear. Regulatory Commission.

Washington, D.C..

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary'J. Edles,-Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal; Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,-D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.-

20555 s-r

Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Vice President Atomic. Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washington,RD.C.

20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Docketing and_ Service Section (3)

Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Office of the Secretary R.D.

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, D.C.

20555 Ms. Louise Bradford

. Atomic Safety.& Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C.

20555

'3oanne Doroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20002 Washington, D.C.

20555 Ms. Gail Phelps Jack ~R.

Goldberg, Esq. (4)

ANGRY /TMI PIRC Office of the Executive Legal 1037 Maclay Street Director Harrisburg, PA 17103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Maxine Woelfling, Esq.

2001 S Street, N.W.,

Suite 430

~~~'ffice of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C.

20009 O

Department of Environmental Resources.

Michael F.

McBride, Esq.

505 Executive' House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.

20036 John A.

Levin, Esq.

Assistant Counsel Michael W.

Maupin, Esq.

Pennsylvania Public Utility Hunton & Williams l

Commission 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 3265 P.O. Box 1535 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Richmond, VA 23212 David E. Cole, Esq.

Smith & Smith, P.C.

2931 Front Street l

Harrisburg, PA 17110 i

i

~

w P

5 m

Aeoect C. Amok 2 7 Femwood Tend Mounteen Lakes. New Jersey 07045 June 8,1984 l

Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino l

U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D. C.

20555 l

SUBJECT:

THREE MILE ISLAND NGS, UNIT 2 X[EEGAlIONS REGARDING DISCRIMINATION F0, i

RAISING 5AFETY-RELAlto CONCERN 5 By memorandum dated May 18, 1984, same subjec t, the Director NRC Office of InYestigations forwaroed a Report of Investigation concerning allegations made by former employees (King, Gischel and Parks) at TMI-2.

i The 01 investigation covered issues that I had to address in g former position as president of GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN).

I believe there l

are a number of significant factual omissions in both the forwarding memorandum and the Investigation Report. The omissions may lead to f

r inferences as to y motives and performance that would not be warranted if all the relevant facts were considered.

I understand the Consission has offered an opportunity to all the parties to comment on the Report, but I think some of the omissions are so crucial to developing an informed judgment on these issues that I feel compelled to bring those omissions to the attention of the Comission on v own behalf.

~l I am convinced that the information provided to the Commission by the Office of Investigations is seriously deficient in its identification of the basis for the actions taken by me, especially with regard to Mr. King.

C'l# Lil i i %

.- )

Chaiman N. J. Palladino June 8,1984 My consents are primarily for the purpose of demonstrating that there are significant deficiencies in the OI material and are not an attempt to set forth all the comments I have on the OI documents. Consequently, this letter is limited to what I consider to be the most serious deficiencies of the OI Report's forwarding memorandum.

~

Basis for King's Discharge It is important for context to note that King was the president, chief operating officer, chief executive officer, and claimed to own 50 percent of the engineering consulting firm, Quiltec, Inc. T64 memorandum states on page 2:

"The investigation also revealed that the former TMI-2 Site Operations Director, Mr. King, was suspended without pay and eventually teminated by Mr. Arnold for not informing GPUN of his association with an engineering consulting firm, and the fact that this firm had hired GPUN employees."

l "Mr. Arncid predicated the suspension and termination action against Mr. King on the information described above." (Emphasis added.)

The memoranoum suggests that discharge was merely because Mr. King failed to infom GPUN of his association with a firm that had hired GPUN employees.

In fact, King's Quiltec interests were in direct conflict with those of GPUN.

The testimony and documentation taken as a whole clearly shows that King's discharge was due to the nature of his " association" with Quiltec and his responsibility for Quiltec's activities.

Quiltec was I

taking actions which were in fact detrimental to GPUN.

The two elements of Mr. King's circumstances (his " association" with Quiltec and Quiltec's hiring of GPUN employees) that were key to him being

=

t Chairman N. J. Palladino June 8, 1984 l

in a situation where conflicts arose were not the only considerations available to me at the time of King's discharge. I had substantial

\\

information, uncontested by King, which showed he was aware of Quiltac's l

t activities relative to GPUN employees and participated in some of the l

activities that were detrimental or potentially detrimental to GPUN.

Irrespective of that, I personally believe King's role with Quiltec made

\\

him accountable for Quiltec's activities independent of his participation or knowledge of those activities.

Unfortunately, the memorandum does not summarize, let alone detail, all i

i the infomstion available to me at the tima of his discharge which l

indicated that King failed to fulfill his obligations to GPUN. Most important of the memorandum's omissicns, and this goes to the Synopsis of the Report as well, is the fact that Quiltec prepared resumes of GPUN employees and rarketed those employees ruany months before February,1983.

This activity by Quiltec was known to Mr. King contemporaneous with its occurrence and he even participated in it.

This information was known to f,

me in March,1983, when I decided to discharge Mr. King.

A more complete listing of information which supported ray decision is available "from an independent investigation report requested by GPU i

Nuclear" which was utilized by OI for their investigation. III The i

GPUN-sponsored investigation of the allegations was conducted by Edwin

{

Stier, Esq., a former director of the New Jersey Division of Criminal

[

r l

Justice. The resulting report, "TMI-2 Report - Management and Safety i

Allegations," was made public and submitted to the NRC in November,1983.

l l

See 01 Report, page 12.

j e

l l

~

i i

Chairman N. J. Palladino Juni 8, 1984 Volume Ill, pages 15,16 and 17 of the Stier Report describes the inforisation available to me at the time of King's discharge. Of critical l

importance to d decision was the following information which is extracted j

t from.the list in the Stier Report:

"o King was the president of Quiltec and c1gimed to own 50 percent of the stock in that ccapany." W l

"o During July or August of 1962, Parks had requested Rittle (now Pavalonis) to type resumes during non-working hours.

She agreed and shortly thereafter received ap;-oximately 20-to-25 resumes and Quiltec letterhead statio: ary on which j

to retype the resumes she had been given.. - Mort of the individuals whose resumes Rittle typed were GPUN employees. The only names she could remember were King, Herlihy, Slone, Rekart, William Henry, Austin and Kenneth uionarons.

Rittle was paid $75 in cash by Parks."

"o Ouring a discussion with Arnold, probably on March 9 King l

had admitted that he had provided to Parks the funds which

. l were used to pay Rittle. King denied, however, knowing any of the details of whose resumes were typed or who did the l

typing.

to Slone (J) characterized his activity as an accosmodation He by providing payment to Parks for Quiltec.

Arnold's purpose in raising the issue on March 9 with King was to test the credibility of King's answers to the twenty-one questions since King had not indicated in his Quiltec." Lg) arks had any involvement with or knowledge of answers the P h

I.

" Subsequent to the meeting of March 12, 1983, King's role in the resume preparation was further confirmed. On f

(2)

Mr. Kino had also identified himscif as the chief executive officer and the chief operating officer of Quiltec, Inc. in his letter to me dated March 9,1983.

l (3)

Benjamin Slone was described by Mr. King as a 50 percent owner and l

vice president of Quiltec.

He also was a former employee of GPU Nuclear.

(4)

The twenty-one questions were contained in a letter from Arnold to King dated February 28, 1983, ano answered by King in his March 9, 1983, letter.

i f

i, I

s

_c...,..

..n

-,,,--..nn, n-- - - -

a.,---

i i

i l

Chaiman N. J. Palladino 5-June 8,1984 l

March 15,1983, Arnold was advised by Kanga that Parks had infomed Bechtel that Parks arranged for the typing of the i'

resumes on behalf of King.= (5)

(Emphasis added and original footnote references omitted.)

Other facts relevant to rqy decision were:

I 1.

Mr. William Austin, one of the GPUN engineers that Ms.

Rittle had identified as being included among those whose resumes she had typed, stated he did not consent to or know i

of Quiltec's use of his resume.

2.

King had claimed that his association with Quiltec was well known by management at TMI-2 prior to Dr. Thiesing's report of that fact to Mr. Barton, the Deputy Director of THI-2.

However, when asked to substantiate that claim he was either unable or unwilling to do so.

i 3.

From discussion with Mr. Pollack, (6) it was clear that t

Quiltec was " marketing" GPUN employees who worked for King well before those employees told GPUN they were going to resign.

In igy mind, whether directly involved or not, King had an obligation to ensure Quiltec activities did not conflict with his obligations to preserve and nuture GPUN assets entrusted to his management, including GPUN employees. Not only did he have the obligation to avoid such conflicts,

-any circumstances which could seriously bring into question his fulfillment 1

of those obligations demanded prompt disclosure by King to his supervisors. King's actions did not demonstrate any willingness to proceed in that manner.

The recora contains substantial infomation that was i

i (5)

King was notified of his oischarge, effective March 23, 1983, by a letter dated March if,,1983.

(6)

Milton Pollack is a vice presioent of Long Island Lighting Company

.whom I contacted to independently detemine whether former GPUN employees were working for Quiltec under contract with LILCO, the timing of when they were offered for employment, and when they l

commenced work at LILCO.

r

-,.. - - - -, - - - -,.. - -. - ~ - - - - - -

-c.

--,---,---....--,,-----,,-nn.,.-,-

_--.,--,.---,n--

l I

Chairman N. J. Palladino June 8, 1984

{

\\

available at the time of King's discharge that indicates he consciously decided not to fulfill his obligations to GPUN and not to voluntarily disclose to his supervisors information that would identify the conflicts l

betueen his obligations to GPUN and his relationship to the activities of Quiltec.

i i

The OI forwarding memorandum also states:'

)

OI's Treatment of Evidence "Although this action may have been appropriate based on infonnation developed during an internal investigation initiated after Mr. King's termination, the evidence of alleged impropriety which was known at the time of the i

tensination was not irrefutable." (Emphasis added.)

I am perplexed at the suggestion thac evidence of improper conduct on i

the part of an employee must be " irrefutable" before an employer is justified in acting.

Such a standard has not been used by the NRC in its proceedings nor to my understanding in a court of law.

Furthennore, there was no dispute as to the factuti matters described j

i in this letter as being known to me when I decided to discharge Mr. King.

l Mr. King's position was that he did not have any conflict and that notning l

ne had done was improper or contrary to his obligations to GPUN. The record has snown to GPUN's and the OI's satisfaction that King's dental of-D. propriety is wrong.

Thus, the issue becomes one of the reasonableness of l

my judgment in March,1983, considering the information tnen known to me.

t i

I have already identified the ma,or points which I believe demonstrate the j

reasonableness of my decision.

i

~

e s

~

~

Another conclusion in the memorandum that is in need of exa aination is:

" Interviews also disclosed that thera was no evidence of l

Mr. King utilizing his GPUN position to proselytise GPUN i

employees.

Infomation obtained from fonner GPUN employees hired by Mr. King's consulting firm revealed that they were 1

not solicited and had voluntarily sought employment with the firm."

l i

Evidence supplied by several others, including Slone (co-owner of l

Quiltec), Kenneth Lionarons III, and Joseph J. Chwastyk contradict the impression of passiveness on the part of Quiltec and King one gets from the l

quotation.

(See pages 17 through 21 of Volume III of the Stier Report.)

For example, in Appendix C, Tab S, of the Stier Report, Mr. Slone is I

reported to have said during an interview that:

l "Slone does not know why King woulo say Quiltec did not solicit employment of GPU Nuclear Corporation employees.

Slone did this.

For instance, he solicited Rekart and Herlihy. King also did, to the extent, at least, that he l

grticipated in the conversations with Herlihy.

Slone l

solicited the resumes of others, for instance Marshall who j

refused.

As to whether Rekart and Herlihy were going to leave anyway, it would be a question of timing.

Slone had l

no doubt that they would leave at some point. Herlihy had i

been out on a number of interviews."

(Pages 28 and 29 of Slone interview report, emphasis added.)

Another example from page 70 of the 01 Report is:

[

t "On November 12, 1982, Mr. LIONARONS complained in a conversation to Mr. KING about the lack of progress that Mr. LIONARONS was making on the project at TMI and was sick l

l of working at Three Mile Island. Mr. LIONARONS told Mr. KING that he, LIONARONS, would like to leave Three Mile l

Island. Mr. KING replied to Mr. LIONARONS' conenent by stating there might be a possibility to work with Mr. SLONE i

at Shoreham or at Beaver Valley."

I (7)

Lionarons is an engineer who left GPUN expecting to continue his l

work with Quiltec which had started, as a result of King's efforts, while Lionarons was still a GPUN employee.

l I

~

E l

I i

Chairman N. J. Palladino 8-.

June 8, 1984 l

1 Or, as more fully stated in the reference used by 01 for the quoted

(

statement:

i "Q

Would you describe your early conversations with King l

about employment?"

"A Looking at my notes here it seems obvious that probably the first time I talked to him was Novemoer 12th,1982.

If I recall the event, I was complaining about the lack of progress I was making on a project and I was pretty much sick of working at the Island.

3 I was telling tnis to Larry.

I said I'd like to get l

out."

"He then brought up the fact that there might be a possibility of working with Ben up at Shoreham or the possibility of working at Beaver Valley for Quiltec.

I'm not sure if I knew the name Quiltec or not.

I'm 1

not sure on that. At this time, I suspected that Larry had more involvement than I previously had i

thought."

"Q Can you remember what he told you about the possibility of employment?"

"A He said it looked very good. He said they had a number of jobs coming, that Beaver Valley had about six or eight positions that he could possibly fill.

There were a number of positions at Shoreham and that there were po'ssibilities of some positions tp8ge f 11ed at I think a coal plant in Florida.=

g

'I think that it is clear that Quiltec, with King's knowledge and participation, was involved with solicitation of GPUN employees.

I had significant indications of that activity at the time King was discharged

- even though all the substantiation fo'r the extent of Quiltec's and King's involvement was not developed until a later time.

I do not understand why I

(8)

Stier Report, Appendix C, pages 18 and 19 of sworn statement of Kenneth Lionarons.

I-

---,--,,---,,,,,---n

-,,, _ n w,,

t l

Chairman N. J. Palladino 9-June 8, 1984 the indications of affirmative efforts by Quiltec and King to hire GPUN l

employees are completely ignored in the memorandum.

l i

Gischel and Parks With regard to the OI forwarding memorandum's discussion of my i

interactions with Mr. Gischel, I do not believe arty prudent management could have proceeded differently.

It is inconceivable to me that Stress Control's recommendation that a neuropsychological evaluation was necessary

[

for assurance that Mr. Gischel could safely perform his normally assigned duties could be rejected without appropriate professional resolution.

His assignment as TMI-2 Plant Engineering Director involved work with

)otential safety implications during both routine and emergency s

conditions.

Contrary to the memorandum's suggestion as to the Company's position, Mr. Gischel was not required to take the neuropsyc'nological examination as a condition of employment. The Company's and my position were alwys that the evaluation was necessary in order for Mr. Gischel to continue in the position of TMI-2 Plant Engineering Director.

With regard to Mr. Parks, all the parties to his complaint reached an accolunodation prior to a full adjudicatory proceeding on the issues. Thus, I question whether the DOL record is sufficient for judging the validity of Park's allegations relating to intimidation, harassment and retaliation.

s s

,w.

n

-n. - - -..,.

,...--,-,,,_.,,,.-----n-.,...-r

I Chaiwan N. J. Palladino June 8, 1984 I

t

\\

While I am convinced there are other significant deficiencies in the 01 Report and its forwarding memorandum, I believe those set forth above amply l

demonstrate that the Consission can not rely upon those two documents for all the facts appropriate for consideration when deciding whether King, Gischel and Parks were discriminated against by GPUN, Very truly'yours, t

r, t

L

/

c R. C. Arnold l

r cc:

P. R. Clark, GPUN B. B. Hayes, NRC i

R. C. DeYoung, NRC l

RCA/agh t

i I

e t

b 4

%+

e m.

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

. _ _