ML20211D527
| ML20211D527 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1986 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Blake E SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1165 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8610220214 | |
| Download: ML20211D527 (8) | |
Text
,
O
[
g go copaEsPONDENM October 17, 1986 DOCKETED USNRC
'86 0CT 20 P4:18 Ernest L. Blake, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge
[CQ(dh"W ' '<"I 2300 N Street, NW p 5
. Washington, DC 20037-In the Matter of GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2)
Docket No. 50-320 (Civil Penalty)
Dear Mr. Blake:
In reviewing the documentary record of events relating to the expression of safety concerns by, and various personnel actions taken with respect to, l
Mr. Richard Parks, we have identified certain facts which we believe are not l
likely to be subject to dispute in this case.
As we discussed in our meeting prior to the July 30, 1986 prehearing confer-ence, stipulation of well-documented facts would likely facilitate the adjudica-tion of the issues in the case.
Colleen Woodhead has assembled the attached list of facts and related documents (many of which are internal GPUN docu-ments), the stipulation of which may simplify presentation of our respective cases. At a later point, such a stipulation could serve as a basis for stipula-tion of documents into evidence, if deemed appropriate.
I would appreciate you and your co-counsel reviewing the attached list of facts to see.whether we could agree to stipulate to their accuracy for purpos-es of the evidentiary record.
If you have any questions as to the source of the facts, we will be happy to discuss them with you.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely, I
George E. Johnson Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl:
Service List
$DO~) hI utU
- 000 0
8610220214 B h b20
--~~---:------------- *-------------
NME :GJohnson PDR ADOCK O PDR G
IWIE :10/16/86
i 1
PROPOSED STIPULATIONS FOR PARKS CASE 4
1.
Richard Parks was employed.by Bechtel North American Power Corporation (Dechtel) in l\\ lay,1982 and assigned to the Three !\\1ile Island, Unit 2 site (Th11-2 ).
2.
During 1980-81, Richard Parks was employed by the NUS Corporation as senior shift test. engineer for construction, testing, and operation of the submerged demineralizer system installed at ThlI-2. During this time, Mr.
Parks helped develop and implement the startup and test program for TMI-2 recovery.
3.
In September 1982, an integrated organization, composed of Bechtel and General Public Utilities Nuclear Division (GPUN) employees was formed at TMI-2 to continue the thsk of clean-up after the 1979 accident at the site.
4.
The integrated organization at TMI-2 consisted of five divisions, two of which were Recovery Operations (RO) and Site Operations (SO).
5.
RO consisted primarily of Dechtel employees and SO consisted primarily of j
GPUN employees.
6.
The integrated organization at Tlill-2 was directed by Robert C. Arnold, President of GPUll; Bahman K.
Manga, a Bechtel employee, who was Director of TMI-2; and John J. Barton, a GPUN employee who was Deputy Director of TMI-2.
7.
Richard Parks was a senior " start-up and test engineer" in the Site Operations (SO) division at TMI-2, and reported to the Director of Site
~
Operations, Lawrence P. King. His responsibilities included liaison with NRC, engineering groups, and plant staff; oversight and review of modifications to the plant to assure compliance with applicable standards, 1
NRC regulations, and internal procedures, and to develop new procedures.
8.
On December 6,
1982, Richard Parks was api,ointed Alternata Startup and Test Superviser and thus to serve as alternate for the Chairman of the Test Working Group (TWG), Edward Kitler, who. presented the Startup and Test group described by AP 1047, Section 2.4. Other TWG members represented plant operations, plant engineering, recovery engi-neering and quality assurance, as prescribed by AP 1047, Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, and 2.4.5.
4
,-.w-
.._,_,,n
-,-.n.
.___,,_,,----,_---._,n,,
e
---w
-ne.
t 9.
RO, _ directed by James W.
Thiesing, was given the responsibility for refurbishment of the containment polar crane which was damaged during the accident at TMI-2, 10.
In general, SO was responsible for activities at TMI-2 which had potential for affecting public health and safety, or leading to radiation releases.
11.
In performance of its assigned responsibilities, SO reviewed and approved activities by RO.
12.
SO was responsible for review of the functional description of the refur-bishment and testing of the containment polar crane, and for the review of the SER for requalification of the crane.
13.
Review groups formed at TMI-2 were:
a.
Test Working Group (TWG), which was to review all construction test and modification procedures to ensure compliance with all legal requirements and whose members must satisfy ANSI NA45.2.6, the professional standard for test personnel qualifications.
b.
Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC), which advised SO about safety-related engineering change memoranda (ECM), which were reviewed for compliance with technical specifications and NRC regula-tions. The members were primarily members of SO, who served on the com'mittee in addition to other assignments.
c.
Safety Review Group (SRG), composed of full time members of SO, designated to take over the duties of PORC, which was to be abolished, d.
General. Office Review Board (GORB), composed of GPU corporate personnel who advised GPUN President Arnold.
c.
Safety Advisory Board (SAB), composed of outside consultants who gave advice on all activities at TMI-2.
f.
Technical Advisory and Assistance Group (TAAG), composed of outside consultants who gave advice on the removal of radioactivity from the site; g.
Readiness Review Committee (RRC), a group of senior level employ-ces formed to review the polar crane program performed onsite, h.
Generation Review Committee (GRC), composed of 5 members of GPU or outside consultants who reviewed and audited safety evaluations of significant activities, violations of codes or regulations, operating abnormalities, and reports of PORC.
14.
During refurbishment of the polar crane, the load test frame was assem-bled and welded inside the containment building.
4 4
15.
The polar crane was to be used to lift off the head of the reactor vessel during clean-up.
16.
By a memorandum to J. Barton dated January 20, 1983, the Director of SO, L. King, acknowledged Barton's directive to SO that the polar crane refurbishment was the sole responsibility of Bechtel in RO and that SO was not to be involved in the refurbishment.
- 17. By internal memorandum #4240-83-111, dated February 10, 1983, the manager of site engineering, Edwin Gischel, stated that the polar crane safety evaluation was technically unacceptable.
18.
On or about February 14, 1983 the Director of SO (King) and the manag-er of site engineering (Gischel) sent a memorandum (#4240-83-138) to the Director of RO (Thiesing), expressing fundamental disagreement with the polar crane SER.
19.
On February 16, 1983, TMIPO Deputy Director Lake Barrett advised Director Kanga that the quality of procedures at TMI-2 was decreasing due to the long-standing conflicts and poor coordination among GPU i
departments.
l 20.
On February 17, 1983, after being assigned the review of the polar crane load test procedure, Richard Parks submitted a " Comment Resolution" on UWI-4370-3891-83-PCO-1, on the polar crane load test to the Polar Crane Task Force leader, Mike Radbill, stating that the proposed crane load test constituted an unreviewed safety question; the load test must be ap-proved by TWG; the test procedure did not conform to site procedure AP f
1047; the load test procedure was a functional test and should be per-formed after turnover of the crane to plant staff after approval by TWG and PORC; the crane tests performed by RO did not comply with the requirements of site procedures AP 1043 and AP 1047; and the sign-off of i
the test was not done by a qualified startup and test engineer as re-quired by AP 1047.
j 21.
On February 18, 1983, Richard Parks advised NRC representatives Phil Grant and Joel Wiebe, at TMI-2, of his fear of reprisal from TMI-2 man-agement due to Parks' complaints about the polar crane load test.
22.
On February 22, 1983, Mr. Parks attended a meeting with Mr. Kanga during which Parks again outlined his concerns about the polar crane.
Those in attendance are named in the March 23, 1983 Affidavit of Mr.
I Parks, contained in the September 1, 1983 Office of Investigations Re-port, at D-2.
23.
During a meeting on February 23, 1983 to discuss objections to the polar crane program, attended by Mr. Kanga, Mr Barton, Mr. Theising, Mr.
i Ron Freemerman (RO), Mr. Kitler, Mr. Radbill (Polar Crane Task Group leader), Mr. King, Mr. Chwastyk, Mr. Blaine Ballard (Manager of QA),
Mr. Parks and others, Mr. Parks repeated his view that AP 1043 and 1047 must be followed for the polar crane.
4 4
l m-
-4_
1 24.
During the February 23 meeting concerning the polar crane, Mr. Theising informed Mr. Parks that he had been removed from his position on TWG, by memorandum #4345-83-003.
25.
At the time of Mr. Parks' February 18, 1983 removal from TWG, the group had not met since October,1981.
26.
On February 24, 1983, by interoffice memo 4200-83-097, Mr. Parks was appointed to TWG as the primary SO representative, by SO director King.
27.
On February 24,1983, Mr. Parks issued a " Problem Report" describing procedural violations for the polar crane.
28.
As documented in the March 24, 1983 memorandum from L. Barrett to B.
Snyder, on February 24, 1983, NRC representatives met with GPUN to discuss the poor quality of procedures submitted for the. reactor coolant depressurization system.
29.
On February 24, 1983, Mr. Barton questioned Mr. King about Mr. King's association with a company named Quiltec, learned that Mr. King was president of the company, and required Mr. King to leave the site.
30.
On February 25, 1983, Mr. Parks met with NRC representatives Joel Wiebe and Lake Barrett to discuss Mr. Parks' concerns about the polar crane.
31.
On February 25, 1983, Mr. Barrett (TMIPO Deputy Director) discussed with Messrs. Kanga and Barton the state of employee morale at TMI-2. He advised Mr. Kanga that the schedule was pushed too hard, and that the continuing GPUN/Bechtel, operations / engineering animosities were a big problem onsite.
See 3/24/83 Barrett to Snyder memo.
32.
On February 24, 1983, Mr. King was suspended without pay, and Mr.
Chwastyk was subsequently appointed acting Director of SO.
33.
On February 26, 1983, Mr. Arnold directed formation of an RRC to review the polar crane.
34.
On February 28, 1983, the February 17, 1983 comments by Richard Parks were rejected in a written response by the polar crane task group on the grounds that:
(1) 'the SER for the polar crane refurbishment concluded that the crane load test was not an unreviewed safety question; (2) AP 1047 did not apply to construction tests; and (3) the load test procedure was reviewed and approved by plant operation, PORC, QA, and Site Engineering.
35.
During a meeting on February 28, 1986 to discuss the polar crane, Mr.
Parks criticized the SER for the crane.
36.
On March 1,1983, Mr. Parks and Mr. Chwastyk sent a written rebuttal to the polar crane task group by internal memorandum # 4200-83-102 in i
_ -.. _. ~. - -
.... =
1
- 1 2
which they stated that SO would not approve the crane test procedure until the concerns over the requirements of AP 1047 were resolved.
37.
On March 1,
1983, Mr. Parks and Mr. Chwastyk also issued internal memorandum 4200-83-105 in which they repeated their view that the requirements of AP 1043 and 1047 must. be followed for the polar crane, which view, they stated, was shared by the QA group. In the memoran-dum they offered four suggestions to resolve the issue.
- 38. On March 1,1983, Mr. Parks issued an SO " Problem Report" addressing POR C's approval of the polar crane no-load operational test without j
compliance with AP 1043 and 1047.
30.
On March 3,1983 Mr. Parks raised a question of the safety of the polar crane cable during a meeting held in Room 209 to discuss presentation of polar crane matters to the RRC formed on February 26, 1983.
40.
On March 4,1983, a TWG meeting was held to discuss polar crane proce-dures.
The QA representative listed 5 modifications to the crane which were not performed in accordance with AP 1043. During this meeting Mr.
Parks raised questions of the functioning of the limit switches on the crane, the proposal to use the crane without a load test, and the pro-posed use of dummy switches.
- 41. On March 8, 1983, a Quality Deficiency Report (QDR-CHK-011-83) was issued on the polar crane for failure to follow AP 1043 and 1047.
I j
42.
On March 9, 1983, Lawrence King was questioned at the TMI-2 site by Robert Arnold concerning the Quiltec company and involvement of TMI-2 employees in the company.
During the March 9 questioning of Mr. King, Mr. Arnold inquired as to Mr. Parks' knowledge about the company.
- 43. A memorendum dated March 10, 1983(6110-83-046) from the manager of quality assurance (Ballard) to RO director Thelsing listed 11 deficiencies in the polar crane refurbishment.
- 44. On March 10, 1983, Mr. Parks, accompanied by another TMI-2 employee, Carl Hrbac, spoke to NRC inspector Joel Wiebe about the possibility of Parks being investigated concerning the Quiltec company.
Mr. Parks 3
expressed concern that GPUN was "trying to set him up to be fired for coming to the NRC with his allegation."
See March 11, 1983 memorandum from Wiebe to Christopher,
- 45. On March 10, 1983, TMIPO Deputy Director L. Barrett sent a note to J.
j Larson, GPUN, disapproving the polar crane recovery operations proce-dure.
No. 4000-IMP-3891 (Rev. 0).
i 46.
O r.
March 14, 1983, Mr. Parks was questioned at length about the Guiltec company by L.
Hoffman of the Bechtel Internal Auditing Group,
.ind R. Wheeler, Mr. Parks' administrative supervisor.
Mr. Parks ex-i
__.m.-.__,..
. l 6 plained that.his only association with the company was to obtain some after-hours typing by a GPUN secretary.
'47.
On March 15, 1983, Mr. Parks met with Mr. Sandford, Vice President of Bechtel, and Messrs. Wheeler. and Hoffman to discuss his safety and intimidation concerns.
4
- 48. On March - 16, 1983, Mr. Parks sent a letter through Director Kanga to Mr. Sandford offering to revise his safety concerns upon provision of an adequate technical explanation, and repeating his prior statement that he was in no way associated with the Quiltec company.
49.
On March 17, 1983, Mr. Parks met with Director Kanga for approximately 1
two hours to discuss Mr. Parks' safety concerns, and later met with Mr.
Chwastyk for the same reason.
50.
In the afternoon of March 17, 1983, Mr. Parks was shown memorandum
- 4200-83-147 written by Mr. Chwastyk with Mr. Kanga's approval, which removed Mr. Parks from the TWG for purposes of polar crane review.
[
51.
In a March 21, 1983 response to the QDR on the polar crane, Mr.
Theising stated AP 1043 and 1047 would be used in all future modifica-tions and related testing, and that personnel in RO would be trained in the procedures.
52.
On March 23, 1983, Mr. Parks held a news conference concerning his i
safety concerns at TMI-2, and filed a complaint with the Department of Labor pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act.
53.
On March 24, 1983, Mr. Parks. was suspended with pay by Bechtel and barred from the TMI-2 site.
- 54. An affidavit dated April 2,1983 by Mr. Gischel states at pages 15-16 that he overheard Mr. Kanga state on March 23, 1983 that Richard Parks could i
not be fired at that time because Parks had gone to NRC and was pro-tected by the Atomic Energy Act, but that he could be transferred or put on leave of absence "and then get rid of him quietly."
- 55. On April 7,1983, the NRC TMI-2 Program Office sent a notice of disap-i proval of the polar crane test procedure, 4370-3891-83-PCI, to GPU.
- 56. On May 12,1983, the Department of Labor investigative compliance officer issued a report finding that Bechtel had discriminated against Richard a
Parks for raising safety concerns.
- 57. On July 25, 1983, Mr. Parks and Bechtel signed a settlement agreement of the DOL complaint, which was subsequently dismissed.
58.
In accord with the settlement agreement, Mr. Parks was transferred to Bechtel offices in Daggett, California in August,1983.
4 I
i
e. -
. i 59.
A memorandum dated August 15, 1983 (#4000-83-509) states that several polar crane lifts less than 40 tons would be performed prior to the 220-ton maximum load test.
60.
On February 3,1984, Richard Parks was fired by Bechtel.
7
.I
- - -