ML20212K448
| ML20212K448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1987 |
| From: | Johnson G, Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2714 ALAB-634, CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8703090311 | |
| Download: ML20212K448 (25) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, j.W 27@ ?r WELA N 03/03/87 ~ DOLMETED ljSNRC UNITEP 9TATES OF AMERICA -NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'87 IMR -6 ' P2 :48 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGL y 99CMETmG 4 SERVICE BRANCH In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 50-320 GPULNITCLEAR CORPORATION ) (Civil Penalty) ) License No. DPR-73 (Three Mile -Island Nuclear Station. ) EA 84-137 Unit No. 2) ) NRC STAFF RESPONSE. IN OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS I. INTRODUCTION By motion dated February 4, 1987 1 GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) asked the presiding officer to issue subpoenas to appear at depo-sition to (1) an NRC employee in the Office of Investigations (Ronald A. Meeks) and (2) a former comoliance officer at the Department of Labor (David Feinberg), (3) a subpoena duces tecum to the United States De-partment of Labor (DOL) and a subpoena duces tecum for all notes, files, and other documents not previously produced which are in the posses-sion, custody, or control of Messrs. Meeks and Feinberg related to their investigations of the allegations of Richard Parks. The NRC staff (Staff) opposes the motion for subpoenas on the grounds set forth below. II. BACKGROUND This is an enforcement proceeding arsinst GPUN for acts of discrimi-nation, prohibited by 10 C.F.R. 50.7, against Richard D. Parks, formerly 1/ On this date GPUN also filed a motion to compel NRC staff to pro- ~ duce documents for which a claim of privilege had been made. DES GNATED
- ICINaI, 8703090311 870303
~ Cortified ,( 01 PDR ADOCK 05000320 0 PDR
1 employed by the Bechtel Corporation at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2. The acts of discrimination are set out in the " Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty" to GPUN dated August 12, 1985 and the " Order. Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty" issued to GPUN on March 4,1986. GPUN contested this order and requested a hearing. In February and March 1983, Mr. Parks came to the NRC with allegations that he was being discriminated against for raising safety concerns at TMI-2. In March 1983, Mr. Parks filed a formal complaint of discrim. nation with the DOL. As a result of allegations made, both the NRC and DOL initiated investigations. Initially, Mr. Parks' allegations 'were investigated by the Fenior Resident Inspector at TMI-2, Joel S. Wiebe.. Shortly after issuance of Mr. Parks' affidavit of March 21, 1983, filed with both the NRC and the DOL, the Commission directed investigation of Mr. Parks' allegations by both the Office of Investigations (OI) and the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA).. The activities of the NRC Program Office at TMI-2 directly related to investigation of the allegations were suspended, and OI began an investigation of the safety concerns Mr. Parks raised concerning the polar crane refurbishment program at TMI-2's damaged reactor. Attachment 3. The OIA investigation was to address allegations of collusion between the Program Office and GPUN related to violations of procedures alleged by Mr. Parks. OI issued a report of its investigation on Mr. Parks' safety allegations on September 1,1983. OIA issued its report on September 8, 1983. Both reports were made public in their entirety. During the 1983
2. _3- - 1984 time period. OI also conducted investigations into allegations of safety concerns raised by Lawrence P. King, who, until February 24, 1983 was Director of Site Operations at TMI-2, and Edwin H. Gischel, who in 1983 was Director. of Plant Engineering at TMI-2. Their safety allegations were also covered by the September 1983 OI report. In addition, OI pursued allegations of discrimination made by Messrs. King and Gischel. A report on these allegations was issued by OI on May 18, 1984, covering allegations of discrimination by Messrs. King, Gischel, and Parks. IIowever, the report almost exclusively addresses the allegations of Messrs. King and Gischel, and confines itself to a short paragraph on page 77 submitting the DOL report on Mr. Parks' allegations of discrimination "for NRC regulatory considerations." No investigation of Mr. Parks' discrimination allegations was conducted by OI and no findings were made. (Affidavit of Ronald A Meeks), at 12. In addition, the NRC conducted a preliminary review of Mr. Parks' allegations concerning the so-called " mystery man" during the TMI-2, accident, but never conducted a formal investigation on those allegations. Meeks Affidsvit, at 14. The DOL investigation is documented in a report of the DOL compliance officer, David Feinberg, which was attached to the May 18, 1984 OI report. - The DOL report was initially released in redacted l form to GPUN in 1985, and recently in full. The report of Mr. Feinberg is relied upon in "TMI-1 Restart: An Evaluation of the Licensee's 2/ Due to a settlement reached between Mr. Parks and the Bechtel Corporation, the discrimination complaint filed with DOL was never adjudicated. i
1 *. - Management Integrity -As It Affects Restart of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1, Docket 50-289" (NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5, July 1984) at pp. 10-5, 10-6. 4- . NUREG-0680, Supp. 5, Pars. 10.2.1, and 10.3.1, makes findings concerning Mr. Parks' allegations of discrimination, based on Mr. Parks' affidavit and the DOL report as forwarded to OI. No other sources are referenced therein. The findings in NUREG-0680, Supp. 5, formed the basis for the subsequent Notice of Violation and Imposition a Civil Penalty issued by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement in 1985 and t 1986. Discovery began in this proceeding after the first prehearing confer-ence held July 30, 1986. The parties have been pursuing discovery by written requests and responses and oral negotiations. The NRC staff has voluntarily responded to GPUN's discovery requests and has provided a series of extensive interrogatory and document responses identifying responsive materials found through its extensive document search. 3,/ y, particular, the Staff has endeavored to respond to GPUN's request for written witness statements and investigator notes of interviews with Mr. Parks or his representatives, as well as other witness statements relating to Mr. Parks' allegations. After an extensive search of OI files -3/ All witness statements obtained in the course of the OI investigation into the Parks-Gischel-King safety allegations were released in full as part of the September 1, 1983 OI Report. During a follow-up i search conducted February 24, 1987, handwritten and typed versions of these witness statements were identified. Among these are three 4 drafts of statements given by Mr. Parks, which formed the basis of his subsequent sworn statements. In furtherance of the Staff's efforts to fully disclose responsive documents, these handwritten and/or typed versions will be made available to GPUN for inspection 4 and copying. See, Meek Affidavit, at 111. .I
. y and telephone contacts with investigators who participated in the interviews of Mr. Parks, the Staff formally replied to GPUN that it was not aware of any additional responsive statements or notes. See letter dated Fovember 6, 1986 from G. Johnson, Staff Counsel to J. Patrick Hickey, Esq. With the exception noted in footnote 3, above, the Staff i. believes this statement to be true today. Meeks Afndavit, at 111. It is important to note that the majority of the responsive materials, including sworn witness statements and documents supporting the OI findings have long been available to GPUN. See, for example, Memorandum from William L. Clements to parties on TMI-1 Restart, dated June 11, 1984,
Subject:
Exhibits to OI Report #H-83-002 (Attachment 5). In addition, the Staff has produced numerous other documents from agency files. The Staff has declined to produce some requested documents on the grounds of privilege or exemption. O The instant GPUN motion for subpoenas does not seek these documents nor does this response address the Staff's claims of privilege or exemption which are addressed by separate pleading. E t However, GPUN's request for issuance of a subpoena for deposition of l Mr. Meeks is based in large part of the premise that the Staff response i to previous interrogatory and document requests is incomplete. By agreement between the parties, approved by the Presiding Ofn-cer, motions to compel within the ten day period provided by the Rules of Practice were not required until such time as negotiations failed and no-l l 4/ These are set out in GPUN's motion to compel production of i documents. l l 5/ See, NRC Staff Response to GPU Nuclear Corporation Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Produce Documents, served with this reponse.
.o tice was given to the Presiding Officer. On January 20, 1987 the parties notified the Presiding Officer that they were unable to resolve some dis-covery disputes and that motions to compel would be filed. GPUN filed the instant motion for subpoenas concurrently with a motion to compel production of documents. "GPU Nuclear Corporation's Motion To Compel NIIC Staff To Produce Documents and Request For Oral Argument", February 4, 1987. As documented in a letter to the Presiding Officer from Staff counsel of _ February 19, 1987, the time for response was extended to March 3,1987. As indicated above, the Staff's response to the motion to compel document production is being filed separately. III. DISCUSSION A. The Motion In its motion, GPUN asserts that it wishes to depose Messrs. Meeks and Feinberg concerning the " factual information" on which they based their reports of investigations and any additional information they may have obtained not reflected in the reports. Motion, pp.1-2. GPUN states that the September 1983 and May 1984 OI reports are not informative because oniv signed witness statements, brief interview l summaries by OI and a " highly" redacted version of the DOL Compliance Officer's Report have been provided in discovery concerning the two Of reports, and that the copy of the DOL Compliance Officer's report provided in discovery is incomplete because one witness statement is i, ' l I
_7_ 6,/ withheld and exhibits referenced in the report were not provided. Motion, pp. 4-5. GPUN states that it "does not know" if the statements of OI interviews provided by the Staff are from the only witnesses interviewed and whether subjects were discussed other than those relating to Mr. Parks' procedural and technical allegations. Id. GPUN wonders "to whom the NRC talked, what information. and evidence was obtained, j and where that evidence is presently located." Motion, p. 5. Similarly, GPUN questions whether there are witness interviews by the DOL Compliance Officer not produced in discovery. Id. According to GPUN, since Mr. Feinberg is not an NRC employee, a discovery motion against him need only show information of general rele-vance described in 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b)(1) is sought, which GPUN claims applies in this situation because the NRC Staff may seek to rely on the DOL report and because there may be other evidence of which GPUN has not.been informed. Motion, pp. 3,6. GPUN states that the motion for a subpoena duces tecum to DOL is subject to the same general discovery standard, and is necessary since Mr. Feinberg is retired and may no longer have access to agency files. Id. As to Mr. Meeks, GPUN states that 10 C.F.R. I 2.720(h), which, absent exceptional circumstances, exempts from deposition particular NRC employees not provided by the Staff, does not apply to this proceeding, on the ground that I 2.720(h) was enacted with a view to licensing 6/ As noted above, the Staff has released the entire report, including the one previously withheld witness statement. The Staff has not ~ received or reviewed other materials which may be in the possession of DOL. V -. -~ - -,,, ...,-.-,_y.---.----w---<...r-w--,.w, --.-v-ve,--w-,--v,ww.,,%3yv.---,- -,,..-,-----w-ew-.w, ,-e----c, w +r 3 ,.-,%-we
- y. proceedings and should not be applied to enforcement proceedings, where agency documents are not routinely made available.
Alternatively, GPUN argues that even if the protection of the rule applies to Mr. Meeks, the exceptional circumstances described in the rule exist since Mr. Meeks has direct personal knowledge of " discoverable information critical to GPUN's defense, which information is not possessed by other witnesses designated by the NRC staff." Motion, pp. 7-10. GPUN makes unsupported statements - that complete statements of interviews of Mr. Parks existed, and seeks to depose Mr. Meeks about whether notes, statements and other materials were " destroyed or lost," and about the scope of his document search. I' lotion, pp.12,14. B. Legal Standards for Discovery The Commission's general rules of discovery are set out in 10 C.F.R. II 2.740-2.744. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any l matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(a)(1). However, a " higher standard" is applicable to interrogatories and depositions of the NRC Staff, as set i out in 10 C.F.R. I 2.720(h)(2)(f) and (ii). See, Consumers Power Company (Palisades Nuclear Power Facility), ALJ-80-1,12 FRC 117,119 3 (1980); see, also Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station), AT A R-613, 12 NRC 317, 323 (1980). Although Palisades involved a motion to compel answers to interrogatories and document requests, the Judge recognired that bringing of a civil penalty enforcement proceeding by the Staff does not obviate the applicability of t the requirement that a party demonstrate that information is necessary to l 4 i
a proper decision in the proceeding in order to overcome an otherwise proper assertion of privilege. 7I Id., at 126. As indicated by 10 C.F.R. I 2.720(h)(2)(1), where deposition is sought of named NRC personnel other than those made available, a demonstration must be made of " exceptional circumstances," before discovery of the particular NRC employee will be required. Consumers Power Company (Midic.nd Plant, Units 1 and 2), LB P-81-4, 13 NRC 216, referral declined, ALAD-634, 13 NRC 96, 97-98 (1981). C. GPUN IIas Failed to Carry its Burden to Support Deposition of Mr. F.feeks GPUN's argument that Section 2.720(h)(2)(1) does not apply in enforcement proceedings has no merit. First, Subpart G is expressly made applicable to all adjudications initiated, as this one is, pursuant to Section 2.205(e). 10 C.F.R. I 2.700. Second, by its terms, Section 2.720(h)(2)(i) addresses proceedings "in which the NRC is a party," without limitation, and the provisions for a determination concerning the showing of " exceptional circumstances" is to be made by the " presiding officer". Similarly, as acknowledged in the motion, the Commission's Statement of Considerations accompanying the issuance of 10 C.F.R. I 2.720 explains that the rule was to be applied to adjudicatory proceedings. 35 Fed. Reg. 19500 (December 23, 1970). No limitation of the rule to licensinF proceedings is even suggested. Pforeover, both the Ptidland and 7/ In Palisades, Judge noted the appropriateness of the Staff's waiver, in that case, of the " higher standard" as applicable to requests for relevant factual material. Id., at 119-120.
Palisades decisions, cited above, apply the provisions of I 2.720(h)(1) and (ii) to enforcement proceedings. Nor is there any merit to GPUN's claim that even if Section 2.720(h)(2)(1) epplies to enforcement proceedings, the very nature of enforcement proceedings, dictates a finding of " exceptional circumstances." Assuming, arguendo, that - there is some merit to the assertion that there may be a difference between enforcement proceedings and licensing proceedings to the extent supporting documentation in investigations may not be publicly available, such a rationale is clearly not applicable to the specific circumstances of this proceeding. Unlike the usual situation, in which O! investigations are not publicly available, in this case, both the September 1, 1983 and May 18, 1984 OI reports were made available to the public and to GPUN in full. Not only the positions of the Staff, as represented in its enforcement actions, but the bases therefor, have been fully disclosed. See also, NUREG-0680, Supp. 5. There is nothing " secret" about the investigations which were conducted. The basis for the Staff action has been fully disclosed. All reports, of interviews, and similar materials are currently available to GPUN. II In short, GPUN's claims that I 2.720(h)(2)(i) is inapplicable i 8/ Further, the Staff sees no pertinent distinction to be drawn between ~ an enforcement case and a licensing proceeding besed on " private interests" or "compellinr needs". Plotion, p.10. The interest of a licensee in an application (particularly under Part 50) is certainly " private,"
- and, givt.n the applicants' economic stake in the proceeding, " compelling."
Similarly, where a Staff member indeed has " personal knowledge of a material fact," exceptional circumstances may erist, whether the proceeding be one brought by l the Staff against a license, or one growing out of a license application. i )
~_. .~ to enforcement proceedings, or alternatively, that " exceptional circumstances" exist, per se, must be rejected. Finally, applying the standard provided in Section 2.720(h)(2)(1), GPUN has failed to show " exceptional circumstances." First, and foremest, GPUN has failed to describe any material facts as to which Mr. Meeks has personal knowledge. With respect to the material facts in this proceeding, those with personal knowledge, apart from NRC Staff i witnesses already designated Mr. Wiebe, Mr. A. Bill Beach and Mr. Parks nearly all the individuals having personal knowledge of 4 material facts are present or former GPUN or Bechtel employees. The individuals to whom the OI has spoken during its investigations have been fully disclosed in the publicIv available reports. GPUN has access to these individuals, and does not need to depose Mr. Meeks to learn of their identities or the extent of their personal knowledge. Their prior statements, both those given to 01, and those given to GPUN and Bechtel in their own investigations of the Parks allegations, are available to GPUN and are more than adequate basis for probing the accuracy of the positions taken by the Staff in this enforcement proceeding. 4 i GPUN's speculation that 01 talked to other individuals not disclosed I is completely without foundation, it points to not a single individual to whom O! spoke, who was not previously identified. Given the long history of the generation of this case, and the documentary record, the 1 fact that GPUN has not been able to name a single individual shows that such a person does not exist. It is the fitaff's position that its search for documents was thorough and the results of the search disclosed in good faith. Counsel for the -,._- ~.- -_, - _.-
7.- Staff has previously disclosed in oral conversations that the Staff has contacted those participants in the investigation of Mr. Parks' safety allegations - Messrs. Meeks, Beach, Walker, Rogers, and Vorse - to assure itself that all available documents generated during the investigation of Parks' safety concern have been identified. The Staff has also provided lists of OIE and TMI Program Office employees who were contacted in the course of its document search. The record will show that the Staff has diligently supplemented its responses with all documents found concerning Mr. Parks' statements, including records of telephone contacts, draft statements submitted by Mr. Parks, and materials submitted by Mr. Parks or on his behalf. These materials number in the neighborhood of 1,000 pages. Mr. Meeks' search for documents responsive to the GPUlf discovery requests is further documented in an attached affidavit. Of particular note in this regard is the baseless insinuation by GPUN that Mr. Meeks improperly destroyed documents which he was required to retain. GPUN speculates that complete witness statements exist or existed, and deposition of Mr. Meeks is needed to learn of their whereabouts or the circumstances of their being unavailable. No foundation is supplied. ~ Pfr. Meeks' affidavit states that while preliminary versions of the statements published in the OI reports were prepared as part of the reports' preparation, and some were retained in OI files, all information which may have been recorded in such preliminary versions was faithfully included in the final reports. Affidavit, 16. Disposal of any notes on which such statements were based was not only proper under then 6
2,. existing Of policy on retention of such materials, but of no consequence L -to this proceeding. EI Affidavit, 17. As a result, the desire of GPUN to probe Mr. Meeks' recollection of how he went about his investigation, and what he did with any materials which were disgarded is not a basis for a showing of " exceptional circumstances." His actions, and those of other investigators, are not the subject of this proceeding. Not only are they not material to the proceeding, they are not relevant to it. As noted by the Judge in Palisades, 12 NRC at 126, the Staff must prove its case de novo in the hearing and on review by a preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence. Whether that case is proved will not he decided on any basis not known to licensee. Id. A baseless allegation that exculpatory information has been lost or destroyed does not transform irrelevant information into evidence material to this proceeding. ISI Attempts to transform this proceeding from one looking to the validity of 9/ Ars noted in footnote 3, above, and in Mr. Meeks' affidavit, a ~ follow-up search of 01 files was conducted on February 24, 1987, during which three draft statements based on interviews with Mr. Parks were identified, in addition to other handwritten and typed versions of the witness statements included in the September 1, 1983 Of Report. This material as well as other materials responsive to GPUN's 3rd Document Request, are being produced separately. --10/ In this regard, it should be noted that GPUN's speculation concerning the possible use by the Staff at hearing of the 01 Reports, the DOL report, or similar secondary evidence is not a basis for issuance of the ab poena. Cf. Long Island Lighting Company, (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-773,19 NRC 333, at 1344 (1984). As contemplated by the Judge in Palisades, the Staff intends to present its case de novo. In any event, Mr. Meeks' knowledge concerning the preparation of these reports does not constitute personal knowledge of material facts.
l the matters set out in the Notice of Violation (NOV) into an investigation of the Staff must be rejected. Deposition of Mr. Meeks for this purpose is not required to provide " fundamental fairness." E In sum, GPUN has not demonstrated that Mr. Meeks could provide the " direct personal knowledge of a material fact" relevant to the matters in the NOV, ' and the " exceptional circumstances" standard predicate to the deposition of NRC employees under 10 C.F.R. I 2.720(h)(2)(1) has not been met. D. The Motion to Compel Deposition of Mr. Feinberg and For a Subpoena Duces Tecum for DOL Files The Department of Labor has notified NRC Staff counsel that it intends to respond in opposition to GPUN's motion independently. The Staff generally supports opposition to the requested subpoenas. The Staff wishes only to add that since GPUN now possesses the complete DOL report and all witness statements, deposition of Mr. Feinberg, and production of all DOL flies with Parks materials do not appear calculated to lead to discovery of relevant evidence not already in GPUN's possession. It would seem highly unlikely that Mr. Feinberg would have a better recollection today of what he was told during April and May 1983 interviews than that contained in the staterrents recorded contemporaneously which GPUN already possesses.
- Moreover, 11/ Drukker Communications, Inc.
- v. NLRB, 700 F.2d 727 (D.C. Cir.
~~ ~B83), does not support Issuance of3e subpoena to Mr. Meeks in the circumstances here presented. Unlike in that case, where the NLRB's regional employee was an eye witness to an oral agreement which was material to an issue in the case, Mr. Meeks has no personal knowledge of any of the events here in litigation. Moreover, unlike the cited case, there has been no showing that the employee whose subpoena is sought possesses evidence which would demonstrate GPUN's innocence in the matter.
Mr. -Feinberg will not be a witness for the Staff, the Staff has not reviewed Mr. Feinberg's files, nor does the Staff intend to rely directly upon Mr. Feinberg's report. Rather the Staff intends to establish through live testimony and contemporaneous documentation that the violation of 10 C.F.R. I 50.7 occurred. As a result, while it is arguable that there may be some general relevance of testimony which might be adduced by deposition of Mr. Feinberg, or production of DOL files on the Parks matter, issuance of such subpoenas is unlikely to provide any information concerning the law and facts on which the Staff will rely. (These have already been fully provided, as stated above.) There would appear to be good cause for issuance of a protective order, based upon annoyanco, oppression, undue burden, and expense that would flow from issuance of subpoena to Mr. Feinberg, or to DOL. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the GPUN motion for subpoenas should be denied. Respectfully subnitted, cY Colleen P. bodhead (bunsel for NRC Staff George Ed Johr n Counsel for NI Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of March,1987
.a ~ c. ATTACHMENT 4 tiarch 10, 1983 t ~ . a liKOR/WDUi' FOR: R.K. Christopher, Director Office of Investigations THRU: A.N. Fasano, Chief Three Ilile Island-2 Project Section J.S. Wiebe, Senior Resid'ent inspector (THI-2) FR0ii: Three Mile Island-2 Project Section SU3 JECT: ALLEGATION FROM RICK PARKS, DATED FEBRUARY 18, 1983 As de~ tailed in the Re, port of Allegation,' dated February 18, 1983, Rick Parks alleged that because of his comer.ts on the Polcr Crane Load Test procedure and the Polar Crane Functional Test procedure, Bechtel Engineering Management wanted him transferred off-site. Without revealing names or specifics involved, I discussed General Public Utill' tics (GPU) handling of internal coments with 'several GPU employees. This letter documents these discussions. Park's supervisir, Larry Kin indicated that Parks had told him that he (Parks)g (Dire.ctor, Site Operations)} would be transferred had been told that he (Parks from the site because of the corscnts he (Parks) had made on the Polar Crane Test procedures. King believed that it happened as relcted by Parks. When asked if management at THI-2 tried to suppress safety concerns, King said he. would not go that far but only that cearnents were not well received. King also indiccted that Ed Gischel, Manager, Plant Engineering, had brought up cornents concerning the Polar Crane Load Test. These cermonts, in King's and Gischel's cpinion, were not cdoquately addressed. Upon reviewing the subject of the 'ccr':.cnts with Ed Gischel, I noted that these cctmerits were similar to issues ccncerning the adequacy of the Pclar Crane Load Test which viore being ccnsidered by the NRC and HRC consultants. Ed Kiticr. Startup and Test Superviser, was qhstioned concerning the Startup and Test Group involvernent in reviewing the Polar Crane Test Procedures. Kitler indicated that the Test Working Group is reviewing the test procedure (one of Rick Park's corments was that the Test Working Group was not involved with reviewing the test procedure) to detenaine the applicability of Administrative Procedures 1047 and 1043 to the Polar Crane Test procedure unuuier or rarx's cuitaxsits). t.reitri e>xeu ' sier Anittw ur easy tii>tarit.e> iviseie individual's jobs were at stake because of cornnts they nade, Kitler said ho ATTACHMENT 1 - >...................................................................................................................l........ ~~w I 8418 ) lu..:...........
N R.M. ChristopheF 22- !* arch 10,1983 did not know of any. Kitler then brought up Parks name by saying that he (Kitler) was leaving his present position and that Parks may be transferred intothevpcant' position. Kitler indicated that this would be a promotion for Parks. u Charlie Haisen, c Bechtel Licensing Engineer, involved in the Polar Crane Test, was asked if he knew of any instances where an individual's employment had been - threa tened. Charlie Hansen said he had no knowledge of such an instance. When asked if he knew of any instances where it could have been perceived to be so, Hansen said no. Hansen went on to say that Gischel's coments came after the issues brought up had alread after an extensive illness) y been addressed (Gischel had just returned to work and the reluctance to re-address these issues may have been nisinterpreted as a reluctance to address them altogether. Hansen indicated that a letter had been sent to Gischel explaining that his cocinents had already been addressed (I verified this by reviewing the letter). Jim Theising, Manager cf Recovery Programs, was asked if he knew of any instances where an ir,dividual's job was threatened because of coments which had been made. Theising indicated that he knew of no such instances and went on to say that Bechtel and GPU management would not knowingly allow such a practice. Following the above discussions, I discussed the situation with Parks, indicating that I could find no evidence,to verify or refute his allegation. I infomed him that I would inform the NRC' Office Of Investigations of my findings. I asked him if he wanted the NRC to take any additicnal action. Parks indicated that he was in a meeting (which included Bahman Kanga, Director cf TP.1-2, and B. Dallard, Manager of Quality Assurance Modifications / Operations), in which.Ballard agreed to review the applicability of , Administrative P,rocedures 1047 and 1043 to the Polar Crane Test procedures. Parks indicated he was satisfied that his concerns were being addressed (possibly because the NRC was asking questions), and he felt no further NRC. action was warranted at this time. in conclusion, I found no evidence to support Parks allegation and it appeared that all ccarnents on the Polar Crane were receiving adequate canagement t.ttention and were being addressed. J.S. Wiebe Senidr Resident Inspector (THI-2) Three Mile Island-2 Project Section l l ll*""> }' A.S......... .Tyyf.S.......... 1M. j '*W be.:.ies.. k.as aM..........L r. .!.9/83...... 31/aa3......... 3// A 183._ -
o UNITED STATES j g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- p WASHINGTON,0. C. 20565
%.....p March 25, 1983 CHAIRMAN { -{ MEMORANDUM FOR: James J. Cummings, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor Ben B. Haves, Director Office of" Investigations r) } [ FROM: Nunzio J.Palladino / N s' -f'
SUBJECT:
TMI-2 ALLEGATIONS The allegations provided by the Government Accountability Project regarding improper actions at THI-2 are to be investigated by OI and OIA, with assistance from the EDO on their technical aspects. In addition to addressing the a legations touching upon the conductofthelicenseeandits[ contractors,IwouldlikeOI to assume the responsibility for coordinating: (1) with the EDO, the identification and application of technical staff resources that may be required to address the allegations, (2) with OIA, the scope and schedule of OIA's examination of allegations touching upon the conduct of NRC employees. I would like OI to provide a ennrdinated plan for addr6ssing the allegations, including the scope and type of inquiries or investigations envisioned, the resources to be applied, a schedule of near term steps, and a preliminary estimate of the overall time frame these activities might entail. This plan should be provided to the Commission by March 31. cc: Commissioner Gili... Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine SECY OGC OPE OCA OPA ASLDP ASLAP EDO ATTACHMENT 2
... T .a aes - UNITED STATES E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c 9 WASHINGTON. D. C. 20605 k# I. e March 25,1983 .{ MEMORANDUM FOR: L. Barrett, Deputy Director, TMI Program Office, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: -B. J. Snyder Director. TMI Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
TMIPO ACTIVITIES RELATIVE TO ALLEGATIONS.MADE BY MR. RICHARD PARKS-At the request of Mr. Ben Hayes, Director. 01, at 3:30 p.m. today, our office is to immediately cease all activities which relate in any way to the allegations made in Mr. Richard Parks' affidavit of March 21,1983. In particular, none of our staff shoup pursue any of the issues raised by Mr. Parks, even though a number of them appeared as open issues in NRC inspection reports prior to receipt of Mr. Parks' affidavit. Basically, the request from Mr. Hayes is that we have no interaction with the licensee, Bechtel or anyone else on these matters. The only exception is if an urgent safety issue is evident, obviously we will i take whatever steps are necessary. As you know, our preliminary review of Mr. Parks' affidavit upon receipt on March 23, 1983 did not identify any safety issues which required imediate resolution. However, until further notice NRC should not approve any operations with the polar crane. Furthermore, I believe it is appropriate to direct any future inquiries from the media to Mr. Hayes. At this point it does not appear appropriate for us to be responding to outside inquiries. F I (,. A - p m 3-n B. J. Sn er. Director TMI Pro m Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: TMIPO Staff, Hq. & Site H. Denton B. Hayes OI i W. Dircks t J. Cumings, OIA J. Fouchard, PA L i ATTACHMENT 3 i
1 .D :. A-s ,~ l g.y q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0pWISSION '~ ' BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE L In the Matter of Docket No. 50'320 ,- GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION !(Civil Penalty) J License No.'DPR-73 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, EA 84-137 Unit No.t 2) AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD A. MEEK 5 1, Ronald A. Meeks, being duly sworn, affirw as follows: 1. I am an investigator with the Office of-Investigations (0!), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission -(NRC), currently assigned to Region V, in Walnut Creek, CA. Prior to April 1984, I was an investigator with 01, assigned to . Headquarters, in Bethesda,60, and was in that position throughout 1983. 2. At the request of the Comission, in March 1983' O! opened an investigation into allegations made by Messrs. Parks, King and Gischel arising out of events at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (Case No H-83-002). The first phase of this investigation concerned the safety concerns of the allegers. This phase of the investigation was conducted mainly in the spring of i 1983 and a Report of Investigation (ROI) was issued on september 1,1983. The second phase of the investigation concerned an allegation that detectable amounts of cesium 137 in a TNI-2 sewage tank were concealed in a report to the NRC and was addressed in a separate ROI, dated December 21, 1983. The third phase of the investigation concerned allegations of harassment and intimidation, l and resulted in issvence of an ROI dated May 18, 1984 This report addressed allegations made by Messrs. King, Gischel and Parks. However, 01 did not conduct its own investigation into allegations of discrimination made by ATTACHMENT 4 [ E00 000 04 s licipati p u 6 n SD60 48gE0
-2 t Mr. Parks, other than taking a sworn statement from Mr. Parks. Rather, it forwarded a report by the Department of Labor to the Office of lospection and Enforcement (OIE) for. Its regulatory consideration, and 01 made no findings concerning the allegations of discrimination made by Mr. Parks. The fourth phase pertained to Mr. Parks' allegation in his March 21, 1983 affidavit that George Kunder was the so-called " mystery man" during the TMI-2 accfdent. 3. James Vorse and I interviewed Mr. Parks on April 27 and by 2 and 3.-1983. Based on these interviews three separate sworn statements were prepared by.Mr. Vorse and me for Mr. Parks' signature. These statements were contained in the September 1,1983 and May 8,1984 R0!s, respectively. Further information is contained in g answers to interrogatories served, . September 23, 1986. 4. A fourth statement concerning Mr. Parks' " mystery man" allegaticn.tiso resulted from the interviews conducted on April 27 and May 2 and 3,1983. The fourth statement was submitted to Mr. Parks, who added to it and returned it to l ~ me in draf t form. Mr. Parks never signed this draft statement. The "stystery i man" issue was referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for follow-up. NRR never referred the matter back to Of for further investigation l and I had no further involvement in this issue. Of conducted no further activities on Mr. Parks' "estery man" allegation. 5. As documented in notes and other materials produced in discovery on October 29, 1986, I had conversations with Mr. Parks relating to his employment at the Coo 1 water Coal Gasification Project in Daggett, California, in late' 1903 l and in 1984 He raised complaints concerning his treatment at that facility by Bechtel and I conducted an interview with him before a court reporter on [ c June 12, 1984. i I i I E00 000*04 s mt938 asen 9 :60 40/t0/r0
3 ^ - y ,~ - 3_ y3 ,a \\ o v a .,^p i g 3 3_ a P I t 6. All information - furnjithed by Mr.. Parks in Ms interviews with me s concerning Case No. H-83-002 werE recorded by me in n/ interview notes. That information was reproduced in an initial draf t statement of the Parks interview. !? To the best of my recollection; when that,dhaft statement was broken down to the e four statements referrevi to 'ehe, s11 the information from the initial draft i statement was transferred to the four individual statements. 7. Sfre contents of sty investigation notes of the Parks intervfews in Case H-83-002 w'ere included in the Parks statements in that case, my notes were discarded. The discarding of these notes was at my discretion. Under 0! policy ,g then in.~tffect, as well as NRC policy generally, reter..fon of Investigator's notes was at the discretion of the investigator. ~ Subsequent to this L l investigation, 01 policy on the retention of investigator notes has been changed to require the investigator to plc.ce his or her notes < in the case fil6 Information furnished to me by Mr. Parks in tinterviews in the related case, Q5-84-024, concerning events in Daggett, California, was recorded in the notes and transcript preViout,1y orchided. 8. In conjunction with responding to interrogstories and document requests i from GPU Nuclear Operations, I scarched 01: Region V flies. The material located in these files related to 01:RV case QS-84-024 and was furnished to staff l { ,counsal for identification and production as appropriate. To the best of my f$ knowledge, all information relating to Mr. Parks involving that case has been made'available to GPU Nuclear. l 9. In addition, on Noveeber 11, 1986, I made a search of O! Headquarters filen to complete the deccenent search concerning the GPU Nuclear interrogatories t' and document requests. Documents identified as responsive were forwarded to ~ staff counsel for identification and production, as appropriate. i s P90 RM*04 G HDID3d Defs1
- 3 r60 484040
I 1 a 10 On February 24, 1984, another search of 01:HQ Case H-83-002 files was made by me to identify documents containing identifies of confidential durces. private personal information and predecisional material. This was done so that the remainder of the material in DI:HQ files under Case H-83-002 relating to Parks - King - Gischel issues could be made available for review by counsel for 'GPU Nuclear. l
- 11. All notes, draft statements, and other materials : relating to Mr. Parks' allegations in OI files have been identified in the searches described herein.
The February 24,'1987 search resulted in identification of the original draft of l Mr. Parks' statement made during the interviews of. April 27 and May 2 and 3, 1983, as well as two. revised draft statements of Mr. Parks. These documents were located during my Movember 11, 1987 search but they were not furnished at that time because I recognized the documents to be duplicates of 1 - the Parks' statements already in the possession of GPU Nuclear. -The contents of these drafts are fully reflected in the. Parks' statements previously made i available. As a result, all notes, draft statements, and other materials in 01 i files relating to Mr. Parks have been fcund and have been or are being made .cvailable to GPU Nuclear. I L i ~: munw W "" yymim Ronald A. Meeks Subscribed and sworr, to before me this 3rd day of March, 7 m 0*./ . Nstary Public My conmission expires: 5/28/88 i \\ f f c. k IEIU3d O#UI- -- ES 8$$ J# "AN6NL
($$}. ?5f%% Tj~ i$TGffy 2 M. -k 1**
- * ".4 m "W**
"WE:" ~" I $1 I d W -. _. @%p--f i - g,,pw r +rasrc. n-> 2n ~}' ^ ' p. %* %; in. _ a- _._s , sf& (e hp3@MMP?y:i)JRW %. .' *ft y '/ - s owlfsc sTAtts'.w - P:sce.' ' '..YE~d. v< gi Y 9 ! i[ g.4h g E's ?. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$4DN i b4 l l maane.orose.oz.ases C h June 11, 1984 l-QN
- ..=
J* ,e.e m g ~ W E 11 21:02 i.aj ass os tas t gogggy.. w 3gg g g$a secastaav Pa00.f. UTIL FAC..g,,,ge) 3 DK! ... w,. = 4= ,i (8!&& G:i*idl# ' ' H]J t*:sn:s an t -9 g MENORANDUM FOR: Maxine M. Woelfling. Esq. q E" Cormonwealth of Pennsylvania SERVED JUN 111384 .; V . Q.% <0 Marjorie M. Aamodt J. gjg ,1 :, W [ George Trowbridge. Esq. ~IC General Public Utilities fiz /, ;
- (( i o (0 G V4 ( Weqts et-7M Joanne Doroshow. Esq.
J v kdcJSon N/ TMIA u.m h Steven C. Sho11v TI E Union of Concer'nec Sc16 tis:t Joseph Gray, Esc. Q USNRC-ELD gg sr2 [E hilliam L. Clements C*.ief. Doce.eting anc Service Branet FROM: 1y f[h
SUBJECT:
EIHIBITS TC 0: REPORT 9.-65-00: m. Attached are the exhibits to the Office of Investigations Report titled: hk THREE MILE !$ LAND NGS. UNIT 2. ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DISCRIMlHAi!ON FOR RAISING SAFETY RELATED CONCERNS (fH-83-002) which was previously served on (?.g. May 23,1984 h{.d' ky e.. b IM! @} tG t 1. f J cc: ASL8P 1 ASLA8 l... 5 r*- ATTACHMENT 5
- c. N$t
~M P/s 33 W.C;.A -e .1,ht
4 .;0'E ii f SNr,r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. 17 11AR P2 :49 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 4 6Ff N 'o :'a + J 54CdUE s d MU BRANCH In the Matter of ) ) Docket.No. 50-320 ~GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ' ) (Civil Penalty) ) License No. DPR-73 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station ) EA' 84-137 Unit No. 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I ' hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF
RESPONSE
IN OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE OF S UB POENAS." "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO GPU NUCLEAR MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF TO PRODUCE DOCUPfENTS," and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" for Gregory Alan Berry in the above-captioned proceeding - have been served on the following by deposit in the United States
- mall, first
- class, or, as indicated
- by an
- asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 3rd day of March,1987.
- Ivan ' W. Smith, Esq.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Administrative Law Judge Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atomic Safety and Licensing Poard 2300 N Street, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20037 Washington, DC ' 20555.
- Atomic Safety and ' Licensing Steven L. Hock, Esq.
Appeal Board. Thelen, Marrin, Johnson, Bridges U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 Embarcadero Center i Washington, DC 20555 San Francisco, CA 94I11
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, DC 20555 g n,o ' / George E! Jo son j (Cdunseldor N C Staff I l f m}}