ML20214W524
| ML20214W524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1987 |
| From: | Doris Lewis GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3731 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8706160068 | |
| Download: ML20214W524 (49) | |
Text
,..
(
b y, p....
.r !:
June 8, 1987
'87 JUN 11 A10:24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[,0 h,, i i b~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E f: t, t.c" Before the Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of
)
GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. 50-320 O'#
)
EA-84-137 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 2)
)
GPUN'S PARTIAL RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS On April 28, 1987, the NRC Staff sent to GPUN the "NRC Staff First Request for Admissions."
At the prehearing conference held on May 8, 1987, the Presiding Officer ruled, pursuant to 10 C.F.R 5 2.742(b), that GPUN had thirty days to answer those requests to which GPUN was able to respond without further discovery, to con-tinue thereafter to answer remaining requests within ten days of being so able, and to complete answers to the requests seven days after the close of discovery.
Tr. 221.
In accordance with these instructions, GPUN provides the following partial response.
Answers to Request Numbers 13, 36, 38, 40-43, 62, 67 and 78 will be provided after further discov-ery.
l 8706160068 870608g ADOCK O gDR
]>so3
m
~
3_
.-**J e
s GENERAL OBJECTIONS The NRC Staff has submitted 107 requests, most of which con-tain multiple assertions of fact in violation of the requirement to set forth separately each specific matter of which an admis-sion is sought.
Since many of the requests are inaccurate, GPUN has been required to parse, with considerable effort, each re-quest phrase by phrase to respond accurately.
Many of the re-quests are couched in vague terms, which has increased the diffi-culty of preparing an accurate response.
In addition, many of the Staff's requests are irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding.
Notwithstanding these and other objections stated below, GPUN has' endeavored to answer the re-quests in order to expedite this proceeding and avoid disputes.
Where possible, GPUN has restated inaccurate requests for admis-4 sions to reflect the facts.
GPUN has also identified and admit-ted to the genuineness of documents, despite not having been pro-vided copies for authentication as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.742(a).
By providing such information and admitting to the genuineness of documents, however, GPUN does not intend to waive objections to the relevance of requests.
If and when the Staff i
seeks to introduce an admission into evidence, GPUN reserves the right to object to the admission as irrelevant and obtain a ruling from the Presiding Officer.
l -. _ _ -.
e d
RESPONSES Request No. 1:
"That during 1980-81 Richard Parks was employed by the NUS Corporation as senior shift test engineer for con-struction, testing, and operation of the submerged demineralizer system installed at TMI-2."
GPUN admits that Richard Parks was employed by NUS and as-signed by NUS to TMI-2 from June 1980 to December 1981.
GPUN denies that Richard Parks held the position'of " senior shift test engineer."
Parks states on his resume that at TMI-2 he acted in the capacity of an operations engineer.
GPUN objects to the por-tion of the request asserting that Parks was employed "for con-struction, testing and operation of the submerged demineralizer system installed at TMI-2" as vague.
It is ambiguous whether this portion of the request is attempting to describe the purpose for which NUS hired Mr. Parks or is attempting to describe Mr.
Parks' subsequent work at TMI-2.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN further states that to the extent the request is intended to describe the purpose for which NUS hired Mr. Parks, it relates to information that is not in GPUN's possession and that GPUN cannot admit or deny.
To the extent it is intended as a description of Parks' work at TMI-2 in 1980-81, GPUN denies the request.
GPUN admits that Parks participated in the testing of the submerged demineralizer system.
Request No. 2:
"That Richard Parks was employed by Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) in May, 1982 and assigned to the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 site (TMI-2)."
- 1
d GPUN admits this request.
Request No. 3:
"That during these periods the aforesaid (sic),
Mr. Parks helped develop and implement the startup and test pro-gram for TMI-2 recovery."
GPUN objects to the request as vague.
The time frame re-ferred to in the request (i.e.,
"these periods") is not defined; nor does the previous request define a period of time.
- Moreover, it is unclear what is meant by " helped develop and implement."
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that Michael Herlihy, the Startup and Test Manager, was responsible for preparing Ad-ministrative Procedure 1047, which pertains to the Unit 2 Recov-ery Test Program.
This procedure was prepared in 1980, when Parks was an NUS employee at TMI-2.
During 1980, Mr. Parks may have provided assistance to Mr. Herlihy in drafting AP-1047.
Since neither Mr. Parks nor Mr. Herlihy is currently employed by GPUN, GPUN is unable to confirm whether the contribution, if any, by Parks to the preparation of the procedure was substantial.
Request No. 4:
"That in September 1982, an integrated organiza-tion, composed of Bechtel and General Public Utilities-Nuclear Division (GPUN) employees was formed at TMI-2 to continue the task of clean-up after the 1979 accident at the site."
GPUN admits that in September 1982 the first phase of a re-organization to create an integrated organization composed of Bechtel and GPU Nuclear Corporation employees became effective to operate, maintain, and conduct decontamination and recovery oper-ations at TMI-2 in a safe, reliable and efficient manner in. -.
conformance with corporate policies and all applicable laws, reg-ulations, licenses, technical requirements, and other require-ments.
The request is inaccurate in referring to " General Public Utilities-Nuclear Division" and in suggesting that the function of the integrated organization was limited to the " task of clean-up."
Request No. 5:
"That a primary factor for the reorganization was to improve the poor morale of Bechtel and GPUN employees at TMI-2."
GPUN denics this request.
The purpose of the reorganization was to improve operational effectiveness of the TMI-2 Division of GPUN by integrating some of the Bechtel and GPUN activities, thus increasing management attention to all aspects of the TMI-2 re-covery effort.
Request No. 6:
"That the integrated organization at TMI-2 con-sisted of five divisions, two of which were Recovery Operations (RO) and Site Operations (SO)."
GPUN admits that, effective September 1, 1982, there were six Departments within the TMI-2 Division of GPUN.
Two of the Departments were the Site Operations Department and the Recovery Programs Department.
Recovery Operations was a section in the Recovery Programs Department.
Request No. 7:
"That RO consisted primarily of Bechtel employees and SO consisted primarily of GPU or GPUN employees."
GPUN admits that in September 1982 through 1983, the sala-ried employees in Recovery Operations (i.e.,
excluding hourly.
employees who were being supervised by Recovery Operations) were primarily Bechtel employees and that the Site Operations Depart-ment was composed primarily of GPUN and Metropolitan Edison Com-pany employees.
Request No. 8:
"That the integrated organization at TMI-2 was directed by Robert C. Arnold, President of GPUN; Bahman K. Kanga, a Bechtel employee, who was Director of TMI-2; and John J.
Barton, a GPUN employee who was Deputy Director of TMI-2."
GPUN admits that in September 1982 and through the summer of 1983, Robert C. Arnold was President of GPUN; Bahman K. Kanga, a Bechtel employee on loan to GPUN for the recovery project, was Director, TMI-2; and John J.
Barton, a GPUN employee, was Deputy Director, TMI-2.
Request No. 8a: "That Mr. Barton had no responsibilities other than those delegated him by Mr. Kanga."
a.
GPUN denies this request.
The TMI-2 Administrative Procedure Manual delegates responsibility to the Office of Direc-tor, which consists of the Director and Deputy Director jointly.
Request No. 8b: "That the Director of TMI-2 was responsible for supervising day-to-day operations at TMI-2."
b.
GPUN admits that the responsibilities of the Office of Director, TMI-2, included direction and control of the plant re-covery program (including the decontamination, recovery, opera-tion and maintenance) of Three Mile Island Unit 2.
Request No. 9:
"That Richard Parks was a senior start-up and test engineer in the Site Operations (50) division at TMI-2 from May 1982 to March 1983.".
GPUN admits Mr. Parks was hired by Bechtel in May 1982 with the payroll classification of Senior Startup Engineer.
From May through August, 1982, Mr. Parks worked in Bechtel's TMI-2 project organization.
In September 1982 when the integrated organization became effective, Parks was assigned as a staff engineer in the Site Operations Department.
Request No. 10:
"That during the period May 1982-February 1983, Mr. Parks reported to the Manager of Plant Operations, Joseph J.
Chwastyk, and to the Director of Site Operations, Lawrence P.
King."
GPUN admits that from September 1982 through February 24, 1983, Parks reported organizationally to Lawrence King, the Site Operations Director.1/
On February 25, 1983, Joseph Chwastyk became Acting Site Operations Director.
From May through August, 1982, Parks worked for Edward Kitler in Bechtel's TMI-2 project organization.
Request No. 11:
"That Mr. Parks' responsibilities included liai-son with NRC, engineering groups, and plant staff; oversight and review of modifications to the plant to assure compliance with applicable standards, NRC regulations, and internal procedures, and to develop new procedures."
GPUN denies the request.
GPUN is unaware of any formally delegated responsibilities associated with Parks' assignment to
"/
The position of " Director, Site Operations" was changed to 1
Site Operations Director" in the September 1982 reorganization to reflect the reduction in the scope of responsibility of the position that had occurred since the position was originally es-tablished.,
l Site Operations.
Nor is the characterization above an accurate 1
I description of Parks' activities.
For example, while Parks may have had occasional contact with the NRC, he was not responsible for " liaison with the_NRC."
Also, while Parks may have had occa-sion to do work related to plant modifications, he was not re-sponsible for " oversight" of plant modifications.
GPUN admits that Parks' responsibilities were to provide engineering support to the Site Operations Director.
Request No. 12:
"That Mr. Parks only performance appraisal with respect to his job performance at TMI-2 during 1982-1983 estab-lishes that he met or exceeded all applicable job requirements."
GPUN denies the request, which is inaccurate and misleading.
GPUN admits that in a Bechtel evaluation covering the period from May 27-August 27, 1982, Parks was rated as meeting or exceeding the requirements of performance categories marked as applicable.
GPUN denies that this evaluation " establishes" Parks' job perfor-mance "during 1982-1983," especially with regard to his subsc-1 quent assignment within Site Operations.
Request No. 14:
"That AP-1047, Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, and 2.4.5 prescribed that other TWG members represent plant opera-tions. plant engineering, recovery engineering and quality assur-ance."
GPUN admits that section 2.1 of Administrative Procedure 1047 designated Startup and Test, Plant Operations, Plant Engi-neering, Recovery Engineering (which subsequently became Site En-gineering), and Site Quality Assurance as participants in TWG, !
i e
and that section 2.4 and its subsections described the responsi-bilities of individual members to TWG.
Request No. 15:
"That no document was generated by GPU or Bechtel memorializing Mr. Parks' appointment as alternate Startup
& Test Supervisor and alternate start-up and test representative to the TWG."
GPUN denies the request.
A memorandum dated December 6, 1982 was issued by Edward Kitler authorizing Parks to act as Startup and Test Supervisor for Unit 2 in Kitler's absence.
No memorandum was issued appointing Parks as an alternate to TWG.
Request No. 16:
"That no procedure required the appointment of any person to the TWG to be memorialized in writing."
GPUN admits that Administrative Procedure AP-1047 did not explicitly require appointments of alternates to TWG to be memo-rialized in writing; however, the use of written authorizations may have been implicit and was customary.
Request No. 17:
"That between October 1981 and February 18, 1983, several membership positions in the TWG were vacant for substantial periods of time."
GPUN denies the request to the extent that it implies there were vacant TWG positions in October 1981.
GPUN admits that there were no appointments to TNG between October, 1981 and February 18, 1983; that there were no TWG meetings during this period; and that prior to February 18, 1983, several previously designated TWG members and alternates had left TMI-2 or had been reassigned to other Departments.
Under AP-1047, unless another
.g_
individual was designated as the primary member representing a section, the head of the section was the primary member on TWG.
Request No. 18:
"That during the period from September 1982 until February 18, 1983, procedures required by AP-1047 to be re-
[
viewed by the TWG were reviewed by representatives of departments familiar with the particular testing, rather than by a specific TWG member."
GPUN objects to this request as vague, in that it does not specify particular procedures subject to the request, and as un-duly burdensome and oppressive to the extent it would require GPUN to examine all test procedures reviewed from September 1982 to February 1983 to determine the method of review.
Without waiving these objections, GPUN admits that Edward Kitler has stated that the substantive requirements of AP-1047 were being met by having [ test] procedures reviewed by the proper depart-ments specified in AP-1047.
Request No. 19:
"That 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."
GPUN admits that within the TMI-2 Division -- and subject to the authority of the Office of the Director, TMI-2, and the Di-rector, Recovery Programs, and subject to the review function of other Departments -- Recovery Operations, managed by David M.
Lake, was given the responsibility for refurbishing the TMI-2 re-actor building polar crane which had been damaged as a result of the TMI-2 accident..
Request No. 20:
"That SO had primary responsibility for activi-ties at TMI-2 which had potential for affecting public health and safety, or leading to radiation releases."
GPUN objects to this request as vague, in that it does not specify a time frame to which the request refers, does not specify the organizations against whose responsibility that of Site Operations Department is being compared, and does not specify the type of responsibility (i.e., corporate or regula-tory) to which the request refers.
Without waiving the objec-tion, GPUN states that section 6.1 of the Technical Specifica-tions of the NRC license for TMI-2 in effect during the September 1982 reorganization and until November 1963, stated, "The Direc-tor, Site operations, shall be responsible for overall unit oper-ation.
GPUN further states that the primary responsibili-ty for operating and maintaining plant systems subject to NRC regulations, conducting decontamination and recovery operations at TMI-2 for the protection of'the public health and safety, and complying with the NRC license for TMI-2 was and remains with the licensee, GPUN, and withiri GPUN, with the Office of the President and Office of the Director, TMI-2.
Under the Office the Direc-tor, TMI-2, the Site Operations Director was assigned responsi-bility for assuring that operation and maintenance of plant sys-tems complied with NRC regulations and the operating license.
Request No. 21:
"That in performing its assigned responsibil-ities, SO was required to review for approval procedures written by RO." _.
_____.___J
GPUN objects to this request as vague in not specifying the
" assigned responsibilities" and the " procedures" to which the re-quest refers.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that section 6.8 of the Technical Specifications of the NRC license in effect in September 1982 required that certain procedures be re-viewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) and ap-proved by the Site Operations Director.
In addition, Administra-tive Procedure 1001 called for the approval of certain procedures by the Unit 2 Superintendent (of which the position of Site Oper-ations Director was a successor).
However, whether a procedure needed review by Site Operations depended on its content, not its author.
Request No 22:
"That So had review functions with respect to the functional description of the refurbishments and testing of the containment polar crane, and for the review of the SER for requalification of the crane."
GPUN objects to this request as vague.
It is ambiguous whether the phrase "had review functions" means " reviewed" or means "were required to review."
It is also unclear what docu-ments are meant by the phrases "the functional description of the refurbishment and testing of the containment polar crane" and "the SER for requalification of the crane."
Without waiving these objections, CPUN states that members of the Site Operations Department, other than Parks, reviewed at the direction of the Office of the Director in October 1982 a document entitled " Polar Crane Functional Description, Revision 0," and reviewed in d
t February 1983, a document entitled " Safety Evaluation Report for the Polar Crane Load Test (February 1983)."
Request No. 23:
"That, during 1982-1983, the review groups formed at TMI-2 were:
a.
Test Working Group (TWG), which was to review all con-struction test and modification procedures to ensure compli-ance with all legal requirements, each member of which must satisfy the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6, the professional standard for test personnel qualifications; b.
Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC), which advised SO regarding safety-related engineering change memoranda (ECM), which were reviewed for compliance with technical specifications and NRC regulations.
The members were pri-marily members of SO, who served on the committee in addi-tion to other assignments.
c.
Safety Review Group (SRG), composed of full time mem-t bers of SO, designated to take over the duties of PORC, which was to be abolished.
~
d.
General Office Review Board (GORB), composed of CPU 1
corporate personnel who advised GPUN President Arnold; i
e.
Safety Advisory Board (SAB), composed of outside con-sultants who gave advice on all activities at TMI-2.
i f.
Technical Advisory and Assistance Group (TAAG), com-posed of outside consultants who gave advice on the removal of radioactivity from the site; q.
Readiness Review Committee (RRC), a group of senior lovel employees, convened on March 12, 1983 to review the status of the polar crane requalification program.
j h.
Generation Review Committee (CRC), composed of 5 mem-i bers of GPU or outside consultants who reviewed and audited safety evaluations of significant activities; violations of codes or regulations; operating abnormalition; and reports I
of PORC."
1 GPUN denies the request as inaccurate.
First, of the groups i
listed in the request, only the SRG was " formed" (in the sense of,
i I
being first established) during 1982-1983.
GPUN admits that TWG, PORC, SRG, GORB, SAB, TAAG, FRC and GRC existed in (but not nec-essarily throughout) 1982-83.
Second, the Test Working Group's review authority was not limited to construction tests.
AP-1047, which defined TWG's function, applied to the Unit 2 Recovery Test Program, which included construction and startup testing of modi-fications to existing plant systems and components by the Unit 2 Recovery Program.
Third, TWG was not responsible for reviewing modification procedures.
Rather, TWG was responsible for re-viewing test procedures for testing within the scope of the Unit 2 Recovery Test Program.
The assertion that TWG was to review procedures "to ensure compliance with all legal requirements" is vague and could be misconstrued.
AP-1047 states that the voting TWG members were selected specifically to provide technical re-view of the technical content of testing.
Under AP-1047, it was QA's role to assure conformance with the test manual.
- Fourth, ANSI N45.2.6 was not applicable to TWG members unless the members
" perform [ed] inspection, examination, and testing."
With regard to PORC, the description of its responsibilities in unduly narrow and could be misleading.
PORC's responsibil-ities were defined by Technical Specification 6.5.1.6 and includ-ed, among other things, review of all proposed changes or modifi-cations to unit systems or equipment that affect nuclear safety and radioactive waste management.
Also, during 1983 through.
J
1982, most PORC members were assigned to the Licensing and Nuclear Safety Department.
Similarly, SRG members were not members of Site Operations, but were members of the Licensing.and Nuclear Safety Department.
In addition, it.is inaccurate to describe GORB as " composed of GPU corporate personnel."
The majority of GORB members were con-sultants.
GRC was composed of no less than 5 members.
Request No. 24:
"That during the 1982-1983 refurbishment of the l
polar crane, the load test frame was assembled and welded inside the containment building."
GPUN admits that the test. load frame was assembled from pre-engineered and pre-manufactured components inside the TMI-2 con-tainment in 1983.
The test load frame was not welded inside con-tainment.
t Request No. 25:
"That the polar crane was to be used to remove the head of the reactor vessel'during clean-up."
s GPUN admits that GPUN's plans to remove the TMI-2 reactor vessel head during clean-up involved using the TMI-2 polar crar3e, and that the TMI-2 polar crane was used for this purpose.
Request-No. 26:
"That the polar crane at TMI-2 had not been~ load tested prior to March 1, 1983."
GPUN denies the request.
The TMI-2 polar crane was load-tested prior to initial licensing of TMI-2.
GPUN admits that after the TMI-2 accident, the TMI-2 polar crane was not load-tested again prior to March 1, 1983..
}
a l
Request No. 27:
"That by memorandum to John Barton dated January 20, 1983, Lawrence King, the Director of,SO, acknowledged Barton's directive to SO that the polar crane refurbishment was
! the sole responsibilityfof Bechtel in RO and that SO was not to be involved in the re'ft.rbishment."
GPUN denies the re' quest.
The January 20, 1983 memorandum does not state that the " polar crane refurbishment was the sole responsibility of Bechtel in RO."
It does not state that "So was not to be involved i refurbishment."
Further, neither the char-acterization above nor the January 20, 1983 memorandum accurately reflects Mr. Barton's instructions to Mr. King.
Mr. Barton stat-ed in his interview with Mr. Stier that King's memorandum did not accurately reflect Mr. Barton's statements.
GPUN admits that the document at Tab 43 of the Stier Report is a genuine copy of this memorandum.
(
Request No. 28:
"That 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 tech-nically unacceptable."
t i
Mr. Gischel was the Manager of Plant Engineering, not Site Engigeering.
GPUN admits that the first sentence of Memorandum 4240-03-111 dated February 10, 1983 from Edwin H. Gischel to Lawrence King stated, "The polar crane load test safety evalua-tion presented for review and comment in the referenced memo is technically unacceptable to Plant Engineering."
GPUN further states that there concerns were addressed in Memorandum 4300-83/F-0002 from R.
Freemerman to E. Gischel (February 17, 1983), and that Lawrence King, the Site Operations Director,,
1
approved the polar crane load test safety evaluation on February 17, 1983.
Request No. 29:
"That on or about February 14, 1983 the Director of SO (King) and the manager of site engineering (Gischel) sent a memorandum (#42140-83-138) to the Director of RO expressing dis-agreement with the polar crane Safety Evaluation Report (SER)."
GPUN admits that King and Gischel sent memorandum 4240-83-138 dated February 17, 1983, to J. Thiesing (Director, Recovery Programs).
GPUN admits that the document at Tab 324 of the Stier Report is a genuine copy of the memorandum.
Request No. 30:
"That the document referenced in Admission 29 is genuine."
See response to Request 29.
Request No. 31:
"That Mr. Barton received the document refer-enced in Admission 29."
Memorandum 4240-83-138 lists Mr. Barton among the individ-uals to receive a copy of the memorandum.
Mr. Barton does not recall whether he received the memorandum.
Request No. 32:
"That on February 16, 1983, NRC representative Lake Barrett advised TMI-2 Director Kanga that the quality of procedures at TMI-2 was decreasing due to the long-standing con-flicts and poor coordination among GPU departments."
GPUN objects to this request as irrelevant.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that it has no record memorializing such communication and cannot on the basis of documentation or recollection of Mr. Kanga admit the request.
GPUN further states that the characterization of the conversation in the request does not comport with the sworn statement by Mr. Barrett included in the September 1, 1983 OI Report er with Mr. Barrett's March 24, 1983 memorandum summarizing TMIFO actions related to the polar crane and Parks' issues.
While'those documents suggest that on February 16, Mr. Barrett told Mr. Kanga that procedure quality was decreasing,2/ neither of those documents indicate that Mr.
Barrett, mentioned or discussed "long-standing conflicts and poor coordination among GPU departments."3/
Request No. 33:
"That on February 17, 1983, after being assigned the review of the polar crane load test procedure, Richard Parks submitted written comments on the polar crane load test to the l'olar Crane Task Force leader (UWI-4370-3891-83-PC 01), stating that:
a.
the proposed crane load test constituted an unreviewed safety question; b.
the load test must be approved by TWG; c.
the test procedure did not conform to site procedure AP 1047; d.
the load test procedure was a functional test and should be performed after turnover of the crane to plant staff after approval by TWG and PORC; 2/
See Mr. Barrett'sfatatement in OI Report 83-002 (Sept.
1, 1983), 9 D-9, at 18.
barrettstatedinhisMarch24, 1983 memorandum that on 3/
Mr.
February 16, he had " disapproved a [ Site) Operations precedure
[not related to the polar crane] because it had technical er-rors," and he etated that "the root cause of the errors was poor coordination between the Operations and Engineering Departmerits" (no mention of "long-standing conflicts").
The typed note from 3
Barrett to CPUN on February 16, 1983 disapproving the p ccedure stated'the technical reasons for disapproval but did not discuss root.causes, conflicts, or coordination.
[ 4
-f g
h f
e w
l
\\
e.
the crane tests performed by RO did not comply with the requirements of site procedures AP 1043 and AP 1047; f.
and the sign-off of the test was not done by a qualified start-up and test engineer as required by AP 1047."
GPUN admits that Richard Parks prepared comments dated February 17, 1983 on the polar crane load test procedure.
GPUN has no record of Parks' having been assigned to review the proce-dure, other than the assertion in Parks' affidavit, and cannot affirm or deny this portion of the request.
Similarly, other than the assertion by Parks, GPUN has no record of, and cannot admit or deny, the date when Parks delivered those comments to the Polar Crane Task Group leader.
GPUN denies that the comments were worded as stated in subparagraphs (a) through (f) of the re-quests.
GPUN admits that attachment 1 to this response is a gen-uine copy of Parks' comments.
Request No. 34:
"That the documents described in Admission 33 are genuine."
GPUN is not certain what " documents" are encompassed by this request.
Copies of the documents were not provided with the re-quest or previously furnished to GPUN as required by 10 C.F.R.
S 2.742(a).
GPUN has admitted to the genuineness of a copy of Parks' February 17, 1983 comments on the load test procedure.
See response to Request 33.
Request No. 35:
"That the documents described in Admission 33 were received by Mr. Kanga and Mr. Barton." l l
GPUN objects to the request as vague in failing to specify dates.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that Parks did not, to the best of GPUN's knowledge, deliver copies of his comments to Messrs. Kanga and Barton.
Mr. Kanga states he be-lieves he saw the comments on February 22, 1983.
Mr. Barton does not recall when he first saw Parks' comments.
Request No. 37:
"That Mr. Parks' appointment as alternate Startup & Test Manager did not violate any procedural require-ment."
GPUN admits that Edward Kitler's December 6, 1982 memoran-dum, which authorized Richard Parks to act as Startup and Test Supervisor in Kitler's absence, did not violate procedures.
Request No. 39:
"That prior tc February 19, 1983, Mr. Kitler had no prior knowledge that Mr. King would appoint Mr. Parks to be primary SO representative to the TWG."
GPUN denies this request.
Mr. Kitler has stated that he an-ticipated that King would appoint Parks to TWG as a Site Opera-tions [i.e. the Plant Operations] representative.
Request No. 44:
"That on February 18, 1983, Mr. Kitler told Mr.
Parks that everyone is ' pissed off' at you and you're being uncooperative," and that " people are even talking about trans-ferring you."
GPUN cannot admit or deny the request.
GPUN has no record of Mr. Kitler's exact words.
GPUN admits that un the morning of February 18, 1983, Parks approached Mr. Kitler, before Kitler had learned of Parks' comments on the load test procedure, and asked Kitler why people were displeased with him.
GPUN admits that Mr..
+
--r-
.,,,,,,n
,--i
-,,m w
w
_=
=. _ -...
_ ~ _ _.. -.
Kitler has stated that in essence he told Parks that Parks had annoyed people by being uncooperative and that Kitler had heard another employee remark that Parks should be transferred.
4 Request-No'. 45:
"That Mr. Kitler's comment quoted in Admission 44 was based, in part, on comments he heard from Thomas E. Mor-ris, a Bechtel employee."
l GPUN denies this request to the extent it assumes that "com-ment quoted in Admission 44" is accurate and exact.
GPUN admits that in Mr. Kitler's statement described in response to Request 44, Kitler was referring to a statement made by Thomas E. Morris, a Bechtel employee, after Parks behaved uncooperatively at a meeting in January 1983.
Request No. 46:
"That on February 18, 1983, Richard Parks t
advised NRC representatives at TMI-2 '2f his fear of reprisal from
-TMI-2 management-due to his complaints about the polar crane load test procedures."
GPUN admits that Parks met with NRC representatives on February 18, 1983.
GPUN cannot admit or deny the assertion that
" Richard Parks advised NRC representatives at TMI-2 of his fear of reprisal from TMI-2 management due to his complaints about the polar crane load test procedures."
GPUN was not privy to that-meeting.
GPUN notes that the Report of Allegation prepared by Joel Weibe on February 18, 1983, does not refer to a " fear of re-prisal" from "TMI-2 management."
Rather, the report states that
~ Parks alleged "that because of his comments on the polar crane load test procedures and polar-crane functional test procedures.
N
- - - - _ -,,,.. ~ - -,,-,
+,,y__
g
,,7 y.__,y.m..-,,m.-..,,
,,,_~,,.--.,-..._--e.
7-.m
__y_
[ Parks] is being told indirectly by Bechtel Engineering manage-ment onsite that they want him transferred offsite."
-Request No. 47:
"That during a meeting on February 23,'1983, to discuss objections to the polar crane program, attended by Mr.
Kanga, Mr. Barton, Mr. Thiesing, Ron Freemerman (RO), Mr. Kitler, Michael.Radbill (Polar Crane Task Group leader), Mr. King, Joseph Chwastyk, Blaine Ballard (Manager of QA), Mr. Parks and others, Mr. Parks repeated his view that AP 1043 and 1047 were applicable with respect to the refurbishment of the polar crane."
Mr. Kanga did not attend a meeting on February 23, 1983.
Mr. Freemerman was Deputy Director, Recovery Programs, and not a member of Recovery Operations.
GPUN admits that a meeting was held at Mr. Kanga's direction on February 23, 1983 to discuss the applicability of administrative procedures to the polar crane testing.
GPUN admits that Messrs. Barton, Thiesing, Freemerman, Kitler, Radbill, King, Lake, Chwastyk, Ballard, Marsden, and Parks attended.
At this meeting,- QA indicated that GPUN adminis-trative procedures were generally applicable to the polar crane testin and indicated that it would review polar crane documents for compliance.
Parks has asserted that he too stated that AP-1043 and AP-1047 were applicable.
The interviews of other witnesses, however, do not reflect Park's statements, and GPUM therefore cannot admit or deny that Parks made such statements.
,I Request No. 48:
"That AP 1043 and AP 1047 were the appropriate procedures to be followed in requalifying the polar crane."
i GPUN objects to this request as vague in failing to specify what is meant by "requalifying the polar crane."
Without waiving L
..,r.
this objection, GPUN states that AP-1047 applied to construction and startup testing of modifications to existing plant systems and components by the Unit 2 Recovery Program and hence to some aspects of polar crane refurbishment.
AP-1043 established a means by which modifications to TMI-2 systems and equipment were initiated, reviewed, and approved, and was applicable to some as-pects of the polar crane refurbishment.
Request No. 49:
"That Bechtel and GPU Nuclear Corporation were not, at the time Mr. Parks first raised the comments enumerated in Admission 33, complying with the requirements of AP 1043 and AP 1047, with respect to approval of procedures for the polar crane."
GPUN objects to this request as vague.
It is not clear what
" approval of procedures for the polar crane" are the subject of this request.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that the request is inaccurate.
AP-1043 does not pertain to procedure approval.
AP-1047 applies only to test procedures within the scope of the Unit 2 Recovery Test Program.
GPUN admits that at the time Parks raised his comments on February 17, 1983, the pro-cedure for the no-load test of the polar crane had not been re-viewed by TWG prior to performance of the test.
The polar crane load test procedure that had been drafted and was being circula-I ted for review in February, 1983, and to which Parks' February 17 comments pertained, had not yet been approved.
Request No. 50:
"That resolution of Mr. Parks' comments, and subsequent revision of the polar crane load test procedure to comply with AP 1043 and AP 1047 had the effect of delaying com-pletion of procedures required for testing the polar crane."
3 l
-g-
--.,a 7
Parks' February 17 comments were part of the normal review process, which contemplates comments and comment resolutions.
GPUN does not know how long the review process would have taken 4
if Parks had^not made his comments or whether other reviewers would not have raised the same comments.
GPUN admits that revi-sion of the load test procedure to conform to formatting require-ments of AP-1047 was accomplished by March 8, 1983.
Compliance with AP-lO43 did not require revision to the polar crane load test procedure.
Request No. 51:
"That during a February 23, 1983 meeting con-cerning the polar crane, Mr. Thiesing orally informed Mr. Parks that he had been removed from his position as alternate Startup &
Test representative to the TWG."
GPUN denies the request.
Dr. Thiesing did not tell Parks that. Parks had been removed from TWG.
Dr. Thiesing, having seen a memorandum issued by Edward Kitler appointing Dwight Walter al-
)
ternate Start-Up and Test Supervisor, told Parks that another employee was the alternate Startup and Test Supervisor.
Request No. 52:
"That at the time of Mr. Parks' removal as al-ternate Startup and Test Supervisor in February 1983, the TWG had not met since October, 1981."
GPUN admits that there were no TWG meetings between October I
1981 and February 25, 1983.
Request No. 53:
"That on February 24, 1983, Mr. Parks was ap-pointed to TWG as the primary SO representative by SO Director 4
King."
GPUN admits that by memorandum dated February 24, 1983, Site J f i
n
,~..
.-----.-.c.
.. - -. ~,,
..~..n
.-n.
Operations Director Lawrence King appointed Richard Parks as the primary TWG member for Site Operations, but that the memorandum should have indicated that Parks was the Plant Operations repre-sentative.
Request No. 54:
"That on February 24, 1983, Mr.-Parks issued a
" Problem Report" describing procedural violations in the polar crane program."
GPUN denies this request.
Mr. Parks did write a problem report on February 24, 1983, but it did not describe procedural violations relating to the polar crane.
The problem report 4/
addressed an incorrectly designated review cycle indicated on the Unit Work Instructions (UWIs) for two radiation measurement pro-cedures.
Parks recommended further training on the UWI proce-dures; and by memoranda dated March 7 and March 14, 1983 (Stier Report, Tabs 316 and 317), the Manager of TMI-2 Management Ser-vices took action to assure that personnel who had not yet re-ceived or needed further training on the UWI procedure received such training.
The UWI procedure was a new administrative system that had been introduced at TMI-2 in February 1983.
Request No. 55:
"That on February 24, 1983, NRC representatives met with GPUN to discuss the poor quality of procedures submitted for the reactor coolant depressurization system."
GPUN admits that on February 25, 1983, TMIPO representatives 4/
A problem report was an unproceduralized, informal mechanism used by Site Operations to bring matters to the attention of the recipient..
v - -,,.,-
~.-
n.
e,
met with George Kunder and James Larson to discuss concerns about the technical adequacy of certain procedures that had been sub-mitted for NRC review in preparation for RCS draindown.
TMIPO's specific concerns related to three procedures that had been pre-pared by Site Operations.
Request No. 56:
"That on February 25, 1983, Mr. Parks met with NRC_ representatives, Joel Weibe and Lake Barrett, to discuss his concerns about the polar crane."
GPUN admits that on February 25, 1983, Mr. Parks met with NRC representatives Joel Weibe and Lake Barrett, at their re-quest, to be informed that the NRC had examined and could not substantiate the allegation made by Mr. Parks on February 18, 1983 that he had been threatened with transfer because of his comments on the polar crane load test procedure.
The NRC also asked if Parks wanted the NRC to take any additional action, and Parks indicated that QA was reviewing the applicability of AP-1047 and AP-1043 to the polar crane test procedures, that Parks was satisfied that his concerns were being addressed, and that no further NRC action was warranted at the time.
The NRC concluded that it had found no evidence to support Parks' allega-tion and that the NRC believed that all comments on the polar crane were being addressed and receiving adequate management at-tention.
Request No. 57:
"That on February 25, 1983, NRC representative
(
Barrett met with Mr. Kanga and Mr. Barton and informed them that TMI-2 employees were upset and perceived that reprisals would be taken if they raised safety concerns."
. l l
l i
i
GPUN cannot admit or deny the request.
GPUN does not have a record memorializing such a meeting, and neither Mr. Kanga nor Mr. Barton remember Mr. Barrett making this statement.
Request No. 58:
"That, on the same occasion as recounted in Admission 57, Mr. Barrett advised Mr. Kanga that the schedule was being pushed too hard,'and that the continuing GPUN/Bechtel, operations / engineering animosities were a big problem onsite."
For the same reason stated in response to request 57, GPUN cannot admit or deny the request.
However, at the February 25, 1983 meeting discussed in response to Request 55, which is memo-rialized, TMIPO indicated that it considered the deficiencies in the three procedures prepared by Site Operations to be symp-tomatic of internal GPUN schedule and interdepartmental communi-cation / coordination problems.
Request No. 59:
"That Mr. Chwastyk was appointed acting Director of SO on February 25, 1983."
GPUN admits this request,'with the qualification that the position was Acting Site Operations Director.5/
Request No. 60:
"That on February 26, 1983, Mr. Arnold directed formation of a Readiness Review Committee to review the polar crane."
GPUN admits this request.
Request No. 61:
"That on February 28, 1983, the February 17, 1983 comments by Mr. Parks were rejected in a written response by the polar crane task group on the grounds that; (a) the SER for the polar crane refurbishment concluded that the crane load test was not an unreviewed safety question; 2
S/
See note 1 suora. l l
i
(b) AP 1047 did not apply to construction tests, and that (c) the load test procedure was reviewed and approved by plant operation, PORC, QA, and Site Engineering."
GPUN denies this request as incomplete and inaccurate.
.Mr.
Parks had made a number of comments, some of which were accepted, and some of which were rejected for varying reasons.
GPUN admits that on February 28, 1983, comment resolutions prepared by Michael Radbill were transmitted to Mr. Parks.
GPUN admits that a'_true copy of this document is found at Tab 118 of the Stier Report.
Request No. 63:
"That 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 which they stated that SO would not approve the polar crane load test procedure until the concerns over the requirements of AP 1047 were resolved."
GPUN admits that by Memorandum 4200-83-102 dated March 1, 1983, Mr. Parks and Mr. Chwastyk transmitted a review of Mr. Radbill's comment resolutions and stated that they could not approve the polar crane load test procedure until differences were resolved.
GPUN admits that the document at Tab 331 of the Stier Report is a true copy of this memorandum.
Request No. 64:
"That on March 1, 1983, Mr. Parks and Mr.
Chwastyk issued internal memorandum 4200-83-105 in which they re-peated 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 memorandum they offered four sug-gestions to resolve the issue."
GPUN admits that on March 1, 1983, Mr. Parks and Mr.
Chwastyk issued to the Startup and Test Supervisor memorandum.
4200-83-105 referring to discussions of compliance with AP-1043 and AP-1047 at a February 23 meeting and a February 25 TWG meet-ing.
The memorandum offered four suggestions to resolve " con-cerns."
The document at Tab 119 of the Stier Report is a true copy of this memorandum.
Request No. 65:
"That the document referred to in Admission 64 is genuine and admissible."
See Response to Request 64.
Whether the document is admis-sible calls for a legal opinion and depends on the purpose for which the document is proffered.
Request No. 66:. "That on March 1, 1983, Mr. Parks issued " Prob-lem Report" addressing PORC's approval of the polar crane no-load operational test without compliance with AP 1043 and 1047."
GPUN denies the request.
While Mr. Parks may have drafted such a problem report on March 1, 1983, GPUN is not aware of such report having been signed or issued.
Request No. 68:
"That on March 4, 1983, a TWG meeting was held to discuss polar crane procedures.
The QA representative listed 5 modifications to the crane which were not performed in accor-dance with AP 1043.
During this. meeting Mr. Parks raised ques-tions of the functioning of the limit switches on the crane, the proposal to use the crane without a load test, and the proposed use of dummy switches."
GPUN denies the request, as it is worded, because of a num-ber of inaccuracies.
GPUN admits that on March 4, 1983, a TWG meeting was held to discuss the load test procedure status, re-view of data given to QA/QC, and results of the no-load test.
A QA engineer who was present as a guest (i.e., who was not a L
D member of TWG) stated five modifications had not been made in accordance with AP-1043; however, it was subsequently determined that one of the items -- installation of temporary air supply on the crane -- was not a modification and hence AP-1043 did not apply.
During the meeting Parks expressed concern that in the no-load test, it was not clear whether limit switches had func-tioned.
Mr. Parks also asked whether the polar crane hook had been used to lift any loads, and Michael Radbill stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the hook had not yet been used to lift any loads.
GPUN assumes that by " dummy switches" the Staff means
" dummy fusos."
The minutes and notes of the meeting do not re-flect Parks raising any question about dummy fuses at the March 4 TWG meeting.
Request No. 69:
"That on March 8, 1983, Quality Deficiency Report (QDR-CHK-011-83) was issued on the polar crane for failure to follow AP 1043 and AP 1047.
GPUN admits that on March 8, 1983, Quality Deficiency Report No. CHK-011-83 was issued relating to the polar cranc and in-stances of non-compliance with AP-1043 and AP-1047.
The document at Tab 50 of the Stier Report is a true copy of this QDR.
Request No. 70:
"That on March 9, 1983, Lawrence King was ques-tioned at the TMI-2 site by Robert Arnold concerning the Quiltec company and involvement of TMI-2 employees in the company."
GPUN admits that on March 9, 1983, Lawrence King met with Robert Arnold at the TMI-2 training center to deliver a letter that responded to written questions from Mr. Arnold concerning.
King's involvement with Quiltec and related issues.
At that meeting, some discussion of Mr. Arnold's March 4, 1983 memorandum to King, setting forth the concerns of Mr. King regarding TMI-2 activities, ensued.
Mr. Arnold and Mr. King also discussed some of Mr. King's responses to Mr. Arnold's written questions.
Two of the questions that were discussed related to the number of employees Quiltec had and who at TMI-2 knew of King's involvement in Quiltec.
The involvement in Quiltec of persons who were still GPUN employee was not the focus of the discussion.
Request No. 71:
"That during the March 9 questioning of Mr.
King, Mr. Arnold inquired as to Mr. Parks' knowledge about Quiltec."
GPUN admits that during the meeting identified in the re-sponse to request 70, Mr. King, referring to July 1982, stated "I never ever suspected at that time that anybody knew of my affili-ation [with Quiltec]."
Mr. Arnold, who had already learned that Parks had assisted King in having resumes prepared for use in Quiltec proposals during the summer of 1982 and who had observed that King had not identified Parks in response to the written 4
question asking who knew of King's involvement in Quiltec, sus-pected that King was not being candid and therefore asked, "What about Parks?".
t Request No. 72:
"That a memorandum dated March 10, 1983, (6110-83-046) from the manager of quality assurance (Ballard) to RO director Theising (sic), listed 11 deficiencies in the polar crane refurbishment program."
l l l
I n
GPUN admits that Blaine Ballard, Manager, TMI QA, sent memo-randum 6110-83-046 dated March 10, 1983, to James Thiesing, Di-rector, Recovery Programs.
The memorandum described the results of QA's polar crane refurbishment review and listed eleven gener-al comments pertaining to work packages.
GPUN admits that the document at Tab 51 of the Stier Report is a true copy of this memorandum.
Request No. 73:
"That on March 10, 1983, the NRC Deputy Program Director, TMI Program, sent a note to J.
Larson, GPUN, disapproving the polar crane recovery operations procedure No.
400-IMP-3891 (Rev. 0)."
GPUN admits to this request, with the qualification that the
" Note" was a formal, typed memorandum.
Request No. 74:
"That on March 10, 1987 (sic), Mr. Chwastyk advised Mr. Parks that Mr. Barton was aware that Mr. Parks had met with NRC representatives."
GPUN denies this request.
Mr. Chwastyk has previously stat-ed that this assertion is not true.
Request No. 75:
"That Mr. Barton does not deny that he asked Mr.
Chwastyk why Mr. Parks had met with NRC officials."
GPUN admits that during Mr. Barton's recent deposition in this proceeding, Mr. Barton stated he did not recall making such a statement to Mr. Chwastyk.
Mr. Chwastyk has indicated that Mr. Barton did not make such a statement.
Request No. 76:
"That on March 14, 1983, Mr. Parks was ques-tioned in Gaithersburg, Maryland for 3-4 hours about the Quiltec company by Bechtel internal auditor, H.
Lee Hofmann, from Bechtel's corporate office in San Francisco, California, and Richard Wheeler, Mr. Parks' administrative supervisor." - -..
~
GPUN admits that on March 14, 1983, Mr. Lee Hofmann, from the Bechtel Internal-Audits Group (whose offices were located in San Francisco) interviewed Mr. Parks concerning his involvement in Quiltec.
Richard Wheeler, Mr. Parks administrative superior, and Mark Kobi, a Bechtel employee invited by Parks, attended.
The interview was at TMI-2, not in Gaithersburg.
Request No. 77:
"That Mr. Parks explained to Messrs. Wheeler and Hofmann his only association with Quiltec was to obtain some non-working-hours typing by an onsite Bechtel secretary."
GPUN admits that Mr. Parks led Messrs. Hofmann and Wheeler to believe that Parks' only involvement in Quiltec was assisting in the preparation.of resumes that were submitted with a Quiltec proposal to Duquesne Power Company, and that Parks arranged.to have a Bechtel secretary at TMI-2 type the resumes.
Request No. 79:
"That on March 15, 1983, Mr. Parks met with Charles W.
Sanford (sic), Vice President of Bechtel, and Messrs.
Wheeler and Hoffman (sic) to discuss his safety and intimidation concerns."
2 GPUN admits that on March 15, 1983, Mr. Parks met with Charles W.
Sandford, then a Vice President of Bechtel Power Cor-poration, and Messrs. Wheeler and Hofmann to discuss among other things alleged safety and intimidation concerns.
Request No. 80:
"That Mr. Sanford (sic) informed Mr. Parks that his actions constituted a fairly serious violation of Bechtel policy and that, as a result, Mr. Parks might be terminated."
GPUN admits that at the March 15, 1983 meeting referred to in response to request 79 above, Mr. Sandford indicated to Parks
,c-.
...m-.%, -, - - -
.--,-,,mr-,y 4
e
,m m.,.-
that Parks' involvement with Quiltec was considered a serious
. matter, that such conduct could lead to dismissal, but that no decision had yet been made.
Request No. 81:
"That on March 16, 1983, Mr. Parks sent a letter through Mr. Kanga to Mr. Sanford (sic) offering to revise his safety concerns upon provision of an adequate technical explana-tion, and repeating his prior assurance that he was in no way as-sociated with the Quiltec company."
GPUN admits that Parks, after consulting with Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project, prepared a letter dated March 16, 1983 to Mr. Sandford and left the letter at Mr. Kanga's office.
GPUN denies that the description of the letter in the request is accurate.
For example, the letter does not provide
" assurance that [ Parks] was in no way associated with the Quiltec company," but stated that he never sought nor received financial compensation.
Request No. 82:
"That in the morning of March 17, 1983, Mr.
Parks met with Mr. Kanga for approximately two hours to discuss the concerns contained in a letter of March 16, 1983 addressed to Mr. Sanford (sic)."
GPUN admits that on the morning of March 17, 1983, Parks met with Mr. Kanga to discuss among other things Parks' March 16, 1983 letter to Mr. Sandford.
Mr. Kanga recalls that the meeting lasted less than two hours.
Request No. 83:
"That, in the early afternoon of March 17, 1983, Mr. Parks met with Mr. Chwastyk to discuss his continuing con-cerns with respect to compliance with administrative procedures applicable to the polar crane load test.".
GPUN admits that in the afternoon of March 17, 1983, Parks met with Mr. Chwastyk.
GPUN knows of no " continuing concerns with respect to compliance with administrative procedures appli-cable to-the polar crane load test" raised or discussed by Parks.
The polar crane load test procedure had been reformatted to com-ply with AP-1047, and Parks himself has stated there was nothing technically wrong with how the procedure was written.
Request No. 84:
"That 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 as the SO rep-4 resentative from the TWG for purposes of polar crane review."
GPUN denies this request, which inaccurately suggests that Parks was unaware of the preparation and content of this memoran-dum until after the meeting with Chwastyk referred to in response to request 83 above.
It is further inaccurate in suggesting that Mr. Chwastyk o"'sined Mr. Kanga's approval before writing the memorandum, and in incompletely stating the content of the memo-randum.
Statements by Parks and Chwastyk indicate that at the meeting, Parks suggested to Chwastyk that Walter Marshall (the i
alternate Plant Operations representative to TWG) could approve the load test procedure, that Parks agreed it would be a good
. idea to make Marshall the primary Site Operations (i.e. Plant Operations] representative to TWG for matters pertaining to the polar crane, and that the memorandum was drafted in Parks' pres-ence and with his assistance.
The memorandum (4200-83-147 dated i
March 17, 1983) stated:.
.,,,-_,---,r-.,y-_m
.-ww--,y___%.._
~ _ _ _,.
._.-_m
__.-_y.,.
I : 6. _
Effective immediately, please consider W. Marshall as Primary Site Operations Department repre-
'sentative to the TWG.
Mr. Mar-shall will replace.Mr.
R. Parks as the primary member only for the Reactor Building Polar Crane project.
This action is considered appro-priate for the present situation and is not considered a negative reflection of Mr. Park's ability, conduct or performance.
The designation of Mr. Marshall should not adversely affect the Polar Crane Refurbishment Sched-ule.
GPUN admits that Messrs. Kanga and Chwastyk subsequently reviewed this memorandum with Parks to assure that Parks agreed with the action and that Mr. Chwastyk signed the memorandum in Parks' presence.
Requent No. 85:
"That at the March 17, 1983 meeting with Messrs.
Kanga and Chwastyk, Mr. Parks was asked if he agreed that his re-moval as primary SO representative to the TWG for the polar crane review was not retaliatory, but neither Mr. Kanga nor Mr.
Chwastyk heard Mr. Parks say, expressly, that he agreed voluntar-ily to being removed from the TWG or that such removal was not retaliatory."
GPUN denies the request.
Both Mr. Kanga and Mr. Chwastyk understood Mr. Parks' affirmative answer to mean he agreed that the action taken in memorandum 4200-83-147 was not retaliatory.
Request No. 86:
"That the document referred to in Admission 84 is genuine.".
GPUN admits that the document at Tab 112 of the Stier Report is a true copy of memorandum 4200-83-147 referred to in the re-sponse to Request 84.
Request No. 87:
"That in a March 21, 1983, response to QDR on the polar crane, Mr. Thiesing stated AP-1043 and 1047 would be used in all future modifications and related testing; and that personnel in RO would be trained in the procedures."
GPUN admits that QDR CHK-011-83 lists three corrective ac-tions, the first of which states: "For future tasks, all modifi-cations and related testing will be performed under the controls established in AP-1043 and AP-1047 respectively.
In addition,
.all-Recovery Programs personnel responsible to authorize work ac-tivities will be trained in the Administrative Controls delin-eated in AP-1043 and AP-1047."
GPUN admits that Mr. Thiesing signed this corrective action and dated it March 21, 1983.
Request No. 88:
"That on March 23, 1983, Mr. Parks held a news conference concerning his safety concerns at TMI-2, and filed a complaint with the Department of Labor pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act."
GPUN admits that on March 23, 1983, Parks held a news con-ference with GAP at which he made public his 56-page affidavit, and that Tom Devine of GAP filed on Parks' behalf a complaint with the Department of Labor pursuant to section 210 of the Ener-gy Reorganization Act.
Request No. 89:
"That federal law protects an employee who in-stitutes a proceeding or brings to the NRC's attention safety concerns about activities governed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, from discriminatory action."
GPUN objects to this request as calling for a legal opinion.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.742(a) only permits requests for admissions per-taining to a "specified relevant matter of fact."
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that section 210 of the Ener-gy Reorganization Act prohibits an NRC licensee from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the employee commenced or caused to be commenced a pro-ceeding under or enforcing the Atomic Energy Act or Energy Reor-ganization Act, testified in such proceeding, or assisted or par-ticipated in such proceeding or in any other action to carry out the purposes of the Acts.
Request No. 90:
"That an employee who raises concerns of the type described in Admission 89 at a news conference is engaging in activity protected by federal law."
GPUN objects to this request as calling for a legal opinion.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that it is unaware of any law holding that section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act protects news conferences, whereas Brown & Root v. Donovan, 747 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1984) suggests the opposite.
Request No. 91:
"That 10 C.F.R.
$ 50.7 does not limit its pro-tection only to employees whose safety concerns are proven i
valid."
GPUN objects to this request as calling for a legal opinion.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that falsity is rele-vant to whether conduct is protected. i
Request No. 92:
"That on March 24, 1983, Mr. Parks was suspended with pay by Bechtel and prevented from returning thereafter to the TMI-2 site."
GPUN admits that on March 24, 1983, Mr. Parks was placed on administrative leave with pay by Bechtel and prevented thereafter from returning to the TMI-2 site.
Request No. 93:
"That at a meeting held on March 23, 1983, Mr.
Kanga stated that Richard Parks could not be fired at that time because Mr. Parks' conduct was protected by the Atomic Energy Act."
GPUN denies this request.
The notes of Edwin Gischel, who ma,de this allegation, and the testimony of Mr. Kanga and other witnesses do not substantiate the request.
Mr. Kanga did indi-cate that care should be taken to protect rights Parks might have had under the Atomic Energy Act.
Request No. 94:
"At a meeting referred to in Admission 93, Mr.
Kanga stated that Mr. Parks could be transferred or put on leave of absence and then gotten rid of ' quietly.'"
GPUN denies the request.
The notes of Edwin Gischel, who made this allegation, and the testimony of Mr. Kanga and other witnesses do not substantiate the allegation.
Request No. 95:
"That at the March 23, 1983 meeting:
(a)
Mr. Barton said Mr. Parks should be fired.
(b)
Mr. Barton said Mr. Parks should not be let back on site.
(c)
Mr. Arnold told Mr. Barton to conduct an investigation regarding the " mystery man" on March 23, 1983."._
)
GPUN is unable to admit or deny part (a) of this request.
The evidence is inconclusive.
GPUN admits parts (b) of the re-quest.
GPUN admits that after the meeting, Mr. Arnold asked Mr.
Barton to talk to the individuals identified in Parks' affidavit as having knowledge regarding the mystery man allegation.
Request No. 96:
"That neither Mr. Arnold, nor any other person acting on his behalf, conducted an investigation to determine whether Mr. Parks had " poisoned" his working environment so as to warrant barring Mr. Parks from returning to the site."
GPUN objects to the request as vague.
It is unclear what activity is encompassed by the term " investigation."
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that Mr. Arnold observed the reactions of TMI-2 employees to Mr. Parks' affidavit and had suf-ficient information to evaluate accurately the consequences of Parks' affidavit and to make an informed decision.
Request No. 97:
"That prior to March 24, 1983, no investigation by any Bechtel or GPU Nuclear employee was conducted to determine whether the working environment at TMI-2 would deteriorate if Mr.
Parks returned to the site."
GPUN's objects to this request for the reason stated in the response to Request 96 above.
Other GPUN and Bechtel employees and management also had the opportunity to observe the reactions of TMI-2 employees to Parks' affidavit and sufficient information to evaluate the situation accurately.
Request No. 98:
"That no unsatisfactory work performance ap-praisals were made regarding the work performed by Mr. Parks dur-ing 1982-83 at the TMI-2 site.".
r a-----
GPUN denies the request as misleading.
GPUN admits that no formal performance appraisals were made of Parks' work other than the appraisal covering the period from May 27, 1982 to August 27, 1982.
Request No. 99:
"That during his employment at TMI-2 as a Bechtel employee Mr. Parks' professional work had been compe-tently done."
GPUN denies the request.
Problems identified by PORC in the review cycle of procedures authored by Parks suggest that Parks' work might not always have been competently performed.
- Further, Mr. Parks' professional work included interacting with his col-leagues.
Mr. Parks' animosity toward Mr. Kunder, which included verbal assaults and threats, his uncooperativeness and confronta-tional nature at meetings, and his belligerence were not profes-sional.
Request No. 100: "That Mr. Parks' concerns regarding the polar crane refurbishment program ultimately proved to be substantially correct."
GPUN objects to the request as vague.
The request does not specify the " concerns" to which it is referring.
Assuming the request is referring to the numerous allegations in Parks' 56-page affidavit, GPUN denies the request.
Most of those alle-gations were inaccurate and baseless.
Request No. 101: "That on April 7, 1983, the NRC TMI-2 program office sent a notice of disapproval of the polar crane test pro-cedure, 4370-3891-83-PCI to GPU."
3 GPUN objects to this request as irrelevant.
The April 7, 1983 Memorandum from L. Barrett to J.
Larson did not pertain to any of Parks' allegations.
The second sentence of the memorandum states, "We have reviewed the technical aspects of the procedure in areas other than those pertaining to the Parks /Gischel affida-vits."
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that on April 7, 1983, TMIPO disapproved the polar crane load test procedure for technical reasons unrelated to Parks' allegations or con-cerns.
Request No. 102: "That certain Bechtel employees, including TMI-2 Director Kanga, refused to swear to the truth of statements made by them to a representative of the United States Department of Labor (DOL) in connection with the-DOL investigation of a com-plaint filed by Mr. Parks charging Bechtel with violations of the employee protection provision of the Atomic Energy Act."
GPUN objects to this request as irrelevant.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN denies request.
Mr. Kanga and Mr.
Freemerman -- the two Bechtel employees interviewed by Mr.
Feinberg as representatives of Bechtel -- were not asked to swear to the truth of their statements and were not subsequently asked to sign the notes of their statements.
Request No. 103: "That Bechtel did discriminate against Mr. Parks for raising safety concerns."
GPUN objects to the request as calling for a legal conclu-sion.
Without waiving this objection, CPUN denies the request.
g
. Request No.104: "That GPUN did discriminate against Mr. Parks for raising safety concerns."
GPUN objects to the request as calling for a legal conclu-sion.
Without waiving the objection, GPUN denies the, request.
Request No. 105: "That on July 25, 1983, Mr. Parks and Bechtel reached an extra-judicial settlement and the DOL complaint was dismissed."
GPUN objects to the request as irrelevant.
Without waiving this request, GPUN states that Parks and Bechtel did reach a set-tlement on July 25, 1983, and that Parks' complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Request No. 106: "That purusant to the settlement agreement, Mr.
Parks was transferred to Bechtel offices in Daggett, California in August, 1983."
GPUN objects to the request as irrelevant.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that Bechtel agreed to reassign Parks to the Cool Water Coal Gasification Project at Daggett, California.
Request No. 107: "That on February 3, 1984, Richard Parks was fired by Bechtel."
GPUN objects to the request as irrelevant.
Without waiving this objection, GPUN states that Parks was laid off as part of a reduction in force near the completion of the project on which he was working.
At that time, Bechtel offered to extend Parks' assignment for two weeks in the hope that another assignment could be found, but Parks declined the offer..
.~.. -
1, R'
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE v,:,
3x J.. Patrick Hickey, P.C.
David R. Lewis.
Counsel for GPUN Dated:
June 8, 1987
- \\./ s,
t t
.t
'{ i
).
.t
'T
.i
/
s d
',,b(
f f
5 i
1'
,N k
x,
)'
l();;
i
t i
i
-v--
-y
-v y..%--,1-.,r,
.m,,,,, mm e y
.y,-v w
<.,,.my_m..vw..~~..-__~c-vw
,---ywn.
ye
~.,-,_,--w
,_y--
~
w _ hat (NAA/f Ir)$()r'ovf
% tins _1- % 20= $1l91-4 5-W e ]
(h /tatl7 E SY m,'**ws - t l
12fhwl.s m23 olnla l
Rowower Date of Comments Originator Date of Resolution leone Referense Accept Reject Reeeen for 90s.
Page#ere.
- 'N' Comment Comment Rejection G)
%?- %y - P4
<ogod ut ad CedM w > p(n,..n&L, 9,)
R.E.7 \\ %M es u,J hFSAR. 544 W mr.,
J q.s i
TvJ6 (TJ E d L; 68. Q 0, (a) W et l)4'C*d4< L h hN h h
(_(
T ;fjb..dwo < l ti v., suOCsnh'w
% AP len a fed
- , s<.
Q) h gD.- 451'J-1461-S W = &) W jllYYY sh$'$.
Y g
3
... e -a L k to.
j
.?
g_da. eJ) % 1 <t 4 4t<u o h
l h
l t ' M *6 M
f"w...,o (sd'Ae;
-f h.3%
.g e., a L go!
l' T**
Weisee. Centrument neeshsenen Dueuw Osags est.r's Copy Punk..sumesser's Copy A.dullet
f ENasclear comment nosolution Respaset
~ ' ~
S/A No WO h Plant Dele of Coments Originetor Date of Resoluten Ceaunenes leone Reference l+-
k.
W.
Show Actual Proposed Rewording, Accept Reject Reeson for Comment Comment Aejection N Possible hd & W AiAHLLO.tL. O Q je t w & % ans.G e 4 f 6 sr (
~
TN
.Wn -lu
,,An%',
loa}%2$ f 4.a.
% _w L:-
-uidi d
(
Sd 7e,q. jy Slulum...h, es p. wS., 4
~
en a.-
i' 01s6 lcvel prs $}irloG, Ii% ne.d flik w3. -h.
Cwdeu w..
8, i... a.,, a r. n'..t a,.
<-. i H
l As. u t fi Sv?s.. :. *. ciL 3}.j.
Srl/+,%4.
~
[1 d,'
- yd atEtod aA.f ll " d d"/
h rd y,.
,.n, um 8 (..if /li /o'.'7
)
T1-} GJ.
7 Q
M Mm3w.a Mun lva..nsi c.ddu u>s ft 6.o/o 2,3.a d vls.JQ y 9
,,,,a p. A :., e d.
l y
,o sMt a bw s4 c. t..us a.n I
Wtwee Comme.it Reessumon ven o.W.elu' scopy Peo. flevueuse 's Copy Aescott t03
~
S
.m 3
I f.%
$ S_
5}
E
=
I ll 8
e
,g o
3.
I
< o
=
1 7
7
~
h 3 7 ci mi }k5-8 M r) g 1_
l E
1i-i g
3 s
i 1,3 Lg y r.3 e
f '$ ' $ >4 o
J o
a a
e; O
I j F.k h$cPh4 5C v
3 v>
__ s; >
300 3. %.. ; -t I
I 3
w-
..y s
d i
d m Q
- ( ~,s e;
o o
4 g
4
.1
-r 3
T3 0
,.;. f.$ n l 'i ( 5
., - s
- g* 1 9w
,4 og M
N
$r0 I
-r-
'o 3 A j
)
7
.)
D 3 %
15 d
I
- $ d "J-1 N
3 h
.is k I
I e S3 i D
g 1 i b 3 I 9 i-B R. 3} lm h o 83 ft 8 e O u
- Gg
'I I W
- o E
T t p. 7 y 4 3 y' a 4- 'ais, 'p., I I e 'O 3 Q G 0 3 j I g i., 31a,5 1 Ms St 3s 1 i s. f i b z.z a e sas+ .n, j d M i '3 i i-2.) r y.sh d3h s CV l 4 e k kiY h kd h il .6 D a a, hb I' ^ 4*4 *.. 0
m 4 numDconneseommmar 209EiE L"& r '87 JT411 A10:24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CYli;NL. Before the Administrative Law Judge iER ANe ' J;U~ In the Matter of ) 50-320 - 6f d I&pf - ) GPU Nuclear Corporation ) Docket No. ) License No. DPR-73 ) EA-84-137 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I ~ I hereby certify that "GPUN's Partial Response to-NRC Staff First Request for Admissions" was served by deposit in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid,-this 8th day of June, 1987, to the following persons: Ivan Smith, Esquire Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 George E. Johnson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel 9604 MNBB U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 David R. Lewis Dated: June 8, 1987 l}}