ML20215M990

First Supplemental Response to NRC First Set of Interrogatories Re Suspension of R Parks Employment at Facility Site.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20215M990
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/29/1986
From:	Jim Hickey GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#486-1325 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8611040139
Download: ML20215M990 (8)

Text

. -

f f / }M dt.LA T LO CGMc,arwDENCA 00cxt RED' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Umpc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 OCT 30 P2:57 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CTF'. ' '

CCCp In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) License No. DPR-73 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,) EA 84-137 Unit No. 2) ) (Civil Penalty)

GPUN'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 7 J

, a. On what basis do you contend that it was necessary J

to suspend Richard Parks' employment and bar him from the site to avoid disruption?

b. State.each and every fact, and identify all docu-ments which support or otherwise pertain to such contention.

c. Identify each and every person you contend would have been adversely affected by Parks' presence at TMI-2 on or after March 22, 1983, and explain the basis for such contention and why.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 .

(

(a) The decision to temporarily bar Mr. Parks from the TMI-2 site pending an investigation of his allegations was made by Mr. Arnold. Mr. Sandford agreed with that decision.

Mr. Arnold had been aware.during February 1983 of the concerns then being expressed by Mr. Parks. In general, the technical.and administ'rative issues identified by~ Parks in his 8611040139 861029 PDR ADOCK 05000320 G PDR

[D03 _-

4 1

affidavit were known to management, as well as the status of their resolution or investigation. Most of Parks' concerns had been previously expressed by Mr. King.

Mr. Arnold's reaction to the affidavit, when he first read it on March 23, was that the sweeping generalizations criti-cal of the conduct of TMI-2 cleanup and its management were not correct, that the personal attacks on individual integrity and competence were not valid and that Parks' characterizations of specific events and activities were generally incomplete or otherwise misleading. In reviewing the affidavit, Mr. Arnold did not identify any issues raised by Mr. Parks that formed a persua-sive basis for concluding that work within the plant had been done in an unsafe manner. Arnold also had King's a'greement that. j King did not know of any physical work that had been done un-safely.

Mr. Arnold based his assessment of the contents of Parks' affidavit on the following facts:

• his knowledge that many of the specific allegations had been or were being addressed by the TMI-2 organization;

• his understanding, from his years of involvement with TMI-2, of the history, substance and context for many of the issues; <

• and his knowledge (much of it first-hand) '

of the extent to which safety review panels comprised principally of experts that were not employees of GPU Nuclear or Bechtel had provided substantive on-going review of the planning and execution of TMI-2 activities.

i 4 l

l l

i

't In particular, Mr. Arnold was very surprised by the as-sertion in the GAP press release that Parks claimed that an indi-vidual on-site in a " key oversight-role" was "the ' mystery man' who shut off the safety injection pumps," and who thus was re- '

sponsible for "much of the damage at the original accident." The I Parks' affidavit identified this. person as George Kunder, Chair-ran of the TMI-2 Plant' Operations Review Committee. Not only had Mr. Arnold never heard of s.uch an assertion relative to Mr.

Kunder during his four years of intimate involvement with inves-tigations and reviews of the TMI-2 accident, he was confident from his knowledge of the accident investigations that no "mys-tery man" ever existed.

Upon reading Mr. Parks' affidavit, and seeing tne man-ner in which Parks maligned the integrity and competence of George Kunder and others, on pages 36 and 37, as well as many other members of management (e.g., see pages 6 and 7) through his incorrect or incomplete description of the facts, Mr. Arnold became very concerned about the impact of those personal attacks on the effective functioning of the TMI-2 organization. Arnold was convinced that the uneasiness exhibited by some members of the TMI-2 staff at a meeting the morning of March 23, during which GAP's press release was didcussed, would grow as the staff became fully aware of the extent of Parks' misrepresentation of events and his attacks on the performance of individuals at TMI-2 as contained in the affidavit.

In his allegations on page 36 of his affidavit that there was +. " common belief among various members of the 50 staff

[

! f that Mr. Kunder was the ' mystery man' who ordered the safety in-jection pumps turned off during the March 1979 accident," Parks vas accusing not only George Kunder of lying under oath on many

<>ccasions but several of the others as well. Arnold was aware

'that such a belief had never come to light in the course of hun-dreds of sworn statements taken during the many investigations of the TMI-2 accident. Arnold knew specifically that Joseph Chwastyk and Bernard Smith, the alleged sources of the in-formation, had each been interviewed both under oath and in-formally on several occasions and had made no such claim. It was inconceivable to Mr. Arnold that all the others who were.sup-posedly aware of that information would have failed to.come for-ward. This was especially true for Mr. Rogers, a management employee of Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) who participated extensively in the response to the TMI-2 accident. Being able to identify such a " mystery man" would have been of enormous assistance to his employer in the then recently settled lawsuit between GPU and B&W.

Arnold concluded that Parks' accusations, including those on pages 36 and 37 and elsewhere, would cause those with whom he would have to interact to feel vulnerable to similar false charges of incompetent or dishonest behavior. Thus, Mr.

Arnold believed that Mr. Parks' personal attacks would prevent Parks' co-workers from m$intaining a productive and collegial re-lationship with him. Those circumstances would have presented an unacceptable impediment to the progress of important elements of the decontamination and defueling of TMI-2 to the clear detriment of legitimate public health and safety issues.

1

l l

l 1 1 Arnold accordingly concluded late in the afternoon of  !

March 23 that GPU Nuclear could not fulfill its obligations for expeditious pursuit of the cleanup of TMI-2 if Mr. Parks remained at the site. Mr. Arnold reviewed with Bechtel management his judgment that Parks had, by his personal attacks, caused condi-tions that required temporarily barring him from the site pending investigation of his allegations. It should be emphasized that Bechtel's implementation of,this decision (administrative leave with pay) was carefully limited to achieve its legitimate objec-tives.

The foregoing is in addition to the matters set forth by Bechtel in the Bechtel Report.

(b) The documents which support or relate to GPUN's contentions are the exhibits to the Bechtel Report and the exhibits.thereto; the exhibits to the Stier Report; the September

1983 OI Report and exhibits thereto; the January 1984 Staff 1

, Report and exhibits thereto; the May 1984 OI Report and exhibits thereto; the NUREG 0680 Report and exhibits,thereto; the signed statements of Edwin Kitler, Bernard' Smith, John Auger, Joseph Chwastyk, Robert Gummo, George Kunder, Walter Marshall, John Perry, Bob Ryan, J.A. Smith, Lee Rogers, and Ronald Warren, signed on March 23 and 24, 1983 concerning Mr. Parks' " mystery man" allegations, which statements will be produced in response to the NRC Staff; the Stier preliminary report on April 21, 1983; Mr. Parks' affidavit of March 21, 1983; newspaper articles and

.. _ _. ,.: ..- .. ~-, - __ - - - - .-- - - __ .

s other examples of the mass media publicity generated by Mr.

Parks; GAP's press release dated March 23, 1983; and GPUN's Open-ing Statement at Press Conference of March 23, 1983.

(c) See response to Interrogatory 7a.

(Arnold, Sandford)

INFORMATION PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE In accordance with section 2.740, 10 C.F.R., the fore-going response is limited to matters which are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product privilege.

Dated: October 29, 1986 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By e _-

% Patrick / Hickey Attorney for GPU Nuc r Corporation l

l l

l l

I i

l 4 l l

l VERIFICATION I, PHILIP R. CLARK state under penalty of perjury:

That I am the President of GPU Nuclear Corporation; that I have read the foregoing "GPUN's First Supplemental Response to NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories": and that the informa-tion contained therein is.true and correct to the best of my .

knowledge and belief.

1 1

s'

__ _J Philip R. Clark -

Subscribedandsworntobeforemethis29thdayofoctober198h.

i Jet >

& se '

p < 'gJ. mu~nt ri e NOURV WCOF mm w esuppe IRB est,4 g r

A 0

/, l a

l .

O

( ttLM ED ColfHtSKJNutNQ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,(,I! !

Before the Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of )

gg DCT 30 .p

) Docket No. 50-320 66r s GPU Nuclear Corporation ) License No. DPR-73 00cng: ,,.

) EA 84-137 Bi'if ,'cf 5,0 (Three Mile Island, Unit 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing "GPUN's First Supplemental Response to NRC Staff's First Set of Interrog-atories" were served by deposit in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 29th day of October, 1986, 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

^

A ,-

J. ?dtrick H3,c' key

. . _ . .