ML20235B615
| ML20235B615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1987 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4425 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8709240164 | |
| Download: ML20235B615 (20) | |
Text
.
09/18/87 l*
ofETATED 00RRESPONDENQ%
g DOCKETED Ui::';Ii E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 87 SEP 22-A7 59 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGER' l'
I in the Matter of
)
}
Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
(Civil Penalty)
)
License No. DPR-73
-(Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station
)
EA 84-137 Unit No. 2)
)
NRC STAFF SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO GPU k CLEAR CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(e),
the Staff further supplements its previous responses to Interrogatory No. 72 as follows:
INTERROGATORY NO. 72 Identify the witnesses you intend to call at the hearing of this matter, and describe the issues on which each will testify and the substance of the testimony.
ANSWER The Staff intends to call Professor Carl Barus as a rebuttal witness in the event GPUN presents testimony directed to the motives, character, or credibility of Richard Parks, or to the safety significance of Mr. Parks' allegations regarding G PU N's non-compliance with administrative procedures at TMI-2.
Mr. Barus' testimony would be directea to one or more of the subject areas identified above, and would describe the actions of Mr. Barus and other members of the IEEE's Society on Social Implications of Technology kh DY h0 s1 o
oL
in awarding Mr. Parks this Society's' Award for Outstanding Service in the Public, Interest.
The Staff.has appended hereto Professor Barus' vita and documents describing the subject matter of his testimony.
For the NRC Staff,
)
c fC (pdt v
' George
. Jo on Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of September 1987 i
L
i
- rii x.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 SEP 22 A7 :59 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
,n, baQ e ; '. s,
in the Matter of
)
}
Docket No.
50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
(Civil Penalty)
)
License No. D PR-73 (Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station
)
EA 84-137 Unit No. 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE
TO GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES" above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail,, first class, or, as indicated by an
- asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 18th day of September,1987.
- lvan W. Smith, Esq.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 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 Washington, DC 20555 San Francisco, CA 94111
- Docketing and Service Section j
Office of the Secretary
{
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, DC 20555
^
Chh %,
f c
c-A eorge E. / ohnAofi a
Counsel ofNRG Etaff
)
J
n
.{
o 9,
Curriculum Vitae k
CARL BARUS Swarth = ore Collegi Born:
1919 Swarthmore, PA 19081
' Phone: 215-447-7d78 Married:
three grown children Present Position:
Professor of Engineering, Swarthmore College; since 1972.
t.ssociate Professor of Electrical Engineering; 1959-72.
Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering, 1952-59, Former Positions:
- u.
Research Assistant and Staff Member, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1946-52.
Assistant Engineer, Raytheon Manufacturing Company, 1945-46.
U.S. Naval Reserve, radar officer, 1941-45.
- Visiting Appointments:
Visiting Professor of Electrical Engineering, Institute of Management and Technology, Enugu, Nigeria, 1976-77.
Visiting Staff Member,' National Center for Energy Management and Power, University of Pennsylvania, fall 1971.
Visiting Professor of Electrical Engineering,'Ahmadu Bello University.
Zaria, Nigeria, 1963-64.
1 Educatirn:
MS in EE, llan.achusetts Institute of Tecimology, 1948 A3 (Physicc), Brown University,1941 Professional and Honorary Societics:
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers American Society for Engineering Education American Association for the Advancement of Science American Association of University Professors Federation of American Scientists Phi Beta Kappa Sigma Tau Sigma Xi Tau Beta Pi Courses Taught:
Undergraduate electrical engineering subjects with emphasis on electro-magnetics, circuits and communications.
Basic courses in lumped and distributed-parameter systems.
" Problems in Technology" - a course for non-engineers, "Public Technology Project," " Energy Policy. Issues."
" Values and Ethics in Science and Technology" 4
e
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ =. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _
l 1
0
/
l j
i Miscellaneous Professional Activities:
2 Supervised undergraduate summer study teams:
" Electric Power for the Future,"
4 1970; " Urban ~ Transportation in Philadelphia," 1972; NSF/URP (see below), 1974.
USF Grants:
" Electronic Instrumentation in Neurophysiology," 1953-56; "A Study of Learning Machines," 1956-63; Undergraduate Research Partici-l pation (URP) Project Director (ten students), energy conservation, l
summer 1974 1983 Member, IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology; Administrative Co
'/
j Member, organizing committee of Intersociety Conference on Engineering Ethics, Baltlmore, >by 1975.
Member, Committee on Iechnology and Society, ASME, 1967-70.
Member of Council, Society for Social Responsibility in Science (SSRS),
k 1963-64 and 1965-67.
g/b
}
Chairman, Student Activities Committee, AIEE District No. 2, 1958-59.
Co-holder, U.S. Patent No. 3,477,666.
Publications (since 1960):
"A Scheme for Recognizing Patternr from an Unspecified Class'," presented Symposium on Optical Character Recognition, Washington, DC, Jan.' 1962, atand published in " Optical Character Recognition," G. L. Fischer, et al, editors, Spartan Scohs, 1962, pp. 227-2;S.
"~heugh s en Ic:hnelegy anf Ocycler-en:." FFri Newsletter. N:. 143, pp. 1, 4 Jul'. 1 H.
"Niscria Develops Ambitious Fregrans for Three Universities," ASEE Inter-natienal Encineerine Educatien Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 3, Dec. 1964.
" Engineering Education and Cultural Survival: A Reply to Thomas L. Martin, Jr.," Journal o_f Engineering Education, Vol. 56, No. 5, pp. 175-176, Jan. 1966.
"An Easily Mechanized Scheme for an Adaptive Pattern Recognizer," Trans.
IEFE on Electronic Computers (corresp.), Vol. EC-15, No. 3, pp. 385-387, JunelIJ66.
"Superproblems:
A New Program at Swarthmore College," IEEE Trans on Educa tion, '!ol. E-15, No. 1, Feb. 1972, pp. 37-40.
"On the Limits'to Energy Release and Implications for Present Policy,"
ASME Trans., Journal of Engineering for Industry, Feb. 1973, pp. 383-390.
"Is Academic Grading Necessary?", Proc. Third Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, ASEE/IEEE, pp. 264-268, 1973.
"On Technology and Growth," (column, "The Socio-Technical View"), Mechanical Engineering, Dec. 1974, p. 96.
" Energy Release:
A Limit to Growth," Mechanical Engineering, June 1975, pp. 28-33.
. /', '
.i of :
/
I9 -
'? publications (contidued);
t-
" Systems Engineering and Society's Problems," IEEE, Committee on Social Implications of Technology Newsletter, No. 13, pp. 31-32, March 1976.
"Suclear_ Electric. Power and Nigeria,";Mantech, journal of Institute of Management and Technology, Enugu, Nigeria, March 1977, pp. 106-110.
" Values and Ethics in Science.and Technology:
An Interdisciplinary Course,"
Science,E. Technology and Society, Lehigh University, No. 26, Nov. 1981, pp. 1-8.
"On Costs, Benefits and Malefits in Technology Assessment," IEEE Technology & Society Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, March 1982, pp. 3-9, 27.
Review of " Privacy: How to Protect k'ha t 's Le f t o f It," by Rob e r t Ellis' Smith, IEEE Technolocy and Society Macazine, 1, pp. 15-16, March 1982.
Review of " Engineering Professionalism and Ethics," edited by Jam'es H.
1]f
] g((
Schaub and Karl Fav':'/ic. John 'iiley 5 Sons, 19S3 3
I 5:icnce and Tc:hne'cgy." The Machine in the L'niversity:
"alues. and Et hi:3 i:
'Jniv e r s i t *f f re; 4, 77
'.37
.t2. 'H3
~~ef Te:hne'eeiral Studies. Lehigh Sa :le Cecin F.'.'svus'f?: :he H:s:er.
/
4 g
9 r ge e
1 1
1 l'
)
1
\\
J i
.9
{f
~
o GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT i i 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)232-8550 3
f.
December 3, 1985 Professor Carl Barus Swarthmore College Swarthmore, Pennsylvania 19081
Dear Professor Barus:
. I enjoyed talking with you last week about my client, friend and sometimes-colleague Richard Parks. It is unfortunate that we did not make contact earlier, but hopefully this letter and enclosed background materials will still prove helpful. The materials include the most recent NRC release, as well as a fairly complete packet of newspaper articles on Mr. Parks' whistleblowing disclosure.
My understanding of your interest in Mr. Parks concerns a possible nomination for an IEEE award from the Administrative Committee for social Implications of Technology.
If my notes are accurate, the award is for those who act ethically and provide outstanding service in the public interest, despite adverse personal consequences to self or to reputation. My comments will reflect those criteria.
Frankly, the assignment is somewhat easy with respect to Mr. Parks, because the criteria almost define the Government Accountability Project's (GAP) experience with him.
Initially, it may be helpful to know a little bit more about who is providing thiu recommendation.
GAP is a non-profit,
)
non-partisan organization that provides legal assistance to government or corporate "whistleblowers," those who dissent against illegal, dangerous and/or wasteful practices by their employer that could threaten the public at large.
Before agreeing to help an individual, we first check to determine whether he or she has -- 1) made a good faith effort to work within the corporate or government organization before going outside the system to dissent; 2) presented charges that are accurate; and 3) challenged alleged misconduct that is significant.
Background articles about GAP also are enclosed.
Our position about nuclear power is consistent with our position on any other individual issue raised by a whistleblower
-- we favor compliance with the law. GAP is neither for nor against nuclear power.
Nearly all of our clients, howevar, strongly favor it as an energy source.
Generally their dissent is motivated by their respect for the technology and the potential for disaster when it is trqsted casually.
In my opinion, there is no question that Mr. Parks' ethical pursuit of public safety at Three Mile Island fulfilled both your awards criteria and our representation standards.
Although I now have served as Mr. Parks' lawyer for close to three years, there have
^
~
never been any serious doubts that GAP made the right decision about him.
He attempted to work within the General Public Utilities /Bechtel corporate system and the NRC site organization for nearly three months before turning to GAP in desperation for help.
9 He was. desperate, because in less than two weeks his employers plcnned to lift the 170 ton radioactive reactor vessel head with a polar-crane'whose brakes had been totaled in the TMI accident, whose electrical systems had been severely damaged and that had not been load tested since the accident.
As one high level TMI ongineer later stated, "It would be like crashing a race car, I
completely replacing its brakes and then running it in the l
Indianapolis 500 without any road tests."
Mr. Parks also was effective in his dissent.
Within a few days, his public eloquence forced GPU to postpone the reactor vessel head lift.
Congressional hearings soon followed.
Mr.
Parks had opened a Pandora's Box of illegality and a new NRC team later. confirmed not only that the cleanup operation was systematically illegal, but that NRC site officials had colluded with utility l
management to bypass the Commission's safety regulations.
The NRC required GPU to rewrite the entire cleanup program, and to perform full tests on the disputed polar crane.
The crane's performance 16 months later, in July 1984, offers some indicator of the risks if Parks had not spoken out.
Even after numerous deficiencies had been identified and fixed, the cranes still stuck repeatedly -- including once for over 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> during the reactor head lift.
There also is no question that Mr. Parks' public service initiatives cost him his career at Bechtel, and that he pursued his conscience knowing full well the realistic consequences. The retaliation in response to Parks' private and public dissent is a matter of public record.
The Department of Labor and the NRC both concluded there had been illegal reprisals.
An incident just before Mr. Parks' March 1983 disclosure is illustrative, I
however.
Shortly before Mr. Parks went public, a Bechtel supervisor called him in tu announce that Mr. Parks had a home with the company for the rest of his career. The unstated implication was that bygones would be bygones if Parks let the polar crane dispute quietly disappear.
Mr. Parks pursued his othical duties anyway and was suspended the day after his affidavit was fided with the NRC.
The aftermath of Mr. Parks' Department of Labor settlement also is illustrative of the long tWrm consequences faced by l
whistlablowers.
The settlement called for Parks to work as a ctartup engineer at the Coolvater coal gasification facility in the California desert. Bechtel insisted that there were no nuclear-related jobs availabic in the entire corporate i
I organization but that Parks would be considered for the next cpening.
Instead, he was laid off from coolwater approximately cix months after he arrived.
Although other engineers with no nuclear experience were transferred to nuclear power projects as t-
the Coolwater job wound down, Bechtel could not find anything for Mr. Parks.
Parks'freaction to the layoff further reinforces my strong opinions about his commitment to public service.
As a public interest orga'nization supported by foundation grants, GAP does not normally, charge clients for representation.
After his layoff, however, Mr.. Parks volunteered to help in my ongoing investigation of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, as a volunteer project to repay the organization for our assistance.
He worked without pay for approximately two months before I insisted that he go on salary if he were to continue.
He than f
worked for another four months at a public interest salary that was not competitive with his market value.
Throughout his 1984 work for GAP, Mr. Parks never wavered in his commitment to nuclear power.
In August he informed me that he' wanted to return to the industry.
He wanted to make another effort at accomplishing reform of the nuclear industry by working constructively within utility organizations, instead of attacking abuses from the outside. For nearly five months he steadily sent out applications, without any ultimate success.
On a number of occasions he was encouraged by enthusia'stic initial responses, but in each case the opportunity would inexplicably disappear.
Parks realistically suspected that perhaps he was being blacklisted.
From our discussions, I know that this was a period of severe depression and disillusionment for him.
In December.1984 Parks obtained a meaningful position as licensing engineer at the Perry nuclear power plant.
He obtained
{
the job through a nuclear persennel agency.
These firms are
[
known in the trade as " job shoppers."
All seamed to be fine l
until a major article appeated in the Philadelphia Inquirer that 1
had his picture and mentioned his new position.
Shortly afterward his duties were drastically reduced, and the personnel agency transferred Parks to the Clinton nuclear plant in Illinois.
Clinton was Parks' last hurrah trying to work'within the nuclear industry.
He job was to serve as a troubleshooter for the plant's startup and test program.
Within weeks of his arrival he identified a serious deficiency and proposed a corrective action plan that could have delayed operations for six months.
Within days, he was laid off and escorted off site without explanation.
At this point Parks realized that he could not "go home" to the nuclear industry, without sacrificing his professional ethics.
GAP agreed to employ him temporarily, through the and of December 1985, as our Acting West Coast Director for a variety of
. nuclear and non-nuclear jobs. As of January, he again will be j
unemployed.
l l
l Professor Barus, I am gratified that your organization is considering Mr. Parks for an award.
One reason is that he is so
(
1 obviously deserving.
Even more important, however, the ethical heroes of any industry must be honored as an incentive for others who are considering the sometimes-competing priorities of public safety and job security. civil service studies of would-be government whistleblowers have revealed that most employees are willing to risk the personal consequences of dissent but hold back because they do not think their sacrifices will make any l
I difference.
l I
Mr. Parks' experience demonstrates that our society is not too large for one individual -- with effective support --
to reverse dangerous public policies despite politics, big money and bureaucratic inertia.
His effectiveness as a whistleblower and his personal courage have been an inspiration to us at GAP.
I hope that through professional recognition his strength can also be an inspiration to other would-be Rick Parks as they decide whether to taka seriously their commitments to professional codes of ethics.
Sincerely, n l'
['I
'Aca,a.,k,> k 1' 'U.
j Thomas Devine Legal Director W
W
(~
f July 15, 1985 a
RICHARD PARKS, LAURENCE KING, EDWIN GISCHEL Subaequent to the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Ocekground and Su= mary.
Island, Unit 2;(TMI-2), Bechtel North American Power Company was engaged to tcke part in clean-up operations. A new entity, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. (GPUN), replaced Metropolitan Edison as operator of TMI.
In September 1982, Bechtel and GPUN were integrated to become a single organization to manage the clean-up.
See [1], sections D-1 (organization chart) and D-10, attached.
In May 1982, Parks was employed at TMI as senior engineer. King, later Gischel had been.
his boss, became Director of Site Operations in October.
Parks worked for cmploye.d as Director of Plant Engineering since June 1981.
Eschtel; the other two for GPUN.
During the spring of 1983, the three engineers, separately but in mutual raised allegations of improper and unsafe procedures on the part of
- support, These allegations were investigated by various NRC Bechtel/GPUN management.
Ultimately, the three engineers were transferred from TMI or sub-divisions.
discharged.
+
The issues which the three engineers raised are best summed The Allegations.
up in Reference (1), section C-3.
They are, briefly:
(1) Safety-related changes in equipnent without proper approval.
(2) Non-coupliance with Quality Assurance (QA) procedures.
(3) Inclination by managenent to put schedule deadlines ahead of required safety-check procedures.
(4) Earassment of the allegers as a result of their disclosures.
(5) Collusion of NRC personnel with GPUN/Bechtel.
(6) Whether a nanagement-level employee (" mystery man") ordered turn-off of safety injection pumps during the 1979 accident.
Items (1) to (3) were taken up by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) [1].
Item (4) was dealt with later by 01 (3].
Item (5) - collusion - was referred to the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) [2].
Item (6) does not seem to have been dealt with in NRC reports.
The present su= mary account deals only with items (1) to (3), the technical f asues, and briefly with item (4), harassment. The NRC/0I substantiated
- e. legations (1) to (3).
It substantiated Parks on item (4), but was incon-clusive about the other two.
The NRC/0IA has found that collusion - item (5) -
did not occur as allegcd (2].
I Major Technical and Procedural Issues [5]. The safety questions raised by Parks, King and G1schel focused on the polar crane. This crane, designed chiefly for lif ting the 158-con reactor-vessel head, was damaged during the t
. _. _ _i h
Ptge 2 4
" Refurbishment" of the polar crane was a necessary early step 1979 accident.
in clean-up operations.
Originally $5 to $10 million was projected for this task. This sum was cut to $2.5 million without explanation [1, D-2, pp. 34-35).
This is but one example of Parks' criticism of polar crane procedures. '
(
The safety 41mportance of the polar crane is clear.
Should the reactor-
{
vcssel head drop <during head-life, it could shear off any number of pipes and l
v;.1ves connected to the vessel, releasing its highly radioactive liquid I
Criticality could even occur then in $he reactor-building sump.
contents.
There are a number of official NRC procedures for nuclear plant repair cud maintenance, which of course applied to the disabled TXI-2.
These procedures, requiring certain signed rerorts, were blatantly disregarded, cecording to Parks et al., in connectica with the polar crane and other ccfety-r. elated items.
At one point, for example, aspects of the polar crane ware declared by =anagement to be "non-safety-related," chus bypassing NRC requirements.
Adherence to schedule and budget, rather than to regulatory procedures and public safety, dominated management concern, according to the three engineers.
Reactor head-lift actually took place in July 1984, after Parks, King, cud Gischel had all been removed from their positions.
It is worth noting that polar-crane problems did occur during head lift and afterwards (4).
In particular, one of the two brake mechanisms failed (6). Had'both failed, o load drop could have occurred.
The allegations suggest that there was good horizontal communication, as to safety matters, at the engineering leval, but poor vertical communica-tion with top management [1, D-5).
It would appear, as alleged, that top management was chiefly concerned with schedulee and costs rather than with ccfety and compliance with regulations.
l Harassment [3).
According to the three engineers, each was harassed by management as a consequence of their allegations.
Veiled threats were made to Parks concerning custody of his two children. Actually, he had been widowed, not divorced, but he feared for the safety of his sons [1, D-2,
- p. 47 ff.).
King was summarily suspended and escorted off-site without even the opportunity to retrieve personal effects from his office.
G1schel was prostvred to take a "neuro-psychological" examination from a company-ratained psychologist, even though his own doctor advised him not to (Gischel had recovered from a mild stroke) [1, D-5; 3].
Chronolorv (Note:
an excellsat account of the events in question is given in [6]):
l 3/28/79 THI-2 accident.
6/81 Gischel employed as Director of Plant Engineering.
5/82 Parks employed as Senior Engineer.
9/82 Bechtel/GPUN integrated. management established.
10/82 King re-employed at TMI-2 as Director of Site Operations.
2/24/83 King suspended.
3/2/83 King NRC/0I interview- [1, D-4).
l
' Pcg3 3 Chronology (continued) 1 3/21/83 Parks affidavit [1, D-2].
3/23/83 King fired.
4/2/83 dischel affidavit [1, D-5].
4/24/83 Farks suspended without pay.
7/1/83 Gischel transferred.
8/83 Parks transferred.
11/7/83 GPUN indicted for pre-accident falsifications; pleads innocent.
11/29/83 GPUN President Arnold resigns.
1/84 Parks fired.
2/28/84 GPUN pleads guilty or nolo contandere on seven counts.
Criminal conviction of company.
7/.84 TMI-2 head lift with polar crane difficulties.
6/85 TMI-1 restart in courts; NRC (commissioners) has not yet held hearings on Parks' et al. allegations.
a Support for Award Candidacy, some telephone contacts have been made to people with direct knowledge of the TMI-2 clean-up and the allegations.
(a) Marjorie Aamodt, a TMI neighbor and participant with,har engineer husband, UCS, and Pennsylvania Governor Thornberg et al. in a current suit to force NRC hearings on the allegations (7], stated that Parks was the leader in taking ethical action; King and Gischel were ready to follow him.
1 (b) Roger Portuna. Deputy Director of NRC/0I in Washington, believes ij that all three engineers met the SSIT criteria of public interest, ethical cetion, and personal / career risk.
1 (c) Bob Pollard of Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), who has been I
investigating the whole TMI sequence of events, would support an award to cny or all of the three engineers.
Bob was a member of CSIT.
He might well have been a candidate himself for the SSIT Award in 1976, when he resigned l
in protest from NRC.
)
1 l
Recommendations.
All of the three engineers are well qualified for the j
Award by the SSIT criteria.
If one is to be singled out, I think it should be Parks.
He initiated the action, and in his affidavit he provided the.
most complete account of the events.
In addition, Parks seems e" hcve cuffered the'most from management retaliation. King's case is w swhat clouded by management accusations of " conflict of interest," but'these accusations are not clearly borne out, and they can be interpreted as
' retaliation. King sued to get reinstated, and the suit was settled out
)
of court for an undisclosed amount. Gischel's part is somewhat more modest I
than Parks'. But his affidavit [1, D-5] and the NRC/0I report on harassment
[3] should be read carefully.
)
I therefore submit Parks, King, and Gischel jointly as candidates for the IEEE/SSIT Award for Outstanding Service in the Public Interest. If only one can be given the award, it should be Parks in my view.
i A conflicting opinion is expressed in Reference (8].
P:go 4 l,
f I
Acknowindgem nts.
I th nk thoso centicn:d absva for th31r helpful commints.
f I also wish to thank PANE, a citizens' organization in Middletown, PA, for l
providing copies of the major NRC documents in this case.
& Hc4; i
Carl Barus 1
References
~
1.
NRC Report, "Three Mile Island NGS, Unit 2 Allegations Regarding Safety Related Modifications and QA Procedures," 9/1/83.
Ben B. Hayes, Director.
Office of Investigations (OI). Twenty-nine attachments.
Total apprcx.
400 pp.
[ Excerpts have been distributed to SSIT Awards Committee and others in SSIT AdCom.
See attached Table of Contents and additional excerpts].
2.
NRC Report, " Parks Allegations Regarding Three Mile Island, Unit 2,"
9/7/83. Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA). Attachments. Total approx. 150 pp.
[ Excerpts have been distributed to SSIT Awards Committee and others].
3.
NRC Report, "Three Male Island NGS, Unit 2, Allegations Regarding Discrimination for Laising Safety-Related Concerns," 5/18/84.
Ben B. Hayes, Director, Office of Investigations (OI).
85 pp.
[ Excerpts attached).
4.
NRC TMI Program Office weekly status reports, 7/30/84, 10/5/84, and 10/22/84.
[ Excerpts attached).
- 5., General reference on TMI-2:
IEEE Spectrum, Special Issues, 11/79.
[ Excerpted diagram attached].
6.
Philadelphia Inquirer front page article by Susan PitzGerald and Jim Detjen, "TM1 critics who paid a price," 2/12/85.
[ Xerox copies already distributed to SSIT Awards Committee and others].
7.
Philadelphia Inquirer, editorials, 2/13/85 and 4/30/85.
[ Attached).
8.
Letter to the Editor, Philadelphia Inquirer, concerning Stier Report (3/16/85).
[ Attached).
- s
,v' MS4
.hc8',.<..mus,
.u..,,,,,,u.-
l IEEE SOCIETY ON SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY PLEASE REPLY TO:
f December 9, 1985 TO:
SSIT AdCom FROM:
Carl Barus, Awards Committee l
RE:
Nomination of Richard D. Parks for SSIT Award l
The Awards Committee has agreed to narrow our earlier list of I
nominees (7/15/85 memo) to one, namely Richard D. Parks. Of the three engineers involved in safety-criticism of the TMI clean-up, Parks emerges as the leader, the one who perhaps had the most to lose, and the one who did the most work in safety analysis and criticism.
(His 56-page affidavit has been circulated to the Awards Committee, and is summarized in Ref. 1, section C-5, which has been sent to j
the SSIT Secretary and was distributed to AdCom members at an earlier meeting).
Incidentally, Larry King, another of the three, ja is the subject of a case study (" Wilson") in the June 1985 issue of T. & S. (pp. 25-30).
Parks was trained in the Navy's nuclear-power program. He was and is an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power, and he intended to make it his engineering career.
It now seems that his career plans have been thwarted because of his insistence on proper safety procedures.
Parks' specific safety allegations centered on the polar crane, which had been damaged in the 1979 accident, and which was to be used to lift the 170-ton reactor-vessel head. The NRC Office of Investi-gations upheld these safety charges.
(See 7/15/85 memo for more detail).
In fact, serious malfunctions of the crane did occur during head lift.
Parks also charged harassment and discrimination by his employer as a result of his raising safety issues (s e NRC Notice of Violatio,n to GPU Nui'*ar -- Ref. 2).
His charges were upheld by NRc staff and a fine of $65,000 was proposed by the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement for a " Level II" violation (no " Level I" violation bas ever occurred; " Level II" violations are extremely rare).
THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS,INC.
7 l -
l Subsequent to his safety charges, Parks was transferred to a non-nuclear position with Bechtel and later laid off (Ref. 2).
He now l
serves indire$tly as a part-time consultant to the California PUC, but he is not. optimistic about the future of his chosen career in nuclear power.
The Awards Committee has sent letters of inquiry to the top on-site.
officials of GPUN and Bechtel at TMI and to the GPUN public information manager. All replied but were unable or unwilling to comment on the case of Parks et al.
However, GPUN public information did send a requested copy of Volume I of the "Stier Report," prepared for GPUN by its attorneys (Ref. 3).
In addition, we solicited information l
i and comments from various NRC cfficials connected with the case, including Chairman Palladino. None would give comments, but two additional NRC documents were provided (Refs. 4, 5).
The IEEE Code of Ethics requires engineers to: (I,1) " Accept responsibility for their actions" (failure to take action may be viewed legally as an action); (11,2) " Encourage colleagues and co-workers to act in accord with this Code and support them when they do so"; (III,5) " Assist and advise their employers or clients in anticipating the possible consequences....of the projects, work or plans of which they have knowledge"; and (IV 1) " Protect the jl l
safety, health and welfare of the public and speak out against abuses
- l 4 ]'
,i in these areas affecting the public interest".
In the view of the Awards Co==ittee. Parks carsied out every j'
one of these ethical injunctions in the spirit of the Code and to i-the best of his ability.
Our position is substantiated by NRC docu=ents (especially Ref. 1) and other caterial that has been excerpted and distributed to members of the AdCom at recent meetings.
In all, we have atte=pted to sift and sum =arize thousands of pages 1
l of documentary evidence.
As a result of this effort, we are happy to nominate Richard D. Parks for the SSIT Award for Outstanding Service in the Public Interest.
References 1
1.
NRC Report, "Three Mile Island NGS, Unit 2, Allegations Regarding Safety...", 9/1/83, Ben B. Hayes, Director, NRC Office of Investi-gations (01).
Approx. 400 pp.
[ Excerpts distribu.ed to AdCOM members at earlier meeting. More complete set of excerpts sent to SSIT Secretary. Table of Contents herewith for AdCom.].
2.
Notice of Violation, from James M. Taylor, Director, NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to GPU Nuclear Corp., 8/12/85,
[ herewith for AdCom).
3.
"TMI-2 Report: Management and Safety Allegations," four volumes plus Appendices. Prepared by Edwin H. Stier, attorney, for GPU Nuclear Corp.
(Vol. I, Introduction, Summary and Conclusions, 76 pp., has been obtained by SSIT Awards Committee].
9 4.
"TMI-I Ragtart: An Evaluation of Licensee's Management Integrity...".
USNRC, ONRR,~1GREG-068C, Suppl. 5, 7/84,. approx. 180 pp.
t 5.
"IntheMacIerofMet. Ed. Co. e.t al", USNRC, "21NRC282 (1985)",
2/25/85, approx. 70 pp.
t 1
1.
I l
l
(
CB:fs Enclosures
1H4 Ic:BH -
......2...<......,
IEEE SOCIETY ON SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
\\
5
-5i.
AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST The Award is presented in 1986 to Richard D. Parks, a Senior
~"-ingineer employed (1982-83) at Three Mile Island nuclear station during clean-up operations.
Richard Parks, with colleagues, challenged certain procedures instituted by his employer as unsafe and in violation of regulations.
His allegations were upheld upon investigation by the cognizant offices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In raising these issues, Richard Parks followed his best engineering judgment and acted from his sense of engineering responsibility, knowing that he risked his chosen career. His courageous adherence to the highe'st standards of professional ethics deserves the respect and admiration of the engineering I
profession.
l I
)
)
i 1
.1 l
1
(
THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRCSCS ENGINEERS. INC.
I i
LEEE Technology and Society Magazine, September 1986 w
- 1 News, Notes, and Comments
""Aa' n;#:JaRd'2 d
discovered.
Richard D. Parks Receives SSIT Award for Outstand-P^'ks pursued his safety concerns through management channels and then Ing service m th.e Publ,c Interest through NRC. His allegations were for-i mally stated in a 56 page affidavit. An in-c-
IEEE's Society on SociaIlmplications The safety issues raised by Parks focus-vestigation and report by the NRC Office j
of Technology (SSIT) presented its third ed chiefly on the repair of the polar crane, of Investigations upheld the allegations Award for Outstanding Service in the which had been damaged during the 1979 and noted that they "were not only sub-Public Interest to Richard D. Parks at the TMI accident and which would be neced-ctantiated, but (were] found to be illustra.
IEEE ELECTRO '86 convention in ed to lift the head of the reactor vessel tive rather than exhaustive." On recom-Boston in May, prior to defueling. Should the 170 ton tnendation of the NRC Office of Inspec.
Parks, a nuclear enginect, was head be dropped due to crane malfunc-tion and Enforcement, Parks' former employed at Three Mile Island nuclear tion, release of the vessel's contents could employer was fined $64,000 for harrass-station during clean up operations there occur, a calamitous setback for the clean-ment, in violation of Federallaw. The subsequent to the 1979 accident. An en-up operation and a disaster for the nuclear fine is being contested as of this writing.
thusiastic supporter of nuclear power and power industry. Fortunately, Parks' ef-Parks himself has received no compensa.
a firm believer in adhering to safety forts succeeded in delaying the head lift tion for the mistreatment, nor for his be-regulations, Parks criticized the safety of while further tests and modifications were ing illegally fired for raising safety issues.
certain clean m practices undertaken by made. Nevertheless, crane problems did Incontestable facts indicate that he has his employer. Parks' citation by SEIT develop during the head lift, which took been blacklisted in the nuclear industry reids in part as follows:
place after Parks had been fired. After-for his efforts.
Richard Parks, with colleagues, challenged certain procedures in.
p* & <-: "' e ~ a ~ y #* 5-
?- =
stituted by his emple/er as unsafe and u n.ur" r
.s, a
Nfu
' ' F:
- YM*
- T. F in violation of regulations. His allegal
/. %
M tions were upheld upon investigation b M.W j.6, <-
U>C NMM T~ W.i *
'V by the cogni. tant offices of the Nuc! car
- 4. 9 7 Regulatory Commission, k f.k 4."'
DNo
- d#C in raising these issues, Richard fM6
' ? r::
Parks followed his best engineering iR-
'J M,h' S.'M M' -
Judgment and acted from his sense of
'W" l#
4 engineering responsibility, knowing that he risked his chosen esteer. His h'i ?
courageous adherence to the highest h/, e
-M.
l '
O
'.a i
standards of professional ethics h" ("
k
[
"' 4
' 36 deserves the respect and admiration of the engineering profession.
1 I
- . clp h,i. 4 >
M['k '.
mmh W M'
- iI
',p $
The presentation ceremony took place i
Maf 13 during the ELECTRO '86 con-I Pr M%
vention. On hand were a number ofIEEE
%h
- sg
'N$
officials as well as members and officers of SSIT. Carl Barus, Chairman of the f4 d Kg
. a..,.o irNb.
,dMuj SSIT Awards Committee, introduced I M Parks and described the actions and cit.
Stephen Unger, SSIT President, present.t the award to Richard Parks.
cumstances leading to the award. Presi-dent Stephen H. Unger of SSIT discuss-ed the natura and significance of the awt;d itself. It was, he said, a recogni-STATEMENT.BY RICHM. dY4RK.SM.e~ N*.. 4;+F.
5 tion of a kind of heroism, not spur-of-v-.-
w.i.
the-moment, hke a dramatic rescue, but
' Recent eve'nts involving the shuttle Challenger remind.the world that integrity and cc.refully considered over time from an dedication to p' professionalism haje to.be a central concept in the decision-making ethical standpoint. Unger then presented process when ilves are at staket*.'.f.'t 7., M L..
.. 3 c.&,
the award-a band. tame certificate and a Like two Morton-Thiokol eng16eers,-I was transferred to a low visibility position nominal cash award, after I challenged the legalities of niy employer'a actions at TMI-2. I was subsequently l
terminated and have found it im' ossible.to' locate meaningful work since. ".' "
p "Ihe IEEE officers present each express-
.- After' witnessing the demise of othei' engineers khd challeriged the safety of Ee ed in his own way his h!sh regard for TMI 2 cleanup,'after unsuccessfully exhatisting the'in'sina!' process to' achieve a fair t
Parks' ethical conduct in a difficult situa-res'olution of tny. concerns, I.krie~w l had to so.public to firevent further illegal sic-tion. The officials were: President Elect y
tions..Had the Morton Thiokolenginsers publicly' released'their fonecrns' prior t6 Henry L. Bachman, Division VI Dirce-launch l seven astronau's might be alivf today.O' SM ' ""'
W*
tor Charles B. Stott, Region I Director
, Integrity and professionalism".are cas't aside NoT[ tint'dNeet'aIdeidlir2 E Michael J. Whitelaw, and former Vice e6sineer or' supervisor who,11ke'niysjlf, challenges th'e sneth'ods di the legality of President for Regional Activities Merrill managemeiit's sacrifices in safety l serves only to identify'himself for possible chastise-W. Buckey, Jr. witham W. Middleton, and loss of careir*' i W'M*'
"' t " ' "
v "' '
ment, ostracism' SSIT for this award. 5hro."bs"titi l r$fe's'siodahtm stiil' ems aSo'ng l
Chairman of the Member Conduct Com-I wish to thank v
i t is often saWsced Wmgement p 6e p many pmfess na s.
n rttmate ng t latio to ar s aSI E*"**
President A. D. Robbi.
23
+-
b :-
N IEEE Technology and Society Magaz.ine, September 1986
' f f,.
~
sib nes. t e
egd.Q U.S a
f Mih-}..
pG..
senior operations engineer in 1982-83. He
.[' -
d.! @D. 1 looked forward to a promising career in t
commercial nuclear power. But he refus-iI :
t i
l ed to advance his career by going along
(,
with safety shortcut nd violations of i
- f. o f
%.I
$d d
NRC regulations. It' s ' this kind of T-5 Md.
. W; 4
courageous ethical position that the SSIT p
i 3. i j,-
Award recognizes in the hope that ethical 77;/4 behavior will.become~ more generally r
valued by both engineers and employers, b
y Parks now resides with his family in g
),y/
Qulin, Missoori, where he is developing g%d W
f.
9 a
his own business.
Lu
,n 1
The SSIT Award is not given annual-Stephen Unger, Donna and Richard Parks,' and Carl B'ahs after the present ly, but rather when a suitable candidate The purpose of the award is to recogni. -
L.
6 OfM7 he-%'**Y s1 -
mmm em comes to the attention of the committee.
.m in a timely manner, an engineer oi pc jy
.i
.~
Q 4%t-
.e h
/C.-
9, technical person who has acted ethically f< -
k within the scope of IEEE's interest to pro-
.f
' ~""O2 9
h rf f d*f h
tect public health, safety, or welfare
['
{*
~ ['q b
despite risk to professional reputation or i
.[ 4 b" 9 4
/
s Y
s career. The recipient need not be a member of IEEE.
% 1
. c!).@
The award was first presented at
, / 2,.'
h
Lp *>
w
- z.i (
WESCON in 1978 to three former Bay
- 4
- S;.1 y
Area Rapid Transit engineers.The BART 2,
engineers had separately warned their
,7j
- e.,d management that proper engineering practices w ere not being follow ed. Even.
tually, they took their concern to a IEEE President Elect Henry L. Bachman Charles B. Stott, Divuion 11 Director, ex.
member of DART's Board. When the speaking at the presentation ceremony. presses hu high regard for ethical conduct.
case became public, they were fired. In a subsequent lawsuit brought by the engineers against DART, IEEE filed an been a Senior information Scientist management, she w as fired for going on I
amicus curwe brief concerning the general employed by the City of New York. Ms.
lesel higher, esen though such action is principles of ethical professional conduct. Edgerton raised concerns about possible prescribed by the IEEE Code The case was settled out of court.
overloading of the computerized police Virginia Edgerten received the public car emergency dispatching system, known
--Carl Barus service award at ELECTRO '79. She had as SPRINT, Rebuffed by her immediate energy consumption,is the overheating of t$versy. When the National Science President's Message, ooms to the point where people may even foundation (NSF) announced its plans to continuedfrom page 2.
find it necessary in open win'ows to bring drop its modest program funding research energy consumed in the form ot shaving theNemperature down to a tolerable on ethics and values in science and
/
technology (EVIST), SSIT's Adh n, cream. In fact, the energy consumed in providing electric lighting for shaving level.)htto a more controversial fealm, alon g with many indivi Mov thereis th problem of the deliberateuse scier.usts and several other organbations, considerably exceeds the needs of the elec-t tric shaver. (The story would of course of energy b some people iri ways that protested via a formal resolutica (see the be very different if the alternative to elec-others may r d as profligate. Examples " Letters" section of theInstitute August.
tric ' shaving, woe the old-fashioned are driving an utomobile a few city 1985). These protests bore fruit,in that straight razor used dry, as in some parts blocks to buy e wspaper, or using a the EVIST program was restored to its of the world!)
100 HP marine eng ne to pull a water place in the NSF budget.
WASTE skier. Here we are talking about cultural A matter related to technological effi-matters. Where there are acute energy CAUGHT UP ciency is th'c way people behave with shortages, such behavior may be con-As of this writing, both the March and respect to technology, both as individer1s sidered as so harmful to society as to be the June 1986 issues were received by and in organizations. A light source might outlawed, either literally, througAlegista-subscribers in the month proclaimed on be very efficient as measured in terms of tion, or informally, by the force of public their covers. We are now caught up! This lumens per watt, but if people carelessly opinion. In order to prevent acute short. may account for the fact that our lea ~ e lights on for long periods of time ages,it may be desirable to educate '
.rnembership count has stopped falling i
in empty rooms, cIlof the energy consum-ple so that they will recognize the long and is again on the rise. I hope that the v
ed is wasted. This is an example of pure,, Tun detrimental consequences of such concerned pople who now belong will waste. Intermediate cases are illustrated waste and voluntarily avoid it, make some cffort to interest their profes-by a situation such as a room illuminated sioga! colleagues in SSIT. Those former excessively, to the point of being uncom-WE WON ONEl mem ers who may have dropped out as fortable. (Perhaps more common,'and it is gratifying to report that we were a res of the publication lag are hearti-certainly more significant in terms of on the wimting side of one recent cotw ly invit to rejoin.
24 b
_ _ _