ML20238C535
| ML20238C535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1987 |
| From: | Joel Wiebe NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238C505 | List:
|
| References | |
| CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8712310069 | |
| Download: ML20238C535 (193) | |
Text
!
p# TRAXSCRIPT C'F PROCEEDINGS I l
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of: :
- Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION :
- EA-84-137 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, :
Unit :
- - - - -x DEPOSITION OF JOEL WIEBE Washington, D. C.
Thursday, February 5, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotype Rqwters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 8712310069 B71209 PDR ADOCK0500gO T- !
%' _ .__________J
i u
'94
- TIMNSCRIP1 ;
O OF PROCEEDINGS L
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 1
l l - -
x In the Matter of: :
- Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION :
- EA-84-137 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, :
Unit :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x l
l l
DEPOSITION OF JOEL WIEBE Washington, D. C.
Thursday, February 5, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenot}tpe Reporters 444 North Capitol Street A
L./
Washington, DC. 20001 (202)347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 8712310069 871209 0 PDR ADOCK 050 T 4
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
1 !
N f
i 1 l .
t I s j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l \
g, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {'
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE .,
3l .
j _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x ;
4 : 1 In the Matter of: : i 3; : Docket No. 50-320 l 1 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION :
1 : EA-84-137 5 :
l O (Three Mile Station, UnitIsland No. Nuclear
- 2) :
y : ;
________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x ,
d l
B4
, Ii
! ll DEPOSITION OF JOEL WIEBE
$I l 1n --
yf Washington, D. C.
l ll Thursday, February 5, 1987 1 !
Deposition of JOEL WIEBE, called for examination pursuant l 2l I
- . to notice of deposition, at the law offices of Shaw, Pittman, l il 3 0 Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., Conference Room 4A, j ,
l 6, at 9:45 a.m. before WENDY S. COX, a Notary Public within and ;
i O
5 ; for the District of Columbia, when were present on behalf of i a
I j the respective parties:
d J. PATRICK HICKEY, ESQ.
7gl DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ. ,
1 Shaw, Pittman, Potts
'l & Trowbridge d 2300 N Street, N.W.
9] Washington, D. C. 20037
]i, On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation. ,
GEORGE E. JOHNSON, ESQ.
1 Office of General Counsel . ,, L l" United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission p Washington, D. C. 20555 '
, j On behalf of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACE-FEDERAL REFORTERS, INC.
- l )$ I d' I~f F.i Nil!H f'.W 11 CJ *&a NIL 336-f
- bih
. J
! I i -
2
-l
). }
l-
'h- CONTENTS
. O- - - - :
EXAMINATION i
2l WITNESS Joel Wiebe 3
by Mr. Hickey 3 l
l 4 I'
, EXHIB ITS
--~~~~~~
5l [
{, WIEBE EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED l 6fi j Exhibit 1 23 7
Exhibit 2 37 l
8:
j Exhibit 3 40 9i j Exhibits 4 thru 6 53 10 Exhibit 7 59 j l
11 l; Exhibit 8 61 A
V 12 l Exhibit 9 83 i
?
13 f Exhibit 10 114 14 Exhibit 11 137 15 " 1 1
16 s c, 1
i a !
17 el i l
. l la :j 1 l
19 a, .
l; 20 l I i c ;
21 ,
i O t a
I ; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i i x ,m, x _ m c- s. .~
- y';y' 29707.0
[p cox 3
'i.v 1 EEgg3g21 Egg 2 Whereupon, 3- JOEL WIEBE 4 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 5- was examined and testified as follows:
6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. HICKEY:
8 Q Would you state your name for the record, please.
9 A Joel Sheldon Wiebe.
10 Q Your present employment, Mr. Wiebe?
! 11 A Is with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
12 Q What is your position?
13 A Senior resident inspector at the Duane Arnold 14 Energy Center.
15 Q That is located in Iowa?
16 A Yes, Palo, Iowa. Palo, P-a-l-o.
i 17 l Q Before we begin, I want to address one procedural 18 matter on the record. I explained to Mr. Johnson, before 19 this deposition commenced, that while he had informally 20 indicated that Mr. Wiebe may be a witness in the enforcement 21 action in which this deposition is being taken, that he had 22 not formally responded to an interrogatory seeking O.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .
-m, ~ _ m c- -- i
o 29707.0 4
l' 3 ._ . c o x l
1 information about prospective witnesses, and the subject 2 matter of their testimony; and so I asked Mr. Johnson if he 3 would state on the record today his intentions with regard to 4 calling Mr. Wiebe and the subject matter to which Mr. Wiebe 5 - would testify if called, and I think he is agreeable to doing 6 that.
7 MR. JOHNSON: The Staff has the intention to have 8 evidence put in the record concerning Mr. Richard Parks' 9 contacts with the NRC, and particularly with Mr. Wiebe. Our 10 intention has been somewhat unspecific up to this point 11 because it wasn't clear whether we could enter into a 12 stipulation as to certain facts concerning the context of Mr.
13 Parks and Mr. Wiebe.
14 So, in the absence of that, we would have 15 Mr. Wiebe testify that Mr. Parks came to him on several 16 occasions, or the occasions that he did come to him, to )
l 17 discuss his allegations. That would be, at least, our 18 present intention, to have the scope of his testimony, if he 19 were to testify, to be that.
b 20 BY MR. HICKEY:
1 I am assum5ng that if that intention l 21 Q Okay.
l l
22 changes, that you would provide notice to us, either an I
($)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. )
acam ~._ wc c , a wwwu
4 e ,.
29707.0-
. cox 5 m.
1 intent to not call Mr. Wiebe or to broaden the scope of 2 Mr. Wiebe's testimony?
3 MR. JOHNSON: That's correct.
4 MR. HICKEY: Thank you.
5 BY MR. HICKEY:
6 Q Thank you. Mr. Wiebe, the Staff has previously .
7 provided in discovery a copy of your resume which is attached I
8 to their answers to our interrogatories, which were served by 9 the Staff on September 23, 1986; and I have shown you, before 10 we began here this morning, a copy of your. resume; is that i
11 right?
12 A Yes. ;
13 Q Let me stop just one minute and ask you, have you 14 had your deposition taken before? ')
i 15 A No. j 16 Q This is a new experience then. Let me mention 17 just a few ground rules, although I am sure Mr. Johnson has 18 reviewed them with you.
19 I am going to ask you a series of questions today 20 concerning this Parks enforcement action. If you have any ,
1 21 doubt in your mind about what I am asking, or if you feel the 22 question is unclear, or you don't understand it in any way, O
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
""" " - * " " * ~ ~ " "
_ _ - - - - _ 1
29707.0 cox 6 1 you ought to indicate that. You can just stop and ask that I 2 rephrase it or tell me what it is about, the question that 3 you don't understand, because the goal is to get down on the 4 record that this court reporter is taking here, as accurately 5 as we can, what you know about the facts surrounding this 6 case, and we can't do that unless you clearly understand what 7 I am asking you.
8 So you should stop, if it's unclear, an/' I can 9 rephrase the question. And I am glad to do that for you.
10 A Okay. l J
11 Q We are asking about some events that occurred some j 12 time ago. I will try to obtain from you the best 13 recollection that you have today of those events. If you )
I 14 don't remember something, you should indicate that, and if 15 your memory is vague or faint or you have some recollection 16 but are not confident about it, you should say that too.
17 To the extent that I can, there are some documents {
18 that relate to the events that we are going to discuss. If 19 any of those documents would help you, or if you think they 20 might help you refresh your recollection, if you will say 21 that, I will be glad to show you the documents and I will 22 show you some of them anyway. All right?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,
- 202-347-37(X) Nat totiu ide Coverage n 3P *t6 I
29707.0 cox 7 llh 1 A (Nods . )
l 2 Q When we are all done, and the reporter has typed .
l 3 up the transcript of this deposition, it will be submitted to I i
4 you so that you can read it, make any corrections that you i 5 feel are necessary; and you will be asked then to sign it and i 6 return it and it will be filed with the Nuclear Regulatory I
i 7 Conmission.
8 The last comment I have to make is, because you l
1 9 l have been nodding, as I have been making these statements, l l
10 j that you need to respond orally to the questions that I ask, l l 1 11 i because the court reporter can't put down your nods. But I 12 have understood that you have been generally agreeing with 13 ! what I have said; and, if necessary, I will remind you during
!' I i
14 the deposition that you have to answer orally. l i i 15 l A Okay. !
16 l Q Let me review just briefly your background as it l l
17 l is reflected in your resume. You have a Bachelor of Science l l 18 degree in electrical engineering obtained in 1972, and then l l l 19 subsequent training at the -- I can't read the name of the j!
! l l
i 20 school, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory? I 21 i A Yes. i
- l 1
22 !
Q That was after your college degree?
III O l k
i
- )
l l' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202 34' Tm Nat tafin ide ( in crape W yb 33 A(616
l i
l 29707.0 cox 8 9
1 A That's correct.
2 Q You began working in the nuclear industry in 1972 3 with Westinghouse and remained in various positions with 4 them, including operations manager, up till 1979; is that 5 right?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q In 1979, you joined the Nuclear Regulatory I
8 i Commission as a reactor engineer in the office of standards, 9 and in 1980 were assigned as a nuclear engineer to the Three 10 Mile Island Program Office?
11 A That's correct.
O t l
\
12 i Q Let me just ask you briefly to state, when did you 13 come to Three Mile Island in 1980?
14 A It was in the fall of 1980. I am not sure of the I (
i 15 exact date.
16 h Q You remained there until sometime in 1982, 1
17 according to your resume. When did you leave?
4 18 ! A It was -- I remained there after 1982. It should 4
19 s have been early 1984 when I left.
L 20 l Q All right. I think the resume says '82, but when i
21 did you leave?
22 ! A It would have been in early 1984. I think the III O c
k c
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, m w.no s,_x~. muu, u.
1 29707.0 ;
CoX 9 1 resume indicates I was assigned to the office of nuclear 2 reactor regulation at three Mile Island, '80 and '82; and
)
3 ;
then I was senior. resident inspector from '82 until I left.
4 I Q I don't think that's what it says. Let me show i
l 5 i you the resume to see if I can clear it up. That seems to me l
l 6 to indicate that you were a resident inspector in 1980 to !
i 1
1 7 '82. I don't see any reference to this NRR assignment that 8 you just mentioned. l h
90 A in 1980 through 1982, I was assigned to the Three l l
I!
l 10 [ Mi3e Island Program Office, and the Three Mile Island Program 1 I
1 11 Office reported to NRR at that time, as it does now. My O
l l
12 : responsibilities then were reviewing licensee procedures, ;
\ l l
13 l safety evaluations, to support the cleanup and recovery 14 '
operationc.
f I
15 l In 1962, I was appcinted the senior resident l
16 inspector at Three Mile Island and stayed there until 1984.
f 17 The resume states from 1982 to present, I was a senior b i 18 [ resident inspector. It also indicates that the assignments ,
1 0
19 0 as senior resident inspector have included Three Mile Island, 20 Lacrosse- & kbgWaterReactorandtheDuaneArnoldEnergy [O l
1 21 !
b Center.
()
0 22 y Q So I just wasn't reading it correctly. Sometime i III h l
r 1 I
f l 4
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
nc wm s.a,- _n wn-a
29707.0 i cox 10 0 1 1 in 1982, your assignment, although you remained at Three Mile ]
2 Island, changed, and yco were no longer part of the Three 1
3 Mile Island Program Office reporting to NRR but became the I' l :
4 eenior resident inspector; is that fight?
5 A Right. The senior resident inspector I i
6 ! administrative 1y reported to Region 1; however, we received a l
\ l
(
7 lot of our direction from the Three Mile I_sland Program 1
l 8 Office, which was beaded by the deputy director, Lake
)
9 Barrett, at the Island. So it was kind of a hybrid. l
~
10 j C( When in 1982 did the switch occur? When.did you -
I 11 ! become a senior resident inspector?
12 A I don't recall exactly. 1 believe it was early 13 1982.
14 0 Briefly your duties as a tenior resident 1 I
15 l inspector, how did they differ from what you had done as an j
! 1
\ l 16 l engineer in the program office? l i l 17 i A The senior resident inspector was in charge of I
18 il coordinating and conducting the routine and reactive b l 19 / inspections and investigations at the Island. l l
k r
20 ; Q Were your duties limited primarily to unit 2? )
I 1 21 A Yes, primarily.
22 ; Q When you say " routine and reactive inspections," i l
III O c
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347-3700 N ationwid ; ( overage 8m 33MM6
L l
- f. -29707.0 l
cox 11 k 1 what is the distinction you are drawing between those two 2 kinds of inspections? i 3 A The routine inspection is conducted in accordance !
4 with an inspection program, which at Three Mile Island was ;
i 5 agreed to by Region 1 and the Three Mile Island Program '
6 Office. {
h 7 That was our routine inspection. The reactive 8 inspections were anything that came up in addition to that 9 routine program that we felt we needed to inspect. Those 10 were the reactive inspections.
I 11 Q Did that require you to have significant amounts l
12
{
of contact with the employees of GPU and Bechtel at the Three 13 Mile Island 2 site?
14 A Yes.
15 Q on what kind of frequency would you see them, j 16 daily or weekly?
17 A Daily, f 18 Q How common was it for you to be out in the 19 facility as opposed to in your office?
20 A Oh, probably about a third of my time was out in 21 the facility or in contact with the licensee 22 representatives.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I -- m _ -- xe _
d i
29707.0 em cox' 12 I
/
1 Q As part of your duties, did you prepare inspection i
2 reports reflecting the information you filed while conducting 3 these inspections?
4 A That's correct.
8 5 Q Let me direct your attention, if I can, to the 6 period beginning around the first part of 1983, which is the 7 time frame we are most interested in. I am assuming that 8 your duties continued, as you have just described them to us, 9 into 1983 and through 1983; right? j 10 A~ Right.
r~g 11 Q In the early part of 1983, whom did you report to
(/
12 at the program office? .
13 A My immediate supervisor was Tony Fasano, j
14 Q Mr. Pasano's title e if you recall it?
15 A I believe it was chief of the Three Mile Island 16 section or program, Three Mile Island program section, or 3 l
I 17 something like that.
l' 18 ! Q To whom did Mr. Fasano report? l 19 A Again, administratively, he reported to Region 1, .
1 20 I bgY a lot of his direction was provided by Lake Barrett OJ 21 l Q Mr. Barrett was the deputy director of the Three 22 Mile Island Program Office?
i I l
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 203m 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8% 33W,v, j l
- - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ 1
i l' '29707.0'
. -j cox 13' ;
l:
1 1 A That's correct. l l
{
. 2- Q. Was Mr. Snyder,.Mr. Bernard Snyder, the' director l'
l 3 of tne program office at that time?
l l l 4 A' That's correct.
l l
l 5 Q Was Mr. Phillip Grant an employee of the program l l l 6 office in 1983, in the early part of the year? ,
l 1 7 ! A Yes.
l l 8 Q What was his position?
l l 9[ A He originally was an engineer in the' technical 10 support section of the Three Mile Island Program Office.
f 11 Subsequent to that, he became chief of that technical support t
12 section. But I am not sure of the date when he became the 13 chief.
14 Q Did your dutics require you or prompt you to have 15 contac,t with Mr. Grant?
16 A Yes, we worked together quite closely.
17 Q Can you generally describe what his duties were, I
18 i as distinguished from yours?
I i
19 l A His duties were to supervise the technical support l
20 ! section and the technical support section reviewed licensee i
! II 21 procedures and safety evaluations to support the recovery l
22 l operations.
O ,j !
i!
O ACE-FEDERAI REPORTERS, INC.
a mum >m ~ _mm - s.n_ l
-29707.0-1 cox 14' 1 Q When you were first at the program office, were 2 you in the technical support section, because I recall you 3 telling me that you had been involved in reviewing procedures 4 and safety evaluations.
5 A That's correct.
6 Q There was an individual I believe connected with 1 7 the program office, named Les Gage. Did you know Mr. Gage in 8 1983?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Where did he work in the program office?
11 A He worked for-the technical support section. He 12 worked for Phil Grant, or, prior to that, Ron Bellamy.
13 Q Bellamy was Grant's predecessor as chief of the 14 technical support section?
15 A That's right.
16 Q In addition to your reporting relationship 17 administratively with Region 1, and your on-site direction 18 i from the heads of the program office, did you report to any l
19 I Three Mile Island Program office staff in Bethesda; was there l li i
20 a Bethesda office as part of your supervision?
21 A Bernie Snyder.
22 Q Was in Bethesda?
O ,
i
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
" = ' " - - * " " " - " " ' "
- r _ _ - - - - -
.7
"! 3 k
,i 29707.0
. cox 15 l
1 :A Right. !
.i 2 Q In the early part of~1983, let me ask you to' l
4 3 describe generally the kinds of reports or records that you 4 prepared as part of your normal duties in the program office?
5 A The normal records that were prepared were .
6 inspection reports; primarily that's it.
7 Q Did you prepare, on a routine basis, weekly or 8 monthly, or some other interval, activity reports reflecting 9 your work at the Island?
10 A No, I did not.
11 Q Were there such reports prepared in the office?
12 A I don't recall.
13 Q On a daily basis, were you required to keep, or l 14 did you keep any kinds of records of your activities during 15 the day?
16 A We were not required to keep any records. I do --
17 I believe I did keep a logbook that we haven't located as ;
1 18 yet.
19 Q Can you describe the logbook for me? What did you l !
20 l use it for?
L 21 A It was just an informal record that I kept of what l
l 22 I felt were important items that I wanted to keep track of IO 1
1 1
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 '47-37(0 Ntionwide Coverage FJG 33M646 L--_-_--___-_-_________-
! 29707.0 cox 16 fy V
1 and weren't recorded elsewhere. It was just my personal 2 notes.
3 Q As you went around the site doing inspections, or l 4 having meetings, or whatever you were doing in your ,
5 activities, did you sometimes take a logbook with you and 6 make entries in it or jot down notes about significant 7 things?
en 8 A I never took the logbook with me, out g the pl t 9 especially.
10 Q How did you record any notes that you would make em 11 out on the plant?
b 12 A On pieces of paper.
13 Q Did you make entries in the logbook, then, after 14 you returned to your office? I 15 A Occasionally I did.
L l 16 Q So I gather that your logbook normally stayed in j l
17 your desk at your office? J l
18 A Yes. j 19 Q When you had meetings in the office of 20 significance, or telephone conversations, other events, would 1
21 you sometimes record them in your logbook?
22 A Occasionally.
}O 1
)
f i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm x.-<- - ,,
l i
l J
l i
'29707.0 cox 17 O l 1 Q Were there other places or locations where you 2 kept notes or written records of your activities besides in 3 the logbook?
4 '
A Various sheets of paper I take notes on.
5 Q Would you file those sheets of paper in a 6 particular file?
7 A Normally I would not file them. I would discard 8 them.
9 Q You said that you hadn't. located your logbook 10 yet. Have you made some effort.to look for it, Mr. Wiebe?
11 A I didn't remember that I had a logbook until I was 12 reviewing some of the other documents we were going over 13 yesterday; and the logbook may be in my office in Palo, or it 14 may be at my home.
15 Q But you believe that you still have it?
16 A I don't know if I have it or not. I don't f 17 remember discarding it.
I 18 Q Is it just one book that would cover the first, 19 let's say, three or four months of 1983?
20 A Yes. I used the logbook very infrequently. So it 21 is just one book.
22 , Q Well, I would lige to ask that when you return to O !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 34' 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(L 3 E M4t.
L 29707.0 cox 18
- O ,
~
1 your normal place of work and your home, that you check for 2 that logbook and notify Mr. Johnson.if you can find it, so l
l 3 that he can produce it, ,
1 4 I had asked Mr. Johnson a few days ago to l
5 specifically check with you.about logbooks, so that if there l 6 was such a book, we could have it-available for the 1
7 deposition.
8 But if you find it, and it's producible, I am sure 9 Mr. Johnson will produce it. If there are further questions 10 that the logbook prompts, we may have to revisit this 11 section.
12 A Okay.
13 Q Did other people in the program office, at the 14 time.you were working there in 1983, keep logbooks also?
15 A I don't know. That was a personal item that I 16 kept.
17 Q Well, don't you recall ever seeing other people in i
18 the office, your coworkers, making entries in logbooks?
19 A No. They took notes, but I don't know what they 20 took them on, if it was sheets of paper or logbooks, I don't 21 l know.
22 Q so you have no recollection of seeing any of your ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646
l l
29707.0 cox 19
.O.-
1 colleagues in the early 1983' time frame writing in logbooks 2 or iournals of some kind?
3 A No, probably not the same as I had, anyway.
4 Q Well, whether it was the same as yours or not.
5 A I don't -- they were taking notes, more than 6 likely, but I don't recall specifically whether they were 7 -taking it in logbooks or not.
L 8 Q Was there any guidance given to you by your i l
l 9 superiors or by anyone at the program office regarding the l.'
10 -retention of documents related to your work?
l l f-~ 11 A No.
( '(
l 12 Q You are unaware of any policies or procedures or l l
l 13 guidelines that were applicable in 1983 to you at the program ;
14 office about record retention or disposal?
15 A No.
16 Q Let me direct your attention to your first meeting i 17 4 with Mr. Parks regarding his contentions, which the record 18 ,
should reflect occurred on Friday, February 18, 1983. Do you l
19 have a recollection of that meeting with Mr. Parks, i i 20 l Mr. Wiebe? l 21 A I know that he came over to meet me. I don't I
22 recall the specifics of what was said.
'C) !
\
l l l l '
i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
L mm. ~m_ m c- - _g
29707i0 cox 20 lO j 1 Q Let me direct you to some specific areas that I am-2 interested in. Do you recall being advised or giving'some 3 information from your colleague, Mr. Grant, that Mr. Parks l
4 had an interest in meeting with you?
5 A Yes. That was how I first learned of Parks' 6 desire to have a meeta s,ig.
7 Q What did you understand from Mr. Grant that 8 Mr. Parks wanted to meet about?
9 A I don't recall if Grant gave me any specifics of 10 what Parks wanted to meet about.
l 11 Q Do you recall having a discussion with Mr. Grant l 12 about whether or not Parks was interested in the meeting 13 being confidential?
14 A No, I don't recall that.
15 Q Well, after your discussion with Mr. Grant, did l 16 you contact Mr. Parks, or'did Mr. Parks contact you, about 17 having this meeting?
18 A I don't recall.
19 Q Did you have any contact with Mr. Parks before 20 this meeting occurred, as I indicated, on February 18?
21 A I believe I did, but I don't recall the specifics 22 of any contacts. We routinely were involved with licensee O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~ec_m- --
1 1
29707.0 cox 21
.h I contacts, and I very well could have contacted him before or 2 he contacted me. I don't recall, j 3 Q Do you have any recollection, prior to February 1
- 4 18, of attending meetings at the site in which Mr. Parks was l
5 a participant? I am talking about meetings more than just l
6 you and Mr. Parks and something other than bumping into him f
j 7 in the hallway or in the plant or something. Did you go to 1
l 8 meetings with Mr. Parks?
f 9 A I don't recall specifically if he was at meetings j
10 or not.
l 11 Q Did you have any particular -- when Grant told you l#
l i 12 that Parks wanted to meet with you, did you know who Parks l
l 13 was? Did the name mean something to you, or was it a name 14 you couldn't put to a face?
15 A I believe I knew who Parks was.
16 Q But is it your testimony that you didn't really 17 l have any particular impression of, or at least now have no 18 impression of Parks as an individual?
19 A I don't have any recollection of our contacts 20 before that meeting.
1 21 Q Before you met with Mr. Parks, had you been l
l 22 involved in your duties in any way with the polar crane i C:)
1 t
I i
l I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202 347-37(O Niittonmidt Cowrage Mn 336-N46
i
[
\
l L
29707.0 )
cox 22 :
O i j 1 refurbishment program?
l l 2 A I was generally aware of the program. I did not I i l 3 have any responsibilities for technical review of that i l
l 4 program.
l l 5 Q How would you have been aware of it; were there 6 discussions in the office?
l <
I
( 7 , A Right. Through discussions in the office, and also l
l 8 in various reports that went across my desk. i l l l 9 Q At some point on February 18, you apparently did j l !
10 meet with Mr. Parks. Do you have any recollection of when lO l
11 12 the meeting occurred?
A No, I do not.
j 13 Q What did Mr. Parks tell you about why he was there 1
l l
14 4 or why he wanted to meet with you?
l l !'
15 A I don't recall the specifics of that meeting.
16 l Q You are reaching for a document that I gather you 1
17 i think might help your recollection.
i 18 A I believe I didn't take that document. I was 19 : reaching for a handwritten allegation report, which I believe l 20 you have.
21 Q I think I can provide that to you, i
22 MR. HICKEY: Let me ask the reporter to mark as O ,
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wwn m_ a c-,. - n-
29707.0 l
cox 23 LO 1 Wiebe Exhibit 1 the document that I am providing to the l
2 witness. It's a form titled " Report of Allegation,"
3 handwritten; it states " received by Joel S. Wiebe," date l
1 4 2/18/83; then it has some handwritten texts. I am putting a l
l 5 copy before the witness also.
l l 6 (Wiebe Exhibit.1 identified.)
l 7 BY MR. HICKEY:
l 8 Q Is that the document you were referring to izst a l
l l 9 moment ago, Mr. Wiebe?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q What do you recall about the reason why Mr. Parks 12 ;
came to you after having reviewed that document? _
13 ; A Igain, the only thing I can do is refer to the l
14 document. In the document I had written that Rick Parks 15 alleges because of his comments on the polar crane load test i
16 procedure and polar crane functional test procedure, he is l
17 l being told indirectly by Bechtel engineering management !
18 i on-site that they want him transferred off-site. l i .
19 l Q When did you prepare the form that is Exhibit I 1
20 Number 1 in front of you?
21 A I don't recall. It would have been shortly after 22 the meeting with Parks.
O 1 i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I x- ~ m_. m- mo m
29707.0 i
cox 24 i r-l 1 Q Did you take notes during the meeting with Parks?
l 2 A I don't believe I did. I would have to locate 3 that. logbook I was discussing earlier to see if I put them in 4 there.
5 Q If you took notes and retained them, you would
- i. 6 ' expect them to be in that logbook?
l -l 7 A If I retained them, they would have been in that I 8 logbook. If I took them on another sheet of paper, I would l
L 9 not have retained that.
t l
1 10 Q But, am I correct that you don't believe you wrote 1
1 1 11 up this form while Mr. Parks was sitting there talking to l -
1- 1 12 you?
l l
l 13 A I know I did not write up this form while he was l
l 14 talking with me. It was after the meeting.
15 Q How did you come to prepare this form? What 16 prompted you to prepare the form?
17 A It's standard practice. When we receive an 1 l 18 l allegation, we document it.
I 19 ! Q Is that pursuant to some written direction that l
20 l you were aware of?
O l 21 $ A I don't recall exactly. It may be a region 1 i'
22 procedure.
I i
1 i
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447-37(U Nationwide Loserage MX13%%Ki
L l
l 29707.0 l- cox 25 l
l l 1 Q Region 1 procedures would have been available.in l
l 2 the program office and would have applied to your act'ivities?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q Let me see if I can stipulate your recollection a 5 little bit more. You will notice up at the top third of the 6 form that there is a box that says "may contact" and "yes'or 7 no", and then there appears to be a check in the "yes" box.
8 Did you ask Mr. Parks if it was all right for you to contact 9 him if necessary?
10 l A I don't recall my specific conversation with 11 Parks, but since it is on this form, I would assume I did.
12 Q Did Mr. Parks give you any indication -- well, let .
13 me go through the form with you first. You outlined at the 14 start, in the section titled " details," Mr. Parks' job 1 15 assignment and reporting responsibilities. I assume that's i
16 information you got from Mr. Parks early in your interview of j i
17 him?
18 A Or it may be something that I knew before the l i
t 19 interview. I don't know. I don't remember if we discussed 1 I
Il l 20 i that specifically during the meeting. ;
h 21 4 Q When you talk about his allegations, your note {
l! i 22 l says that Parks alleges that because of his comments on the l O l1 l
l l i l i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
1 -~ - - - - -~
____________a
29707.0 cox 26
-Q v
1 polar crane load test procedures and polar crane functional 1
2 test procedure -- let me ask you, first of all, are those 3 words plural or singular? I am having a little trouble with 4 your handwriting. Does it say " procedures" plural or 5 " procedure" singular?
l 6 A In the first instance it says polar crane load 7 test procedures. In the second instance it looks like it's 8 polar crane functional test procedure. I don't know if there 9 is particular significance, whether they are plural or not.
l I
10 i Q The way you wrote it down the first is plural and i
11 the second singular?
12 A That's correct.
13 Q Am I correct that Mr. Parks felt that it was his 14 comments -- expressed to you that it was his comments on 15 these procedures that were causing these threats to be made 16 ; against him that he later describes?
l 17 A That appears to be the implication of this l
I 18 ! document.
19 Q Is that your recollection of the discussion you 20 l had with Mr. Parks as it is refreshed or recorded in this 1 :
l l
21 document?
22 ! A I don't recall the specifics of that meeting, l C) l l
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L __ } ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ " ~
l l
\
29707.0 cox- 27
. 'O 1 except as written on the document.
2 Q Well, the document reflects that Parks told you
~
3 that,'and I am asking'whether it's accurate that Parks 4 attributed those -- the threats he was concerned about,.to 5 those comments that he identified.
6 A I believe that's : curate.
7 Q Did you inquire of Parks as to whether he had made l
8 the comments that he thought had caused this difficulty?
9 A No, I did not.
10 Q Did he tell you when he made them?
l
! fg 11 A I do not recall.
(_/
l 12 Q But, in any event, he' explained that he was being l
13 told, and you have written, " indirectly" by Bechtel l
14 engineering management on-site that they want him transferred l
15 off-site. Then you give the source of that information.
1 16 I assume that you asked Mr. Parks when he had 17 gotten this information from Mr. Kitler and Mr. Hansen, 18 didn't you? j 19 A I do not recall.
20 Q Do you have any recollection of Mr. Parks telling !
21 you that these alleged threats were recent, ancient, or when 22 they had occurred?
(:)
l 2
l li l ,
i i
\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. {
202-347J700 Nationwide Conrag $ G334 &46 l
f 1.
29707.0 cox 28 l 1 A No, I do not.
2 Q Do you think you probably asked him that?
3 A I don't recall.
4 MR. JOHNSON: You don't have to speculate. I l
i 5 think the answer is given that you don't remember, and you j 6 don't want him to speculate, I assume?
7 MR. HICKEY: If he has a reasonable basis to think i 8 he asked the question, I wouldn't call that a speculation.
9 THE WITNESS: I don't have any reasonable basis 10 for answering that question.
11 BY MR. HICKEY:
12 'O Okay. Mr. Parks, according to your notes, said 13 that he was worried about losing his job since he alleges 14 that another Bechtel employee, Mike, '
i.n, K-o-r-i-n it 15 looks like, "was laid off." Do you have any recollection of 1
16 Mr. Parks telling you about Mike Korin and what Mike Korin's ;
17 situation was?
I 18 A I don't recall Parks describing the situation that d 1 i
19 ; Mike Korin was in. Just that he was laid off for no apparent 20 reason and under similar circumstances. At that particular 21 time, we did not discuss the similar circumstances, f r 1 22 Q You did not. ]
O j l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(O Nationw ide Coierage 8@3bM46
i l'
29707.0 cox 29 O
O' 1 Q Was Mike Korin a name that was. familiar to you --
2 A No 3 0 -- before you heard it'from Parks on this date?
4 A I don't recall hearing that name before.
5 Q Did you later attempt to learn about Mike Korin l 6 and the circumstances of his layoff?
7 A I don't recall.
l 8 Q You have no recollection of later, in your 9 investigation, learning any facts about Mike Korin?
l I
l 10 A No. !
\
11 Q Do you think you attempted to pursue that?
l 12 A I do not recall pursuing that. ;
13 Q Let me see if I can clear up one detail. The copy !
14 that you have in front of you, like a copy that has been 15 marked Exhibit 1, has the bottom line partially cut off. I )
16 want to show you a document which I won't identify as an ,
a 17 exhibit, but it's a copy of the document in front of you, on 18 which I have tried to fill in the bottom half of that line, 19 ; because it looks to me, based upon the handwriting that you j l
20 j have used elsewhere in the document, that what the line that l*
21 is only partially there at the bottom says, " Rick Parks 22 further alleges that he has the support of GPU, Three Mile i C:) !
I \
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m. _ ~m_.<- -
3
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _
l 1
1 L
29707.0 cox 30
- Ny - 3 1
1 1 Island-2 operations department maragement."
2 You can see only a portion of that line,.and then ,
3 you can see my attempt to fill in the bottom of the letters.
4 Do you have any recollection of what you wrote at the bottom 5 of that document, or can you tell me whether my 6 interpretation of it looks accurate to you, as best you can 7 tell? !
8 A I don't recall what I wrote down there.
9 Q If it's any help, you may look at the top line of i
10 the details there, where you have the same phrase, Three Mile 11 Island-2 operationa department. ~
12 A Right.
13 Q That's up at the top.
14 A It looks like the bottom line does have "of GPU";
15 that could be "Three Mile Island-2 operations department !
16 management." I don't know what the first word is there.
17 Q Do you think it could be " support"?
l 18 A It's possible. .
19 Q If I can summarize what I understood your 20 testimony to be, Mr. Wiebe, you don't have a specific 21 recollection of what you wrote on the bottom of the line, on 22 the bottom of the page, the last line, but it appears to you l
($) !
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mc.nm su ae cmm, mm.
l l
l
'29707.0 l
l 1 that you may have written Three Mile Island-2 operations j l
I 2 department management; and beyond that you can't really say l
3 for sure what the rest of the line says?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Did you have any idea where a copy of this 6 document with the bottom line on it might be? l 7 A I don't.know if I have one of those or not.
8 MR. JOHNSON: The staff produced the best copy it 9 had.
10 MR. HICKEY: I am asking Mr. Diebe.
rw .
11 BY MR. HICKEY: i 12 Q Let me put it more specifically. What did you do 13 with this document after you wrote it up?
14 A I would have filed it.
15 Q In what file?
16 A In my files.
17 Q Did you have a file that had a specific title in 18 which you kept these kinds of forms? What file would you 19 have found it -- did you find it?
20 lj! A It was filed in the -- a sequential file.
21 I Q Do you mean a file that was kept in chronological 22 i order rather than by particular subject matter?
C) f, I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- >. ~m_ m c- __
29707.0 l cox 32 1 A Yes.
l l
2 Q Did the file have a title?
l 3 A I filed them by weeks, so it would have had the .
4 dates; the particular dates of one week was included, the I
5 date of the 18th.
6 Q Was it your practice, in February of 1983, to' file 7 all the paperwork that you generated or retained, just l l
8 chronologically, by that week?
9 A Yes.
10 Q You didn't keep subject matter files that would
( 11 relate to the polar crane or to a particular inspe tion or i 12 something like that?
13 A No.
14 Q It was all chronological?
15 A As far as I recall.
16 Q When you left Three Mile Island, were those files 17 left in the office? l 18 i A Yes.
I 19 Q Did you, in addition to filing a copy of this
(
20 Exhibit 1 in your sequential file, did you provide a copy to 21 anybody else?
22 A 1 don't recall specifically, but who I would l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationw ide Cm erage 8(Xh33t>W46
i l
1 29707.0 )
cox 33 i
(
1 provide a copy to -- I assume I would provide Lake Barrett a ;
2' copy and more than likely' Region 1. It may be I sent the 3 original to Region 1. I don't know.
4 Q To whom did you send it at Region 1?
5 A It was probably to Keith Christopher.
6 Q Mr. Christopher was -- what was his position at 7 Region 1?
8 A He was associated with the office of 9 investigations.
10 Q Had you had experiences at Three Mile Island prior to February 18, where individuals had come to you to make 11 12 allegations that you had filled out reports of allegations 13 like this form? Or was this a first experience for you?
14 A I don't recall, i
15 Q Were you trained or instructed, when you received 16 allegations to attempt to learn the basis for the i 17 !
allegations, and whether there were safety concerns involved?
I 18 i A I don't remember any specific training along those l 19 lines.
l 20 Q Well, in February of 1983, do you believe that 21 when Mr. Farks came to you you attempted to learn from him l 22 the basis for his concerns?
Lo i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 n- - - - - --
29707.0 cox 34 i
1 A I don't believe we went over that in detail at the 2 first meeting. i I
3 Q Is there some reacon why you didn't? j i
4 A I probably was waiting'for some direction that I- l 5 would get from the office of investigations as to how to 6 proceed.
7 Q Well, after you met with Mr. Parks, did you l
8 contact the office of investigations?
9 A Yes.
I 10 Q How did you do that?
\
g~g 11 A More than likely by telephone. I don't recall a
%)
12 specific telephone conversation.
13 Q Would you have called Mr. Christopher, in all 14 likelihood?
15 A 'f es .
i l Do you have: any recollection of any directions or 16 ! Q 1
17 instruction.s being given to you by Mr. Christopher about how ,
18 4 to proceed?
19 A No, I do not at this time.
20 Q Let me ask you to think back on your meeting with 1 21 Mr. Parks, and tell me, if you can, how Mr. Parks appeared ;
l h I 22 ! during the course of the meeting you had with hin. Is there l l CD) l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m_, x m- sn_
l
r m.
f I
! -29707.0 l cox 35 l EO l
l 1 anything unusual about the way he acted or his demeanor?
1' 2 A No, none that I recall.
1 3 Q Did he appear to be agitated.or' alarmed or acting 4 in any way in a high-strung or emotional manner?
5 A No.
6 Q Was there reasonable normal discussion that you 7 had with him in terms of the tone of it?
8 ,
A Yes.
I 9 l Q Did anyone else sit.in on the meeting besides you l
10 and Mr. Parks on February 18? j i
/- 11 I A No.
12 Q About how long were you with Mx'. Pe.rks?
13 A About 30. minutes.
I 14 ! Q When Mr. Parks and you terminated, did you t
15 indicate to Mr. Parks what-next steps or what action you were l
16 going to take?
17 A I don't recall the specifics of the conversation.
18 j I believe I would have indicated to him that we would look 19 into the issues and see what we could find out.
20 p Q Did you make a date with him to get back in touch j 21 with him, or did you tell him you would get back in touch 22 .
with him after you had done that?
O l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 047-3ho Nationwide Coserage !WL33M616
l 29707.0 cox 36 1 _3
(
l \_/
l- .
l 1 A Yes, I did say I would get back in touch with him l
L 2 after we had looked into the situation. We did not set a l
3 date.
l 4 Q Did Mr. Parks mention specific people that you l
5 should talk to or check with to learn the details of his l
l 6 concerns?
l l
l 7 A No. Other than the two mentioned in the document, i
I 8 I don't recall him mentioning anyone else.
l 9 Q The two being Mr. Kitler and Mr. Hansen?
10 A That's correct, o
rg 11 Q Do you remember, in August of 1983, Mr. Wiebe
!J .
12 being interviewed by Mr. McKenna of the Office of Inspector 13 and Auditor with regard to Mr. Parks?
14 l A I don't recall the date. I was interviewed by I
15 McKenna.
1 16 Q That took place in Middletown, Pennsylvania? l i
i 17 l
A That's correct.
18 Q Have you seen or reviewed recently a report of )
I 19 your meeting with you that Mr. McKenna prepared? )
L 20 J A I have a copy of it here.
I 21 Q Can I make sure we are looking at the same thing, i
22 please. i (2) l 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 2"2 " '" '""~'*""""" *"*"""
_-----__-_-__ . l
-29707.0 cox 37 l 3
1 A Yes.
I 2 MR. HICKEY: The witness has-brought _with him a l 3 six-page document titled " Report Of Interview", date of -
4 transcription September >1, 1983, reflecting an interview of 5 Mr. Wiebe on August 15 by Patrick McKenna, M-c-K-e-n-n-a, 6 investigator. I will ask the reporter to mark this Exhibit 2 7 to the Wiebe deposition. q 8 Mr. Wiebe, you can just keep that copy in front of 9 you, f
10 (Wiebe Exhibit 2 identified. )
- l. 11 BY MR. HICKEY:
'v i I
12 Q You are welcome to take some time now and read l
13 that document if you would like. If you have just recently 14 read it, you may not need to. Did you review it yesterday?
15 A Yes, I did.
16 Q Do you want some more time to look at it?
17 q A No; may I refer to it prior to answering the
!! l 18 questions? !
l 19 4 Q Sure. I W l 20 A Okay.
i f) 1 21 Q The specific question I wanted to direct to you 22 4, was you discussed, apparently, with Mr. McKenna, in August of i V,, y l I I t i l
l l l
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l mm, ~ _x.,- s.u- 1
29707.0 cox 38
/' '
l .
1 1983, this same February 18 meeting with Parks that we have 2 just been talking about. You will see it addressed in this i
3 memorandum; at the bottom of page 1 is where it starts.
l 4 Q Why don't you read that paragraph at'the bottom 5 beginning "Wiebe explained" and then onto the middle of the 6 next page.
7 ,
A I am finished.
l 8 !
Q Mr. Wiebe, having read that Exhibit 2, I want to 9 ask you if you now have some recollection that you initiated 10 the contact with Mr. Parks by telephoning him after Grant
,r g 11 told you that Parks wanted to talk to you?
U b6 12 A I don't recall the specifics of it, that 13 p apparently during this interview, I did recall that.
14 Q The interview that was taken by Mr. McKenna on 15 August 15, 1983, who was present for that; just you and 16 Mr. McKenna? l 17 A Yes.
18 Q Was there a transcript or tape recording or any 19 l! other kind of recording made of the interview you had with l
l 20 I Mr. McKenna?
21 A I don't believe so.
l . .
l 22 Q The material you have just read reflects the fact i (1) );
l 0 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 , wm- ~ - + cc- 8-L_________..____
c;;
29707.0
- cox. 39 O.
1 that you, during the interview with Mr. McKenna, were 2 referring both to some notes you had taken from the meeting 3 with Parks, as well as an office logbook. Does that bring
- 4 back to your mind that you did take some notes during your 5 meeting with Mr. Parks?
6 A That, I don't recall. If I did, however, this is c
7 the section that prompted me yesterday to think of the office-8 logbook that I may still have. But I do not recall 9 specifically taking notes.during that meeting.
10 Q ls it fair to assume that in August of 1983 your 11 recollection of the February 1983 meeting was sharper than it 12 is today?
13 A Yes, definitely.
I 14 Q I assume, also, that you were attempting to 15 communicate as accurately and completely to Mr. McKenna as 16 ,
you could recall the information that you had about your 17 meeting with Mr. Parks?
18 A That's correct.
f
) i 19 Q Was the interview that you had with Mr. McKenna lI I
20 l under oath?
f 1 l
I 21 A I do not believe so. i 22 Q In an effort to speed this up a little bit, the O
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L__ _ -_
H i
i f
' 29707.0 cox 40 l 1 material you have just read at the bottom of page 1 and the.
l 2 top half of page 2 of this memoranda, does that refresh your 3 recollection at all about the subject matter of your meeting 4 with Mr. Parks and'the discussion that you had with him?
i 5 A- It does not help me to recall any additional 6 details.
7 Q Do you believe that what is stated in this Exhibit j
)
8 2 that you have just reviewed, that part of which you have I l
- 9. just reviewed, is accurate?
k 10 A Yes, I do.
l l
11 MR. HICKEY: I think maybe I should have this 12 marked too. I am handing the reporter to mark as Exhibit 3 13 to the Wiebe deposition, a document entitled " Interview of 14 Richard D. Parks," reflecting an interview conducted of 15 Mr. Parks, accompanied by his attorney, Mr. Devine, of the 16 government accountability project, or GAP, by a 17 representative of the Office of Inspector and Auditor of the f 18 NRC on June 23, 1983.
19 (Wiebe Exhibit 3 identified. )
20 BY MR. HICKEY:
1 21 Q Mr. Wiebe, would you look at the document that the ;
I l
22 reporter has handed you, Exhibit 3. Let me direct your j CE) I 1
1 l
ACE-FEDERA.L REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347 37(0 Nationwide Coserage Wn33M6m j
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._ __ __ _J
l l
l l
l 29707.0 l cox 41 l I L 1 attention -- page numbers don't appear, I am afraid, on all l
l l
2 the pages, but it's the seventh page in, and the page, in the !
l 3 middle of the'page, there is a new paragraph beginning " Parks l
! 4 then related that after his conversation with Kitler," and so i
5 on; do you see where I am?
I i
6 A Yes.
l l 7 Q Would you read that to the bottom of the page, 8 please? The top part of the following page has a little 9 more.
10 A Okay.
11 Q Mr. Parks, according to this memorandum, at least, 12 states that he asked you at this February 18 meeting how he 13 could proceed with reporting this threat, and I read that to i 14 mean that he was seeking guidance from you about the proper l l
15 procedure to follow in reporting'this threat in your i l
l 16 memorandum, which we have previously marked as Wiebe Exhibit )
i 1
17 1. It doesn't refer to an attempt to report a threat. j l
1 18 Do you recall or believe that Mr. Parks asked you j
l ,
for information about how to report a threat at the February j 19 l i l 1 20 18 meeting? l l
! l 21 q MR. JOHNSON: Could you repeat the question; I am j l ,
I 22 sorry. I (2) l
! l 1
I d
a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n m, >>m m_ m o- mo_ q
.29707.O cox 42 O
1 BY'MR. HICKEY: l 2 Q Sure. I am asking Mr. Wiebe whether he recalls --
-3 -actually,.I~made the question not as sharp as it could'have l
.4 been. Let me rephrase it.
5 Do you recall, Mr. Wiebe, Mr. Parks asking you on.
6 February 18, how he could report a threat that he felt had i
7 been made against him? i 8 A I don't recall him asking me how he could report a 'l 1
9 threat.
10 Q If he had asked you that on February 18, would you 11 have had some idea about how to direct him or where to tell ,
12 him where to go?
13 A Yes. He could come to me.
14 -Q If he had told you that he wanted to report a 15 threat, would you have recorded that in your record of the i 16 interview?
17 A I believe I would have.
t f 18 Q You don't see it anywhere on Wiebe Exhibit 1; do I
19 you?
20 l MR. JOHNGON: Which is that exhibit?
21 MR. HICKEY: That's the report of allegation 22 I form. It's there in front of him.
LO I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(O Nationwide Covei ag* 8tn3M M6
l l
29707.0 cox 43 O ,
'v/
1 THE WITNESS: Let's see. Would you restate that 2 question? ;
3 BY MR. HICKEY:
4 Q Sure, my question is whether you, and you can look 5 at the document to confirm this, but whether that document 6 reflects that Parks asked you how he could report this 7 threat.
8 A He did not. As I recall, he did not ask me how he 9 could report the threat.
10 Q I take it you were aware, in February of 1983, 11 that there was an office of investigations and that 12 Mr. Christopher in Region 1 was a part of that office, and 13 l that that office dealt with allegations of threats and other 14 improper activities regarding employees at nuclear plants.
15 b We knew that.
16 k You knew that all in February of 1983; didn't you?
17 A That's correct. I assumed that this meeting with 9
18 ! Parks was to report the threat, and that's why I contacted I
19 Keith Christopher of the office of investigations immediately 20 following the meeting.
21 Q Did Mr. Parks ask you to contact Mr. Christopher?
l 22 l A No, I am not sure Parks would have been aware.
l
.i l f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, l.NC.
I ! 202 347-P00 Nationw ide ( overage MW.L 336-(646 l
29707.0 cox 44 d(\
1 Q I want to show you one other document that, 2 because of its bulk, and the frequency of its occurrence in 3 the record in these proceedings, I am not going to mark as an !
4 exhibit, but it's Mr. Parks' affidavit. .,
5 MR. JOHNSON: We have a copy of that here.
i 6 MR. HICKEY: It's his affidavit, 56 pages, dated 7 March 21, 1983.
l !
8 If you would show the witness, Mr. Johnson, pages !
9 20 and 21 of that document, starting at the last paragraph of 10 the bottom of page 20.
?
l 11 BY MR. HICKEY:
12 0 Have you read that?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Mr. Parks, as you can see in his version of the 15 February 18 meeting, claims that he told you about what he 16 calls "the previous events of the day," and asked what could 17 be done to prevent a transfer that you replied the NRC would 18 take a dim view if he were transferred, there probably would l
19 .,
be an investigation, but otherwise you offered no advice or ;
e l i 20 : assistance.
l l
l 21 From my understanding of what you have told us so 22 ! far this morning, you did tell Mr. Parks, did you not, that 1 s t e> !
l L
l i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
d 202-347-3 AXI Nationwide Coveraye MXb 33MM6
l l 29707.0 l l
. cox 45 1 O l V l you would look into his allegations and investigate them? l l 1 2 A Yes, j 3 Q You told Mr. Parks that you would get back to him 4 after you had done that, to let him know what you had found; f 5 is that right?
6 A Yes. i 7 Q Did you tell him that you would confer also with .
8 your superiors or other persons in the NRC with regard to his 9 claims?
10 A I don't recall my specifically mentioning that. I p 11 would not have stated I would not confer with my G
12 supervisors. That is standard practice, and also with the 13 office of investigations, it's standard practice.
14 Q Do you think it's likely that you told Parks that 15 f you were going to do that?
16' A I don't recall.
I i
17 l Q I understand that. But do you think, given your 18 l knowledge of your procedure at the time, and your normal l
19 practices, do you think it's likely that you told Parks that?
4ll 20 A It's likely that I told him that.
21 Q So I take it that Mr. Parks is, at least, 22 j inaccurate, when he says you didn't offer any advice or O i J
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37N Nanonwide Cos erage S$ 33MM6
l 29707.0 ;
cox 46
(~s 7s)
L 1 assistance, other than to state that the NRC would take a dim l
l p 2 view and there probably would be an investigation. That's l J 3 not accurate, as far as your recollection of the meeting f a
1 i 4 goes; is that correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Did you expect, when you were speaking to 7 Mr. Parks shortly thereafter, that you well might be involved 8 in looking into -- you personally would be involved in 9 looking into Mr. Parks' concerns, were they in your area of 10 responsibility, generally speaking?
rg 11 A The initial looks are usually.in the senior L) 12 residents's responsibility, but we would not proceed until we 13 had contacted our supervisors and the office of 14 investigations.
15 Q I understand that. What I am really getting at 16 is, is it accurate that when you spoke to Parks and you heard 17 him relate his concerns about the polar crate, the load test,
)
18 and compliance with procedures and so on, this in your own 19 l mind you would have expected you would have some work to do l
20 l to look into those matters?
21 f A That's correct.
22 Q You didn't plan to just rear to your superiors, i
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-, ~ _ , < _ , , , m.,3m
29707.0 ,
cox 47 l
O 1 and that would be-the end of it as far as you were concerned?
2 A No.
.3 Q The reason I ask is that suggests to me that you i
4 probably would have attempted to elicit from Mr. Parks 5 whatever details he could give you to flesh out or support 6 his claims so that you would know where to look or what to 7 look at or what to check; is that not right? :
I 8 A I also knew at that time that we had the technical 9 support section looking very closely at the polar crane; and,- _
10 therefore, I don't recall exactly, but I may have felt that f 11 we already had the information available.
(3>
12 Q I see.
13 A So I may not have gone into as much detail with 14 Parks as I would have maybe on a completely.new issue that.we 15 had no idea about.
16 Q I understand. You are saying that when he started j l
17 talking about polar crane, you knew that was an issue that l 18 in-house the NRC was already active in reviewing; right? f l
19 A That's correct. l l
20 Q So your explanation to Parks, or your discussion 21 1 with him, might not have been as full as it otherwise would 22 haveg it was a completely new issue that the NRC had Y :
)O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm. sw_ m c , summ. l
29707.0
. . cox 48 i !
1 never heard of; is that correct?
2 A That's right.
3 Q Did you tell Mr. Parks'that the NRC was already 4 looking at the polar crane issues, issues related to the
'S polar crane?
6 A I don't recall.
7 Q Is there any particular reason why you should not 8 have or would not have mentioned that to him, since you knew 9 it?
10 A .Well, that's right. I am sure he knew we were
~
11 looking at the polar crane. So I may not have needed to say 12 that.
13 Q Are there any other documents, Mr. Wiebe, that you 14 have reviewed in an attempt to stimulate your recollection 15 about this February 18 meeting?
16 A Yes, we did bring some down. If you want to take 17 a look at these. These handwritten notes were in the file, 18 but I don't recall when I made them, other than that they
- 19 appeared to refer to the Parks allegations.
20 MR. HICKEY: The witness has just handed me a I I 21 handwritten one-page document with some notes on it.
22
{O I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(O Nati inw ide Coverage 8(n 33MM6
i
~
.29707.O cox' 49
.. (
- 1 BY MR. HICKEY
2 Q Is this your handwriting, by the way?
3 A _Yes, it is.
L 4 Q .You say they were in a file. What file were they 5 in?
i l 6 A They were in my chronological file.
7 Q Where did you review the chronological file?-
8 A There in Mr. Johnson's office.
9 Q The document has the name of the government 10 accountability project and Mr. Parks' name and an address, 11 1901 Q Street, Northwest. Then it has eight subjects or rO 12 titles. Let me just see if I can read them, and you can 13 check with your handwriting there. Number 1 says " safety 14 related equipment"--?
15 A I don't have another copy of that, sorry.
16 Q I am sorry. I thought you were looking at a 17 copy. You had a sheet of paper in your hand. I assumed it 18 was a copy of what you had given me.
19 A Okay. First one -- do you want me to read those i
20 i for you?
d 1
21 Q Yes, would you please.
22 A What I understand about I -- it looks like the O 1 i
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I scmx,, --- m,_
l 1
29707.0 cox 50 J 1
l 1 first one identifies " safety-related equipment modifications i
\
l l 2 without engineering approvals." Second item, " quality 3 assurance ignored." 3 is " integrated schedule 4," and I i l
4 i assume that's integrated schedule for the recovery l l
5 l operations. The next one is not numbered. It says "56-page l
6 affidavit."
l 7 l Q Is that a reference to Mr. Parks' affidavit of I
8 March 23?
l i 9 ! A I believe it is. Number 4 is a name, "Crafg !
1 l 10 Faust," F-a-u-s-t, I do not recall that name or why it was j l
11 ,
written down here.
i' i 32 The fifth item says "Bechtel test polar crane."
l l 13 The sixth item is " harassment." 7 is "NRC =(plltss: clucietr vk with -
l 14 GPU." The eighth item, " excessive radiation levels during l
i i
15 cleanup." I believe this was in response to the Parks press 16 conference.
17 Q What do you mean by that? )
18 ! A Apparently I received a phone call, or it was in a i I 19 l
meeting where -- following the Parks press conference, and 20 I these were issues from Parks press conference.
l 21 !
3 Q Do you remember anything else about the 22 , circumstances under which you wrote this document?
O i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mwm m . . cm, mow. l
. _ _ _ _ - _ ___ __ __-_ a
29707.0 cox 51 1 A . No, I do not.
j 2 Q What else did you find;-do you have some other 3 documents there?
4 A' The other one was just a handwritten note, it says ,
5 "Keith," I assume that's Keith Christopher, and it says 6 " refer to Department of Labor for being fired for safety 7 issues."
8 I assume that was my convt,sation with Keith 9 Christopher.
10 Q Which conversation with Keith Christopher?
11 A I am not sure which conversation or 'hcna to (q/
12 identify the conversation.
13 Q Do you think it relates to Mr. Parks?
14 A Definitely.
15 Q Not Mr. King?
l 16 A No.
17 Q Why do you say that?
i 18 l A Because I don't believe I talked with Keith l - 19 Christopher concerning King as it related to the Department 1
20 1 of Labor.
U l c 21 ! Q This document was also in your sequential or j- !
22 chronological file that you reviewed yesterday with Mr.
\(~)
1- \'
t 0
>' 6 0
t x ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l mm sm_* c~m,c sm.m.
us ..
i 1
l 29707.0 l cox 52 i r^T l U
1 Johnson? ;
2 A Yes.
3 Q Did you find any other documents that related to 4 the subject of this inquiry? The witness has handed me a 5 typed document entitled " Chronology of Events, Parks' and 6 King's Allegations." Then it has a bunch of dates and a 7 bunch of comments about those dates.
8 What is this document, Mr. Wiebe?
9 A I believe it's just a compilation of the 10 chronology of events. I probably prepared it for my rg 11 supervisor.
U 12 Q That would be for Mr. Fasano?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Where did you locate this document?
k 15 A In the same tile.
16 , MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Hickey, for our purposes, could 17 we just substitute what you have with a copy which you can l
18 -l retain, of each of these three pages?
19 MR. HICKEY: That would be fine. I want to take a 20 minute and read the document. If the witness or counsel or 21 ; the reporter need or want a break at any point, please say l
22 ! something.
, r" l l (_)g l l l l l 1 !
I i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I i mmm s _ aeo ,m, mm.
29707.0 cox 53 1 (Wiebe Exhibits 4 through 6 identified.)
2 BY MR. HICKEY:
3 Q Mr. Wiebe, am I correct that Wiebe Exhibit 6 was 4 .something that you believe you prepared in late March because 5 it has an item at the end, March 22, '83?
6 A- It was sometime following March 22.
7 Q Just so I understand, the last entry on Exhibit 6 8 says "3/22/83, contacted Joyce Wenger, Larry King's 9 secretary," et cetera. Is that something you did on. March 10 22?
.r 11 , A I don't recall if that was me or.not.
12 Q There is another entry at March 2, '83, 13 " interviewed Larry King." That was something -- you didn't 14 do that on March 2, did you?
15 A I don't believe I did.
16 Q I think Mr. Christopher did; is that your 17 recollection?
18 A Since following that is a reference concerning a 19 report of inquiry, I would assume the office of 20 investigations did that. Whether or not it was Mr.
l 21 Christopher, I don't know.
I 22 Q It looks tc me like as we look at the substance of LO 1
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm, sm_m c- -
l ____- . - -
l l
29707.0 icox 54 l
() '
1 Exhibit 6, that maybe you didn't prepare it. You think you 2 did prepare it or did not, or do you know? ]
3 A I don't recall whether I prepared this personally ;
I 4 or provided input to it -- certainly it's a compilation of i 5 other people's actions alco.
]
6 Q The things that refer to you, though -- I am 7 assuming you read this document. If not, you should take 8 time to do'it now. I want to ask you whether the items that !
9 refer to you are accurate as they are stated on this
, i 10 chronology.
11 A Yes, as related to myself, those items are 12 correct.
13 Q While we are going through the documents, what 14 else did you find that related to this?
15 A I believe you already have that.
16 Q Yes. It's a memorandum of March 10 from Mr. Wiebe-17 I to Mr. Christopher, subject, " allegation from Rick Parks,"
18 dated February 18, 1983. I do have that.
19 A Okay. This is the second page of that.
20 Q It's a two-page memorandum; correct?
21 l A Right. And then I have an inspection report.
l 22 Q That's an inspection report dated March 14, 1983; LO 1
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, l'N C.
l i
202 347-37(O Nationwide Caw enige 10 1336-6646
29707.0 cox 55 I subject, " inspection 50-320/83-03." It has attached an 2 inspection report signed by Mr. Wiebe and others reflecting 3 an inspection that you participated in, Mr. Wiebe, in late 4 January or early February of 1983?
5 A That's correct. I-believe you also have that 6 document.
7 Q The document the witness has just referred to is a 8 March 11, 1983, memorandum, to Mr. Christopher, from 9 Mr. Wiebe; subject, " Additional follow-up on the Rick Parks 10 allegation," dated February 18, 1983.
11 okay. Those are all the documents that you 12 reviewed or found that related to your testimony here today?
13 A That's correct.
14 MR. JOHNSON: We did -- just to clarify, we found 15 some additional documents that were arguably within the scope 16 of your request that were contained in Mr. Wiebe's 17 chronological file. They are not being produced today 18 because they fall within the prejudicial ambit that the 19 staff is asserting, and we will identify those documents l
l 20 separately too. j 21 MR. HICKEY: Can you generally describe the l
22 documents?
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mww, xeooo c_. mow ,
29707.0 cox 56
~'i (G
1 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. They are not -- I don't think 2 any of them are documents reflecting the personal notes or l
3 material prepared by Mr. Wiebe; but, given the broad nature 4 of their request in the deposition notice, they could 5 arguably be considered within the scope of that; and since 6 they were found in Mr. Wiebe's files in my office, we.
7 determined that we should identify them.
8 MR. HICKEY: They are being withheld on the i 9 grounds that they are prejudicial under subsection 5 of the 10' FOIA exceptions?
11 MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
12 MR. HICKEY: You say they are covered by the broad I
13 language of the subpoena, that is, they relate to Parks or
)
14 his allegations or the investigation of them? l 1
15 MR. JOHNSON: That's right.
16 BY MR. HICKEY:
1 17 Q Are these documents that you wrote, Mr. Wiebe, the ]
18 documents that Mr. Johnson is just referring to?
~ 1 19 A I don't recall whether I wrote any of those )
l 20 documents.
I l
21 '
Q Did you participate in the preparation of them, or l
l 22 were they program office documents that you had a hand in? i i
l
() l i
t l l
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l 202-347-3700 Natiornode Cm erage Mn 33fut446
29707.0-cox. 57
/~'%
- \ )
1 A I don't recall the specific documents.
2 Q Did you review them in an attempt to refresh your 3 recollection prior to testifying today?
4 A Yes, I did.
5 MR. HICKEY: If the witness needs to refresh his 6 recollection by reviewing that document, it should be 7 produced.
8 MR. JOHNSON: I asked the witness to look at his 9 filea. I had these files previously, and we had gone through 10 them several times in endeavoring to respond to your p 11 interrogatories and document requests. We did not know that
%)
12 they were Mr. Wiebe's files at the time. I did not know that 13 till yesterday.
14 Once I learned that they were his files, I asked 15 ,
him to go through to see whether there was anything in there 16 that responded to your request under a liberal reading of 17 your notice, and it wasn't for the purpose -- at least I 18 didn't instruct him, that it was for the purpose of 19 ! refreshing his recollections.
20 MR. HICKEY: If the witness reviewed them and it's l 21 part of the basis on which he testifies here today because it l
j 22 refreshed his recollection, I think the documents ought to be I (E) l t
j ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, - _m- --
[
\
L29707.0 cox 58 Q:
l' produced.
2 I asked for the documents. They are covered, as 3 you can see, by the notice of deposition. I suspect they are 4 covered by the document requests that were previously filed, 5 as I would say these Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 that you produced-6 todey also are. But if you are unwilling to produce.them, I 7 will have to resolve that matter at another time.
8 MR. JOHNSON: As I say, we will identify them.
9 BY MR. HICKEY:
10 Q After you met with Mr. Parks on February 18, 11 Mr. Wiebe, am I correct that you consulted with your 12 colleagues and superiors concerning what steps should be 13 taken next?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Do you remember whether you spoke to 16 Mr. Christopher?
17 A I don't recall the specific conversation. I i
18 assume I did, since that would be our standard practice.
19 ! Q Did you also speak to people within the program 20 office at TMI?
21 A I would have contacted my supervisor, Tony Fasano, l
22 ' and Lake Barrett.
O 4
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i' 202-347 37t0 Nationwide Coverage 800-3%N46
29707.0
. cox 59 i
'(Ds_/ j 1 .Q And then as a result of whatever discussions you- !
2 had, you determined that some inquiries or investigations !
3 should be made to look into the substance of Mr. Parks' i 4 concerns; is that right?
l 5 A That's correct. I 6 Q What did you do?
7 A okay. I am referring to my March 10, 1983 letter i
8 to Christopher, 9 MR. JOHNSON: First of all, could you -- I don't 10 think the witness -- I think the witness has -- maybe you 11 haven't said, whether you have any recollection, without 12 refreshing it, by virtue of this memorandum.
13 THE WITNESS: I do not have any recollections of 14 the specific meetings, except by referral to the memoranda.
15 MR. HICKEY: Let me mark then a copy of the March 16 10 memorandum as Wiebu Exhibit 7. This is his March 10 17 memorandum to Mr. Christopher.
18 (Wiebe Exhibit 7 identified.)
19 THE WITNESS: Would you restate the question.
l 20 BY MR. HICKEY:
1' 21 Q Sure. I am asking what you did after you
( .
22 consulted with your superiors about Mr. Parks' concerns.
l C:) i L
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147-37f N P Na:ionwide Cos etape SCWL346M6
29707.0 cox. 60
()
- 1. fs 1 A I interviewed several GPU and Bechtel employees at 2 the site concerning their knowledge of the handling of 3 internal comments to documents, cn handling of internal 4' comments relating to documents.
S Q Specifically, am I correct that you spoke'to 6 Mr. Larry King?
7 A Yes.
i 8 Q To Mr. Ed Kitler? ;
9 A Yes.
i 10 Q Mr. Hansen, Charles Hansen? l l
11 A Yes.
~
12 Q And I thought I understood that you had spoken to ;
13 Mr. Gischel, but I don't see a reference to him in Exhibit l
14 7. Did you speak to Mr. Gischel too?
15 A Okay. Yes, near the end of the second paragraph, ,
f 16 the document indicates I did. i l
l i 17 Q I am sorry, I see it there. You spoke to ]
l l
18 Mr. Gischel. There is one other mention in the document. l l
19 That is Mr. Theising. l l
20 A That's correct.
l 21 Q You spoke to him too. The document reflects that j 22 you -- well, let me see here. Do you recall the dates of l
CE)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.347-3700 Nationwide Coverage E n 33646 m 1
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ J
-29707.0 cox 61
- O 1 those interviews that you had with these people?
2 A No, I do not.
l 3 Q Was it shortly after your meeting, I mean, within 4 a week'after your meeting with Mr. Parks?
5 A I don't recall.
6 Q In addition to talking to these people, did you-7 review any documentation or any materials relating to 8 Mr. Parks' concerns?
9 A I don't recall.
10 MR. HICKEY: Let me ask the reporter to mark as 11 Exhibit 8 to the Wiebe deposition a memorandum dated March 12 24, 1983, from Lake H Barrett to Bernard J. binyder.
13 (Wiebe Exhibit 8 identified. )
14 MR. HICKEY: Would you show that to the witness, 15 please.
16 BY MR. HICKEY:
l 17 l Q Mr. Wiebe, the reporter has put in front of you a 18 l document that I have just identified as Wiebe Exhibit 8. It 19 is a four-page memorandum. First of all, I want to ask you l
L 20 if you think you have seen that document before.
L -
l 21 A Yes, I believe I have seen this before.
1 1 22 Q You note that it is dated March 24, 1983, and to (2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wwn snn & c.nec wmn,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
p l
l j
1 29707.0 cox 62 LO i
! .1 stimulate'your recollection, I can represent.to you that 2 Mr. Parks' press conference was on March 23, 1983, the day i
1 3 before the date of this Exhibit 8.
4 Did you and Mr. Barrett and perhaps others meet to l l 5 prepare a summary of the Three Mile Island Program Office's i
6 activities shortly after Mr. Parks' press conference?
l l 7 A I don't recall. ,
' ?
l l 8 Q Where did you see this Exhibit 8 before? ,
9 A It was in one of the documents I reviewed l
10 yesterday.
l 11 Q You have a recollection -- well, it has a lot of i
12 information in it about your activities, talks about people 13 that you interviewed on various dates, and a telephone call 14 you got from Mr. King and other items like that. Am I 15 correct that you were keeping Mr. Barrett, your supervisor, 16 informed of your activities'with regard to this 17 investigation?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q Are you the likely source from which Mr. Barrett 20 1 wrote the information that relates to you on here?
21 A Yes.
22 Q You just don't have a recollection of sitting down f'h
(_/ I l
I l
I i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
i mm. ~ _mo_, -
l
29707.0
. cox 63 O
1 with him to try.to reconstruct the events of the 2 investigation?
3 A No, I don't.
4 Q. You will see that that has some dates for these-5 interviews, indicating that you interviewed Mr. King on 6 February 22, Mr. Gischel on the 23rd, Messrs. Hansen, 7 Theising and Kitler on the 24th.
8 Does that refresh your recollection that you 9 conducted those interviews in about that time frame?
10 A I don't recall, q 11 Q When you interviewed these individuals that I just
. (/ -
12 mentioned, did you interview them alone, or did someone l
13 accompany you?
l 14 A To the best of my recollection, I did it alone 15 with the interviewee.
l l 16 Q Did you take notes while you were interviewing l
l 17 1 these people?
j 18 l A No, I did not.
I .
I 19 l Q Did you, after the interview, jot down notes about -
l I
\
l 20 what they t01d you? )
l 21 A I believe, based on the information in McKenna's l 22 ; interview with me, that I did jot down some notes in my l CE) l 1
- )
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, mmm s_ m c- 8. _ 4 w___________________ t
t ..
L 1
29707.0L cox 64 +
1 logbook.
l 1 2 Q Did you get a copy of-the notice of. deposition 3 before you got to Washington?
l 4 A Yes, I did..
l 5 Q Did you read it?
6 A Yes. ,
7 Q Did you note the instruction to bring any.
8 documents that related to the subject matter of the Parks 9 investigation with you to the deposition?
i 10 A' Yes.
11 Q Is it your testimony that you simply forgot that 12 you had the logbook; is that right?
13 A That's right. I-did not recall I had the logbook 14 until I read the McKenna interview.
15 Q The memorandum, Exhibit 8, also reflects that on 16 j February 22, the NRC requested internal GPU correspondence on j 1 !
17 the polar crane; that's at the top of page 2, Mr. Wiebe. Do 18 l you remember asking for some correspondence or memoranda from i
l 19 l GPU that related to this polar crane inquiry?
20 A Where is that located at?
21 Q The top of page 2. i 22 A Oh, okay. I believe I recall we did ask for some O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm. s_ mm- -m
7-p
()
29707 0 cox 65-f 1 internal GPU documents on the polar crane.
2 Q Who would that request'have been made:to?
3 A I would guess that it was made to Jim Larson.
4 Q He was in the licensing department at Three Mile' 5 Island-2?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q Was he your normal contact when you want.ed GPU 8 internal documents?
lj 9 i A Yes.
f 10 Q Did you make the request, or did somebody else?
11 A I don't recall, 12 Q Was there someone else working with you on these 13 investigative activities?
14 A The technical support section would have been 15 I reviewing any of the technical concerns and safety issues on !
f 16 the polar crane.
i Was there a specific individual that was doing 17 ; Q l'
18 that?
19 A I don't recall.*
4 t
20 Q How about Mr. Cage. Was that an area of his i
21 particular responsibility?
22 A I do not believe so.
O ,
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
xmm, x _ e n- -
LL 1 ;
- , 29707.0 ~l l- cox '
l-l bq l
- l. 1 Q How about Mr. Grant?
i-2 A Phil Grant was the section chief, and so I would 3 assume he'would have been cognizant of any actions by the '
l
-4 ,
technical' support'section.
l l
5 ! Q There is a reference on the next line or two lines i
6! down, to a Mr. Poindexter. He was an employee of the program !
7 office; was he not?
8 A I believe that at that time he was an employee of i
9 the program office. However, he was based in Bethesda.
10 Q So he would not have been likely to.have
- 11 participated in activities at the, site; is that what you are 12 saying?
13 A He did frequently participate in activities at the 14 site.
15 0 .But I mean with regard to thic investigation? '
16 A- I don't recall.
17 Q Mr. Wiebe, the first entry in that chronology on 18 ,
the first page of Exhibit 8 has a February 18 date, and the 1
19 entry " informed region." Do you remember participating in or j
20 being aware of some report to the region on February 18 about I l )
21 your interview with Mr. Parks?
22 l A I don't recall specifically, but I am sure that I )
.O l 1 l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- m, m_m- m_ 1
L29707.0 cox 67
- OL 7
l 1 sent the-notice of allegation, the handwritten notice of 1 2' violation to the region.
l' l 3 Q Did you send in any other. report or written l \
l 4 description to Mr. Parks besides the report of allegation 1
1 5 which is Exhibit 1?
l 6 A I don't recall any other.
7 Q You don't recall preparing any other report of it?
8 A No.
9 -Q Except for what may be in your logs; right?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q Was it your practice when there were telephone
.\._p) i 12 . conversations made to the region that you would have your i 13 supervisor participate with you, or did you frequently call 14 them by yourself?
i 15 MR. JOHNSON: Could you break it down? l 16 BY MR. HICKEY-i 17 Q What was your practice with regard to telephone le l contact with the region?
I 19 A I normally would call then myself.
I 20 ; Q And in discussions about the Parks investigation, 21 do you believe that you had those conversations by yourself 22 with the region or with supervisors participating?
I I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(12347-37W N 150nuldC CO4CrayC MX k ,l.W(M6
l '
L L 29707.0 l
cox 68
' . /l k_/
1 A I believe with the Parks. investigation, at least 2 initially, my supervisor would have been involved.
3 Q Mr. Fasano?
- 4. A Yes.
5 Q Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 7. That's your 6 March 10 memorandum, which also relates to the activities 7 that you conducted during this investigation. That reflects, 8 does it not, that you specifically asked Mr. King whether or 9 not he thought that, and I am referring to the second
'10 paragraph on page 1, whether he' thought that management had l
tried to suppress safety concerns and that King indicated he 11 1
l 12 would not go that far, as you put it.
l 13 When you spoke to Mr. King, was that his response 14 to that inquiry?
l l 15 A Yes, according to the documentation it is.
16 Q You have no recollection?
17 A I don't recall the specifics of that interview.
18 Q Even if you don't recall the specifics, I bake it
- 19 .
that you were trying to determine whether there was a --
l 1 1 !
- 20 whether there was substance to Mr. Parks' allegations, and 1
21 that the issue of whether or not management was suppressing i
I 22 safety concerns was one that was of some significance and (2) l ACE-FEDERAI.. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(M Nationwide Cmerage 1t00-336-6/46
^
29707.0~
. . cox. 69-O l
1 1 interest to you; is that r.ight?
Y ,
L 2 A That's correct.
3 Q- If Mr. King had told you that management was j' 4 suppressing safety concerns, you expect that you would.have l
\
t 5 noticed that and paid some attention to it?
l 6 A That would have been documented in this letter, 7 ~Q You don't have any recollection of Mr. King making 8 any:such statement, I take it?
9 A Not this particular time.
10 Q Were you finished?
- 11 A Yes, 12 Q When you prepared this or. March 10, 1983, would i
13 you refer to the notes that you had in your log, do you 14 think, when you wrote this up? l 1
15 A I probably did.
16 Q You point out that Mr. King indicated to you that i 17 the comments that Mr. Gischel had made concerning the polar 18 crane load test were not in King's mind, and Gischel's too, !
i 19 l adequately addressed. What were you trying to communicate by 20 that? What did you mean when you put down that Kirig said they 4 21 weren't adequately addressed?
22 MR. JOHNSON: You are asking him what he meant O 1 l 1
Il i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I .nm s _. m- s- -
__- - . - - . -. J
l l
29707.0 L cox 70 l
! i
\
l 1 when he wrote "not adequately addressed"?
1 l 2 MR. HICKEY: Yes.
1 3 THE WITNESS: I' don't recall the specifice of that 1
4 statement.
S BY MR. HICKEY:
6 Q You were aware that the comments, as your next 7 sentence reflects -- you were aware that they had been 8 addressed by management, were you not, and were now in the 9 NRC review process?
1 10 A I note at the end of the paragraph that these l
c g~ 11 comments were similar to the issues being considered by the ;
(>g 12 NRC and NRC consultants, but I make no reference to them 13 being considered by GPU management.
14 Q Wasn't the normal practice that before the issues 15 were submitted to the NRC for approval, they would have been j l
16 addressed by GPU management? '
17 MR. JOHNSON: Excuse me, I don't understand your l
18 question. Would you repeat it?
19 i BY MR. HICKEY:
1 1 I
20 l Q Sure. My question is, when you point out that !
l 21 they were being considered by the NRC and NRC consultants, l l
22 doesn't that mean that in all likelihood that they had been j
([) !
l 1 ,
) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i n wwn, u,_ac ~. wwwa
l-l-
l 29707.0 cox. 71 I )
1 previously considered by GPU before they went to the NRC?
- 2. A I don't know if I would draw that conclusion. If 3 our personnel had concerns of their own, we wouldn't 4 necessarily wait for GPU management to address those concerns i
5 before we would take action.
6 Q You don't recall whether the polar crane load 7 test, for example, that was submitted to the NRC for review, 8 had been considered by GPU before it was submitted?-
9 A That was -- the practice was to -- for GPU to look 10 at the documents and resolve their concerns and then send 11 them to us. But I don't know if these concerns being I k) f--
12 addressed here were concerns that GPU had raised or concerns 13 that we or our consultants had raised.
14 Q Lut you were aware that GPU had addressed the 15 polar crane load test safety evaluation report, were you 16 not? You just don't know what the specific concerns were 17 about it that they addressed, is what I understand you to be 18 saying.
19 A That's correct.
20 Q You note that Mr. Parks had told you, in the 21 second paragraph there -- I am sorry, the third paragraph, 22 apparently on February 18, that the test working group was Cl) i
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 mmm, ~--- ma -
_ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . =_ ._ _ _ -
, 29707.0 L . cox 72 l O l GI l
o 1 not' involved with reviewing the test procedure; and when you 1
2 tried to check that out with Mr. Kitler, you learned that the 3 test working group was reviewing the test procedures; is that i 4 correct?
5 A That apparently was Kitler's response.
6 Q Did you attempt to verify that?
7 A Not at that time. !
l 8 Q Later?
9 A I am not sure if I would have verified that or t
10 somebody else in our office would have verified that. I f-~ 11 don't recall.
(
12 Q Did you later learn, though, that the test working f 13 group had reviewed the test procedure?
14 A It is my understanding that they reviewed the test 15 procedure out of sequence. They reviewed it subsequent to 16 its being approved and issued in response to that comment.
17 Q Which test procedure are you talking about?
18 A The particular -- the polar crane test 19 procedures. And that was to the best of my recollection. i 1
20 Q Did.you know any of these individuals that you 21 interviewed before this investigation with Mr. King, 22 Mr. Kitler, Mr. Hansen, Theising?
o o
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 M7-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage h(n33MM6
- - - - _ _ _ _ - i
29707.0 cox- 73 !
1 A Mr. Gischel'I knew. Mr. Kitler, I dont believe I 2- met him before. Mr. Hansen I knew, Mr. Theising I knew.
3 Q Did you also get some information, prior to l
4 preparing this memorandum, which is Exhibit 7,.from other 5 people in your office, about what they were lea: ning during ;
6 the course of this investigation?
7 MR. JOHNSON: Has the foundhtion been laid that .
1 8 there was an investigation? I 9 MR. HICKEY: I think the foundation has been laid, 10 yes. You have a chronology of it, and we have got Exhibit L
l 11 7. We have a number of other exhibits. I think the witness l
l 12 has said that he attempted to investigate Mr. Parks' l
l 13 concern. I think he said that other people -- that other l
l 14 people did too.
l l 15 The question is whether you got any information.
l 16 I mean, is there a dispute about whether there was an 1
17 investigation of Mr. Parks' concerns? You investigated 18 Mr. Parks' concerns; didn't you?
1 1
19 i A I am not sure if we called it an investigation or l
-20 not.
21 Q What did you call it?
I' 22 A Or an inspection. It could have been just an lCE) e ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.. m_ ~ mm_
.29707.0 cox ,
74 b
1 inspection.
2 Q Is there some significance to what word you used 3 to describe it? j 4 A Yes; I am not a trained investigator.
5 Q You are a trained inspector but not a trained 6 investigator; is that correct?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q What is the difference?
9 A I am not entirely sure.
10 Q I am not either. Does it mean anything different 11 to you?
12 A No response.
13 Q Let me put it to you this way, Mr. Wiebe. When 14 you were going around and asking these people questions about 15 your concerns, did you feel that you were competent about 16 what you were doing?
17 A Yes.
I 18 Q Or did you think you were out of your element and 19 over your head?
20 A No. We discussed it, whether or not we should l
l 21 bring office of investigations in at this point and decided l
L 22 not to at this time.
LO 1
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
== - " -
u___ - " ~ ~ ~ -
)
29707.0 cox 75
(
1 Q I assume because you decided you didn't need to, 2 that you could do it adequately; is that right? .
1 3 A That's correct.
4 Q So you went out and investigated, inspected it or 5 whatever you.want to call it but you interrogated these !
6 witnesses to determine what the facts were.about Mr. Parks' 7 concerns; right?
8 A Let'a say that I discussed with these employees 9 the handling of internal comments on their procedures.
10 Q What is your hesistancy about the question I asked 11 you? Is there a section in it that you are not comfortable 12 with? l 13 A I did not bring up Mr. Parks' names in these 14 discussions. ;
l 15 -Q I did not mean to suggest that you did. I said 16 you were investigating Mr. Parks' concerns. I didn't mean to
)
17 suggest that you used Mr. Parks' name. But you went out to l
18 find cut whether there was substance about what Mr. Parks had 19 told you; isn't that right?
i 20 A That's correct. I i
21 Q He had made allegations that related to the safety 22 of the Polar Crane Refurbishment; isn't that right? Well, O
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- >e>. ~ _ c_ . mm_
l l
29707.0-cor 76. L V
7, Q) i 1 look at Exhibit 1 if you need to. That's your report of the l
! 2 allegation.
3 A The part of the inspection that I was involved 4 with was determining or obtaining facts concerning any -- let j
.l 5 me see, what is the -- -- the part of the inspection that I i 1
6 was involved with was trying to determine if Parks was being 1
7 transferred off-site because of his comments on the polar j l
8 crane load test procedures. I was not at that point involved l l
9 with any technical review of the polar crane safety. )
I 10 Q Well, were you trying to determine whether there l 11 had been procedural noncompliance or compliance with regard 12 to the polar crane, as Parks alleged?
l 13 A At this particular time, I was not.
{
l i l- 14 Q Well, you or someone in your office, according to i 15 Mr. Barrett's memo, that is Exhibit 8, reviewed some internal 16 GPU documentation about the polar crane; isn't that right?
17 A That's correct. l 18 l Q That wouldn't give you any information about l
J 19 whether Parks was going to be transferred, would it? .
20 A I don't know the specifics of that documentation
]
21 lj at this point.
I 22 { Q Well, wasn't the purpose of looking at the !
O l I
i 1
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. )
i umw x _ u<m- mom <m j
29707:.0' cox 77 It' s
l1- internal GPU correspondence on the polar crane to determine 2 how the polar crane was being handled?
3 A I believe it was.
4 Q Your memorandum in of March 10, Exhibit 7, still 5 in front of you, concludes that it appeared to you that all .
n -[
6 comments on the polar crane were receiving adequ6te 40 7 management attention and were addressed, so you did look at 3 8 the question of whether the polar crane comments were being addressed, did you not? " I, 9 .
10 A Apparently I did. ', ; ,
, _ ;r i'- ;
l . f j' , I 11 l Q You also were looking at'the question of'ehetheg ,
>I ,
>O , i
)
12' somebody was trying to transfer Mr. P>Tk':5, I take it; isithat/
\ b !
l ./ ,
13 ,
right? .g t
14 A That's correct. ,
15 Q You didn't find any evbjence to indicate that', did
\
l \
16 l you?
17 A Not at this time.
>l t . i 18 i Q Did you later find some evidence?
19 A Not me personally, no. .
20 Q Do you believe someone else did?
+
21 A I believe that was handled be the Department of (
l l'
22 Labor. e I -'
( /!
l l I l
\.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
Nationwide Coterage M40%d m c'
i 2tCJ47 37(M '/
2
'y
29707.0 cox 78
~
m) 1J Q B.it you personally did not, in this period before I
2 March 10 or thereafter, find any evidence, you personally did 3 not find any evidence, that reflected that Mr. Parks was in 4 danger of being transferred?
5 A I did not. We were taken off the inspection when
- 9 O we turned it over to the Department of Labor.
\,
f
, ,7 j Q Were you aware that as a part of this
- t. , / 6 i investigation Mr. Poindexter went to Gaithersburg to the
,." '/
HQ 9,'Sechtel off/ces on February 23 to review calculations l
/c L
,)' ;I l
10 ) concerningthbloadte.stofthepolarcrane?
l /- l 11 G A I am not sure when I became aware of that. I l c' <
e /
/
l N '
, j .'
l ; 12 i / asaume' T was awarei.
l7
+
l 13 Q. It's referred'to in Exhibit 8. I think you have a
{
! > j
'. 14 copy there in front of you, tir . Barrett's memorandum; .
l t
> t f* , f 15 1l'tretlects,that.pn February 23 i4r. Poindexter performed a
/f '
f' i I 16 durpr in inspettion pf. th6 colar grane calculations, and
, + ks
- j. . t17 f these in a refeveace'to an atta:hment 5 which we don't have, L (' [ , . .l ,
/ \ ' ,s ; IB' but which presurably provides the details of Mr. Poindexter's 1
, f, 19 [ 3nspetio,n. ,
/ j
> ,e- i I
(r ,
20 i '
You kis.w'at the time that Mr. Poindexter was doing l
/ !
l !
21 thai,.did you?
{jj V ' [,
!' ').
l 22 I A I assume i c'id, but I don'. have any 1
O' .
4> .
l l / hD 7 l
\
l d ,
- 1 f !
f ' ' f s l <
,L l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 1 .
u._<- n .- - 1
n - , ,-
g
( ..
- ( t .
h),Ni
'A ;f1 4['jh~29h07.'O
[ e
'!l 79 cox g. s lU l
l m
-3
(' 1 recollection.
' t, 1.
l 2 Q Do you recall that Mr, Parks had raised with you a'
- l. -
31 concern or an issue about whether there were calculations to
'(
s' 4 support the polar crane use?
l l 5 A No, I don't recall that.
6 Q Can you think of any other reason why someone l
.h would send Mr. Poindexter to Bechtel to check calculations, 4 "
't , :;
U' ' [". lC- other than the fact that<tkr. Parks had raised it? '
A l 9 MR. JOHNSON: You are asking for --
0d BY MR. HICKEY:
11 Q I am asking if he knows some other reason. You-of- ,
12 don't recall why Mr. Poindexter went to Gaithersburg, is what l
13 I understand you to say. It isn't the likelihood because i,
14 Mr. Parks made an ',ssue about whether there were i
) l l 15 I calculations? l t :
l )
), 16 A I wouldn't say that's a likelihood, t
17 3 Q You have no idea why he went there?
I 18 i 'A It could have been for somebody else, maybe had l 19 raised that issue. It didn't have to be Mr. Parks.
'e 20 0 .E suppose it could have been for any number of 21 j reasong, but you don't have any information about why 22' Mr. Poindexter went to Gaithersburg to look at calculations? ,
O. J :
.\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 21C -347-37(O Nationwide ( overne 80(L3E6646
29707.0 cox 80 1 A From what I personally know of Mr. Parks' 2 expertise and the other expertise from the Island, I would 3 assume was because of issues raised by Mr. Gischel.
- 4. Q You said Mr. Parks' expertise; is that what you 5 meant to say?
6 A Yes.
l I 7 Q From what you know about Mr. Parks' expertise?
l l 8 What do you mean by that? I didn't understand what you were l 9 saying.
1 10 A Mr. Parks was in the operations department, in VU l -
11 startup and test, where4 I think calculations such as this s- !
12 l would come out ot an engineering group.
13 Q During the period after -- the week or so after 14 l your meeting with Mr. Parks on February 18, did you and the 15 l other people in the office routinely share information or I
16 update each other about what was being learned or occurring 17 ! with regard to the investigation?
i i
18 i A Yes.
19 Q I think somewhere in here, Mr. Barrett refers to l
i 20 regular staff meetings -- it may not be in this document. l f
21 But is it your recollection that there were regular staff 22 ! meetings on an ongoing basis to keep people informed of what i
!(2) I 1
i l l l l
1 \
l I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 3 cum s.- c_e, smv.me
L l' 29707.0
- l. cox 81' l (3 l l (/ 3 1
l L 1 the various investigations were finding?
2 A We routinely had staff meetings to update us in l l
3 all aspects of the recovery. l t
4 Q On a particular day or a particular frequency?
5 A on a daily basis.
6 Q At the end of the day?
7 A It was at the beginning of.the day.
8 Q First thing in the morning?
.9 A Yes.
10 Q So you would all come together and talk about what 11 was going on at the time and what the activities were and so 12 on?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q Would the Parks investigation have been discussed 15 in those meetings?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Was there any record of those meetings?
18 A No.
19 Q So the likelihood is that if Mr. Poindexter had 20 been sent by someone to Gaithersburg on February 23 to check 21 on calculations, that that event would have been reported at 22 a daily staff meeting?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwice ( overage NO 346M6
29707.0 cox 82 !
O 1 A That's correct.
2 Q There is also a reference in Exhibit 7 -- I am 3 sorry, in Exhibit 8, to Mr. Gare and Mr. Fasano having an 4 interview on February 24 with Mr. Fenti, F-e-n-t-i, and a 5 gentleman whose name I can't pronounce, P-r-a-b-h-a-k-e-r.
6 Do you know how to say that name by any chance?
I 7 A Prabhaker. l l
8 Q Okay. Mr. Fenti and Mr. Prabhaker were in the QA 9 department; Mr. Gage and Mr. Fasano worked for the NRC; is {
10 that right? ,
1 11 A That's correct. I am not sure if Mr. Fenti is in !
0- i 12 the QA department, but I know Mr. Prabhaker is or was.
13 Q Do you recall what Mr. Gage and Mr. Fasano were l 14 meeting with Mr. Prabhaker and Mr. Fenti about? l 15 A It had to do with quality assurance concerns. l t
16 l Q Relating to the polar crane?
17 l A I don't know if it was limited to the polar crane 18 or broader.
19 Q Did it include the polar crane, as you understood I
20 it? j l 21 A The way I understood it, yes.
l l 22 Q Maybe this will help. I will ask the reporter to I
C)
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m. _ x- c- --
i _
1 l
29707.0 !
cox 83 l
)
1 mark as Wiebe Exhibit 9 this March 30, 1983, memorandum, from 2 Mr. Barrett to Mr. Snyder and Mr. Poindexter, with a copy to ;
I 3 Mr. Wiebe.
4 (Wiebe Exhibit 9 identified.)
5 MR. HICKEY: Relating to the Fasano, Gage, Fenti, I
6 Prabhaker meeting, j 7 MR. HICKEY: Off the record.
8 l (Discussion off the record.)
I 9 BY MR. HICKEY:
10 0 Go ahead and read that document, would you
, 11 please? Have you reviewed Exhibit 9, Mr. Wiebe?
.f 12 A Yes.
13 Q Does it refresh your recc11ection concerning the 14 subject matter on which Mr. Gage and Fasano -- I am sorry, 15 Gage and Fasano spoke to Fenti and Prabhaker on February 24?
16 ,
A Yes.
17 Q Did it relate to the polar crane, at least in 18 part?
19 A Yes.
l 20 l Q Do you think you got a copy of this document at l
21 { about the time it was prepared in late March 1983?
22 A I am sure I did.
C) I i
ACE-FEDEIML REPORTERS, INC.
" = ~ '"""""*"""" "" "
E____ - -
29707.0 cox 84 O
1 Q Do you know what prompted the preparation of this 2 Exhibit 9 on March 30? I can put the question a little more 3 specifically. It's an interview that took place on February 4 24, and apparently there were notes that Mr. Fasano took of 5 the meeting. Now on March 30 they are typed up and 6 transmitted. Do you know why that was?
7 A No, I don't.
8 Q Now, did you talk to other people in the period 9 before you wrote the March 10 memo, which is Exhibit 7 there, 10 summarizing your activities?
11 Did you talk to other people about Mr. Parks'
.O' 12 allegations -- let me rephrase that.
13 Did you interview other people to get information 14 about Mr. Parks' allegations, besides the ones that are 15 identified in this March 10 memo?
16 A I don't recall any.
17 Q Am I safe in assuming that you were trying, in i
18 this March 10 memo, to recount the activities you had engaged j l
19 in, and if you had spoken to someone else, gotten some l l
\
l l
l l 20 information, you would have probably put it down here? )
l l J
( 21 A Yes. 1 l l l 22 Q Let me ask you one specific individual. Did you j
($) .
I l ! ,
1 i l 1
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wwnn saa.s c-v anwas
__m._.
i l' !
l l l i L 29707.0 ,
cox 85 !
1 discuss with a Bechtel employee named Rich Gallagher, Mr. j L 2 Parks' concerns prior to this March 10 memorandum? !
I 3 A I don't believe I did. !
l \
l 4 Q Do you know Mr. Gallagher; does that name mean !
l l I 5 something to you? l l
l 6 A The same sounds familiar, but I don't believe I ;
7 had any extended contact with him at the Island.
8 Q The reason I ask is Mr. Gallagher's name does not 9 appear in your report of Mr. Parks' allegation, that's 10 Exhibit 1; right?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Talks about Mr. Kitler and Mr. Hansen. I see in 13 your Exhibit 7, March 10, you report that you interviewed or 14 spoke to Mr. Kitler and Mr. Hansen; right?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q If Mr. Parks had told you on February 18 that 17 Mr. Gallagher was involved in some way in the possible threat 18 and transfer, do you believe you would have tried to speak to 19 Mr. Gallagher?
20 A Yes, I do.
21 i Q If you had spoken to Mr. Gallagher, you would have 22 recorded it in your March 10 memorandum?
() !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M G336 4 46
29707.0 l cox 86 l
l 1 A That's correct.
2 Q After you completed the investigation, or, let me 3 just put a time on it. On March 25, you and Mr. Barrett -- I 4 am sorry.
5 February 25, you and Mr. Barrett met again with 6 Mr. Parks to update him on what.you have done; right?
7 A I don't recall the date, but, yes, we did meet 8 with Mr. Barrett.
t 9 Q Mr. Parks reports on February 8 that the afternoon 10 of February 24 he caucused the staff -- I am reading on page 11 2 of Exhibit 8.
I i 12 .
L 13 Q Mr. Barrett reports on page 2 he caucused the 14 staff on the afternoon of February 24 and summarized our l 15 findings and informed the region; and then with their !
l 16 concurrence, we set up a meeting to tell Parks the results of 17 our inquiry on February 25.
18 Who did Mr. Barrett -- did you and Mr. Barrett 19 talk on the 24th about where you stood in getting ready to 20 meet with Mr. Parks on that next day? ,
l 21 i A I don't recall the specific meeting, but I would 22 have been involved with the staff in that particular O
I l ACE-FEDER.AL REPORTERS, INC.
l , 3 .ne, ~._ m- -n-
I 29707.0 l cox 87
'IT
!.V l
L 1 meeting.
2 Q Who would the staff have included for this 1
3 -meeting?
l 4 A I can only guess.
5 Q' Fasano, probably?
6 A Yes, Fasano, Grant, myself, Barrett, possibly, 7 Poindexter, if he happened to be'at the Island.
8 Q Gage?
9 A Possibly Gage. I don't recall; and another i 10 individual by the name of George Kalman might have been g 11 there. I don't know. If the whole staff was involved we v* ,
12 would have had our health physics staff there also. I 13 Q Whose Mr. Kalman, you mentioned Mr. Kalman?'
14 A He is an engineer associated with the Three Mile 15 Island office or was at this time.
16 Q Did he have any specific responsibilities 17 regarding the polar crane?
l 18 A I believe he did.
19 Q So you are saying that you could assume that he
} might have been there, but you don't remember specifically-20 t t
21 l whether he was or not?
22 A No.
O i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C-347-37(0 Natior:u ide Cos erage 8@33MM6
7 i
l 29707.0-l cox 88 1
.b '
1 Q You don't have any recollection of this caucusing 2 of the staff that Mr. Barrett refers to?
3 A No, I do not.
4 Q But, in any event at some date you and 5 Mr. Barrett, the record reflects it was February 25, did sit 6 down with Mr. Parks to recount to him the results of your I'
7 investigation?
8 l A That's correct.
l 9 Q That meeting with -- was it just the three of you, 10 by the way, who met on February 25; you, Barrett and Parks?
11 A I believe it was. {
12 Q And that meeting is referred to or discussed at 1
13 the end of your March 10 memorandum, Exhibit 7.
14 A The March 10 document does not reflect the date of 15 when I discussed the situation with Parks.
16 Q Right. You don't recall the date, but you only i 17 had, did you not, three meetings with Parks, the first when IB l he came to you with his allegation, which is reflected in 19 ! Exhibit 1. The second when you and Mr. Barrett sat down with 20 Parks; and then a later one when Mr. Parks came to you with a ]
j 21 subsequent allegation, which we haven't gotten to yet. Is i l
22 ! that right? )
(2) l l i i i !
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37((I Nationwide Emerage b@ 33M646 li O
t:
l I- 29707.O I cox 89 lO 1 A To the best of my recollection, that is a 2 recollection that is true. However, I may have talked-to him l
3 by telephone. I don't recall.
l l 4 Q But the discussion that is referred to~at the end 1
5 of your memorandum, doesn't that refer to your meeting with 6 Mr. Barrett and Mr. Parks?
7 A I don't know. l l
8 MR. HICKEY: I will tell you what, it's 9 lunchtime. Let me ask, if you will, while we break for ,
i
'unch, if you will look at Mr. Barrett's memorandum which is 10 l 11 Wiebe Exhibit 8, at the bottom of page 2, and then your 12 memorandum. There is an account of some meetings with l 13- Mr. Parks. Mgbe if you would look at that, that will 14 refresh your recollection. And then after lunch we can try 15 to discuss them in a little more expeditious manner. 12:10 16 to ::00 17 (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the deposition was 18 adjourned, to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. this same day.)
1 19 1 l I 20 F l I
21 1
22 1
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2"2""' "'"""""'""" """ "
~
j
1 1
l l~
l l
29707.0 )
cox 90 l i l
! 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1 00 p.m. )
l l 2- Whereupon, I
3 JOEL WIEBE i 1
l l 4 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, was l
l 5 examined and testified further as follows: !
[
l L 6 EXAMINATION (Continued) l 7 BY MR. HICKEY:
8 Q Mr. Wiebe, before the lunch break, I had asked you l l
l 9 to look at portions of Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 to your l
10 deposition, your memorandum and Mr. Barrett's memorandum that g- 11 recount activities related to this investigation, in an I
12 effort to refresh your recollection about the meeting that 13 you and Mr. Barrett had with Mr. Parks on February 25, 14 according to Mr. Barrett's memorandum. Did you look at those ;
15 ! documents? !
16 A Yes, I did.
17 3 Q I want to see if I can get a couple of specific
! i 18 l things clear. First of all, you had told me this morning 19 l that you told Parks, when you saw him on the 18th, that you 20 would get back to him, or that there would be some ;
i l
21 follow-up.
22 ( Am I correct that you or Barrett or someone j O !
f J
l t
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-- ~ -- nc- 8-
F I
l l
l 29707.0 cox 91 l
l 1 apparently called Parks, or notified Parks in some way that 1
2 you were now ready to meet with him and have this follow up ,
l 3 meeting, and that's how he got in there on the 25th?
l 4 A I don't recall that,-but I assume that's what 5 happened.
6 Q Was there anyone else present besides yourself, 7 Barrett and Parks?
8 A No.
l 9 Q Did you take notes during that meeting?
l l l 10 A No. .j l
11 Q Did Barrctt?
l '
l 12 A I don't recall.
13 Q Did either of you have any written material that
- j. 14 you were using to brief Parks or to inform Parks about what l J
15 had happersed? ]
l 16 l A No, I don't believe so. j 17 Q So you were just basically recounting from memory !
l 18 ) the events that had occurred during the week or so that had 1
19 intervened?
20 $ A Yes. j I
1 21 h Q Did both you and Mr. Barrett participate in the I
! conversation, oz was it just one, while the other listened?
22
() !
, i i i
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 .M7- 37(Xi Nanonwide Cmcrap #4 3.W(646
- - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - )
v 1
l l
i 29707.0 h Lcox 92 LO 1 A I don't recall.
2 Q Is there likelihood in those circumstances that l
3 the two of you would have both discussed this matter with l
I 4 Mr. Parks?
l l
5 A In the presence of Mr. Barrett, I probably would 6 have deferred any questioning and comments to Barrett.
7 Q Well, did the two memoranda say -- Exhibit 7-says, 8 signed by you, "I discussed the situation with Parks," and 9 then says a bunch of things that you apparently told him. "I 10 ! could find no evidence to verify or refute his allegation. I 11 informed him I would inform the office of investigations. I S<
12 asked him if he wanted the NRC to take additional action," et 13 cetera.
14 Then Exhibit 8, which is Mr. Barrett's memorandum, 15 Mr. Barrett says that he told Mr. Parks some of those same 16 things. That suggests to me that probably both of you 17 participated in the conversation. You just don't recall; is 1
that right?
18 )]
1' 19 A It could have been two different instances where, 20 in one case, discussed it with Parks, and in the other. case, 21 Darrett, I and Parks discussed it. I don't recall --
22 Q You kind of suggested that this merning. I wasn't !
() 4(
i j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, n- ~_+v-, s< ~ ~s I
~29707.0 cox. 93 O
1 sure what the basis.
2 Your basis for that was. Do you have some basia, 3 belief or recollection that there was an instance where you 4 alone discussed the situation with Parks, and that is 5- something different fron the time when you, Barrett and Parks 6 sat down on February 25; is that what you are suggesting?
7 A It's possible.
8 I
Q Why do you th_ ink that? What do you mean "it's
, 9 possible"?
10 A The way it's worded here, in my March.10 letter, I
. 11 don't identify Barrett as being there.
(' J 12 !
Q Well, Parks' affidavit doesn't refer to any 13- discussions with you,'except on February 18, when he first 14 came, February 25, when he met with you and Barrett, and he 15 puts Barrett there and Barrett says Barrett was there. 7 hen 16 later on on March 10, you are saying you don't have any fl 17 0 specific recollection of a meeting with just you and Parks, 18 other than February 18 and March 10?
19 .
A No, I don't.
i l
20 ! Q But the way this March 10 memorandum is worded, I
i l 21 0 you are speculating that perhaps there was some saparate l
l 22 l meeting?
l (:)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i mm., ~ _m o- -
i- __m
'29707.0 cox- 94 I
1 A- Possibly. Possibly I discussed this stuff by 2' ( telephone with h.im; I don't know.
3 Q Well, the substance of what is discussed is almost' 4 the same in your memorandum of March.10, as it is in 4
5 Mr. Barrett's. ,
6 A That's correct.
7 Q That is, in both instances, the indication is that 8 one or the other of you told Parks that you found no safety 9 issues, that you found no evidence of threats, and that if.he 10 wanted, he could have an investigation, you could refer to OI 6 11 for further investigation. So I am trying to press you for d
12 .
any substantive basis that you have for thinking that there a
13 was some separate meeting, because none of the other 14 documents seemed to indicate tha t there was another meeting.
15 A I don't have any other basis for that, except for 16 What is written here. It's possible that I discussed it with 17 Parks by telephone, and then we had a meeting in Lake's 18 office, but the only basis for that is the way it's written l
19 here.
]
l 20 Q Okay Maybe something else will throw some light l 1 \
21 on that. Perhaps your log -- if you had had a telephone {
22 conversation with Parks, to give him this sun, mary of the l O i i
l ,
1 .
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (
-- x _-- ~~ ,
_ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ __. - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =_- __ _ _ _ _ ______ ___ ___
i l
i i
i 29707.0 l cox 95 'l 1 results of your investigation, would you have maybe entered )
2 it in your log? '
3 A I probably would not have, b e c au s'e , for instance, ,
d 4 I wa's giving information to Parks, and I wasn't getting. ]
5 .information from Parks.
6 Q Well, in any event, your understanding of the 1 7 conclusion of the matter, whether it was a telephone 8 conversation followed by a Bar2ett, Wiebe, Parks meeting, or 9 whether it was just one meeting, the conclusion of it was :
10 that you and the rest of the people who participated did not 11 find evidence to indicate that Parks had been threatened; s
12 isn't that right?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q I am talking as of February 25 when you met with i
15 l Parks, or March 10 when you wrote this memorandum.
1 16 A That's correct.
l 17 i Q And similarly, you and/or Barrett asked Parks !
l 18 whether he had any specific safety issues, or anything that l
19 y he thought was unsafe; and he said no; isn't that right?
20 A If I recall correctly, it was any specific saf6ty !
l l 21 issues in addition to the ones he had already raised with the l
l 22 polar crane, and he said no.
(I) :
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~~~""~" * * "
- i _ _ -- - - _ 2""""
29707.0 cox 96 1 Q You have some specific recollection of those.words 2 being used, is that it, or are you referring to some portion l
3 of this memorandum?
4 A That's the way I recall it. It's not specifically I 5 identified in the memorandums.
6 Q Is it your testimony that you hava a recollection 7 of Parks specifically identifying his concerns -- I am sorry 8 let me rephrase that.
9 Is it your recollection today that during this l
10 meeting with Barrett and Parks, Barrett asked him whether he i 11 , had any specific safety issues other than the polar crane, do jN-g) l I'
12 you have a specific recollection of the question being put l
l 13 that way?
l 14 A No, I do not.
15 Q I was going to go say, it didn't appear to me that 1
16 you had much of a specific recollection about the details of 17 the meeting.
18 Tnerc) is nothing in the memorandum that suggests 19 that the question was put that way?
l 20 d A That's correct.
O I 21 Q Indeed, if you rely on Mr. Barrett's version of 22 l it, look at page 2 of Barrett's memorandum, Exhibit 8,
() i i
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - * " ~ " " - '
E__ _ _ 2" " """
29707.0 cox 97 0
1 Barrett says at the bottom, "I asked ~if he had any specific 2 safety issues'concerning the. crane or anything else at Three 3 Mile Island that he thought was unsafe. He said no, but that 4 he just had general concerns about administrative procedures 5 and harassment."
6 Is that your best. recollection of what was said at 7 that. meeting?
8 MR. JOHNSON: He has already raid he does not 9 recall the specifics, if you are asking whether he would 10 agree with that statement.
11 BY MR. HICKEY:
Os . I 12 ' -
Q Do you have any basis for disagreeing with what 13 Mr. Barrett has said here?
14 A No, I would have to refer to Parks' specific 15 comments on the polar crane, because he did have some 16 comments on the polar crane that I think he had problems 17 with. I don't think he is ruling -- I don't think Parks at 18 that time retracted those concerns, 19 Q My question is, uhat was said in the meeting that l- 20 you and B&rrett had with Parks?
I l
21 A I don't recall the specifics, l
22 Q You dcn't have any basis for thinking that l
I l
()
4 i
i
! ACE'-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
E_i " " ' " - - " - - ""'-
1 T
29707.0
-cox 98
)
1 Mr. Barrett's account of the meeting is inaccurate; do you?
2 A The only basic I have is that I don't believe 3 Parks intended to retract his concerns about the polar 4 crane.
5 Q Why don't you believe that?
j 6 A Because it is not documented in that fashion.
7 Q I don't understand what you are saying.
1 8 A If Parks had reattracted his concerns about the 9 polar crane at thic point, I believe I would have documented 1 1 10 that.
!1 Q Parks' concerns about the polar crane related-to l 12 l administrative procedures and the nonepnpliance_with them; f
l 13 l did they not?
l l l 14 A Well, that might have involved safety issues.
15 Q That's not my question. My question is whether 4
l 16 Parks told you -- all you can remember about what Parks told '
)
17 l you is what is in Wiebe Exhibit 1, the record of his report 18 is what you have testified to; is that right?
19 A At that point, yes.
1 1
20 Q I mean at this point, today.
l 21 A I am aware that Parks did have specific comments l'
22 about the polar crane, I believe it was the polar crane SER (2) l i
l : ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 :<c a s2-3x,> mi.os.ioc co e, se -<3wsus I. .
)
f' 29707.0 cox 99 O) u -
- 1 and the polar crane test procedures; and I don't believe --
1
-2 MR. JOHNSON: In fairness to the witness --
3 MR. HICKEY: He hasn't finished.
4 MR. JOHNSON: Go ahead.
5 THE WITNESS: I don't believe he intended to 6 retract those concerns at that meeting with Barrett and 7 myself.
8 BY MR. HICKEY: ,
9 Q Well, the reason that you believe Parks had those 10 concerns is that because you read them later in his 11 ;
affidavit; is that right?
Ou 12 A I am not sure that's the specific area where I got 13 those. I know that Parks had a list of issues or concerns he i 14 had with those procedures. l I
l 15 Q When did he have this list? 1 l
16 A I don't know when that was produced.
]
1 17 Q But the question that I am trying to focus you on, )
i l
18 ! Mr. Wiebe, is what Parks told you when he came to you to 19 present his complaints; all right. I think your testimony is j 20 , that vou can't tell us anything about what he told you when 21 l he came on February 18, except to the extent that it's l
22 l recorded in Wiebe Exhibit 1.
O ! !
l r
i I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
> ~ ~ ~ -- + n- --
(
29707.0 '
cox 100' l 1 A That is. correct.
. 2 Q What is recorded in Exhibit i relates to the " Rick l
l l 3 Parks alleges that the polar crane test does not comply with 4 administrative procedures."
5 You have got it there in front of you. You can 6 read along. He also alleges that the polar crane functional 7 test was not performed in accordance with AP'1047, that's 8 " administrative procedure," and AP.1043. Then he goes on to !
9 talk about his transfer threats.
l 10 Now, if you have some additional recollection of f 11 the details of what Mr. Parks told you on February 18, I O*s 1 12 would be interested in hearing it, because I tried to elicit 13 that earlier. I thought your testimony was that your memory i
14 just didn't have any of that in it; is that right?
l 15 A That's correct, i
16 MR. JOHNSON: Can I try to clarify something.
17 This round of questioning that you started with, the 2/25 !
1 18 t meeting with Mr. Barrett, Mr. Wiebe, Mr. Parks; and you l k
19 h started asking him concerning whether at that meeting, 1
20 Mr. Parks raised other safety concerns,, or whether he said he i l
21 whs satisfied that they were being addressed or a conclusion i
22 that Mr. Barrett makes in his recount in this Exhibit Number 1 (1) l i
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 M7-3?On Nationwid2 Coverage 8CXh3M(646 l
l l l
l l 29707.0 I cox 101 I l
1 8; and then we kind of went a little bit afield and then we !
2 have gone back to the support of allegations, so it seems to 3 me the record is somewhat unclear what you were originally --
4 whether now you were asking about the report of allegation; 5 but originally you started asking about what he learned and j 6 what he knew and what he understood at that meeting on the 7 25th, so I think there is some' confusion.
8 BY MR. HICKEY:
l 9 Q Let me try to clear it up. Going back to-the 10 report of allegations was because, Mr. Wiebe, you didn't talk g~g 11 about that you understood Mr. Parks withdrew any complaints U
12 at the meeting on February 25; and my question to you was 13 directed at what you knew about what his complaints were, and 14 the evidence of that is what is in Exhibit 1 is what you know 15 about what Parks' complaints were.
16 A He alleged that because of his comments on the knh 17 polar crane 4, W test procedure and polar crane functional 18 t e s t protktW L. c _}e c i r ed, that he was being told by Bechtel 19 engineering management that they wanted him transferred 20 off-site.
21 .j What I am relating to is those comments on the 22 f polar crane, which he did not go over with me at this I'T !
U l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
acom ~ ._m - mm
1, l
29707.0 l .cox 102
^O
! ;L/
1 1 1 meeting. However, I know they exist.
1 2 Q He didn't go over them with you at either meeting, l 3 at either February 18 or February 2E.
4 A correct. So I don't believe he intended to 5 retract those comments on those procedures.
6 Q All right. But, nonetheless, to the best of your-7 recollection, you don't have any reason to think that 8 Mr. Barrett's recounting of the February 25 meeting is 9 inaccurate when he says he asked Parks if he had any specific 10 safety issues concerning the crane, and he said no.
11 MR. JOHNSON: Is there a question pending?
O.
12 MR. HICKEY: Yes, there is a question pending.
13 BY MR. HICKEY:
l 14 Q You don't have any basis for thinning that this is 1
15 inaccurate, what Barrett said here?
16 MR. JOHNSON: I think he answered the question i
17 before.
18 0 BY MR. HICKEY:
1 19 Q I didn't hear an answer.
l 20 A I said, yes, the basis I have for that is that I l l
21 know that Parks had comments on the polar crane procedures, 22 and he did not intend to retract those at that meeting.
O :
1 l
0 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I d 202 347-3700 Nanonwide coveraye WXL3 % 6 W (
29707.0 cox 103
(
1 Q Well, didn't you see this memorandum in March when 2 Mr. Barrett prepared it? I thought you testified earlier 3 that you believed you had.
4 A I probably did.
5 Q Did you go to Mr. Barrett and say there was a
]
6 terrible error in here and you had mischaracterized 7 Mr. Parks' statements? ;
8 A No, I don't believe I did at that time.
9 Q Did you tell Mr. Parks or Mr. Barrett on February 10 28, that there was still more work to do, you were going to I
q 11 do more work, or you were basically done?
V 12 .
A I believe on page 3 of the Barrett memorandum, 13 Exhibit 8, it indicates that there were two formal inspection 14 report items that directly came from the result of our l
15 inquiry. There were open items 8202 and 8203. These items f 16 were left open for possible enforecment action if we gained 17 ;
more information.
Q Did you tell Mr. Parks those were open items?
18 l 19 i A I don't recall specifically, but I assume we would i 20 have.
i 21 Q Do you recall offering Mr. Parks on the 25th the
) 22 1
j opportunity to have a formal investigation of the allegations 4 4
O j i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(M) Nationwide Coverage 8(n 33(r(M6 J
29707.0- !
. cox 104 j O l 1 he had made, undertaken by the office of investigations, and )
l 1 2 him indicating he didn't want to have that done? l 3 .A Yes, that was documented.
- 4. Q Do you recall that the reason that he didn't feel !
5 it was necessary to have this investigation undertaken at ;
6 this time, this formal investigation, was because he was 7 ,
satisfied that his concerns were being addressed?- !
l I
8 A Yes. !
9 Q Let me take you back to the evening before this 10 meeting we have been talking about on the 25th. On the ;
11 evening of February 24, Mr. King was suspended from his 12 position and left the site at the end of the day, basically; l
13 and I believe, from some of these documents you have produced 14 here, and other sources, that Mr. King called you at home on 15 the evening of February 24. !
16 It's listed in this chronology that you gave.me, 17 this Exhibit 7 -- 6, I am sorry. "2/24/83, Larry King called l
18 Joel Wiebe at home and told him his badge had been taken," et i
/
19 cetera.
20 When Mr. King called you at home on the evening of j 21 l the 24th, he indicated to you, did he not, that he believed i
22 l he had been suspended or his badge taken, because he had O !
- i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmm ~_m- ~~
1 Q
% .[
>s 1
29707.0 1,'1 cox ,
10,5 e l') , ' , '
, , n! -' c
\/ , ,
',- .i .
/c i, 1 spoken to you in the'vael'pke'echng c that, or the few days r '
j c
2 preceding that? v, -
I ?
t c/ .
.3 A Yes.
1.
f 4 Q Was he-angry'6r irritate? with you? -
p
,. e y <
9']
ft t No.
5 A '
,i g
\ ,,- / i. {
6 Q Did he suggest that you had breached a confiden,ce
( L 7 or disclosed in some way Stat he was esoperating with the NRC '
- 4
\ )' '
8 and that's what had gotten him into trondle?
9 A I don't believs-so. f ,. ' - s I' .\
10 Q Did he tell. you why he had $V o 3 suspended , '
~
I~ U 11 to Quill Tech?
12 A I am looking at theMarcpl11letterfromflyselfto.
I- ,
13 Christopher. I guess that doesn't?!j,fer to that meeting'with e ,
14 King. / 'e D , ^ j 15 l Q I do,t't think it does' l
16 A I don't recall him mentioning specifically why.
17 Q What did he call you for?
p l
j ,
18 l A To inform me th'at his badge had been Lemoved from 3 d
l '
19 the site, and he had been escortied of f-site,, and he probabli <
l'
' l I ,
felt this action had been taken orcrase he had talked with me 20 .
1
' '~
1 21 earlier.
)
22 .
Q Did he suggert to you that he felt it'.-as improper '
lO !
c l
~
l ,
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,]NC.
i {
i m u,. ___ m_
-- __-.-_--_----___--_.______.--_l___.
y )j 3. )- re , , ,
. , , , z
- t I J ,,
't t. ,
. . . . , 7 ,, 3.
.,' e.-r '
1, t >;
r
. b[,r
~ >
- y. '
"j ',
. 297 i -
./
l',b ej ay,07 . 0
~
/-
b ,' 106
\'
- X L !
3
< /
n >
[' ', i . J ., ',s['[l '}l or p: sng < or unjustified to Lake that action.against him?
/ >
1 l . c., .v >. - t 2 -/ 'A Yes, definitely.
/
' lll /
' -' 3 Q Did he sLggest -- di.i you ask him whether he had fd 4 been given ayy explanation for why he was being removed from 5 I .tne site'.i '
i ete t. ,.
t
' 9 ..
e
- ) df d
A I don't rbeall. '
.I ' '
!.,' 1 .
7 Q You wrote up, did you r:o'c, a report about your it s /. .
i.' '
j 5' No
/,.'),\/
B q phone conversation wiBh Mr. King?
'./ a ..
fg! '
? ) I' <
9 ) i ThiS refer? to a report of. allegation dated i
t'
)
p
'2 0 3/1)83, so I'assu*t.e.1 df.d write up tb6t report.
- \ i
' .. s e J '
11 'Q z cayt you reer that rJg;rt lately? I 1- 0 i p , p ,
- A iNo.
-12 li ' '
i i'
13 i' Q Is it in your :hrono.t ogical file?
, i r 14 ;
/
t
,. A I did not see it in there-
.i .' 1
,' ; )
15 ds Q Do you knou 1; the report' exists, Mr. Johnson?
Ns i s f '
w ,,.
16 ji \
MR. JOHNSON: It may.
5.A v ;t5 i Mr. HICKFY: The reportLof allecation dated 3/1 y Mj relating to tp.* telephone call to Joel Witbe?
- I l I i 19 , k MR. JOHNSON
- It's quite possible it does exist. l
. g.
. ' (, ('7 . , f u
\
N'
'20 I mes,have seen it f, -
l i
(
21 f; I MH. HICKEY: Do yo t know if tnat's a document that )
o 22 [ is beine withheld under some c.b im of privilege?
i g i
9 ll ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.. $o .
al ,
m- ~ _ _ - __
l
, , .4
'j
.j 7, ~
o I 4 ,
,j 29ic7,0 e
~n,.
coye 107 4 .
g h , ,, .
. t c
- 1. j Y MR. JOHNSON: I don't think it's a document that a
'2-f.,
l 'idh,been requested. And if it was, we would have objected to j o, .
i 3 .it hsing produced, since it has to do with Larry King in-4 these allegations.
s 4]
5 .
fNl HICKEY: I take it it has to do with Mr. King 6 g. And; Quill Tech. Let me put it to you this way -- by the.way,
(
7 j' I suspect you will find that it's called for, if not I
'I 8 lt previously, and I think it was previously requested, in our 9 third request for document' production, which was recently
. i
]'elrvedonyou, 10 t g- .i 1
11 & .i MR. JOHNSONe I understand.
-t j 12 MR. HICKEY: If you feel inclined to object, you 13 will certainly have an opportunity.
14 BY MR. HICKEY: i 19f Q The subject of Larry King was discussed by you and i
16 Mr. Parks and Mr. Barrett'on February the 25th; wasn't it?
2 l
17 1 A I don't recall the specifics.
l t
1 k
y 18 j Q I am just askingc whether the subject was U> 19 $: discussed. Do you remember that or don't you remember that?
4 . c. y j 1 20 A I don't recall.
( l li i 21 Q You don't recall.the subject coming up at all?
l
. , 22 ! -A I don't recall whether it came up or not.
LO [
1 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, nu. ~_a c- --
-_uL__--_-__._______-____
p 29707.0 L .cox 108 L O.
1 Q Was it big news around'the site that Mr. King had 1
2 :been suspended? Was that a subject of some general l
3 discussion when you came to work the next day after your 4 phone call from King?
5 A I don't recall.
6 Q I assume you briefed Mr. Barrett about this phone-1 l
7 call from King?
8 A Yes.
I 1
9 Q Did you do it that night that you got the phone 1
10 call, or did you wait until the next day?
g~ 11 A I would have done it that night.
1 12 Q Is it sufficiently significant in your mind that 13 you would call your supervisor at home and tell him?
]
i 14 A Yes.
l 15 Q Mr. Barrett says, bottom of page 2, Exhibit 8, "We 16 also generally discussed the King suspension of the previous 17 night."
18 MR. JOHNSON: Excuse me, where is that?
19 MR. HICKEY: Bottom of page 2, Exhibit 8, next to 20 the last sentence.
21 BY MR. HICKEY:
27 Q Don't you remember discussing that with O
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m2 3>. ~ _ - - ->~
)
29707.0 )
cox 109 1 Mr. Barrett and Mr. Parks on the 25th?
2 A No, I do not.
3 Q Do you remember discussing at all with Mr. Parks 4 whether that King incident had any impact on Parks' concerns?
5 A I don't recall.
6 Q Can you think of any reason why you would have 7 been discussing with Mr. Parks the suspension of Mr. King, as B you apparently were?
9 A Not unless Mr. Parks brought.it up.
10 Q Mr. Parks was in there, in part, because he was gg 11 concerned about being harassed and transferred; does that (d
12 suggest to you any reason as to why he might bring up 13 l Mr. King's suspension?
l \
14 l A I can only speculate on that.
I 1 l 15 Q Did you ask Mr. Parks on the 25th whether 16 l Mr. Parks had any involvement with Mr. King and Mr. King's l
17 l company equaled Quill Tech?
i 18 j A I don't recall.
19 MR. HICKEY: Let me refer you, Mr. Johnson, if you l
l 20 want to look on or let the witness read along, Mr. Parks' 21 !
affidavit, page 29, bottom of the page, and continuing on to 1
22 page 30.
1 .
l l 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
- >m xm_ o- ->m
- - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ ._- -_ -_ -_ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ _ - - _ _ - _ .
2 29707.0 cox 110 1 MR. JOHNSON: Starting at the very bottom?
2 MR. HICKEY: Yes. He is referring to the February 3 25 meeting, and he describes it in the paragraphs above, as 4 being a meeting of Joel Wiebe, Lake Barrett and Parks. He 5 says, "Barrett and I also discussed at length the firing of 6 Larry King. I expressed my belief that Larry King had been 7 fired for raising safety concerns. I added that I felt ,
8 similarly vulnerable because I had raised the same type of 9 issues as Larry and Ed Gischel." Goes on and then concludes i
10 "with respect to my fears, Barrett said the NRC could not do eS. 11 anything until the action occurred."
s.)
12 BY MR. HICKEY:
13 Q Does any of that refresh your recollection at all, 14 Mr. Wiebe, to that subject being discussed with Mr. Barrett?
15 A No, I don't recall that.
16 Q When you met -- if you will look at Exhibit 2, in 17 1 your interview by Mr. McKenna on August 15, it's the fifth l
18 page of that memorandum, it's unnumbered. Mr. McKenna 19 l reports that you then recalled that the February 24, 1983, 20 suspension of King was then discussed, referring to this I
21 February 25 meeting. You opined that Parks was intimating l 22 that King's suspension was also a form of reprisal. Does i C) l l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC
- ~m - - ~~
29707.0 cox 111 ym b
1 that refresh your recollection at all about discussing.that 2 subject?
3 A No.
4 Q You don't have any reason to think this Exhibit 2 5 is inaccurate though?
6 A No, I believe it is accurate.
7 Q The question I am really interested in is whether 8 you asked Mr. Parks anything about his involvement with Quill 9 Tech; or is your testimony you just can't remember at all?
10 A I don't recall.
s 11 Q How did Mr. Parks respond to this report by you 12 and Mr. Barrett of what you had found and what your 13 conclusions were?
14 A I believe they were well received.
15 Q You mean, he seemed to be pleased? What do you 16 mean by "well received"?
17 A I don't believe he had any objections to what we 18 found.
19 g Q He didn't challenge your findings and say you were i
20 wrong or had missed the boat or anything like that?
21 A No.
22 Q Let me give you a specific. You apparently told i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347d700 Nanonwide Coverage RO 3M&E
29707.0 cox 112
%J I him about the fact that these calculations had been checked, 2 that you had done a surprise visit, not you personally, but 3 l your office had'done a surprise investigation in Gaithersburg l
4 and found that his fears that +he calculations didn't exist 5 were inadequate or not supported. You don't recall him 1
6 challenging that finding of yours in any way; do you recall?
7 A I don't recall that, no.
8 Q Did he express any gratitude to you all for 9 looking into his concerns and showing this interest?
10 A I don't believe so.
11 Q Did he indicate he was going to do anything more, 12 himself, after?
l 13 A No, I don't believe he did.
14 Q To the best of your recollection, did Mr. Parks 1
15 appear to be satisfied with the inquiry that you all had ,
\
1 i l
16 f made?
l 17 I am not sure he felt that he was satisfied. He l A
! i l 18 l still indicated he had general concerns about administrative f I
l 19 procedures and management.
l 20 Q But other than that?
l l 21 A Other than that, there was no other indication.
l l 22 Q I take it, if he would have made a statement to l C) 1 i
1 i
L l-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
a m m >4>. ~ _ . < - m_.
l l
l' 29707.0 L cox 113 1
1 you that expressed specific additional allegations or L
2 specific dissatisfaction with your findings, you or 1
3 Mr. Barrett would have recorded it; wouldn't you?
4 A Yes, I believe we would have.
l l 5 Q I may have asked you this, but I am not certain.
6 The first time that Mr. Parks came to see you, do you have 1
l 7 any recollection about his demeanor or attitude or any 1
8 impression of how he appeared during that first February 19 l
[ 9. meeting when he came to tell you his allegation?
I l 10 A There was'no specific demeanor or attitude that l
l l f-) 11 stood out. I don't recall anything unusual.
l ~ kJ 12 Q Just to kind of tie it up. The telephone 13 conversation you had with Mr. King the night before, on 14 February 24, */ou have no recollection of it other than what 15 is related in these brief references?
I, 16 A That's correct.
17 Q Specifically, you don't recall discussing Quill 18 ,
Tech with him?
I i 19 ! A No, I don't.
20 Q So Exhibit 7, the one you prepared, you have one 21 j more document to come, but Exhibit 7 is the best record of 22 i what you are able to recall about your investigation of C:) i I
I l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, m- s . . o- mm-
L l 29707.0 l .
cox- 114 1.
1 Mr. Parks' complaint. .
That's your March 10 memo?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q Is there any part of that memorandum that you 4 think is inaccurate or that you have got any doubts about?
5 A No.
6 MR. HICKEY: Now, I should mark the last document 7 that you have just referred to, which is your March 11 8 memorandum. Do you have-a copy of it there, Mr. Wiebe?
l 9 A Yes, we do.
l 10 MR. HICKEY: This will be Wiebe Exhibit 10.
1 b I 11 (Wiebe Exhibit 10 identified. ) l l 0c '
12 MR. HICKEY: It's Mr. Wiebe's memorandum, March !
l 13 11, 1983, to Mr. Christopher.
1 b l 14 BY MR. HICKEY:
15 Q This Wiebe Exhibit 10 reflects the fact that you 16 ,
have another telephone, another contact from Mr. Parks on i
i 17 I March 10, 1983, initiated by a telephone call and then a 18 meeting; do you recall that, Mr. Wiebe?
19 A I recall Parks and Hrbac coming over to me. I 20 don't remember the specific date that is listed here.
21 Q In between the time you had your meeting with 22 Mr. Barrett and Mr. Parks and the time Mr. Parks and Hrbac O !
(
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m >,,. x _ m c_e. m_ i
'29707.0' cox- 115 JO l' .came to see you, did you do anything with regard to his l
l 2 allegations or related to the polar crane?
3 A I don't recall.
4 Q The documentation that you have been provided 5 doesn't reflect any activities by you in that time frame in 6 between February 25 and March 10. But I am wondering if 7 there was anything else you can remember?
8 A I can't remember any.
9 Q But on March 10, Mr. Parks called you, wanted to 10 have another meeting, and then came over with Mr. Hrbac; 11 right? What do you remember about that meeting, Mr. Wiebe?
12 A The only thing I can remember is what is listed, 13 and to refresh my memory in the memorandum, basically Parks I
14 ) told me that he had information from King, Bob Arnold was 1
15 trying to get King to reveal a connection between Parks and 16 King's consulting firm, Quill Tech. And Parks interpreted QoY" 17 this as GPU trying to set him up to be firedg coming to the gr #
i 18 NRC with his allegations. J 19 Q Did you prepare this memorandum which is dated ,
i 20 March 11, shortly after your meeting with Mr. Parks on the 21 10th?
22 A The memorandum indicates it was prepared on the (1) ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2Ll2-34L37(Ni Nationwide Coverage 8tx)- 3E(446
I 29707.0 ;
cox 116 U.
1 lith.
2 Q Do you know when.you. wrote it up though? You may 3 just indicate it was typed on the lith. Do you know when you 4 actually typed up the memorandum?
5 A No, I do not.
6 Q Did you utilize any notes to write up this 7 memorandum; do you recall?
8 A I don't recall.
9 Q If I under.*tand what you have written here, the l 10 parts you just read, Parks was telling you that GPU knew that gs- 11 Parks had come to the NRC; is that right?
( .
12 A Would you restate the question?
l l
l 13 Q Sure.
14 MR. JOHNSON: Could I just ask you to go off the 15 record for a second? '
1 16 MR. HICKEY: Sure.
17 (Discussion off the record.)
I 18 MR. HICKEY: Would you reread the last question, 19 please.
i 20 J (The reporter read the record as requested. ) l l 1 21 BY MR. HICKEY:
22 Q Do you have the question in mind, Mr. Wiebe?
LO l
L l
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mumm ~ _ m c_. -,_
l,
29707.0 l
_cox 117. !
=
1 A Yes.
l 2 Q Would you answer.
l 3 A According to the March 11 memo, it does indicate 4 that Parks felt that GPU was trying to set him up for coming I
5 to the NRC with his allegations, so he apparently thought 6 they. knew of it, j 7 Q Well, it certainly was your understanding, from 8 the original meeting with Mr. Parks, that you were going to 9 keep his coming to you confidential; isn't that right?
10 A That's correct. l q 11 Q You tried to do that; did you not?
'% )
12 A That's correct.
13 Q Didn't you have some discussion with Mr. Parks on 14 March 10 about whether or not you had complied with that 15 confidentiality?
16 A I don't recall.
17 Q He didn't raise it at all with you that GPU knew 18 he had been to the NRC?
- 19 A I don't recall.
( I 20 , Q Is there any other place where you would have 1
l 21 recorded the discussion or made any notes about this meeting 1
22 with Mr. Parks, because it seems to me it's likely that such
(:L '
( !
I l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L I l L _ _ -_ -- 2"" ""o - " ~ ~ - -"-
r-1.
l-ll 19707.0 L.
s cox 118 h
i l 1 a subject would have been discussed, even though you have 2 forgotten it'now. f l 3 A It's.possible there are notes in my logbook,'
l l 4 Q Did'you give a report'to Mr. Fasano after you had 5 this meeting with-Mr. Parks, written or oral?
l 6 A This. memo is through Fasano to Christopher.
7 Q I understand that, but my question is whether on 8 the 10th, after you had your meeting with Parks, in which 9 apparently Parks suggested that the confidentiality of his 10 communication to the NRC had somehow been breached, I am 11 asking whether you talk on the 10th to Mr. Fasano and your O.
12 supervisor about that?
13 A I don't recall.
la Q Do you have any reasonable estimate of whether you 15 would hs.ve discussed such a subject with him?
16 MR. JOHNSON: I would ask the witness not to 17 speculate. If he renembers, then he remembers.
i 18 THE WITNESG: I don't recall.
19 I BY MR. HICKEY:
20 l Q I am asking for something more than that. I take 21 it you were aware in March of 1983, February and March of 22 1983, that your obligation to keep confidential information O
i r
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cm crage 8in 3Et446
29707.0
. . cox 11S
) I 1 relating to allegations you receive was a serious one. You 2 knew that;.didn't you?
3 A Yes.
4 Q_ I assume also that in Narch of 1983, if someone 5 had suggested to you that that allegation had been breached, 6 you would view that as a serious matter; would you'not?
7 A Yes.
I 8 Q If you were informed of a serious matter, like the 9 breach of a confidentiality obligation, would you not, under ,
10 your normal practices, have disclosed that promptly to your g 11 supervisor?
12 A Normally, I would say yes.
l 13 Q So if Mr. Parks said to you that his 14 confidentiality had been breached, normally you would take I
15 sur an allegation to your supervisor, Mr. Fasano; wouldn't 16 youi 17 j A Yes.
18 l Q Wouldn't you also normally take it to Mr. Barrett, 19 l the head of the office of deputy director?
l 20 A Maybe not. I may not have.
21 Q When Mr. Parks told you that GPU was trying to set 22 him up, apparently by asking, by Mr. Arnold asking Mr. King
()
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I C- _ - - - --
= " " " " - ~ " - * " " "
- l
l.
l L )
l I '29707.0 l cox 120 k i l'
l 1 about Parks and Quill Tech, did you probe that at all with l.
2 Mr. Parks about why he thought that was setting him up?
3 A I don't recall.
4 Q Do you think it's likely or unlikely that you ;
5 would have attempted to learn from Mr. Parks the basis of the 6 charges that he was making?
7 A It's likely I would have, 8 , Q Is it likely you would have asked him about 9 whether he had any connection with Quill Tech or not?
10 A I don't know.
11 Q Was there any indication as to why Mr. Hrbac was 12 attending that meeting, from either Parks or Hrbac?
13 A No.
14 Q Your note reflects that Hrbac didn't say anything; 15 is that accurate?
16 A Yes.
17 !
Q Is that your recollection as best you can recall?
18 A As best as I can recall.
19 Q Let me refer you again to Mr. Pargs' aftidavit. ]
20 This is at page 45 and 46, the midule of page 45 is where it 21 begins. He states that when he came to your office, "I 22 stated that I wanted to request a special investigation."
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-- ~ _ . < - ,_
l1 o
29707.0 cox 121 ' -
f~) .
\_/. ,
1 '
1 Then he talk about Mr. King's phone call, his concern, and he 2 attributes to you the statement that you had been expecting 3 this, you were ready for him, and after giving him'a slip of 4 paper with.the Department of Labor address, and 5 Mr. Christopher's phone number, you said that the NRC's 6 official position was that it would not get involved,.b'ecause.
7 this is an employee / employer labor matter. i 8 ,
Do you remember Mr. Parks asking you for a special 9 investigation?
10 A I don't recall those speelfic words. I i
11 l Q If Mr. Parks had asked you for a special l 12 investigation, wouldn't'you have put that down in your 'l i
13 memorandum of the meeting?
14 A Not necessarily.
15 Q Why do you say that, Mr. Wiebe?
l !
l! l 16 ! A Because I would assume that his reason to come was :
4 17 i to requett an investigation, and I wouldn't think that would i
18 be necessary to put down in the memorandum. L 1
19 l Q Well, your memorandum, Exhibit 10, says that Parks i
20 called and asked for a meeting to discuss additional ,
i 21 inf ormation concerning his previous allegation. That doesn't ]
i 22 indicate that he called you to ask for any investigation; CE) I l r ; s l
l l l )
L
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l , _m., -~ -- ,
I l
- l. 297074 0 cox 122 l g(m/.
.1 does it?-
2- A I don't recall the phone call specifically, but 3 ~following the phone call, and'before I met with Parks, I did i'
4 talk this over with Keith Christopher and Tony Fasano.
5 0 What did you tell him?
6 A We assumed that Parks was coming over to request a j 7 'special investigation or an investigation by OI, and we !
8 wanted to know what OI's position would be, if they would 9 come in and do a special investigation.
10 Q What made'you and Mr. Fasano assume that that was 11 what Mr. Parks was coming over for?
12 A I don't recall.
i 13 j Q What did Mr. Christopher say?>
] \
14 ) A He indicated that the NRC agreement with 1 1
1 15 Department of Labor is to defer to a Department of Labor 16 f investigation, and then OI then reviews the Department of 17 Labor investigation and determines if any additional action i
18 j is necessary.
19 I -Q Do you recall Mr. Christopher giving you that l
20 l information on March 10?
i i 21 j A I don't recall the specific words, but I know i
22 i that's the sequence of events.
/~ 1
(_%) !
4 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. j s_ m. x_ m - . u_ ,
.___m___________.. _ _
l 29707.0
.. cox 123 l
() i l
1 Q Did you make.some record of Mr. Christopher's 2 advice to you, beyond this Exhibit.10?
3 A The only document I have is the somewhat cryptic 4 note that I handed you earli+3r on. that sheet of paper.
5 Q That's been marked as Wiebe Exhibit 5.
6 A Here, it is .
7 Q .It says "Keith, refer to the Department of Labor 8 for being fired for a safety issue." Right?
9 A I don't recall taking those notes but it appears 10 to refer to that phone call with Christopher. That's the
,y 11 j
only documentation I am aware of of that call.
V 12 MR. JOHNSON: That was Exhibit 2?
23 THE WITNESS: 5.
14 MR. HICKEY: No, it was Exhibit 5. l 15 THE WITNESS: I also show that in the March 11 16 letter in the last paragraph.
17 BY MR. HICKEY:
18 Q Yes. In Mr. Parks' affidavit, continuing on where 19 yl we were reading there from page 45, he states that Mr. Hrbac L
l 20 did have something to cay during this meeting; namely, both l 21 Hrbac and Parks expressed their concerns over how his l
l 22 confidentiality had been compromised and goes on to ask a l (Z) 1 1 ,
L
(
f i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
"" " - * " ~ "" -
C------ _ <
29707.0 cox 124
()
1 series of questions about what the NRC would do. The.way he .
2 relates it, I simply repeated that this would be a personnel f
3 matter for DOL if Parks were suddenly transferred, laid off 4 or fired. Is that what you told Mr. Parks?
5 A I don't recall that conversation.
6 Q Do you think you would have told'Mr. Parks 7 something like that? He is suggesting -- in other words, let 8 me put it to you this way, Mr. Wiebe, Parks is claiming,.
9 under oath, that he expressed to you concerns about how his i
10 confidentiality had been compromised; and that when he asked 11 you whether the NRC would do anything if he got fired or
( !
12 transferred, you told him, in effect, it wasn't our business, j 13 it was a personnel matter for DOL.
14 MR. JOHNSON: I don't think Mr. Wiebe --
15 MR. HICKEY: I don't have my question out yet --
l 16 MR. JOHNSON: No, but your foundation is 1
17 incorrect. He didn't recollect what was in the report other 18 than the report here. He said if he recollected -- he dn't j 19 have a specific recollection, but it appeared from the notes i
20 that Mr. Parks came in and said that he was being -- GP was )
t 1 21 '
trying to set him up to be fired for coming to the NRC with I
22 his allegation. I C) l l l 1 i
l i
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-- ~ ~ < - -- ;
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ l
i i
l L
29707.0 l
! -cox 125
'( ;
I MR. HICKEY: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a-l ;
2 . minute. I don't think it's really necessary for you to 3 reread that exhibit to the witness. 1
- 4. 4 MR. JOHN 90N: No. Whht I am saying to you is you 5 nade a statement about hin -- about whether he talked to j 6 Parks about the breach by the NRC of;'his confidentiality, and-7 that's not a premise that he agreed to. That was one of the 8 premises in your statement.
9 BY MR. HICKEY:
I 10 Q Let me put the question to you this way, 11 Mr. Wiebe, because I want to get what you can tell'us about 12 it. Richard Parks says, under oath, in this affidavit that 1
13 we have jus t read, that he said to you, what would the NRC do l 1
I 14 if I were.cuddenly transferred or fired; and you said to him, .
1 15 in substance, "that's not.a matter for us. That's a 16 personnel matter for DOL."
i 17 I am asking you if that's what you told i i 18 ! Mr. Parks. I, 19 4 A I don't recall.
I 20 i! Q Do you think he would have told Mr. Parks that, 21 l was that your view in March of 1983, that if Mr. Parks got l
22 ! fired, transferred or laid off, it wouldn't be a matter for (2) i i (j i'
I O
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I acwm smmam,,my .m.
? j 29707.0
.cox 126 (M
's,_/
1 the NRC?
2 A No. It's my understanding then and now that what l
~
3 we will do is defer our investigation to the Department of 4 Labor, and then we will review the Department of Labor 1 5 investigation and take any additional action that we consider 6 necessary.
7 .
Q Do you think Mr. Parks' affidavit is inaccurate, i
)
8 what I just read to you here at the bottom of page 45 and top 9 of page 46?
10 MR. JOHNSON I would ask you to.be epecific --
11 BY MR. HICKEY:
12 Q Maybe it:s not worth it. You are telling me, ,
13 Mr. Wiebe, you don't have any recollection cf what Mr. Parks 14 said in this meeting, other than what is said in Exhibit 11?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q Did you read Mr. Parks' affidavit when it came 17 out, March 24, 1983?
18 A Yes.
19 , Q Do you remember having any 'eaction to it?
20 l A Could you rephrase the question?
l' 21 Q Yes. What did you think when you read Mr. Parks' 22 affidavit? Wh6t did you think about its accuracy?
13 V
1 i ,
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
o-_--------_----------_---- j
- f '-
29707.0 cox 127 1 MR. JOHNSON: That covers a lot of ground.
2 MR. HICKEY: Right. It's the whole affidavit.
3 THE WITNESS: I don't recall all the specifics of 4 the affidavit.
5 BY MR. HICKEY:
6 Q Do you recall, in general, what was your reaction 7 was to the accuracy of Mr. Parks' affidavit?
8 MR. JOHNSON: I would object. I don't think it's 9 fair to the witness. There are hosts and hosts of ;
10 statements. Some are material to the case, some are 11 irrelevant to the case. Unless you direct him to some 12 portion of it, I don't think it's fair to the witness, since j l
13 he doesn't remember what -- I presume -- I don't remember at i
14 all what is in here, but I am certain he doesn't remember all' {
1 I
15 of what is in here. For him to try to recollect, not knowing d l
16 that, whether there was a specific thing or the whole thing, 17 y he doesn't recall -- I am sorry, whether he at that time l
18 believed that it was accurate or inaccurate is -- I think 19 it's not a fair question. l<
20 j BY MR. HICKEY: J I' \
21 Q I don't agree at all. I am asking you, if you !
i 22 have a recollection, because sometimes people recall their
() !
i l
i !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
f 2(C 347 370ti Natiotiwide Cm erage 8(43%W46 j
r l
l 29707.0 L . cox 128 l [.%/ ~)
^
~
l general reactions, even when they don't recall their specific !
f 2 details that prompted their reactionnt I am asking you if I
3 you have a recollection today, as you sit here, of what your-4 reaction was'to Mr. Parks' affidavit about its accuracy.
5 A Again, I don't know if I can answer that in l 6 general. Specifically, Parks' affidavit' indicated he -
.j 7 misunderstood someLof the issues as relating to why we 8 referred him to the Department of Labor.
9 Q Do you have any other recollection of y ur 10 reaction to the accuracy in general of Mr. Parks' affidavit?
11 A No.
12 Q Mr. Parks' affidavit contained a number of l 13 allegations relating to the activities of'the Three Mile i
14 Island Program Office; do you have any general recollection ]
i 15 as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of those? l
.a 16 A I don't recall the issues.
l 17 Q one of them was that the Three Mile Island Program 18 office had compromised its pledge of confidentiality to 19 Mr. Parks; that's what prompted the CIA allegation that led l l
20 to your interview of Mr. McKenna in August of '83.
21 At I don't believe that was accurate. l I
22 Q Mr. Parks had some comments in his affidavit that !
() 1 l
l I
1 l
\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
202-347-37(o Nationwide Courage 8@ 336-N4
-s d'
29707.0
.. cox 129 m
b 1 relate to the existence'of a mystery man who was involved in l
2 the accident that occurred at Three Mile Island in 1979 and 3 identifies the mystery man as being Mr. Kunder, who, 4 according to Parks, had turned off some safety injection 5 pumps during the~ accident. i 6 Do-you recall having a recollection -- having an 7 impression at the time about the accuracy of those comments 8 of Mr. Parks?
9 A I didn't know there was a mystery man when I read 10 his affidavit, so I --
g 11 Q You mean before you read it?
J 12 L Before I read it, I didn't'know-that.
13 Q Did you have an opinion about whether Mr. Parks 14 was accurate in his allegations about the mystery man?
15 A I had no basis to decide one way or another, 16 Q Did you talk to anybody in your office about it?
17 A No.
l l
18 Q The subject didn't come up at all?
19 A Not I recalled.
20 Q You never discussed it with Mr. Barrett, for 21 example, as best you can recall?
22 ) A Not that I can recall.
() !
l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 M7-3700 Nationwide Caverage MXL 336ML6
y__ - - - - _ . . - . _ . . . _ - . .
I:
I L
l 29707.0
. cox 130 l
1 Q. Or Mr. Fasano?
2- A I don't recall. I 3 Q On March 9,'the day before this meeting that we 4 have just been discussing with Mr. Parks, on March 9, you and 5 Mr. Fasano interviewed Mr. King at the NRC offices in j 6 l Middletown. Do you remember having an interview with 7 Mr. King and Mr. Fasano?
8 A Yes.
9 g
Q Did you discuss with Mr. King his involvement with 10 Quill Tech in that meeting?
11 A I don't recall.
_f-)
.V 12 Q Did you discuss with Mr. King whether Parks was 13 involved with Quill Tech?
14 A I don't recall.
15 Q In that March meeting, there is a reference --
16 there is a reference in your Exhibit 6, your chronology, 17 Mr. Wiebe, to a March 10 letter from you and Mr. Fasano to 18 l Mr. Christopher relating to your interview of Mr. King. Is 19 that something that you prepared shortly after the March 19 20 interview with Mr. King?
21 A I don't recall that letter.
22 Q Do you remember making any record of your meeting l
() 1 l (
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j
~ " " ~ ~"~"~~ ~"~~
_ _ - \
l l
L 29707.0
, cox 131
'l .with.Mr. King, your March 9 meeting?.
1 l- 2 A I don't recall any. =
L l 3 Q Mr. Barrett refers to the fact in his memorandum, ,
i' l Exhibit 8, that on March 18, if you will follow along, on f 4 i i
L 5 page 4 of Exhibit 8 there -- let me take a different tack.
1 6 Around the middle of March, there was a letter l'
l 7 sent from the committee chaired by congressman Udall l
l-8 indicating that they wished to obtain some information l 9 concerning the 1979 accident and cleanup activities, and l
l 10 Mr. Barrett was made aware of that letter, I believe. Do you l 11 have any recollection of being aware in mid-March that there
'(2) 12 was a Udall committee expression of interest in the cleanup 13 activities at Three Mile Island-2?
14 A I knew there was Congressional interest, but I 15 couldn't be specific to the Udall committee, or when that 16 , occurred.
17 Q Your note relates to Mr. -- I am sorry, your note i
18 f which is Exhibit 4, this handwritten note, has the name 19 "Craig Faust" on it. I can tell you that Mr. Faust was the 20 individual who was mentioned in the letter from the Udall 21 committee. Does that suggest to you or do you have any 22 recollection about Mr. Faust being involved or allegedly O
!! ACE-FEDERA'L REPORTERS, INC.
a mmm, s-- __
l H
1.
l l 29707.0 i
cox 132 LO 1 involved in the 1979 accident and specifically the mystery i
2 man allegations? !
3 A No, I don't remember the name.
4 0- Did you. participate in any way in. activities as 5 part of your job to investigate or learn about the Parks 6 allegations regarding the mystery man?
7 A I don't recall any, !
8 Q You talked earlier about being aware that 9 Mr. Parks had a press conference, and I gave you the date of I
10 March 23. Do you remember learning that Mr. Parks had a 11 press conference scheduled, or did you learn of it only after 12 it had occurred?
13 A I don't recall.
O 14 Q You didn't happen to attend the press conference, i
15 did you?
16 A No, I did not. ]
i I
17 Q Did you know George Kunder? )
18 A I interfaced with him periodically at the site.
19 Q I meant on a professional level? I l
l l 20 A Yes. ]
I 21 1 Q Did you have occasion to deal with him in the I l
22 course of your duties at Three Mile Island? )
C) !
l l
\ l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, n ~_ c- n n-
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _J
,---h ..) : .
.I .j 1
e
~
f; C 29707.0 L, yr /ti 135 ' A,.
cox i J. ,
, . , -- k i 1 A Yes. \L / '/
t c '
., m 2 Q Did you have enough contact with him to'fecm an
'- +
Tl !
3 opinion about his integrity?' . ,
3
\' i 8
\
4 A I dc;4't know if I can(comment on his iptegrityp,l 'e
,,j n , !
5 Q Did you fcrm.an opinion about his ability?s '- l'
- j. <?
6 A Ho-rMemed to be'an'fale engineer. I didt.'t have y 'r
. / s 7 any reservations about~ dealing with him on a professional h:'
8 basis. ..
9 Q I think you testified that when you read the 10 allegations ' a Mr. Parks ' affidavit about Mr. Kunder being a I; s-] :
l 11 mystery man,.that was the first that'you heard about such ga s ;
O 12 allegation; is that right?
, a i
i j ,; i,
-t i
13 A That's correct.
14 Q Did you hwe $ny opinion about whether that <
\
15 allegation was likely to be trueior not,.Mr. Parks' ,,
l s
< v ,,. ,
16 l allegatica?
l n i
- o. - ,p 17 j A I didn't have basis to Xoh'e that opinion.
18 Q Is there any discussion that'$ou participated in _.
1 19 l or were aware of after Mr. Parks' affidavit, about the l 20 ! reaction on-si te 'co Mr. Parks ' affidavit?
I 4 s 21 i A No, -
1 1
'i ,
22 Q Youdon'trememberanydiscubionofthat6 tall?
lO o
[l l l I ;
I 1 ace-FEDERAL. 'REPORTEE3, INC. h i mmnu s,, me c~y, mmm. ,
l .
8 rh .
a
/ l 1/[ ' 3, j
t '
\
i 29707.0 cox i -
134
< L l 1 'Iour answer is no? l i l; l
? A You mean from the licensret? i ll b
- 3) Q Prom anyone on the site, irc3uding the people who l
4 warkad with you in the Three Mile Irland program. l 1
1
- 5) MR, JOHNSON: Nodding the head is not going to get f' l
i 6 on the transcript. l l
7 THE WITLESS: Right. Restate the question.
E ll EY MR. HICKEY:
N l I
9 ll Q The question is whether you recall having any ra 10 discussion with anyone at Three Mile Island about the (
l jg $1 reaction ren-site to Mr. Parks' affidavit. j W k l
13 A The reaction in the Three Mile Island Program 13 I Office was that there were issues in the affidavit that we
[
a i
- ' ! n e'e ? eo to look irto.
-> 3 15 Q With whom did you discuss that reaction? i l
16 A I don't recall any specific discussions. I assume 17 that was with Lake Barrett and Fasano.
18 L Q Were tnere other reactions in the program office i
, 19 l to Mr. P a r t." ' affidavit, besides the fact that there were i
20 issues to be looked into? l I
21 A I don't recall any other reaction.
> i l l
22 >
Q Do you recall Mr. Barrett expressing an opinion i ib) ;
l )
l l
. . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, a +c m , _ t -. un.- :
>a y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'y) m.
t
, gf, I{ 't ( ; ; 1,e
- ", >
- , l 29707.0 j cox .. , 135 73 p h about the veracity of Mr. Parks' affidavit?
.y- v 2 A I don't recall.
3' Q Do you recall'Mr. Fasano expressing such an 4 expression? .s 3,% '
i[ , 5 A~ I don't recall.
"' 6 Do you recall any discussion about how other GPU Q
,g , i .,
9 "n 7 employees reacted to Mr. Parks' affidavit?
1, .
, 8 A No, I.know of no discussions concerning that.
, O, . , >$
M
- ,3 9l g
.Q Did you think that Mr. Parks could return to work 10 l at the ICand after his comments and affidavits were issued?
.. 11 A I don't believe I formed an opinion'on that
" l 12 1. issue. '
13 -Q Did you ever talk to Mr. Ron Brinkley of the FBI t
14 conchrning either Mr. Parks or Mr. King?
l 15 3 A I don't recall any conversation, f
i '
16 Q Do you know who Mr. Brinkley is; does that name l
l 17 , mean anything to you?
l ,
s 18 { A No.
1 l '
l 19 } , Q Do you recal.',,having any discussions with I 4 ,
l
~
/20 Mr. William Ward of the office of investigations about l
( 21 Mr.; Parks or Mr. King?
! I 22L A No, I don't recall.
lO t
1 t
l L ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i I -
m: _ , _m_. mm. ;
_ - _ _ -_- _ _ _ 8
l 1
29707.0 ;
cox - 136'
.I
'l Q Do you know who Mr. Ward is?
2 A. No.
3 Q If I tell you he is in the OI headquarters office l
'4 and was the director of field operations, does that help 5 identify him?
i 6 A No. l 1
7 Q You don't believe you had any. discussions with 8 such an individual?
9 A I don't recall any.
10 Q Did Phil Grant know Mr. Parks better than-you did? .1 11' A I believe he did.
i 12 Q He had more contact with him because Mr. Grant's 13 job was more in Mr. Parks' area; is that right?
14 A That's right. Phil Grant's responsibilities 15 included supervising engineers which were reviewing polar 16' crane issues and other issues on the Island.
I i
17 Q Did you ever talk to Mr. Grant about Mr. Parks 18 after he told you the first day on February 18 that Parks 19 wanted to talk to you; did you have any later discussions 20 with Mr. Grant about Mr. Parks?
21 A I don't recall any.
22 Q You don't recall any after the February 18 meeting
() ,
l I
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I m- __- m_ l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
L i
L 29707.0 cox 137 l() i h I with Mr. Parks where he made these allegations; you don't l
2 recall going to Grant? ;
I 3 A I don't recall. !
L l 1
4 Q You don't recall any discussions with Grant about 5 Parks' affidavit after it came out?
6 A No.
7 Q Did Mr. Parks ever make any comment to you about 8 either being represented by an attorney or considering 9 seeking legal advice?
10 A I don't recall any statement.
11 Q You referred a few moments ago to the fact that 12 there were some open items that you were following, and that 13 you probably told Mr. Parks about this in your February 25 14 meeting, I think was your testimony. I am going to ask the 15 reporter mark this as Exhibit 11.
I 16 (Wiebe Exhibit 11 identified.)
17 j MR. HICKEY: Exhibit 11 to Mr. Wiebe's deposition 18 is inspection report 8203.
19 THE WITNESS: 8303.
20 MR. HICKEY: I am sorry, 8303; thank you. And the 21 transmittal letter dated March 14, 1984, sending it to GPU 22 Nuclear Corporation.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationaije Coserage MO-3 3HM6
1 l
l l l 29707.0 l . cox 138 1 BY MR. HICKEY:
I t
2 Q If you look at the'first.page of the inspection H 3 report, Mr. Wiebe, that is your signature there, the top line l
4 in the middle of the page; right?
5 A Yes.
6 Q You signed this on March 7, but it relates to 7 inspection activity conducted from January 30 to February 26; 8 is that right?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q If you look on the third page of the inspection.
g 11 report, under item 7, polar crane inspection, t.he text says !
%J 12 that the inspector interviewed personnel and reviewed 13 licensee documents to evaluate the licensee's ability to 14 resolve internal comments concerning the polar crane; and 15 then you state some items that were'noted.
16 Does that statement refer to your questioning of 17 Mr. Kitler, King, Gischel and Theising as referred to in your 18 memorandum you looked at earlier?
19 , A Yes.
20 Q How about the review of licensee documents? Does 21 that refer to something you did?
A I don't recall if I did that specifically.
22 l (2) !
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2cu7- 37m Nationwide Coverage 80LL 33MM6
1 l-29707.0 cox- 139 1 r~5 l k-)
1 Q; The statement there seems to suggest'it, doesn't 2 it?
l 3 A Not necessarily.
1 4 Q Why do you say that? It says the inspector 5 interviewed personnel and reviewed licensee documents.
1 L 6 Doesn't that indicate that that inspector, I thought you said l 7 it was you, did those two things?
l l 8 A That standard statement, which could refer to any I 9 of the inspectors, is signed on the front.
1
! 10 Q It appears to me that whichever inspector it is O 11
,(
l it's the same one that did both things?
12 A Not necessarily. -l l
- 13. O I see. Well, whoever this person or persons may l
14 be that is referred to, the conclusion was that the internal l 15 comments were receiving adequate management attention and are 16 being addressed; is that right?
17 A That's correct. l 18 Q Did you write this report?
19 A I wrote portions of this report. 1 l
20 Q How about section 7? )
1 21 A I assume I did write section 7. l 22 Q In subparagraph B of section 7, if I could just O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i m- m._ c_, s_ ,
I
i 29707.0 cox 140 O
1 summarize, you indicated that there would be additional NRC 2 review to deal with the interdepartment communication 3 problems you discussed there; right?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q If you look at the last page, item 12 says that 6 inspector follow items that are addressed in paragraph 7.
l 7 Does that mean that this polar crane inspection 8 item B is an inspector follow item as referred to on page 6?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q That means that you were going to basically keep rs 11 your eye on it? !
(
12 A All that is is that it has a way of documenting 13 and following any inspector concerns. !
14 Q I think you answered this, but let me just ask it {
15 again. Do you believe that you told Mr. Parks that you were 16 going to follow this item of interdepartment communication l I l 17 f, problems? !
18 A Yes.
19 Q You told us earlier in this deposition, Mr. Wiebe, l
20 l about your practice of keeping all your files in basically 1 i
21 h chronological order rather than by subject matter I I 22 ! categories. Were the other files at the program office
/~)
(_/ l s
! t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
= "" - * " ' ~ = " -
E - - - - _ J
29707.0
. cox 141 0
1 categorized according to subject matter, or were they also 2 kept in some chronological fashion, or do you recall?
- 3. A I do not recall.
4 Q Do you recall any specific instructions about 5 filing materials related to the Parks case?
6 A No.
7 Q You have no recollection of any specific file or 8 file number or location where Parks-related documents were to 9- be kept?
10 A No.
11 Q When you were reviewing files yesterday, did you 12 find any particular file that related to the Parks matter 13 specifically? As opposed to a chronological file that might 14 have had a Parks item in it is what I am trying-to get at.
15 A No. ,
l 16 Q You didn't see anything. I have about two more 17 brief areas, then I am finished.
18 Your initial report of Mr. Parks' allegations on 19 February 18 referred to his statement that one of the reasons l
20 he was worried was because this individual, Mike Korin, had I
( 21 l been transferred under what he thought were-somewhat similar l }
l 22 [ circumstances.
l C) 1 l
I' I i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m, ~ _ m- m_ i U_--_-____-__
29707.C cox 142.
1 I.think we concluded -- I concluded, based on your 2 statements this morning, that you probably didn't pursue 3 that, because none of your memoranda reflect any efforts to 4 find out about the Mike Korin situation, whatever it is.
5 A That's correct.
6 Q You didn't have any recollection of having pursued 7 it; right?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q can you tell me why not, why you didn't attempt to l
10 learn about what the Mike Korin situation was?
11 A Because that would normally be referred to OI, and 12 we would only inspect in that. area if OI would request us 13 to.
14 Q Well, you were inspecting in the area of the 15 transfer about Parks; is that right?
16 A Yes.
17' Q Do I understand that was because OI said it was 18 all right for you to do that?
]
19 A That's correct.
1 20 Q Without such clearance from OI you would not 21 undertake the investigation of transfer? j i
22 A Right.
() ;
i i
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 2e2 34 3>,,, ~e,iem.,ec ce..,2,. m.,3 me
29707.0 cox 143 h
1 'Q Similarly, if OI had said it,was all right for you 2 to pursue the Korin matter you would have and not otherwise.
3 A That's right.
4 Q Did you ever ask anybody from OI to look into the 5 Korin matter?
6 A I don't know if we specifically asked them to do 7 that. They were sent copies of my allegation which 8 identified Mike Korin in there. I don't know of any action 9 that they took on that.
10 Q Do you have any idea at all about when the 11 incidents involving Mike Korin was supposed to have occurred, 12 was it years before, months before, or days before?
13 A No, I have no recollection.
14 Q I want to ask you about an answer to the 15 interrogatories that were filed by the staff, the first staff 16 response of September 23. And in response to interrogatory 17 Number 41, the following answer is provided. Interrogatory i
41 was identify each and every oral communication between 18 j J !
1 I' 19 '
Parks and any NRC representative during the period March 24, l
j 20 l 1983,.through the present date, referring or relating in any l 1 l l
21 !
way to Parks allegations that he was discriminated against. )
1 l I l l
22 d That's a summary of it. 1 i
i (E)
I l )
l I 4
I 1 )
l i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-3-I7-37(O NallOn Wide Coverage 8(Al-33MM6
29707.0 cox. 144
- /~t l '\ ) ' ?
lt 1 The answer is, "Joel Wiebe," meaning you, "may 1
2 have spoken to Parks since March 24, 1983, but does not
- 3 recall the details of such conversations and has no documents l
l l 4 pertaining to them," and you are indicated as the source of 5 that information.
6 March 24 was the date that Mr. Parks was 7 suspended. So presumably this is a reference to some
~
8 possible discussion with Parks after he left.the site, not 9 seeing you in the hallway or somewhere outside.
10 Do you have some belief that you had some 11 conversation with Parks after he left the site?
12 A No, I don't recall any conversation with Parks 13 after he left the site.
14 Q I am kind ~of curious as to why the answer reflects 15 that you may have spoken to Parks after March 24?
16 i A Maybe because the question there did not indicate )
i i
17 that he left the site on that date. q i
18 Q Are you pretty sure that once he left the site, 19 you didn't have any more contact with him?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q After you were interviewed by Mr. McKenna of OIA, i
22 ] August 15, 1983, and according to this Exhibit 2, you then
() l l l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
== " - * " ~ = " * -
- - - i
i
~29707.0 )
cox' 145-0 dictated a report.of the interview, or investigation, on 1
1 2 October 19, got it typed up November 1. Was this report, 3 Exhibit 2, submitted to you for review shertly after it was 4 prepared, so that you could look at it and see whether it.was 5 accurate or not?
6 A I don't believe it was.
7 Q You don't have any recollection of receiving it, 8 do you?
9 A No.
10 Q When did you first get this, if you recall?
11 A I don't recall.
12 Q Did you have enough contact with Mr. Parks, either 13 before or after these allegations were raised, Mr. Wiebe, to 14 form an impression about Parks' personality and demeanor?
15 Did you notice anything unusual about it in any way?
16 A I didn't notice anything unusual about it. It was 17' normal engineer-to-engineer contact.
18 MR. HICKEY: I don't have any other questions, 19 subject to those that may be generated by a production of any 20 further documents that relate to the matter, Thank you for 21 coming, Mr. Wiebe.
22 MR. JOHNSON: I would like to consult with the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~n,, s --. <- 8- ~
l 29707.0 cox 146 l
l 1 witness, take about five minutes off the record.
1 l 2 (Discussion of f the record.)
i 3 MR. JOHNSON: I have no questions for Mr. Wiebe.
4 MR. HICKEY: All right.
I 5 (Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the deposition was 6 concluded.)
7 8 ,
9 JOEL WIEBE 10 12
,playang;,g ],,,g.
14 h a4Fw tAy Commt s'on Expires aa 15 16 17 i
(
18 19 20
{
21 i
22 !
O j l l
4 I
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
Depos]Laon of JOEL WMBE, Washington DC, 5 1 ela rua ry 198 7.
, He: GPU Nuclear Corgration, TMI.
l CORRECTIONS TO DEPOSITION Me 1. i n e Co r r e c t. l on :
1 N Jo W:l_sbutJ he c % , c, , d Co "&:l:
io Io _
S/1.uiJ A;) hut 4:<J a s 1_paZL &c ,, ah . //.e)<r,
/a a o_ *lm"w .S h u t L i t cAe_g ; J C~ 4ow < < "
l L- P o n sfald_k. r lunyJ 'to ' %
na w naw a ,n a v 40 I5 _S): uld br llpghd.'c] a s eu s stu t >
'I S th skuld lu :Juick) u a w.1%K u
1
'M (frusm/% (1Lrtf l' Lt$ hut 4,4.
y b)L4 h L v
S0 lb ketbtstuh> Abub0 ,b r Aetate! $ o ll w f, To m e '
SS lb ,Diff. AhfA ,b L ,Ld b 4': k '
I ._ F [ # (- r 9pI b
\
~ /-i to n "c~lu ,Ltd kha/to "
wh~ ~
lo I ' M [bbudt egy_ Sus &_amd _c/g3d ,d-w" N ]/,a/
lol 1F so Asa0defA ,A r}saidts acu/oj' ui )o bLht zb> es~ cwl NwG b:
m n v h.a L L,a c w:
y p.- h.i gummu m
.hes.= em>=. w-s*emem.h i em Ne.eem- m wm
- _ m J
- -_ - - - - A
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER
, 147' I, WENDY S. COX' , the chficer before' whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that, the witness whose testimony ' appears- in the foregoing. deposition -was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand I
and . thereaf ter : reduced to typewriting by me or under
. my ' direction; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, ,related. to, nor employed by i
any of 'the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken; and, further, that I ' ' am not a relative or employee Of any attorney or counsel Ih employed' by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action. )
t IJ)D n Kofary Ptiblic ih and for the
. District of Columbia My Commission Expires NOVEMBER 14, 1987 O
- 4 r ,M %g UNITED STATES bx ) '
- g. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - p$]
(.
$ 5 o REGION I '
s> ':-! sai Anx AveNur 8
4 gg g MING OF PRUSSI A. PcNNSYLV ANI A 1940$
A L....
-Docket No. 50-320 MAR 141983 GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN:. Mr. B. K. Kanga Director of TMI-2 P.O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection 50-320/83-03 This refers to the' routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. J. S. Wiebe of this office on January 30 - February 26, 1983, of activities authorized by NRC' License DPR-73 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Wiebe with Messrs. J. Chwastyk and J. Theising and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and
-]b representative records, interviews with personnel, measurements made by the inspector, and observations by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the i
l requirementsof2.790(b)(1). The telephone notification of your intent to request withholding, or any request for an extension of the 10 day period which you believe necessary, should be made to the Supervisor, Files, Mail and Records, USNRC Region I, at (215) 337-5223.
i l
~ t i
L w_-__-______- -
.GPU Nuclear Corporation 2 gg3
,r No reply to this letter is required. Your' cooperation with.us in this matter.
.is appreciated.
Sincerely,
/
Richard . Startrs 1, Director Division of Proje t and Resident Programs
Enclosure:
NRC Region I Inspection Report 50-320/83-03 cc w/ enc 1: !
'J. J. Barton, Deputy Director, TMI-2 l J. J. Chawastyk, Acting Site Operations Director
'J. E. Larson, Licensing and Nuclear Safety Director J. J. Bryne, Manager, TMI-2 Licensing J. W. Thiesing, Manager, Recovery Programs E. G. Wallace, Manager, PWR Licensing J. B. Liberman, Esquire.
Q G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Ms. Mary V. Southard, Co-Chairman, Citizens for a Safe Environment (WithoutReport) l 4
O 4 l.
.)
p ;
o V.'S.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlaSION Region I Report No. . 50-320/83-03 Docket No. 50-320 License-No. DPR-73 Priority --
Category C Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation P 0; Box 480 1 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Facility Name: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit'2 Inspection At: Middletown, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: January 30 - February 26', 1983 t Inspectors:
J.
il[N bM iebe, Sdnior Pesident Inspector (TMI-2) 3/?h3 d(te/ signed Auw K. %rr, R ia ion' Specialist
&A3 d(te' signed oN. 2n d2 B. O'Keill / Radfation Specialist date ' signed sh/n LJ 1%d Thonus, l~
identfnspector (TMI-2) ddtd si ned Approved by: M K.Faspo, Chief,'ThreeMileIsland-2 Projects
- 7/7 6 d4te/ signed Section, Projects Branch No. 2 Inspection Summary:
Inspection conducted on January 30 - February 26, 1983 (Inspection Report Number 50-320/83-03)
Areas Inspected: Routine safety inspection conducted by site inspectors of licensee action on NRC circulars; periodic and special reports; routine plant operations; licensee event reports; polar crane; procedures; surveillance activities; health physics review; reactor building entries; and radioactive material shipments. The inspection involved 260 inspector-hours.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
1 1
1
i DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted General Public Utilities (GPU) Nuclear Corporation
- B. Ballard, Sr., Manager, TMI Quality Assurance Modifications / Operations
- S. Chaplin, Licensing Engineer
- J. Chwastyk, Manager, Plant Operations
- W. County, Quality Assurance Auditor J. Dettorre, Decontamination and Radwaste Task Leader G. Eidam, Data Acquisition Manager J. Flanigan, Radiological Engineering Manager E. Gischel, Manager Plant Engineering C. Hansen, Licensing Engineer L. King, Director, Site Operations '
E. Kellogg, Quality Assurance Auditor
- G. Kunder, Manager, Safety Review Group B. McMullen, Command Center Coordinator
- J. Marsden, Quality Assurance Engineer J. Quinette, Plant Engineer J. Tarpinian, Decontamination and Radwaste Engineer
- R. Wells, Licensing Engineer Other licensee personnel were also interviewed.
{}
- denotes those present at the exit interview. ,
- 2. Licensee Action on NRC Circulars Closed 78-18, results of UL fire test. The licensee performed a review of sprinkler locations and actuation temperatures. The ceramic fibre blankets referred to in the circular are not used at TMI-2.
Closed 79-13, diesel fire pump startil.g contactors. The fire pumps at TMI are of a different model than the types which experienced the contactor problems.
- 3. Review of Periodic and Special Reports Periodic and special reports were reviewed for information relative to the safety of the plant in its current status. The monthly operating reports for December 1978 through March 1979 and the series of three startup reports were reviewed. No conditions or occurrences adverse to current plant safety were identified. '
- 4. Routine Plant Operations Inspections of the facility were conducted to assess compliance with general oporating requirements of TS 6.8.1 in the following areas:
licensee review of selected plant parameters for abnormal trends; plant status from a maintenance / modification viewpoint including plant (J3
^ ... J
, , l 3
1 cleanliness; licensee control of ongoing and special evolutions including
-q control room personnel awareness of these: evolutions; control of-V- documents including log keeping practices; and area radiological controls.
Random inspections of the control room during regular and back shift hours were conducted at least three times per week. The selected ,
sections of the shift foreman's log and control room oparator's log were !
reviewed for the period January 30 - February 26, 1983. Selected sections of other control room daily logs were reviewed for the period from midnight of the day of review to the time of review. Inspections of (
areas outside the control room occurred on January 31, 1983 and l February 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, and 25, 1983. Selected licensee planning meetings were observed. All areas observed were acceptable. !
- 5. Licensee Event Reports A
The inspector. reviewed two Licensee Event Reports (LERs) required to be i submitted in accordance with Technical Specifications (TS) 6.9.1.8 and 6.9.1.9 (and NUREG 0161) to verify the following: Event and cause description clearly reported event information; the required LER form was properly completed; and adequate corrective action was specified.. .
LERs 83-01/01L-0 and 83-02/0lt-0 were reviewed.
Initial screening of these events was completed to determine generic applicability, need for additional site verification, and the necessity A
v for additional NRC management review. No additional actions were warranted for these LERs.
- 6. Surveillance Activities On January 31, 1983, the inspector observed selected portions of the monthly diesel generator operability test. The "B" diesel performed satisfactorily and met the acceptance criteria in procedure 4303-M16 A/B.
- 7. Polar Crane Inspection The inspector interviewed personnel and reviewed licensee documents to I evaluate the licensee's ability to resolve internal comments concerning the polar crane.. The following items were noted:
- a. Internal comments are receiving adequate management attention and are being addressed.
- b. Inter-department communication problems appear to be causing scme engineers to perceive that their comments are not being adequately addressed and in some cases that their comments are not welcome.
This item will receive additional NRC review following Licensee development of corrective action (320/83-03-01).
O
. 4
- c. It is not clear how administrative procedures AP-1043, " Work
]
t Authorization Procedure" and AP-1047, "Startup and Test Normal",
should be applied to the refurbishment of the polar crane. The licensee's Quality Assurance personnel are reviewing this matter.
This item will receive additional NRC review following completion of the Licensee reviews (320/83-03-02). '
- 8. Quality of Procedures Submitted for NRC Review The inspector reviewed procedures for reactor coolant system (RCS) draindown which were submitted to the NRC for approval pursuant to Technical Specification 6.8.2. ,The NRC disapproved the procedures for-the following reasons:
- a. Two procedures (210.4-10.1, Operation of' Secondary Plant System and 2104-10.2, Primary Plant Operation Procedure), allowed secondary--
system pressure to exceed RCS pressure. This situation would violate limits and conditions established in existing procedures and also allow plant conditions not permitted by the Safety Evaluation Reports for the RCS draindown.
- b. Procedure 2104-10.2, allowed RCS draindown to below the 328 ft.
elevation. This is not permitted by the previously approved Safety Evaluation Report for the RCS draindown.
- c. Procedure 2202-5.5, " Loss of RCS Level Indicator", did not Q incorporate the new RCS standpipe level indicator nor properly compensate for RCS pressure on the existing level indicators.
- d. Procedure 2104-10.1, contained an incorrect valve lineup.
- e. Other errors included: omitted valve in valve lineup, inconsistencies in RCS water level elevations and required indications on water level instruments, and a demineralized water path was omitted when isolating demineralized water sources.
This item is considered unresolved pending further NRC evaluation and licensee correctiveaction(320/83-03-03).
- 9. Routine Health Physics and Environmental Review
- a. Plant Tours The NRC site radiation specialists completed routine plant inspection tours. These inspections included all radiation protection control point's and selected radiologically controlled areas. Licensee performance in the following areas was satis-f actory:
Access control to radiologically controlled areas r
Q -- Adherence to Radiation Work Permit (RWP) requirements
g 4 .
~- Proper use of r.espiratory protection equipment (3
'v --
Adherence to radiation protection procedures l-Use of survey meters including personnel frisking techniques
-- Cleanliness and housekeeping conditions g 1
Fire protection measures.
- b. Measurement Verification i
Measurements were independently made by the inspector to verify the quality of licensee performance in the areas of radioactive material shipping, radiation and contamination surveys, and onsite environ-mental air and water sampling and analyses.
- 10. Reactor Building Entries
- a. The site staff monitored reactor building (RB) entries conducted during the inspection period. The following items were verified on a sampling basis.
The RB entry was properly planned and coordinated to assure that task implementation including adequate as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) review, personnel training, and equipment testing.
/]
Radiological precautions were planned and implemented including the use of a Radiation Work Permit (RWP).
Specific . procedures were developed for unique tasks and were-properly implemented. l
- b. The site staff reviewed selected documents, applicable procedures, and RWPs concerning reactor building entries.
Entries 166 through 184 were conducted during this inspection period.
During reactor building entry 179, conducted on Thursday, February 17, i 1983 comand center personnel notified the NRC that two additional workers '
were necessary in order to support an in-progress " work package", (M037-installation of five ton electric hoist) and the work package had been '
changed accordingly. The NRC questioned whether the revised work package had undergone appropriate review. Based on the discussion with licensee representatives, and observation regarding other recent reactor building i work activities, the NRC detennined that administrative controls for changes to work packages are not well understood. The NRC will review the adequacy l of the new administrative procedure 4000-ADM-3000.01, TMI-2 Unit Work Instruction, regarding current TMI-2 radiological work activities Q (320/83-03-04). '
l
. A-
l 6
- 11. Radioactive Material' Ship nents 1
.d7 -The NRC site radiation specialists inspected several radioactive material shipments during the inspection period to verify the items listed below. {
j The-licensee had complied with approved packaging and shipping piccedures, j
,The licensee had prepared shipping papers, which certified that the radioactive materials were properly classified, described, packaged, '
and marked for transport. -
- 1. --
The licensee had applied warning labels to'all packages and had placarded vehicles.-
The licensee had controlled the radioactive contamination and dose rates below the regulatory limits.
Inspector review of this area consisted of (1) examination of shipping !
papers, procedures, packages, and vehicles, and (2) performance of- J radiation and, contamination surveys of the shipments which were '
inspected.
- 12. Unresolved items, and Inspector Follow Items Unresolved items are findings about which more information is needed ta ascertain whether it is a violation, a deviation, or acceptable.
h, unresolved item is addressed in paragraph 8.
An !
I Inspector follow items are inspector concerns or perceived weaknesses in the licensee's conduct of operation (hardware or programmatic) that could lead to violations if left uncorrected. Inspector follow items are I addressed in paragraphs 7 and 10.
- 13. Exit Interview ,
On March 1, 1983, a meeting was held with licensee representatives .
(denoted in paragraoh 1) to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
I l
(
O l l
L I
, [A) '8 6 b c. h /b 2 l 5 [I) ATTACHMENT O -
- r. arch 11,1983 1
MEMORAl.Dut! FOR: R.K. Christopher Director Office of Investigations '
THRU: '
A.N. Fasano, Chief I Three Mile Island-2 Pro. ject Section FROM:
J.S. Wiebe, Senior Resident Inspector (TMI-2)
Three Mile Island-2 Pro.iect Section
SUBJECT:
ADDITIONAL FOLLOWUP ON THE RICK PARKS' ALLEGATION DATED FEBRUARY 18,1983 On D. arch 10, 1983 Rick' Parks called and asked for a meeting to discuss additional infonnstion concerning his previous allegation. When he arrived, he had Carl Hrbac (another engineer) with him. Parks told me that he had information from Larry King that Bob Arnold, President, GPU Nuclear, was trying
- to get King to reveal a connection between Parks and King's consulting firm
" Quill Tech". Parks interpreted this as GPU trying to set him up to be fired O, for cooir.g to the NRC with his allegation. I asked him if he had any further specific information concerning safety questions. He said that there was no singic concern which would be a safety issue but only how management was handling tne THI-2 cleanup. ,
i
?
In response to his concern that he would be fired for bringing his concerns to the NRC, I referred him to the Department of Labor, as you suggested to Tory Faseno. I also told him I thought he should contact the. GPU Ombudsman Office.
. He indiccted he would probably contact both the Department of Labor and the GPU 0: buds.s n. Carl Hrbic did not say anything during the meeting.
/5 Joel S. Wiebe Senior. Resident Inspector (TMI-2)
Three Mile Island-2 Protect Section ;
h . .
. ~ % L ;:. n... W... .... . M..... g....................
\
ll _f)(:Gi o n nf) nacs
^ ^ ~ - - -
..,................... 4 ....... ,
g
0- $.
. h; ' 7 [
' UNITED STATES
- T' s [ '.
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (s i j,f j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 j.
~d ,>4, '%#
/ .
March 30, 1983-i
. NOTE TO: B.Snyderh,--... oindexterj ,
l .
FROM: Lake Barrett >
Attached is a rough draft. typed version ~~ '
.of Tony Fasano's notes of the meeting held between Fasano and Gage of the TMIP0 and Gru's j Fenti and Prabhaker on February 24, 1983.
Tnis activity was part of our inquiry into Mr. Parks' February 18, 1983, concerns.
t / -
sf g -
V.
- Lake arrett i
t Attachment -
( As Stated
?
CC: i
.J. Wiebe P. Grant l i
6 e
i G
k e.
O 1 e
w u/z yj
- //t jcf nJ ck c/'Q . ,
.' Notes on discussions with licensee QA with respect to QA involvement of .
ik pdaw -
activities related to the use of ev:" n' -d crane.
Based on information with respect to Parks concern for proper use of .
~
administrative procedures and . inferences that GPU QA was not as involved with TMI-2 activities, it was decided to talk to representatives of GPU QA. Blaine ,
Ballard was our first choice to interview. He was not available. We ,
~
e . & r.. . m.
. ~ q f ch 1 < a - u",i4?:.
interviewed Ray Fenti and Ram Prabha.kerg f(Fenti was acting for Ballard; 'ne .
brought Prabhaker with him to assist in areas that he might not be knowledgeable.)
The licensee representatives outlined the broad umbrella of QA concerns.
Bechtel has a QA program for their Gaithersburg operatien which covers such s an -
areas as design and procurement a GPU perform ^ audit function on Gaithersburg A
QA.
On-site, all parties are under the licensee's own recevery QA program for o
irportant-to safety work. GPU does hs front-end.
review cn all documents that r '
uu4 need nold point designation and/or 4 witnessing.
/
T The engineer writing the procedure,:. 00 Q,has the responsibility to classify
~
the task, ie. , "QA required,important-to-safety".
Controis over engineers' classification are monitored through periodic audits of O non-QA-eesignated procedures by QA. Also, QC has person attending plan-of-day and scheduling meetings where tasks are discussed as another check on whether QA is being adequately involv'ed in tasks. .
m__-__ _.m a___._.__ _ _ _ - . _ __
2 0L;- k5Q y
_Q Polar trane ? QA/QC had involvementDwith classification, uw: i.e., structurg o
.^* "
g s b . polar cra'n'e a important-to safety and
- r. involved in3 Ngi. The Wi:( no-load p V
P.M y-opc ;ti; n through QA.
N Gischel/ King initiated involvement had been underway and licensee Further l representatives commented that program controls had not been violated.
questioning on program control status resulted in licensee representatives s?tL~ r -
QYthat it is being reviewed for improvement and is not completely closed.
r- ,- u s id. u, .~ ? p 'd .
,; y
/
ANSI 30,2 was discussed.ft GP',l not committed to this guide A
A but4using as basis o
-for approach to crane use.
h The direct question of:"h,as there been adequate involvement of QA/QC in TMI-2 I
activities? Licensee representatives stated "yes".
~ k e The QA personnel have access to Tech Support for. experts M they deem a need -
J
'GpU QA epinion on polar crane SER based on review was acceptable.
~
d w The issue of whether or not the listing esystems important-to safety is adequate Followup action in this area is and timely has been discussed internally.
still open.
O There is, based on the discussions, some need for further defining new //
GORB also systems / activities .that should be included as important-to -safety.
following this area of concern.
y _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ - ---
, . ., t ,! '
+
--3 ,c
- r r>-- ,
Partial conclusion
- ItappearsthatQA/QCigv[1vementwasandisacti5ewith' r
- g d'l p respect to the polar crane,4s-s QA/QC appe;ars to have<' involvement in the , 4".
4M* n .A ,
. N ".
broader. aspects ofg important- to-safety issue. , .The pao.s c, oncerns appear to b'e' f,
Q +
c 7, being addressed. e, b
a pd u- cu h
i
/ g.,-.(,
QA has monitored refurbishment and no 'oad test, and ;Qha g
- dba' .
QA will be monit'oring^ full-load,I test [fandisinIk -
testing of "polar crane hook. s.y
. .:{A !r' L. '
polar craneAloa test procedure. -
s process of. establishing hold / witness. points in A
. p
'h,L[d.lCALO [l l.
L . o :a2c a >.-
J O - a y
A-m W, ~
y 4 j i
,e % '.,,
o
=mr e
- f. .
)
e O a
,u
/
- m
Lt ' I p o .
M. % 1 W *eh I% 0 unnass avaras H N NUCLEAR RmiLATORY CcteumssioN 4.. 'A wasuuurren, n. c. zums T
nh d \ Mar:h 24,1983 -
VM/ % .*
\,
L #
MEMO tMDUM FOR:
Bernard E. Snyder, Program Director * .
,s TMI Pregram O M c4 jj L-l~y .
\
( 'l FROM: uke H. Barrett, Deputy Petgria Director -
7
'TdI Program Offica t <
( ,
SUBJECT:
3UWAY OF TNIPO SITE JCTIONS RELATED TO THE POLXd CRAN PARM' ISSUE 5 1 s ,
The purpose of this memorandum is to docut.ent historical information and site
.' '#.TMIP0 actions ofilssues inNived with 'the polar en.no or relatad to Mr. Parks' Eoncernti'. rin"ghtdpT Mf??aM! c6ndrnk '.har'its. roots MnTnPU's 4ctny-standirup,:w.
. dj,f*icul. ties *:q.stablish good communications, integrate efforts and promote good ' working ielatichsh% betseih"t.Wyai'riousfiriternal Departments keg. ;" '-~--
Operations and Fnginee-ieg. Although WpMye.mnts in this areet have been made i
O. in the last year, there .is still. room 5# considerable imorevemen SALP repo-t, Attachment 1.)
Our efferns to get GPU to accelerate improvements b this area have been a constant r.hallenge since I was tssigned.to TMI. For example, en Febmary 1A,1953, (2 days,lefore Parks approached NRC) I disapproved an Operatices pr eedure.(Att Mment 2) because it had technical errors. The root cause of M.he errors Ms; poor coordination between the Operati'ons and Engineering pepartmentT. In addition to the disapproval note, I also verbally told Mr. Kang 1, on t5e same day, that I expected good quality final procedures from GPU and that my staff was reporting to me that GPU procedure cuality was
- dextsisingi J. stated that he should take appropr.iate action to. cornet..the.. ~.. '
situation. He said he would look into the matter.
Ca February)18,1987, Mr. Parks approached the NRC. Joel Wiebe, U-2 SRI, documenyed his allegation in Attachment,3. TMfPO infomed At no the Region, e,nd OI time, to my 1cnewledge,
' / and in:tWed an inquiry into Mr. Parks' concerns.
As my staff
- ~ did any TMIPO personnel disclose Mr. Parks' identity to GPU.
interviewed GPU personnel it was not uncommon for GPU to mention Mr% Parks and Mr. Gischel because the ' issues we were evaluating were the same isstes that The results of this inquiry is Mb. Parks anc documentedthein(J. Mr. WiebeGiscrel memo'randum had widely of Xarchdiscune.d.
10, 1983 (Attachment 4). This intuiry was carried out while maintaining contact with Regional investigsters. -
The.. chronology of the interviews is as follows:
Q 2/18 Informed Region s i \'
y J/ 2/22 W5ebe interviews King (C,'pr?. eons) >
s h
["'~ Lo LEXHIBIT.4' _ _
t riarcn o ..uca
.,',EskardJ.Snyder ,
2/22- NRC requests internal EPU correspondence on Polar Crane O- 2/23Hiebe,interviewsEischel(Operations) 2/23 Poindexter (TMIPO fathasda).perfoms surprise inspection of Polar 1'~
Crane calculations in"Dechtells Gaithersburg office (Attachment 5) a
- 2/24KiebtinterviewsHanson(Engineering-Licensing) .
2/24 Wie "intwviews Theising (EngineeMng) 2/24 Wiebe ictrvfwa Kitler (Engineering) 2/24 Eage/Fasano interview with Fenti and Prabhakar (QA Department-) ,
~
On the afternoon.ofiFebrua'ry 24. I caucused the staff and summaHzed oui-1 findings and infomed the Region. With their concurrence we set up a meeting to tell Parks the Peruits of our inquiry on February 25. .
Mr. Amold ardMr. Clark called at 3:00 PM, February 24, and asked why the NRC -
i' had been questioning GPU Operations and EngineeHng personnel about the Polar Crane j said we were gathering infamation about safety and I was not at liberty' to discuss it further at this time. They demanded to know if it was an ,
I said I interpreted i IE inspection, NRR tc;chnical review or 01 investigation. h NRC action.was
.u it-as .an.dnfo. mat.iort.gatheHn .dpqu%tjdt $teperine,Jf f ereir one of th. ,. u,rt, tihree*c~adgWrfesP warranted. They said NRC'ict on had to 1 it an said I didn't think. so..but..ifcit.made<.J.has," feet. betted gthey . ould cal.T'M !
" inspection" activity. Mr. Arnoid?then told me th'ei'were investYg'aWrig conflict of interest with Mr. King and Quiltech. I told him I never heard of
' '"" **** m + - -
O "****"'"""'""""":'**"'"'**""d"*"d'"*
At 7:30 PM Larry Xing called Joel Wiebrat home and told him his badge' had seen take and he had been escorted off site (Ref. ' Report of Allegation,' dated March 1,.1983, Attwheent 16). King felt thi's getion had been taken because he had talked with the ~NR; earlier (Joel.Wiebe had interviewed him when following up ParW concerns ori the hiar Crane).
At 8:00'AM, February 25, 1983, I called Mr. Arnold and. expressed my concem that EPU employees may interpret Kings suspension as & signal that bringing up safety concerns were discouraged by management. He said he was aware of the j
' infom.
problem.4nd would.ict6se employees,,that "
"Nthe King 5'**
- """ 'C "
~~suspgns interest and'rict t of' safety coricerns?
L As was arranged the previous day, Wiebe and I met with Mr. Parks in my office for over an hour. I told Mr. Parks we found nd evidence of threats We found no but we could not on the' ether hand ' prove that they did not occur.We found no safety issues irregulaMties in the calculations at Gaithersburg.
that were not already being considered by either GPU or the NRC. We also tcld i
him that we were concerned with th . Door relationships between departments and were concerned with the degradation in quality of procedures. I asked if he had any sp,ecific safety issunt concerning the crane or anything else at TMI that he thought was unsafe,. He said no, but that he just had general concerns abcut administrative pror.edures and harassment. I said that if he made a O
i femal allegation, I could get an outsice investigator to come in if he wanted. We also He declined and sMd he would rather wait to see what GPU QA I told him do.
would we gamera11y c'iscussed the King suspension of the previous night. -
would continue to icek at the Polar Crane closely in our review process.
- Maren ze, ne3 3
I." Bernard.J. Snyder
~o b Although Mr. Parks did not pursue the issue continuing NRC action on closely related items.
of a femal For example, allegation, the two formal inspection report items did directly result from our inquiry, Open ,
Procedur1ts/QA) which are documented in our m dated March 14,1983(Attachment 6). This left these items open 50-320/83-03, ,
j for possible enfo'rcement action as we gained more information l
In the afternoon of February 25. I met with 8. Kanga and J. Barton I (D and Deputy Director, Unit 2) to discuss the quality of Unit 2 parfomance.
said GPU employees were upset and perceived that repris they raised safety concerns. IsaidIthoughthe(Kanga)pushedscheduleto (the same things I told Parks).
hard mode.
and GPU was now in the "no time to do it righ I told them the old l that I was " doubling the watch" on their activities. Eng "Afso'd0Hng theweeksof-Februarys22v.'st staff.wasst.tyjewing.pt had submitted for approval for future Reactor Cool' ant Syste
'and partial'draindown. -These vere poor- quality..pnocedures.
These deficiencies' And approve them for technical reasons24, noted 1983,in Attachment 7. meeting In with G were communicated to GPU in a February lity procedures in.the.... . .. .:. ,,
n addition, we' included th I,e s0bject of poor quanspectionReport(Attachme V format March 14, 1983, ~
enforcement action. ,
On Monday, February 28, late morning,'Mr. Arnold told meinabout This resulted tne King / Clark meeting and showed me a copy of Clark's notes.
Arnold / King March 4,1983, letter (Attachment 8).
On the morning of February 28, King called Region I (R. Keimig) req investigation.
~ On March 1,.K> Christopher {R1; Investiga, tor) "con.tacted
~
'WT me King on March 2 (Attachment 9).
old called me at home to say he is initiating a On March 4, 7:00 PM, Mr. A special General Office Review Board (GORB) review lity b
(Griebe time which and 1.I owe).
told him of the inter-departmental problems and lower o.ua work. We did not mention Parks.
On March 7, I called Bill Ward of OI and said I would like 01 to to interview King and ask King if we had any additional safety in 01's weren't already being considered.the interview alone, that th O opinion this was a lower priority than other jobs.
and directedr Fasano/Wiebe to contact King.
~ 4 March 24; boa
. . tier' nard J. Snyder. ,
.e* -
'*r*5 '
"=r=* 7 5 "'**** ** th ** 5'ch * ^"d1 *1"5 ** * ** 5 "v'5t' 5*** !
O' oa K'"5' Quiltech because a secretary had said that Parks was involved l relationship within Quiltech, sincei Parks, asked ~her to , type several p ,
resumes on Quiltech stationary. ,
On March 8. GPU staff (Kanga included) informed the NRC staff (Grant~la and myself) of the action they were initiating to improve their procedure quality. I said we would judge them by perfomance, not by intentions or i.
pr.omises. ,
l On March 9, 5:00 PM, Fasano/Wiebe met with King in l
broad general allegations which were forwarded to 0I and CIA (Attachments ' !
and 11). .
Rick Parks said On March 10, Joel Wiebe met with Rick Parks and Carl Hrbac.
GPU was trying to set him up to be fired for coming to the NRC with his
.. concerns. . This is documented in the March 11, 1983, Wiebememo(Attach-
.** ~' menY 1 & W M' " M # m .'s. w w w w g p g m e y y
" ' di'KaMN,"GPU' requested NRC approval of the; Polar.-Crans Genetic.0pecat Procedure (NRC approval of this procedure alone would not pemit use of the crane with significant loads because a lead specific procedure would also . . . . .be required).- I did not' approve f.he' procedure because.of the technical ,;. ... -
~
O deficiencies noted in Attachment 13. M disapproval of this procedure follow months of NRC personnel monitoring and~ycemmenting on GPU's e detailed crane procedures. As a policy, I'have not discouraged GPU from providing internal drafts of GPU documents, e.g. technical plans, safety evaluations, infomal basis.
schedules, procedures, and NRC submittals !
of the multiple complex technical issues being worked on in the cleanup.
have instructed them that when they read this, infomation and they find thi that they have safety concerns about, they should Thisinfom GPU, is often doneat the work level (Engineer-to-Engineer), about their concerns.
~
verbally tr-in hand writing oo. the. GPU. document t
~ ~
issues as early as possible so that GPU can promptly addre unnecessary cleanup delays.results in a more detailed technical kno all aspects of safety.
The Pol.ar Crane procedures have had a longer than usual history to similar technical evolutions, e.g. EPICOR prefilter inerting and waste GPU provided my lead site engineer on the Polar Crane processing systems, etc. Gage and Poindexter (Bethesda (Les Gage)'more than the usual number of drafts.
TMIPO) reviewed multiple procedure drafts and returned them to GPU An example corrents written in the margins and general hand written ecmments.
O of this is Attachment 14 where Gage and Poindexter coments.
has experienced significant problems as was indicated at the January GPU meeting (Attachment 15).
i ge \aa. %]
'. .. q s ta 7 c.
ATTACHMENT 4 March 10, 1983 IS*.ORAMDiTd FOR: R.K. Christoplier, Director -
Office of Investigations ,
l ThRU: A.N. Fasano, Chief . .
Three Mile Island-2 Project Section '.
J.S. Wiebe, Senior Resident Inspector (114I-2) ;
FR0ii: .
Three Hile Island-2 Project Section r l
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION FROM RICK PARKS, DATED FEBRUARY 18, 1983
{
i As detailed in the P.e. port of Allegation,' dated February 18, 1983 Rick Parks j alleged that because of his cocraer.ts on the Polar Crane Load Test procedure and i the Polar Crane Functional Test procedure, Bechtel Engineering Management wanted him transferred off-site. Without revealing names or specifics ~
involved, I discussed General Public Utilities (GPU) handling of internal .
cocrants with "several GPU employees. This letter documents these discussions. ,
O Park's supervisc'r, Larry King (Director, Site Operations), indicated that Parks had told him that he (Parks) had been told that he (Parks) would be transferred from the site because of the connants he (Parks) had made on the Polar Crane Test procedures. King believed that it happened as related by Parks. When asked if management at THI-2 tried to suppress safety concerns, King said he, would not go that far but only that conrnents were not well received. King also indicated that Ed Gischel, Manager, Plant Engineering, had brought up cocraents concerning the Polar Crane Load Test. These cccracnts, in King's and Gischel's cpinion, were not cdequately addrer, sed. Upon reviewing the subject of the cements with Ed Gischel, I noted that these cceeents were similar to issues ccncerning the adequ6cy of the Polar Crsne Load Test which were being considercd by the NRC cnd HRC consultants.
Ed Kiticr, Startup and Test Supervisor, was qddstioned concerning the Startup and Test Group involvement in reviewing the Polar Crane Test Procedures.
Kitler indicated that the Test Working Group is reviewing the test procedure (one of Rick Park's cocraents was that the Test Working Group was not involved with reviewing the test procedure) to determine the applicability of Administrative Procedures 1047 and 1043 to the Polar Crane Test procedure (e.tiuuier or rart s cuittaitaits). r rieri a>xeu a t' 1:e Anitew ut erry sii> Levisen irtien e individual's jobs were at stake because of coerents they made, Kitler said he t A V
.............................................................................................................j..........
.___m _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ......,..........
. 'R.R. Christopher 22- I'. arch 10,1983 O did not know of any. Kitler then brought up Parks name by saying that he (Kit.ler) was leaving his present position and that Parks may be transferred into the vhcar,t position. Kitler indicated that this would be a prometion for Parks. .
Charlie Hansen, c Bechtel Licensing Engineer, involved in the Polar Crane Test, was asked if he knew of any instances where an individual's employment had been -
threatened. Charlie Hansen said he had no knowledge of such an instance. When asked if he knew of any instances where it could have been perceived to be so, Hansen said no. Hansen went on to say that Gischel's cocrnents came after the issues brought up had already been addressed (Gischel had just returned to work after an extensive illness) and the reluctance to re-address these issues may have been misinterpreted as a reluctance to address them altogether. Hansen indicated that a letter had been sent to Gischel explaining that his cocrnents had already been addressed (! verified this by reviewing the letter). Jim Theising, Manager cf Recovery Programs, was asked if he knew of any instances where an individual's job was threatened because of coments which had been made. Theising indicated that he knew of no such instances and went on to say that Bechtel and GPU management would not knowingly allow such a practice.
Following the above discussions, I discussed the situation with Parks, indicating that I could find no evidence to verify or refute his allegation. I .
infomed him that I would inform the NRC Office Of Investigations of my findings. I asked him if he wanted the NRC to take any additicnal action.
Parks indicated that he was in a meeting (which included Bahman Kanga, Director
(
of Thl-2, and B. Ballard, Manager of Quality Assurance Modifications /
Operations), in ,which.Ballard agreed to review the applicability of Administrative Procedures 1047 and 1043 to the Polar Crane Test procedures.
Parks indicated he was satisfied that his concerns were being addressed (possibly occause the NRC has Asking questions), and he felt no further NRC, action was warranted at this time.
In conclusion, I found no evidence to support Parks allegation and it appeared that all comments on the Polar Crane were receiving adequate management attention and were being addressed.
J.S. Wiebe Senior Resident Inspector (THI-2) j Three Mile Island-2 Project Section ,
l O !
- " ' " > 7 2 .5. . . . . . . .
. . .5. . . . . . . . . L .]?V ..... ..................... ..................... .................... ............
"'"4 .
be.: des.. A. .asa ..........Lh r ..... ..................... ..................... ..................... ............
un>
1 _ . i. .nJB1. . . 3HW83. . . . ........ 311 A JB 3. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . l_ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . =. . . -
Wieh g / r/ (7 hh n) k CHRON01.0GY OF EVENTS (Parks' and Kings' Allegations')
2/18/83 Joel Wiebe met with Rick Parks concerning his polar crane safety issues (Ref. " Report of Allegation." dated 2/18/83) i 2/18/83 - 3/10/83 Joel Wiebe discussed how internal comments were handled with several GPU/Bechtel employees as a result of Parks allegations. Inspector did not mention allegation but GPU/
3 Bechtel did mention Parks as a result of q'uestions during '
interview. (Ref. letter J.S. Wiebe to R.K. Christopher, dated 3/10/83) 2/25/83 Joel Wiebe and Lake Darrett met with Rick Parks concerning f Parks allegations. Parks indicated he was satisfied that GPU . <
QA/QC this was involved and no further action was warranted at time. I 2/24/83 Larry King called Joel Wiebe at home and told him his badge !
had been taken and he had been escorted off site (Ref. ". Report of Allegation," dated 3/1/83). King felt this action had been
, taken because he had talked with the NRC earlier (Joel Wiebe had interviewed him when following up Parks concerns on the Polar Crane) 3/1/83 R.K. Christopher spoke by telephone with Larry King to obtain (n) general information regarding the nature of his allegations.
3/1/83 R.K. Christopher spoke by telephone with King and arranged for an interview on 3/2/83.
3/2/83 Interviewed Larry King. (Ref. OI:RI Report of Inquiry.
Q-1-83-006) 3/9/83 Joel Wiebe and Tony Fasano met with Larry King at the NRC's Middletown office to review site operations letters. He gave further allegations concerning 8echtels role at THI-2.
(Ref. A. Fasano and'J. Wiebe to R.K. Chridopher letter, dated 3/10/83) 3/10/83 Joel Wiebe met with Rick Parks and Carl. Hrbac. Rick Parks said GPU was trying to set him up to be fired for coming to the NRC with his concerns. (Ref. J.S. Wiebe to R.K. Chris-topher letter, dated 3/11/83) 3/22/83 Contacted Joyce Wenger Larry Kings' secretary, to request and interview regarding potential safety concerns at TMI-2.
Wenger declined to be interv'iewed.
o -
_ _ ______.____A
'~
s 4 ,
g( [
a l s~ le 7 f%
u _
_-- ~ - ,. .. .. e.
W"* *eher , Meep .p "8" *
' *d A / h* . &
+- .. . . ,. . ...e-.-m*+=*=m*'*** * * ' * * ~ " ' " "
==
'*'*84#ehNgem..i a hw m=em = " ' ' * " '* '*
q g_.
. _. .a etm.s*N6 *S**4 83 6 '8'MWpM N@u en 86 +*e8-S umm o em-e w ._
_ , w, e og em e *"O"E" Wue M A4* N M*EED4.hM he em.h, een ,
w = * * - "===* ~.. . .. %
h
,,. . wo--==e==*
- W
,,+.e. .. , . ..==am--we e-. =wse -
.we e *6* $de-* We * .m'6 Weg e eungseimmy . ad ..,
..m,og.. -.eg,,,,
h5"
+9 -me.---w-e- -e- =ge'e, .me m an .ON. .
e.mma me
[
. ...w ..-- .. .
,g.
e- .
O e -se
.m,
-'*'#EWh*E*"* 6
-u_e e
.%. g .
wa .
=
s get a W
- '
- F e
!"i 0;
3 J;. uyceve. Fg y- -
a l s-l tr7
-. 6 .
c-23 N/(s _
m
. f h.f -
_b.
- . - - - . - ._._. _ . _ . _ . .. .T
" ~
l 1:
~
alm L_ ~ ~ ~ T_.
- _ - 4 L t. a/fd d 1
a .
7 . .-.. b5/AL L_ ___ -.. .... _..-
O b. NdD 9 ,.. . . d c & (s Q : 4/u .
-...t> Spa %e .. . h .cb>~p e , p , w g. aem me.e.e e
,e, em . goyes e e*w. eme .We -
Ne+. i'" O ""*
e eW6 ,g'ee see .m u4 .mo ,.p ., ae.ee==e. as .a aMm9'=' e -- ' N *
- ae a e supw O- - - -
p.
M *
/
_ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s
~. _ _ . _ - _
W 'te- Q & y- __
d fV]
T v(T ,
1 Interview of Richard O. Parks Richard D. PARKS, accompanied ey Legal Counsel, Thomas M; DEVINE, legal Directer, Government Accountability Project (GAP? cf the Institute for Policy Studies, 19C1 Que Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009, was interviewed in the Cffice of the Assistant Director for Investigations, Office of Inspector and l
Auditor (01A), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission on June 23, 1983.
ARKS was advised that the interview concerned obtainine any additional /- !
amplifying infomation concerning the Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Power Station other than that which had been provided by him in an affidhvit ,
executed March 21, 1983. Moreover, PARKS was infomed that the specific areas O of interest to 01A's investigation pertained to the information in his ,
L affidavit regarding allegations of harassment and possible retaliation by L_-__-_______________
'O GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (GPUN)/RECHTEL NOF~h AMERICAN POWEP CORPORATION (BECHTEL) management toward employees; in adcition, NRC's reperted breach of confidentiality concerning PARK 5' recorting of safety concerns and other allegations of collusion between NRC and GPUN/PECHTEL were topics which OIA wished to discuss.
~;
Relatedly, PARKS was informed that the scope of the O!A investigation did not encompass all aspects of his March 21, 1983, affidavit as a concurrent NRC Office ef Investigations (01) incuiry was ongoing in related technical / safety l areas regarcing the licensee and its contractors.
As statec in his affidavit, PARKS described being formerly employed by BECHTEL as a senior start-up engineer at TMI Unit 2. PARKS stated his duties include workino as an Operations Engineer reporting directly to the Director of Site Operations (L. P. KING) and the Manager of Plant Operations (Josepn CHWASTYK). l 1
In adeition, PARKS described serving as alternative start-up and test supervi-ser for Unit 2, acting start-up and test manager from July 31, 1982, ur.til August 9, 1982, and also serving as the alternate Test Work Group Chairman. !
l
)
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _2 j
. . [
lr a::roximately crid-Novereer 1982, PARKS stated Site Operations became invclved in the Head Lift Task Force (HLTF) regarding removal of the reactor vessel head at TMI-2. During subsecuent meetings between groups which con-pr1 sed the PLTF, it became somewhat apparent to assigned Site Operations personnel (PARXS, KING, and Edwin H. GISCHEL, Plant Engineering' Director) that i
there were significant deficiencies in the planned program to remove the i
reactor vessel head as well as subsequent activities to remove the fuel. To {
accomplish removal of the reactor vessel head, a polar crane was to be utilized to remove other heavy ecuipment inside the containment and to stage ary support ecuipment reouired to remove the damaged core from the reactor vessel. GPUN had assigned BECHTEL to refurbish the reactor building polar crane to its undamaged condition. The issue of the polar crane becomes one of the focal points of the concerns, inter alia, expressed by PARKS in his 4
March 21, 1983, affidavit.
Concerning the polar crane and other related issues (viz, HLTF and Safety Q
Evaluation Reports (SER)), PARKS expressed an extreme degree of concern s.. regarding what he described as Questionable activities by Lake H. BARRETT, C.,
r_______ _ _ .
q
,0
.%s Oe:uty Directo,r, NRC Three Mile Island Program Office (TMIP01 PARKS related i
that as he realized numerous concerns regarding the polar crane and related i
issues at TP!, it became screwhat accarent, in his epinion, that BARRETT was acting imprecerly in his dealings with GPUN/BECHTEL. In an attempt to main-tain a chr:nolecical sequence regarding these concerns, PARKS was requested to focus his attention on his initial contact with NRC personnel leading to his allegatien of impropriety by SARRETT and/or other NRC personnel.
1 O -
PARKS described meetings which were held during November 1982 through February 1983 between various CPUN/BECHTEL management personnel and sub- ;
crdinate staff individuals involved in the polar crane and related issues. l i
Specifically, PARKS said that GPUN, on July 19, 1982, assigned BECHTEL to restore the poiar crane to its undamaged cendition pursuant to a July 14 j 1982, work request (CA258). Subsequently, the HLTF was fomed with Site Operations beceming involved circa November 1982. During the November 1982 -
January 1983 period, PARKS explained that several aspects of the SER being '
l O area rea for sub=4si4en to the aaC were auest4oned er Paaxs xtsc. ae I
i
-- GISCHEL. These concerns included lack of appropriate calculations reoarding l
.\
~ ~ '
l l :ossible lead drop, lack of an integrated schedule to coordinate the pclar crane with the reactor-vessel head lift schedule, modifications of various I
l plant syster? without t.ov epriate engineering review, inadequately cualified persernel involved in the PLTF and other relatively general concerrs Question-ing the applied technical methodology.
During the- peried January 20 to February 10, 1983, the Safety Evaluation Report for use of the polar crane was reviewed by Site Operations. It was
.O determined by the Manager of Plant Engineering (GISCHEL) that the polar trane safety evaluation was technically uriacceptable and suggested reouired pro-Cedures were cited.
On February 11, 1983, KING informed Site Operations' staff of a meeting held to obtain the signatures of KING and GISCHEL, indicating their evaluation ano approval of the polar crare SER. PARKS stated that KING ard GISCHEL advised KANGA that they felt there were still significant problems with the polar crane program and would not sign the SER; KANGA stated he would take the s
l 0 ~
concrrns of KI,NG and GISCHEL to Robert ARNOLD. GPUN President, as the next 1
highest level of management to resolVR this matter.
Hewever, PARKS related that on February 14, 1983 John J. BARTON, Deputy ,
Director, TMI-2, GPUN, expressed his displeasure at KING and GISCHEL's refusal to sign the SER. Later that same date, KING and GISCHEL sent a menorandue to upper GPUN/SECHTEL maragement e4;ressing their fundamental' disagreement with tne polar crane program although recognizir.g management's prerogative to proceed ts they wish. .
On February 15, 1983, a meeting with GPUN upper management personnel resulted in a decision to proceed with the polar crane issue notwithstanding the
. disapproval of Site Operations. Consequently, en February 17, 1983, KING askee PARKS to review the polar crane Lead Test Prececure. PARKS expressed his concern regarding the lack of compliance with various technical require-ments and notified KING. The following day, February 18, PARKS was approached O er rewaro xtTtra. suaerv4sor of start-ua ae T st. **e askee P^aks mat a was doing (regarding his refusal to approve the polar crane load procedure) saying
-. . . . _ . ._...._ _.._. ; i r^v
.U that GPUN/BECFj,iEL managenent was " pissed o;f" at him for his actions (in not approving the polar crane issuesI. In this way, PARKS advised he learned of tre a arent possibility of potential transfer which he clearly interrupted as .
l a form of management reta,liation for disagreement with portions of the SER which -ere otherwise approved by the other members of the HLTF. Sirce such retaliation is protected under 10 CFR, Part 19, PARKS decided to report the matter to the NRC.
O v
PARKS then related that after his conversation with KITLER (during the morning of February 12. 1983' he telephered Phil GRANT of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reacter Regulation (NRR), regarding procedures to report a reprisal threat.
At GRANT's suggestion PARKS met later that same morning with Joel WIESE, Senior Resident Inspector at TMI, in WIEEE's office. PARKS advised he informed WIEBE of the above situation which he considered a ;cssible retal-iatory action by GPUN/BECHTEl. and asked how he could proceed with reporting this threat. WlEBE infermed PARKS that he would research the matter with the TMIPO and get back to PARKS with a response. PARKS stated that he requested s-- that his identification not be made known to anyone for obvious reasons of 1
(~) /
- ssible addit,ionai reprisai(s). WlEBE'r respense was reportedly that PARKS' identity would not be made known "unless absolutely necessary."
l At this point in the interview, DEV!NE inter.iected a question specifically incuiring of PARKS whether he was informed by WIEBE that he (PARKS) would be advised if his identity were necessary to be made known to any other per-sonnel. PARKS stated he did not specifically recall if that provision had been agreed to in the conversation with W!EBE; however, PARKS stated his
.'\
presumption was that WIEBE would notify PARKS if his identity was disclosed.
On February 25, 1983, PARKS again met with WIESE at the NRC office and they proceedec directly into the office of Lake H. BARRETT, Deputy Director, TMIPO.
l BAERETT explained that TMIPO personnel had reviewed PARKS' concerns regarding l
the ;olar crane. This TMIPO review included a surprise NRC inspection of )
l BECHTEL polar crane calculations at their engineering office in Gaithersburg, j 1
l Ma ryl a nd. BARRETT then asked PARKS if he wished for an NRC Office of Inves.
() tigations inquiry regarding the possible threat of a retaliation transfer due to comments he made regarding the polar crane issue. PARKS responded that he l
. - . . ._- _____________ ~
x-<
wished to " hold that decision in abeYanse" pending the results of a Ouality Assurance / Quality Control .eview. PARKS stated he then asked BARRETT what NRC wovie de if GPUN/SECHTEL transferred him: BARRETT responded that the NRC could ;
not co anything until that incident occurs although stating the NRC would certainly "take a dim view" of the matter.
At approximately 8 a.m. on February 28, 1983, PARKS learned that a meeting was to be held with uceer level management GPUN/BECHTEL' personnel; on February 26 O 1983, ARNOLD, GPUN President, had appointed a readiness review committee to review the polar crane issue. PARKS explained that he offered te and did attend the meeting; after the meeting was adjourned, PARKS related he and Ren WARREN (plant engineering) were requested by Jim THEISING, Manager, Recovery Program (who coordinated the meeting), to remain behind for a moment.
THEISING, in the presence of WARREN, inquired what management could do to
" smooth over the growing split between Site Operations and the etner organiza-I tiens."
e
i e-L.)g A brief discussion then followed regarding KING who had recently been sus-
- ended and other issues. THEI51NG informed PARK'$ that he was aware that a ,
secend or thire level Site Operations sucarvisor had already spoken with the >
.NRC; additionally, in light of the KING suspension and the recent termination of other employees to solve inter-departmental disagreements, he (THEISING) could understand an individual reporting this situation to the NRC. PARKS stated these comments by THEISING were clearly construed to mean THE151NG was aware PARKS was the individuel who had contacted the NRC. PARKS characterized this event as the first clear indication that his expressed required confiden-tia19ty, guaranteed in his meeting with WIEBE, had been violated.
Continuing, PARKS then described receiving a telephone call at his residence en March 3,1983, f rom KING. KING expressed his concern regarding the NRC having po3sibly violated PARK 5' confidentiality. PARKS described how KING informed him of being telephewed by Keith CHRISTOPHER, NRC Region 1 Office of Investigations. KING reportedly stated that CHRISTOPHER was incuiring about KING's conceras of various problem are65 at 7MI; during this conversation,
- CHRISTOPHER asked KidG if his safety concerns were the same as those related I ,
by PARKS. PARKS stated that his obvinus knowledge by CHRISTOPHER of concerns tapressed.by PARKS,-further suoported PARKS' contention that the NPC had b
?
v1olated his recuested confidentiality. )
{
o PARKS described a separate inc4. dent involving CHRISTOPHER and explained that some time on or about March 21, 1983, he (PARKS) spoke with Special Agent report-
, FBI, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania had with edly was describing to PARKS a conversation that O CHRISTOPHER.
reportedly stated that during a conversation regarding .
1 TMl/ PARKS and KING, CHRISTOPHER described PARKS / KING as " leaders of a ga'ng o malcontents," PARKS explained that in his opinion, at a minimum, the coments reportedly made by CHRISTOPHER were entirely inappropriate and unprofessional and worthy of pursuit regarding CHRISTOPHER's continued suitability as an' NRC investigator.
On March 9,1983 PARKS explained that he was again called at his residence by i KING who explained that earlier that day he had spoken with ARNOLD, President,
~
GPU, and it appeared apparent to KING that ARNOLD was attempting to implicate
1 (Q
s
- ARKS in the OUILTEC, INC. Consulting Company issue and use that as the rationale for dismissing PARKS. Accordingly, on March 10, 1983, PARKS returned to the NRC office and again met with WIEBE. PARKS asked Carl HRBAC to accompany him to the meeting as a witness and HRBAC agreed.
PARKS, upon entering WlEBE's office, informed him that he wished to reouest a special investigation regarcing the information which KING had related to him the previous evening. PARKS described that WIEBE somewhat summarily dismissed PARK 5' corrents and gave him a slip of paper with the U.S. Department of Labor address as well as the phone number of CHRISTOPHER. WIEBE explained that NRC's position regarding his situation was that it would not become involved in an employer / employee labor mattar and described TMIPO having consulted on this matter with CHRISTOPHER. BOTH HRBAC and PARKS then expressed concern over the NRC's apparent lace of concern over retaliatier and WlEBE merely - .
reiterated his comments that his situation would have to be pursued with the Department of Labor. PARKS advised that the comments of W'EBE on March 10,
()
- ~ ~
1983, directly conflict with the position taken by WIEBE on February 2 5 , 1923,--
. l
' 1 l
C during the meeting between PAPKS and BAPRETT/WIEBE when PARKS was asked 1 whether he wished to pursue the complaint and request an NRC investigation.
PARKS' coments regarding possible NRC personnel impropriety then returned to BARRETT. In this regard, PARKS explained how he had been informed by BARRETT l
that he (BARRETT) had initiated a draft review process in an attempt to assist GPU sherten review cycles and expedite clean up issues. PARKS explained that this initiative by BARRETT was a clear violation of procedures listed in the Cede of Federal Regulations and characteristic of a main problem theme high-ligrted in the President Report of the near disaster accident at Three Mile Islanc (vis, failure to correctly follow appropriate administrative proce-cures). At this point in the interview, DEVINE explained that the Government Ac:cuntatility Project has in its possession handwritten notes to/fron BARRETT and GPU regarding various issues which are considered to be unauthorized, informal, forms of communications between the NRC and a licensee.
As another example of alleged impropriety on the part of BARRETT, PARKS
,een described an April 22, 1983, address reportedly made by BARRETT to the
l s'% i
\.y) {
Concerned Mothers of Middletown. During this session, BARRETT explained that there were essentially no safety problems associated with the polar crane issue which directly conflicted with official published NRC reports.
Throughout the interview with PARKS and OEVINE, it was explained and reiterated that the OIA inouiry regarding concerns expressed by PARKS were primarily focused on NRC personnel impropriety. It was reiterated that the
) NRC Office of Investigations (01) had created a task force to address the myriad technical issue concerns as expressed by PARKS in his March 21,'1983, affidavit and, therefore, 01A would not pursue these purely technical issues.
Consequently, numerous attempts during the interview by PARKS /0EVINE to speak i
of various purely technical / safety issue concerns were referred to by OIA representatives as the responsibility of the ongoing 0! task force efforts.
In this regard, PARKS /DEV!NE admitted having met on several occasions with O!
personnel. Concluding. Investigator Ronald MEEKS, 01, was asked by
~ Patrick MCKENNA, OIA, to meet with PARKS and DEVINE in order that any concerns regarding technical / safety issues which had not been expressed / addressed might i
/,
NS be related to' MEEK 5 for possible inclusien in the 01 efforts. Accordingly, the three men met following the O!A interview.
During the interview, it was continually explained that DIA needed specific information concerning reported violations of regulation or statute; DEVINE responded that they (he and PARKS) were not alleging illegality, but violation by BARRETT of Section 2302 B.8. of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and by the NRC of 10 CFR 50 relative to GPU procedures. DEVINE said "...there were no problems with law, but there were with the mission of the agency... (NRC)."
Moreover, DEVINE concluded that he felt "...there was an NRC lack of respect fer the administrative role of the licensee."
The approximately two and one half hour interview with PARKS /DEVINE concluded at approximately 1 p.m. on June 23, 1983.
Lo-.
~.
l T
- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION alslE 7 Office of Ins;:eetor and Auditor September 1,1983 Q O.i..,u. neu..
Report of Interview Joel S. Wiebe, Senior Resident Inspector (SRI), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, TMI-2, was interviewed at the Three Mile Island Program Office (TMIPO) by Patrick McKenna, Jr., Investigator on August 15, 1983. Wiebe was informed that the interview focused on the March 21, 1983, 56 page afficavit which had been submitted by Richard D. Parks. Wiebe was aware of the OIA investigation regarding various alleged acts of NRC employee impropriety (ies) in conjunction with their official duties with GPUN/Bechtel as well as other allegations regarding numerous topics of technical and safety related nature in the post-accident clean up operation at TMI.
As requested by McKenna, Wiebe provided professional background information relative to his NRC employment and advised that he commenced employment at the NRC at the Office of Standards Development in Rockville, Maryland, in Octcber 1979. In August of 1980, Wiebe was reassigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at TMI and in July 1982 was assigned to his current position as SRI, TMI-2.
r Regarding Richard D. Parks, Wiebe advised that circa late 1981 - early 1982,
(],, he first met Parks in conjunction with their respective routine duties on perhaps a daily engineer to engineer basis. In this regard, Wiebe related that their relationship was essentially unremarkable with no problem areas of significance ever encountered. Wiebe was questioned concerning the information in the Parks' affidavit cpmmencing on page 20 wherein Parks writes of meetings with Wiebe regarding various concerns. Parks' concerns primarily focus upon fear of GPUN/Bechtel reprisal threats which Parks felt may have been d1rected towards him for having contacted the NRC to report possible problems regarding the controversial Polar Crane issue.
Wiebe explained that he had been contacted on February 18, 1983, by TMIP0 staff member, Philip Grant, regarding Parks. Wiebe stated Grant merely in-formed him that Parks had some problem areas and/or concerns which he wished 1 to discuss and suggested Wiebe consider contacting Parks. Accordingly, Wiebe 1 advised he telephoned Parks that same date and later that day met with Parks j in his (Wiebe's) office.
i I
l l _.
August 15, 1983 83 45
%.,iyi,on oe ., Middletown. Pennsylvania a n. =
i g d ,,
Patrick McKenna, Jr., Investigator , , , , , , , ,
August 19, 1983 TwtS DOCUMENT 'S # ROPE RTY OF NRC IF LOANEC TO ANOTME R ACENCY 47 ANO #TS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO 8E DIST RISVTE D OUTSsOE TwE mECElvtNG AGENCY WITwCVT PE RMISSION OF THE OPSICE OF INSPECTOR ANO AUQtTOR.
l oo s:n
'~
~
b During the OIA interview, Wiebe referred to some notes that he had taken from the meeting with Parks as well as an office log book which he utilized for various activities. Upon refreshing his recollection, Wiebe stated that he and Parks had an approximately 30 meeting on February 18. Describing his concerns, Parks primarily focused on the issue of the Polar Crane Load Test and functional test procedures and possible retaliation by GPUN/Bechtel towards Parks for his widespread, vocal comments which were in disagreement with GPUN/Bechtel regarding the Polar Crane issue. ,
Wiebe was aware of Parks' allegations that his confidentiality in having spoken with the NRC had been breached and was requested to recount events as best as possible. Wiebe recalled that during the Parks interview on February 18, 1983, there may have been some inference or actual cementary regarding whether Wiebe would notify anyone relative to Parks contacting the NRC; however, if so, Wiebe could not recall exact verbiage. As a general policy of the TMIPO, Wiebe advised that individuals who report concerns to NRC are routinely kept confidential and may have perhaps respended to any Parks' questions regarding any disclosure by advising he would not notify anyone of Parks having contacted the NRC "unless absolutely necessary."
Wiebe produced an NRC Region I fonn (#207) prepared at the time of the meet-ing. The form reports:
i
" Rick Parks is worried about losing his job over this since he alleges l that another Bechtel employee ' Mike Korin' was laid off for no apparent reason under similar circumstances."
O Accordingly, based on Parks concern of being identified, Wiebe stated he probably would have provided some assurance to Parks regarding confiden-tiality; again, as previously stated, if this assurance was provided by Wiebe he could not recall the exact comments. After the Parks meeting, Wiebe related that he discussed the situation with his immediate supervisor, A. N. Fasano, Chief, TMI-2 Project Section, as well as Lake H. Barrett, Deputy Program l Director, TMIPO.
l Wiebe advised that during the week following the meeting with Parks, Wiebe and other TMIPO staff pursued Parks' allegations regarding the polar crane. Wiebe explained that he spoke with Parks immediate supervisor, L. P. King, Director, Site Operations, TMI-2, on February 22, 1983. King reportedly described how l Parks had related his concerns about possible retaliatory transfer by l GPUN/Bechtel King advised this was an apparent attempt by GPUN/Bechtel to I
suppress Parks in light of widespread and vocal disapproving comments regard-ing the Polar Crane test procedures and other related issues which Parks had become involved in during his participation in the HLTF. Wiebe recalled King comented that although GPUN/Bechtel was not likely to take such a drastic action (transfer Parks), they certainly did not receive Parks' comments with any degree of welcome. In this regard, King related that in addition to Parks, he (King) and Edwin Gischel, Director, Plant Engineering, had also been vocal in their disapproval to the HLTF and GPUN/Bechtel of some aspects of the Polar Crane Load Test Procedures; specifically, King cited the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) which was submitted to NRC without Site Operations approval.
Further., Wiebe explained that this disapproval by Parks, King, and Gischel had l become widely known throughout IMI. l t !
I l
i i
m ,
L Regarding his conversations with King, Wiebe unequivocally stated that at no time did he mention having conferred with Parks or in any fashion otherwise provide any indication that Parks may have contacted the NRC. Rather, during the conversation with King, Wiebe confidently opined there was no degree of unusualness in Wiebe discussing the Polar Crane load test procedures and related subjects since it was a controversial topic. Moreover, if King con-cluded Parks may have contacted NRC regarding concerns, it was Presumption that was in no way germinated or supported by Wiebe.
Wiebe stated on February 23, 1983, he interviewed Edwin H. Gischel, Plant Engineering Director. Wiebe stated that during his discussion with Gischel, Wiebe inquired about the possibility of GPUN/Bechtel attempting to suppress safety concerns regarding Polar Crane Test Procedures. Niebe advised that Gischel, essentially echoing similar comments of King, described some dis-agreement by GPUN/Bechtel management, although providing no information to support any possible retaliation / reprisal. Further, although the discussion topic of Polar Crare Test Procedures was a topic which had become almost synenymous with Parks due to his outward ccamentary, Parks' name was never mentioned or the fact that anyone had presented conc 1rns to NRC. As in the interview with King, Wiebe opined that if there was any perception by Gischel that Wiebe's interview / questioning focused on Parks as an individual rather than the Polar Crane test procedure issues, it was certainly a presumption not '
confirmed. Wiebe stated that although there may have been a presumption, it was somewhat understandable due to Parks' vocal comments.
1%
C In addition to speaking with King and Gischel, Wiebe related that on February 23, 1983, he also interviewed Edward Kitler, Startup and Test Super-visor, and on February 24, 1983, Charles Hanson, a Bechtel Licensing Engineer, regarding the Polar Crane Test.
Wiebe described that in his conversations with Kitler, they discussed the Startup and Test Group involvement in reviewing the Polar Crane Test pro-cedures. Kitler related that the Test Working Group was reviewing the test procedure to detennine the applicability of various administrative procedures
' Administrative Procedures 1043 and 1047). Wiebe noted that during previous ,
eetings between Site Operations personnel and GPUN/Bechtel, Parks expressed i oncern that the test working group had not become involved in reviewing !
erta'in portions of the test procedure. Wiebe recalled asking Kitler if he was aware of any one who could potentially be the victim of possible GPUN/Bechtel management reprisal for having voiced dissenting opinions regarding any procedures. Kitler reportedly advised he was unaware of anyone being involved in such a situation; however, Wiebe explained that Kitler then commented on the possibility of Parks possibly being transferred into an anticipated vacancy to be created by the scheduled reassignment of Kitler (a position of greater responsibility).
l Regarding Hanson, Wiebe stated he asked Hanson if he knew of any actual or perceived situations wherein a GPUN/Bechtel employee may have been threatened / intimidated by transfer or termination due to dissenting comments made to management. Wiebe related Hanson advised having no knowledge of any such instances. Moreover, to the best of his recollection, Wiebe stated Parks (h v name was not even mentioned in that conversation with Hanson. As a possibly pertinent aside, Wiebe recalled that Hanson briefly spoke of a letter which 1
i i: k f
QJ
'z i
.. l Gischel received from GPUN/Bechtel stating the conceras that Gischel had raised were already addressed. .
Gischel, who had been away from work for a rather lengthy period due to illness, was reportedly reluctant to continue efforts at voicing his dis- y senting opinions to GPUN/Bechtel management; Wie M srelated Hanson opined that y Gischel's apparent reluctance to readdress previous usues may have been f misconstrued as not wishing to address them officially or perhaps as being i 3
intimidated by possible GPUN/Bechtel reprisal.
Finally, although their discussion was relatively brief, Wiebe explained interviewing James Theising, Manager of Recovery Programs, TMI-2, on Februa ry 24, 1983.
Wiebe stated he asked Theising if he was aware of any possible instances wherein a GPUN/Bechtel employee may have been threatened with 30ssible ter-mination or transfer due to dissenting professional opinions being openiy stated contrary to management's obvious opoosing position. Wiece recalled that r Theising's comments in response was that he was unaware of any such practices and apparently confidently opined neither Bechtel nor GPUN management would knowingly permit such practices to occur. Consequently, Wiebe related that he did not further pursue questioning in this rmlard and, unquestionably, did'not e "J mention Parks' name or that Farks or anyone else had contacted the NRC regard-
- ing concerns. g..
l .Wiebe explained that following the initial interview with Parks on
[] February 18, 1983, in conjunction with TMIP0 staff meetings decisior con-cerning Parks' concerns, the NRC Office of Investigations (in the pt son ofc01 j Field Director R. Keith Christopher) at Region I, ting of Prussia, l Pennsylvania was notified and briefed.. Essentially, it was determined that TMIPO would conduct a preliminary review of Parks' concerns to ascertain
! whether 01 involvement was warranted. These dialogues were between Barrett and/or Fasano with Christopher, although Wiebe was cognizant on an as developed basis.
Wiebe described that near the close of business on February 24, 1983, a staff meeting was held regarding the results of the various above described inter-views, as well as other inquiry efforts (the Thomas C. Poindexter, TMIPO, surprise inspection of Bechtel Engineering files at Gaithersburg, Maryland, regarding polar crane load drop analysis and rigging analysis, the examination of other GPUN/Bechtel internal documentation and other TMIPO staff interviews of GPUN/Bechtel employees) regarding Parks' stated concerns.
It was agreed by all present that Parks should be recontracted the following day to inform him'of"tne results of the TMIPO inquiry. Consequently, on February 25, 1983, Parks again met with Wiebe and Barrett in Barrett's office.
Wiebe stated that Barrett informed Parks that during the preceding week, '
inquiries conducted by NRC staff personnel'did not surface any information.
indicative of possible GPUN/Bechtel management utilizing reprisal threats or other related forms of harassment / intimidation. Continuing, Wiebe related that q Barrett then explained various aspects of safety issues regarding the polar b crane as well as touching upon other aspects of GPUN/Bechtel management techniques. In this regard, Barrett statec' that the TMIPO is cognizant of the I I
E _ _ _ - - - - - - . - - - - - - -
i h
( b, t 4
, ,t ? ,
t D
( l L i <
' 'a , i ;
rssible friction betweers Certain departments and the po. sibility of resultant dic71ne in quality of prte dures, yMoe stated Parks was canvassed concerning
, spy:ific safety issue madrs regaeling the polar crane and/or any other issue. Parks responded he had no Worination in that &rea, although being concerned tout some gereral prth.edh es anf, of course, the harass-ment /intira.Wtion in the form of a ooss4ly staliatory transfer which Parks continued ty perceive. ,
Wiebe stated that Parks was 1Mormeh dat 6 :e wished to make a formal diegation concerning any sper.Mic int tances of harassment / intimidation or any other Lossible violations, the WIPO Muld request an NRC Region I 01 investi-
~ gation. Parks declined tM offe . stating he preferred to wait until the
, completion of a GPUN/Bechtel Quality Assurance / Quality Control Review.
Perhaps relatedly, Wiebe meeNT thu: the February 24, 1983, suspension of King was then dhcussed and opined uat Parks was intimating that King's suspension was ebo a form of GPUN/Bechtel reprisal for stating openly opinions contrar/ to management.
,12R3, W' .M related Parks telmhoned requesting a meeting to On March discuss a @ldn 'eni infcimation concerning (1eir February 18 and 25,1983, meetings. Parvs, accompan1)d'N Carl Hrbat (u co-worker engineer), stated his additional iMomation v 1cdrned a telephone call received from Larry King the previtys evening. Durittg that telephone conversatica, King reportedly related (N havfenghada$onversatior: that date wita Robert Arnold, President, GPUN, O regarding QUILTEC, Inc. (the managemert consulting fmn King was president and/or major share holder of and, cW to a reported o:onflict of interest witt GPUN/Becht/., the ostensible renon,'or King's suspension and ultimate ter-mination).- \
Reportedly, during tae King / Arnold conversation, Arnold inquired about possi-ble involvement by Parks with QUILTEC and requested King divulge Parks' v affiliathn. Apparently, in light of King's suspension, Parks then recentacted the NRC Siebe related that although King's status was officially "suspened with pay.oending sn internal in'.ustigation" effective Cebruary 24 and ttrmina- i g
tien was not until March 23, 1983, the circumstances surrounding King's 1 sue ension (sscorted off TMI, identification badge confiscated and replacement 4 (Joseph Chmstyk) designated), it was widely believed that King was temMated (
or tae foyer date.) I l
Parks, exprew tag his concerns to Wiebe regarding the King / Arnold convena -
tion, again iterated his contention that GPUN/Bechtel had been "sr was working towards retaliation for Parks having contacted the NRC. Wiebe, ba d upon the T11PO inquirm discusvd at several staff meetings, agreed to by t li NRC ,
personnel, e l approvco by Barrett, related that Parks' concerns, absent !
additional specific information might best be referred to the United States Department of Labor. As decided, Wiebe explained that Parks' concern apoesred to constitute strictly an employee / employer matter. Wiebe provided Parks the
," nue and address of the local D0L in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania which had be$.n s prodde; to the TMIP0 staff ( A. N. Fasano) by Christopher, 01; auditiona~ily.
as a possible. alternate or additional course of action to consider , Wiebe C-, stathd he also suggestej Parks consider contacting the GPUN cetudsman.
_-___-____-__-_a
j <._ Lq /C _ -
, I. c
' s
.ll ,
3:. 1.
j' 'n#
b c , -1 N
- my -
Eh 9i ,
Other than the above described situations, and the otherwise somewhat routine. !
, "J ' m dealings which Wiebe had with Parks on an engineer to engineer basis prior to j s !, February-March e1983, hbe could provide no additional information in response '
(, - r. ,ft6OIAquestioning.. . ,
1 Concluding, Wiebe again stated that at no'tirce 'during;any conversation with j any GPUN/Bechtel employee or other individual did ha mention Parks by name or {
s otherwise infer or lead any 1,isterer to believe that Parks may.have contacted ;
~
the NRC (other than discussing topics which had. essentially become Parks' guidon; viz, Polar Crane). Reiterating, if that inference was received or dt3wn, Wiebe stated it was clearly a presumption without confirmation.
, s
- o e
E e
- r .
, k*
l s.
g
, L
-/-
=
[L h O [
REPORT OF ALLEGATION d} S' @[
(See R1 No. 1200.10J NOTE: .
When receiving an allegation by telephone, it is important that the recipie be alert to the emotional state of the caller and use judgement whe to elici.t from the following reporting it. information to avoid possibly discouraging the caller RECEIVED BY: ~Jee / .S. 6.)/c St.-
DATE/ TIME: A[tP/t"b ALLEGER'S NAME: A;c k d,fs -
TEL. NO.: (Home)
(Business) '/8/f-if8 3 j ADDRESS:
MAY CONTACT:
1 Yi Yes g go gg,, g
. (Time)
' (Place)
EMPLOYER: /3u4'rt/
POSITION / TITLE d nc.'*,se&
~ V AFFECTED LICENSEE OR COMPANY: 6 PUN FACILITY: 7/n I-l2 DETAILS (Use additional pages as necessary):
A:ck fa,ls is a BachT.il y E :r,.n v N .y d Yo 7mr ,2 Opal.s.s bijndn*<
(}0 % 7tni-2 0- he sih G GPu ima spmd ih S op d.w ap., ~.s).nw.,:u d tionky y yes c AAu ma.y d Ga. k h<p mo L rk &,441 .s/u a d 7.u f .ne:ho n. .1 ~ a < a *
- A,c K A ts. Un 6 n .. ~ .s up.ct.s .g., 14 a:,,d ,. ..t .s:te speak-> ~
" co m m d.s cyp re< l n...ajnAs A e4 ,y,,7 x,ax &,/G as A,/. .
altip a,J
.4t-904.-
bupu. J. ks co n e.,1s o, coa Lad - !.,4.c.c W-ith(wl:*.4efl } txt y
c,w fu.,d:oed Tid pnada a lu n h:,9 t 9 g,ji,7 g.,;
np ..,,de M wast b;w tes ,dr..t.) eH >0.e. 76 1,h<m/n h an,.;y .$.~ *s% dalitI t
4,,m us.. u -- .v , a.,,1 .s p .. .< = -a , - i u u s a i.w:g oigaisa.c.). AucL fo<fa allip iid th Ala C~ int d.cs ow'r c*f < + d4. :suu p,.cJnu a isn '.p,ng 4ed tr) J % M' to1.1
" .hsei m j tri o J.~ $ w n.?{re s Co.8*o $ .'ll'elhe aIlip tto SU U k* #
d+o,J .T.est* was .ot. p S ~~s / i .<<. ki wA Aio is n d A/!*13. A'd h,is la m hd aimed los: y 4;s 7 4o + 'ch'A s:s u- ks. AIlyLi MA REGIkN F0kt s, n.u z w ,: - s e - e..e-, w' . x.s ia, e..Y nya w /u>.
~ . . . . . .4 . .t s~a , or., ,,.. ..i. ,, i, . , . ;_ ,. .f m , , , , A