ML20238C592
| ML20238C592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1987 |
| From: | Meeks R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238C505 | List:
|
| References | |
| CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8712310107 | |
| Download: ML20238C592 (300) | |
Text
l ORI GMa TMNSCRTT l
- OF PROCHRDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
-x In the Matter of: :
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION : Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear : EA-84-137 Station, Unit No. 2) :
-x e DEPOSITION OF RONAL D MEEKS l
Washington, D. C.
Tuesday, June 16, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotype luporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 G (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 8712310107 871209 PDR ADOCK 05000320 T PDR
_ . . . . _ _ - - ---- -]
CR31361.0 1
- ,BMS/dow I' ./ ~%
(J- . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
- - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of: :
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION : Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear : EA-84-137 Station, Unit No. 2) :
______.x
. DEPOSITION OF RONALD MEEKS Washington, D. C. j Tuesday, June 16, 1987 1 Deposition of RONALD MEEKS, called for examination pursuant to notice, at the law offices of Shaw,.Pittman, Potts l
& Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., at 9:40 a.m. before BRENDA i
M. SMONSKEY, a Notary Public within and for the District of Columbia, when were present on behalf of the respective parties:
I GEORGE E. JOHNSON, ESO.
SEBASTIAN ALOOT, ESQ. ;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Office of General Counsel 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 On behalf of Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ,
l
-- continued -- q ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage NK)-336-6646
- - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ . _ _ _ I
- CR31361.0: 2 BKS /dnw' ,
O: APPEARANCES: (Continued)
J.-PATRICK HICKEY, ESO.
DAVID.'R. LEWIS, ESO.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 23OO.N Street, N.W.
-Washington, D. C. 20037 On behalf of the Applicant.
ALSO PRESENT:
I- ROGER A. FORTUNA, Deputy Director, NRC Office of-Investigations l0 l
O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Kk336-6646
3 O
V l
1 CONTENTS 2
WITNESS EXAMINATION l 3
-Ronald A. Meeks by Mr.. Hickey 4 4 by Mr. Johnson 193 q by Mr. Hickey 195 4 l
EXHI BITS 7 MEEKS EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED 8 Exhibits 1 and 2 30 9 Exhibit 3 47 10 Exhibits 4 thru 6 52 Exhibit 7 61 p 13 Exhibit 8 73 12 Exhibit 9 78 13 Exhibit 10 80 14 Exhibit 11 81 15 Exhibit 12 84 16 Exhibit 13 86 17 Exhibit 14 88 18 Exhibit 15 93 19 Exhibit 18 146 20 Exhibit 19 149 21 Exhibit 20 151 22 q Exhibit 21 155 V ;
Exhibit 22 168 !
Exhibit 23 175 f I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 8(n 33MM6 i l
31361.0 4 BMS 4.a:
1 P R O C E; E D I NGS 2 Whereupon.
3 RONALD A. MEEKS 4 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 5 was examined and testified as follows:
6 E XAMINATION 7 BY MR. HICKEY:
8 O State your name for the record.
9 A Ronald A. Meeks.
10 0 By whom are you employed?
11 A The Depa rtme nt of Energy's Office of Inspector 12 General.
13 0 What is your position?
14 A Special agent.
15 O Prior to your employment by the Depa rtmen t of 16 Energy, were you employed by the NRC?
17 A Yes. NRC's Office of Investigations.
18 0 When were you employed with them, for what 19 period?
20 A From December of 1982 through May of 1987.
21 O Your position with them was what?
22 A Criminal investigator.
pm,,
.m,/
ACE FEDERAL REvonTEns, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33M646
31361.0 5 1BMS:
1 0 Did it remain the same.during your approximately 2 five years with the agency?
3 A Yes.
4 0 Uhat were your duties in general as a criminal 5 investigator with the NRC Office of Investigations?'
6 A To investigate allegations of wrongdoing against 7 those entities that NRC regulated.
8 0 Hould you just briefly outline for me your
~
9 background employment-wise and education before coming to 10 the NRC? ,
l
.. 11 A Before coming to the NRC, I was a special agent O.
~#
12 with the Drug Enforcement Administration for approximately 13 13 years. I am a graduate of-Brigham Young University.
14 0 Uhat kind of degree do you have?
15 A A bachelor of arts. j 16 0 In general, what were your duties as a special 17 agent with the Drug-Enforcement Administration?
18 A To investigate violations of the Controlled 19 Substances Act. l l
20 0 Did you have occasion to testify as a witness in i
21 court in., connection with your duties as a drug enforcement 22 agent?
J O
l l
ACE FEDERAL IlEPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 31361.0' 6 BMS OL 1 A Yes.
2 O Frequently?
3 A What.do you mean by frequently?
4 0 About how many times did you testify?
5 A I don't recall.
6 0 More than 25? I 7 A 7 really don't -- I would have-to sit and think 8 now. It was not infrequent, whatever that means. It was 9 more than 19, less than 25.
10 0 Have you ever had your deposition taken before?
11 A No.
12 0 At the risk of some repetition of what 13 Mr. Johnson has probably already told you, let me just.
14 explain to you that during the course of this day,.I will 15 be asking you questions about the matter pending before the 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled "In the Matter of 17 GPU Nuclear Corporation" and relating to an enforcement 18 action that has been brought concerning allegations of 19 harassment against Richard Parks.
20 As I ask the questions, the court reporter will 21 transcribe word for word the questions that I ask and then 22 your answers. It is important that you wait until I O
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MD-33MM6
~3 1361.0 7 BMS O 1 complete my question before you begin your answer so.that l 2 she can get down in total what you say and what I say.
3 If you don't understand any of the questions I 4 ask you, it is important that you indicate your. confusion 5 or your lack of understanding and I will be glad to try to 6 clarify the question so that we can be sure we are 7 communicating with each other.
8 A I understand.
9 0 Finally, if at any time during the course of the 10 proceedings you would like to take a break or want to visit 11 the facilties or whatever, just say something and we can i h' 12 stop and accommodate you in that fashion, too.
13 At the end of the deposition, the reporter will 14 type up the questions and the answers and we will submit a 15 copy to you, I assume, through Mr. Johnson.
16 MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
17 BY MR. HICKEY:
18 Q For you to review. You will be asked, then, to 19 read the questions and the answers. If the reporter has 20 erroneously written down what you said, you can correct it i
21 by making an appropriate indication on a sheet that will 22 come with the deposition so we can be sure the record of l
l L ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i
)
202-347 ",700 Nationwide Coverage MX)-33MM6
31361.0 8 BMS 1 the. deposition is as accurate as we can possibly make it.
2 You will be asked to sign, certifying you have made 3 corrections and that the deposition is accurate.
4 A Okay.
5 0 When were you assigned to the investigation'of 6 allegations relating to TMI Unit 2,'which allegations were 7 made in about March of 19837 8 MR. JOHNSON: Could you be a little more 9 specific about the allegations you are referring to.
10 MR. HICKEY: I was going to ask the Witness'what 11 the nature of his assignment was, because you thought I O 12 would start with the date.
13 BY MR. HICKEY:
14 0 Did you do investigations relating to TMI-2
-15 before March 19837 16 A No.
17 0 Do you remember when you were first assigned to 18 do an investigation with regard to TMI-27 19 A It was approximately March of '83, on or about 20 March of '83.
21 0 What were you asked to investigate?
- 22 A To investigate allegations of improprieties in l
i O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37(K) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 1
31361.0 ,
9 ,
BMS I -)
- a. .
v
.,' ,{ ,_ o
- n :
e' 1 the TMI-2 cleanup program. .J'j-
,T .
J cff ^
/ /.
- .i '
i 2 0 Were you part of af t'oam of investigators that
, i \
l 3 were assigned to that task? [ .,
i / I .I .
l 4 A Yes, I was. j '(',, .,
t
,./,
, 's ,
l 5 0 Who was on the team?,- j
~ [ f.i U'
6 A James V-o-rpi eI Office of Ih estimations, Roge
>'t e 7 Walker, Bill Beech. Therd jera others bp r. I' dJ 't Weall '
/ i ,3{ s I l "
8 their names right now. ,
d) i
/
l 9 0 Do you remember a Mri Uri'ch? /} '
1
,r; e ,
10 A Yes. , ,
e , ,
11 0 Was he a part! of the ted;Il-t\ .
's', , ,
12 A Initio Gy hef war, yfa." ;. i 7)
{ j/ ,
}<. < . , ,
t' / ,,
~/
13 0 Was someone f.bsif f t ee as . ' b(ing in charge..of the\
y '
,/, ', !;,'. s i 14 team or were'you aU aquals? / j , f ./
1 ",
.. t_ o. e, T
\ \ k
'('
g 15 A James;Yg/;d was in charge. ,
j ) ,,1 i
16 0 Did Mr.' Vorse continue to, be in charge / >
f l
- 17- t'woughaut the inve.stigation? p, ..
.,/
'/
18 A' To the,' test of my recollection, he was'ip charge i
,'\- / ,s for most of the i, investigation, yes. !J #
> <t 19 f. g ,, >> r i A 20 0 Towards thg knd of the invesr.igatiot, did ',
ei .
, / ,
21 Mr. Vorst leave the test /, /
t /* I .
' i i 1 22 A 1 thint ,t; hat ' paged Walker and Bill /ereblNbre
/ -
j'1 i
. . t. .
i 5 f'
- n- ' "
> a 1 i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. t I Natiobiae coverage a2 a 6646 m.n 37(p , 7l
. _ _ - _ _ _ - - n
- T g sg .
i,
. s.
m A ':
,3 ? ..
31361.0 9 S 10 BMS N ,x O , h, ,, ' N ,
m 1 'there during their phase of the investif)ation wherd?they
- i. r 2
looked at t.qthe tec'inical concerns. At what point they 3 became inactive, it.was after the terminationtof their 4 active review l of the technical concerns. e E 5 O. Those twq g.entlemen -- \
6 A James Vorse, to the best of icy recollection, 7 although he was notractively invo]ved, Wa.s ptill 8., supervising the investigations I was doing.
p- s 9 0 If I understood your answer, you are indicating 10-l that at some point, Mr. Vorse ceased participating actively 11 in interviewing witnesses and reviewing dbcuments, but O 12 continued to be the official supervisor for the work you 13 were engaged in doing the leywork 00?
14 A That io corr <tet.
15 0 About when did that happen?
16 A hell', thie was during 198S. I LSink one report 17 was issued in September of 1983. Then.I' conducted two 18 other investightf onc. Ono, report of investigation was 19 issued in December of ' 83. Another one in early 1984. May .
20 of '84, I think it was.
T 21 O Hith that chrcnology, can you tell me about when 22 Mr. Vorse ceased to function in an actire role in O
ACE FEDERAL REPOl'TERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natiom itle Coverage NX)-336R M
1.
1' L 1 h 31361.0 11 BMS O -
1 interviewing witnesses?
. . L
2 A. I think'it was at the conclusion of the report 3 of. investigation that was' issued in September of 1983. I m
~[ 4 0 Did someone else help you after that in doing. IV 5' the investigative work on the remaining investigations? ( L, 6 A No. c s 7 0 What was Mr. Vorse's connection with you 8 regarding the remaining investigations? .Did'he review your 9 work in some fashion or help you in some other way? 10 : MR. JOHNSON: I fail to see the relevance of 11 that ghostion to the deposition, who was reviewing his work.
^
O 12 MR. HICKEY: I have asked him whether Mr. Vorse 13 was par'ticipating in any way in it. He told me earlier 14 Mr. Vorse was initially his supervisor. I want to know 15 what that means and what he did with Mr. Beech's role in 16 the investigation, if anything. 1 17 MR. JOHNSON: I still don't see how that will 11 8 lead to any relevant information. u, ^ l'I MR. HIC KEY: It seems to me that if there was 20 other participants in the investigation, they may have 21 kncvisdge about the investigation. He said Mr. Vorse was l 22 an official participant. I want to know what " official" O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202 247-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L, s
31361.0- 12-BMS' O 1 means. 2 BY MR. HICKEY: 3 0 What did Mr. Vorse do af ter he ceased being an 4 active participant in the investigation after the. September 5 1983 report came out? What did he do after'that? 6 A To the best of my recollection I.think he 7 reviewed the report of investigation that was issued in 8 December. What review he had on the May reported I don't 9 recall. 10 0 The allegations that were made in March of 1983 11 that prompted the investigation covered a substantial area O 12 of different kinds of allegations. Did you divide your 13 investigative approach into particular areas, just for -- 14 did you divide it into particular areas? 15 A Yes. 16 0 What were the areas you broke it into? 17 A One area was that of technical concerns and how 18 those were handled. Another area was on reporting effluent 19 releases. Another area was allegations of discrimination. 20 Another area was the mystery man issue. i 21 0 As you began your investigative work, how did 22 you approach your interviews with the various witnesses O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
i 31361.0 13 BMS O 1 regarding these particular areas? 2 MR. JOHNSON: Could you clarify that question. 3 I don't think it is too clear. 1 4 MR. HICKEY: Sure. 5 BY MR. HICKEY: 6 O Did you identify witnesses you thought should be 7 interviewed regarding each of these areas you just listed? 8 A Yes. It was mainly based on information that 9 was given to us by the various allegers in those 10 investigations. 11 O Would that be Mr. Parks among the various O 12 allegers? 13 A Yes. 14 O And Mr. King? 15 A Yes. 16 O Mr. Gischel? 17 A Yes. 18 0 Were there any other persons who provided 19 information about witnesses to be interviewed concerning 20 these areas? 21 MR. FORTUNA: Watch your step right there. 22 MR. HIC KE Y: Are you representing Mr. Meeks O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(X) Nationwide Coverag grXh336 W 46
(. 31361.0 14 l BMS' l n. I (( - 1 today? l 2 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. l l 3 MR. HICKEY: I ask whoever is representing the l 1 4 Witness, if they have objection to make, they state it-as l 5 such. I don't.think it is appropriate to ask the. Witness 6 to watch his step because I think it is an attempt to coach 7 the Witness. If you have an objection to the form of my 8 question -- 9 MR. FORTUNA: 'I have an objection in the sense 10 that Mr. Meeks'should consult and carefully consider his 11 testimony before he gives an answer. But'more specifically O 12 and more importantly, many of the investigations conducted 13 by the office of which I am a supervisor involve 14 confidential sources, individuals who have been granted 15 such information. 16 Prior to any employee or former employee of the 17 Office of Investigations responding to the type of 18 questions that you ask, we are always concerned that we not 19 give up the identity of an individual who may have been 20 promised the confidentiality. That is the context in which 21 my concern was raised. Not in the context of coaching or 22 any other negative connotation you may derive. Excuse me l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverare M-336-6646 l
i l 31361.0 15 j BMS 1 () 1 for interrupting. I was concerned with something. I 2 MR. HIC KE Y: I assume, and correct me if I'm l ! 3 vrong, that Mr. Meeks has been advised before coming here l 4 today that he should not disclose confidential information l 5 regarding the sources of data in his investigation. Am I j i 6 wrong in that assumption? 7 THE WITNESS: Was that a question for me? i 8 BY MR. HIC KEY: I i 9 0 Yes. Have you been told you should not disclose i i 10 sources of confidential information? 11 A Not specifically in relation to this deposition. () 12 As a matter of overall Office of Investigations policy, I 13 am. , 14 Q To the extent I ask you a question that you { 15 think might call for information you feel constrained not : 16 to disclose, all you need to indicate is you can't answer ! 17 because you feel it is confidential information. He can 18 deal with it from there. 19 A I understand. I am appreciative of being i 20 sensitive to the issue. That's a good point. 21 MR. JOHNSON: Can we go off the record. ; 22 (Discussion off the record.) O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8( 4 336-6646 i
I i 31361.0 16 BMS l 1 MR. HICKEY: _I think the record will reflect 2 that Mr. Alcot has just' joined the deposition. Can I ask 3 just for the record who you are appearing on behalf of? ! l 4 MR. ALOOT: On behalf of NRC. Particularly, on 5 behalf of the Office of Investigations. ! l 6 MR. HIC KE Y: Thank you. 7 MR. - ALOOT: .Let me point out, Mr. Johnson is 8 counsel for the NRC for the purposes of this deposition. l 9 MR. HIC KE Y: That means you are an onlooker 10 consultant. 11 BY MR. HICKEY: O 12 0 Let me put my question more specifically so we 13 can try to avoid the concerns Mr. Fortuna raised. Did you 14 receive information from Mr. Tom Devine -- about witnesses 15 who should be interviewed in' connection with these 16 allegations. 17 A Did I receive information from Tom Devine about 18 what? 19 0 Witnesses who should be interviewed in these 20 four areas of your investigation? 21 A My recollection, although specifically, the 22 individuals I don't recall, but my recollection is in O l /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(K) Nationwide Cmerage 8(Xb336-6646
l 31361.0 17 L BMS r~s
.U 1 conjunction with representing partial and/or any of.the l
1 2 other individuals. Yes, he might have suggested people who 3 would -- who could supply additional information.. l
.4 0 Do you have a recollection of him giving you the 5 names of' additional people?
6 A An impression. I think that is contradictory. 7 As far as specifically when he did'it, who it was, I don't. 8 But that wouldn't -- that would be part of the -- yes, I do l
- 9 have a recollection.
L l 10 0 I didn't understand the part of your answer l 11 about what you were trying to explain? () 12 A Repeat the question and let me see if I can 13 answer it. 14 0 The question was whether you got information 15 from Mr. Devine about witnesses to be interviewed in 16 connection with your areas of the investigation? 17 A To the best of my recollection, that is my 18 impression, that he suggested individuals who could add to 19 the information that we were getting. l 20 0 Do you recall whether those individuals that he j 21 suggested were, according to Mr. Devine, knowledgeable 22 about the technical concerns that you were investigating or l () l l l /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8(Xb3364M6 l
31361.0 18 BMS h 1 one of the other areas of your investigation? 2 A I don't know. 3 0 According to the interrogatory answers that the 4 NRC has filed in 'this case, Mr.. Rick Parks was interviewed 5 by you and others on April 27, 1983 in Bethesda. I assume
-6 at .the OI offices, although I don't.know that. Do you 7 recall your first meeting or interview with Mr. Parks on 8 that date?
9 A .I recall that he was interviewed. The specific 10 date, I don't recall exactly when it was. But the first 11 interview did occur in Bethesda. O 12 0 I think you assisted in preparing interrogatory
.13 answers that have been filed by the staff in this case, one 14 'of which asked for information concerning interviews of 15 Mr. Parks and that interrogatory, number 41, states in the 16 answer that, " oral communications between Richard Parks and -
2 17 an NRC OI investigators J. Vorse and R. Meeks occurred on 18 April 27, 1983 in Bethesda and on May 2 and 3, 1983 in 19 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania." 20 Did you review some records to confirm those 21 dates or do you know how those dates were arrived at? ( 22 A No, I did not review any records. And no, I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
<31361.0 19 BMS 1 don't know how those dates were arrived at.
2 0 You don't have any independent recollection of 3 the date? 4 A No. 5 0 Prior 'to meeting with Mr. Parks in Bethesda on 6 the first time, whatever'that date was, did you have any 7 contact with Mr. Parks re Jarding your interest in 8 interviewing him?. l 9 A- I think to set up the interview I did. Most 10 likely, I would have called him to set up the interview. 11 0 Rhen Mr. Parks reviewed his affidavit and I .12 transmitted it to the NRC, it was accompanied by a letter l J 13 from his counsel, Mr. Devine of GPU. Did you talk to I 14 Mr. Devine in order to arrange the interview with Mr. Parks? ; 1 1 15 A Yes. 16 0 Can you tell me the substance of your discussion i 17 with Mr. Devine setting up the interview? 18 A No, I can't. I 19 0 Did you discuss with Mr. Devine any conditions ] 20 that would apply to the interview with Mr. Parks? 21 A Hould you repeat the question. 22 O Sure. Did you discuss with Mr. Devine any ; 1 l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn33M646 l . .
l L ~31361.0 20 l BMS l .D ! U 1 conditions that would apply to your interview with Mr. 2 Parks? 3 A I don't recall discussing conditions. That 4 might apply to the interview. 5 O Did you indicate to Mr. Devine whether you 6 planned on taking a written statement from Mr. Parks at 7 this first interview? 8 A Most probably I did. Or if it wasn't me, it 9 could have been Jim Vorse. I think it was more likely Jim 10 Vorse who would have conducted these initial contacts with 11 Devine and Parks. O. 12 O Did you consider, prior to interviewing 13 Mr. Parks, whether.it would be desirable to interview , 14 Mr. Parks with a court reporter present or with a tape 15 recorder or some other device to record the contents of the 16 communication. 17 MR. JOHNSON: Objection. This goes to the 18 manner in which the Office of Investigations would i 19 determine, and Mr. Meeks would determine, to conduct the 20 investigations. It is outside the scope of the deposition 21 as laid out in the guidelines with Judge Smith. 22 MR. H IC KE Y: I don't agree at all. I think the [~)
\s ,
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MXF336-6646 I 4
31361.0 21 BMS O 1 Judge said I could inquire into the circumstances'under i l 2 which the deposition was taken. l l 3 MR. JOHNSON: I do not think he did say that, if 4 you_look at the transcript.
- 5 THE WITNESS
- I think he disagreed with you.
1 i 6 MR. HICKEY: Are you instructing the Witness not l' 7 the' answer my question? 8 MR. HIC KE Y: Read the question back. 9 (The reporter read the record as requested.). 10 MR. JOHNSON: The objection stands. If you ' 11 wanted to see the place in the transcript where this type U 12 of questioning about the the manner in which the deposition 13 was to be conducted and whe'cher that was to be part of this 14 deposition, I think I can find it for you if you give me a. 15 second. 16 If you look at page 156 and 157 where the 17 subject came up, the Judge rejected your argument, it seems 18 to me. 19 MR.. HICKEY: I have the page. What are you 20 referring to? 21 MR. JOHNSON: Starting on the bottom of 156, he l 22 says "I just want to understand the frame of the question (
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-336-6646 _ _ _ - - _ _ - . - - - - - i
31361.0 22
.BMS
( I that allegedly generated the situation of Mr. Parks, and 2 the statement will be relevant at the hearing, as you'have i 3 probably predicted. I will probably authorize deposition 4 of Meeks. When we get done with that, let's go all over 5 the ground rules. This is a general problem and we will 6 discuss it. It is my inclination that you should probably 7 not do that except in the limited way I told you about. 8 The question about his demeanor Meeks response to his 9 demeanor.-- might be relevant, solely as it proved Meeks 10 had gone and gathered other information." 11 You said where did you talk to Mr. Parks, what UO 12 time was it, who was there, how did the interview begin, 13 how did the questioning proceed and how did Mr. Parks ! 14 respond. It was not anything more deep than that. I- 1 1 l l l 15 really thought it was kind of an ordinary question about l 16 the context of the interview. l l l 17 Judge Smith does not agree with you. He moves { 18 on to the next point. He says, " Moving to my number 7 - " 19 MR. HIC KE Y: Let me make sure I understand. We 1 1 20 will be there a long time. Is it your position that l l 21 language means I cannot ask this witness the time of the ) I ' 22 interview, the location of the interview, how long the ()
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M446
l 31361.0 23 BMS-1 ~ interview took? 2 MR. JOHNSON: It is my position that the' l 3 question that you asked, which is what are alternative ways l 4 of conducting his investigation, are improper. You can ask l 5 him -- it seems to me that you can ask him.. reasonable. 6 questions to gather information, but.asking him whether.he 7 should have or could have or did conduct the interview by, 8 or consider taking the interview by, a court reporter, with . 9 a court reporter, doesn't lead to anything. That is 10 consistent with information. I think that is a dead end. 11 MR. HICKEY: Let me ask a different question. l O 12 BY MR. HIC KE Y: l 13 Q Did you tape record the interview with Mr. Parks; 14 the April 27 first interview? 15 A Not to my recollection. 16 O Did you have a court reporter present for the 17 interview? 18 A Not to my recollection. 19 0 Why didn't you? 20 A I wasn't involved in that aspect. Whether a l l 21 court reporter would be involved or not. j 22 0 What do you mean you weren't involved in it? O l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 . _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ . -.--- _ -- --_ . - . .I
31361.0 24 BMS r's f
.1- Did you discuss it with anyone?
2 MR. JOHNSON: Objection. It is improper. 3 MR. HIC KE Y: It is not improper. I am trying to 4 find out why they want a court reporter there. l 5 MR. JOHNSON: Again, it is improper. l 6 MR. HIC KE Y: I have read the language you 7 referred to me, which talks about Mr. Parks' demeanor 8 during the course of the interview. What that has to do 9 with this witness considered setting up the interview and 10 whether there were conditions on the interview, I fail to 11- I see. 12 I think you will find that earlier in the 13 transcript, I asked him about deposing Mr. Meeks ; he said I 14 could inquire about the conditions and circumstances under 15 which the interview was taken. If there was a decision to 16 tape record and someone decided that that was not 17 acceptable, I think that is relevant information. I want 18 to know who makes that decision. 19 MR. JOHNSON: Repeat that. 20 MR. HICKEY: If there is a decision made not to 21 tape record the interview, I think that is relevant. 22 MR. JOHNSON: I don't believe so. I l ( J l il 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
; 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb336-(M6 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
l l 1 31361.0 25 BMS O 1 MR. HIC KEY: You are instructing the. witness not ! 2 to answer any of the questions I asked him about. tape ] 3 recor' ding? 4 'MR. JOHNSON: You. asked him questions and he 5 answered them. 6 MR. HICKEY: And the question about-whether ) 7 there was any discussion, you have instructed him not to 8 answer. 9 MR. JOHNSON: That is irrelevant. I don't think 10 it's in the proper scope of the deposition. 11 MR. HICKEY: Mark that in the transcript.
'O 12 BY MR. HICKEY:
13 0 Did you take notes of your interview with 14 Mr. Parks on April 27? 15 A Yes. 16 0 Who else took notes? 17 A It is my impression that Jim Vorse also took. 18 notes. 19 0 Uho else was present? 20 A Myself. To the best of my recollection, it was 1
- i. 21 myself, Jim Vorse, Mr. Parks and Tom Devine.
I 22 0 Was Mr. Hayes there at any point during the l !O L ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l l l l 31361.0 26 I BMS-n J V 1 interview? A I
'2 Not that I'm aware of and not that I recall.
i 3 0 Mr. Beech or Mr. Walker? 4- A Not to the -- not that I recall. 5 0~ Was Mr. Fortuna there? 6 A To the best of my recollection, on all 7 interviews of Parks, those three.that you have mentioned. 8 Present was myself and Mr. Vorse , Mr. Devine. and Mr. Parks. 9 0 only, you are saying? 10 A Yes. I don't recall any others being present at 11 any time during the course of those interviews. ( 12 0 Had you made an arrangement with Mr. Devine 13 about what kind of record there would be of the interview?
)
14 A No. 15 0 Did you tell Mr. Parks during the course of the 16 interview that you were going to prepare a statement for 17 him? 18 A Yes. 19 0 What did you tell him about that? , 20 A That we would prepare, based on the information 21 he gave us, we would prepare an interview -- excuse me. We 22 would prepare a statement. O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 800-3364M6
31361.0 27 BMS' O 1 0 And submit it to him for signature? 2 A Yes. ; 3 0 Did you place Mr. Parks under oath before you 4 interviewed him? 5 A I don't recall. 6 0 Was it your practice at that time ;o place ! 7 witnesses under oath when you interviewed them? 8 A To the best of my recollection, no, I didn't. 9 When I was conducting the interview, I didn't place him 10 under oath. If I was taking a statement from them -- which 11 they would formally sign a statement later. O 12 0 So, if you followed the normal practice, you 13 would not have placed Mr. Parks under oath? 14 A That is right. 15 0 How did you and Mr. Vorse and Devine divide up 16 the responsibilities of interviewing Mr. Parks on this 17 April 27 occasion? 18 A I don't recall specifically how we divided that. 19 I remember on the interviews conducted later, I think we 20 both asked him questions. My principal concern was to ask 21 him questions expounding on points of his affidavit that he 22 had produced, wherein he had made the allegations against O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage FO-336446
31361.0 28 BMS 0 1 TMI-2. 2 0 What was Mr. Vorse's area, if you were focusing , 3 primarily on the affidavit? 4 A I don't recall. ! 5 Q About how long did the interview with Mr. Parks i ! 6 last on April 27? I 7 A On April 27, what I remember is it was just -- ') 8 it wasn't very long. It was just a few hours. We realized 9 that there was much more to cover, so we made plans to 10 conduct follow-up interviews. , 11 0 To your knowledge, Mr. Meeks, had anyone else in O 12 the Office of Investigations spoken to Mr. Parks before you 13 and Mr. Vorse met with him on April 27? 14 A Not to my knowledge. 15 0 Do you remember when on April 27 it was that you 16 met with Mr. Parks? 17 A He was interviewed that day by the inspectors. 18 Then, after they finished, we interviewed - "we" meaning 19 Mr. Vorse and I -- interviewed him. We interviewed him 20 later on that day. 21 0 Uhen you say the " inspectors," who are you 22 referring to? O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
1 31361.0 29 BMS. i 1 1 A Roger Walker and Bill-Beech. I 2 O You were not present for that? 3 A To the best of my recollection, I might have 4 been present just for part of it. But I don't recall 5 taking any notes or being a participant; in other words, 6 asking questions and recording the answers. 7 0 What was the subject matter of Mr. Walker's and-8 Beech's interview of Mr. Parks? 9 A It was technical concerns. When I say 10 " technical," about the procedures and guidelines and the 11 functioning of the TMI-2 cleanup program. O 12 Q Did Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech take' notes during 13 their interview with Mr. Parks when you were there? 14 A 1 don't recall. 15 O Had you and Mr. Vorse agreed with the inspectors 36 in advance that they would cover certain areas and you and 17 Mr. Vorse would cover certain other areas? 18 A That's my general impression, yes. 19 0 What was the division? 20 A Right now, I don't recall exactly what the 21 definite divisions were. 22 O Can you tell me generally? You stated that O - ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(K)-336M46
( l: l l 31361.0 30 L BMS l () 1 Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech were talking to him about 2 technical matters, procedures and guidelines and'so on. 3 A No, I can't. 4 0 Did Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech have questions ! 5 written out in advance of their interview with-Mr. Parks 1 6 that they were planning to propound to him? 7 A I don't know. 8 MR. HIC KE Y: I ask the reporter to mark as 9 Exhibit 1 to the Meeks Deposition this document identified 10 by the NRC Number 030287007. 11 (Meeks Exhibit 1 identified.) O 12 MR. HICKEY: This is Exhibit 2 to the deposition, 13 this document marked 030287009. 14 (Meeks Exhibit 2 identified.) 15 BY MR. HICKEY: 16 0 Mr. Meeks, looking at Exhibit 1, the handwritten 17 document in front of you, do you recognize that document? 18 A No, I don't. I 19 0 It appears to be questions for Mr. Parks. It t i 20 was produced by the NRC from Office of Investigations' 21 files regarding this investigation. Do you recognize the 22 handwriting or have an idea as to whose it is? O
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
J
-i l
~31361.0 31 i BMS m l 1 A No, I don't.
2 0 Would you look at Exhibit 2. The first two 3 pages of that are typed. Then, the remaining pages are 4 handwritten. .Would you take a look at that document. I. l 5 wanted to ask you if you recognize it. 6 A No, I don't. 7 0 You have reviewed Exhibit 2, Mr. Meeks ; do you-8 recognize that document? 9 A No. 10 0 Do you have any recognition of the handwritten 11 portion, which is the back portion of the document?
,O 12 A No, I don't. l 13 0 Do you -- you may have answered this. Do you 14 know whether rl. Beech and Mr. Walker had questions 15 prepared in advance of their interview with Mr. Parks on 16 April 27?
17 MR. JOHNSON: I think he did answer that already. 18 BY MR. H IC KE Y: 19 0 What is your answer? . 20 A I don't know. l 21 0 Did you have questions prepared prior to your 22 interview with Mr. Parks? l l^ O O ' l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46 L-___---___--_ .-
.31361.0 32 BMS O '
1 A I don't recall. We wanted to expound on the . 2 information he gave in his affidavit, which he released to 3 .the public. Whether I just had notes on the affidavit or 4 had some questions, or whether Mr. Vorse had questions, I 5 don't recall what format it took. But it was based on the 6 information that he presented in the affidavit that he 7 released to the public in clarifying and expanding on 8 points. 9 0 You indicated earlier that you were not present 10 during the entirety of Mr. Walker and Mr. Bocch's interview 11 with Mr. Parks ; is that right?
\~
12 A I indicated I was only there for a brief period, j 13 was my recollection. i 14 O Do you know about how long that interview lasted 15 between Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech and Mr. Parks?
~
16 A It was several hours, if not -- I don't recall 17 whether it started in the morning and lasted all day or 18 started in the afternoon and lasted all afternoon. ] l 19 O But you saw Mr. Parks after that. So when they l_ 20 stopped, then you and Mr. Vorse interviewed Mr. Parks? 21 A That's what I do recall, that it was getting 22 late at night and we were just getting going and the ! ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(0 33643M6
p 1 1 31361.0. 33 BMS
- 1. ..
O 1 majority of the interview had to be conducted still. My 2 recollection is we only interviewed him for a few hours 3 that night. It had just gotten started. 4 0 What arrangements did you.make to obtain the 5 information that Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech got from 6 Mr. Parks? 7 A I wasn't involved in that. 8 0 Did you talk to Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech about 9 what they learned from Mr. Parks? 1 10 MR. JOHNSON: Could you be more specific about 11 what time frame you are referring to? 12 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 13 0 Shortly after the April'27 interview. 14 A I don't recall. It is not my recollection that 15' I talked specifically to him about that information. 16 0 Do you know whether Mr. Vorse did? 17 A It is my impression that he most likely, yes, 18 would have talked to him about exactly what was -- not 19 exactly. But what was discussed and the general contents < 20 of the information, yes. 21 0 Did Mr. Walker or Mr. Beech prepare any l l 22 memoranda as a result of their April 27 incerview? 1 O l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l l 31361.0 34. 1 BMS' 1
/'
(T / I 1 A 'I don't recall. ) i i 2 O Had you and the other members of your ] 3 investigative team worked out some procedure for ensuring I i 4 transmission of information within the team members from ; i 5 all the information you were gathering?. l 9 6 A There was organization, but what the specifics 7- were, I don't recall right now. I 8 0 If your memory on the specifics is not as sharp 9 as you might like, tell me about the general procedures 10 that you had established. How were you going to keep each' ! 11 other informed of the information you were gathering? ! () 12 A I don't know. 13 0 You don't have any recollection of any l 14' arrangements to transmit information from one member of the 15 investigative team to the other? 16 A No. Mainly, that wasn't my responsibility to 17 handle that aspect. 18 0 As a member of the investigative team, you were 19 interested in receiving information from the other l 20 investigators as to what they learned? 21 A Yes, but I don't recall the specifics of the 1 22 transmission, how it was set up, the transmission of O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb336-6646
31361.0 35 BMS. O 1 information back and forth. 2 0 D:) you have any recollection of instances in 3 which you received information from other investigative 4 team members,' meaning Mr. Vorse and Mr. Walker and 5 Mr. Beech, of wha,t they were learning in their 6 investigation? 7 A No, I don't. 8 0 Uho was to prepare the statement for Mr. Parks 9 to sign following his April 27 interview? 10 A I was. 11 0 Did you know that when you went into the .O 12 interview with Mr. Parks? 13 A To the best of my recollection, yes, I think -- 14 you know, I don't know. On the April.27 -- after we 15 finished interviewing him the other time or times, however 16 many it was, there I recall that I had the assignment to 17 draw up the statement. At what point in time that I was 18 designated to do that, I don't recall. Whether it was 19 before Parks' interview, during or after, it was sometime 20 during that time period. l 21 0 Do you know whether Mr. Beech or Mr. Walker were 22 to prepare a statement following their interview with O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3'# 4 Nationwide Coserate 800-334 6646
31361.0 36 BMS O 1 Mr. Parks? 2 A No, I don't. 3 0 Was your statement of Mr. Parks' interview'that 4 you were to prepare limited simply to the matters you 5 covered in the course of your discussion with him, 6 excluding material that was discussed by Mr. Walker and 7 Beech is what I meant. 8 A Could you repeat that_ question. 9 0 You said you were going to prepare a statement 10 based on Mr. Parks interview. I want to know if the 11 statement you were going to prepare was to be limited to O 12 what you learned from interviewing Mr. Parks as to opposed 13 to distinguishing from what Mr. Beech and Walker learnod? 14 A Yes. 15 0 Did Mr. Devine take notes during your interview 16 of Mr. Parks? 17 A I don't recall specifically. It is my 18 impression that, yes, he did take notes. 19 0 Do you recall the approximate quantity of the 20 notes that you took during the several hours that you 21 interviewed Mr. Parks on April 27? 22 A No. O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(X) Nationwide Coverage 8(XL336-(M6
.g ,
p /'< ,
- /
~ -
;, - i f.;
> .j !
(. ( > ; :
~
' / I b t ,, i f,y'l 31361.0 /<j ,
!, 37j
.1 S .
BMF> . i, i
.- Y L
1 ., O Uhat did you fo .4Nith the notes when yoi),' ' 1
)
( l' , j s. , 3 2 c.apleted the . interview 'vith Mr. Parks on the 27th,. Cy ','
, 3 o j 'y I I'
Parkr[ cn the 27th? 3 i finiched with 'tr. ' '
\
! A 4 I ayed;.them tg draw up a statement.
l .
- l ! -
5 0 Uhen,did yot 60 that? v N "1 V
- i, j 6 A o <
I don't'recallsden that was.
;.,~
Naturally, it was j l 7 sometime sub'[equent tc f1C. shin 8 the inter 0iews of ]
/ \
l-8 Mr. Parks. 1
\
i (% !l, 9 O Did you, before leaving It- Wrks on the 27th, ,3' i
, i
,s !
4 10 read over your notes to h ka of what yo'.' .had jott[]!. d >wn " ' p Ti '- during the in ta r,visw! [ i. [
!l1 ,l 12 h I tiank~<e did, yesJ I tr/ ink I did. . I s
13 0 'I Ptsurt.e the purpose of. thac was to enture ti'at I 14 the notes were accure.e? , f; I , (1 15 A Yes. < '
') '.
i, 16 O Did Mr. Parks -- , l r 17 A That we had a general'i'rA4'standJng'that what'I , yl
~ r 18 had -taken down Os rhat he had stated. ,
$'1 .
;n 19 0 Did Mr. Parks havs corrections to make.to yorr I
20 notes? ' < I 1 ., s 21 A I don't recall. It is not my impression tv.at 22 there were any corrections to 'aake. There could have been t 3 ACE 8EDERAI REPURTERS, INC 202-347-3700 Nationwie Coverage s&33M/N" '
. s 31361.0 38 l BMS ,
k t 1 some clarifying dur additional points. 2 0 How about Mr. Vorse's notes. Drq irou recall 3 whettmr My. TVorse's notes were read over by Mr. Parks too? l 4 A No, I don't. I s I i \ i. 5 0 Did you provide a copy of yctqr notes 't,0 < 6 Mr. Pa.kks or Mr. Devine? 7 A' No, I d,1dn't, not yto my recollection. 8 0 After you completed your meeting with Mr. Parks 9 on tdeo 27th, did you report to anyone about the substance 10 of what Mr. Parks had told you in that meeting? 11 MR. JOHNSON: l'will object to that question on i j I 12 the basis of relevance. 13 MR. HIC KEY: I f. is relevant to knGw what recordc 14 may have been created at the interview of Mr. Parks, ,
~ "
15 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. 16 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 17 0 You can ennWer, Mr. Meeks. 18 h No. 19 J Let me take you up to the time when you next met 20 with Mr. Parks, which is on May 2 or 3, in the TMI timo 21 area, Harr;isburg, Pennsylvania. 22 A I'm sorry. I was ancwe,ing those lent que.stions
't' k
ACE. FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. i Ar2-347-37(K) Nationwide roserare t4K)- 3%4M6 l
1 .o- O rp Y \
.1
. . h o,,
. '!- l l
3 1 i p'. t. i
- \->'
j' 31361.0 '
't' 39 i BMS
'> I l 4 l- ( ,, , !
(- 1 f it a 4' r, if i they wsce collective, the interview of Parks, the i l b ll. fe 2 April and the May ones. What I can recall about your 1 L ,' 3 questions,-my answers would have been the same for both of i l' 4 them. i
- g. 5 Q Af ter you finished with Mr. Parks on April 27, 6 until the tino you next met with him on May 2, did you
) i 7 report to anyone about the substance of what Mr. Parks had told you on April 277
'n
*~
8[h '
'Q 9 A No. j t
l ,
'%s 10 4 q Q- Do you know whether Mr. Vorse did?
x
!) 4 A No, I don't recall whether he did or not.
(2) f 12'" O After you met with Mr. Parks on May 2 and 3, did 13 you report (to anyone about the substance of your 14 conversations with>Mr. Parks on thc+e days? 15 A No, other than -- no, I did not. I did draw up 16 the statement within a reasonable time frame after 17 completing the interviews. 18 O But you didn't make any oral report? 19 A No, I did not. l l 20 0 When I say " oral reported," I don't maan that to
. 22 sound more formal than it should. Did you have any 22 discussions with anyone regarding the substance of what
\
"If I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1
- i. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646 l
l
l .( i-
-31361.0 40
'BMS L \_/
(')- . 1 1 Mr. Parks. told you in the interview? 1 2 A Not that I recall. 3 0 Were there any procedures established that 4 required'or directed you to report to your superiors about i 5 what you learned from Mr. Parks? 6 MR. JOHNSON: I will object to that question on J 7 the basis of' relevance. He already said he didn't do it. 8 Whether he was required to or not is certainly not 9 probative of any item that needs to be proven in this' case 10 or leading to relevant information. 11 MR. HIC KE Y: I think what he said is he didn't O 12 recall. I thought it might help his recollection if he 13 remembered if there was some procedure for making some 14 report. l 15 MR. JOHNSON: Does it refresh your recollection? 16 THE WITNESS: UOuld you repeat the question. 17 BY MR. HICKEY: 18 0 Did you have a procedure that you established 19 for making reports to any of your superiors of what you i I 20 learned from Mr. Parks? 21 A In this specific case, I don't think so. Our 22 procedure in all cases was to draw up the statement. That O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 I i
- - _ - - - . _ _ _ - - - . . - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ . - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ ._ _ - _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ .- l
31361.0 41 BMS O 1 would be included as part of the report of investigation. 2 Q Did you begin to prepare Mr. Parks' statement 3 before you met with him on May 2 and 3, after your April 27 4 meeting? 5 A I don't think so. That is not my recollection. 6 O So you did the April 27 interview and you needed 7 to see him some more, which you scheduled for May 2 and 3, 8 and only after that did you begin to write up the statement 9 for Mr. Pa rks ; is that right? 10 A Yes. 11 0 Did you take any steps after your April 27 O 12 interview with Mr. Parks along the lines of preparation for 13 further interviews with Mr. Parks? Did you do anything ! 14 more to get ready to see him on the 2nd and 3rd? 15 A I don't recall. 16 0 Ib you recall whether you spoke to other 17 witnesses in the interval of seeing Mr. Parks on the 27th 18 and on the 2nd and 3rd? 19 A No. 20 0 No, you don't recall? i 21 A No, I don't recall, f l l 22 O What arrangement did you make wi'.h Mr. Devine l ACE FEDERAL REvorrERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336 6646
31361.0 42 BMS 1 about obtaining Mr. Parks' signature on a written statement? 2 A Arrangements with who? 3 0 Mr. Devine and Mr. Parks ; 'I don' t know who you 4 made your arrangements with, but whoever it was. 5 A At some point after we had drawn up his 6 statement, a decision was made to divide that statement 7 into several statements, because of the various phases or 8 various facets of the statement; it covered different areas. 9 So we decided to do that. 10 At the completion of those statements, Mr. Parks 11 would review them, add to them if necessary, whatever, to. O 12 get it as he wanted it. Then he would sign it. When I say 13 as he wanted it, as he understood the framework, the 14 information within the framework of that particular 15 statement that it covered,-that it reflected the 16 information he thought it should reflect. 17 0 If I understand your answer, you initially 18 contemplated there would be one statement, but that 19 decision was later changed. Is that what you are saying? 20 A That is right. 21 0 Uhen you drew up the statement, you thought you 22 were drawing up one statement that would be signed and that ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8(0-336 6646 ; }
31361.0 43 BMS-
.(
1 would be the statement that would cover all of Mr. Parks' 2 information? 3 A Yes. 4 0 How was Mr. Parks' information about the 5 technical matters going to be preserved?- 6 A You mean -- I don't recall. I don't understand 7 your -- you are referring to the Beech matters? 8 0 Yes. , 9 A I don't know. 10 0 When did you prepare -- af ter the May 2 and 3 11 interview, when did you write up the statement and submit 12 it to Mr. ' Parks? 13 A When did he sign it? 14 0 No. When did you submit it to him? When did i i 15 you prepare it and submit it to him? 16 A Sometime between when the interview finished and 17 when he signed it. 18 0 I kind of assumed that was the fact. Da you 19 have any recollection of when you prepared it? .. 20 l A No. The specific dates, no, I don't. 21 0 When you completed the interview on May 3, do 22 you recall whether you turned immediately to that task and O I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MG3364M6
, ~l ~31361.0- 44 BMS.
I wrote up the statement? 2 A That was one of my major tasks at that time. 3 When it was completed, whether it it was next' day or the 4 next week, I don't' recall. j i 5 0 In writing up the statement, did you take notes l I 6 during your interview of Mr. Parks on May 2 and 3? l 1 7 A Yes. l 1 i G Q Did Mr. Vorse? 9 A I don't recall specifically. It'is my general j 10 impression he would have taken notes. i 11 0 As you did on April 27, did you. read back the 12 notes to Mr. Parks at the conclusion of'your interviews on
. 13 May 2 and 3 to determine that they were accurate?
14 A les. 15 Mr. Hickey, let me clarify. I' don't recall. It 16 is not my impression that I read back the notes the first 17 time we interviewed him. My recollection is -- because as 18 I explained to you when I was answering that question, I 19 was looking at those interviews as one. It is my 20 recollection that I did read back my notes to him after the 21 interviews which were conducted in Harrisburg. l 22 0 And the notes you read back would have included l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrapc MG336-(M6
l
-1 l
- 31361.0 45 BMS q l
. (') )'
\-)
1 your April 27 interview in Bethesda? 2 A That is right. l 3 0 Am I correct that there was no tape recording i 1
'I 4 made of the May 2 and 3 interviews of Mr. Parks?
5 A Yes. 6 0 And there was no court reporter present during : 7 those meetings? l 8 A That is correct. 1 9 0 other than yourself and Mr. Vorse, do you. : i 10 remember.any other NRC Personnel present? i 11 A No. ) 12 0 I think you~said Mr. Parks and Mr. Devine were 13 the two other participants in the May 2 and 3 interviews? 14 A Yes. 15 0 And that's all? ; 16 A Yes. 17 0 Mr. Meeks, did you.make contact at some point 18 with the Department of Labor concerning their 19 investigations they were performing concerning Mr. Parks' t 20 allegation? i ! 21 A Yes, I did. ; 22 0 Do you remember at some point getting in contact ! ( l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
; 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mxk336446
1 p. l L 31361.0' 46 BMS j , l [g\ - i: I with Mr. Feinberg of the Labor Department's Harrisburg 2 office? l l 3 A I don't recall the names of the individuals who 4 were involved. I don't think I ever -- what I do recall -- 5 let me ask you a question. Was reinberg the individual 6 that produced the report? 7 0 Yes. 8 A The Department of Labor's wage and hour division l I 9 report? 10 Q Yes. 11 A I don't recall specifically if I talked to him ( 12 on the phone or not. I know I never did meet him. I might 13 have talked to him on the phone. His supervisor is the 14 individual I talked to. 15 Q His supervisor in Harrisburg? 16 A Yes. 17 O Do you remember the gentleman's name? 18 A No, I don't. 19 MR. HIC KE Y: I ask the reporter to mark as 20 Exhibit 3 to Mr. Meeks's Deposition a membrandum to case 21 file dated May 5, 1982, apparently signed by Mr. Meeks and i 22 prepared on May 7. I 1 ( ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. . 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn336-6646
31361.0. 47 BMS 1 (Meeks Exhibit 3 identified.) 2 BY MR. HIC KE Y: l 3 0 If you would take a minute and read that 1 4 document, Mr. Meeks, I will ask you a question about it. l l 5 A. (Witness. complied.) 6 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 1 L 7 0 Mr. Meeks, do you recognize Exhibit 3, which is-8 in front of you? 9 A' Yes, I recognize it. It is a document that I 10 prepared. 11 0 Did you prepare it on May 7, 19837
./~
i 12 A Yes. 1 i 13 0 It refers in the opening paragraph to a 14 conversation that you had with Mr. Devine about referring 15 information to Mr. Feinberg. I assume this is all your 16 handwriting in this document, is it not? ) 17 A Yes. 18 0 You wrote "Devine stated that Parks" -- You ) l 19 spoke to Mr. Devine about " referring information to DOL j l 1 20 representative D. Feinberg about NRC interview with Parks. 21 Devine stated that Parks' entire statement to NRC could be I 22 referred to Feinberg." i k ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage hb336446 .
31361.0 48 BMS O 1 In that conversation with Mr. Devine, am I 2 correct that you were seeking his concurrence to 3 transmittal of this statement to the Labor Department? . 4 A No, I don't think that is correct. I don't 5 recall the background of this conversation at all. I don't 6 -- I don't have any recollection whatsoever of referring 7 Parks.' statement taken by us to- Feinberg. Those 8 conversations might have occurred, but I don't recall them. 9 Q But you don't have any reason to doubt that this , I .i 10 conversation you memorialized occurred, do you? 11 A No. 12 0 The record that you made about the time you had 13 it reflects that you spoke with Mr. Devine about' referring 14 this information.- My question to you is whether you were 15 asking Mr. Devine for his concurrence that it was 16 appropriate to give this information to Mr. Feinberg. 17 MR. JOHNSON: I will ask you to rephrase the _j i 18 question so it is clear because it was phrased in the l l 19 negative, l l 20 BY liR. HIC KE Y: l I i 21 O Did you ask Mr. Devine if it was all right to ! l l j' 22 send Mr. Parks' statement to Mr. Feinberg? I O ! ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(KL33MM6 L_-_2-____-___-____________ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
31361.0 49. BMS 10 1 A I don't have that recollection at all. No, I 2 don't have that recollection. It.seems like it would be 3 the other way around, Devine would be want being to know if 4 he could take the statement we had and give it to Feinberg, 5 to DOL. I don't recall the circumstances surrounding that 6 telephone conversation, the origin and high it was 7 initiated. 8 0 You wrote the words. Is it your testimony here j 9 today that you did not make a statement available to Mr. 10 Feinberg? 11 A I don't recall giving him a statement by partial. O 12 Or statement by. partial. I don't recall that. i 13 O Did you have an arrangement with Mr. Feinberg ; 14 about sharing information that each of you obtained during l
.15 the course of your investigation?
16 A I don't ever recall talking to Feinberg. I I 17 might have. I don't recall meeting him. I might have 18 talked to him on the phone. About the information that he j l 19 had concerning partial and that I wanted to look at. 20 0 Did you have an arrangement with Mr. Feinberg ! 21 that you would make information available to him too, to i 22 the Labor Department?
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverag 80133MM6
i 31361.0 50 BMS i 1 ~( 1 A Not according to my recollection, no. 2 0 1s your testimony that you simply don't recall 3 or that you did not have an agreement? 4 A I don't recall. 5 0 To provide information to the Labor Department? 6 A Sorry for interrupting. I don't recall. l 7 0 The memorandum that you wrote, Exhibit 3 that 8 you have there, also refers to " prior conversations between i 9 Meeks and Devine on keeping the contents of Meeks ' NRC 10 interviews in-house." 11 What are the conversations you were referring to 12 there? , 13 A I don't recall other than what is stated there. 14 0 Do you recall that you had a discussion with 15 c - Devinc on the subject of keeping the information 16 i.-house? 17 A No, I don't recall those conversations. 18 MR. JOHNSON: That's the third time he has said 19 that. 20 BY MR. HICKEY: 1 21 0 Did you have such an agreement? 22 A As a policy, our statements are treated in-house, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8(G 336-M>46
31361.0 51 BMS O 1 in other words, only.for OI information or on a see or 2 need-to-know basis. 3 0 Are you saying you did have an agreement with -j 4 Mr. Parks or Mr. Devine? i 5 A No. I'm saying -- I think you are asking two 6 questions there and getting them confused with my answers. 7 Do you want to back up and ask me one at a time. 8 0 Uhat is confusing? I would be glad to clarify. 9 A Our OI policy was that OI statements are
'10 maintained within OI, the statements themselves. The 11 contents of the statements might.be discussed with O 12 individuals within NRC on a need-to-know basis. I don't 13 recall, and it is not my impression, I had any agreements 14 at all with Parks or Devine or anyone else about releasing i
15 Parks or anyone else's statements outside of OI. l l 16 0 Nor do you recall any agreement with the Labor
]
17 Department about sharing information? 18 A I don't recall that information. 19 0 I meant the question both ways. 20 A The reason 1 called the Department of Labor was 21 to get their information. I don't recall them wanting 22 information on Parks from us. l O 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ,
31361.0 52 BMS O 1 MR. HICKEY: We will markHas Meeks Exhibit 4a 2- . memorandum to case file prepared on April 14, 1983. And 3 Exhibit Number 5, another memorandum to case file dated 4 April 18, 1983, two pages. And Exhibit' Number 6, a 5 memorandum to case file prepared May 5, 1983. 6 (Meeks Exhibits 4 through 6 identified.) l 7 BY MR. HIC KEY: 8 0 Let me direct your attention first, Mr. Meeks, i j 9 to Exhibit 4. Have you had a chance to review that 10 document? 11 A No. I would like to review them all first,
~O 12 before we ask any questions about any one of them. !
l 13 (Pause.) 14 0 Have you had a chance to review those three l 15 documents, Mr. Meeks? 16 A Yes. 17 0 Look at Exhibit 4. Do you recognize that 18 document and can you tell us what it is, please. 19 A It is a record of a telephone conversation ! l l 20 between myself, Mr. Goldstein and a Mr. Snow of DOL. 1 21 0 Uhen did you prepare that document? ) i 22 A April 14, 1983.
]
g!3 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MKk 33M646 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
31361.0 53 MS 1 0 It reflects more than one phone conversation, 2 does it not? The first one with Mr. Goldstein and the 3 second one with Mr. Snow and then a third one on April 1 4 with Goldstein again? 5 A Yes. 6 0 Was it your practice at this time to prepare 7 these memoranda as close as possible to the time when the 8 events described in them were happening? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 0 I assume because you were busy with other 11 matters that this memorandum got prepared approximately two 12 weeks after the dates of the telephone conversations that 13 were reflected after it. Did you have some notes you had 14 to refer to when you couldn't prepare the memoranda right 15 away? 16 A Yes, my actual notes of the phone conversation. 17 0 What did you do with the notes after you 18 prepared the memorandum? 19 A I don't recall specifically. I think I 20 destroyed them. 21 0 This memorandum, Exhibit 4, reflects a series of 22 phone calls. Were you attempting to establish liaison with l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coserage 8(K)-3364M6
5 ..
-31361.0 54
.BMS
;)-
I the Labor Department and identify a particular person who 2 would be that liaison person? 3 A -Yes. 4 0 Did you end up with Mr. Feinberg being
- 5. designated as the liaison person? You might want to look 6 at Exhibit 5, too.
7 A It is my understanding he was the case agent. 8 0 What was the purpose of establishing liaison 9 with the Labor Department? 10 A To obtain the information that they had on their 11 investigation of Parks' complaint against Bechtel.
,a V 12 0 Uhat arrangements did you make with the Labor 13 Department. in that regard?
14 .A I think they eventually indicated that I could 15 review the files. I 16 0 Did you do that? 17 A Yes. 18 0 You and the Labor Department were investigating , I 19 an issue or an allegation that Mr. Parks was harassed and 20 intimidated in an improper fashion during his employment. l l 21 Isn't that right? l 22 A Yes. ACE FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ a
1 1 1 1
-31361.0 53 BMS l
1 0 It reflects more than one phone conversation, I l 2 does it not? The first one with Mr. Goldstein and the l 3 second one with Mr. Snow and then a third one on April 1 4 with Goldstein again? l l 5 A Yes. I 1 6 0 Was it your practice at this time to prepare 7 these memoranda as close as possible to the time when the 8 events described in them were happening? l 9 A Yes, sir. l l 10 0 I assume because you were busy with other ! l 11 matters that this memorandum got prepared approximately two l I dB> 12 weeks after the dates of the telephone conversations that 13 were reflected after it. Did you have some notes you had 14 to refer to when you couldn't prepare the memoranda right 15 away? l l 16 A Yes, my actual notes of the phone conversation. 17 0 What did you do with the notes after you 18 prepared the memorandum? 19 A I don't recall specifically. I think I 20 destroyed them. 21 0 This memorandum, Exhibit 4, reflects a series of 22 phone calls. Were you attempting to establish liaison with O ace-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(X) Nationwide Coserage 8(Xb3364M6
i I 31361.0 54 BMS O 1 the Labor Department and identify a particular person who l 2 would be that liaison person? i 3 A Yes. } 4 0 Did you end up with Mr. Feinberg being 5 designated as the liaison person? You might want to look 6 at Exhibit 5, too. 7 A It is my understanding he was the case agent. 8 0 What was the purpose of establishing liaison 9 with the Labor Department? 10 A To obtain the information that they had on their 11 investigation of Parks' complaint against Bechtel. O 12 0 What arrangements did you make with the Labor 13 Depa rtmen t in that regard? 14 A I think they eventually indicated that I could 15 review the files. 16 0 Did you do that? 17 A Yes. 18 0 You and the Labor Department were investigating 19 an issue or an allegation that Mr. Parks was harassed and 20 intimidated in an improper fashion during his employment. 21 Isn't that right? 22 A Yes. O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Kh336-6646
l 31361.0 55 BMS 1 1 O Was there any request from the Labor Department j 2 for information from you concerning what you were learning ] 1 3 in the course of your investigation of that subject? I 4 MR. JOHNSON: I couldn't hear the question. 5 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 1 6 0 Mr. Meeks, my question is whether there was any i 7 request f rom the Labor Department that you are aware of for
. 8 information obtained by OI during the course of its 9 investigation of the harassment issue of Mr. Parks? i 10 A Not that I recall.
I 11 0 Exhibit 6, which I showed you and which you () 12 still have in front of you there, refers to a telephone 13 conversation you had with Mr. Feinberg on April 29, seeking 14 a copy of Mr. Parks ' second affidavit. The nu ce reflects 15 that you obtained that copy. Do you remember getting a 16 copy of the affidavit from Mr. Feinberg? 17 A I don't recall picking it up, but the telephone 18 conversation indicates that I d id . 19 O Do you remember whether you met with 20 Mr. Feinberg when you picked up the second affidavit? 21 A Like I stated before, I don't recall ever 22 meeting Feinberg. I don't think I ever met him in person. O L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8M3364646
~31361.0 56 BMS ]
LO l 1 0 When you picked up the affidavit, did you review 2 any other documents at the Labor Department? l 1 3 A I don't recall if it was at'that day or.at some
.)
l 4 other day that I reviewed their report they had. .j 5 0 When you say you reviewed their report, does 6 that include the Witness' statements that were taken by I l 7 Mr. Feinberg; did you review those? 8 A Yes. ; 9 0 You are not certain if it was on this date or 10 some later date?' 11 A That is right. O- 12 0 I would like.you to look, again, at Exhibit 3, 13 which is your memorandum of May 5. The reference that you 14 have there to the entire statement the NRC which could be-15 referred to Feinberg; is it your testimony that that refers 16 to the draft statement that you were preparing based on 17 your interview with Mr. Parks? 18 A I don't understand your question, i l 19 0 What is the entire statement to NRC that you ! 20 refer to in Exhibit 37 21 A I think it was his statement that we had at the 22 time. I think that is what it refers to. 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 C_________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 1
)
31361.0- 57 BMS l n { U 1 O Uhat did you have at the time? 1 l 1 2 A I don't know if we had written up his statement
]
3 or I had written up his statement based on my notes at that 4 time or not. Whether I had or not, I guess it referred to 5 that statement when it was written up, if it wasn't written 6 up at that time. l 7 0 You are aware that Mr. Ben Hayes, in 1983, was _ 8 the director of the Office of Investigations, he was your 9 superior and your employer? 10 A Yes. i l 11 O I have a transcript of a meeting of the Nuclear
.O D 12 Regulatory Commission Monday, June 6, 1983. Mr. Hayes made 13 the following statements at page 41 of the transcript. The j i
14 question was asked as follows, reading from the top of page-15 " Commissioner Ahern, my last question of that issue is, 16 when you talked to Parks in this 10 hours, did you also 17 cover this particular issue or was it solely on the polar , l 18 crane." If you want the know the reference on page 40, the 19 issue is the mystery man issue. l l 20 Mr. Hayes answered "I can't answer that. I l l 21 would have to look at the memorandums that we prepared !. 22 after that interview. But I do know that 10 hours went ; O ! l l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33(r6646 Q_-___-____---_-__-_-_-__--_____-__. - - _ _ _ _ _
I i I : 31361.0 58 BMS
.I l
1 into.just a litany of' areas." I 2 What' memorandums is Mr. Hayes referring to, do 3 you know? 4 A No, I don't. , 5 0 Do you have any idea what memoranda he may be 6 discussing? 7 A- No. 8 0 If it was a statement that was prepared about 9 Mr. Parks, the only one that you know of is the one you 10 prepared following the May 2 and 3_ interviews? 11 A Yes. What was the date? 12 0 This is June.6. 13 A Okay. 1 14 0 where was the meeting held, the meetings of May i 15 2 and'3 with Mr. Parks? 16 A In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 17 0 Did you meet in an office or home? 18 A It was a hotel, motel in Harrisburg. j 19 0 Same place both days? i 20 A Yes. 21 0 Again, there were just the four of you present, 22 Devine, Parks, you and Mr. Vorse? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
L 31361.0 59 L BMS l .. R l .V 1 A Yes. 2 0 The notes that you made during these three j
.)
3 interviews with Mr. Parks, did yo'u put them in a file after 1 4 you made them? 5 A- I don't recall. -! 6 0 Do you recall where you kept them? 7 A No, I don't. 8 0 What kind of files were you keeping on your 9 investigation of Mr. Parks; did you have a folder or l l 10 briefcase or file cabinet? ! 11 A I don't recall whether I kept them in a folder, O 12 in a briefcase or in a fileEcabinet. But they were under 13 my control. 14 0 Do you know whether the copies were made.of your 15 notes? i 1 16 A No. There were no copics, to my knowledge. 17 0 Do you know whether any typed version of your 18 notes was prepared? ) l 19 A No, no typed versions were prepared. ! l 20 0 About how long did you meet with Mr. Parks on j 21 May 2 and how long on May 3? 22 A On May 2, it was most of the day; morning, j
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, I l
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 I
l- \ l L31361.0 60 ' H l .BMS l i () l' afternoon sessions, possibly an evening session. On the l' 2 next day, the second day, I don't recall whether it was l 1 l \ 3 just a morning session or morning and afternoon. I have no 1 4 recall on that. ! 5 0 During the course of your interviews with j i 6 Mr. Parks, were there questions that you asked Mr. Parks j 7 that he refused to answer? ! 8 A No. I , 9 0 Do you recall Mr. Devine objecting or rephrasing 10 any of the questions that you wanted to ask? j 11 A No. l 12 0 To the best of your recollection, was Mr. Parks 13 willing.to answer all the questions that you asked him? 14 Did you get all your questions answered in those interviews? 15 A Yes. 16 0 Shortly after -- let me ask the question again. 17 After you completed the interviews, you prepared a 18 statement for Mr. Parks and sent it to whom? Mr. Parks or 19 Mr. Devine? 20 A I don't recall. I don't think I sent it to 21 anybody. 22 0 What did you do with it? O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
i L i (-
.31361.0 61- l BMS l
10 1 A We probably met and went over it, or we had l- 2 decided in conjunction with going -- to the best of my l-3 recollection, I think we did sit down, the four of us, and l 4 go over that statement. It was either before, during or l l 5 after that that the decision was made to break that i 6 statement down into smaller statements. Covering areas 1 7 that were -- each statement would pertain to a specific , l 8 area or subject matter. l l l 9 0 Who idea was that? l 10 A I don't recall. It might have been my idea. It 11 might have been Jim Vorse's. Who brought it up, I don't ; O 12 recall. But there was a consensus between Vorse and I that i i l 13 we would do that. 14 MR. HIC KEY: I will ask the reporter to mark as 15 Exhibit 7 to Mr. Meeks' deposition a document previously J 16 produced by the staff and bearing the number 030287022. It j 1 17 is 13 typed pages. 18 (Meeks Exhibit 7 identified.) 19 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 20 0 If you would look at that document, I have a 21 question to ask about it. 22 A Okay. ! o ! ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide CoseraFe 8(0 33MM6
(- L j 31361.0 '62 l BMS I i O- 1 0 First of.all, can you identify that document, l 2 Exhibit 77 l 3 A Yes. I think this is the initial statement that 4 was prepared, based on the interviews with Parks.. 5 O. And prepared by your right? l 6 A Yes. 7 0 Where did you and Mr. Parks and Mr. Devine and l 8 Mr. Vorse meet to discuss this statement? l l 9 A I don't recall. l 10 0 Was anyone else present? l 11 A Other than -- LO 12 0 Other than the four of you. 13 A No. As I have stated, no, no other people were 14 present other than Mr. Vorse and myself and Mr. Devine and 15 Mr . Parks . 16 0 Did Mr. Parks have any corrections to make to l l 17 Exhibit 7 which you presented to him? 18 A My recollection is yes, he did have some 19 corrections to make in the form of either clarifying or 20 adding to. But I don't recall specifically what they were. 21 The fact that he wanted to either add something to it or l 22 clarify a point in there, he did want to do that. lO ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(X)-33MM6 l
( l .. i
)
~
31361.0 , ;
~.
63 ' BMS '
/-
L
- j. ,
O 1 0 Caring the courso af your meeting '. 5.h Parks and ?? **
' 4, 2 .do9ine on this st:-tement, d !. ] yo.a go through.all' of ity.>nd , M 4 {_ ;
3 have nim indicate his desire to r.dd or correct paragraph by 8 4 paraccapt? ,
. ~
1 . 5 A Yes. 'I think that is pretty fair isprasentaO o/1 6 of what we did. 7 0 How did you rec 4.r3 the changes tha Mr. Park' T s 8 wanted to make?
'l I 9 A I don't recall. I th!nk I wrote right t.n the ,
i
)
10 etatement. But I could have a7so written in my no'es to
\
11 add oi delete O*' to clarify or whacever, the substance was s 12 of the change. 13 p Q When yca ho3 this meeting to discuss the w 14 j statement, dCd ;ou hava with yw; your notes of your " r s 15 original interviews of Mr. Parks?
~
16 A "es; I did. ; 17 O During the course of the meeting with ' arks and 4 , i
/
18 Devine, dia you have occasi.;, to refer to ycur notcs to j 19 l confirm what Mr. Iarks had saiu during prior'intervieks 20 that you canducted? , AsFS 21 MR. JOHNSON 2 Did you say 10mng the course of .. 22 that meeting? O l 4 I / sCE-I'EDEP A1. REPORTERS, INC. r
/
i f 2f)2-347-3 7'
- N itionu ide Con etape b(Kb 336-6646 i t/
i' ,1 9 'l .1 t ll , y' s 31361.0
. 64 BMS a {-.'
l .(V3 ' ( 1 ^MR. HIC KE Y .; Yes. , ,; , 1
, ; s
-2 BY MR. HICKEY:
3 0' During the meeting with Park : and Devine when l '4 you reviewed this statement -- 5 A. I don't recall specifically whether I referred. 6 to my notes or not. It would have been a natural sequence 7 to do that, especially if Parks was clarifying a certain < 8 aspect of it or adding to it. 9 O Do you recall whether I Mr. Parks felt there were 10 errors in th6 statement that you had prepared? 11 MR. JOHNSON: Could you clarify what do you mean
*Q v 12 by errors. {-
3 y 7p i 13 BY MR. HICKEY: .Ti , J l 14 O Incofrect statements.you had written down on l 15 this draft? \ k 16 A No, that$s not my recollection. Any changes , j
- n. :, .
17 were just to further clarify or amplify a point they wen - 18 making. I don't have'any recollection that there were, 19 errors or that what I produced in this statement. was in 20 error, in any way, shape or form. i 1 21 O So your statement was accurate, but Mr. Parks 22 had a desire to add facts to it; that's what the nature of j O , 1 ACE 8EDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -j 202-347-37(F Nationwide Coverage 8(4 336 a 46 j i
i %g
. n*
x.31361.0 65 BMS , o 1 W O, > 1 the. changes were? 1 :+ 9 > ,
.jk N{ 2 A I don't know if it was just exclusively to. add 7'
! :3 facts, or to maybe. change the grammar or the wording to 4 further clarify it, or to change a sentence or sentences to 5' "i better reflect what he wanted reflected.
6+ 0 , As a result of your meeting with Mr. Parks, did 1, I 7 you delb$$ Sny.significant factual information from your q 8 statement; assume I'm saying significant factual because I 9 am excluding changing from past tense to present tense,-did 10 lyou take any facts of out of your statement because Mr. Iby. kurka didn't agree with them? w 12 A No. 13 0 But he indicated a desire to add some additional l M 14 facts? 1B' A As I said before, I don't recall if it was -- if 1 16 he added facts. More what I remember is he just -- we 17 changed the wording to further clarify something. I might 18 h have gotten something wrong as it came out in the final l e h
- 19 statement that he corrected. But if it were, it certainly 20 b wasn't significant.
21 0 How did you leave it at the conclusion of the 22 meeting with Mr. Parks and Mr. Devine about preparation of O t Ae FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 7 202-347-3700 Na'ionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 31361.0 66 BMS 1 q l the corrected version of the statement? J t 2 A As I stated before, I don't recall if as a 3 result of that meeting or during that meeting or right 4 after, we had decided to break this statement down into J 5 other statements. I don't recall. But at some point in 6 time, the decision was made, so that this statement was 7 never finalized. Instead, it ended up into four other i i 8 statements. I 9 Q Did you send or give to Mr. Parks, during the i 10 course of this meeting we have just been discussing, or 11 shortly after, a copy of this statement with the () 12 handwritten corrections on it that you all had talked about { i 13 during the meeting? q I 14 A I don't know. That could have very likely have 15 happened at some point in time, whether it was at that 16 meeting or whenever, we got a chance to Xerox it for him to 17 give it to him. I don't recall the mechanics. It is my 18 recollection that he did get a copy of this statement. 1 19 0 Before you met with him, had you provided him a 20 copy of your draft in advance? 21 A I don't think so. It is not my recollection. I 22 think it was either during or subsequent to the time we 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8%33MM6
31361.0 67 BMS O- I went over the statement. 2 O After the decision was reached that instead of l I 3 having one statement it would be split up into several 4 statements, what resolution did you make as to how that was 5 going to happen, who was going to prepare the various 6 statements? f 7 A I don't recall how the mechanics of that were ! 8 handled. Specifically, my general impression is it was a 9 joint effort. I think Parks- identified the sabject matters, 10 the various paragraphs, or we agreed together the various 11 paragraphs that would go into statement A o - statement B or f\ 12 statement C. Then they were drawn out and -- whether Parks 13 took those and finalized those and added to them and that 14 -was it, or he gave it to me with his additions and I had 15 them typed up, I don't recall. 16 But he did have input as to what paragraphs 17 would go into what statements and how they would. He also 18 had input as to the wording and phrasing of that. I do 19 recall that we typed the statements up and he -- like I 20 said, I don't recall the mechanics. I am trying to do the i 21 best I can.from memory of how that occurred. I don't 22 recall specifics. It was input from him and input from me. l l O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
l l 31361.0 68 BMS' L CZ) 1 He did type up the statements. 2 O The purpose of dividing them up was to have 1 l 3 several statements, each of which would address in broad L 4 terms a specific subject matter, meaning one statement 1 5 relating to technical concerns and one statement relating L 6 to mystery man concerns. Was that the point of having such 1 7 statements? 8 A Yes, mainly because we were not going to conduct 9 the investigation of all of his concerns and report it at 10 one time. 11 0 You were contemplating they would be separate l-O 12 reports, so you thought it would be useful to have separate 13 statements relating to the separate reports? 14 A There would be sepa, rate phases of the 15 investigation. 16 0 The phases the statements were to address what? 17 You said separate phases for the investigation. What were 18 the subject areas? 19 A The subject area of the statements, and I'm not 20 saying they corresponded with the investigations 21 necessarily, if you understood me to say that. 22 O I kind of did. (} ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(G3364M6 l
31361.0 69 BMS O 1 A Let me explain it again. The statements were 2 broken down into -- well, one was on discrimination. One 3 was on the mystery man, one was on missing reports and then, 4 the other one was on the clean up, the TMI-2 cleanup 5 program in general. Those four statements don't exactly 6 correspond to four different investigations. So you don't 1 7 have a parallel between the statements and the D investigations. 9 0 dut your contemplat. ion when you set up the four 10 statements was that there would be four separate reports 11 and each statement would be appropriate to the subject 12 matter of its report? 13 A No. I just stated the opposite. Those 14 statements don't coincide or parallel with the reports of 15 investigations. 16 0 I continue to be confused. I will try one more 17 time. I thought what you were saying, Mr. Meeks, was you 18 thought it was desirable to have four separate statements 19 because you would be preparing different reports at the 20 time you decided to break up the statement into several? 21 A I stated there would be different phases of the 22 investigation. l 1 l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MO-336 M>16
31361.0 70
'BMS 1 O But not necessarily different reports? Is'that 2 the distinction?
3 A No. There would be different phases of the 4 investigations. Each of those investigations are presented I 5 or documented in a report of investigation. So when we say 6 phases of investigation or reports, I guess we can say the-7 same thing. 8 You are referring to them as reports. I look.at 9 them as investigations, which are reported in a report of 10 investigation. Now, those four statements don't parallel 11 separate phases of the investigation. 12 O You are saying they were planning to, but in ! 13 fact, they didn't? 14 A No, I didn't say that either. I understood that l 15 you had understood that we had four different statements. 16 Then there were four directly-related investigations' 17 corresponding to those statements. If you understood that, 18 then that is wrong. l l l 19 0 What is wrong about it? 20 A The four different statements do not correspond ) l I l 21 or are parallel to the various phases of the investigation I 22 that were conducted. O ACE-FEDERAL REvonTEns, INC. 1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(k336-(M6
l l l 31361.0 71 BMS J l 1 O 1 0 Did you contemplate investigating Mr. Parks' I I 2 allegations about mystery man in May of 1983? l 3 A Yes. i l 0 4 Did you plan that that would be a separate phase 1 5 of your' investigative effort? 6 A Yes. l l 7 0 Did you expect there would'be a report about 8 Mr. Parks' mystery man allegations? l 9 A It depend.ed on'how the investigation developed 10 at that ti'me. 11 0 I'm asking what your state of' mind was in May. l 1 12 Did you have an expectation in May that there would 13 probably be a report about the investigation? 14 A Yes. 15 0 You wanted to have Mr. Parks' statement insofar 16 as it related to the mystery man in a separate document, 17 not lumped into other subject matters? 18 A That is correct. 19 0 Is what I just described also true with regard 20 to Mr. Parks' allegations of harassment and intimidation? 21 A That is correct. 22 O Just to complete the record, the other two areas O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
l l 31361.0 72 BMS-l lr
' (. 1 you contemplated being the subject of investigative efforts 2 and reports would have been the missing records issue that 3 Mr. Parks addressed. Is that right?
l 4 A No. That wasn't contemplated to be a separate 5 investigation. 6 0 Why was it put in a separate statement? 7 A I don't know. I don't recall exactly at this 8 time. He did -- you have to stop referring to the 9 statements as phases of investigation. We did an 10 investigation on the technical concerns, the TMI-2 cleanup 11 program. We.did one on effluent releases. We did one on O 12 discrimination. The one on the mystery man was never 13 pursued. The disposition of the missing records, I don't 14 recall what investigative field work I did on that 15 specifically, but I do recall that I did something on it. 16 But exactly what it was, I don't know right now. 17 0 Did it get addressed as part of some other 18 report, the missing records aspect? 19 A I think that statement was included in the 20 technical concerns report of investigation issued in 21 September. 22 Now, to the extent that issue was reported in O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336 4 46
L 31361.0 73 BMS t () I that investigation, that's what I don't recall, and the I i 2 field work I did on that, I don't recall that. 3 0 The only one we haven't identified is what you l l 4 described as Mr. Parks' technical allegations. Your 5 contemplation in May of 1983 was there would be an 6 investigation and a report regarding Mr. Parks' technical 7 allegations and therefore, a separate statement of what 8 Mr. Parks had to say about technical allegations, 9 separating those allegations of Mr. Parks from, say, 10 mystery man or harassment? 11 A From a generalized standpoint, yes. 12 MR. HIC KE Y: I will ask the reporter to mark as 13 Exhibit 8 to Mr. Meeks' deposition another memorandum to 14 case file signed Ronald Meeks,. prepared, according to the 15 document, on June 24, 1983 16 (Meeks Exhibit 8 identified.) 17 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 18 0 Mr. Meeks, have you had an opportunity to review 19 Exhibit 8 that is in front of you? 20 A Yes. 21 0 Tell us what the document is, please. 22 A It is a record of a telephone conversation ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage f#Kb336446
t l-l 31361.0 ; 74 lBMS o 1 between myself, Tom Devine and then a subsequent telephone l l 2 conversation with Lawrence King. 3 0 Your conversation with Mr. Devine was on June 14; 4 .is that right? 5 A Yes. 6 0 This document was prepared on June 24; is that l 7 what it indicates? 1 l 8 'A Yes. 9 O Again, would you have relied on notes you made I 10 during the telephone conversation to help you prepare this 1 11 memorandum? ' O 12 A Yes. - 13 'O It reflects in the first paragraph that you had 14 a discussion with Mr. Devine about the status of three 15 statements Richard Parks was preparing for, submitted all l 16 to NRC. Which are the statements that you were referring 17 to in that? i 18 A I don't know specifically which three it was of 19 the four. f 20 0 Did you have some agreement with Mr. Parks or l 21 Mr. Devine about the order in which the statements would be . 1 22 finalized? Is my question clear? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, l l l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MXb336446
31361.0 75 BMS I
'O l' A Yes, there was, but the specifics of that I 2 don't recall. In other words, there were others we j
3 warranted finalized because they related to the ' 4 investigation we were doing at the time. At some point in 1 5 time, Parks told me he would -- Parks and/or King stated 6 that he would prepare the information he had on the mystery i 7 man. He would prepare a draft on that. 8 MR. JOHNSON: You said King. Did you intend to ; 9 say King . . 10 BY MR. HICKEY: 11 0 You said Parks and/or King. O
'd 12 A I'm sorry. Parks and/or Devino. Parks and/or 13 Devine had indicated they would prepare a separate 14 statement, prepare a draft statement on the mystery man.
15 0 Is it your best recollection that that was 16 subsequent to the finalizing of the statements on the other 17 subjects? 18 A That's why I can't say what three statements 19 that I referred to here, whether that included the mystery 20 man or the mystery man came off this. 21 O What was the investigation you were conducting f 22 at this time? l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-370() Nationwide Coverage 80(b3364M6
31361.0 76
'BMS O 1 A At that time, it was on the technical concerns.
2 O In June of 1983? 3 A Yes. The investigation that was reported in 4 September of '83. 5 Q About when did you turn to the investigation of 6 Mr. Parks' harassment allegations approximately? 7 A That would have been after the second phase of 8 the investigation that was conducted, which was on the 9 effluent release reports or report. That was issued in 10 December. It would have been the first part of 1984. It 11 was subsequent to the issuance of the report of O 12 investigation on the effluents, which was in September of 13 '83. 14 0 Did you ultimately receive the signed versions 15 of Mr. Parks' statements from Mr. Devine? 16 A Say it again, please. 17 Q Did you ultimately receive the signed version of 18 Mr. Parks' statements from Mr. Devine? 19 A No. I think we sat down and I think Mr. Devine 20 was there -- he wasn't there for all of them. Once again, l 21 I am getting the sequence -- I don't recall which statement i 22 went with which circumstances. But I do recall sitting l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
)
.31361.0 77 BMS ,
() 1 down with Parks when Devine was present and going over some 2 statements, and he finalized those statements by signing 3 them and swearing to them at that time. -I 4 0 Right in front of you, in your presence? l 5 A Yes. 6 0 Do you recall whether Mr. Devine indicated in -] l 7 this phone conversation on June 14 what was causing the 8 delay or why you had not received the statements of Parks? l i 9 MR. JOHNSON: That was kind of a compound ; J 10 question. 11 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 12 0 Do you recall whether Mr. Devine -- I take it l 13 f. rom the memo you called Mr. Devine to ask him where the 14 statements were? 15 A Yes. 16 0 What did Mr. Devine say? 17 A It doesn't state in my memorandum. That was -- 18 the genesis of that phone call was to find out the status 19 of the three statements. I don't recall specifically what 20 that status was. It is not mentioned in the telephone i 21 conversation that we are referring to. 22 MR. JOHNSON: You mean in the memorandum to the O ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
l l 31361.0 78 1 case file? l 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 MR. HIC KE Y: I will ask the reporter to mark.as
- 4 Exhibit 9 to Mr. Meeks' deposition a typed, six-page 5 document appearing to be a statement by Mr. Parks and ;
l 6 signed and sworn to on June 6, 1983. 7 (Meeks Exhibit 9 identified.) 8 BY MR. HIC KE Y: I 9 Q Have you had a chance to look at Exhibit 9, 10 Mr. Meeks? 11 A Yes. 12 O Is that your signature on the last page? 13 A Yes. 14 0 And Mr. Parks' signature, too? 15 A Yes. 16 O Did Mr. Parks sign and swear to the accuracy of 17 that statement before you on June 6, 1983? 18 A Yes. 19 0 I guess I don't know where Elizabethtown, 20 Pennsylvania is. Where were you with Mr. Parks? 21 A Elizabethtown is a town close to TMI-2. Now 22 exactly where it is, it is in the proximity of TMI-2. lO L L ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
31361.0 79 BMS O 1 O Was this signed following a meeting between you 2 and Mr. Parks at which you reviewed with him the contents l 3 of this statement, and Mr. Parks made some changes that are 4 indicated throughout? ( l l 5 A That is correct. l l 6 O Was Mr. Devine there for the entire meeting? l l 7 A No. He was not. l 8 O This statement says at the outset, it deals with 9 the technical concerns which Mr. Parks was raising. Having 10 seen this statement and recalling your earlier telephone 11 memorandum where you called Mr. Devine on June 14, I think O 12 it was, to inquire about the three remaining statements, 13 does that refresh your recollection about what three 14 remaining statements were still outstanding as of the date 15 of your telephone call with Mr. Devine? 16 A In the sense that if this was one of the four 17 statements dated June 6, that would have already been 18 completed. Then, the remaining three statements would have 19 been -- the three statements I referred to in the telephone 20 conversation here would have been the remaining three 21 stctements. 22 0 Did you ask Mr. Parks when you met with him on O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage m)-336-6646
31361.0 80
. BM S-
[ 1 June 6 what the status of the other statements were or was? . i 2 A I don't recall specifically. 3 0 In addition to reviewing the statements you were 4 asking'Mr. Parks to-sign, did you have other conversation 5 with him on June 6 and the other, only of matters. relating ! i 6 to his allegations? 7 A You mean additional allegations or additional 8 knowledge? 9 0 Yes. Did you go beyond reviewing the statement 10 with him, is what I'm asking.
- j. . 11 A No. That is not my recollection.
l 12 0 was it a brief meeting; how long did the meeting 1 13 last? 14 A Whatever time it took to go over the statement 15 and finalize it and swear him to it. I would call it a 16 brief statement. It was less than an hour, a brief meeting. 17 MR. H IC KE Y: I will ask the reporter to mark as l 18 Exhibit 10 to Mr. Meeks' deposition a two-page, unsigned l 19 statement, document number 030287020. i l 20 (Meeks Exhibit 10 identified.) l l 21 MR. HIC KE Y: I will also ask the reporter to 22 mark as Exhibit 11 to Mr. Meeks' deposition a two-page, a l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Kk3364M6 L_______.._--__.__-_-____
I l l 31361.0 81 ! BMS (2) 1 signed document sworn to by Mr. Parks on July 25, which l 2 appears to be related to the Exhibit 10 that was just 3' marked. 4 (Meeks Exhibit 11 identified.) 5 B Y. M R . HIC KEY: 6 O Can.you identify those two exhibits, Mr. Meeks? 7 A They. appear to be -- one is an unsigned 8 statement. 9 0 That is 10? 10 A Yes. Exhibit 10 is an unsigned statement of 11 Richard Parks. And Exhibit 11 is, as you stated, 12 essentially the same statement, but it is signed by Parks 13 and dated July 25, 1983. 14 0 Who prepared Exhibit 107 15 A I think the final typing of this was done by 16 the Office of Investigations. 17 0 How about the document it is typed from. I i' 18 assume you are referring to some secretary who typed it? 19 A Yes. 20 0 The document from which the typed version was ( 21 prepared, who prepared that document?
]
22 A I think it was the original, his original (:)
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationw'de i Coverage 8(G33M/A6
31361.0 82 BMS I statement that we have talked about earlier, that was 2 prepared from his interviews. That information was drawn 3 from that and put in here. 4 MR. JOHNSON: I think Mr. Meeks already l 5 testified that the paragraphs were taken out and I think he l l 6 didn't recall precisely how that was accomplished. 7 BY MR. HIC KEY: 8 0 Will you show the Witness his copy of Exhibit 7, l 9 which is the 13-page draft. Let me see if looking at i 10 Exhibit 7 will help me understand the statement you just 1 i _ 11 made. Is it your testimony that the Office of . C) b 12 Investigations' secretarial employee prepared Exhibit 10 by l l 1 13 simply retyping portions of the material that is in Exhibit 14 7? 15 A No, that wasn't my testimony. 1 16 0 Tell me, how was Exhibit 10 prepared. 17 A To the best of my recollection, like I said, I - 18 don't recall the mechanics of how, what segments of this { 19 information of this statement Exhibit 7 -- information in { l 20 Exhibit 7, was drawn out and ended up -- that related to q 21 Exhibit 10. Certainly, Richard Parks had input to that. I 22 He took the information and amplified on it. Then after we o ! l I 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(>336-6646 I i
31361.0 83 BMS O 1 received that, that is when it was typed up by the 2 secretary. 1 3 0 Then resubmitted to Mr. Parks . for his . signature? 4 A Yes. 5 0 Exhibit 11, the signed, two-page document that ; 6 is in front of you, that is the version that Mr. Parks j 7 signed by you and swore to the accuracy of on July 25? i 8 A Yes. 9 0 Did you review Exhibit 11 with Mr. Parks before 10 he signed it? Did you read through it with him? 11 A Yes, we did. 12 0 The confusion in your mind, or lack of 13 recollection, a better way to state it is you remember that-14 Mr. Parks and you discussed which portions of Exhibit 7 15 should go into Exhibit 10 and that you and he both had , l 16 discussions about that. But you just don't remember how ] I 17 specifically the portions selected were taken from Exhibit ] 18 7 and put into Exhibit 10. Is that what your memory fails 1 1 19 you on? 20 A Like I said, he identified, or together we 21 identified, which paragraphs would go into what statements. 22 Then he -- what happened after that, that's what I don' t O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - l
o 1 1 0 1 1 31361.0 84 BMS 1 recall. But certainly, he must have taken the statement l 2 and at some point in time added to it or amplified on the 1 3 information or editorialized to some extent. And then I l. 4 took that and assured that it was typed-up, and then we 5 went'over it and finalized it. 6 0 I think I understand what you have said. Let me 1 1 7 show you one additional document we will mark as Exhibit 12 j 8 to the Meeks deposition. 9 (Meeks Exhibit 12 identified.) , 10 MR. HICKEY: This is a 10-page document with the 11 signature of Mr. Parks and Mr. Meeks at the end of it, U 12 subscribed to and sworn on July 25. 13 (Witness examined document.) 14 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 15 O Mr. Meeks, do you recognize Exhibit 12? 16 A Yes. 17 0 What is it? 18 A It is a statement of Richard Parks dated July 25, 19 1983. It is a 10-page statement. 20 0 When you reviewed on -- did you review this 21 statement, Exhibit 12, with Mr. Parks on July 25 before he 22 signed it? O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3K0 Nationwide Coverage 8043364M6
)
31361.0 85
-BMS 4 1
() 1 A Yes. 2I Q Mr. Parks swore to you the information in this 3 statement was accurate, was true and correct to the best of 4 his knowledge and belief? 5 A Yes. 6 0 When you met with Mr. Parks on July 25 to obtain 7 his signature on Exhibit.12, that's the same date that.you 8 also obtained his signature on Exhibit 11, the two-page 9 document that you have in front of you. Was Mr. Devine at
.10 your meeting in Bethesda on July 25 when these two 11 documents were signed?
l v 12 A Yes, he was. 13 0 Was there anyone else there besides yourself, 14 Mr. Devine and Mr. Parks? 15 A Mr. Beech was there, Bill Beech. He signed 16 Exhibits 11 and 12 as a witness to Mr. Parks' sworn 17 signature. 18 Q Apart from reviewing these statements with 19 M.r . Parks, did you or Mr. Beech have any further 20 discussions with Mr. Parks in connection with your l l 21 investigation? 22 A Let me see if I can answer that. Certainly, i l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage WM36-6646 9
31361.0 86 BMS I C:) i 1 there was other discussion about the investigation. No, we l l 2 did not have a specific topic matter that we wanted to l l 3 converse about during the signing of these statements, to 1 4 the best of my recollection. There were times there 1 5 when -- this might have been too soon. I think this was 6 too soon -- where I did talk to Parks. He came in, but I 7 think that was regarding the mystery man. At this time, 8 like I said, we certainly had conversations about -- they 9 were not extensive, but about the investigation. Just 10 general conversation. But no, we did not interview him 11 about any specific additional topics at that time. O 12 0 If you recall, did you or Mr. Beech make any 13 notes about your meeting with Mr. Parks on that date? 14 A I can't speak for Mr. Beech. T don't recall 15 whether he did or not. I didn't take any notes on that day, 16 to the best of my recollection. 17 MR. HIC KE Y: I will ask the reporter to mark as 18 Exhibit 13 to Mr. Meeks' deposition a one-page handwritten 19 sheet dated July 25 and signed by Mr. Meeks. 20 (Meeks Exhibit 13 identified.) 21 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 22 0 Mr. Meeks, your counsel has placed in front of O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 6646
i 1 31361.0. 87 . l BMS O 1 you a document marked Exhibit 13. Do you recognize that 2 document? l 3 A Yes, I do. 4 0 What is it? l 5 A I will read it. It is dated July 25, 1983, as 6 you stated. " Receipt is hereby acknowledged from Thomas 7 Devine of approximately 456 pages of documents and ' 8 personnel notes of Lawrence P. King relating to the TMI 9 statements. An itemized list will be compiled at a later 10 date." It is signed by me, Ronald A. Meeks. 11 This was a receipt given to Tom Devine' to let O 12 him know I have received, or acknowledging receipt of a 13 stack of documents he had given to me, which he had 14 received from Mr. King. 15 0 Did you review those documents with Mr. Devine 16 on July 25. 17 A Not to my recollection, certainly not in any 18 detail. Just -- I don't think there -- my recollection is, 19 there wasn't any review at all. 20 0 Did you just count them and write out the 21 receipt in substance? 22 A In substance, I think that was it. Any review O V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336 6646
31361.0 88 BMS 1 certainly would have been cursory. 2 0 You also received on that same day, did you not, 3 a package of documents f rom Mr. Devine which had been 4 supplied by Mr. Parks? 5 MR. HIC KE Y: If it will help your recollection, 6 I will ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit 14 another i 7 document signed by you, dated July 25, 1983, which j 8 acknowledges receipt from Thomas Devine of approximately 9 639 pages of documents and personal notes of Richard Parks. 4 10 That last document was the documents and personal notes of 11 Lawrence King . ! O 12 (Meeks Exhibit 14 identified.) { i 13 BY MR. H IC KEY: 1 14 0 I have now placed in front of you Exhibit 14 to i 15 your deposition? 16 A Sensibly it is the same as Exhibit 13, except it 17 is for documents received through Thomas Devine, given to 18 him by Richard Parks, and delivered through Devine to me. l 19 0 Uhat did Mr. Devine tell you about these 20 documents that he was giving you for Mr. Parks? 21 A I don't recall specifically. Generally it was I f 22 concerning both the Parks and the King. Here are more (:) . I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MG33MM6 l_______.______________________.____ ____________._._._______.______________________________________..__________
'31361.'O 89 BMS O 1 documents; review them and maybe they will help you in your 2 investigation. Naturally, as a follow-up to that, if 3 anything, if you need clarification, we can get further 4 clarification on any of the documents. He was giving them ,
5 to me as additional information to help me in the 6 information at TMI-2. 7 0 Had you earlier made a request to Mr. Devine or 8 Mr. Parks for any documents they had thet would be relevant 9 to your investigation? 10 A I don't recall specifically if I requested 11 further documents. On this particular matter, I don't O 12 recall specifically -- my recollection is that Devine 13 volunteered these documents for my benefit and review, to 14 review in the investigation. I don't think there was any 15 one particular subject matter or one particular document 16 that I requested that spurred the receipt of all of these 17 documents. I think it was -- 18 0 You said spurred, that led to the receipt of the 19 documents? 20 A Yes. Do you have document X of Devine, or do 21 you have something else on this subject matter. I ended up l [ 22 receiving 639 pages of documents. I don't think that is I C:) l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-336-6646
l: I l 31361.0 90 BMS
)
I the way it came about. l 2 My recollection is, Devine had said I have some l l 3 additional documents from both King and Parks, and I will l: 4 furnish them to you. They might be helpful . I think that 5 is the way it came about. 6 O Absent the request for a specific document, l- 7 which is what I heard your tectimony to just relate to, did l 8 you at some point in your interviews with Mr. Parks or your 9 discussions with him and Mr. Devine, make a general request 10 that if they had any documents relevant.to your 11 investigation, to turn them over to you? l l 12 A I don't recall. l u l 13 0 The exhibit states that an itemized list will be 1 14 completed at a later date. Did you do that? l 15 A I didn't. I don't think I even completed that. l 16 0 What did you do with the documents you got, 1 17 referring specifically to the 639 pages of Mr. Parks' 18 documents? i 19 A Specifically, I don't recall what I did with 1 20 them. I think I made a- cursory review just at the time 21 when I received them. There was a count made of each sheet 22 in the stack that they gave me. I think I did go through 1 ( ' 1 ACE 8EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b
ri :.'.
./'I 31363.0 <
(. '91 BMS. ,-
' i
/; j ?[
s 1 them, but only to the extent tp cee if there was anything G' L ] I s , '/ l 2 there th'it was de?.evant.and'imoortant at the time. > But
- j. r 4 3 actually, I don't recal.1 exactlyUr2nt f did with them.* 'I c,g
., y 4 do remember going thraugh them, not in any detail, but 4 s 1 .i: t v).
5 going through them, i ( ! 6 0 I'm not talking just about the meetington July 25 when the documenth were handed to you, bu'b ti.ereafter?
~
7 l I , ' ,1 t . Thoreafter.' You codidn't<gy through them 'all at
- l. 8 A aq 4
o< , li ' 'g . l , , 9 that tine. I think I did go through each'Jocument or at l , 10 least go through it -- I think I d R.go thrbugh each 11 document. How specific I got on each documes.t ated specific-O 12 review, I don ' t recall to what e'< tent tha t was done. . I do 1 13 recall going Ehrough them. 14 0 Did you make copies of those documents available 15 to other persons? 16 MR. JOHNSON: Do you want to put a context, time j 17 frame? 4
.i 18 BY MR. HICKEY:
19 0 You received them on J.uly 25? ' I > 20 A I don't know. 21 0 In the time period from then dntil your report 22 came out on May 4, did you provide copies of these to other l O s . ( t b , .\
\
l Ac3FEDERAr REPORTERS, ING 202-347-3700 Nations tde Coverage sk33M646 ,,
, l
>> j
'31361.0 , 92 BMS
-( ,
1 people? 2 A I don't know. I don't have a rebol.fhetion I did c. 3 that. "" 4 0 Gr 6 specifically to other mraiticrn cr the " s i 5 investigative team, Mr. Vorse or fir. Walker or Mr. Beech? . a m. 6 A I do.n't know. It is not my recollection 't hat , i 1 7 they requested or that I furnished it to them in any wsy, 8 shape or form, either all of the documents or one of the i 9 documents. I just don'i recall. , i l 10 0 Do you remember whether after July 25 you had
^
11 occasion to go back to Mr. Parks or Mr. Devine with r t , 12 questions about particular documents that were in the pile 9 4 i 13 that he gave you? ;q 14 A What was the first par,t-of that question again? 15 0 Af tier you got these documente as this pile of ! 16 documents on July 25, did you later have discussions about , 17 the documents with Mr. Parks or Devine? i 18 A I don't recall specific discussions. I could ) l i l 19 have had very general conversations about maybe the I i l 20 itemized list or - I don' t think I os t.r gave them. I I i 21 don't think I ever made an itemized list. l l 22 MR. JOHNS 04: I think he is asking about the LO . l l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. }
nAlp
-(-
.,t !t s
"~Q , "
f.n.J31361.0 0 93 @ ylngs g' )
,1 .. \ substance. Did you have any discussions about the 1.
l. 2 . substance of those with either Devine or Parks. u
/,
q( 1 V 3 THE WITNESS: Not to my recollection.
-BY MR. HIC KE Y:
i- 5 0 We saw earlier a telephone memorandum at that 6 tiiace teferred to your contacting the department of labor in 7 an effort to obtain a copy of the second affidavit that 8 Mr. Parks had filed on April 22 or 23. .I want to show you i 9 what I will ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit 15. ! 10 (Meeks Exhibit 15 identified.) l M BY MR. HIC KE Y:
.O 12 t~
0 This is a letter of April 22 from Mr. Devine l 13 addressed to Secretary Danovan attention Mr. Feinberg. 14 Attached is an atfida'rit signed by Mr. Parks and a couple i 15 other attachments. 16 Did you obtain a copy of Exhibit 15 from the i ( 17 Department of Labor personnel?
18 A I don't recall.
l s 11 O Have you seen it before? i 20 A I'm almost positive I have seen this and l L 21 reviewed this. But the specifics of when and how I k hj 22 received it, I don't know. O i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l~ 202-347 3700 Ninionwide Coverage 8(K)-336-6M6
,. 1
.{
l l 31361.0 94 l BMS I L 1 0 Did you discuss with Mr. Parks the information ,1 1 i 2 that is contained in the affidavit that is a portion of j l 3 Exhibit 15? i I 4 A I have no recollection that I' discussed with him 5 the information in this affidavit. 6 0 Why is that? Imy don't you recall?- If there is 7 some reason you didn't discuss it with him, is there some i 8 reason? j 9 A I don't recall if I did or not. If I did, it j l 10 was probably because of some information in there. If I l 11 didn't, I don ' t .know why I didn ' t. ! (:)- 12 0 I take it if you discussed it with Mr. Parks,- l l 13 you would have made some record of your discussion with him? j i 14 A If it was new, yes, new and additional ! 15 information. If it was -- in other words, information I 16 already possessed, I wouldn't have made a record. 17 0 But you don't have any recollection specifically 18 of talking to him about this document at all? 19 A No, I don't. 20 MR. HIC KE Y: Let's break for lunch. 21 (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the deposition was 22 recessed, to reconvene at 1:10 p.m., this same day.) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrape 8(n336-6646
l 1 l
-31361.0 95 J BMS I
. l
.O 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1: 10 p .m. )
2 Whereupon, l 3 RONALD A. MEEKS 4 was resumed as a witness and, having been previously duly 5 sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: 1 6 EXAMINATION (Continued) 7 BY MR. HICKEY: , 8 0 Mr. Meeks, one of the areas that you described 9 that you investigated related to what I think you called 10 discharge of radioactive effluent or words to that effect. 11 You recall that there were some allegations concerning the O 12 presence of radioactive cesium and some waste material at 13 TMI-2 that you investigated? 14' A Yes. 15 0 Let me step back and ask you a more general 16 question first. I think you said at the outset of this 17 deposition that your assignment as investigator was to 18 investigate the allegations that had been made by 19 Mr . Parks , Mr . King and Mr. Gischel; is that right? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Am I right that your investigation was aimed at 22 determining the accuracy of what Mr. Parks specifically O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Cmerage 8( 6 336 6646
31361.0 96 BMS O 1 told you? 2 J4 Repeat that please. 3 0 Was the purpose of your investigation to l 4 determine the accuracy of what 10r. Parks told you or said 5 in his affidavit. 6 MR. JOHNSON: Is this related to the cesium 7 thing? 8 MR. HIC KE Y: This is a broader question. 9 MR. JOHNSON: Maybe if you put it in context it 10 will be clear. 11 THE WITNESS: We were not investigating the 12 accuracy of Parks' statements, no. 13 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 14 0 You had an affidavit-from Mr. Parks that had 15 been sent to the NRC; right? You had a copy of an 16 affidavit; right? 17 A Yes. 18 0 Were you asked to investigate the allegations 19 that were made in that affidavit? 20 A Yes. 21 0 Why were you asked to investigate? What were ! 22 you supposed to find? O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-MA6
l 31361.0 97 BMS
'O 1 A To see if there was any substance to the 2 allegations ; in other words, if there was a violation of i
3 regulations by the utility company. l 4 0 Were you trying to determine, then, whether 5 Mr . Parks ' allegations were accurate, factual, whether 6 there was substance to them? 7 MR. JOHNSON: Do you understand the question? 8 THE WITNESS: Were we investigating whether 9 Parks was -- we weren't investigating Parks and his 10 statement. We were investigating the allegation he made. 11 BY MR. HIC KE Y: O 12 0 And whether it was accurate. You ' were trying 13 to find out whether it was the truth; weren' t you? 14 MR. JOHNSON: D) you understand the question? 15 THE WITNESS: Maybe I don't. 16 BY MR. HIC KE Y:
~
1 17 0 I don't know what is confusing about it. 18 Weren't you trying the determine the truth of the 19 allegations Mr. Parks made in his affidavit? Pretty 20 straightforward. 21 A Yes. ! 22 MR. JOHNSON: If there is some reason you don't O
.i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(43364M6
l l l~ 31361.0 98 BMS .. 1 understand it, you should say so. Do you understand what ' 2 he means by the truth? l 3 BY MR. HIC KEY: 4 0 Mr. Parks' allegations, I-am not talking at the ! 1 5 moment specifically about Mr. King and Mr. Gischel. .j i 6 Mr. Parks put out a 53-page af fidavit. You were assigned 7 with others by your superiors to investigate the 8 allegations of that Mr. Parks made; were you not? 9 A . Ye s,. 10 0 The purpose of the investigation was to 11 determine if what Mr. Parks said in his affidavit was 12 accurate or not; isn't that right? 13 A Yes. 14 0 I don't know what is confusing about it. Was i 15 there some other purpose to. the investigation I am missing? 16 I would think that is what the investigation was all about. 17 Was there some other purpose other than that? 18 A No. 19 0 In the course of that, of doing your 20 investigation, you got an allegation that there was 21 radioactive cesium that had been improperly shipped out of 22 the personal access facility, waste, sewage material; O Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MXh3364M6
l. 31361.0 99 l ;BMS i LO l- 1 didn't you? j 2 A Mr. Hickey, I don't know if that is an accurate 3 reflection of what I investigated or not. If you'had the l l 4 report of investigation, it involved the reporting of 5 radioactivity in effluents. I can't specify any more what-L 6 -the investigation was about other than that. 7 0 Well, I don't want to mark it, because it is too 8 big a document. I will show you and you can review a 9 report of investigation dated December 21, 1983 titled 10 Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2, 11 allegation regarding concealment in a quarterly report to t 12 the NRC of detectable cesium 137 in the personnel access 13 f acility holding tank. It has a signature of the reporting 14 investigator Ronald A. Meeks. 15 Take a look at that and see if that refreshes 16 your recollection about what you investigated concerning 17 radioactive cesium. 18 A Repeat the question. 19 0 Why don't you describe what it was you did 20 investigate. 21 A The subject title of the investigation is as you 22 read. The allegation regarding concealment in a quarterly O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 7.02-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MO 3364446
1
]
l l l-p 31361.0 100 i BMS L(~)' 1 report to the NRC of detectable cesium 137 in the personnel lj l 1 l 2 access facility holding tank. 3 0 You had received some information about that 4 subject from Mr. Parks, did you not? 5 A Yes. ; 6 0 If your counsel will put in front of you, your 7 copy of Exhibit 9 to this deposition, which is Mr. Parks' 8 statement sworn on June 6, 1983. Look at page 2, the top-9 paragraph there and then the next paragraph. Would you 10 read those two paragraphs. 11 (Witness complied.) O 12 BY MR. HIC KEY: . 13 0 If you also w'ould take a-look at Exhibit -- the 14 13-page statement. I think it is Exhibit 7. On page 5, 15 the bottom of the page, there is another paragraph that 16 relates to this subject. 17 A Okay. 18 0 So, you addressed with Mr. Parks at some point 19 in your interviews of him on the 27th of April and the 2nd 20 and 3rd of May this topic of the possibility that there had 21 been an effort to conceal in reports to the NRC information 22 about cesium, radioactive cesium in the storage tanks; O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(XL3364M6
1 l 31361.0- 101 BMSL , r-l $_)s- \ l correct? l 2 A That is correct. l 3 0 when you spoke to Mr. Parks -- and you can'look j 4 at both your original draft of the statement, which is l l 5 Exhibit 7 and the final statement that Mr. Parks signed,- 6 which is paragraph 9 to help you check this -- did you ask ; 7 Mr. Parks what the source of his information was that he j 8 was reporting to you? 9 A It seems like he got that information from King. 10 To answer your question, yes, I think I did. It was King 11 he recorded. 12' 0 So specifically looking at the version that~ is 13 Exhibit 9, when Mr. Parks spoke to you and said that there 14 was a meeting held in early January in King's office, which 15 included Jim Hildebrand and Jim Theisuns and then goes on 16 to state what was at the meeting. You understand from 17 Mr. Parks at the time that that was information Parks had 18 gotten from King and that he had not been in attendance at 19 that meeting? 20 A Yes. 21 0 Is there some reason why you didn't indicate in 22 your report of your interview with Mr. Parks that he was O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Na:ionwide Coverage M0-336-6646
l 31361.0 102 j BMS 1 relating second-hand information? 2 MR. JOHNSON: I think that the' question ia l l 3 confusing, because you have not laid a foundation that it 4 isn't in:the report. l 5 MR. HICKEY: I will represent'to the witness,. 6 but if.you want to take a lot of time he, is welcome to l 7 look at it. 8 BY.MR. HIC KE Y: 9 0 I will represent to the witness the reference is 1 1 10 to cesium in these two documents. By all.means, look 11 through it if you want. G 12 MR. JOHNSON: The report is the document in the L 13 black binder. 14 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 15 0 I meant to refer to the two statements that are 16 before. the witness, Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 7. 17 MR. JOHNSON: You used " reported" each time you 18 asked the question. There is some confusion. l 19 BY MR. HICKEY: 20 0 I want to know if there is some reason why you 21 didn't indicate in Exhibit 7 or 9 when you prepared those l l 22 documents that the information you got from Mr. Parks was 1 ( l' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MG33 M 446
l 1' l l 31361.0 103 BMS LO 1 second-hand information or hearsay information, that he had 2 not been in attendance at those meetings? 3 A I have no reason for that. 4 0 Did you think at the time, Mr. Meeks, that it 5 was suggested in writing your report indicate what 6 witnesses had personal knowledge of the events in question? 7 A Repeat the question. 8 0 Did you think at the time in May when you were 9 writing up these statements that it was significant or' 10 important as an investigator to indicate which witnesses 11 had first-hand knowledge of the factual reporting? O 12 A Yes. 13 0 Uhen you spoke to.Mr. Parks about this, did he 14 indicate to you he thought this was a serious matter of i 15 concern or express alarm about this meeting he was telling 16 you about? 17 A I don't recall. 18 0 Prior to talking to Mr. Parks, you already had 19 some information about the cesium incident and cesium in 20 the personnel access facility; didn't you? 21 A If I did, I wouldn't know where it would be from. 22 0 Let me see if I can refresh you. I will ask the O ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn336-6646
1 l 31361.0 104 BMS
.r) 1/ m ,
1 reporter to mark as Exhibit 16 the 31-page statement signed-l 2 by Mr. Lake Barrett , May 20, 1983, reflecting an interview
^
[ 3 of April 13 and 14 by Mr. Vorse and Meeks. 4 ( Meeks Exhibit 16 identified.) 5 MR. HICKEY: I will ask the reporter to mark as 6 Exhibit 17 a copy of an article from the New York Times 7 dated March 28, 1983. 8 ('Meeks Exhibit 17 identified.) 9 BY MR. HICKEY: 10 0 You are welcome to look at Exhibit 16, anywhere 11 -- but the material I want to specifically refer you to (
'~# 12 relates to the subject matter of cesium in the personnel 13 access facility is on page 28, paragraph 37.
14 You and Mr. Vorse met with Mr. Barrett on April 15 13 and 14, 1983; didn't you? 16 A Yes. 17 A What was the date again? 18 0 13 and 14. 19 A Yes. 20 0 Then following your meeting with Mr. Barrett you 21 prepared a statement and ultimately Mr. Barrett signed it 22 on May 20, which was the exhibit you have in front of you? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-37(X) Nationwide Coverage 8(X)-3346646
I 31761.0 105 BMo 1 l 1 A Yes. l 1 2 0 And he swore to it. In the course of your j i 3 interview with Mr. Barrett, this would reflect, would it i 4 not, that you discussed with Mr. Barrett an allegation :i 5 about traces of cesium 137 in the gate 7 septic tank?- 6 A Yes. ! 7 0 It refers, as you will see in the memorandum, to 8 the Times article. I also put in front of your counsel, 1 1 9 which he is showing to you, Exhibit 17, which is a New York 10 Times article. The reference to cesium, just in the 11 interest of your time, is on page 2 in the far right-hand O 12 column, second paragraph. You can read it. 13 In substance, it says that " King said that he 14 had sent a letter complaining that sewage contaminated with 15 small amounts of. radioactive cesium 137 was being trucked 16 out of the plant and disposed of by methods which were 17 illegal under state law." 18 Do you remember discussing that with Mr. Barrett 19 when you interviewed him?
, 20 A I don't recall specifically. The fact that it 21 is in the statement indicates we discussed it.
22 O Mr. Barrett's response, as the statement O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(x)-336-6646
31361.0 106. BMS-l 1 reflects, was that the amounts of cesium were so minimal 2 that they met EPA drinking water standards for 3 radioactivity. In his opinion, this issue was brought up 4 just to excite public emotions. 5 Do you recall Mr. Barrett stating that to you, 6 in substance? I 7- A Not specifically. It is in his statement. 8 O I assume you reviewed with him his statement l 9 before he signed it and swore to.it? 10 A Yes. 11 0 I'm really asking is, I assume you made some 12 effort to ensure what was in this statement is what 13 Mr. Barrett is actually saying, that this statement 14 accurately reflects what Mr. Barrett was saying? 15 A Yes. 16 0 You don't have have any specific recollection of 17 your discussion with Mr. Barrett. Do you have any reason ; 18 to doubt he made the statement in paragraph 7? 19 A No. l 20 Q When you talked to Mr. Parks about radioactive l I l 21 cesium, did you tell him that you understood wnat the l 22 amount of radioactive cesium were less than EPA limits for 1 1O l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31361.0 107 BMS l 1 drinking water? l 2 A I don't recall if I brought up that aspect or 3 not. i l 4 0 Do you remember discussing with Mr. Parks 5 whether he felt this was a serious allegation or not? 6 A No, I don't recall. 7 0 I will just read you one paragraph from your 8 trasmittal -- from the transmittal sheet, transmitting the 9 report, a memorandum from Mr. Hayes dated December 1, 1983, 10 in which Mr. Hayes says -- After referring to the fact they 11 had issued a report in September 1983, he says "One of 9 12 Mr. Parks ' concerns had surfaced during the investigation 13 was clearly a matter of OI interest, advice that Mr. James 14 Theising, then TMI-2 manager of recovery programs in 15 conversations with Jim Hildebrand and Lawrence King had 16 explored ways to conceal in a January 1983 NRC quarterly 17 report the presence of detectable quantities of cesium 137 18 .in the personnel access facility sewage holding tank. OI 19 elected to pursue this allegation as a separate matter 20 prior to addressing the remaining allegations, both because 21 of its intrinsic importance and our sensitivity to the fact 22 that the NRC had a clear obligation to substantiate or O ace FEDERAL RFI'ORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverare Mn336-6646
31361.0 108
- BMS I
1 refute.the allegation." j 2 Did you happen to prepare this memorandum for 3 Mr. Hayes transmitting your report? 4 MR. JOHNSON: Could you show it to him? 5 MR. HICKEY: Sure. 6 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't prepare this. 7 BY MR. HICKEY: 8 0 would you have seen it at the time the report 9 was published and transmitted? 10 A Yes. 11 O Is that statement I read accurately in terms of' O 12 the manner in which this allegation surfaced, that is, that 13 it came out of Mr. Parks' concerns? 14 MR. JOHNSON: You read quite a bit of material. 15 Mr. Meeks may have some difficulty focusing back on each. 16 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 17 0 Is it accurate this allegation arises out of 18 Mr. Parks' concerns? 19 A Is that what it says? 20 0 I'm directing you to the sentence that begins 21 "one of Mr. Pa rks ' concerns." 22 A What is your question again? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn3364M6
f-l '31361.0 109 BMS lO l' 1 0 Is it accurate this allegation arises out of l-2 Mr. Parks' concerns? 3 A You mean the investigation arise out of 4 Mr. Parks' concerns? i 5 0 Yes. 6 A No. It is not inaccurate. Maybe more I 7 information could have been supplied to make it a more -- g 1 8 are we trying to decide whether that is a false statement j 9 or not? If that is the issue, no. It was obvious it was i 10 not a fault statement. The major concern actually came, i 11 to the best of my recollection, out of the information that
/~s t.J 12 King had and that he gave me.
13 0 Mr. Parks made a statement to you. You hadn't 14 spoken to Mr. King at the time you spoke to Mr. Parks, had 15 you. You spoke to Mr. Parks in April or May and you 16 haven't spoken to Mr. King then? 17 A I don't think so, no. I 18 0 Just as a matter of record, you interviewed him 1 19 in late June on the record in Huddleston, Virginia with a I 20 court reporter in late June. You were interviewing 21 Mr. Parks and Mr. Parks was giving you this information in j 22 late April or early May; right? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 j
31361.0- 110 BMS , O 1 A -Yes. 2 O Mr. Parks, I presume, was presenting -- was 3 Mr. Parks giving you this information to you as something 4 he felt you ought to be investigating? i 5 A Yes. 6 0 You apparently felt it was something that.ought -i
'I 7 to be' investigated, too?
8 A Yes. 9 0 Was that because you thought it was information 10 concerning a serious health problem? ! 11 MR. JOHNSON: Do you understand what he means?' 12 Are you having. trouble, understanding what " serious health 13 . problem" means. 14 THE WITNESS: Maybe we better' define what that 15 means. A false statement, is that a serious health problem. ! 1 16 I think that can be batted back and forth. 17 BY MR. HIC KE Y: ! 18 O Did Mr. Parks report this to you as an incident 11 he thought raised health concerns because radioactive 20 cesium was being trucked off the facility? 21 A To the best of my recollection, I think his 22 concern was that: Here is something you should look at; I l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 :6
( 1
.31361.0 111-h 'BMS l'
L ("g .
%1 1 think King has all the f acts; why don't you go to King and l-2 get them from him, paraphrasing.that situation, so to speak.
l '3 0 When you investigated this matter, then, did you ! 4 reach a conclusion about whether or not there were i L 5 significant amounts of radioactive cesium being trucked off 6 the facility? That's the first question of two. 7 A I don't recall. I think I investigated whether 8 there was concealment of report of information from reports 9 to the NRC, not whether it was a safety issue or not. 10 0 When you discussed -- when you investigated it, 11 is it accurate to say that you concluded there was no 12 attempt to conceal this information f rom the NRC? 13 MR. JOHNSON: Are you asking him to test his 14 recollection of what it says in the report? 15 MR. HIC KE Y: I am asking him a simple question, 16 which is whether he concluded in his investigation that 17 there was no attempt to conceal information from the NRC. 18 MR. JOHNSON: The investigation speaks for 19 itself. l l 20 MR. HICKEY: I suppose we could go through each l 21 page of the report. I think this witness has a 22 recollec t i,on . I am entitled to that recollection of what l 1 O ACE FEDERAt. REPORTERS, INC. { 202-347 37(K) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ )
l l-31361.0 112 BMS l ' he found. It is an attempt really to save time. 1 If you 2 want the take the report, Mr. Meeks, you can read every 3 page of the report and I will ask you a question at the end 1. l 4 of that. I assumed since you did an investigation for some i 5 time and wrote a report about it, that you might have some 6 recollection about what you found. If you don't, then f ' 7 don't answer the question. If you do, I would like to know 8 what you found. 9 THE WITNESS: What is the question. 10 BY MR. HIC KEY: 11 0 Whether you found in your investigation that () 12 there was no attempt to conceal information from the NRC. 13 A Why don't we take some time and look at the 14 transmittal letter here. 15 If I can quote from the transmittal letter, 16 dated December 21, 1983, Mr. Hayes in this memorandum to 17 the commissioner states that "our' investigation established . i 18 that the presence of detectable levels of cesium 137 in the 19 path was documented and reported to the NRC in monthly, l 4 20 quarterly, and semiannual reports. It further established I 21 that the NRC TMI program of fice had been orally advised l l 22 when these levels were detected and that these initial oral l l i i I l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0 336-6646 l l
l t l 31361.0. 113 1 BMS , I O 1 reports were subsequently documented by the licensee in
]
I 2 formal reports. No evidence was over presented that either 3 Mr. Theising or Hildebrand concealed or attempted to 4 conceal this information." ; I 5 0 Did you go back to Mr. Parks at any point af ter 6 you got these statements from him that are in front of you, 7 Exhibit.s 12 and 7, and ask him for any further information j j 1 8 about-the cesium matter? 9 A Not to my recollection, no. 10 0 Did you talk to Mr. King about it? 11 A You mean before or after or during-the O 12 investigation? 13 0 At any time. 14 A Yes, I talked to Mr. King. Let me look at the 15 exhibits on this. 16 0 Sure. 17 A Yes, I did. 18 0 But you don't have any recollection of going 19 back to Mr. Parks after your discussion with Mr. King or 20 any other witnesses to seek further information from Parks 21 about his knowledge of this incident. 22 A I understand your question to be after this O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
31361.0 114 j BMS O 1 investigative report.was issued, did I talk to anybody else .
)
1 2 about this investigation. l 3 0 I didn't mean after the report was issued. I 4 mean after you spoke to Parks the first time about the 5 cesium, which is in these two statements that are in front 6 of you; did you have occasion to discuss it with him again 7 later? 8 A I don't recall. It is my impression that no, I 9 didn't. 10 MR. HICKEY: I ask the reporter to mark -- if 11 counsel will agree, I won't mark it, but I will ask the O 12 witness some questions about Mr. Parka 56 page affidavit. 13 There are certainly enough copies of it in the record. 14 MR. JOHNSON: I think it is a good idea not to 15 have it in the transcript. 16 BY MR. HIC KEY: 17 0 Mr. Meeks, I am placing in front of you, 18 Mr. Parks' Exhibit of 56 pages, sworn to on March 21, 1983. 19 I'm sure you have seen that document before. 20 MR. JOHNSON: Could we have a second? 21 MR. H IC KE Y: Sure. 22 (Discussion off the record.) O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-3 % 6646
31361.0 115 BMS l I (~. s l 1 BY MR. HIC KE Y: j l 2 O Just one last thing, if I can go back. The 3 exhibit, that is, the signed six-page statement of June 6, -q 4 Exhibit 9, has reference to the subject we have been .j 5 discussing on page 2. In the two middle paragraphs there, 6 it refers to a number of individuals that Mr. Parks says 7 have'information about the sewage. Do you recall whether 8 you spoke to any of those people? 9 A No, I don't recall. 10 0 If you interviewed them in connection with this 11 investigation, would their statements be in the reports O 12 that you prepared, dated December 21? 13 A Yes. 14 0 If you look at Mr. Parks' affidavit that is in 15 front.of you. If you will look at page 13 of Mr. Parks' 16 affidavit. Mr. Parks talks primarily in the middle J 17 paragraph there that starts "these two problems" about the 1 18 absence of calculations to support assumptions about ! 19 potential criticality. I 20 Did you address that subject with Mr. Parks when l l 21 you interviewed him on those dates in April and May 19837 ) l 22 A Can you specifically say what it is again? j l O l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(k336-6646
i
'31361.0 116 ,
BMS O 1 '0- Sure. It is reading the language that is in the 2 two paragraphs on the top half of page 13. ! 1
]
3 A The paragraph starting with "however"? 1 4 0 Yes, and the following paragraph. j i 5 A He says "however this decision" -- first of all, i I 6 if I did discuss it with him, it would be in my statements. { 7 0 Do you have any recollection as you sit here j 8 today of discussing that subject with Mr. Parks? 9 A I,still don't know what the subject is. 10 0 The uncontrolled criticality and the issue 11 concerning-the steam generator. ; 12 A I don't know. 13 0 Well, the question is whether you recall. 14 Either you recall it or don't recall. 15 Do you recall discussing that subject with 16 Mr. Parks? 17 A I don't recall if we discussed it with him or 18 not. 19 0 If you discussed it with him, it would have 20 appeared in your statements, the ones we have identified 21 here, today? 22 A Yes. O ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MKH36-6646
31361.0 117 BMS O 1 0 Did you, as you interviewed Mr. Parks, exclude
-2 from your questioning of him certain areas because they 3 would be covered by other people?
4 A I don't recall. 5 0 Do you remember whether you had, prior to , 6 interviewing Mr. Parks, a plan to cover certain areas of. 7 the affidavit with him specifically? 8 A No, I don't.
'9 0 Look at page 14. At-the top of that page, you 10 will see in the paragraph, it begins, " similarly."
11 Mr. Parks discusses his interest in seeing some O 12 calculations relating to what would happen under certain 13 conditions of draining the steam generator. 14 Again, do you have any recollection of 15 discussing that subject with Mr. Parks? 16 A No, I don't. 17 0 If you discussed it with -- it would have been 18 recorded in the statements you have identified here today? 19 A Yes. 20 0 I think I can accurately represent to you, 21 Mr. Meeks, if you will take it as a hypothetical, that l 22 those two areas I have just asked you about are not l lO l ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 l L_________________________________. l
31361.0 118 BMS O 1- addressed in the statements that'you have provided, that
-2 the NRC staff has provided that relates to Mr. Parks' 3 testimony. Can you give me any understa.nding of why those 4 areas were not covered by you assuming that to be the fact?
5 You haven't reviewed all these statements, but I have. I 6 am prepared to represent to you those statements are not 7 addres. sed to Mr. Parks. You told me you don't recall 8 discussing them with Mr. Parks and that if you had 9 discussed them with Mr. Parks you would have put his 10 information about them in the statements. I am asking you 11 to assume there isn't anything in the statements. Can you O 12 tell me why that would be, why those areas would not be 13 addressed. 14 MR. JOHNSON: There is a hypothetical question. 15 Assuming the subject was in the affidavit but not in your 16 reports or statements or draf t statements by Mr. Parks that 17 you wrote up or assisted in writing up, was there a 18 particular reason that you could ascribe to that? 19 THE WITNESS: No, I can't explain that. 20 BY MR. HICKEY: 21 0 There are a number of areas throughout Mr. Parks' 22 lengthy affidavit that don't appear to be addressed in any O ACE FEDERAt REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(K) Natio:1 wide Coverage 8(KO364M 6
,y--- -
,.? - 3 i
3 1 * , y. ) 4 's I 31361.0- . y9
'BMS / f l
i .; y' ; l 1 of your specific memoranda. Can you.think of any- 1 l q j - f. , a 2 explanation in terms of subject matterh,rdivision*of' 4.h . l . s j l- 3 responsibilities or anything else that would help us \ l' x .i ( 4 understandwhythosearenotaddressed;inyourreportkI)f)s j l- -v s j ! 5 your interview with Mr. Parks? , <[ ol :/ d f 6 A Not with the information currently and what} ,U 1 .L. ' c, ; 7 recall, no, I can't.- i; , , s,y 1, Y S'. !,
).
l 8 0 Just in the interest of nok having.too.much / ' s pl. 1 r l 9 paper in front of you, I would ask you to look at;the e
; I 'd l 10 13-page stateme:at ofMr. Parks, what ws' have been caU.ing .,
i n 11 the original draft, which is Exhibit Number 7. I want'to' V.i O- 12 ask you a couple auestions about it, and specifically about j, 4 13 how it relates to the July 25 statement, 'whIch b.. Exij,1 bit ,, s e ' 14 12 to your depcsition. You have both those cocuments s y 15 front of you? l
-?
4 q 16 A Exhibit 1 and 12, yes, s 17 0 If you look et Exhibit 7, which is the original i 18 draft, the first paragraph relates to some statements that 19 Mr. Parks made about page 8 of his affidavit. If you ( l 20 compare it wit'n the first paragrvph of Exhibit 12, you will i 21 see that there has been some information Meleted from 22 Exhibit 7 that does not appear in Exhibit 12. And O ATE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202-30-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m33MM6
{ 4\ j}Uy i f 31361.0 120 d j 'BMS ' a O 1 specifically, it starts at the.end of that.. paragraph with_ l
'o 9 l
2- the language about SwedehHoltman,' a'rfcovery program andi ,. t 3 ,the next two sentences that follow. ' l
\
l 4 A .Okay. < o> l,j f 5 0 If I understood your testimony earlier,,is .it - ,
'l 4_ .y 6 correct you put the information about Mr. Holttus,n in the 7 original draft becaJse Mr. Parks had made those statements O'
8 to you when you interviewed him on the 27th and 2nd and 3rd l 9 of May? ,- i 10 A Yes. /
, s 11 O When you got the statement signed by Parks on j O 12 July 25, that material had been deleted; did you ask 13 Mr. Pat.ts or Mr. Devine why that material was deleted?
,hn 14 A I don't recall. It is my sense that my 15 impression that I didn't discuss that fact, but I could 16 have. I just don't recall right now.
17 0 You understood when you wrote the information 18 down the first time that Mr. Holtman who was a recovery b 19 programs person, had stated that site operations was ! ! 20 meeting schedule dates better than anybody else on the site; 21 correct? 22 A Yes. O
'l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M2-347-3700 Nation 4de Coverage 800-336 4 46 _ _ _______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___I
~ ~~
}a r
. 9 jf0:{ >.
g ),, - o. s , 9 , 31361.0 121 BMS. r You recali the context of that statement or why 1 O l .,g, , .2 p, that was thought significant by you and something you ought c
. jlf
- !l i ,
' ~ 3:j bhevrite.down?
Il!.,, ' k l- ' 4 'SA Not at this point, I don't. l l l 5 0 In the paragraph that it appears in relation to l 6 some comments by Parks being counseled for a negative
' 7 attitude. Does the statement about Mr. Holtman suggest 8 that there were difficulties or conflict between -- let me 9 withdraw that.
l "a l 10 Why did you put in the Holtman statement in.the 1 11 context of this paragraph about Parks being counseled for a l () i
\
12 negative attitude? l
^l
,' 13 A Why did he or I? !
I . *, 'h 14 0 I asked why yo'u did. I assume you did because l 4
.15 Parks said it?
l 16 A Yes. I didn't understand the full -- I didn't 17 hear all the question. 18 0 l'm trying to'ask you whether you recall whether 19 Mr. Parks mado.any other comment about Mr. Holtman when he 2 20 gave you this information that you put in the original l 21 I draft. j I ll? A I'm sorry. Would you repeat the question. l () l
/
/
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l
202-347-3700 Nattonwide Coverage M-336-tM6 l l l l
\
31361.0 122 BMS l 1 0 Did Mr. Parks give you any other information 1 2 about Mr. Holtman at the time he gave you the information 1 3 you'put-in Exhibit 7. j 4 MR. JOHNSON: Other than what is stated. j l 5 THE WITNESS: No, not to my recollection. The 6 fact that there is no other information in here about 7 Holtman probably indicates that he didn't. Certainly if he 8 didn't, it wasn't of any substance. j i 9 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 10 0 Just before the Holtman material in your Exhibit 11 7, you wrote "those inside operation in site operations O 12 that were present when related this" -- and you list a 13 number of persons including Joe Smith. Do you see his name 14 there after Mr. Perry? 15 A Yes. I 16 0 You will note on Exhibit 12 that Mr. Smith's 17 name has been deleted. Do you recall why Mr. Parks wanted 18 to delete Mr. Smith's name from your statement? i 19 A No, I don't. 20 0 Was it your practice as you reviewed this l 21 statement with Mr. Parks prior to signing -- referring to 22 Exhibit 12 -- to ask Mr. Parks abo _it why he was making
'( .
i l l i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ] 202-347-3700 Naiionwide Coverage 8(0-336 4 646
]
l j
- 31361.0 123 BMS l() '
1 -deletions _or changes?
'2 A .Yes.
i 3 0 But you have no recollection of why he was 4 deleting these names? , 5 A No, I don't. 6 0 Let me direct you down to the bottom of that-7 page on Exhibit 7,.the first page. You can compare it with 8 Exhibit.12, but you will see in the last three lines of 9 Exhibit 7, the sentence reads, "Many times this is-just'an-10 everday expression used by.Barton. -However, if necessary, 11 in my opinion, Barton would follow up with his threat to () 12 fire an employee if he thought it was necessary." 13 Now, the language about this being an everyday i 14 expression doesn't appear in Exhibit 12; does it? j i 15 A What was your question again? 16 0 I'm asking you to confirm that the language'in 17 Exhibit 7 about "many times this is just as eoeryday 18 expression used by Barton" doesn't appear in Exhibit 12. 19 A Not in that paragraph. I assume that is the 20 paragraph he is treating it in Exhibit 12. Therefore, it J i' 21 wouldn't be in any other paragraph, because it would be out I 22 of context. O
\/
,, /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 { I _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ J
31361.0 124-BMS , O' 1 0 The context of the paragraph on Exhibit 7 2 suggests that you were asking Mr. Parks to describe 3 Mr. Barton's personality and that the reason you were. asked 4 that was because Parks had talked to you about a meeting -- 5 I can't say that. 6 The paragraph suggests that you were asking 7 Mr. Parks a question about Barton's personality. ~ Do you 8 remember why you thought Barton's personality was of f 9 interest to your investigation? 10 A No, I don't. 11 0 Ib you recall who Mr. Barton was? 12 A Yes. 13 0 Do you recall that there were allegations that 14 Mr. Barton had harassed Mr. Gischel and Mr. Parks? l l 15 A Yes. There were allegations that -- I remember 16 Mr. Gischel -- I don't know if there were any allegations l 17 from Parks or not. 18 MR. JOHNSON: Against Parks? 19 THE WITNESS: That's what he asked. j 20 BY MR. HIC KE Y: i l 21 0 Do you recall an allegation about Mr. Barton j i 22 harassing Mr. Gischel? O ! ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(b336-6646
.31361.0 125 I
BMS 1 A As part.of the overall context of harassment of l 2 Mr. Gischel.at the time. l l 3 0 I don't understand your answer. ter question'is l l 4 whether you recall there being an allegation that-Mr. 5 Barton had harassed Mr. Gischel. 6 A Yes. 7 0 Do you recall an allegation that Mr. Parks had 8 stated that Mr. -- I'm sorry. That.Mr. Barton had stated 9 that Mr. Parks should be fired? ,
+
10 A No,.I don't recall that. 11 0 Do you recall reading that in Mr. Gischel's o 12 affidavit? 13 A Do I recall it? 14 0 Do you recall reading in Mr. Gischel's 15 affidavit an allegation that Barton said Parks should be 16 fired? 1 17 A Not at this point -- l l 18 MR. JOHNSON: Wait a second. thich af fidavit ' 19 are you talking about? j l 20 MR. HIC KE Y: The affidavit that Mr. Gischel' 21 filed, which I think is dated April 2. 22 MR. JOHNSON: You are asking him a question l 1 l 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 l l
31361.0- 126 BMS O 1 about something in an April 2 affidavit about'Gischel? 2 Do you know what affidavit he is referring to? l THE WITNESS: 3 Not specifically. I don't recall 4 that statement at this point in time. 5 BY MR. HIC KEY:
~
6 0 I will show you, Mr. Meeks, an affidavit signed 7 by Ed Gischel it is 22 pages, dated April 2, 1983. Tell me 8 first whether you have ever seen that document.before. 9 A Yes. 10 0 If you will look at page 15, bottom of the page, 11 last paragraph. Do you see an allegation there by O 12 Mr. Gischel that Mr. Barton stated that Parks should be 13 fired? 14 MR. JOHNSON: One second. Would it be okay if 15 he reviews that page to see the context? 16 MR. HIC KE Y: Surely. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 BY MR. HICKEY: l l 19 0 Ix> you recall that Mr. Gischel made an l 20 allegation to the effect that Mr. Barton stated Mr. Parks 21 should be fired? l 22 A In the affidavit, yes. Reading it now. i I O l I j ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ( 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31361.0 127 BMS l (D ( %/ 1 MR. JOHNSON: He is asking you whether you 2 recall it is the question. 3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 5 0 You were presumably -- when you were 6 interviewing Mr. Parks, why were you discussing with him 7 Mr. Barton's personality? 8 A I don't recall.
~
9 0 Don't you believe it was because you were 10 interested in allegations about Mr. Barton making threats , 11 to fire people? O 12 A That's a possibility. 13 0 You don't have any recollection of it though? 14 A No, not in the context or the framework of the - 15 information I have right now. 16 0 Let's assume it's possible that you were asking 17 Mr. Parks about Mr. Barton's personality because you had ; 18 allegations that Mr. Barton had threatened to fire people. 19 You wrote down in your first interview, in your first 20 version of Mr. Parks' statement, that this was something 21 Mr. Barton said every day, according to Mr. Pa rks . 22 0 Did you think it was significant when Mr. Parks o l i I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. < 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n3364M6
31361.0 128 BMS O 1 deleted that information from Exhibit 12? 2 A I don't recall if I thought ~it was significant 3 or not. l 4 Q As you sit here today, does it seem to you to 5 have any significance to these allegations? 6 A No. 7 0 You don't think so? 8 A No. 9 0 When a person is accused of threatening to fire i 10 someone, do you think the context or the seriousness of the 1 11 threat is relevant or not? 12 A That's a pretty broad question. Can we narrow 13 it down? 14 0 I tried to riarrow it down. - I'm asking you, as 15 you sit here today, in your investigative experience, 16 whether you would think when there was an allegation that 17 someone threatened to fire someone that it would be 18 relevant whether the threat was a commonplace method of 19 expression by someone used every day or whether it was not. i; l 20 MR. JOHNSON: I think you are going to the way ) i 21 in which Mr. Meeks conducted his investigation. And he has i 22 told you the facts that he remembers, the source of how the ! O l l l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l E- __ _ _ - - !
l 31361.0 129 l BMS 1 statement got in there and how it was taken out. To ask l 2 him about how he conducts his investigations and what he l 3 formally believes to be important, I think goes beyond 4 facts in asking him about the way in which as a general 5 matter he' conducts investigations. l 6 MR. HIC KE Y: I'm trying to determine why the 7 sentence was deleted.
- 8. MR. JOHNSON: That's not a bad question. I 9 think the other question was bad.
10 MR. HICKEY: I have asked the witness what he 11 can tell me. O 12 THE WITNESS: I don't know why it was deleted. 13 I don't recall what discussions occurred at the time from 14 the one statement to the other where it was in the one i 15 statenient and deleted in the other. 16 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 17 0 VMat did you do with the original draft of 18 Mr . Parks ' statement, Exhibit 7, after you got the signed 1 19 version, which is Exhibit 12 in this case? l I 20 A I don't recall specifically. I think it ] l 21 remained in the investigative case file. j
\
22 O You didn't attach it as an exhibit to any of the O \ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(k33M646 =
l
'31361.0 130 BMS
( L 1 ' investigative reports, did you? 2 A No, I don't think so. 3 0 Mr. Meeks I will show you a document which is 4 your affidavit, previously filed in this case, sworn to you' 5 on March 3,.1987. It was an attachment to some of the 6 document discovery materials.
- j. 7 MR. JOHNSON: Is that the one that supported our 8 motion to -- our objections to the subpoena, or is this a 9 different one?
10 BY MR. HIC KEY: 11 0 I show you the affidavit. At the moment I can't 12 recall what document it was attached to. I want to direct 13 your attention to page 4 of the affidavit after you have 1 14 had a chance to look at it. 15 A All right. i 16 0 specifically referring you the paragraph 11, 17 this is your signature at the bottom of the document, is 18 it not? l 19 A Yes, it is. l l 20 0 You swore that "these documents" -- and you ' I l , 21 concede you are referring to the original draft of , 22 Mr. Parks' statement which is Exhibit 7; right? l l O ' . 1 [ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Kb33M646 l
J 31361.0 131 1' BMS O 1 A Pardon? 2 0 You referred -- let me stop for a minute. 'You 3 referred to'the original draft of Mr. Parks' statement made y 4 during the interviews of April 27 and May.2 and 3. That is 5 Exhibit 7, you have told us earlier,'which is there in 6 front of you; is it not? 7 A Uculd you repeat the question? l 8 0 Is the original draft you are referring to the 9 in the affidavit you just read the same as Exhibit 7 which 10 is there in front of you? , 11 A I'm sorry. I am not linking up here. Let me O 12 read the paragraph again. 13 0 Is the original draft you are referring to in 14 paragraph 11 of your March 3 affidavit the same as Exhibit 15 7 there in front of you? 16 A In there is the only original draft that existed 17 or a copy of the only original draft, yes. 18 0 Do you think there is some other one? 19 A No. I don't know if there are other copies or 1 I 20 not. 21 0 When we addressed the matter this morning, I'm 22 trying to get it clear. I thought you indicated following O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
J l f' 31361.0 132 ) l BMS l 1 your three interviews with Mr. Parks on April 27 and May 2 L 2 and 3 you prepared a draft from your notes of all the 3 information Mr. Parks had told you and that Exhibit 7 is j 4 that draft you prepared? l l l 5 A Yes. 6 0 Isn't that Exhibit 7 the draft that you are { 7 referring to in paragraph 11 of your affidavit of March.3, 8 1987? 1 1 9 A Yes. ! l 10 0 You go on to say in your affidavit that these 11 documents, and you are referring also to two -- let's get O 12 it all out. You also say there were tuo revised drafts 13 statements of Mr. Parks. If you will look at Exhibit 10, 14 which is the two-page document before you with the material 15 about missing records and the number on the other one is 9?- ; 16 Mr. Johnson, you have the other one. 17 My colleague suggests we didn't mark the draft. 18 What I wanted to ask, Mr. Meeks, is the 19 statement in your affidavit of March 3 that these documents 20 were not furnished at the time because they were duplicates 21 of the Parks statements already in the possession of GPU 22 Nuclear. Is that accurate, having looked at Exhibit 7, O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
I 31361.0 133 BMS ( ! I which has material which is not contained in Exhibit 12? l l 2 MR. JOHNSON: Could you wait'just a second. I 3 think you have kind of mischaracterized his statement. l 4 What he is saying in this statement, and Mr. Meeks can 5 verify this is that he -- 6 MR. HIC KEY: Why doesn't he answer. 7 MR. JOHNSON: You mischaracterized it. The key 8 word here is "I recognize." I think you didn't focus on 9 that and what that means. 10 MR. HIC KE Y: I think I read the statement to the 11 witness. The witness can make whatever answer he is O 12 inclined to make. If you have an objection to the form of 13 my question, I will try to restate it. 14 MR. JOHNSON: It really is an objection. 15 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 16 0 You have the affidavit. You read the affidavit. 17 My question is, is Exhibit 7 a duplicate of Exhibit 12? 18 That's question number 1. At the moment, I'm only 19 addressing this language we have looked at so far on the 20 first page. l 21 A I would say Exhibit 7 is a duplicats -- as you I l 22 look at the first page, it appears to be a duplicate. It f ([) i I
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 1
31361.0 134 BMS
.O %/
1 is a duplicate of not only part of Exhibit 12 but what 2 other exhibit the other two statements were made too. 3 0 What do you mean " duplicate"? 4 A It contains the same informati'on . " Duplicate" is 5 the wrong word to use. 6 O Exhibit 12 does not contain the information 7 about Mr. Holtman that appears at the end of the paragraph 8 on Exhibit 7, does it? Exhibit 12 does not contain the 9 information that appears at the end of the firs.t paragraph 10 of Exhibit 7, does it? 11 MR. JOHNSON: I think the problem -- 12 MR. HIC KE Y: It is a very straightforward 13 question. He is using the word " duplicate" to say 14 something that has the same information. I want to have 15 the witness address.the question of whether or not tnere is 16 the same information in paragraph 12 that there is in 17 paragraph 7. He can look at it. 18 MR. JOHNSON: You are not on trial. To the 19 extent that these questions are legitimate, they are not 20 questions aimed at impeaching your investigation or 21 impeaching your credibility as an investigator. What he 22 can ask you legitimately is whether, in fact, these are the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(X)-33MM6 L__________-___._____-.____-_-_
i 31361.0 135 -l BMS l ( 1 same statements and whether you believe that they are the j i 2 same statements. And when you said what you said in your. 3 affidavit, did you mean to say that you believed at the 4 time that you originally served that these . were the 'same 5 statements. Then he is asking you, are they the same , I 6 statements? I think there is an area of legitimate factual .j 7 inquiry here. 8 BY MR. HICKEY: 9 O The question is, look at paragraph 1 of Exhibit 10 7 and paragraph 12 of Exhibit 7. And tell me as you read 11 those if those are the same sentence.
~) 12 MR. JOHNSON: Say that again.
13 BY MR. H1C KE Y: 14 0 Look at paragraph 1 of Exhibit 7. Look at 15 paragraph 1 of Exhibit 12. Isn't it a fact that there is 16 information in Exhibit 7, paragraph 1 that is not contained 17 in Exhibit 12, paragraph 17 l 18 A Yes. I 19 0 Specifically the information about Mr. Holtman 20 which appears at the end of the first paragraph; isn't that I i 21 right? 22 A Yes. O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MX)-336-6646
- - - - - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ = _ .
31361.0 136 BMS O V 1 0 And the reference to Mr. Smith which appears 2 just before that in that same paragraph? 3 A Yes. 4 0 In addition at the bottom of page 1 of Exhibit 7, 5 the information about firing someone being an everyday 6 expression, which I went over with you before, that doesn't' 7 appear on Exhibit 12 at the bottom paragraph, does it? 8 A No. 9 O So these two statements, Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 10 12 are not duplicates, are they, Mr. Meeks? 11 A No. O 12 O When you signed the affidavit on March 3, 1987, 13 .did you compare what is now marked Exhibit 7 with what is 14 Exhibit 127 i 15 MR. JOHNSON: I will object to this line of j 1 16 questioning. What you are trying to do is impeach the ; i 17 witness' affidavit by mischaracterizing what he did. l
)
i 18 MR. H IC KE Y: I'm trying to understand -- I'm not l 19 trying the impeach the witness at all. I'm trying to I l 20 understand what the witness says. He says in his affidavit 21 that he recognized some documents to be duplicates. He has q 22 now said these documents are not duplicates. I want to ask l ( l l l l
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb336-6646
- - o
. _ - _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l. i 31361.0 137 l BMS I n i U 1 him why did he say that some documents are duplicates. i l 2 MR. JOHNSON: That's a mischaracterization. ] i 3 Your mischaracterization is in this statement. And I think 4 if you give Mr. Meeks time to read through this paragraph, ) 5 he will understand -- I think he needs to read it through. 1 6 What he is saying here is not -- when he wrote this 7 affidavit that he believed them to be duplicates -- 8 MR. H IC KE Y: You interpreted several times what-9 Mr. Meeks is saying in the affidavit. I am happy.to give 10 Mr. Meeks -- indeed, I have given him opportunities to read : 11 the affidavit. If he wants another one, he can have that O 12 too. 13 What I would think would be more appropriate is 14 for Mr. Meeks to read the affidavit again if he wants to 15 -and answer my questions, rather than you stating what you 16 understand Mr. Meeks' answer might be. 17 MR. JOHNSON: Give him a chance to read it then. 18 You are not saying what he said. I don't think he 19 understands why there is a difference. Read paragraph 11. 20 (Witness complied.) 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. Why don't you go off the r 22 record here. L-ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202447-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6 ! i
31361.0 138 BMS O 1 MR. HICKEY:- We better leave it'on Mr. Meeks. 2 THE WITNESS: I want to think out loud. I would 3 like to go off the record'now. 4 MR. JOHNSON: Let me consult with the witness. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 MR. JOHNSON: Can'the witness have a short break? 7 MR. HIC KE Y: Sure. 8 (Recess.) 9 BY MR.- HICKEY: 10 0 Mr. Meeks, you have had an opportunity to'take a 11 recess and consult with your counsel. I would like to'go 12 back to the question that was pending. You have also had 13 an opportunity to review your affidavit again, have you not? l 14 A Yes, I have. 15 Q Do you want some more time to look at that? 16 A Not at the moment, no. 17 O My question is whether when you signed the 18 affidavit in March -- on March 3 you were aware that what- t l 19 you meant when you said that the statement, which was the L l l l 20 original draf t was a duplicate of the statement that was
]
21 made available to GPU. j 1 22 A When I did my search for documents in relation I l ()
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 L____ _ __ _ _ - _ _ . I
L 31361.0' 139 L BMS ,.q 1./ 1 to the interrogatories, the three statements in question I I 2 recognize and thought them to be duplicates of what GPU I 3 already had, just looking at the beginning words of the 4 statements. 5 Then when I made a further search'in February, I 6 looked at them more closely and . recognized that these were 7 statements that should have been furnished earlier when I 8 was looking through them in November. At the time in 9 November, I-thought they were duplicates of what GPU 10 already had. They were duplicates of the statements. ! 11 O What you thought GPU had was the statements that q
-12 had been signed and attached as exhibits to the OI reports?
13 A Yes. J j 14 0 What you thought in November -- what you thought ' 15 in November and what you referred to in your affidavit of 16 March 3 as what you understood GPU to have, those were 17 statements that were exhibits to the various OI reports? 18 A Yes. I was in error in -- I didn't consider the 19 aspect of drafts. At the. time, looking at it, to me a 20 draft was the same as a statement that was in the report of 21 investigation. But that thinking was in error. 22 O You did not, I take it, in November compare a !
)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
'31361.0 140 BMS O 1 copy of what we have marked Exhibit 7 with a copy of what 2 we have marked Exhibit 12 line by line?
3 A No. 4 Q Pre'sumbl y , if you would have compared them, you 5 would have seen there were differences in the two? 6 A Right. I didn't look other than to see they 7 looked like the same statements that had already been. 8 furnished. 9 0 Just to clarify a couple things. Look at page 6 10 of Exhibit 7. If you will look at the signed statement of 11 June 6, that is Exhibit 9. You see on page 6 of Exhibit 7, t) ' 12 the third paragraph starts, " Also on March 3." If you will {; 13 look at Exhibit 9 on page 3, you see the paragraph starting I 14 also "also on March 3"? U 15 A Yes. 16 O There are two sentences at the bottom of the 17 paragraph on page 6 of Exhibit 7 that don't appear. 1 18 A Okay. 19 0 They read as follows: "At that point, I stated ;
)
20 the procedure should be looked at by the tests work group." I 21 A The two sentences you are saying left off are on 22 page 3. O 1 l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(X)-336-6646
31361.0- 141 BMS 1 MR. JOHNSON: Test work group, on Exhibit 7, 2 third to last line of that paragraph, is that correct? I 3 don't see anything like this in the other draft. 4 MR. H IC KE Y: The language I am trying to direct 5 the witness to, reads as follows on Exhibit 7: "I have 6 never seen NRC involvement on procedures used at other 7 sites. Like it is as TMI-2. I have never seen this buy-off 8 procedure used in this way at other nuclear sites." 9 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 10 0 IL, you see that language there? l 11 A Yes. l 12 O I think you can confirm it doesn't appear on 13 Exhibit 9. l- 14 My question to you is whether you have any l 15 recollection of discussing with Mr. Parks the deletion of 16 that language from his final statement. , l 17 A No, I don't have any recollection of that. 18 O Turn to page 9, please, of Exhibit 7. In the 19 middle of that page, there are two paragraphs beginning on I \
\
l' 20 i page 36 and 37. Then the following paragraph that starts on l l 21 page 37. IX; you see that? 22 A Yes. O ! l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 L___---___--_-__-
l 1 31361.0 142 BMS () 1 0 Please read those paragraphs; the subject matter 2 of them is the mystery man discussion. 3 (Witness complied.) i 4 BY MR. H LC KE Y: i 5 0 Those paragraphs do not appear in the signed j 6 statement by Mr. Parks that we have. Do you recall any 7 discussion with Mr. Parks about the deletion of that 8 material? 9 A No, I don't recall that. 10 0 Please turn to page 11 of Exhibit 7. The top 11 paragraph, about four lines down, there is the following 12 sentence: "I told Sanford that I left that morning. i 13 Hoffman then asked me what time I left, and I told him 14 about 6: 30 a .m. I thought these questions were strange, 15 especially in light of the fact that I had been meeting 16 with representatives from the government accountability 17 project office on the evening before the meeting." : l 18 Then if you look at the July 25 statement, which 19 is Exhibit 9, on page 8. The comparable language is on 20 page 8 of Exhibit 9. 21 MR. JOHNSON: There are only six pages. The 22 10-page statement you mean? O l l l ACEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46
31361.0 143 BMS O 1 MR. HIC KE Y: Yes. i i 2 MR. JOHNSON: It is Exhibit 12. What page, , i 3 please? ; 4 MR. HICKEY: Page 8, the third paragraph l 5 beginning on page 49. l 6 BY MR. HICKEY: l I 7 0 You can confirm the language I just read to you 8 from Exhibit 7 doesn't appear in Exhibit 12. 9 A Okay. 10 0 Do you recall discussing with Mr. Parks why you. 11 were deleting the reference to the fact he had had a ("~'1 12 meeting with the government accountability project before 13 he went with Mr. Sanford from his statement? 14 A No, I don't recall discussing that with him or 15 discussing why he lef t that out. 16 MR. JOHNSON: Could we take a second. 17 (Recess.) 18 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 19 0 In the interest of moving this along. If you 20 look at page 12 of Exhibit 7, the top paragraph that begins 21 "on page 51," I mention the March 17 morning meeting." I ( 22 will just represent those two sentences that are the top ("T U ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L__---__-____-_-_____- __
'31361.0 144 BMS em 4
1 paragraph on page 12 don't appear in the other statements. 1 2 Do you have a recollection of discussing with 3 Mr.. Parks why he was deleting that material about a meeting 4 with Mr. Kanga from his statement? 5 A No, I don't have a recollection of discussing 6 with M.r. Parks why he was deleting that material from any l 7 of the other statements. 8 0 Then in the next paragraph which begins "on page l- 9 52," the last three sentences are also deleted. They begin l
'10 with the words "in regard to my signing the load test i
11 procedure"?
) 12 A Yes.
l 13 0 That sentence and the two following sentences 14 relating to Mr. Radbill and a discussion that Parks had 15 with Radbill and his signing the load test procedure are 16 also deleted. Do you recall discussing with Mr. Parks why 17 those sentences were being deleted? 18 A You are sure that they don't show up in any 19 other statements and based on your review? 20 Q Yes. 21 A No, I don't recall discussing with Mr. Parks why 22 those particular sentences were deleted. i O l ACE. FEDERAL REPonTEas, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364446
31361.0 145 BMS LO 1 O I think last -- look lastly at the bottom of 2 page 12, the paragraph that begins "on page 4 of my second~ 1 3 affidavit," all those lines on the bottom of page'12 have-4 been deleted up through the end of the paragraph at the top I J 5 of page 13 relating to a Congressional source. 6 A Okay. ] 7 0 Do you recall discussing with Mr. Parks the 8 reason for the deletion of that material from the statement? 9 A No., I don't recall. 10 0 The statement that you got back from Mr. Parks 11 or that you reviewed with Mr. Parks prior to his signing of O 12 it, I believe you testified you compared that with.the 13 original statement, did you not? That is, you were aware 14 there were deletions. I'm asking, were you aware there 15 were deletions being made when Mr. Parks signed the version 16 of the statements that he signed? 17 A Yes, I was aware that there was some editorial 18 changes. 19 O Did you discuss with anyone else in the NRC the l 20 appropriateness of having Mr. Parks make these changes and l l 21 delete this information from his statements to you? l l l 22 A I don't recall if I discussed with anyone else O I /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-336-6646
31361'.0 146 BMS O 1 or not.. 2 0 Mr. Meeks, you previously identified Exhibit 14 3 to be a receipt you gave Mr. Devine for a pile of 639 pages 4 of documents that he.provided to you on July 25 when.you 5 met with Parks and. Devine to get his. statements, two of his 6 statements signed; is that correct? 7 A Yes. 8 0 I will ask the reporter to mark as our next 9 Exhibit' Number 18 this document previously produced in 10 discovery. It has a handwritten page only on the front. 11 It says " Parks disclosure received from anonymous O 12 whistleblower." 13 (Meeks Exhibit 18 identified.) 14 MR. HIC KE Y: It has a handwritten memorandum 15 attached with five, typewritten attachments to the 16 memorandum. 17 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 18 0 Please take a look at that document. 19 A Do you want me to read the whole document? l
- 20 0 Do you recognize that document as being one of 21 those in the 639 pages Mr. Devine supplied to you on July 22 25 from Mr. Parks?
LO 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-3364M6
\
31361.0 ' 147
.BMS O 1 A No. I can' t recognize it because I' don ' t I
\ l- } 2 specifically recall it being one of the docurrents ine' Jded
]
3 in that 639. ! I 4 MR. .' HIC KE Y: Maybe Mr. Johnson can confirm. 5 MR. JOHNSON: I can represent it-was in the pile 6 of documents we prcduced in discovery that were represented u , , to be 639 pages of material supplied to the'02fic,eJoi 7 g t 3, c 8 Investigations and that was the'f rst document, f' . ,Cy ;< 9 BY MR.,HIgf.CY: / 10 0 Is the handwriting on the first page of Exhibit s 11 18 -- not - the page you are looding at, but the first page O 12 -- do you know whose haildwriting that is? 13 A No, I don't. 14 0 How about the handwrit /,np that' starts orf.:he ,, i g- < -
- g. , ,
15 second page of the exhibi't", do you/recogniye 1 that? 7<> [hq y 16 A No, I don't. ,[i l* 17 0 If you would 'like' tg ' cad.e a minute and review
- t. . ,
18 documents. In substance, it ddfh with a legations about 5 ,,, 19 conditionsatTHI-2andrelatesgenerallyto$.aso-called s 20 mystery man. I would like to nsk you a couple questions s'y'Q ) i 7' g k* .. N 21 about the document after you hgoe refrested your 22 recollection about it. \
,,. s O '
1 A i T t, ', <, , ,
\
ace.Feonnit REPOR1GIS, DC. 202-347-3700 Naq mwide Cmera'Fe M433Mp'6 i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .t \ O 6
.j .. .<
l. l-g'
*M h 31361.0, / A 148 ,
'BMS '
L 1: l 1 MR. JOHNSON: You are not representing thie.!'is # 2 primarily about the mystery man are you? 3' . MR. HICKEY: No. That is one of the. subjects 4 that-is discussed in it. 1 l' 5 THE WITNESS: I have reviewed it. j 6 MR. HIC KEY: s 1
;)
j. 7 O Did you discuss with. Mr. Devine .or Mr. Parks on i\ 8 any occasion, Mr. Meeks, this document that.is Exhibit 18[ ' ' i t ' 1 9 in front of you? .,... 10 A Not to my recollection', no. 11 0 Did you discuss with anyone this document? y
.O 12 A I don't recall over reading this dem.; ment.
I t j' {t
,,1 13 very well could have. Not only that, I don't recall '.Jj y
14 discussing it with anyone. s 15 sO Tr you look at attachment five to the document, 16 the last page of this exhibit, you will raee that it is a 17 memorandum dated February 17, 1983. Do you have any i 18 recollection of being told by anyone when this document, 19 which is Exhibit 18, was prepared? I 20 MR. JOHNSON: I'm not really clear. Are you 21 referring to the entire document or just this attachment? 22 MR. H IC KE Y: No, not just the attachment. 9 O I. I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MG33M446 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ l
'T'
'3
' 't / -.
5"
.\f/,g ().
df
*: li' 4y,, .
"Y 31361.0- ' 149
'k.BMSf
- s 7...
7 C 1 BY MR. HICKEY: 9; - Df 2 O The entire document. 3 A Repeat the question. , 3 .; y 4 Q Just wanted you to be aware'there wa's'an .F.Q:
. , y __
i i . :}, , s 5 attabbment to the document dated February: 17. 6 A I see.
- 7) .O I am directing you specifically to the last page 8 which'is a memorandum cated February 17, 1983. My question 9 to you is,idid e,nyche telf:you,'that you can recall, when 10 L Exh i'dit : 18, which is the' whole document, was prepared?
11 A No, not to'my recollection.
) i 12 MR. HIC KE Y: I will ask the reporter to mark as , 13 Exhibit 19 a document typed, eight pages, entitled at the t\
X4 14 top, " Draft for mystery man after affidavit." 11 ' 15 (Meeks Exhibit 19 identified.) 16 , BY MR. HIC KE Y: 17 O Exhibit A, which is typed at the top of the 18 document, was not on the document. That is something we t- , added in another context. You can ignore the Exhibit A at
; 19 4 J- 20 the top.
{ . 21'4 A I understand. l t 'l 1 k 22 O Do you recognize that document? hO > ACE-FEDERAL REPOR f ERS, INC. l
.02-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage 8(Kb336-6646 b
u_ _ . .
31361.0 150 BMS'
, (
l k}J . Yes, I do. l 1 A 2 O What is that? 3 A This is the draft statement that Parks gave to t-l- 4 me on the mystery man. I think we could also refer-to it 5 as the fourth of the four statements that he prepared based 6 on the original statement we had. 7 0 This, too, was produced by the NRC in the 8 collection of 639 pages that were accompanied by the 9 receipt -- 10 MR. JOHNSON: I don't think that'is correct. We 11 separately provided it to you in discovery. t' 12 BY MR. HIC KEY: 13 0 When do you think that you got this from 14 Mr. Parks? 15 A There is a memo that was written transferring 16 information from this draft statement to NRR for review on 17 information that Parks presented on the EDS analysis. It 18 would have been sometime relevant or before -- not too long 19 before that memo was issued, within weeks, I would say. 20 0 Let's see if we can identify the memorandum you 21 are talking about. Before I mark it, let's just see if 22 this is the one. I will show you this document. If this O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage tux)-3364646
1 1 31361.0 151 1 BMS' 1 looks like the memo you are referring to, we can go ahead l 2 and mark it. That is several copies of it; if you would 3 just look at the first one. i 4 A Yes. This is the memo, and the attachment is-5 the information I withdrew from the draft mystery man 6 affidavit. 7 MR. HIC KE Y: Let me mark this, then. I am l l 8 asking the reporter to mark as 20 a memorandum dated 9 October 28, 1983 from Mr. Hayes to Mr. Denton, subject.EDS 10 nuclear Inc. analysis of the high pressure injection pumps. 11 It has a two page memorandum attached to it. O 12 (Meeks Exhibit 20 identified.) 13 BY MR. HICKEY: 14 0 Having looked at Exhibit 20, Mr. Meeks, I asked 15 you a moment ago when you thought you got Exhibit 19 from 16 Mr. Parks. Knowing that the memorandum that is Exhibit 20 17 was written on or about October 28, 1983, what can you tell 18 me about when you received Exhibit 19? 19 A It was sometime before October 28. 20 0 was it your testimony a moment ago, you believe 21 it was shortly before? 22 A It could have been a few weeks before. It could O ACE FEDERAI, REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage S(Kk3E6646
31361.0 152 BMS O 1 have been a month, a month and a half. I don't have any 2 feeling for when we received that at this point in time. 1 3 0 In September of 1983, early in September is when i ) 4 the report.on the technical allegations concerning time was 1 5 issued, September 1 or September 3 is the date, I think you 6 testified earlier this morning -- I'm not sure what you l 7 testified. I shouldn't try to state it. 1 8 Here you working on the mystery man allegations ! 9 prior to the production of the September, 1983 report? , l 10 A Not actively, other than -- i 11 0 To put it another way, did you probably receive O 12 Exhibit 19 after the September 1983 report came out? 13 A I don't have any feel for that; whether it was 14 right before or when it was. I don't know. Most likely, 15 it would have been a time frame more closer to the October 16 28 date. 17 0 When you got this back from -- you got this back 18 from Mr. Parks after submitting a version of it to him 19 first; is that right? 20 A No. 21 Q I'm referring to Exhibit 19. 22 A He stated on the mystery man he was going to O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3?(K) Nations.ide Coverage 800 336-6646
31361'.0 153
.BMS I 1 expound on the information be had given, and presented me a
{ 2 different draft, not a different draft, but a draft which l 3 would be in much more detail than he had even discussed 4 before. ! 5 0 That was not the procedure you followed with 6 regards to generating the other statements Mr. Parks had 7 prepared? 8 A No. In the other ones we had identified, the 9 other three statements came out of the original statement. l 10 He stated on the mystery man, he is working on that issue 11 and he will have a draft for me. m U 12 0 Why was the mystery man issue handled 13 differently than the other three? 14 A I think it is the fact.he had so much additional 15 information to put -- or at least put it in a different way 16 or both. 17 0 In Mr. sarks' affidavit, and we have it 18 available here as you know, Mr. Parks had made allegations 19 about Mr. Kunder being the mystery man who, according to 20 his affidavit, shut off the safety injection pumps clearing 21 the accident. It is at page 36 and 37, as your counsel is 22 showing you. O 1 1 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364M6
31361.0 154 BMS em 1 (_)- 1- A Okay. ; 2 0 Did you determine whether Mr. Parks' affidavit 3 was accurate in stating that Mr. Chwastyk and Smith had 4 identi.fied Mr. Kunder as the man who shut off the high 5 pressure pumps? 6 A No. 7 0 Did you attempt to determine that? 8 A No. 9 0 Uhat did you investigate with regard to the 10 mystery man allegations? 11 A It mainly consisted of receiving this draft and O 12 then forwarding information from the draft to the office of 13 NRR for their review. 14 0 Do you recall interviewing any witnesses other 15 than Mr. Parks with regard to the mystery man allegation? 16 A Specifically, going out to interview them on the l l 17 mystery man, no. I might have asked some questions about' l 1 18 the mystery man issue occurring during the course of l l 19 interviews, or they might have volunteered some information. f l 1 I l 20 But other than that, I didn't do any active field work on 1 l 21 the mystery man issue. l 1 l 22 0 Let me put a specific question to you to see if g O l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-336 4 46 I i
1 1
'31361.0 155 BMS L
l 1 it. focuses your recall a little more directly. Mr. Parks, 2 on page 36 and 37 of his affidavit which you have in front 3 of you, speaks specifically of Mr. Bernard Smith and 4 Mr. Joe Chwastyk. Did you interview either Mr. Chwastyk or 5 Mr. Smith about the mystery man? 6 A No. Like I said before, I didn'.t interview 7 anybody directly, specifically, because on the mystery man 8 issue, during the course of some interviews, I might have 9 asked who -- I don't recall now, but I might have asked 10 some individuals about certain aspects of that. I think I 11 interviewed Kunder. Whether it was on the mystery man ! 12 issue or not, I don't know. I don't recall specifically 13 interviewing anybody, specifically, on the mystery man 14 issue. 15 0 Do you happen to recall whether you interviewed 16 Chwastyk or Smith in this investigation? I understand you 17 didn't you go out to interview them specifically about 18 mystery man. 19 A I don't think I interviewed either Chwastyk or 20 Smith. I 21 MR. HIC KE Y: This is Exhibit 21. 22 (Meeks Exhibit 21 identified.) O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0 3364M6 !
)
31361.0 156 i BMS
. (~\
1 BY MR. HIC KEY: 2 0 I have put in front of the Witness a memorandum 3 dated May 27, 1983 from Roger A. Fortuna, deputy director, 4 Office of Investigations.
Subject:
teleconference with 5 Henry Meyers, May 20, 1983. It has handwritten in the 6 upper right-hand corner, cc: Jim V., which I assume means 7 Jim Vorse. I really have two questions for you, Mr. Meeks. 8 Have you ever seen the memo before.
- 9 A I don't recall specifically now seeing'it. I l
10 would say almost certainly I reviewed this memo. lO l V 11 12 0 on the last page of the memo in the last paragraph, Mr. Fortuna reports that Dr. Meyers " advised l i 13 that he would be delighted to share with OI any of the 14 transcripts, tapes, documents, et cetera which , had 15 acquired during his TMI-2 ef forts regarding the high 16 pressure. injection issue and any other TMI issues he has 17 involved himself in in the past month or two." 18 Do you know whether you or OI obtained from 19 Dr. Meyers any of this material that is referred to in that 20 paragraph? 21 A I don't recall specifically ever receiving any 22 information or documents or anything, material from O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage 8(Kk3364M6
i L i 31361.0 157 BMS l l rm. lU' l 1 Dr. Meyers. I don't know if the Office of Investigations l l 2 ever received anything or not. l l 3 Let me add one sentence on that. Presumably, if 1 4 Mr. Meyers would have sent information over, especially in 5 this time frame, it would have been channeled down to me. l l 6 I don't recall any information or material being channeled 7 down to me. 8 0 Do you recall being aware in May, 1983 and l 9 thereafter, of indications that Mr. Parks may have had a 1 10 grudge against Mr. Kunder? l 11 A No. 12 O Do you recall being aware that Mr. Parks in May, 13 1983 and thereafter, that Mr. Parks had threatened to hit 14 Mr. Kunder around Christmas of 1982? 15 MR. JOHNSON: Could you clarify what context he j i 16 would have been aware -- or there at the TMI site overhearing ! 17 the conversation, or reading it in the memo. What context i l 18 < are you asking? i 19 BY MR. HIC KE Y: l I 20 0 I thought the question was whether he was aware 21 of it. The second question was when he became aware of it. 22 I have one specific reference I can give you. O V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb33MM6
31361.0 158= BMS
.%s p/'
l t 1 MR.' JOHNSON: Did you ever become aware of it, 2 is the f.irst question. 3 BY MR. HIC KE Y: ! 4 0 Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Kunder -- 5 Mr.' Parks threatened to punch Mr. Kunder'around Christmas, 6 1982? 7 A I don't recall ever being aware of that. But 8 you know, there is a little flicker somewhere. I can't 9 pinpoint, but I might have heard that someplace. That 10 doesn't sound unfamiliar, particularly if you know what I'm-11 saying. But I don't recall any specific instance when I- ) n. 12 was told that. 13 0 I think we previously marked Mr. Barrett's 14 statement to you of April 13 and 14. If you look at page 15 20 -- it is . Exhibit 16, page 20, the paragraph numbered 21; 16 if you could read that to yourself, please. 17 A Okay. 18 0 When you spoke to Mr. Barrett in mid-April of 19 1983, do you recall asking Mr. Barrett what the source of i i 20 his information was about Parks possibly having a grudge 21 against Kunder? 22 A No, I don't. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn3364646
31361.0 159 BMS-
.O 1 0 Did you think in April or.May of 1983 that 2 whether Mr.-Parks had a grudge against Kunder was relevant 3 to your information?
4 A Probably not at that time, no. I wasn't 5 probably aware of just how much I was going to get involved 6 in the mystery man issue or not. 7 0 You were aware, after you read Mr. Parks' 8 affidavit, he had the allegations you just looked at on l 9 page 36 and 37 about.Kunder being the mystery man? 10 A Yes. 11 O You were aware that was made in a statement O 12 Mr. Parks swore to under oath? 13 A Yes. 14 0 Didn't you think it was relevant to your 15 investigation to determine whether when Mr. Parks made 16 those statements about Mr. Kunder, he was telling the truth 17 or was acting out of bias or prejudice towards Mr. Kunder? 18 MR. JOHNSON: I will object to the question as 19 irrelevant. His judgements about what he thought about 20 what he should be doing to follow up versus investigation 21 leads, and his strategy are not relevant to this discovery. I 22 l l "%
)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3X0 Nationwide Coverage Mn33MIi46 !
31361.0 160 BMS O 1 -BY MR. HICKEY: 2 0 I think depending on what the answer is,-if it-4 3 is he.didn't think it was relevant, then it is easy to 4 understand why he'didn't do anything. If he did think it 5 was relevant, then the next questior is what did you do to i 6 explore the area. 7 Did you think it'was relevant? 8 A In the time frame you are talking about, we were 9 not in.the mode of reviewing the mystery man issue. So 10 whether it was relevant or not was inconsequential at'that 11 time, because we hasn't addressed it. ' ') 12 0 You were trying to determine whether all of 13 Mr. Parks' allegations were true, all the allegations in 14 his af fidavit were true and accurate, weren't you? 15 MR. JOHNSON: I think he answered the question
-i 16 that the reason he didn't follow it up or consider it 17 relevant or whatever he did, was because he was just taking 18 the statement that he wasn't following it one at the time.
19 That is the full answer on the subject. As Judge Smith 20 said, whether it was a good investigation or bad l 21 investigation, he doesn't want the hear about that. To 22 find out about where he went with leads, that's a o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
31361.0 161 j BMS i l (~T. 1 V 1 legitimate quest .,n. It seems to me you got your answer on 2 why he didn't Ld aw up or whether he'was following up 3 leads at that point. 4 MR. HICKEY: I got an answer, but I don't think i l 5 it is-the answer ~I'm limited to. I.think I am entitled to l 6 probe into whether Mr. Meeks didn't do something.else to i 7 determine Mr. Parks' credibility. 8 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 9 0 One question I asked you ; you were trying to 10 investigate Mr. Parks allegations in his affidavit and 11 determine whether they were accurate or true. That is what O 12 you testified to not very long ago; right? 13 A Yes. 14 0 If Mr. Parks made a f alse statement under oath 15 in his affidavit, wouldn't that have affected your 16 evaluation on whether what he was saying in the your 17 evaluation of whether the rest of the statements in his 18 affidavit were true or not? 19 A To an extent, yes. 20 0 How did you try to evaluate Mr. Parks 21 credibility and the truth of the statements he made in his 22 affidavit? l O ! l l ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb3364M6 l 4
1
-31361.0 162 !
BMS ! q > V 1 MR. JOHNSON: That's a very broad question. Are ! 2 you specifically referring to this statement?- 3 MR. HICKEY: Yes. I 4 THE WITNESS: There were some issues to look at. ' 5 Naturally, you couldn't load up a shot-gun and go out on 6 all issues. You had to organize and look at issues you l 7 went. The mystery man issue I never really got into. If I 8 were to have gotten into it, naturally I would have come 9 back and reviewed the majority of the statements that were 10 made concerning the mystery man issue, whether it be 11 Mr . Pa rks ' or someone else's. - 12 BY MR. HIC KEY: 13 0 At some point, did you determine not the pursue 14 the mystery man issue?- 15 A No. When I left the investigation, the mystery 16 man issue had been -- information on the mystery man issue 17 or that incident, the TMI-2 accident, had been referred 18 over in that memo that we had referred to earlier on the 19 EDS analysis. That essentially was my involvemelit in the 20 mystery man issue; to receive the draft mystery man 21 affidavit from Parks and then take information from that 22 affidavit and transfer it over through that memo to NRR. O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(K)-336-6646
31361.0 163 h BMS o 1 0 When you got the draft affidavit from Mr. Parks, i 2 that is Exhibit 19, did you contact Mr. Parks after you-l 3 received the memorandum, the draft affidavit from him? 4 A I don't recall if I did or not. l 5 0 Why didn't Mr. Parks sign the affidavit, Exhibit l 6 19? 7 A It was just a draft. I don't recall why he 8 didn't. We never did finalize it at that point. 9 0 Are you saying you never asked him to sign the 10 affidavit? 11 A. That is r,ight, yes. (- ) 12 :0 Did Mr. Parks indicate to you there.was i 13 additional work he wished to do, or additional material he 14 wished to consider, before he gave you a final affidavit? i 15 A That's not my recollection that he ever stated 16 that; no. 1 17 0 were you supposed to do anything with the draft, 1 18 Exhibit 19, when Mr. Parks submitted it to you? l 19 A Yes. Imat I was to do is what we did, transfer
]
I 20 the information over to NRR. ; l l 21 0 Exhibit 19 says up at the top "since Mr. Vorse 1
\
l 22 and Mr. Meeks are investigating this issue." i l ( l I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 l
l-l 31361.0 164 l BMS l l / ( )\ 1 A The second paragraph. l l 2 0 Did you tell Mr. Parks that you and Mr. Vorse 3 were investigating-the mystery man issue? l l 4 A I don't recall if we did or not. It seems to l 5 indicate that. I just don't recall whether we said Richard - l 6 Parks.-- we are going to investigate the mystery man issue 7 or whether Vorse said that. I don't know. 8 0 Da you recall any of the discussion that led-up 9 to Mr. Parks sending that draft to you? Was it prompted by 10 a phon.e call or a discussion with Mr. Devine or anything 11 you can recall?
) 12 A No, nothing additional than what I have stated.
13 0 Mr. Meeks, regarding Exhibit 19, do you know who 14 participated in preparing that draft? 15 A No, I don't. 16 0 But you received it from Mr. Parks? 17 A Yes. 18 0 You are unaware of whether somebody helped him? 19 A Yes, I am unaware. l 20 0 Besides the October 28 memorandum transmitting 21 information to Mr. Denton, did you do anything else with 22 the information in Mr. Parks' draft mystery man affidavit? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-336-6646
i l- 31361.0' 165 l BMS
'O 1 A 'With the information --
2 0 Did you give it to anybody. We have already 3 seen the one-memorandum. 4 A Not to my recollection. I don't recall 5 furnishing that information to anyone else. 6 0 Did you attend any meetings to discuss the 7 contents of Mr. Parks ' draft mystery man affidavit? 8 A No, I did not. 9 0 Would you look at tab 18 of Exhibit.18. That is l 10 a document previously produced in discovery number 022587028, 11 It is three pages. Have you seen that document before~, Mr. ( 12 Meeks?
\
13 A No, I don't think so. I don't recall seeing 14 that document. 4 15 0 Let me direct you to the second page and the . 16 third page there is a column where it is handwritten in "
)
l 17 Parks /Gischel." There are some check marks down the column l l 18 by some persons' names. Are you aware of any discussion in ! 19 approximately January of 1984 about the need to interview j 20 some additional witnesses regarding Parks and Gischel, l 21 including Mr. Chwastyk, Mr. Kunder, Mr. Sieglitz and j i 22 Mr. Warren, those people who have access in that column? O V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31361.0 166 BMS. l r\ M 1 A Okay. Now that I look at this a little more, 2 was this -- did this relate somewhat to possible grand jury l 3 testimony? 4 0 It may have. 5 A Okay. Well, regardless of whether it did or not, 6 now I don't recall this memo. But looking at the list on 7 page 2 and 3, I do recall something about there was 8 something going on with the grand jury and we had to 9 identify if there were any individuals we were to interview 10 and possibly, we -- that somehow involved or could be 11 involved in the grand jury or something. G 12 MR. JOHNSON: Why don't you let him ask the 13 question. 14 BY MR. HIC KEY: 15 0 Uho was it contemplated in January of 1984 in 16 connection with the Parks /Gischel investigation -- you were 17 contemplating interviewing those four people, Chwastyk, 18 Kunder, Sieglitz and Warren? 19 A What was the questior.? 20 0 Were you planning in January in connection with 21 the Parks /Gischel investigation to interview those four 22 people? O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46
'31361.0 167 BMS fj; l- MR. JOHNSON: I think I will have to object to 2 this question on the grounds that first, his first 3 statement was he did not recall the document. I don't know 4 that you -- did you ask him specifically whether he created 5 this document. I don't recall. He was not familiar with 6 the document. Now you are asking him -- your last question 7 is premised on the assumption he was aware of it at the 8 time, it seems to me.
9 MR. HIC KE Y: No it doesn't seem to me it is. I 10 am asking Mr. Meeks whether he had any intentions in 11 January of 1984 to interview those four individuals. O b/ 12 THE WITNESS: Mr. Warren did. Sieglitz, I don't 13 recall. Kunder, I think I interviewed Kunder in 14 relationship to the cesium 137 investigation. 15 BY MR. HIC KEY: 16 O That report came out in December? 17 A Right. 18 0 So you wouldn't have been planning to interview 19 Mr. Kunder in January. 20 A Yes. We could look in the exhibits-list to see 21 if it was in there. I think I interviewed him in relation ] ! 22 to that. I remember I talked to George Kunder. 1 I l l 1 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MK)-33M646 I
a
'31361.0 168 l- ans 1 .
- 1 0 Did you plan in January of 1984 to interview 2 Mr. Kunder about mystery man issues?
3 A I don't recall about that. Chwastyk, I don't I 4 recall about Chwastyk. Probably they were listed as 5 possible individuals, if this is what I'm thinking about, 6 that I was or could be interviewing. Once again, I think 7 this related to something that had to do with the Grand 8 Jury at that time. I don't know. 9 MR. HIC KEY: Mark as Exhibit 22 to Mr. Meeks' 10 deposition a 13 page statement by Edwin H. Gischel dated 11 April 8, 1983 signed on May 10, 1983. O 12 (Meeks Exhibit 22 identified.) 13 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 14 0 Mr. Meeks, I show you what has been marked 15 Exhibit 22 to your deposition. Do you recognize that? 16 A Yes, I do. 17 0 Is that the statement that Mr. Gischel signed 18 and swore to before you on May 10, 1983? 19 A Yes. 20 0 The statement was prepared by you following an 21 interview of Mr. Meeks -- of Mr. Gischel that you conducted 22 on April 7 and 8, 1983; is that right? O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
,31361.0- 1 169 BMS 1 A Yes.
2 0 I refer to 7 and 8, although'the statement is 3 dated April 8, because your report of the interview says 4 you interviewed him on April 7 and then again on April 8.. 5 You remember it going on two days, first with you and Vorse 6 and then you continued alone on April 8 7 A Okay, fine. 8 0 When you went to see Mr. Gischel, had you 9 reviewed any materials prior to going to interview him? 10 A Almost positive there was an affidavit that he 11 had furnished through various or whatever the channel might O 12 be to NRC. 13 0 Your counsel has a copy of that affidavit. 14 A I think the interview was based on the 15 information he had in the affidavit. 16 0 When you went to see Mr. Gischel, did you -- 17 A I was reaffirming what I read in the first 18 sentence. In regard to my affidavit concerning the 19 deficiencies in the recovery program submitted to the 20 General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation on April 4, 21 1983. So that fact is just confirming what I earlier 22 stated. O l
)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31361.0 170 BMS () 1 0 When you went to see-Mr. Gischel, do you know if.
-2 you had any other material that you'had reviewed in 3 connection with his interview besides his affidavit?.
4 A Not that I recall. 5 0 About how long did you and Mr. Vorse meet with 6 Mr. Gischel on the first day of April 77 7 A I think they were both in the evening time. 8 Just how long and when they started, it could have. started 9 late afternoon, after work. I think they were both at his 10 residence and continued on to who knows what hour, 10:00, 11 11:00 at night. So it was several hours encompassing-0 12 possibly the early part of the evening on into the night. 13 0 Did you take notes of your interview with. 14 Mr. Gischel? 15 A Yes. 16 0 Did Mr. Vorse? 17 A I don't recall specifically. It is my 18 impression, yes he took notes. , . 1 19 0 Was anybody present on the 7th beside yourself j 20 Vorse and Gischel? 1 21 A Other than members of his family who weren't l 22 present in the interview but were in and around the house? l l j l L I ACEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
~
231361.0 171 BMS
.i 1 No, no other people participated in the interview.
2 O Did you obtain from Mr. Gischel on the 7th any 3 documents that. relate to the interview? 4 A I don't recall. I might have something in my 5 report of the interview or in the interview, in the 6 statement itself which states he has given me the documents. 7 But short of reviewing those, I.< don't recall at that time. 8 I met with him several times, and he did give me -- I don't ! 9 recall specifically what, but he did give me some documents 10 or information during the course of that -- I think one of 11 the last times I met with him he furnished me with notes 12 that he had been taking.throughout this whole issue that 13 related to initiating on or before the issuance of his 14 April 4 affidavit. 15 -Q When you say you met with Mr. Gischel on several 16 occasions, was April 7 the first of those occasions or had 17 you met with him before that? 18 A My recollection is that is the first time. 19 0 You met on the 7th and 8th. Presumably you had l l 20 some meeting when you went back with him to get his l 21 signature on Exhibit 22, which was on May 10. Was May 10 22 your last meeting with Mr. Gischel, when he signed this O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 # 46
i 31361.0 172 BMS O
;V' document?
~
1 2 A No. I-met with him numerous times. I think one j 3 of the last meetings was sometime in 1984, exactly when I ! 4' don't know whether it was January or February or -- I think l 5 in March I transferred to California, and I either met with 6 him right before I went back or right before I was
'7 transferred to California, or right after, or both. I just 8 don't recall specifically.
9 But it was during that time that I remember him-10 furnishing me notes that he had that he had'been keeping 11 all along, his personal notes of accounts of what had been
~
12 happening, which I guess he based some of the information l 13 which he was giving me on. 14 0 Do you think you met perhaps with Mr. Gischel in 15 California? You said you met with him after? 16 A I went to California on a transfer. Then I came 17 back and there were a few items I had the wrap-up on his 18 investigation. So I could have met with him right before I 19 was transferred to California or right after I returned in 20 April. It could have been either before or after or both 21 times. I don't recall specifically when it was. 22 0 Your recollection is, the last of your meetings O ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MXL336-6646
31361.0 173 BMS-l 9 v 1 with Mr. Gischel he gave you a number of notes he had been 2 taking during the course of the events described and the 3 statements. 4 A It wasn't during the first times I met with him. 5 It was more towards the latter part. It could have been. 6 that last time or two or sometime in late '83 or early '84. 7 0 when you saw him on April 7 and April 8 at his 8 home and then again on May 10 when you had him sign the l l 9 statement, did he give you any documents on either of those 10 occasions? 11 A That's what I stated. He could have. I don't O 12 recall exactly. 13 0 Did he give you these notes you are referring to 14 that he had been keeping? Did he give those to you on 15 occasions of the 7th or 8th or May 107 l 16 A No. 17 0 That came later, but he may have given you some 1 I 18 other documents; you are not sure? l I I 19 A If he did specifically, I don't recall what they ) l l 20 were. 21 O I assume when you went to see Mr. Gischel you 22 went through his affidavit with him and perhaps you even O 1 , /\CE FEDERAL RFPORTERS, INC. , 202-347-3700 Nationw mcrage 800-336-6M6 ___-l----___-___
J l
'31361.0 174 l BMS ,
O 1 read it beforehand, is that right? l 2 A Yes. l 1 3 0 On page 3 of his affidavit, in that top l j l 4 paragraph'about eight' lines down, it'says."have attempted 5 to bt s honest and factual as possible and have reviewed. ) 6 notes taken at the time of events described." j i 7 Did you ask Mr. Gischel when you saw him on the 8 7th and 8th of April whether he would nake those notes 9 available to you? ; 10 A I don't recall if we went into that aspect of it 11 or just what was discussed about his notes. O 12 0 You were aware when you went to see Mr. Gischel 13 that he had had a stroke in the summer of 1972 and had-14 experienced some memory problems as a result of that 15 accident? 16 A If he mentioned it in his affidavit, that is 17 what I would be familiar with, if he mentions it there. 18 MR. JOHNSON: Do you currently have a 19 recollection? I think that is what the question should be. 20 THE WITNESS: No, I don't. 21 MR. H IC KE Y: I will ask the reporter to mark as 22 Exhibit 23 these three pages. O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb336-M46
,, i .c 6 %
- i. > ., w ,e +,
N' gU [, %
.t [-
/i'(
31361.0 ., 175
/
i' BMS ;. 1 f ll y , t 1 (Exhi2it : 23 identified [.3
, 6
.tj, 2 BY MR. HIC KE Y: o 4 ,j y
+a
. .y 3 0 I ask you to look at Exhibit / 2?, ,th>se' thr$e
y ..,
4 pages of handwritten notes there in front of you Knd ask y I /
* ('
5 .you if you recognize that docume !. .i 3; l t t ., 6 'A Yes, I do. y j i.,
. .)( -
i (q l'N", 7 0 What are I those? t l A
'. %f l > g, , 3r ,
8 A This is Gischel's handwritten ' notes' kd the' - t 1 9 events of a meeting that odcurreb on March Mk 1983 at
]' '
)
l t s l 10 8:30. It concerned Arnold. Kanga meeting with t TMI-2 staf f( [4[ s 11 to discuss Parks' going public. That isquotingrightfrof' .O 12 Gischel's notes themselves. '{
- i 13 0 If you will look at Exhibit 22 on pabe 6, that i 1
14 is Mr. Gischel's signed statement. You see about three 15 paragraphs down? 16 A Yes. r
. i 17 O Thatindicates,dodiit[.of,thatyoudiscussed 18 the March 23 meeting with Mr. Gis te when you ir. vviewed a
19 him on the 7th and 8th of April; di you not? q 20 A Yes. g I.
- j. 21 0 In your notes, the statement you prepared for l .
22 Mr. Gischel to sign foesn't rife? to any nqLs of'that j ( i
\ l 1
.o ,
8 g, l
'4 '
Acn-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ; 202-347-3700 , Nationwide CoveraFe M-336-fM6 )
' 1
/
s i
'^
p ,; ]
's )
31361.0 176 BMS
.)
O .1 meeting being discussed between you and Mr. Giachelp does 2 it? .? ,
),'
3- A Not in that paragraph it doesn't. 9 4 0 Am I correct that if Mr. Gischel had made you , I 5 aware of notes you would have referred to them in the 6 statement? 7 A If he had given me notes? 8 0 Yes. 9 A Most probably, yes, I would have made a fact he I. 10 had given me notes. J , 'h - 11 0 When he gave you these notes at one of your last O 12 meetings with Mr. Gischel, did you ask him why he hasn't 13 provided the notes to you earlier? 14 A I recall'asking him that, yes. - 15 0 What did he tell you? 16 A I don't recall specifically what his answer was. 17 I do recall asking him, phrasing that question in that 18 sense, how come I haven't received thite earlier? I made l l 19 mention of it or something. My impression is ,'ho repli ed 1 20 that it -- these were my personal notes. I had given all 1 21 the information up concerning these'. These are facts 22 concerning these. But these are my personal notes I was ;, O L t ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8033MM6
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _. J
p~%i n - 1 4
.. t f
l 31361.0 < 177 l BMS U . ' L .. 7 l\ 1 keeping for my reference.
.},,
2 ' He wanted me, then, at that time to have a copy
.i m 3 of then in case I could use them in any way. .That is the 4 imprw;., ion I have right now of why he gave them to me at u t-
[' 5 that time.' I/c @/ estioned him about the timing of giving l {
- l. 6 those to me.
o i 7 , rf, When you got the notes, did you go over them I.li sx ->
.f}' ..
%l c8 [ with Mr. <Gischel and ask him about the information li. ; L9[(
+c contained in the notes?
?v , '
l 10'"1 A That's not! my recollection that I went through. 1 11 all the notes and asked him about specifics of each entry
)
12 on the notes. It is not my recolla tion I sat down and l 13l went over the' notes with him. I reviewed what they were l l ' 14 and recognized what they were. They were related to l i l 15 I i information he had furnished earline. i 1 l
\
16 O Did you at any time address with Mr. Gischel the } j , 17 suhfect matters of these notes, exhibits 237 g.. 18 A No. I think all I did was Xerox them -- it is I N 1 /191.. my impression I igave the originals back to him. j lI
.)
p 20 0 Did you make.any efforts to investigate the ) 1 21 circumstances of the March 23 meeting that is described in l t
< 22 the notes that are Exhibit 23 and also in Mr. Gischel's J i
O 1 i J l L. Acr FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ) J l , 202-347-3*(/) Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 i J 1 a l L___-.__-_-_____,-_a____ _. . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _- ll
31361.0 178 BMS ( I affidavit? Besides talking to Mr. Gischel I mean. 2 A No. I 3 0 Do you recall any particular reason why you 1 4 didn't pursue that subject matter? 5 A Well, that related to the Parks allegation. 6 Really all I did on the Parks allegation, other than taking 7 a statement from him, was going to DOL and reviewing their 8 files and making copies of information in their files. 9 O_ The notes that are Exhibit 23, which you have in 10 front of you, I don't know how carefully you read the 11 substance of them. Take a moment and please refresh your O 12 recollection by looking at what Mr. Gischel wrote in those 13 notes. 14 (Witness complied.) 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. 16 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 17 O Are you confident that if Mr. Gischel had given 18 you these notes on April 7 or 8 you would have made some 19 reference to them in your statement, given the natur.e of 20 what is in them? 21 A I think I would have, yes. I think I would have 22 made reference to them. O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8(Kb33MM6
I l l l 31361.0 179 BMS i 1 0 Did you obtain from the Department of Labor 2 Mr. Gischel's statement to Mr. Feinberg, the Labor 3 Department investigator, the handwritten statement of six 4 pages? 5 A I don't recall if that was one of the documents 6 or not. It very welL could have been. 7 0 Do you recall discussing with Mr. Gischel his 8 statement to the Labor Department? 9 A I don't think I discussed with him his statement 10 with Labor at any time. 11 0 Did you inquire -- oh, by the way, did Mr. O 12 Gischel make notes or in any way record his interview by 13 you and Mr. Vorse on the 7th and 8th of April? 14 A No, he did not I'm sorry. Le t me -- 15 0 Let me break up the question. Did he make any 16 notes, Mr. Gischel? 17 A I don't recall if he made notes or not. 18 0 Are you aware of any other manner in which he 19 recorded? 20 A He didn't make a tape recording of the interview, 21 that I am aware of. If he did, it was surreptitiously. 22 0 When Mr. Gischel gave you those notes that are O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide CoveraFe 8(X)-336-6646
31361.0 180 BMS O- .1 Exhibit 23, did you ask him when precisely he had made the l I 2 notes? 3 A That rings -- I think I did ask him were these i 4 notes made in conjunction on the same day. I think I did 5 ask him him that. , 6 Q Did you ask him whether they were made at the I 7 meeting that is reflected in the notes? 8 A On this particular instance and concerning all 9 of them. I think he told me he made them as soon as he 10 could. It could have been -- if it weren't -- I don't 11 recall him saying it was during the meeting or during the O 12 incident in which he had the notes. I recall him saying 13 that he recorded the notes as soon as possible and some of ' 14 it occurred the day after. I don't know whether it was 15 that night or so, but in a time frame relative to the 16 incident at his home. 17 0 Did you ask Mr. Gischel at any of your meetings 18 with him whether he had had any assistance in preparing his 19 affidavit, a copy of it which is there before you, his 20 affidavit of April 27 21 A I think my recollection is I did ask him that, l 22 yes. 1 O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Kk 3364M6
31361.0 181 BMS
'tv) 1 0. What did he say?
.2 A He said he thought he did have assistance. No-3 -- wait a minute. My recollection is he said yes, he did 4 have assistance in preparing it.
5 0 My recollection of your interview of_Mr. King is 6 that Mr. King told you that Mr. Devine wrote-Mr. Gischel's 7 affidavit. Did Mr. Gischel say anything to you along those 8 lines? 9 A That was in the King interview? 10 0 Yes. 11 A I don't recall that. O 12 0 More specifically, did Mr. Gischel tell you 13 Mr. Devine helped him write his affidavit? 14 A No. He didn't say who. I think he indicated he 15 did have assistance, but he didn't indicate who it was. 16 0 You addressed with Mr. Gischel the subject of 17 Mr. King. It appears at page 5 of Exhibit 22, which is 18 Mr. Gischel's statement that you prepared for him down at 19 the bottom of page 5. It also refers, as you will see, to 20 the comments on page 12 of his affidavit about Larry King . 21 The more pertinent part is the statement you prepared for l l 22 Mr. Gischel's signature, where you say that Mr. Gischel l O < ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ,
i l l-
.31361.0 182 BMS' Os V
1 told you that he remembered someone telling him that GPUN 2 had investigated King earlier concerning Quiltech. 3 My question is whether you remember discussing 4 that subject with Mr. Gischel,.and whether you attempted to 5 obtain from him any more details about who told him that 6 information. 7 MR. JOHNSON: It is two questions. 8 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 9 0 Do you remember the subject with Mr. Gischel j 10 about Mr. King's involvement with Quiltech? 11 A Yes, I did ask him that. I think what exactly e . 12 happened was what is in the statement here. To the extent 13 he just couldn't recall any other further details other 14 than what is in his statement right here. 15 0 Did you later ask Mr. Gischel further questions 16 about Quiltech and his knowledge and Mr. King's involvement 17 with Ouiltech? 18 MR. JOHNSON: After this -- 19 BY MR. HIC KE Y: ) l 20 0 After the statement was prepared, j 21 A I don't recall that. I don't have that I 22 impression now. If I did --- certainly if he had anything j O l I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n33M646 I
l l L 31361.0 183 BMS 1 to add'-- it would be in one of his'other statements. I 2 don't recall how many statements I got from Gischel at this 1 3 time. I don't recall that now. Going into that subject 4 any'further. 5 0 Mr. Parks claimed in his af fidavit that l-l 6 Mr. Arnold was trying unfairly to involve him in Quiltech 1 7 as an excuse to fire him and that that was unwarranted, 8 unjust and retaliatory. l 9 Did you discuss with Mr. Parks what his 10 involvement with Quiltech was or attempt to -- did you , 11 discuss with Mr. Parks what his involvement with Quiltech i i () 12 was? l l 13 I am not testing your memory. It is addressed 14 in one of the statements Mr. Parks signed, one of the 15 statements you prepared about harassment. I am asking 16 beyond what is reflected in your statement that Mr. Pa ?. k s 17 signed. It is the statement.that was signed on July 25, ! 18 the 10-page statement, whether you had any discussions with ! 1 19 Mr. Parks about his Quiltech connections? : i 20 A I think whatever the information he had, it l l l l 21 would have been included in that statement. I don't recall 22 any additional information. I don't recall any discussions l 1 l
\
l ) l /\CEJPEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MXb336-6646 L----- -- - - - . - t
E l 31361.0. 184 BMS l LO 1 where additional information was given to me that-I held i 2 independently of that statement. 3 0 Apart from discusses with Mr. Parks, could you 4 recall pursuing with any other witnesses questions about 5 Mr. Parks' involvement with Quiltech? 6 A Mr. King. I asked King about Parks' involvement 7 with Quiltech. I think the only thing -- there might have 8 been others. But I think the only thing that was discussed 9 was Parks ' involvement with preparing some resumes. He ! 10 might have mentioned other things that King .was involved in. 11 That is the one that stands out right now. Others I don't O 12 think I talked to anybody else. I don't think anybody else 13 supplied me information. 14 0 About Mr. Parks' and Quiltech, other than 15 Mr. King? 16 A Yes. That is my recollection. 17 0 Did you talk to Joyce Wanger? 18 MR. JOHNSON: Objection. I fail to see the 19 relevance of that question. 20 MR. HIC KE Y: If the answer is yes or no, we can 21 find out what the subject matter is. 22 MR. JOHNSON: You can answer the question, but I O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ,
l l 31361.0' 185 I BMS ; 1 O. 1 will object to any follow up. I' 2 THE WITNESS: My recollection is that I called 3 her and scheduled an interview-with her and she told me to 4 get in touch with her attorney. Now, whether I contacted 5 her attorney or not, I don't' recall whether I did or not. 6 I know I didn't interview her. I called her one time to. 7 try to set up an interview. 8 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 9 O- But you never had the interview?. ! 10 A Right. 11 O You obtained from the Department of Labor, you O 12 testified earlier, a copy of the report of their 13 investigation of Mr. Parks' harassment claim? 14 A Yes. 15 0 You reviewed-that report? 16 A Yes. 17 .O Did you have occasion to discuss with other 18 members of the NRC Staff other NRC employees the substance 19 or findings of the Labor Department report from Mr. Parks? 20 A No, I did not. 21 0 Did you participate or were you asked to review 22 on behalf of the NRC the Labor Department report? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(h3364M6
31361.0 186 BMS O 1 A No, I was not. 2 O Do you know whether anyone reviewed, anyone from 3 the NRC reviewed the Labor Department report on Mr. Parks' 4 harassment, other than your own reading of it? 5 A First-hand, no, I do not know. 6 O Did you hear of other people reviewing it or 7 have some information that other people reviewed it? 8 A I thought the enforcement proceedings against 9 GPU was based on, at least in part, on that report. So 10 logic follows that somebody reviewed it in order to make a 11 decision whether enforcement proceedings should be O 12 initiated or not. 13 0 But you don't have any information other than 14 that of people in the NRC reviewing the report? 15 A Other than that supposition, no. 16 0 In the affidavit, I think it is the one we 17 looked at earlier, your affidavit, you talked about the 18 policies of the Office of Investigations with regard to the 19 retention of investigator notes. You can look at it to 20 refresh your recollection. You stated that the decision to 21 keep notes was discretionary with the investigator at one 22 point, but at a later point it changed. Now as of the date O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(Xb336 6646
l s L 31361.0 187 l BMS 1.
)
l 1 of your affidavit, they were required to be kept as part of 2 the case file. i 3 Do you recall putting that in your affidavit? 4 A Yes, I do. 5 0 About when was the change? 6 A I-don't know. 7 0 Was there a document that reflected the change? 8 A All I recall is directions from Mr. Hayes 9 stating to retain the notes. 10 A When that was finalized or formalized by 11 document, I don't know. When that statement was, I don't O 12 know exactly when it was. I don't know. 13 0 You testified earller that the notes that you 14 took of your interviews with Mr. Parks were destroyed at 15 about the time that you prepared the statements -- I guess 16 I should state that I'm not sure I'm accurate. Let me ask 17 you. When did you destroy the notes you took of your i 18 interviews with Mr. Parks? 19 A It was sometime subsequent to preparing the , l 20 statements that we had. Certainly it was before Mr. Hayes 21 issued his direction to retain the notes. When that was, I 22 don't know. (mg I
%)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
. ___ __i
31361.0 188 BMS q
-1 O 1 0 Was it after or -- was it after you received the 1
2 signed statements from Mr. Parks, after you had gone over l 3 the draft that you prepared with him and Mr. Devine and he i 4 had sworn that he had sworn to and signed the statements? 5 A Yes. I think I would have kept those notes 6 until after they were finalized, although it could have 7 been'after that first statement, the original one statement, 8 the 13-page statement. But it also could have been after. i 9 0 The original 13-page statement Mr. Parks never l 10 signed; right? 11 A' Right. , ( 12 0 That never got finalized, if you mean signed by 13 Parks; right? ! l 14 A Yes, right. l i 15 0 The mystery man affidavit never got finalized ; 16 either; right?, ! 17 A No. 18 0 Did you have notes about the mystery man that I 19 you kept since the mystery man statement didn't get 20 finalized? l 21 MR. JOHNSON: Clarify what do you mean, notes i 22 from where? ; lO I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
31361.0 189 BMS o 1 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 2 0 Notes from interviews with Mr. Parks about the 3 mystery man. 4 MR. JOHNSON: In addition to notes that he took 5 at those April 27, May 2, 3 interviews? 6 MR. HICKEY: I'm including those in the question. 7 May 2, 3. 6 BY MR. HICKEY: 9 0 You took notes about a lot of things when you 10 interviewed Mr. Parks for these number of hours on three 11 separate occasions, and then you put your information-0 12 together in the 13-page draft statement that never got 13 finalized, is what I understood you to tell me. Then on 14 June 6, you met with Mr. Parks and he signed, after 15 reviewing with you, a statement that that was some of those, 16 some of the areas you covered but not all of them; right? 17 A Yes. 18 0 I assume from what you have told me and 19 understand from what you told me that after you had 20 Mr . Pa rks ' signed statement on June 6 about those matters, 21 there was no need to keep your notes about those matters 22 because they were incorporated in the signed statement, so l l O l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
I I 31361.0 190 ( BMS
/~h V
1 you destroyed them? 2 A I could have destroyed them. I just don't 1 3 recall when it was destroyed and what prompted me at that' - l 4 time. It could have been after that first original 13-page ! 5 statement, which was never signed. I could have done it 6 after that. I do recall when we went over those, I recall 7 Devine stating are you sure you didn't have a recording of 8 this thing. This seems like a word-for-word account of 9 everything we talked about? That 13-page statement. He 10 was impressed. It came out almost word for word of what we 11 talked about. O 12 I could have discarded it after that, because I 13 felt that everything in the notes had been captured in that 14 13-page statement for.those interviews. I just don't 15 remember when the notes were discarded. 16 0 would you agree that it would be safer if since 17 you never got a signed statement on the mystery man draft, 18 had you kept the notes of the mystery man draft until you ; 19 got the signed statement? 20 A It was irrelevant, because everything in my 21 notes was in that 13-page statement. 22 Q Did you ever look at Mr. Devine's notes of your ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
31361.0 191 BMS
.O 1 interviews?
2 A Interviews of Mr. Parks? 3 A No, I did not. 4 0 You referred a few moments ago, Mr. Meeks, to 5 getting some direction from Mr. Hayes. I don't think you 6 meant you personally, but the staff of OI getting some 7 direction from Mr. Hayes to the effect that notes were to 8 be retained henceforth. 9 I'm not sure whether I asked you: Was that 10 contained in some document that was of a_particular formal 11 nature? Was it a kind of policy or procedure? bha t form 12 was it contained in? 13 A I don't know. You did ask that. I stated I 14 didn't know. It was a verbal direction which was binding 15 on us at that time when it was. I think it was sometime 16 during -- it was during one of the phases of this 17 investigation that that came down. It certainly didn't I 18 happen after all these investigations were completed. It 19 was sometime after that. Certainly I didn't destroy any 20 statements after he issued that directive. 21 When it became formalized in a document, I don't 22 know. I don't recall seeing any document coming down ( (:) l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
31361.0 192 BMS ( 1 referencing his earlier verbal instructions and being. 2 considered now that this is a policy. 3 0 were you aware that Mr. Beech and Mr. Walker 1 4 during their participation on the team for the technical. 5 investigation part kept separate files of their own j 6 regarding their investigative efforts? I 7 A Notes or files? 8 0 Files. 9 A I don't recall -- let me tell you what I recall 10 was that they had.a work file they worked out of, and I 11 don't think it was so much that Beech had his work file, l
/~
12 Walker had his work file. I think it was they had the work 13 file and the things they had went into that work file 14 concerning the files. How they retain their notes, I don't i 15 know. l 16 0 Were those work files kept with the OI files? 17 Is that where they ended up? 18 A Yes. They didn't take them with them. There 19 was a box of a lot of their files they referred to. , 1 20 MR. JOHNSON: I believe you got all that stuff. 21 MR. H IC KEY: Not all of it was labeled. 22 Give me a minute to review my notes. l-lO I { t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 7 l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8u)336-6M6
- l. 31361.0 193 l BMS
/
Q'. 1 (Recess.) 2 MR. HIC KE Y: No further questions. 3 EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. JOENSON: 5 0 During Mr. Hickey's examination, he pointed out 6 to an attachment to some motion pleadings that had taken 7 place in this proceeding that had an itemization. It was a 8 January 4, 1984 memorandum to Ben Hayes, which listed a I 9 number of witnesses who were to be interviewed in 1 l 10 connection with various time investigations. There was a 11 column headed " Parks /Gischel." Mr. Hickey asked you b 12 several questions about that. I think he identified 13 Sieglitz, Kunder, Chwastyk, and Warren as individuals who 14 were to be interviewed under that designation, under 15 Parks /Gischel on pages 2 and 3. 16 Ib you recall that questioning? -l 17 A Yes. 18 0 Did the designation of Parks /Gischel in that 19 chart indicate that you had an active investigation going 20 on during 1984 of the discrimination allegations made by i 21 Mr. Parks? 22 A No. The Parks / King or Parks /Gischel phrase up O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ( 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(X)-336-6646
31361.0 194 BMS C\ , V ) I there actually referred to -- no, it did not refer to an 2 active investigation of Parks in 1984 or any time frame. 3 The Parks, King, Gischel allegations were referred to Parks, i 4 Gischel and King. More normally Parks, King, Gischel '! l 5 allegations. That concerned people to interview in the 6 Parks, King, Gischel matters. None of which involved Parks. 7 O During 1984, did you conduct an investigation
- 8. into the harassment and intimidation allegations of 9 Mr. Parks?
10 A As I-stated earlier -- only to the extent that 11 in 1984? ( 12 O In 1984. 13 A No. 14 0 You previously stated that -- excuse me, you 15 previously stated toward the end of your questioning that-16 your investigation of the Parks' allegations of 17 discrimination by GPUN Bechtel consisted of two items, 18 taking the . statements and the interviews with Mr. Parks in 19 1983, the ones you referred to and obtaining the DOL case 20 file information on that matter; is that correct? l 21 A That's the majority of it, yes. I don't recall 22 right now any other accounts or investigative field work ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8%336-M46
31361.0 195 j BMS l 7 ( l other than these two. l 2 MR. JOHNSON: That's all I have. Thank you. 3 E XAMINATION I 4 BY MR. HICKEY: l 5 0 Let me make sure I understand what you just said, 6 Mr. Meeks. I am puzzled, because Exhibit 11 in that same
- 7. book of exhibits which counsel has in front of you is a I 8 transcript of a March 23, 1984 meeting of the Nuclear 9 Regulatory Commission, a closed meeting.
10 Page 39 of that exhibit has Mr. Hayes stating i ! 11 that the next investigation he is discussing is the Parks 12 and Gischel investigation on which we issued an interim i l 13 report. He says we will'have concluded the balance of that 14 investigation, mainly the intimidation and harassment , 15 aspects by the 15th of April. 16 ~ Is it your testimony that there was no 17 investigation ongoing in 1984 regarding Mr. Pa rks ? ! 18 A Yes. Once again, the Parks, Gischel 19 investigation is understood it means Parks , King, Gischel f 20 active field work investigations, of which the Parks matter 21 really didn't amount to anything more than what I stated i l 22 carlier was taking statements from Parks, which was all in ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646
31361.0 196
'BMS I O 1 1983. And receiving the information f rom DOL. Now there-l l
2 was a time later on that Parks came to me after I was 3 transferred to California and gave me some information, 4 which has been furnished to you. 5 0 When did
~
6 Appear participate from Mr. Parks later after 7 you and he had both been transferred to California, apart-8 from that incident when Mr. Parks came to you in California, 9 when did your investigation of Mr. Parks' claims of 10 harassment occurring at time end? You said you interviewed 11 Parks. I know that on April 27, May 2 and 3 -- his signed O- 12 statement that included the harassment material was signed 13 by him on July 25. When was the end of your investigation 14 of Mr. Parks' time harassment claims? 15 A That was reported in the May '84, was it. 16 0 I am asking you something different. When did 17 you investigation.of it end? 18 MR. JOHNSON: Clarify what do you mean by 19 investigation. Active field work or active interviewing? 20 MR. HIC KE Y: Yes. I i l 21 THE WITNESS: Gee, I don't know. Whenever we 1 ! 22 got DOL effort and whenever the decision was made to just O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336W.46
31361.0 197 BMS (q> 1 pass on the DOL information and not actively pursue it. 2 anymore. r 3 BY MR. HIC KE Y: 4 0 When was that, approximately? 5 A I don't know. 6 0 You recall getting the DOL material in 7 approximately May of 1983? 8 A No, I don't. I don't recall when that was. It 9 was sometime during, I think, more correctly during the f 10 middle months of 1983, yes. 11 MR HIC KE Y: No other questions, thank you. ! O 12 (Unereupon, at 4: 20 p .m. , the deposition was 13 concluded.) . 14 1 15 Subscribed and swom to before me 16 this dayof 19 17 RONALD A. MEEKS 18 % Commission ' Expires 19 ' 20 21 22 l O l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . l
s 198 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER O I, br.g s da [tl b mrisg the officer 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 and thereafter 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 l neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by 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 O employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
'U LA C 4 '
LLf7!L Notary Public in and for the , District of Columbia My Commission Expires M i k O v
* . Exhibit 32 gg s'l DEPOSITION f- EXHl81T 8/eeks /
0\ fcso"lf 6 Iblit/c7 Huun I, On j*c9 a. Il c [ycu t a f f'oclea r. T y o u > Tc. Tc The T vea n d M a u,n ) .,,-
l96 % W.7s cr yc ea Ce ,s S- be.e.<,rt.* ; ,. s. e I t.t,d , at T/t.a. h u.d f.f/ 7;;s.tr fe. u. . T S TI: ,1 Tli.e f , T< ee7; c.,1) < 0 l'.. , Iii 1-) ,'< r7 s u. ' .1 * *- c f Iia ma y Op c, Ti c es a c. li'v; D s + cu;Th The 1*e la r C> a t s. 1
- 3. O., fa.9.a. 5 e + y ou r c Hi dc. v I ycu s Tu Te ThaJ Ba.i,r A Jc.h L <, n s The po la r e. au,n , e f a r k;r,i:<a %
- n . osTo a The e . u ,:
To* i Ts n,i d ca,na.y. d c c,1J > T) c s . Do y cu 11so#cf a,y7li;up Y/:eaTgiht TAa T 7%ip i s TA s iob exp/ic,TJy - heeu w ., a. T% T ; 9 , s. T a S
- i. ,,j a , , % ) L h Te. P.s , d ae. e F .ulcaT esa #-
sg s.: Ic ha ecs. e ny (;<h a d V
% Cn pa9 a- B ya u >Tok T'h c, T <a fa, hi>Is in5 Tha j=v la< c us - u.. d ,-
T h <. e.c.,7a,;,,,,te.,7u T<y fr eyun : .. A a. 'a s d a. fi e; a << ,b L-cue u. Id Ii k'a' . f~,e a ts daes.Taal / +ce ; eie ; s13 s ; *1 c <. 7 A .i y e, u < u<il'a in,itoa T cnh y p c y.u >>t 9 c va <<t.s et // ae &; 7; c.,a ;n TAa c ca Ta;a nenY ldd~f clo y o a ba I;a v
- Tha- w;=c Iae c., a a 4 c.:. aid e.: ly a.
b e Turiw d e v'oa- fo< .'a.h,'(>uloin.s I v1 et /? f I o i' 9 s &,7;.y es A 0 T~e9?sf.aosul" vie a AfIcc) 'X b 7;e.tCa 7 R<an CL4/Wfo<,a o id fFc eco d a<a k l'/a ci 6 a e,i /
- Sf c E AC C >-l7 ;e, l Tha t~ina da W l' elai (<cn a ffe fu<b;skm 7'a sT.i<K.y 7"-
ac7?v;ty v i e .a. a. in ainhn ,1 e< a e Tiv; ry . rx h *$'f( ! AY'S' g-Q fe k lHf, f'q) A- o LL 6 [C Y.l. [~fice {' SLLl1fa./ ' a +' d To i a h T' ~<n.: d > fica Tens ; >< I; e et c f A P i ni an d Afic 't % 0 Y c si .<a c a : f aity cth u %c d.fic.JiciN fuiha d in Tf ,5 h;k e n eW~ l - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _
3
~
l f aga c ayiapuraTlva o rr th- Mae L L. f r Tu s K R. c < , p,, yu, o' w'ke 'L ma d a ThsJa;ch, knew a,Ay TA; p i.S So lha G + Ks o f rs a
*~
ro e-(a.99 ; fy Th e It L F T a ,, , u .,
% fa ry <ata r, d o,- 11 c T ; sty c,. % ,y ro s<:fa Ty )
I c, C itfc.gz 6 c.,s) 9 y o e S fce fa 7f;e,f rtcri Lc.onfko sce 0.7h 1 C4 y% a, u ,, a ixu To i ,e u n ; T u e p e w u p a c 7i v. T * : > + u /c ne, cRad;, b y a f*rc fa d c< OR b feci' cTL (<dlam cs 0 d es eci o>ta.Ted Tha ai The t's 6. c no jre cdu a jubicar5 o,: J a xcn s e> as aa.s,..,'y,s.."hy yp, ,m m y,c.,7 r; su q:,,d v v )ow'S e f ,nudn % mi.9 da,',,1, .c,,-d fe. c.p ,.i.J e,f 7,.,.
% b popua ,s T To TAe ace;donY de ele ye et ic?t-w a, t' arty grec.t 0' *
%l; fy /?p cw u s e.s A cklica.9 ca >< faTyn /r TD e <
,irip, L117- 0 <-<ATy %,#<hb> ?
!!. on tsy 9 e,t i pc .u c. t '
to you. Tullc'cfa c:ec % hara u -r istartay, c f <ecevwy efmfloaj< ten b h.uy Mit c, ,,,' d; < u To . e f 5;7.a. e p u t; .:,1 + To +;,1a (; w 74 a c uym y;, e .wp n s;b.');% c f cut 97 < T)ox+ a.,d ey5;ra epruf;cn> )~o p w; b j:o>.,:i.=l f,. 6 bcdt, p yo a b.'Illto- 9Tc, A T/tc< f SlTa cj=.'>'e Acits> <t s a 'a-1a /M> f 7A16'wc5/cg aio mpcur;ti e &, u tery-ala a n. 6 rr 7,,we ns pcs,:ic.i.yu:
.'.u . p ' dos er f cfe9pluta l Qada fdS.
c) , Wlc. ff C-C s f; c Sc +Ks ir-;<e-= u.'s ' << > s13i: d /2 sin oja 4 En 5 2 b, t% Tpc;fie Tas /Y.s wm. as.s :p d 1% c c. >y O ou r nn+/ um % & '
% d?' Ca a yo u , d e r.o a < A a n y n; u ? 5. y . ,c ros,ci- l c Tdor d e caixo,i7a7lcy o { 7d~ sce a9;;,,.o;yn1B
.-D O1 d.a/&ayou 7e-4:a T a r 1771.9 m .a7%g }
12 , o,:fayo ic ef 70- a ft9davi Tyou gr. ra r. ira r rf: a we K facKay, 199ua w u 9 o a %la d ub ait s b c e.v uy pCtTlceS 9 raad To a (LA a a w.C e.,,,,,. cisa - r rs ;Yi zi,c.'rpae&ys.
- a. 1 9 ; 7 y c .- aa d0.' oT~en d:ny TAca T Thj g e,p lies Te'> a // ce <> Kf' acLey 93 we, a 7o~d << hs, cL.o.> ; 7 3acr~ apply 7;; ,
iu c . K )%y > claw;h a d y Mc a.p. W pe2 j id~.aje<yoefA ) cTa,iT o' 72 sc. t.,1)- ca9 I s?,pe.
- b. o 7~Aur 7% s;9/re & spes ,
p e yo u a9 e a _ d fare o '.*9 uit'.e.) oI~ a W.L. c .wav 9 /t a a l cor 2 r} c S.a. 7~c.
~ ~
is:.s.c. { ~]~a e A 9foc . I'a.7 ul<*.= ot: 7,c I9 cutd V.*falsIc#7
- ccai:1;&rea Ti fc ,' fa cc :du, .e > a ndsc u'unda,7ec~
O r. oga , a ,a s e c .pp.., .ss.ac.. . r ,. 7;. i r , ri~ p.,,7. fo i- < af f a:ag Th e y,ag a ,. ; >. g r gu,.9 a );,i.a. ; ,L w p, .c.p,,..; ,., l' "'"*- d'*j9 d ci: , T, %u 57ef Thar r/r:s fipc is;4> < wa . Yetia l i~ i n a d <<.7 o t' ws Tu les n ' I 7%,.r /f t% T~c v" 17t~ I'ojo e f T4's fu e } ',n Th.z ce, a To a a,, Ts.,< (e ,,,, l ,. f- ) g%~I c v-Vlit Tef *c glThe1'ucb [c a. l} y s c.c #- xjo/c< 1/: 7'ke 7)!.***eI
. I'c Th e l s e. } f~/1 o n d s e. fa f~y c f T/t e. fu l'/,'c ,Pcf ') ,
by rhi 9 <a du e Tier ;ii cuafe< leal? I Or1 ( u g r. l.S c i yo g< a ((u de vif foa ,stest Nc,z 7ha felo e
- Ou tt ' I~af K fo<ca LFCTF) -fe / Th a fi.-9 7 T
- <sta %
A. Ccu.Id yau T.a. // a s wha dac; b d Thev e cuc ald ba a t'c1' F 1 O h. ac7;<l7io s c f ih fcrF '
- Wh af facaLm 3 0eu sr id rh
- c. , t&'/t o << Tla f cTF ewl e< +-l d.
e % T~w,sfe;,1 r e., fa.d d Th t'c TF) Th sir;nior
~ -
. j
> _ ._____________-___)
A cs,s#' caWadovl I. Y u u d a.+ c. .'s her x ,py ;).3,,,,,,, i SA C'n . fan f / f c U c .,w.w , n r! .,,- &- w., s it<. s g -,a m- p.-r~, ;, aa,, a. -
,ri<. Fo.10,1 sfa & J 7A,77 zu is ta. c. .a balmya r, is n r.) oa J
;Ka., }nirg paa d T/i. T., issTw, ;7L: deu'rr av.yu ben. . w,, ,; ,n
> ; T.a. opo. Tioa s aau e <. o f % .5M> c l' ate te.,. 4 ir, ..v
~
cs n.es w . .1n,1 c ,, xlyIV,nea.ondaid.arrIbl~, sinu m pla.' i> u a.e To 3%.17Ta-l &, wc/ c'u;a 7A y,.,.e, a io t 7hJ We.'if Ifag ae>h? $ U Cr fu3.bil ari d 17 y o u d;+ c a.s y,,.jg.,,,, 1%7 s e, j,,,.g,sira,,, ui;7 Ji Tirt as w F 6 # e ,1 4'cc : Je,- Its,. J c.jz ,, c.To.-i m 7"ce.. ' c ,,, t J yea 3 v .t. 1 M w.da i:g c a.hwo u n rtiy k Tt';et d p ,c. fie o d v cu,x s ,r 5 la? ,, u7'. [ ccaca.itS ,9
' %~'"' O 0 .Zw<< 7 To .#o d .n s .:: 0 6;&.IraKie 2-->c- sK. L M*-
I
% jney -: .'r e> a ( y a s o.t % de.. i7' yo u & 7a 7a. 7 L., ry e u., ,-; e.,
efTh< fclat c.,we a Ice d T h/7 7 ,cea da. a aa > -t '>- 9 < i n d ) e-no.t;ally e1:/, c c ,, e a < n.9 u'l7Jr fa,;/,,s 7o fc //au. The fc4f fs'c c adu, o.+ & &lc x i e a J A Fio y s.) o ,1 d Th e t;la<'Taj' a a al Ta c,7 /t'foi:a.. / >*, oeo ase (A,P/c 9'jd , ! a . Fu a- + T)t; + nt n <>,1 7Lt yn h.d,a va d The -a aion rta se< b';h aI?ca ] ince de9ec c . c; 0.9 a/lT/1 7"l . ,uihe de lep ad c m T<c 19 c.,,, n;,,., d a> 11, is, m pelar u nc ha d i% T a T167 7l,na ,* f < i c e d a <.s. l
- b. We, a- ye ur c e ,1c.0 ',s s t'a * - V ic la Tie ** e f /f l' /c n An S ,
c s1 [ko h4 La fkq y0M C cti St c "."? 7A [b . 5 Eq pi:Cphes 7 ; b i eu & 9 t< Tar a c.cw +7eu c 7?cr.- rapt .,-r d O a r~ca .o mmcc.,,/ r 9 7 crf s, icr i wu 7n,, - epwnL,,h , .
' se hc3J y4;Pd5 s:,;,u, -
ad N : 11a j)W s'- ?{ehc< bse>r f . n4 G /l b#ll2- l A Ac; 7~c/c e ai.n o,it iS ca ??ci
g >
. s ;
I
. 1 s ..
0'y o/ .: o47hi e7; ei.- To1 ,k 7eeThr 9peifi eafy clef ~ icd .I 7 vun.6 a y57*&. 7='w.'c' ey% i, g c Ie o,, y9 2i e f y ., ,:t a wm ,,y f. w - J > , e ,. , , c,, , ,
< a l< t; ..a To a e ,,,, c .., . a ha Id b, y c n n. r 7b ,=eh,, e , w.a 7-9 Tc.,ry.oeadu.0 .v a. s a,; a,,, a ; n > A se hTy y u g h ,r ?
. L caid y cac n gld n 9ju fic.t//y ah T~abjh 75- e f G y '
Ta + Tup.> < a ,: < a.s..:ua nd x, toTr 9m 71 c" <s.h y/o r:;cd ? I
/
._Y' c% js5, r > 0 e f y ,, u / c t%, 4 *: T y a st Ai + c.u h sTx risr ,Ty el au,v:y,, rsa fs- c.. w w.ur:,1 n ,, % p.a Taci T v;c e a e c,: fi.'<ve71e.., 7(p T,y , Qy IJ y ,,: aj).,fg ishcf - c , docu-ca,cTy e., Q .>d :(:ce.//. whaTre/har O , f rhe9.a he u ..w,5, dof;b.,e Th 5 o)Tl,,.n ,L s ?
)
- g !,
N. L',s ,fCC Cy2 A. v f t*a. 4, bC /' y' C Ll sjf G,$ Cff .2 f0 $.l Wg ha*Ci ' l C s4 fortha f'olu G w ' L ' e '( q, w.. s rh a- Th ci N *'oO*'c"f %hs<pn7/y fc co d f , ne fc to ,- C a r. ) ,
. 6. p; a :7 so<: Js..,,yf;nJ;,,,1 1b6 .
0 ff f G. } D-5 0 QLsf A 4 0 v', f &Q n$ & LLf f e%. Q /f" . < G / log! a ll wc<tcp -4 y > fa ,, c la uaiia. ,n e o.;%T,e,1.a J Tos~n,.y r~e h Tuim11a rh. o .r.-x*Triit ef s; gy ;,,y.~.- e y3 a,e c e
.i u i i1 aitc,Ino w k 9 cut d adsrlis;3 7 eak ra v e ss Q(
1 ay,e :n O ueu.yc-- i. ,, rn . , i r, .1 ri,, , Q ,1 < ~.;. u, '> ~ cn
- u. a, y.- m, c .s u..s c. r u ; ra , , a n ., & a .y a. rir ,.-rees
& c ddy1+9 c. o,oee.~11 + is? a s s e,.5,.y.,e d u.n '
v i c e '.t. G Dli' ? 3
~
e*
- e. .
Ql t n. c., ps9E~ 5 o o f y as< < x cc ffe d.v; r y a, ,, d., e,a,s ; , ,,,. blu o e;bbut if.,.d:n.,0 & si u r % > ,n ; Tra c. , Cc u Id ,, 721, j 3 u+ sgdsf ce.- N :. : u 71.:, a.e;rrx:77k c .-rr d u.ylatwWykQ j'- w'It < Tka e 7~/', y c.eists'tiTT.E' e VW' .rt.< T ,/:d'c. n'b74c, - Tkylwdcuty 6nll191 N
> 'a, c., pu, a s q , fye a, ,f 6,d,a.;y ,. j,fa a c. u , u d ,,
b Y J~elin fraitIce/n et' 9 A T/sn*T$ c, ; J Jt} 1. ,tras,'c.,.,4 V* scs M . cca:To,y/nE,:y a .spp wo< f udw ca u,r: 7.7.7 L,., e ,. ,,';.,
/f : e. cvy C e, a Wriu lia d w7~9lbshe d a Th.,i J d irc..w,.$.,r w , 7/t s; e Rdy. ccodur** , cu zu/:y ae w ch s Tof a! .<p. aldvGwus n'e. # m.w ; s.e aJ?D // y$
, s a h 9 = g u c , i T T o si ; > ,n n ar a y , , ,1 r a . f ig u,, rA iMc4~n. ,
o A - A<,eeld ). ( v .
Y' ToycaKa. ; a s a c a-lTh on fny a Uf'lpd-+ yoet< d+cdev;T staa a 9 wtls' d.=.' ?f1on Yo ser
ffars >;:v + ia rhe- jfaar ?A Tc;.* n o ut udaa ,tet a,f e.-hk h rc Tha 'TR u,e.rl .' .mX Wg~ f p F, 7~ife cc>, di7lcu.po + t(%Q y'su chas u c. ~fwi s a- "$atc % A Y ,,, y o,,n d3 ,gg c ,,, n y es, t gg , , , ,, . , cua:rif ceridiTics9 lar5 cenparvaTlva.} i r ** S i en fag a. 0 X o f youe a f'fadaV'IT YO u/ $ l9,7-c dg,,r ?- ir.t.,r y,7, <.ur a / c. d 7~o ,1 pu c o du a wi th a f <w:n 74 r ye.<.- i 0, tp pi c s a ) we,9 &rp d en 1~aJinieIe.wf.c,,i s c i.- /y i y a y feuidw-fnI l~i Th a T T~di s .Ye <st 'l c " + ns 1 ipy.e n., rAata (( y_ . g .np ;n a rspic s hm b..u c u m +: l fj .o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 [. $* * $ k'$ f Qp f [ &) g # h ($ f wb e 1~ g$1,17 H 7 4 < Q A , y a ; q s<t n /:e t' f i L a 4 s'~ Id be 7:4 pe <$44'p); ;n APpa/, APisj, _ { v id' A P /c Y ) > s 74n % u o d ? P. >pec;f; c a il y ,.27nr.~ ,u:n a r;ytu ac ,,.g . y I, ll;s. V en o 1~ b.pa>1 cc wved b y %;f frccr.d., v ? e i e e 1 O P 4 0 9 4 A - 6l w 6 4 . t' 4 ( h TuE TEAM HAS BEEN UtlA9LE TO SIJ95 tat:TIATE THE ALLTCATl0!1 DECAUSE THE TMI ' UNIT '!ORK INSTRUCTIONS ADMittlSTRATIVT PROCEDURI 4' A9M $' 1' 15 A FURTTXXAE 4 FUtlCTlotlAL, SY9TEMATIC REVIIV PROCESS THAT !! IMPLIME' TED PRIOR TO WIT!AT!';G i 'ICRK A! S ASSURES PRO?ER TURtl0VER De EQUIPMEflT AND RITU#.'1 TO SE4VICE OF I'.t!!PMENT '/HEff AN ENGINEERING CHANGI MEMORA'lDU t (ECM) IS MOT RiqutRED. 'JHEN A'l ECM !S Equ! RED, IT IE UNKil0'IN AT THIS TIME BY THE TEAM IF 'l0RK EMAXEXX l'JPoo.lZAT10S
- PROCIDURE E$3X 4' (AP 1 A41) AtlD ENGINEERING CHANGE HEMORANDUM (APU ) !
ESTA'1LISH A PPOPIR REVIEU TO ASSUM SYSTEMS ARE TURNE9 OVER FOR 'JOR$( AN9 RETUR' LED !
TO SIRVI CE. THESE PROCE3URES MEET THE TECH : SPECS AND FAClllTY OA MANUAL. EACH OF THESES PROCIDURES MERIX HAVE A oeVIE'1 PROCIFS TuAT le ESTA3LIFu!D 'IITHIN 7P54 TO ".iET THE TECH SoECSREn.UIMMNTS Af!3 QA FANUAL PEO.UIRIT NTS.
XXXXXXXXKIVKXX XHEXTRAXXMX5XXX:iTXX5IXXEIKHIE GIVEN THE ABOVE SYSTEM INVOLVID, V4Y 00ES ALLEGER FEEL !!0 SYSTEM EYlSTS rqR THi REVi!'l PROCESS.
{
\
2P3
'JE HAVE : NOT ESTASI.lSHED YET THAT THIS IS TRUE. PELIMI@f RY INF0o.MATION IN710ATIS THAT THE POLAR EARAXIXREF3RMI5HIMM CRANE REFURRISHl'lG t!AF NOT IN ACCOR7ANCE
'll TH PROCEDURE. THE 9 ASIS IS THAT THE POLAR CRANE TURfl0VER '.!AS DOHE VIA A N MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE 1941,5 '/HICH IE CALLE7 ? JO9 TICKET FORM (UORK REQUEST) PREPARATl0fl AND ADMINISTRATION. THIS PROCTOURE OEe
(,_)
ALLOV TURNOVER TO THE CONTAACTOR FOR MAINTENANCE USING CtlCLOSUM ' CF Tug y PR0050URE PROVIDED SUCH MAINT NANCE ONLY INVOLVES COMPON!?lTS TO 9E REPAIRES CR REPLACED IN LIK: KIND. THIS REKWRX3X REFUR3ISHMENT TO THE CRANT AND 'URNOVER OF THI CRANE TO RECOVERY OPIRATIONS (RO) USING : THIS PROCEDURE '!OULO 3 4 AVE IBX GEEN APPROPRIATE UP UNTIL THE POINT VHERE LIKE FOR LIKE COMPONE!!T RIPLACEVNT
'IAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED, AT THAT BX POINT, ECMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED FO' THE PARTICULAR COMPONENT BEING REPLACED.
'! UHAT VAS INTENT 7 VERE PROCEDURE $RNRER PURPOSELY DEVIATED FROM TO EXPEDTTE US I NG THE CRANE.
VHEN UERE NON LIKE REPLACE 9 FOR LIKE7 f VERE THE POLAR CRANE TASK FORCI MEMfBERS AVARE OF PROCEDURE REQUIDEMENTE FOR AP 1028 AND AP IlllillMX 1043 VHEN THEY Dl0 REPLACE THE PARTS.
IF ANS'/ER NO, THEN 'lHY SIS THEY 00 IT, UlTHOUT KNOVING. IF THE ANSEEP IS vee, VHY DIO THEY NOT FOLLOV PROCEDURE.
ALLEGER: DOES HE KNOV 0F ANY OTHER INCIDENTS VHERE HE BELIEVES IMPROPER REVIE95 AND APPROVALS TO CHANGES IN E0.UIPMENT HAVE 9EEN MADE? GIVEN TuAT 4 THEY XERE USED, IN HIS OPlNION, THE VRONG PROCE70RE, (MAI NTENA'!CE Po.CCED'!*'E ti40'-l I NHY DID SITE OPEP,ATIONS TURN THE POLAR CRANE OVER TO RECOVERY OPERATl0flS?
IN VIEV 0F THE MAf'N'TENANCE DEPARTMENT VORKING FOR 50 VHY DIDN"T SO STOP IT7 l ALSO, VHY DID KING TURN THE CRANE OVER TO RO USihG A JOB TICKET XM t!!THOUT
{
AN ECM VIA HIS MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT? l 2 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT I
hCb5 S 4// /s y M4 4
030287009 f 1
. l
l .
NRt 'P6 NO SIG'llFICA'lT DIFFERiflCE FROM A9DVE 4P8
/>F FOR KING _, IF SO TURNED CRANE OVER TO R0, THEtl VE DO NOT HAVE AN ' ISSUE.
'/ HAT IS THE SIGrilFICANCE ll* A30VE. IF S0 MYERX NEVER TURNE'A Co.AflE OVER, THEN WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM.
1 l 5 981
'IE flEED MEMO 4111 '1 ':? FROM KANGA ANSE'tilNG 10'1 It!CLUDlflG ATTACH'iENT. HIE *) {
0.3RS THAT GE!!ERATED IT,
<ps, 3/
INTi1VIT'/ *ilKE RA03tLL, GECHTEL POLAR EX CRANE TAKK FORCE LIADiq. ON FE'1 !'.
t/AS Hi TCLD THAT THE LOAD TEST VIOLATED ADMlHicT7ATIVE PROCEDU'IS?
#! ItiT:'tVI T'./ KIX5% PA!!KS. t il '/ HAT FROM, VIRAGL O'. It! it'I Ti'4G, 310 I X':FT"
'iCT!rv RATilLL?
?!!Y AVil LA7LE ttETTING MOTIS SIT' LIE!! Hall:0N, . KA' GA, 'Hil'!!"'t, e".C:M IP"A'1, I A I,
'f.!!:C, C!F%STYK, LAf1 SON AUS PARKS ON FE'319, in SHOULD ?! RIVIE"ID. TC SIE IF FRITSI"'iAll E I A0 THE9I WAS t10 P.:PLACI'iE' T OF UXKTX U!!LIKE XXX K!NO A!!*' 717 X"FREEXERXXXXXX3 THEISit!G:SAv HE DID NOT :HAVE TOME' TO .oiAD ALL OF 'H; s P"000'1' tie e01 UNIT t% 9? I"TE9.VI I't eftIE*i!.'9'l A!!9 Tuq : c,i ;c ,;qAn; t on " ;" ,
7H5 M:IT!!!1FREEXXXIX F E 7 '"' 'C' FPii"ITTI < ! A') A P ' ' ?!T :"XP.?"X:'?tv ' * * " -
'!? 'I':' F'O'":P,U'I ) ';l 7 !!C~ APFLv TO T4C OLAP T.ARX?.I C A *:0 ';I r*/ "c - St' a'
(. eDPE1;IO*7 1'4' F9.0" 'HIS , ')OIS M9; TAKE A POEITIOll T"'.T 07PI "' 15 't 77 A Pa.')CITJ't! THAT uAs qq ;; Apr r,9y;-) Atn tivi Tili') Oy Por:0 AND TO,
' li , ilRO,10 NOT U'DERSTArn '/HY FRIEMER"AN 'IEtlT 13M : U!!02? C')PI "' .*
#! !!!?ERVII'l LAKE l'iTi3Vli'l it11TIR Or CDPl 91 ,
'!HY '/AS l T R I TTEN C I TCUMSTA ANCIS, SATE CF PRCCEDU",E, DID '!11TER FTPF0"M l'JV CTP-'
OUTIES AEclDES THI P'100EDURE.
(POSSitLLITY: PP.f'CT90RE IMPLIMENTE') GECAUCE K, o A!!') G EDE RA sf
- 14. re~r d e 1.c.rver }
Q
7_. , --__
.g 4
-t EPaf-L 7l- da qwz vno -2P W P1-p 4 4, f App. A sy m b ocro / - cs ,,
a;wosts 4~$h f/f. cyp?t/d y d l'tV/6t) ,
Wh [ 'Ir r /1' Vi /Ci's cwU .
r 9P W o % a &;~ Gnai _s H L a 4
&b 4Lxz 7C , 2N vc4.l' A7r e sy r . ( & c ., 4 C L A s .3
$cearxdl,~/,s'd~inchh w ac %, <s< ocstD As aJ a.,A O La w- 14 a s n ~.p< Jyy. L .Z9 ,u
,+ a n~ n ,.. s m -.y .,,wG p,,a
/d/iu.4,,A u.,/r y m/~/.
l
/oP 5/
&a r/4' wag,4 A 4-/~,
o see .cLu t<' +A.a g6 !aA,pu 4<s '
s,11;d~.
44,W'. LL a.a t W # s4y --r% e ny /w,.: t
4 0
0 6
O s na,- rln << Ma/1% /lc-~' .rL/ d-xp e c/~ p?ut e uw a 7t -
adw w JBC t youth,/
by WWxysoaa f.e SER
[ G $ &
sse cm.4 4 ndL -
W19, o <&-~ c+ Axe //- fap,4, od/l
% cs,;, - A J <7,s . s ss sHydas W '.SFAC= & 4 hee d to c r-/t 50 5'l h vc w '
e/. tudyeA9 ya/42 <s omaf r<A .
p ~.
I' ? 6) unadl<. $ Eud da Ark - fti et cyr~~a , ~t 4flyndoJ O
e k
4 O
! /6/
l /7ur 6 i dr&/.c & Sil./I /she<~. / w ek #
dards( n& d,, j d;<~~f 41./~ p-i &iz Esp, A Ax9an/ 4i a J / 4 ; ; / / 4 c h .'c '
M7 f
& d e ,f m i ~ 77 Jo.a y..J- 4 At.ss~+ s 7% c/ne s J M~~ se rtpy pi &&4n (a~c 3-uf_) ndi/esm& c ia%Cunca
/ c&.,hd4/
x.c ty %ff r<Af; i O i'oced.usfdf* ch.c.n Ad m.r i
. ji y 4 t e ar A p " e y ~ r N a s .c l
.O l 1
l
0'l IT-C
.a
- f. $/b^[h,rhwyWt"l 7
n
^v te 61, n Il.ay..T;ca v .I a y c T; c,< fk/
i,fl hnyaacT bee,i .z h ic To su h G ,; M D jnut....'a 3 lm . i fc ,; d TJi a T7)'i '2 ys t ',7 &c ' n'2n v '/.ce T; ea s n'd.niti:7<..D, bic:2 , a ~Yc c c -- stD s:1 -Mw o i c) ', 9 g hac&f rytkn4lh a-iL p,,., 4/ u iyin, A&~> ,f ,~,64-y j ncsn/nisao /~t- n w .#<p ud <J<v4i f~ryn' / e m).re r/ Ju e Ech & W \
A 4 <., /se7&,xk AH kgpr4fEfklc /4A EC"7)'* .a .cg,es ~Zs6ee,..a )
<Je -~9 , A r, x , 4 c -en/- )
,wis m k<.4a ds-. ,,rcb L e~< b 4 J ts,sr .<
c; . fZc.
o /~ <
ow- d~sz s s n" za., a <'rd6di aL<s w 49 $ie+ -
f aeus .;;$ d (/'(. /1
/2 ,I 4, ~ <2 - ~d' 7# #wr J dA y At'[t W ?b L c~ W A 'f;L / sJ,cd A, A h n,L 4 n,a /- y ferM ' Ldz py!)
u1Lc, #ih
# ! d c d.eXM Uyc7' &
<~4 <~.ticA AW- A4 G ~ a 4 ,1 4 A A < 4 1 4 ,1 i4 A 8y c 6. & ,,, ,, R.+ ,a n <~<
-'(') heuve aiv o(.i< e urh ^r < ~b a <s< ,ncer f^*
tore -t a , ,
u a4
% (-c n,-Q py A &
i
- 1 y -6 0
x/~udi.
d' -7 1 y+ / -,ealn' wp' a 2 s et p ,. u ap.cA A A La ce a a 4x<
- 21g &,-
a4M 'u - i
- Dp w # m+e)o'%#
a
+
(A?o x
> Ju wt/de<.
;$ x/ 4 Ab
.s & L nd< s'1J~/n~sta e,e/
^
pd's a-sch su /.6 Lo,n,4,0 pc d <ys ,< / Z n -
h- a Aca 4;l 4 ,T s w <> a ,a a s',a y .
4d e $, t.eFAL dam f5% Adin % nu1.
~)eq#
t 7 a4 # p M s'
,- n < ~ a o sn .
$L nwe & o<da. wa,r-Wr A -
$~ lC / 4Y A /C '/ a-
~
cY J +// n.r- pu,~~,,e'J)f a a a px. x)O ~
f b: ll,h(-- du /lYa /)<- o/G Auen 4 a
y ac L//L zn,,, , ~ ~i. L
<J a ,- - <-
c i g ,
_s E
$c N k , ;i M ' u ,
~ra
hya a if At y aL c~-
c l
@l
+ so uz- xDA d@
Aln a&o,va e ~ 4<-
+ cy.d )' 4 M nec
.,- ,c a r m 3'f 3 k ,
376 -
W - sc w xyr- n ,d .,w n .&
a.
d ,i ) 4 +h4 1
& & p-d4. y o- de/ cry, '///y J hd ~ ,.fCA k)m cw-n t
.50.fLn.s~pams,ss i
o ~
[ N C 'M M2. & An M -
mdf n//d,cW. YGb)/3 h, p~AA a un
/fr/
l 6/m - ZA~ & 4/4/- ud/4 L 1 7a&
k M - 46 n - <~ 4 4 '
. 7 4 YOA AfJ~~tt PA -a af4:?? Aa's W dI k O
sy a aAs /L a L .a,n.p , Kn~)
ecvasu, L g .c y l6
<~ h 4 R-n.-)L;A L ~k 7 ls $kwr
D F
G b
L '
~
/ _ .n J M 4r ~dsynp / k n4 d+4- a 4' d n,t ix.4~j'po<~<o+g<ay E.
4 l
1 d .
O :
4 I A , A- 1 g ' -
4 , .I a . .
.1
. . .{
.=.-
, l e e a 4,' 4 8 4
. g. g o
l .e e
4 e 4 a
O g ga 0
9
.4
.I e
I t
'd 1
l l
e 1
.-.. \
*- m - mgegen B
i 9
7 O .
a,;9au Lc pp 4y d '
d.cs o sul
) ,5 i o
4 e , ey e ~~y of- 4n 4
~
626u)4 dxf - -
O JAivdw .
d$,%n- n/x-x7 cpet-.a-o.puc4N% 4t / ~&
p f ,/
d ,g <y/ Nv <7is ,p_4c~
.~ (m A V-C/)iZ Ac M &a %.~ ,& Ndec sLf nd dnu c
sy00oJneef /d4C a 0 f C.
g/& . A ~hsxJ o f /~ ad v&
p u a dIkuica.)
P2 + b. Q
/d nea w,4 cg psecd u 2
ab<$y er ,
o& p.s as d g e ag d x
-t c~3C ,
A x9 ,re z4 G <%
4 - Aj a, us, m. - .
4 O
2-P-a?
slcul , Lf ys,_vL ; =,.; J o - f-v= nu == #wpy ,~y ..; dl,Q
- n n~m
- arI' x<w' A ad J L M 4 s, t
L / p~ d - au g 4 l c pr~'h-1 f ~ y c~~ f aP J b PAL
, , #, y a ud6se .
A yLI N32, a
+ de e com 4 och~ c, W'Z2 T7'
() Ps J,6 5 f a f -(~ af h a ny p A ). -
(g'/
h IL 4 oI (D To. '389 /~ P3-9
- < O
-I
-c < Ak e
.wyQp' 1/1_//
!A i M -
(
~
IL$\ gg TM ag ,
O 4
1 .
e
# - P- W A S ~ d ,,,, & . -
ggi a na m:, -c;,< ,
) hw
$fya gLesyaA W '
,c p f ffrf,;!? % ,' .
w su' e, w Ad d-rm O Jr p'n p , .
9""y24' u/ -
/wPF4 g, p(
~ .
j d g A T :~C A rsa_ f-o-,4f s& &/ JER ss y aruau N G - fnsz adve M n's ~s
< .t 4 ~ i i
\
WV\
g
-----r--- , - - , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _
F--'--
- e. , . ,
9 -
1 , . = " e Log .
? M d7 .a /4 4 .d4 4/r-,, a 7,~,,_
;. , af </y ~
favf-9 0
l e
a -s l
O l'
b I
O -
M/- 24,fh/sffd d4/4&120~i r.~ p~ p - 7xiz ~ ,.
(n s ni gg,7, at7- % ~o&A,,as,Ap.,L JLga
> Dy-
~pe~yp &fgQ
# <HWb-y=/A -
c x
su-xJ A W-d At & L wt 4 '
+ ~ ttfn ~
% J/
fa &So x J J~ yp p=c 4, .('e4 U o ,-p p A-; <;p,&
<< <~ g ,~ ~ ,,- ~ g n m 'f"
'~
)
=:
'T V l Af ~ < #
;&.sCL/ /x4 < c rd4,s' -K/ d //xe
&L LlL7/ A,/dd surz .
A3a2-l-;<=%: i o~ -wMc %,i f%ceA d&,,,~ + d~ ecd i 6 -, es e 7su&Z a, A c'c u?w,
& 4&p- .a ,3 .n ns-,4
//Jn .pfL,jLf& #1 R &4
,i -
m/ - 2 nut ut A ac &f/s~84 A4 f/ 7 AC
'O 4, m A ~ ,r~
#us.r .s 3c. n.ro& <u 7f<dd &n' u aa<<<a.
-D G
, s ,- - J /g
~,
pl b.QC 4h, 'r & RC nal fad c6c sw fu du. L /7 < 4 n y.~ / f s< w A $ 6 d f.cM A s u $/
uc,L ss,wty, J/,pc
/~ < s -A sc~ y a r u.c f ed w,s
- 6-do L 4 b,~< ~J44, a-
%p -Q~t & /.,4.,,uL -(-.~d~
.4 s o, op d ? G. 4- p-) -
? G wt r- ~ c6 n 4
4 4
4 4
e g
n v ,
CfJ af ~4 - " b, n R ~~ a W.t f.) 4 my
\
A='wfd Mw,& #A ZY rJ Jo cdd/n' n ( & , cy o ,c A 6 a w k w Os6d 7 , .A 4eW9.a ylm/w x ,
a9A~%
/vo:w //uote i
/3 /07 ' 8 yc~ Ah~ A&& Acd,cf n-s o && '
~ Ji ~
n
~' Ycherc itd (dw /&Jgu
, u &
r.>
(A% A'Q
&y-/fQ~,
fs~D&.
y% W , < 4 MM; % ~ ' m~, ,~~ /%
D A T cr 4 / 4 A ff a M
&y)4 af a s 4 -cgAa d.v a & A J6 f@
A & p^Pf M
'l ' % .-
7% -
wiessava 07s.lr ,,,c &c ~hd ONA $ Y ludtk k k - / << <
7 m A s u , & . /- v'Tcv o 4
~ ha g& A $ C U p n%
toy aS A eoee..
l -
J O I IV-/-/g 9 % /L o yj a -n -os y l
/~
gw J& '
, tar T/ cyc4 30$ %,n///
d<
x/4 +% ;
.] p D b h ' ' / , f < u w j . , u s.<
i j
(
lC-f'I] h cp4 a ~h6 tA Asof
-A/14f<*d w 5~G/j f475 1 i
9' /h- f-l 0 - Y ueV d$ L bw QL
$ & ' A A ~ . [ Q G , k c; m
'W5f [50,
/7/ u -
uEx L -e .
/h'fo V3 d k /c y 7 m f$rr-uA W A w~ 4 H&aq
/
ecalsd.
~q I
BAY f, w U hd ) - << A e //e yy /J4V/c, '/7 Au m py/ &Q
,/o y?-/
l IfP Q1 - P ~ ~ n dv<
W& fame u 4 6 e. - 5 ,
iy i<< n k a a4 isrv-t
},
l
1 , 1 i .
4 e
eo P 2 D -
f~juysj d" ( A ,,y dj 7C xg -2 (p/f ay"]cphe & pb av /w4 aza3 ye- owl c~ Y.r9% ,9 e
$4 n u
+0 dlsp ci d.~ c&
I n f-2 / 1 & is n~-,x L a L 4 . f a c "
iv~ t a4 , J t h s ' u - < ~ r n a y 2 - N A< A, u '
q G>#uuo 44 ~ 90 +xLC l OI/) jisn.g oc JJ msl !
c w e @d
.50_, /y4l~ -
harr uk- i4 a#Ls Oweb 6 a4',$~, u;4 a nh nu ,Q, ;
oJA4n'%( p n 1
/ b a_ 9 ? 'l K - A r / cy p4dh % MQ L
*h hy ), f V0 0 *] Wo%
" "'"~ "(llb~ " W h
- " 7' I
&tu 'l 7 *TW G M7~
t L
l f]p l OV k nAc<c~, cpnao A A4 n/L.m & yk 9%jd - w/f spuMA l f4
-, as
- a- , A s - ;
a c - ,r <,/o87
+ -. ,a ,149/- 1 J<~ A,fyt..f.4'-
/ Es.k,4e o~L Y i p a s s- -
*W '
e c m &< s v. 4 /ovy h/ fCW#J s <-,
r d.s d d @ 9 % .
O2WW-RJ4nurmag7n n a f oao LE/ W 4 W ro,a 4' -O 9
9
. a v r 3 - ~ n,, a -
. SEA' s ,4 h d (ym $,ei.
7w/ n~ u ,/'o 4,l 6 t s 7 w & crx ~
f,/t a c #4 A n e~xp ,4 O
y
2 . .
O Rffh2 ~ M '2 6 // 0 - f.3 - O 6 /^A~ /0, /4 h4y /vAab // Q)A4'na a'f am^new,98 f m tud w.cl '7<,c Y J'e da tu u
{
foce.ir d n/a 4& U + edy.,u d L
/dru~
n /L a
/ YJ/ Ar<.? sCe,e,# Ac, s rJ/c/,,/7h 4-~ f~y a p
d<p ~ Lj c<< u A d ;4' f<
ffy L - ad y& pn ~,9 dr4 9 o
9/E W 4 <4 & cm3a
/0f// ? bo&%doce/ -sr/ / ,a b
/ /(rP L.,;.
a y 3
.. .m S Eik o L &iL/'?[
J22$ /CC-- /o, mes Ouren~ # /?4 dL /d X',f sed +7'- 92 9'O PJ ///, R4 a
4' .
2/4 & Gi%4 4 Y 4 m,J a c~
a rg n ,
i L______.____________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _._.__ __ __. _ ______._ _ _______. .._.._ _ ..__.__ ______ _ _________ _____ _ _ _ _ .
i .
e'
* * , ,e 1
O J I
Ia & f d - wm LZus. K-,r v ggy,y ~
s yo Tcq.e ed ay/o d}e A newdp d4
-7$n , . L / l ve d 4.,/I b -s <L
&LL w t eJ t ALAS
( oo m z) J ,c x nx $ 4 d 5 ~ Jz~<& A t
l W
D 0
0 4
l 1
O
4.
6
- v. m m 0FFICIAL USE ONLY '
O _
MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE rver action naarici,4=rs p g g g f / g g c ao- ~~
N3 nicono o,convi orien N- 2 3- oo .;t i cas naview / staru .
i > .r.. ' g g 2 71tst .
CONPf0ENrtAUTY REQUESrES YES NO Ag Va 2$$r. <m . . /M uk 2dd -7%a u AA m m s w s '~ A m ,~ w ,J b 2 L L is ske Aw,A xj' A A. Mu AADnJ & An%, '
st L ,J A sek n,a t,~ 6 26 ;L A,s.
2>>a., 6 m,-k,,02 'arubx x .s1 w fn 74,1B i > d 2* A L a & W m n n , A> & ,L. L L n/r,,AJw J, i W L A n ALA/nn K-- m-Ls . 'd V A 2 2 A 1 M / m c 4 d 2 A ,,A J A 2&,si - K d L a d 22 - n,, 4 a . 7A A S11 % K D/ A a A ' !
Ue ara a A Jannt%1 s>J JA D Asac 6 I
- A JLs b utd n 1%~ A da L 3 & b d ,
' w s' - L LAB 4Au,
- ~ -JA -sk . -
,se. / or /
e . . ... ar p ar.
aCrl0N R80U1 50 2I DEPOSITION EXHIBIT E
? /17 eels 3
$ E l 6 //o/s73,6
-ri. . .r -r-1 l
OFFICIAL USE ONLY -
00 NOT DISCLOSE
1 I
r, 5 0FFICIAL USE ONLY MEMO,RANDUM TO CASE FILE MEM"0; 23- oo .:2 Participants ggjpg/g g, gc,fgg,7 j,0-o
~res action _
i ) accono or convensarion
- f. b. JCUd ed
( ) cast naview / status no vas
( ) eTMan conricant:Aury nseusstro Jsod> l hol. M Sw $
6
/ /?fr
**a AALJ= * & h. /s?s & .2/a 'AL # A
&PM s/Asdu/a)4Au4 a ~2a_
h n" h D s,J A 25ci M 2m d M h 4 m , a s2 k tac hti, A.w d
~
LA 12t n.c. a nw>>L
,a so 4mk ,w ,j i s W$2.AJ, 1 ho.naAh ,
/ died &bm . 0hsir -w )ffs xSY
~
i, _.
lAn o k 46w Y >b-kn r.)
1 %N)73,m y i
~DCV b
_ 3 f '
$wun el .
0-7L /Bo/23 W Y & m /s Y J xdwa.ug
%-n % Aea &x YAA A m% &2A~/Az2/ms msm Y AedD o Z?Sm,>
I i
le $ / % m n 2 2$x' Y D $t///e 3 . nkJ/ /> d kqd A rs,92/5,$ s-.
hm > n&AJA ==.s14?
Yosh <de
% iixiiJnkDAMA&+NJ$A" ldd. /N+ i L ksun M
#A s.
rA A2 A o .. :
L 1 ,->a & / A ~ - , s k r A ijs E Yi, w b s$
sfa
- r. W $ L a A r 8 A $ Y 2 Y Y t.z w A l ds /
P:rsrd s -fdL& x 3 d % dusjdAA"- % .A w,4>Dosu knoA ' ' "
w A&Aw esos / or /
Vff]
/
h /)f g /g -
action nsovinao EXHIBIT E g -
I g !HeeWI l O ',-
'1 OATS naviews0 SY 00 NOT DISCLOSE OFFICIAL USE ONLY
; .. - - ~ - ~ - _
1 1
,, -. . . . ~ . -u-- . ... - .=.
l .
y 0...- ,,,,,,c o,.. ,,cy O. .
- O .
O .
.1 O rrn acr.o. ..;yn . rs w ar.
or . cour,osur1Aurr #coussrts Ysa No 'fg - Os dr/n Mads s<d aa 2aw n 2)onw~,eLiM L L&uwAwmPan '7'Ar - fdA .d & .*Mfn mh hD E nn D 2s wu A s-,,- AJ J Al J n-A w 72- ->L,n,'o,. k,n,s ,L i t & /CoM ~ .fa us m, . Gn1 o Qv & dn Ar3 . / alsEn.h, A ~ Dot isu r . X ~^ A- (L s2 dha k %L.,1 Au:Ju i i on 2,*,, o si,.s7; L m.eh e/A'ED I 11. t J, rid n /) Q 74 120,-Am n k tkn1,nu6 m w. * \ W rMsxu n ~2>o u.o M W n , 1%ldi?.sA1Al?8 u (kis?x AJ,D1td'.J s w J a < ,,s & % J r A - , /11 l \ O &n Auui J77),,b s.e- luADA/yls -> 4 mf !' 22 %L skD7L (AL, ,- ,1AAA 11n'1A -nuw, io & s1.A AA .hoz- wa, u ,a2h A- 2(r n ,11% fa ' & m 11, ] ~-1 A A A */.C/JL n w ]&L,4 ixu6n' d . 77Ad +,.- < bsm i 14 nr <1-> . -mu.Afu u M' AAfL e r/xi. 2 n.E2 M,/fZ1cnu(Au a I . M Ae x eJAnos.,Le idi,dhL 4 1/fr . $s>1x 1 asni msAs A As".->us hn a MuAJ+s & 6of& A'i%:) ? L , h w ,' %D EAhl>h'#%2au wJAAL - QA'aA A ALA ->Da' Aoz . t"o.usw >>A%DAxtAndl Gke.o FMa.:rA .,sh OL'[ AbSY $ desa W *** / L j
- 0
na.... w r: .: ? -- ;x = =. ur.
a, action namineo D 5 x"'
E'/Heeks 5 \
ghLliusy n my, O .
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 00 NOT DISCLOSE r a . 22 r,. . . .
p T
.;. /,. 9. 7
,._s. .
,m.
.., _ _ _ ._. _ . , ..J. - A
\ #*
'}. p 4
? ( n (', q i q ,
w 0FFICIAL USE ONLY -
- a 0 r&-,
NV MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE TTPE ACTION = PARTICIPANTS g { NE NO*
00
%) RECORC OF C080Vt20Afl0N
( ) cass Arview / states N #D d4 # **TE g
( ) OTNER g ,j c0mPtOtartM ary as0usst:0 vas see $i ;)
-4 21 won. wo a v. K_
A MmA. M Aujijid ArDJ
.RenA %k dsA w A*al? m n6 A a n u 1 + J b a:s _
Ossa A flh m, NQ9 or mpmS.*Y 2,n. L _n sbad&n<>uLR k
-x?rooA1 L,nA,hD ns a e ,~ A,AOa n, ~.
LLJAfa imo - ',f a A 1315 i .,xualan (r WO 12A OA Y WN OM d',e W Af AF %
..% Ae-a,CaoA_L - _-
LAa hw K ,rA._.
_ t-I O *
' ' N :. '
r
_ J i E-L..
, * 'P
- 4. ' .
C#q
.- 3 l
I 1
., e 4
f i
\
PAGE m' OF l
PREPARED sv DATC ACTION RE0ulRED ,
t .
1
~ ,
(.
O REyttwSO gy 1 SATE l
l OFFICIAL USE ON!.Y - 00 NOT DISCLOSE POINI R IZ-fle Rev.R
, ' L L. n.-.. ,
(,
t Tn i e d i' '
i
{- . .. .! -
m,
] ',. r-
/.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY ' ,
1
/
MEMORANDUM TO CASE. FILE i.
. - - a tres acreon
>> necono or convsesarion
. paaricipants p g,. pg /g g j t 8"*-
f - N _8.5 - do __
( ) cass naview / status ****
hj
( ) ofwsn
~
y compioswriaurs accuserto vas no ,"p g -.
" " M V f M P l 2 7)os is $> 2 ln s b ]
1 A fa2,,u e em 1%/ % icias,o
_sL,p,u - Q
- - n sta AA baaag J .7A sesa_Jn
'== w1 i%LAL O L % A Ab A 'brp,,4 J L A./ A - n.
_.>Rs ALJ n 4/4 0 0.t. 4*/t / '?:>Pss ds, ,d& w >- & $/im , a/_ /~
l)0fA bb o ]s 2 - s low, s- bs ,n . n, 'kd)L kNi O '
. _ b2 b $ Y An e sldd i as W g:3p.m- hl ) Et Ad.sil abN .
$.A. ra_ - o #fs2o m Sia nas /4l)b J$r31e 'Zb., Ys o$ r, bd t.'
Aa.o Ab L A m s21,.A.dhr,,A, M ann L ;
.Ne n b*b n Ne $A o Alb)ss- s.r> W sa Y -.
,,~~'s- l O L A xja g~!,-)in,, a ),l
/26~,,LA Af> oh, c J n~1- aL si JAL's. '
ns,-,.A Xod.LoIs,L J a:. '&z o~ L ,s A.3 "
i m ,d' AT /$ts,, OJ - 2 A x f- J i m ~ ,. . 7/ M
. h.A*h41 2xi 2. <>' Ylo A ) l o k R o. w l 1.e No
~ d'i,&
,2.~ < % 6s 1'm z swa,s n26n*>' A daaLA, L o,.s,','Ana 2.,as a
~ ~ .6 % ~ A 1.A a, A,Lja & A., L .A Ff O,e. +%b' 771/4 ,AlAA L;at WR- cA; L. sD Ln2.w.,m.m,,phk AA Wl4m
,A M A n sesse /> $ '>si s ,s-is-pr.s A or s-u M
- ww n;w'/AL w: A A,Aj M s Padedse er i
(,/ oart
~c / or /
, / &the A- 5/s//3 me '
/A M_ m *&gd m & >sm sAAa>>>b' n s ens ,,.l~~
Alsa9,nd,s s -7 2ri - 1. JL 2x4 , uss,-,'s A,ALO s"/d/fi '
#X,r ws,s -
9 kfVisWs0 sy Dars l E' EXHIBIT
/Neep" 6 OFFICIAL USE ONLY -
00 NOT DISCLOSE Ii3.&//Ll87 bid ,
,4 , 'i M
~
'i 8 DEPOSITION t-MMi EXHlBIT m"t meeks 7
. ? b//t/sy //>d Page 1 of 13 Place:
,. Cc ,
Date:
l ,
I, RICHARD D.. PARKS, hereby make the following voluntary statement to
% Investigators J. Vorse and R. Meeks, who have identified themselves to me as y Investigators with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I make this
]10 statement freely with no threats or promises of reward having been made to )
me. Investigator Meeks ha's typed this statement for me. '
[a q; L 'On page 8 of my affiabvit, I state that Tom MORRIS told Richard SEIGLITZ that
[ I'should be counseled for my negative attitude and that SEIGLITZ related this 4 to a groupot Site Operation members, including myself. Those in Site
' Operations that were present when SEIGLITZ related this were Larry KING, Joe CHWASTYK, Bubba MARSHALL, John PERRY, Joe SMITH, Linda NAGLE, Joyce WENGER, Madan KARR and Swede HOLTMAN of Recovery Programs (RP). In fact, HOLTMAN stated in an ensuing conversation at the time that Site Operations was meeting schedule dates better than anybody else on site. HOLTMAN was the representative of RP on the Head Lift Task Force (HLTF). j V
~
Concerning the above matter, I am not aware of the personnel procedure that should be used for counseling employees on negative attitudes at TMI-2, whether I they be Bechtel or GPU-N employees. I did not receive any written m'einos on this matter from Bechtel or GPU. I do recall that on my last performance evaluation Ed KITLER had given me ratings ranging from excellent to outstanding. This performance evaluation was done around the January / February )
time period of 1983.
J l
On page 18 I mention that Larry KING, on 2/11/83, informed the Site Operation j staff about the contents of a meetti1g between KING, KANGA and ED GISCHEL on the )
Polar Crane SER. Those 50 staff members present at that meeting, to the best of l my recollection, were Messrs. CHWASTYK, MARSHALL, PERRY, SMITH, KARR and Linda l NAGLE and Joyce WENGER. In response to a question by Mr. Meeks, I would describe BARTON's personality or character as it relates to his daily mode of doing ]
business as that of a intimidator. BARTON shouts and is a brusk individual who I often threatens to fire an employee if that employee does not follow through with
,. BARTON's wishes or desires. Many times this is just an every day expression used by BARTON. However, if necessary, in my opinion BARTON would follow up with his l
threat to fire an employee if he thought it was necessary.
l 030287022
_ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - a
,e O
v Page 2 of 13 BARTON doesn't like to leave a paper trail. When'he disagrees with a -
memo, he will write his comments on the original memo and return the memo to its author.
BARTON, in a February 23rd meeting, asked me if the Revocery Operations Test Manual (AP1047) was the same as the pre-accident test manual. I told BARTON that generically the two were the same. BARTON had approved administrative procedures AP1043 and AP1047 for the TMI-2 Recovery Operations. In reference to his stand on the Polar Crane, BARTON turned his back on his previous experience at TMI-2, and more specifically, on procedures that were followed on the SDS.
BARTON was the Start Up and Test Manager for Unit-2, and possibly at Unit-1, before his duties as Director and Deputy Di ector of Recovery Operations.
On page 19, I mention a meeting in Room 201,and 203 on 2/14/83 on the Polar Crane Load Test. I was not present at thal meeting and the primary source of my 0 information wes terry KING. 4 On page 20, I mention my conversation with Ed KITLER on February 18th regarding KITLER's statement that he had been asked by Rich GALLAGHER to look into trans-ferring me off site. Those in the Site Operations office who heard me comment about the conversation with Ed KITLER, in addition to Larry KING and Joe CHWASTYK, where Messrs. MARSHALL, PERRY, SMITH and Secretary, Joyce WENGER.
When KITLER saw that I was taking his comments very seriously, he tried to down-play the issue in an attempt to cool down the matter. It was also KITLER's responsibility to originally bring us the issues that I had made concerning the Polar Crane Load Test and the application of procedures .AP1043 and AP1047.
On page 23 I discuss the BLIZZARD phone calls to Larry KING, Gloria KING and
)
Benjamin SLONE. BLIZZARD also made phone calls to Ronnie MUCHA in Iowa about the same matter. MUCHA, at that time, was SLONE's fiance. In my conversations to SLONE about the BLIZZARD phone calls, SLONE had mentioned to me that on or about February 23rd he talked to RIDER about BLIZZARD's offer. According to
7 .
+. ,.-
th ;Page 3 of 13- ,
SLONE, RIDER' stated that Bechtel was interested iri having Quiltech consider-e consulting contract on an' upcoming reorganization at TMI-2.
On page '27 and 28, .I discuss' KING's suspension from TMI-2 for his alleged conflict of interest due to his' association with Quiltech.
Concerning Quiltech, in the July / August 1982 time. frame, Ed KITLER asked me if I would talk to Larry I KING about lining up a job for KITLER with Quiltech at the PALATKA Coal Fire Plant in Florida. I called SLONE on KITLER's request and SLONE handled the matter with KITLER from that point on. Also, during.the July / August 1982 time frame, Larry KING asked me to line up. a typist for some resumes for Quiltech.
I obtained the services of Rose LITTLE and she typed up various resumes that were generic in nature. I recall that some of the resumes were those of Larry.
KING, Bill AUSTIN, Kingsly DRAPER and possibly Ken LYON-ARENDS. Also during the July / August 1982 time frame, I recall. Rich GALLAGHER asking me'when KING was going to leave for Quiltech. ItoldGALLAdHERtoaskKING.
Around the November / December 1982 time period, I remember Ben SLONE talking.
to me about Joe CHWASTYK's involvement with Larry KING and CHWASTYK's attempt to-obtain a position with Quiltech. I know that CHWASTYK attended a Quiltech meeting with KING, SLONE and Gloria KING at the KING's house during this time period. It was also during this' time frame that CHWASTYK went to Beaver Valley with John HOAG, a relative of KING's and also a member of Quiltech. At Beaver Valley, CHWASTYK contacted Don SKIDMORE of Duquense Light Company, the licensee at Beaver Valley, about a Quiltech proposal and possible contract at Beaver Valley, CHWASTYK has since told me that when Beaver Valley comes through none of us will have to worry about the way Bechtel is. trying to move the schedule ahead and take over things. The S0 staff was generally aware of CHWASTYK's and KING'S involvement with Quiltech. It was also during this time frame that KITLER made a comment to me that Larry KING should be careful because it was starting to get around about KING and Quiltech. I told KITLER that KING was not the most discreet individual in maintaining a low profile on the Quiltech matter.
O Around reeruary 1983, I recan that Jim THEISING aed B m AUSTIN went on e skiing trip. During the Congressional hearing on April 26th, it was stated that
l
{} Page 4 of 13 in February THEISING, while on a business trip, w6s told a second time about KING's involvement with Quiltech. Possibly this was the business trip that was refer-enced in the congressional testimony.
Sometime during the latter part of 1982 or the first part of 1983, Dick JUBBA of Nine Mile Point, an employee of Bechtel, phoned Larry KING and asked him some questions about Quiltech and KING's involvement with Quiltech. I recall, from conversations with Larry and Gloria KING, that there were two phone calls from JUBBA on this matter. I was present in KING's house when the second phone call was received.
I feel that the Quiltech matter was definitely blown out of proportion. In the nuclear energy industry one is always mindful of the various opportunities avail-able for advancement and promotion at other, nuclear sites. In fact I was first
,, hired by GPU to work at TMI-2 in a manner dimilar to how Quiltech operates.
b) ~
While I was working for Energy Consultants, Inc., NUS sent a proposal that in-volved my resume to GPU. NUS is a job shopper similar to Quiltech. GPU did not condemn my hiring but has condemned KING and Quiltech.
It was during the first part of February that Ed XITLER told me that his transfer to Florida had been arranged. KITLER asked if I would take over his position as Start-up and Test Manager. I immediately talked to Dave BUCHANNON, who was head of Design Engineering for GPU, and told him that I would take KITLER's job only if it were transferred to Site Operations. BUCHANNON stated that he didn't know anything about the KITLER transfer and that he would look into it. KITLER did stay on site. However, he was absent from THI-2 the week after KING's suspension.
KITLER returned on or about March 8th or 9th. After he returned I asked Dave BUCHANNON how he got KITLER to stay. BUCHANNON stated that he worked out a deal with BARTON to get KITLER's per diem taking care of. Dwight WALKER headed up a Test Work Group meeting while KITLER was gone.
,x
/
6
- ___. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . __..a
g Page 5 of 13
. KANGA, in his testimony before Congres: on April 26th . stated that he first -
. heard of KING's involvement with Quiltech on February 24th and that he, KANGA, was on sick leave that day. KANGA stated that he received a phone call on the matter while he was at home. The phone call was from BARTON, and was made at approximately 6:00 p.m. I recall Larry KING telling me about a meeting that he had with KANGA, on site, on February 24th at 1:00 p.m. on the containment entry procedure, and that this meeting was cut off for a fire safety meeting. It was during this meeting that KING told KANGA that he was supposed to run the recovery.
operations at THI-2 but that it was apparent that THEISING wanted to run the show.
LARSON, who was head of Licensing, had earlier informed KING that he was in charge of the recovery operations. At that meeting, KANGA told KING that he was the boss and this fact was to be put in writing. This was in reference to XING being made the alternate to KANGA and thus putting someone in upper site management on record who met the ANSI standards as site director or alternate site director.
I O -
Ia refereace to kA"G4 aot beias auaiified by ansi steadards to be site director.
I recall from conversatioris with Larry KING that both he and Joe CHWASTYK, on or about the middle of September of 1982, went to Lake Barrett of NRC and complained that the Safety Review Group was to report to KANGA but that KANGA, according to ANSI standards, was not qualified to receive an operator's' license. Through the grapevine, I heard that BARRETT went to GPU and complained that the internal matters CHWASTYK and KING had brought up to BARRETT ~should go through the chain of command. It is my understanding that the NRC has never approved the reorgani-zation. I also recall that GPU in testimony to Congress on or about ,
stated that the reorganization had never been approved.
1 At this point I would like to mention a meeting that was held in early January on the Sewerage Tank Test Procedures. That meeting which was with KING and THEISING, concerned how to conceal in a quarterly re' port to NRC, the amounts of !
cesium in the storage tanks. I know that Larry KING had objected to the way the ;
procedures were handled on the sewerage tank. KING did sign the procedure when a GPU Enviornmental Inspector reversed his earlier standing and stated that the
-O Procedere wes iesel. ed GiSCarl. xen soreSTtTTtR. Cery soRNeR. eem Stoner-C0oeeR and Carl HARBAC are familar with the sewerage tank matter.
4
. 9 Page 6 of 13
(] {
On page 31. I make mention of the minutes kept by' Ken PASTOR of a 2/28/83 meeting on the Readiness Review Connittee. There is no formalized procedure for taking minutes at-TMI-2. The established practice is for the organization ;
calling the meeting and in charge of the meeting to keep the minutes. The i minutes' are then typed by this organization and circulated to the attendees, f If there are. any disagreements on the contents' of the minutes then the person .
disagreeing writes a memo on his objections. I recall'that KING had done '
. this on occasion and BARTON took exception to KING documenting his objection to the minutes.
The minutes of the 2/28 meeting showed 'that NRC approval should go quickly since NRC comments are already available and should be resolved by the time the Polar Crane Operating Procedure is. submitted to the NRC. I can think of two instances where site management has used prior NRC approval in an attempt to obtain Site Operations approval on a specific procedurd. The first instance occurred when
'O -
M4ke RAoBItt hended me the eoler Crane toed Test erocedure end stated that it was the hottest thing on t'he Island. RADBILL also explained that the'PORC and
- the NRC had been involved with the test all along and that neither hird any
. problems with what was in the Load Test Procedures. This happened toward the end of January 1983.
Also on March 3rd, during a second meeting on the Readiness Review Committee presentation, THEISING stated that to move structural steel with the Polar Crane had been signed off by everybody and his brother, includinC NRC. At that point I stated that the procedure should be looked at by the Test Work Group. I have never seen NRC involvement on procedures used at other sites j like it is at TMI-2. I have never seen this buy off procedure used in this way at other nuclear sites.
I-also recall.that I was given the procedures on the Reactor Vessel Internal Radiation Measurements and told that PORC had already approved the procedures and that I should go ahead and sign off. I noticed that the procedures had not
'O 90ne throush tne groner review cycle end I. therefore, wrote e Site Operations 6
O Page 7 of 13
- Problem Report on this. I cannot recall the name'of the person that gave me.
the procedures and asked that I sign off, but his name is listed in my comments on the problem report.
Concerning that meeting on 2/28 and the conference afterwards between myself, Jim THEISING and Ron WARREN, I received the distinct impression that THEISING was trying to convince us that this matter was going to be taken care in THEISING's own way. During that conference, THEISING wanted to know why Site
.a Operation was trying to assume authority now when they had given it up on things such as the Quick Look. I told THEISING that Site Operations is the ,
responsible group under the license. T'H EISING then explained that in an 7
accident or deficiency involving matters handled by Engineering, that Engineer-ing would be the responsible party, and would have to assume blame.
By way of explanation on the Quick Look Prdcedures, I recall that Larry KING O wrote e memo thet Site Operetions wouid cut back on non-vital areas in order to come up with the funds necessary to handle the Quick Look Operation. KING stated in that memo that Site Operations was preparing the methodology and software to handle the Quick Look. BARTON replied that Site Operations was to stay out of the Quick Look, that it was Bechtel's and the Technical Advisory Group's responsibility.
Also in the 2/28 meeting, THEISING made a statement that he could understand why certain people were afraid of a transfer. That comment came about as a result of our discussion on NRC examining the Polar Crane Issue at that time and Ed KITLER being called in by NRC and interviewed by Joel WEIBE. We were also talk-
~
ing about Larry KING's suspension in the same context. THEISING's transfer coment came about as a result of comments on these topics.
On page 32 I began a series of comments on memos that Joe CHWASTYK and I wrote, basically concerning the application of AP1043 and AP1047 to the Polar Crane Load Test. CHWASTYK was in full philosophical agreement with those memos.
O I feel that CHWASTYK believed that he was going to be Acting Director of SO
Page 8 of 13
( -
for only two or three weeks. In fact, in a meetirig with the 50 staff right after l
he assumed the acting position, he stated that the KING incident would be over ,
.in two or three weeks and KING would be back on the job. However, after two or three weeks had passed I got the impression that CHWASTYK's opinion of the KING matter had changed. I also believe that CHWASTYK, as he attended the var-ious recovery meetings, realized that KING was not going to return and that I was considered an obstacle the same as KING had been. CHWASTYK knew that my wife was dead, as did most of the Site Operations staff. When CHWASTYK made that phone call to Gloria KING and stated that my wife was trying to dig up something on the child custody case, I feel it was CHWASTYK's indirect way of trying to
~
tell me that I was targeted as KING had been. l I believe that CHWASTYK was replaced as Acting Director of Site Operations by BARTON because the KING investigation by GPU had revealed CHWASTYK's involvement with Quiltech. I also understand that it das during this time period that Joe CHWASTYK was taken off a TV commercial that GPU was to put on the air.
On page 33, I mention that BARTON accused Joyce WENGER of xeroxing and taking to Larry KING a memorandum that had been missing on February 28, but that had reappeared on the morning of March 1st. The memo in question was the so-called
" Smoking Gun Memo" that KING had wrote to KANGA and BARTON on his concerns on the Head Lift Schedule and the way things were done. I think the memo no. was around 069 but I am not sure of this. I recall that on Monday morning, February 28th, Joyce WENGER had made the comment to the 50 staff in general, that the memo was missing from the file and that she was looking for it because KING wanted the memo. On Tuesday morning, the memo appeared.back in the file.
On page 35, I discuss a meeting on March 3rd concerning the agenda for the Readiness Review Committee. It was in'this meeting that Mr. THEISING stated that only a person of limited intelligence would think that the whole Polar Crane aparatus was important to safety. In response to a question by Investi-gator Meeks on my description of THEISING's personality and method of conducting O "4s dei'r bus'"ess based on the meetings that I have attended with Jim THEISING, I believe he is a dynamic person and would remove all obstacles to get the job
P C'T Page 9 of 13 V .
done. In response to Investigator Meeks' question to describe KINGS persona.lity l
and methodology of operation I would state that KING is also dynamic; he has a great deal of fortitude. KING also does whatever it takes to get the job done.
However, KING is concerned in achieving his job objectives within clearly defined boundaries and if necessary KING would changes those boundaries so that procedural adherance is nintained while still achieving the objectives of the program. 1 On Page 36 and 37, I discussed George KUNDER as being the mystery man who l
l ordered the safety and injection pumps turned off during the March 1979 4
{
l accident. Most of my information on KUNDER, as the mystery man, is based on )
l the several conversations I had with Joe CHWASTYK on this matter. It was CHWASTYK's impression that KUNDER was in charge of the operating room, or I rather of the ad hoc in-charge committee, until about 7:00 a.m., when Gary MILLER arrived and assumed responsibility. ,CHWASTYK, himself, arrived around 10 or 11:00 that morning. CHWASTYK has tol'd me basically two stories about O .
xuNDER s actions on the morning of the accident. One, that KUNDER shut down the reactor coolant pumps'because of their vibration. Two, KUNDER shut down the injection pumps due to the indicated high level in the pressurizer. Upon CHWASTYK's arrival in the control room he had to argue to get the ad hoc in-charge committee to restart the injection pumps. At least it was my impression that CHWASTYK was referring to the injection pumps. In addition, the Concerned Mothers of Middletown knew approximately six months ago about the possibilities of George KUNDER being the mystery man and that they relayed this information to Lake BARRETT of the TMI Program Office.
On page 37, I state that Larry KING, Joyce WENGER, Joe CHWASTYK and myself ;
were all present when I made my threats to notify the local newspaper identifying KUNDER as the mystery man. I stated that only CHWASTYK has not suffered systematic repraisait as a result of this. -Those systematic repraisals are the reprisals that I have outlined in my affidavit.
On page 38, I make mention of another meeting on March 4th concerning the O conte 4nment entry proceeure d4spute. It was my 4mpress4oa thet Cheri4e HANs0N t
4 Page 10 of 13 of Recovery Programs actually agreed with the stand of Site Operations but -
. could not contradict the personal preferences of Mr. THEISING. Also in this meeting Bill ELLY mentioned that earlier KANGA had ordered to leave the issue of who is in charge of containment entry as written by Recovery Programs, i.e.,
that Dave BLAKE was in charge of Containment. By way of information, before January 15th, all containment work was done by work packages. After January 15th, it was a shift foreman that signed off on UWIs.
On page 45, I explained that on March 10th I had a discussion with CARL HARBAC, Ed GISCHEL, and another member of the Plant Engineering concerning the fact that ARNOLD had asked Larry XING about my involvement with Quiltech. The other member of Plant Engineering was Jim HENDERSON.
On page 46, I mention a 1:30 p.m. meeting that I had with Joe CHWASTYK on 3/10/83.
That meeting wa.; held in CHWASTYK's office'and the only other person that heard O Part of the conversation was cHwASTvx's Secretary. sonaie. cHwASTvx started this conversation as we we're walking into his office and Bonnie was sitting right there and would have heard the first part of the conversation before CHWASTYK had closed the door to his office. I also recall that on the morning of March 10th CHWASTYK had a meeting with the Site Operations staff. In that meeting CHWASTYK stated that somebody had been communicating to NRC on a daily basis.
CHWASTYK reminded us that we should be mindful of the story of the boy who cried wolf.
On page 47, I make mention of Joe CHWASTYK's 3/10/83 phone call to Gloria XING and stated that to my wife trying to dig up some negative information for the child custody case. After I was put on leave of absence, I remember talking to CHWASTYK by phone and I told him that I considered this statement to Gloria KING was meant as a friendly warning to me. CHWASTYK did'not make any reply. CHWASTYK had originally called Gloria and asked her about leaks to the press. The press leaks were in reference to an article in the Washington Post, by Susan Stranahan, on the Polar Crane issue. The article appeared before the suspension of Larry KING.
O On page 49, I discussed my March 15th meeting with Messrs. SANFORD, WHEELER and j H0FFMAN. I did not observe any notes being taken during that meeting. However,
[J' .
Page 11 of 13 Mr. HOFFMAN wksitting behind me and it was possible that he took notes ducing !
this meeting. When-I arrived for the meeting that morning Mr. SANFORD' asked me when had I arrived in Gaithersburg and what time I had left Middletown and whether
~
it was the night before or that morning. I told SANFORD that I left that morning..
~ HOFFMAN then- asked me what time I left and I told him about 6:30 a.m. I thought-
, these questions were-strange, especially in light of the fact that I had been meeting with representatives from the Government Accountability Project Office on the evening before the meeting. I would also like to point'out that on Monday afternoon, March 16th, I was cleaning out my desk at work. Bubba MARSHALL, Jim-FLOYD and Joe CHWASTYK, as well as Bonnie, the temporary secretary, were present ;
at the time. I had~ asked CHWASTYK earlier in the day if I cou'id use the Site Operations staff to go through work documents on the head lift and show the hours expended by Site Operations. I wanted to show the ! ineffectiveness of Site Operations methodology of work: because of the conflicting head lift and polar crane schedules. CHWASTYK told me that a fask force was going to come up with
] -
a total integrated schedule and that the work would not be needed.
Also, on or about the March 16th time frame, I attended a meeting on' the Inte-grated Schedule with Joe SMITH of Site Operations, Mike SMITH'of RD&D and Butch DAUBERT of Recovery Programs. This meeting was set up the day of Larry KING's suspension and after KING had made the headlift schedule a known issue. During -
that meeting, Mike SMITH stated that in October of 1982 he had wanted to put out an integrated schedule but that Site management wanted to work off the head lift schedule. Mike SMITH also stated that RD&D had not received any notification that the June 30th head lift schedule had been relaxed. DAUBERT stated that the relaxation of the June 30th date was not yet out but that it would be out that week.
i On page 50, I made mention of the break-in of my apartment. I left my apartment locked up on Monday evening at 9:00 p.m. and I arrived back and found my apartment broken into on Wednesday morning at about 7:30 a.m. To this date, there has been no disposition on this burglary investigation by the l Middletown Police.
4
Page 12 of 13 0[
On page 51, I mention a March 17th morning meeting,with Mr. KANGA. During that meeting, KANGA told me that he would have licensing and QA respond to my concern on the polar crane.
On page 52, I make mention of a 1:00 p.m. meeting on March 17th with KANGA and CHWASTYK concerning my removal as the primary site operations member on the Test Work Group for the polar crane project. With respect to KANGA asking me twice to agree that my removal was not an act of intimidation, I will add that I
after the second time, KANGA'gave the memo authorizing my removal to CHWASTYK and asked him to sign this statement. In regards to my signing the Load
- Procedure based on technical content of- the procedure only, on the morning of 3/17/83, I had requested from Mike RADBILL more documents on the polar crane matter. RADBILL, at that time, told me that my personal vendetta was holding ,
everything up. It was at this point that I then decided to sign the procedure l with the technical content proviso. /
{} -
On page 55, I stated that .several sources had shared with me their understand-l l
ing that prior to issuing formal NRC letters, Lake BARRETT would submits drafts of these letters to ARNOLD or KANGA for editing or comments.
My knowledge of this practice comes from conversations with Larry KING. KING has stated that the contents of proposed memos are massaged over the phone between BARRETT and ARNOLD or KANGA. KING was present on one occasion when BARRETT called ARNOLD and the conversation was put on the squawk box. The matter concerned GPV-N's response to a low rated item on the SALP Report. -
l According to KING, ARNOLD and BARRETT discussed the contents of the memo and ;
how it should be worded. It was also agreed that the GPU wouldn't publicly critize the NRC without first talking to NRC about the matter.
On page 4 of my second affidavit, I stated that on March 22nd, I had a meeting with Mr. KANGA, Andy WHEELER and Bechtel Public Relations Officer, Doug BEDEL, wherein I was asked if I had a news conference scheduled for March 23rd. I do not know how Bechtel found out about my new conference on March 23rd. I know that Joel ROTH of had told me that he had received a copy of the e
{ i g
c Page 13 of"13 L) S ...
,m.
affidavit the day before the news conference. I assume that ROTH probably got
~
his copy of the' affidavit from a Congressional source. Possibly, Bechtel found out about the news conference through that same or a related Congressional source.
Also on page 4 of the second affidavit, I state that Mr. KANGA, at a press conference, asserted that the Polar Crane had been originally load tested to )
500 tons. Based on conversations that I have had with those associated with ,
the pre-operations test and the fact that I could not find any documents on the I pre-operation load test for the polar crane, I disagree with KANGA's assertion that the polar crane had orginally been. load tested. In fact, when the Site Operations staff was doing research work on the taped drains, referred to in Mr.
GISCHEL's affidavit, we found that many of the originals on the pre-operation l 1
test procedures for TMI-2 were missing. It is my understanding that these pro-cedures should be kept in fireproof vaults./ I am talking about approximately four years of procedures and test documents, etc., that could not be found.
Also missing was the master punch' list for open items on pre-operation tests.
It is my understanding that the master punch list is required by law to be kept on site for five years. 1 l
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 13 typed pages. I.have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct.
Signed on at .
SIGNATURE:
RICHARD D. PARKS l Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19__,
at .
INVESTIGATOR:
Name:
WITNESS:
O Name:
d
Title:
l
7 (i 0FFICIAL USE ONLY ' g. I O' MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE j F E ao. TTPE Action Panricipaars gg - gg M 83 - CC 3. b) mEcono cP convEnsarlow ( ) CASE REVIEW / STATUS -
*! O UAII4[ , f fpg g g
( ) . Tau rEs no
,,,, l,
.connoEnnAurr atounTEs % j
'"="*"' on &/r3 :r):7,ds AAA 9 %m- Am D ' l 14 ALL n A M' ALuf A. ALA muue -
i sM to /MC L~ 2h co>uauk Di ',AfA% Y' 1 6 f 1 m L a n - > s m a A da f _ n &, L w l AAD M hf+ 1D ' fed &;a K +.RO AAD ~ A n a .xdL'-2f yxc , n & ,,
' Dam n L , M. '&
Wdb>'m aa .2Ass -wAMo d i; M & J A K s u m' J I
> mA,hL&uil..'
& c/w/r2 mish 22A O LAO'Ala. Ms 0 A X A )
D~Jn-a K DJ .Awas ad
# h n Km a w klan AJA,) /A h ~, ,
^
n n1+wesiLAudnms"d a A & ,i
'A L~ A . 48 6 ha i k.uADADAD t, 26/ A 4. AL. uA. A w~ ~,,DaLMal '
w As uss s~ 66/r, . '0 \ o, &An/es neu4 Mk,. A JMw~ A s, s/n /rus M LAs L M. us' /da,
'n dAJ.'M*1 is n ,a e i L n.
61 M - A M A A. " J
.E o, DATE PKEPARED ST ACTleM AEculRED l 2.f DEPOSITION EXHisfy l ' D?etAs 8 L$C//c/615 DATE KEVIEwto SY 0FFICIAL USE ONLT - 00 NOT DISCLOSE
f~h O i I, Richard D. Park's, hereby make the following voluntary statement to Investi- ; gators J. Vorse and R. Meeks, who have identified themselves to me as Investi-gators with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions. At the reouest of Messrs. Verse and Meeks, the following sta is one of four separate statements that I will be submitting en ger:gmentr :n: :t TMI-2. This statement covers technical concerns connected with organizational violations in the cleanup. I make this statement freely with no threats or promises of reward having been made to me.
. John BARTON, in a February 23, 1983 meeting, asked me if the Recovery Operations Test Manual (AP1047) was the same as the pre-accident test manual. I told.BARTON that generically the two were the same. BARTON had approved administrative procedures AP1043 and AP1047 for the TMI-2 Recovery Operations. In reference to 9
C hisstandontheP1frCrane,BARTONturnedhisbackonhispreviousexperi THI-2, and more specifically, on procedures that were followed on the SD ce at j believe that BARTON was the Start Up and Test Manager for Unit 2, and possibly at Unit 1, during their construction phase, before his duties as 01 : +-- rd Deputy Director of R er;' Ope *:ticra.Y On page 19 of my March 21, 1983 affidavit, I mention a meeting in Room 201 and 203 on 2/14/83 on the Polar Crane Load Test. I was not present at that meeting and the primary source of my information was Larry KING.
. In reference to Bahman KANGA not being qualified by ANSI standards to be site director, I recall from conversations with KING that both he and Joe CHWASTYK, around or shortly after the middle of September of 1982, went to Lake Barrett of NRC and complained that the Safety Review Group was to report to KANGA but that KANGA, according to ANSI standards, was not qualified to receive an operator's license. In this role the Safety Review Group was substituting for the legally approved Plant Operations Review Comittee (PORC), which reported to Site Operations (S0). Through the grapevine, I hear that BARRETT went to GPU and complained that 2 DEPOSITION EXhlBIT hlfdb~5 ? l 6//Q57 A'
4-4 O 18e interne, metters CHwASTvx end K1NG hee erous8t un to BARaETT should go t8,ou;h the chain of command. It is my understanding that the NRC has never approved the reorganization. 1 At this point I would like to mention a meeting that was held in early January on the Personnel Access Facility (PAF) Sewage Holding Tank. That meeting, which was held in KING's office, also include Jim HILDEBRAND of Rad Con and Jim THIESING. THEISING was concerned with, in effect, how to conceal in a quarterly report to NRC, the amounts of cesium in the storage tanks. When unacceptable cesium levels were detected GPU was worried about an NRC fine, because the PAF was being used before it was signed off. I know that Larry KING had earlier objected to the way the procedures were handled i on the sewage tank. He felt that the tank could not be used, because it was not in compliance with state or local laws for control of radioactive sewage to prevent it from spreading to the environment. I believe that KING sent a memorandum to that effect to BARTON. KING told me that he refused BARTON's order to sign for turnover of the sewage tank and suggested that BARTON sign it himself if he felt it was legal. BARTON refused. KING was Basing his position on the findings from
\ a GPU Environmental Engineer. KING did sign the procedure when the GPU Environ-mental Engineer reversed his earlier position and stated that the procedure was legal. Ed GISCHEL, Ken HOFFSTETTER, Kerry HORNER, Pam Storer-COOPER, Carl HRBAC, Ron WARREN and Gary CHEVALIER may be familiar with the sewage ~ t'ank matter.
h bYN $ On page 31(I make mention ohkhe minutes kept by Ken PASTOR of a 2/28/83 meeting on the Readiness Review Committee. There is no fomalized procedure for taking minutes at TMI-2. The established practice is for the organization calling the meeting and in charge of the meeting to keep the minutes. The minutes are then typed by this organization and circulated to the attendees. If there are any disagreements on the contents of the minutes then the peQo gi writes N a memo on his objections. I recall that KING had done this cogoccasion and BARTON took exception to XING documenting his objection to the minutes on at least one occasion. O-The minutes of the 2/28 meeting showed that NRC approval should go quickly since NRC coments are already available and should be resolved by the time the Polar
Crane Operating Procedure is submitted to the NRC. I can think of two instances Q where site management has used prior NRC approval in an attempt to obtain Si:e Operations approvaf on a specific procedure. The first instance occurres when Mike RADSILL handed me the Polar Crane Load Test Procedure and stated tna; i was the hottest thing on the Island. RADSILL al sod exclained Wa Clovt E(5) g ve, leg W that I Jf M the PCFC and N he t NRC had been involved with the test'all along and that neither had any or:ble ; with what was in the Load Test Procedures. 'As a result, he said Site 0:erati:n j should also sign off. This happened around mid-February,1983. Also, on March 3rd, during a second meeting on the Readiness Review Committee presentation for the Polar Crane, I stated that the Test Work Group should approve use of the Polar Crane before it was used to move structural steel. I t:ok this position because I believed that necessary engineering analyses had to be perfor e-and the crane tested by a test director under controlled conditions, before it was used. THEISING stated that the Polar Crane had been signed off by everybcdy and his brother, including NRC. In fact, on March 7 I believe that the crane was use: to move structural steel, despite the absence of a Safety Evaluation Report or Si:s Operations sign-off. The bypassing of controls on the Polar Crane contrasts snar:'; j with the controls on use of the fuel handling building crane in 1981. That crar.e was properly controlled, although it is not used for such heavy lifts as the Pola-
% Crane. The use of early NRC approval as a lever to pressure me to s gn off on procedures is also new for me. I have not had that experience at other l
plants. .- l I also recall that I was given two procedures on the Reactor Vessel Internal Radiation Measurements and told that PORC had already approved the procedures and a that I should go ahead and sign off. I noticed that the procedures had not gone through the proper review cycle and I, therefore, wrote a Site Operations Problem l Report on this. I cannot recall the name of the person who gave me the procedures and asked that I sign off. His name may be listed in my comments on the Problem Report, or he may have just been acting as a go-between. Concerning the meeting on 2/28 and the conference afterwards between myself, Jim O T"ttst"o en8 aon w^aat".1 receivee the 84stinct 4=Prees4on 13et Tsetst": trying to convince us that this matter was going to be take' care of in THEISING's es own way. During that conference, THEISING wanted to know why Site Operations was
b A i O trying to assume authority now when they had given it up en things such as the Quick Look. I told THEISING that Site Operations had to under 10 CFR 50 as the responsible group under the. license. THEISING said that was an improper inter-pretation. If there were accident or deficiency involpng matters handled by Engineering, the NRC would go after the engineers, noithe coerators. The opera-tors were just the people who signed off at the end. I did not believe him. That was not the law at any of the other plants where I had worked, and I was not aware that the law had been changed for THI. By way of explanation on the Quick Look Procedures, I recall that back in early 1982 Larry XING wrote a memo that Site Operations would cut back on non-vital areas in order to come up with the funds necessary to handle the Quick Look Operation. KING stated in that memo that Site Operations was preparing the metho-dology and software to handle the Quick Look. BARTON replied that Site Oper,ations was to stay out of the Quick Look, that it was Bechtel's and the Technical Advisory Group's responsibility. Site Operations obeyed Mr. BARTON's directive. I believe z'] that the NRC should review Bechtel's handling of the Quick Look. Bechtel resolved the outstanding items on the Quick Look punchlist so quickly that it is impossible to have confidence that they were pqoperly reviewed. 3 % %.m @ D : er On page 35 (I discuss a meeting o March 3rd concerning the agenda for the v Readiness Review Committee. IQwas in this meeting that Mr. THEISING stated that i only a person of limited intelligence would think that the whole Polar Crane ap-paratus was important to safety. In response to a question by Investigator Meeks concerning THEISING.'s management style, my description of THEISING's personality and method of conducting his daily business is based on the meetings that I have 5 attended with Jim THEISING. I believe he is a dynamic person and would remove all obstacles to get the job done. In response to Investigator Heeks' question to describe KING's management style, personality and methodology of operation, I would state that KING is also dynamic; he has a great deal of fortitude. KING also does whatever it takes to get the job done. However, KING only operates within the legal boundaries. If necessary, KING would seek to change those boun-daries so that procedural adherence is maintained while still achieving the ob- ' h, jectives of the program, rather than breaching them himself. l yLWy On page 38(I make mention of another meeting on March 4th concerning the containment +;ntry procedure dispute. It was my impression that Charlie HANSON
A V of Recovery Programs actually agreed with the stand of Site Operations but coulc not contradict the personal preferences of Mr. THEISING. Also in this meeting-Bill KELLY mentioned that earlier KANGA had ordered to leave the issue o f who is in charge of containment entry the way it was written by Re:overy Programs, i, e., that Dave / LAKE was in charge of Containment. By way of information, before. N W January 15ths all containment work was done by werk packages. After January 15ty E/' it was a shift foreman that signed off on UWIs. Also, on or about the March 16th time frame, I attended a meeting on the Integrated Schedule. with Joe SMITH of Site Operations, Mike SMITH of RD&D and Butch DAUBERT of Recovery Programs. This meeting was set up the day of Larry KING's suspension and after KING had made the headlift schedule a known issue. During that meeting, Mike SMITH stated that in October of 1982 he had wanted to put out an integrated schedule but that Site management wanted to work off the headlift schedule.- Mike SMITH also stated that RD&D had not received any notification that the June 30th headlift schedule had been relaxed. DAUBERT stated that the relaxation of the June 30th date was n.ot ye out but that it would be out that week.
\
% n.
f i On page 55hl stated that several sources had shared with me their understanding ; that prior to issuing formal NRC letters, Lake BARRETT would submit drafts of these letters to Bob ARNOLD or KANGA for editing or comments. My primary knowledge of this practice comes from conversations with Larry KING. , KING has' stated that the contents of proposed communications on occasions have been massaged over the phone between BARRETT and ARNOLD or KANGA. KING was present on one occasion when BARRETT called KANGA and the conversation was put on the squawk box. KANGA told BARRETT how management would respond if the NRC cited us for some practice. To the best of my knowledge, I believe KING said BARRETT backed off and we weren't cited. Another matter concerned GPU-N's response to a low rated item on the SALP Report. According to KING, the NRC was upset with GPU-N's critical response. It was agreed that the GPU wouldn't publicly criticize the NRC without first talking to NRC about the matter. O I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 5 typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the
.b',
,e o
- f koY .p KmM)J margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct.
51gned on (u.ut le /983 _ at // .'36 A A4 . SIGNAnlRE:
' RICHARD D. PARKS / ;
- - - i' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5n day of d us ( ,19 h ,
at 6 L/2 p AE rHTo to A), j . f4 . i INVESTIGATOR: NAME:So Aa o Mccb d' WITNESS: NAME: , Ti tle:
\
l O x
----________-_a
. i r, i H Page 1 of,2 Place: p .- Dater 0 I, RICHARD B.. PARKS, hereby make the fo116 wing voluntary statemerrt t to Investigators J. Vorse and R. Meeks, who have identified themselves ) to me as Investigators with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. { At the request of Investigators Vorse and Meeks I am submitting separate l statements for the distinct aspects of their investigation. This statement concerns missing records for work pending at the time of the TMI-2 accident, and failure to maintain necessary controls for post-accident modifications through 1980. I make this statement freely with no threats or promises having been made to me. . 7el.a. N Thegmanagement statements about controls for the cleanup are compromised i by missing records. To illustrate, on page four of my second affidavit I state that Mr. KANGA, at a press conference, asserted that the polar craneoriginallyhage , o g est{d g y g og . g as on conve ations that I have had witht(hose associated with the pre-operation tests and the fact that I could not find any documents in the pre-operation- j loadtestforthepolarcrane,IdisapeewithKANGA'Sassertionthat ) the polar crane had originally been load tested. In fact, when the I O ~ Site overetions eteff wee deine research worx on the taged dreine, , referred to in Mr. GISCHEL'.S affidavit, we found that many of the ' originals on the pre-operation test procedures for TMI-2 w'rk e missing. It is my understanding that these procedures should be kept in fireproof vaults. I am talking about approximately four years worth l of records such as procedures and test documents that could not be i found. Also missing was the master punch list for open items'on the pre-operation tests. The punch list identified all the remaining items that still needed to be finished or resolved after the plant began operations. Since there already has been one accident, I think it is imperative to track down the rest of the dorme.nt problems. It is my understanding that the master punch list is required to be:.kept on site for five years. I believe that the polar crano is only one example of a fundamental breakdown in controls on modifications to equipment and components in A the TMI-2 cleanup. For example, around November 1980 the startup and V test group began research for the startup and test program.
;; DEPOSITION g EXHIBlT 8 /Meeb l-I 6/Ms 1 *, 030287020
T,..... I k.y
.Page'2 of 2 "C in .-
During the Project we reviewed approximately 130 job tasks that involved someC1700 modifications significant enough to be formally
)
processed through Engineering Chan'ge Modification (ECM) ~ forms. : Less than a dozen of these ECM's had the required test data, or quality 1 assurance records. Those fundamental safeguards had been skipped. l Some of the changes were petty. Some,.however, involved significant j) . systems in'the plant, such as modifications to the decay heat removal system, low-level waste processing system,. ventilation" system, and waste 4M A4 Bu7 radiati g detectiog egyipment,3 aud C,9 5 pa Tf q^ -4 Test) storage f acilities. , anted to im diately set up a full testing program, but Mr. BARTON informed us of a management decision with NRC approval shortly _after
.the accident to forego quality assurance for modifications. While
-the decision may have been justified during the eme euy, there was t
(-V no reason to make it a routine. h'STuc nvitedoftheasdNRCTes o check the test records, but they did not respond to ne invitation. In 1981 a test () ' program was established, but it only covered modifications after the l approval date of the program. The modifications made prior to the date of the test program were. categorized and turned over without any tests being performed, to the best of my knowledge. I have read the foregoing statement consisting of two typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and.have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. , Signed on at . SIGNATURE: RICRAdD D. PARKS Subscribed" and sworn to before me this day of , 19 , at . . INVESTIGATOR: Name:
)'
WITNESS: '
~
Name:
Title:
4
Page 1 of 2 Flace: br7wasc4 /[l A O oete: Liv s i9e3 I, RICEARD D. PARIS, hereby make the following vcluntary statement to Investigators J. Vorse and R. Meeks, who have identified themselves to me as Investigators with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C:mmission. At the request of Investigators Vorse and Meeks I am submi::ing separa:e statenents for the distinct aspects of their investigation. This statement concerns missing records for work pending at the time of the TMI-2 accident, and failure to maintain necessary controls for post-accident modifications through 1980. I make this statement freely with no. threats or promises having been made to me. Tu.t - :. RF The' management statements about controls for the cleanup are compromised gg by missing records. To illustrate, on page four of my second affidavit
~
I state that Mr. KANGA, at a press conference, asserted that the polar
~~L~;
..,. crane originally had been load tested to 500 tons. m:
r Based on conve9g..ations
.; 4 h4 that I have had with those associated with the pre-operation tests #and 1 <td '
the fact that I could not find any documents in the pre-operation-I i ' load test for the polar crane, I disagree with KANGA'S assertion that the polar crane had originally been load tested. In fact, when the Site Operations staff was doing research work on the taped drains, Y. v; referred to in Mr. GISCHEL'S affidavit, we found that many of the r.
'Q originals on the pre-operation test procedures for TMI-2 were missing. .
It is my understanding that these procedures should be kept in - fireproof vaults. I am talking about approximately four years worth of records such as procedures and test documents that could not be - found. l l Also missing was the master punch list for open items on the pre-operation tests. The punch list identified all the remaining items that still needed to be finished or resolved after the plant began operations. Since there already has been one accident, I think it is imperative to track down the rest of the dormant problems. It is my understanding that the master punch list' is required to be kept on site for five years. I believe that the polar crane is only one example of a fundamental breakdown in controls on modifications to equipment and components in O the TMI-2 cleanup. For example, around November 1980 the startup and test group began research for the startup and test program. f" DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
* /UkeAs //
lG//6 /67 BA5
Page 2 of 2
,m i i J
During the project we reviewed approximately 130 job tasks that involved some 1700 modifications significant enough to be form 2 N , 1 processed through Engineering Change Modification (ECM) forms. ' Less than a denen of these ECM's had the required test data, cr qua'i:; _ assu ance records. Those fundamental safeguards had been skippe d 1 Some of the changes were petty. Seme, however, involved significant systems in the plant, such as modifications to the decay heat remcval system, low-level waste processing system, ventilation system, radiation detection equipment, and waste storage facilities. Nike fir.d. h oM I f[ i
-We wanted to immediately set up a full testing program, but Mr. SARTCC j
s i informed us of a management decision with NRC approval shortly after I NN the accident to forego quality assurance for modifications. While the decision may have been justified during the emergency, there was Q no reason to make it a routine. We invited the NRC to check the test
~
r N records, but they did not respond to the invitation. In 1981 a test U program was established, but it enly covered modifications after the N ( approval date of the program. The modifications made prior to the f3 date of the test program were categorized and turned over without any C tests being performed, to the best of my knowledge. N I have read the foregoing statement consisting of two typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and helief. Signed on \ A 25 W%S at 666 da LA d . . l SIGNATURE: C s - 1 RICHARD D. PARKS Subscribed and sworn to before me this' 2$
- day of N fy , 1923, at ETHrsoA. MO .
INVESTIGATOR: Me O. r~, Name: Ro a na (4. M Eg)(S t < V - 4 WITNES S: __
,00 head _)
Name: d,ctu_ GE60) Title : wea. mnoe. ar,NEEE,CIE
?
- c. ,
c ./ (s,, s Page 1 of 10 Place: % c= so A M3. Date: "L Iv __2.5 lo 7 3 I, RICHARD D. PAP.~Ji, hereby make the following voluntary statement to Investigators J. Vorse and R. Meeks, who have identified themselves as Investigators with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc=rd.ssicn. At the request of Investigators Verse and Meeks, I am submitting separate statements for distinct aspects of their investigation. This statement concerns harassment and retaliation in the TMI-2 cleanup. I make this statement freely with no threats or prc=ises having been made to me. * ' Ae1 I 4 , t4 D iP . On page 8 of cy l affidavit, I state that Tom MORRIS told Richard Sr!GLIT: that I should be counseled for my negative attitude and that SEIGLITZ - related this to myself. Others in Site Operations (50) who might have M been present when SEIGLITI related this were Larry KING, Joe CHWASTYK, j Bubba MARSHALL, John' PIERY, Linda NAGLE, Joyce WENGER, .and Madan .KARR. d N Concerning the above matter, I am not aware of the personnel procedure
%, that should be used for cornseling e=ployees en negative attitudes at i TMI-2, whether they be Bechtel or GPU-N employees. I did not receive p.
any written ma m s on the matter frem Bechtel or GPU. I do recall that
% on my last perfo: .ance evaluation Ed KITLER had given me very good j%) ratings. This performance evaluation was done around the January /Pebruary N time period of 19 33. I cannot be more specific, b'ecause Mr. KITLER did not give me a copy of the evaluation.
., On page 18, I. mention that Larry ING, en 2/11/83, inf=rmed the Site operatiens staff individually and generally about the contents of a , meeting between K~NG, KANGA, and Ed GIS m en the Polar Crane SER. These 50 members, to the best of my recollection, were Messrs. CHWASTYK, MARSEALL, PERRY, SMITE , KAPJ., Linda NAGLE, and Joyce KINGER. In response
, to a question by Mr. Meeks concerning 2ARTCN's management style, I would describe EARTON's personality or character as it relates to his daily mode of doing business as that of an intimidator. BARTON shouts, uses foul language, and is a brusque inidividual who of ten intimidates an employee through threats if that employee does not follow through with EARTON's wishes or desires. Usually he succeeds in getting his way with the c=ployee. However, EA?. TON follows up his threacs against r.
( an e=ployee if he thinks it is necessary. SARTON doesn': like to leave
# . e se G - 4 , ,
2 DEPOSITION f EXHiggy S Yeeks.-./2
- - - -- a U$_7 ssw l
l
. / /m age 2.of 10 i
y)' . . - } l 1-a paper trail. Often when he disagrees wi h a meme, he will write l his ce=ments on the eriginal memo and return the memo to its auther. i I 1 on')Ege 20,I mention my 'ce.-hersation with Id_ KITLIR on February 13 regarding KITLIR's statemen that he had been asked by Rich GALLAGEIR to look into transferring me off site. He asked me if I knew what I was doing and how big these people were. I said that I d.idn't care and would be protected by the NRO. I was upset and had KITLER repeat the ce= ment in the Site operations office in front of Larry KING and Joe CIliASTYK. Messrs. MAP.SEALL, pIRRY, SMI-'E , and Secretary Joyce h'INGIR may have overheard parts of the conversation as they arrived fer work. When K "T IR saw that I was taking his c_.1ents very seriously, he tried to downplay the issue in an ettempt to cool down the matter. It was also KITLER's responsibility to originally bring up the issues
, that I had made in my February 17 comments concerning the Polar Crane
.? Load Test and the application of procedures AP 1043 and AP 1047. My A
t Te.hruary 17 ce=:nents had reflected negatively en his f ailure to raise (/ the same issues. On page 23 I discuss the ELI::ARD phone calls to Larry KING, Gloria K_73, 4 and Benjamin SLONI. Upon further reflection, I believe the calls occurred sometime between February 14 and the time Larry KING was 5, es:Orted off-site. SLONI since has told me that ELI :ARD called for N hin a n"-ker of times. 3L "ARD also made phone calls to Ronnie a
,, .C CIA in Ohio about the sane matter. MUCEA, at that time, was SLONI's
\ fiance. After a conversation on or around February 23. with SLCNI about '
he ELIZ:ARD phone calls, SLONI had =entioned to me that he talked to R DIR about~ELI "ARD's offer. According to SLO!C, RIOIR stated that sechtel was interested in having Quiltec consider a consulting centract because of an upcc=ing reorgani::ation at "'MI-2. I advised SLONI not to touch that contract with a ten foot pole. On pages 27 and 28, I discuss KING's suspension frem TMI-2 fer his alleged ccnflict of interest due to his association with Ouiltec.
~ . .
Cescerning Ouiltec, in the Culy/Augus: 198 2 time frame Id K LIR asked
=e if I would te.lk to Larry K NG abou: lining up a job for K = IR with V Ocilte at the P;* AT.u Coal Fire Plant in Florida. I called up SLONI and referred him to K T*IR at the latter's reques; and SLONI handled M e I
_._____.-__.____.._-__-J
c
< ,/
.e 15. . '(
. ./
- h. t
. ::(( g)/- ,< Page 3.of 10- - - I the matter with Kr:LIR.from thk: peint en. Also, dr ing the. July /
~
August 1982 time . frame, ' Lar;ct K2iG asked me t'o 1ine to a typist' f o:
. ,. a .
some resemes f or Quiltee.- I obtained the services of Rose LO:'O1E
. and she typed up various resumes that were generic .in' nature. - I ,
. reca11'that some of the esumes were these of Larry K3G, Bill h3:3, -
Kingsly DRAPER, and possibly Ken LYON-ARENDS. Also d=ing the July /'
' August 1982 time frame, I recall that Rich GALLAGEER asked Ae either '
when' KING was going to leave for. Quiltec, or if Kn G m use.e t r-Quiltec. ' 1 I told GALLAGEER ' to ask KING.- . At the April 26 congressional hearing, it was stated tha' nA= M'W'9C ] g q- [ first learned of Quiltec in November 1982. Around the November /Dece=ber 1982 time period, I remember Ben SLONE talking to me about Joe CHESTYK's s i,svolvement with Larry KING' and CHESTYK's attempt to obtain a position '
]'
s- with Quiltec. I know that C5HASTYK attended a Quiltec meeting with ti ;(
. K 3G, SLONE, and Gloria KING at the KD*GS' house d=ing this time '
y- period.- It was also d=ing this time frame that CHESTYK went to 3 Beaver Valley with John EOAG, a relative of King's and also a member [ of - Quiltec. . At Seaver Valley, CHES'"YK contacted Don SKIDMORE of 4 3' Duquense Light Company, the licensee at Beaver valley, abou: a Quiltec a y proposal and possible contract at Beave: Valley. CHnSTYK later teld
.j =e that when Beaver Valley came through none of us would have to w=:ry N about the way Bechtel is trying to move the schedule ahead and take over things. The 50 staff was generally aware of CG'ASTYK's and K3G's involvement. w'ith Quiltec. It was also during this time desme that KITLER made a comment to me that Larry K3G should be careful because it was starting to get around 'about K2iG and Quiltec. I told KITLER that K 3G was not the most discreet individual about maintaining a low p cfile on the Quiltec =atter, because he did not believe he had done anything
. wrong.,
' I believe it is significant that P.r. TEIIS3G, the head of Recovery
. Programs, chose not to confront K3G for an explanation c to suggest counse, ling on proper business practices. Instead, he sat on the info:=ation until K3G backed the 50 st.af f in =hallenging 3echtel's
- sh rtcuts en the pelar crane program, and when K3G was solidifying A
.s o
w ge.4'of 10; ,_ his 1egal responsibility within the chain of ec==and'. Then ali-of. a 'sufden the issue became - a major scandal, and simultaneously Bech e1 atta=ptef to recruit KUiG into engaging in serious conflicts of interest with Quiltec. Although K3G did not respend to the imprope-1 ta=ptation, he was fired anyway. i
. Around' February 1983 I recall . that Jim TEEISUiG and Bill AUSTDi vent i on a skiing -ip. During the congressional hearing on April 26, i: I was stated that in February 4TEIISUIG, while en a business trip, was told a second time about KDiG's involvement with Quiltec. possibly this !
was -Jie business trip that was referenced in the congressional testimony. I Sonet%. during the latter part of 1982 or the first part of 1983, Dick JU33A of Nine Mile Point, an empicyee of 3echtel, phoned Larry
] . K3G ' and asked him some questions about Quiltec and KING 's involvement 2, .with Quiltec. I recall, from conversations with Larry and G1cria K37G, that there vsre'two. phone calls from JU33A on this matter, the second around the W e KDiG was suspended. I was in KING's house when the ,P" second phone call was received.
- (
b4 I feel that the Quiltec matter displayed a doub.e standard and was
- definitely blown out of proportion. In the nuclear energy industry one is always =indful of the various opportunities available for
'.. advancement and prcEtotien at other nuclear sites, only tvc GPU e=ployees D left for Quiltec, Mike UIEY and Ted FICKraT. Both of them were N leaving anyway, however. Further',' they approached Quiltec for a job.
KDiG did not recruit the=. In fact, I am not aware of any instance where KING solicited or tried to " seduce" GPU e=ployees to work for Quiltec, as claimed by GPU at the April 26 congressional hearing. Although a nu ber of GPU e=ployees had resu=es with Quiltec, it was
.always at their own initiative. Frcm my conversations with them, ! _
know that they were looking for jchs at other firms as well. In my 5% years experience with the ce=mercial nuclear industry, nothing occurred with respect to Quiltee that was inconsistent with ner=al practices.in the industry. In fact, I was 'first hired by GPU in a manner similar to how Quiltec i. 1 operates. While I was w:rking for Inergy Consultants, Inc. , ::y subse-l quent e=ployer NUS sent a prcpesal that included =y resume to GPU
.a
~
l f age 5 of 10 v.. without first checking with Inergy Consultants. !CJS is a jeb shopper similar to Quiltec. GPU did not conde=n my hiring but has condemned K~NG and Ouiltec. F=ther , :. TMI employees such as CHWASTTK and K!"'"2R were not fired or even ef ficially disciplined, to =y knowledge, fer their active efforts to obtain business for Quiltec. It was d=ing the first part of JTanuary that Ed TI"".2R told me his transfer to Florida had been arranged. K!"".2R asked if I would .take over his position as Startup and Test' Manager. I i= mediately talked to Dave Buchannon, who was head of Design Engineering fer GPti, and told him that I would take KI'"IIR's job only if it were transferred to Sits Operations. BUCEA!C?ON stated that he didn't know anything about the N] 4 KITIIR transfer and that he would look into it. K!"'LIR did stay on site. 4 However, he was absent fr m TM -2 the week af ter KING's suspension.
.8 Kr"2R returned en or a. bout March S or 9. After he returned I asked Dave BUCEA!CTON how he got KI"'IER to stay. BUCEA!niON stated that he worked A, out a deal with BARTON to get KITLIR's per diem taken care of although t .
/d it was supposed to have run out. Dwight WA KER headed up the Test Werk Group -- one of KITLER's normal duties -- while KITLER was gone.
KANGA, in'his testimeny before Cengress on April 1&, stated that he first s heard of KING's involvement with Quiltec on February 24 and hat he, N NC KANGA, was on sick leave that day. KANGA stated that he received a
\ phene call on the matter while he was at heme. He said the phone call was from BARTON, and was made at approximately 6:00 P.M. to the best of =v* recollection. I also recall, however, that La..*< K37G told me ge po of a meeting had with KANGA on-site the same day KANGA supposedly was sick, February 24, at 1: 00 P.M. The meeting concerned the containment. 5 "r =
It was ", entry p@roce. dure and was cut off fer a fire safety tr8 v.P meeting.p m pca+ - 1 d=ing' c :i-e-meeting that K2iG told KANGA that he was legally suppcsef -% to be in charge of the "'MI-2 cleanup, but that it was apparent TEEISOiG E,5 h
. ,.a wanted to run the show. LARSON, who was head of licensing, the same day?
J .g5 :
- ..e, :-
had earlier f.nf=med KriG that he was in charge of tha recovery > operations. .At the February 24 containment entry proced=e r.eeting, i 3 KANGA also told KDCG that he was the bi3s and this f act was to be put J I. , u 4 O in writing. This was in reference to K31G being made the alternate to i_ .5 i' KANGA and thus officially designating semeene in upper management who jr- ::.y-. e'
*~ 2 i
*) h *[
M -;r m l
, i
.3
}tage 6 of 10 ' ' " ~ '
met the ANSI standards as plant =anager cr alternate plant anager. This meeting illustrates how TF.I-2 management waited to use Quiltec . agai=st KmG until innediately af ter his responsibliities and authority were finally. clarified. It may also demonstrate that P.r. KANGA was less than candid with Congress about the Quiltec matter. On page 21 of my' affidavit.I refer to a February 28 meetihg. At the meeting TEEISING made a statement that he could understand why.certain people were afraid of a transfer. The co= ment came'about as a result of our discussion on the NRC examining the polar crane issue at that s time and Ed KITLER being called in by NRC and interviewed by Joel WI!3E. I We also were talking about Larry KING's suspension in the same context.
%3' We vare told that the NRC was not finding any problems with the polar
.O.'
crane. THEISING's remark about a transfer, which I felt was obviously directed at me, was a result of cor=nents on these topius. On page 32 I began a series of comments on memos that Joe CEWASTYK and D. I wrote , basically concerning the application of AP 1043 and AP 1047
- o:the Polar Crane Load Test. CHWASTYK was in full philosophical g agreement with those memos. I feel that CHWASTYK believed he was only V going to be Acting Site Operations Director for a short time. In a N,
meeting with the so staff right after he assumed the acting positien, N)4
.- CER STYK predicted that the KING incident would be over and KING would be back on the job the next week. In fact, on one occasion during that time I showed CHWASTYK some meetir$g minutes and said it was obvious that the polar crane was not ready. CEWASTYK said I should get the infor=ation to Larry KING. However, after a few weeks I got the i=pression that CEnSTYK's opinion of what would happen in the KING matter had changed.
I also. believe that CHWASTYK, as he attenced the various recovery meetings, realized that KING was not going to return and that management considered me as an obstacle the same as KING had been. I believe that chm S*YK knew that my wife was dead as did most of the 50 staff, because I had l
~
never made a secret of that tragedy. When CEWASTYK made his phone call.to Gloria KING and stated that my wife was trying to dig up some W ng on the child custody case, I feel it was CEnSTYK's indirect way cf trying to'tell me that I was targeted.as KING had been. i l l A O
a; j. lage 7 of'10 l-- I believelthat CHWASTYK was replaced with EARTON as Acting Site Opera. ions' Director.because GPU investigators on the KING matter had spoken with CHWASTYK and discussed his involvement with QUILTEO. After one such meeting,.CEWASTYK told me that he had just attended one
~4 3 of'his last. meetings'at TMI-2.
There was V?::s ~~< dm~l
--; ': m.1u disciplinary action taken against CHWASTYK for-his activities on behalf of-Quiltec,'
'however. Instead,- there 'was a more subtle response such as making his-Acting 50 Director status tempora.ry. .I also understand that during ,
-M s ti.me period CHWASTYK was taken off a TV commercial that G?U was to air.
I On page 33 -I mention that 3ARTON accused Joyce WENGER of xeroxing and taking to Larry KING a memorandum that had been missing on February 28 but had reappeared the morning of March 1. The memo in question was the so-called " Smoking Gun" Memo" that KING had written.to KANGA and-BARTON about his concerns'on the lack of an Integrated Head Lift Schedule
- and fai. lure to meet previous commitments. I think the memo number'was-arou.nd 069, but I am not sure of this. .I recall that on Monday morning s
Februar'(. 28, Joyce WENGER had made the co= ment to the SO staff in : general J.
.g that the memo.was missing from the file and that she was looking for it.
N: She also said that KING wanted his copy of the memo. On Tuesday
~
morning, the memo appeared back in the file. ha . On page 45 I explained that on March 10 I had a discussion with Carl ERBAC, Ed GISCEE., and another member of Plant Engineering concerning l the fact that ARNOLD had asked Larry KING about my involvement with Quiltec. I believe that the other memoer of Plant Engineering was ) Jirt EENDERSON. f On page 46 I mention a 1:30 meeting that I had with Joe CHWASTYK on 1 March 10, 1983. That meeting was held in CHWASTYK's office and the i only other person that heard part of the conversation was CEWASTYK's '! secretar"f; 3cnnie SHERW303. CRWASTYK started this conversation as we we u walking into his office. Bennie was sitting right there and ; may have overhen.-d the first part of the conversation bef ore CHWASTYK closed the doc: to his office. n
d f~ ge 8 of 10 ,_ , fT- . -
- j. I also recall that on.the same day CEh%STYK had previously held a mee ing with the Site Operatiens supervisors. In that meeting CHh%STYF.
stated that semebody had. been con =anicating to NRC on. a daily basis. .
' CEh1STYK :=-%ded us that we should be r.indful of the story of the boy who cried wolf.
On page 47 I made mention of Joe CHk%STYK's March 10, 1953 phone call i to Gloria KING, when he stated that my wife was trying to dig up some '
. negative information for the; child custody case. .After I was put on' j leave'of absence, I remember talking to CEHASTYK by phone.' I told t.
him that I had interpreted this statement to Gloria KING as a friendly 1 warning to me.' At the time, CHWASTYK did not disagree. CHWASTYK had
, ; originally called Gloria and asked her about leaks to the press. The press leaks were in reference to an article'in'the Washincton Post,
-( ~
by Susan STRANAEAN, on the GPU-Babcock and Wilcox trial.- The article appeared on February 13 h less than two weeks before Larry KING was pended, i . On page 49 I discussed my' March 15 =eeting with Messrs. SANFORD, WEE N 4., and HOFFMAN. I did not observe any notes being taken h during that meeting. However, Mr. HOFFMAN was sitting behind me and - it was possible that he took notes during this meeting. When I arrived s for the meeting that morning Mr. SANFORD asked me when' I had arrived in
, Gaithersburg, whether I had left Gaithersburg the night before or that
? meru g, and what time I had left.
I on page 50 I made mentien of the break-in of my apartment which -
~ -
I discovered arouf.d '7: 3d" A'.M. ',I6n WedEasday," March 16, the first"sime I
~
'rets.fned to =y' apartment after the,,m_eeting~with kr. SANFORD. I had last
. left the apartment on Monday evening, March 4, around 9:00 P.M. Wnen I returned'I noticed that the deadbolt lock on the front doc: was open, although I always keep it locked. That must be how the intruders left.
, 'They came in through the patio door, which was still 1.5 inches open.
The lock had been ta= cered with; the marks were'still visible. 'I checked and saw that my tax papers 'had been gone through and restacked neatly in l I 7, .
a l ll ge 9 of 10 4, f the wrone order. Some background information about the Gove.:nmant Accountability Project' had been lying en the coffee table - and also had .
.been reshuffled. I repersed this. burglary investigation to the Middletown police. To this date, there has been no disposition.-
I. also would like ~ to point' out that on Monday aftornoon, March 14, I.was cleaning out my' desk.at work. Subba MNtSEALL, Jin FLOYD, and
. Joe CW ASTTK, as well as-Bonnie, the.tamporary secretary, were present at the time. Earlier in the day'I had asked CHESTYK if I could use -
the Site Operations staff to go through w rk documents on the head lif't '* and show the hours expended,by 50. I wanted to research how *he conflicting head lift and polar crane schedules aff ected the . efficiency 4 and :sffecniveness of So worki which I believe had suffered because of M' the conflicting schedules. CHWASTYK told me that a task force was a M. gcing to come up with .a total integrated schedule and that the work ' M would not be needed. .
- . On page 52 I made mentien of a 1: 00 p.m. meeting on March 17 with KANGA
-and CE nSTYK concerning my removal as the primary Site Operations me=ber on the Test Work Group (TWG) for the polar crane project. I ,will 5 add that earlier that. day I had met with CHWASTYK on the same subject.
CE n STYK since has: told my attorney that at the time I agreed with
.w-g and welcomed the decision, because I had become too personally involved N with and emotional about the polar crane. I can state without question thatfI-did not express any such agreement. Indeed, I was already preparing a complaint for the Department "of Labor challenging the last time my duties had been removed like that.-- en February 23
.wi h the alternate startup and test superviser position. Further, I ce=plained to Subba MARSHAI.L that same day about "what had happened with the TWG.
With respect to KANGA asking me twice at the Ma$$h',17'mee*iing to agree that my removal was not an act of intN dation, I will add that after i refused the seccnd time to sav. what he wanted, KANGA had CHESTYK sign en the spot the memo authorizing =y removal. .
~,
k wuemdAu w .~ h u s .3 w. A +d p=T.A a.a W wes 4 m .
& Auided w kvf.. Mt. L--cnl iNem W W k ^x t W w t 4 Reb . O.D.
I
e
., .j- , ge 10 of 10 , ,_
I have re.ad the foreg=ing stiatement consistine of 13 tiped paces. I
~ ~ ~
have made and initialed any necessary co:rections and have signed - - ~ -
- my.name in ink on the margin of each page. I swear that the feregeing statement is true and cerrect, to the best cf my knowledge and belief.
Signed on dh M M S'S at "cr_4tidA ' Mb . . .
. i SIGNATUFI: ,
m 0 iS. : k._ . RICliARD D. PAPES l T ~I ' Subscribed and sworn t6 before me this ' ') 5 Y day of ,J % I V , at b ri d56 C' M 6' ~~~ ~ . 1 INv2:STIGATOR: -M i san = emo 4. ,urces n 4 . n A M W m ESS: .
,I t i 1 e nelA )
NameQ,,3 y,gggj
'{A '
Title:
SEmer. c54 . Tot.EWGIWEEE,E i ( - . N D. t - C,
%r'
=
el a l i ~ O ,
. 1 i
[ *
*'c, 9 UNITED STATES e , CLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS'ilO S .
( .g! . h,$i w AsmNGTON, D. C. 20555 r ,. , OI A .' '.. .y/ &ly M Bf3 SwEpY L. W' w h PP 7 M
} " 3 % q
~J g_
vsc % _J vb
% ~ B. k'AS A 'M t T w . t_
PM . DL c. M . .
%*bH L &
m LA
%+
u . asaW ugu4 W .t O (~ .
] LA4.>>L 2ev4 c A . M erks il DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
/YlEtiS b lS l 6pt/S7 F*n 0
4 . ,_ 2 _ _ _, 4- _
.;. i 9' ,w aa r.g * ~'
. 'c, UNITED STATES
!* ?- % l CLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS3lC I
y E WASHINGTON, D C.,20555 0, 2, O s...;.e a i y zs, rsu S. , - b 7b" Da-m ~b c33 9 hMV O 54% WqQa WJA 7 g W b.P L & A ,, A D e a .J $, _
"* t % ~1 M ,l
-ww .
O n a c>Gn , h a %s i 2 DEPOSITION ( EXHIBIT 1/7?tsts l3 l6/n/11f"S i e 9 0 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
i
<, . . t. .
L h0VERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT Institute for Policy Studies (202)234.( O 1901 Que Street. N.W.. Woshington.'D.C. 20009 April 22, 1983 i The Honcrable Raymond Donovan Secretary of Labor U.S. Department of Labor Washington, D. C. Attention: Mr. David Feinberg, Wage and Hour Division
Dear Secretary Donovan:
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 55851, and 29 C.F.R. Part 24, Mr. Richard D. Parks hereby supplements his March 23, Ite3 complaint with the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Parks further alleges that the Bechtel North American Power Corporation':s March 24 pe r s on n e l___a c_t_i.Qn pl a ci n g him on indefi-nite leave of absence and forbidding his entry to the 4ob site at Three Mile Island-Unit 2 (THI-2 ) constituted illegal discrimi-pf) nation. He charges that the personnel action was a direct response to his. March 23 disclosures of Atomic Energy Act vio-1ations, which already have led to a renewed Nuclear Eegulatory Commission (NRC) investigation; and to his complaint seeking i e .3 t. c, r a t i on ' o f hi s responsibilities in the cleanup program at TMI-2. He now seeks restoration of his a c t.i_y e __s t a t us at..th.e site, as well as a lT kr e,vio us, r e spo.nii bi li t i e s ..pri qr_ t o retalia_to
~-
o p e r s onn'e l actions,
,, , and damages.
Mr. Parks' additional allegations are detailed in the enclosed affidavit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,.
/\
~
~ + $.- i d N THOMAS DEVINE Legal Director TD/my 4 2 DEPOSITION Enclosure
, EXHIBli 8[C[ly{g
? ? & A s /.b~ ~ LL W1. GiU59 WMA g} APR 2 21999 l
' %, PA 17:g3
\
b 1 ~ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ -
, , i, o
O e RECEIVED 1 UDUI.t;14 AFFIDAVIT . g} App ',,' 1993\ LB s
*8RRiwe n gD
\ g State of Pennsylvania ) ,
ss- 3,,,_. County of dtM7/ _) My name is Richard D. Parks. I am submitting this af fidavit to Mr. Thomas Devine, my counsel and the legal director of the Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studic This statement is to supplement my March 23, 1983 affidavit disclosi serious safety and organizational violations in connection with the Most significant, Three Mile Island (TMI)-Unit 2 cleanup program. my af fidavit alleged illegal retaliation under the Atomic Energy Act for making disclosures which already had and could lead to (NRC) . further investigations by the Nuclear Regulatory Comdission On Tuesday, March 22, when_I. returned _.to. work L aet with Mr. Bahman Kanga, TMI-Unit 2 director, to present my written re-(The March 21, 1983 letter sponses to our March 17, 1983 meeting. In response to Mr. Karig.als_ March.13 is enclosed as Exhibit 1.) invitation, I informed hg _of two j ditiona_1_in_ stances of retalia-tion-- (1) my March 17 removal as primary Site _ operations _,(S_OJ_ rep and (2) the continuing resentative to the Test Work Group _(TWG); investigation of my, alleged connection with the Quiltec Corporatio In the letter, I told Mr. Kanga that he was personally involved 1982 affidavit,\at g with both acts of. reprisal. See my March 23, 4
' 50-51.) In the letter I also told Mr. Kanga that my approval of the polar crane load test did not infer withdrawal of my previous
.. ". . o , . i criticisms; the test f ailed to comply with all relevant quality' 7"$- %./ .
assurance.(QA) requirements, or all issues in dispu'te. Mr. Kanga read the letter and insisted that I had agreed no
-harassment was involved with my duties bei'ng stripped. I corrected him of this misconception. I had only told him the intent of the action was clear. He denied everything else, as well. Mr. Kanga then told me that he would telex my letter to Gaithersburg, and that I could leave.
Shortly after, Ed Kitler called to tell me he had some papers which should have been signed during my cmployee evaluation. He asked if I would sign them. I said I would not, unless my lawyers could review the papers first. Mr. Kitler dropped the subject,. which no one raised again.
)
That same morning, I called Gaithersburg for Mr. Andy Wheeler,- my boss. An assistant answered, who told me that Andy was unavail-able due to a meeting in the front office with Internal Affairs. I asked that Mr. Wheeler return the call. He never did. Between 10: 00 and 11: 00 a.m., however, Mr. Kitler called to say Mr. Wheeler. was on his way up to see me. Around 1: 00 p.m. I called Bob Arnold and asked to speak with him about harassment and intimidation. Mr. Arnold wanted to wait until Thursday morning. I also asked him to confirm rumors whether ! I L ' my name was on a list for congressional inquiry. Fe. Arnold con-firmed the rumor. Andy Wheeler arrived at approximately 2:00 p.m. and I drove ) up toward Mr. Kanga's office. On the way, I saw Mr. Kanga approach i L j the NRC offices. When I arrived at Mr. Kanga's of fice, Fe. Wheeler i' and .his assistant Vernon Leopard were in the room. Andy began the __________-__0
., ,,*- t- : oy i e.- , .
' conversation lby stating -that I had been exonerated by - the Internal i' .
Af fairs investigation;' that . I .would: not be ' fired:- and that- I could stay at TMI as'long as I wanted. 'He asked how to smooth th_in.gs.over and bring me back to the fold. He also asked me to provide Bec.htel h with a complete list of my safety concerns. I asked how I__co_uld trust them not to' transfer or~ fire me a few monthsLdown the road, if I cooperated now. .Ee_ persona _lly guaranteed that no_,further re-
~
prisals would occur. I told Mr. Wheeler that I believed ~ managements - had made horrible mistakes at TMI-Unit 2 and identified Messrs. Kane. and.Thiesing as the major perpetrators. . I told them I had prepared a sworn affidavit,about my, conc, erns
,,I said Ifdidn't think Mr. Bech-tel would' approve.- Mr. Wheeler said my concerns had Mr. Steven Bechtel, Jr. 's personal attention. They. asked if I wanted'a'n Intern Af fairs investigation of management, which I~ said would be appropria Mr. Wheeler asked me'. to - sign what- he called a standard " patent rights" agreement, which stated that I could not use or remove any information from the site. (The document,is enclosed as Exhibit 2.)'
u He also provided me with a conflict-of-interest statement. He added that he was sure the problem never would have occurred if I had been briefed on conflict-of-interest rules in the first place. I refused. l to sign until there was a chance to study the information. I then asked Mr. Wheeler about the congressional inquiry. .He ; i said Mr. Arnold wanted me to attend a meeting on the probe next door at 3:30 p.m. The meeting ended at approximately 3:15 p.m. , At around 3:30 p.m. a meeting convened in Room 201/203 with ; I Mr. Arnold, Andy h' heeler, myself, Joe Smith, Craig Faust, John Perry, Bob Gummo, John Auger and a General Public Utilities (GPU) lawyer. The meeting was to discuss the congressional inquiry. i i L--.._.__.--__._.__- -_
fy-
~
Mr. Arnold said a GPU company lawyer was available for us, and that O. he wanted more details from Congress on their questions before he could set up appointments. He added that on Saturday, March 18, he had sent a written reply to that effect. He said he was confused about who was on the list, since only Mr. Faust was in the control room at the time of the accident. Since the rest of the individuals named were from Site operations, he felt that the inquiry concerned Larry King's dismissal. Nothing further of consequence was dis-cussed. The meeting ended around 4:15 p.m. At 4: 25 p.m. Mr. Kanga cal _ led me_ again to ng. turn _tpJis .of f. ice He insisted that I come immediately. Mr.
- - Kan
- g a ,, _Andy,_Wh_e e.l.e r. a nd.. a public relations officer... named Doug Bedell were p,, resent.
Mr. Bedel; asked if I had a news confe.re.nc..e scheduled for the.following day.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - . . . . .~ -
I said that I did, and was filing ,a__D_ep, art. men.t..of _Qbor._ complaint m about the way I had been,t,r,ea_t.ed._ I asked if that was all. When Mr. Bedell said it was, I thanked them and left. On March 23 I released _my_whis.tleblowing disclosure. At the news conference held by GPU and Bechtel, Mr. Arnold stated -- after initially claiming ignorance of me -- that I was one of many compe-tent, qualified individuals hired for the'TMI. cleanup. He further stated that I had not taken my concerns to the ombudsman. I found it curious that he could make such a claim with any certainty, since discussions with the ombudsman are supposed to be confidential: Mr. Kanga stated that the investigation into me was not yet complet-Mr. Arnold also stated that no decision had been made about my futu lll at TMI, and I would be back at work the next day. Finally, at the press conference, Mr. Kanga asserted that the polar crane had been originally load tested to 500 tons. Based on
1.
/7 i
~
rs . . all the : records I studied and meetings I attended, I believe that
\ l The Test Work Group had not been able to statement is inaccurate.
1 find evidence that the crane was ever tested. On arriving home the evening of March 23, I learned that both Site Operations Director Larry King and his secretary Joyce Wenger 1 had been fired that same day. They each tcld me that GPU managemen had never mentioned to them the congressional request to interview ; them. on Thursday.,_ March 24, when I arrived at work Mr. Wheeler anc Ed Kitler were waiting for me. Mr.._Whegler gave me a letter which is enclosed as Exhibit 3. It stated that in the af termath of my Department of Labor _ complaint I,was_being place.d on ippediate,_in-O) (_ definite leave of absence with pay to avoid the appearance of hara The lette. ment and assure the effective use of personnel on-site. Mr. Kitler drov said I would' be contacted further within 30 days. When we stopped me home in a GPU car, accompanied by Mr. Wheeler. I said I at the gate, Mr. Wheeler asked for my security badge. shouldn't have to give it up if I were only on leave of absence. Mr. Wheeler insisted and gave the badge to the guard, who asked Mr. Wheeler said Mr. Kanga would provi i what he should do with it. further instructions. Both Since March 24 I have talked with Mr. Wheeler twice. Each times I asked when I would be permitted to return to work. time he said they would get back to me. The excuse for my leave of absence -- to protect me from (]) even the appearance of harassment -- is totally pretextual. My l' original complaint was for having my responsibilities removed.
! Instead,
- To end the hara#ssment, I wanted my duties restored.
... g
. . i
.,t
( Bechtel removed my responsibilities completely and. Prevented me fror even returning .to the Island. Based on the March 24 letter, there is no question that this action was taken in direct response to my Department of Labor whistleblowing complaint. Instead of ending the retaliation, Bechtel responded by exacerbating it and preventin< rne from meking any further contribution on-site to a safe recovery from the TMI accident. I believe that the March 24 action against me was a warning.against any other THI whistleblowers who attempt to assert and defend their legal rights. I have read the above 6-page affidavit, and it is true, accurate and complete to the'best of my knowledge and belief. O R3 CHA RD D . PARKS
'JO&
/
SUBSCRIBED AhD SWORN TO before me this JL2"cdey of 4/w*/ , 1983. O 84 -
~
M Notary Public ' m, w.a c4a 2N" l i I N i
~
'~
*\
i
. t March 21, 1983 EXHIBIT 1
(~s* , Mr. B.'Kanga Director, Three Mile Island Unit 2 , P. O. Box 480 Route 44 South Middletown, Pennsylvania 17507
Dear Mr. Kanga:
In our March 17 meeting you stated that your door was open for me to report any continued acts of harassment or intimidation. I wish to report two cases, both of which you are familiar-- (1) my March 17 renoval as primary Site Operations representative to the Test Work Group; and (2) the continuing, pretextual in-vestigation of me and threatened dismissal supposedly based on my involvement lI
'I with the Quiltec Corporation, which is a non-involvement. I believe that these discriminatory actions are direct reprisals due to my reports to the NRC and continued dissent against quality assurance violations in the polar crane pro-gram. You stated that only Mr. Sanford can give me additional reassurances , ,
against continued intimidation. Since you have been personally involved. in the above actions, however, you can pledge to undo the damage and cease these tactic This is not how Bechtel should do business, and it is illegal.
/*%
(,) Finally, I wish to emphasize that my March 17 approval of the polar crane load. test does not infer any withdrawal of my previous criticis=s. I approved the procedure with the explicit qualifier " based on technical content only." As you know, that does not imply either that all required topics have been covered, or that QA requirements have been met. I am looking forward to studying the promised QA and Licensing analyses of.my comments on the polar crane. I hope that in the end it will be recognized that my comments and those of Site Operations in general resulted in constructive improvements toward a safe, reliable polar crane program. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go. Sincerely, g.. Richard Parks O l L_____________________
' e *
- 4 .
, J\
[f e ) 1 EXHIBIT 2 -- AGREEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDCMENTOF OBLICATION THIS AGREEMENT AND ACKNOM.EDGEMENT OF OBLICATION,is executed by the under:4ned Employee and deliiered to Bechtel on the date set forth belom, 1. I hereby acknowledge that I understand and spee that the picsisiens hereof are part of my emple} ment con. tract uith Bechtel,and that my empic> ment by Bechteland the payment of the cornpensation I receive from Bechtelare induced by and in consideration of rny speement to such piosisions, and my acknowledgment of my obbgations hereunder. 2. As used herein,"Bechtel" shat mean Bechtel Powes Corporation and any affiLate os subsidiary of Bechtel Pow er Ccepc:ation er FechtelIncorporated and any affGte or rubsidiary of BechtelIncorrerated;" Gent" shat rnean any peisen or - entity for u hem fiechtel performs sersiees or from u hem Fechtel or Emplo) ee obtains information;"infestr.ation" shtU mean ( any irJc.ir atien, knemledge, os data tehting to plans, specification, documents, inventions, rnethods, processes, psoducts or ope:ations of Bechtel er Gcnts, and " employment" shaU include e tr.ployment for hously u ages, for salary, or as a cenruttant. 3. I secognite that the business of Bechte! and the nature of my ernployment w!D permit me to hase access to info mation e'i Beehtel and its Gents, that such information is the property of Bechtel and ofits Gents,and that any unautho. siaed disclosure thricof snay be h4hly prejudicial to their interests. ) furthes recognize that I may during the term of my ment make insentions, discoscries or improvements. 4 I shat net disclose es use, directly er indirectly, at any time, any infestation as above defined, unless such dis:lesare or use is in the course of m) empic> rnent by Bechtelor has been espressly authorized in stiting by Bechtel. ! shsU not terme any w ritirst centainin; inferrratin. from the premises os pense,sien of Bechtel es its Gents unless I hair ottained expen autherizatien in uniing by Bechtelto do so. Ary and allideas, ins er. lions, disecteries and impressments w hich I conceive, discover or make during the term of my empic>rnent,in any say relating to the busineu of Bechtel os arising out of or resulting from my emplo) ment, shaU be the sole and exclushe property of Bechtel or its nomines. I shau promptly adsise Bechtel of each such idea, invention, disco and imptosernent and, w beneser sequested b) Bechtel,I, my esecutors, admini<trators, legally appointed guaidians, ennseriators c sepesentatises s511 mithout further compers. tion promptly enecute an) and aU instruments uhich Bechtel may deem nec-enary to asn;r. and cer,*ey to it,its successors or assigns, all the right, title and interest in and to each such idea,irwentien,dts. coser) and impressment, and letters Patent for the sarne, or such cther interests therein as I may acquire, together with all instrutrents deemed r.ectrur3 by Bechtcl te app!) fos and obtain Letters Patent of the United Sisies or foreign ecuntrictit beiy underreed and agreed that at tapense incident to the securing of such appbeatiens and Letters Patent shaU be borne b) Bechiel its he:essors os assyns. ) ut,derstand and spee that such obL;ation to esecu:e such instruments that centinue afier te:r-ination c,f m) empleyment by Bechtel uith respect to each such idea,insention, discovery and improvement, w hich I con. cei*ed,discontred or made during the term of m) emplo) ment,in any ma) sehting to the business of Bechtelor arisirq out of ot resulting from m) emplo) ment.
- 6. This Agierment and Acknemledgment of Obligation SNU be effective as of the date that I cornmenced or uiu cernmer.ce rn) e ;te> ment sith Bechtel.
Dated-Employee: This apeement dets not apply to an itsentsen for which (Si;nsture) no equipment, s.:ppLes, facibty, et trade secret inforrna. tion of Bechtelis used and a hich is deselsped entirely (Ty ped) on m) ou n 1stne, a nd (a) = hich does not rehte (1) to the business of Bechiel or (2) to Bechters actualor demorr strab!) anticipated seseasch os deielepment,os (b) a-hsch A "' 8' I e does not result from any w ork perforr ed by me for Bechiel (54naiure) (T) ped)
. . 7.,;...
... .: .:*a '.
, # Bechtel North American Pbwer Corporation
~'s , , Engineers- Constructors '
15740 Shady Grove Road Gaithersbut9. Maryland 208771454 301 - 258-3000 . EXHIBIT 3 March 24, 1983 Nr. Richard Parks' 14 Elmwood-V0F Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057
Dear Mr. Parks:
Ve have been infomed that you have filed a complaint with'the Department of Labor alleging that management has harassed and intimidated, you in connection with certain questions you have raised concerning the
. TMI-2 recovery project. We vigorously deny.that any such harassment or , intimidation has occurred. In order to insulate you from even the appearance of such conduct, and to essure the continued' effectiveness i of all'persennel at the site, we are placing you on an. indefinite leave '
of absence with pay, effective immediately, until we have had an opportunity to review this matter.further. We will be in touch with'you within' thirty days with regard to the status of our review of your allegations. If you need to come' to the jobsite to pick up your personal effects, . please call me to arrange a mutually convenient time and please feel - free to call me with' respect to any problems you may have. We want to confirm to you that Bechtel will not take any adverse ; personnel action against you merely because you*have filed a complaint with the Department of Labor or because of any other allegations you' may have made with respect to practices at the site to other federal agencies. 4 Very truly yours, { 4) & Richard A. Wheeler Chief Startup Engineer.
-------_-____---___-------A
0'
, Page 1 of 31
*b , 2 DEPOSITION EMBIT Place: Middletown, Pennsylvania
/Meeks &
h lG/4/M Bhs Date: April 13 & 14,1983 I, Lake BARRETT, hereby make the following voluntary statgment to Investigators J. Vorse and R. Meeks, who have identified themselves to me as Investigators with the U.S. Nuclea.r Regulatory Commission. I make this statement freely with i no threats or promises of reward having been made to me. This is a revision of a statement which was prepared for me by Investigators Vorse and Meeks based on our conversation of April 13 and 14,1983. I assumed duties as Deputy Director of the Three Mile Island Program Office (TMIPO), Unit 2,inNovember1980. During the first 6 months on the job I became aware that if GPU could improve cooperation and sense of teamwork among the various TMI-2 departments, the quality and pace of the cleanup would be
,- improved. In May of 1981 I spoke to General Public Utilities Nuclear (GPUN)
V President, Mr. Robert ARNOLD, about this matter. Mr. ARNOLD replied that he was aware of the situation and was in the process of making administrative changes which would improve the interdepartmental effectiveness. One of these managerial problems centered around organizational responsibilities and authorities to implement particular aspects of the cleanup program. Another issue was the integration of the various technical. departments (e.g. Bechtel, GPU engineering and Site Operations) to effectively accomplish complex tasks in an effective and efficient manner. . Ever since the accident, the NRC (TMIPO) has kept abreast of GPU's cleanup efforts. It is in the interest of the public health and safety to remove the damaged core and complete the cleanup in a safe, efficient and prompt manner. During the NRC's review of the Submerged Demineralized System (SDS), the TMIP0 g became involved with GPU efforts to design, build and operate the system because of the safety aspects involved and the particular expertise in this area by those assigned to the Program Office. Hewever, we did maintain our 9
Page 2 of 31 , T. independence. in carrying out our regulatory functions, as evidenced by HRC
refusal for many months to approve the use of the SDS until we had met our NEPA responsibilities. The TMIPO was involved during GPU's development of the SDS procedures. The NRC oversight function reached to such'a degree that many times the NRC pointed out improvements and deficiencies in future designs and procedures before GPU management could assess the performance of their own organization to find and correct these issues on their own. In the fall of I 1981, Mr. ARNOLD verbally told me that my office was involving itst.lf too early b
in the review process; that GPU personnel involved in the SDS were more concerned with what the NRC was going to say about a particular issue than what GPU management said. Mr. ARNOLD also stated that the GPU personnel involved in the SDS had to learn from their own mistakes. Mr. ARNOLD said that intense NRC scrutiny of issues before top GPU management could make a decision undercut GPU management effectiveness. He said that although this intense early NRC scrutiny may have lead to short term improvements in GPU's performance, it was undesirable because it would detract from GPU's development and long term performance. I accepted Mr. ARNOLD'S criticism and agread that the NRC may have involved itself at to early a stage in some instances. I told Mr. ARNOLD that I would' let GPU work out their problems and find their own mistakes as long as it did not increase the risk to the public. As long as problems only involved future operations the NRC would generally not involve itself in internal GPU inter-actions. If the problem involved an immediate actual plant evolution, however, the NRC would act to prevent that action from occurring. I, therefore, revised my program to deemphasize NRC taking a firm position until GPU upper management ! had made a final decision en an issue. I instructed my staff to cnly intervene
Page'- 3 of 31 after GPU management made a final decision or if GPU was about to perform the
'h lperation of concern. I did not change,my policy that NRC staff members should ;
keep themselves well informed on GPU plans and engineering, and bring any of their concerns to the attention of their technical counterpa'rts within GPU. l f In accordance with the License Technical Specifications, GPU must obtain TMIPO l approval of all procedures that implement significant cleanup evolutions. In q 1982 I reviewed approximately 1,000 documents. We returned approximately ten 3 l
. percent of these requests unapproved to GPU because they did not meet my . . ,
]
l office's standards or because they needed clarification. During review of ) l these GPU requests I focused my staff resources on the technical safety risks -) I that the cleanup evolutions posed, e.g. risk of a radioactive release, loss of control, etc.. In general, my staff devoted most of their efforts on the safety G
- V merits of the proposal. I focused on the technical safety merits because I i;
felt this was the most effective use of my limited resources to best assure / I
-that cleanup operations would not pose an undue risk on the public health and safety.
l GPU was constantly working toward trying to improve their administrative procedures to integrate the multiple disciplines and organizations necessary to perform the cleanup. We at NRC pushed GPU via various methods, including I inspection reports and letters toward improvements in this area. We recognize,
]
however, that there was no easy prescription to organize a task as large and complex as the cleanup (which is similar in magnitude to a first time billion dollar construction job) with all the constraints of a licensed facility.
,Because of this complexity, I did not involve the TMIPO in the administrative details of their organization. I tried to allow GPU to work out their own
. l
O . Page 4 of 31 i
... 1 organization problems. I figured that if I deeply involved the NRC in GPU's L
internal administrative / organization. problems that it would not; serve any h a useful public good. In fact, I personally think that an external organization, such as the NRC, becoming deeply involved in the internal GPU organization would detract from rather than ' contribute to improvements. It was for-these reasons that I focused the majority of my resources on GPU's final product, i.e. safe cleanup operations, rather then get to deeply involved in their organizational / administrative problems. , In the fall of 1982, GPUN integrated the various Bechtel and GPU organizations into a single organization devoted to the cleanup of Unit 2. The NRC reviewed and approved this organization prior to implementation. Bahman KANGA, a Bechtel Corporation Vice President, became the Director of TMI, Unit 2. For practical purposes, Mr. KANGA is loaned to GPU, by Bechtel, and instructed to act as a GPU employee (e.g. he takes direction from Mr. ARNOLD). GPUN and Bechtel employees are integrated throughout the TMI-2 organization. In general, however, most of the Bechtel personnel are concentrated in the Recovery Programs Department and the GPUN personnel are concentrated in the ; Operations and Licensing / Safety Departments. ! It is my impression that the new organization reduced (but not eliminated) l interdepartmental squabbles and that cooperation and team work increased as a result of the reorganization. I also feel that the various aspects of the cleanup were advancing at an improved pace as a result of the organization change. I was aware of " differing opinions" between Site Operations and Recovery Programs on the polar crane, however, I considered these GPU internal O, affairs and intentionally did not involve the NRC in them. I considered it
.c Page 5 of 31 preferable that they generate an internal solution as opposed to having an h external solution from the NRC. In o.ther words, a self generated solution is generally better accepted then an externally forced solution. For example, when Mr. PARKS met with me on 2/25/83 I told him that the issues he was l bringing up were already being considered by GPU and the NRC. This is -
evidenced vy Mr. PARKS himself admitting to me that he wanted to wait for GPU's OA to complete their review of the administrative procedures AP 1047 and AP 1043. I said the NRC would focus on these polar crane issues when the procedures were submitted by GPU for approval. I said the polar crane procedures would be approved or disapproved based on the public health and safety risks that they presented. I will now provide general background briefings on items in the PARKS and GISCHEL Affidavits that are presented to me by Investigators VORSE and MEEKS. My briefing and my views are generic in nature and not intended to cover all aspects of a particular item or issue. ITEM OR ISSUES PRESE!iTED BY MR. VORSE AND MR. MEEKS:
- 1. On PARKS' comments that repeated quality deficiency reports (QDR's) were issued at TMI-2:
QDR's only come to NRC attention via audits or special reviews. Basically QDR's are an internal GPU self regulating tool to detect and correct deficiencies. TMIPO had not yet reviewed or audited these specific QCR's. O 9
--~__ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Page 6 of 31 - We would have satisfied ourselves on the matter before granting approval - to use the polar crane for significant ' lifts. My office had documented this as an unresolved item in TMI-2 Inspection Report 50-320/83-03, dated h'
'>I
. I March 14, 1983. I
- 2. On PARKS' comments relating to Site Operations not receiving Engineering direction on how to physically drain the steam generators:
Site Operations did receive Engineering assistance and the TMIPO signed off on the Special. Operating Procedure (SOP) for "Draindown of the B OTSG to RB sump." The TMIPO staff was aware of discussions between GPU Site Engineering and Site Operation (R. RYAN and R. PARKS) before a final decision on OTSG draindown was made. O-
- 3. On Recovery Programs attachment of UWI cover sheets to Bechtel work packages:
GPU must comply with the Technical Specification requirements for procedure approvals. Their administrative procedures recently implemented an administrative system called a Unit Work Instruction (UWI). As long as their system meets the Technical Specification requirements and produces quality products, we do not object. We realize that GPU has difficulties in integrating Bechtel, licensee personnel and others with various backgrounds, into a smoothly operating organizational / administrative system. The TMIPO focused or; the safety aspects of the work they proposed and planned to devote additional rescurces on the administrative aspects g of the UWI system. I had scheduled a full inspection of the UWI system l )
Page 7 of 31 for spring of 1983, i.e. a couple of months after the system had been implemented to allow GPU time to. work out "startup bugs." This inspection (}}) is now on hold because of this Investigation, e V. 4 On the conflict concerning the Containment Entry Program and Recovery Operations (RO) refusal to allow Site Operations (50) entry because the latter was not on the Two-week Look Ahead Schedule: It'is an NRC position that GPU preplan reactor building work and inform NRC of planned activities in the reactor building. GPU does this by preparing Twr-week Look Ahead Schedules, which are sent to the TMIPO. I do not require that the licensee adhere strictly to the Two-week Look Ahead Schedule. We recognize that changes do occur after the schedule is
/
.i ,) issued and accept just.ifiable verbal modifications to the schedule. The conflict that PARKS refers to between Recovery Programs and Site Operations on the containment entry schedule appears to have been a minor j power struggle squabble that NRC did not become involved in. l l t
- 5. On Jack DEVINE's memo which disclosed that there was 30 times more radiation under the Unit 2 reactor vessel head than had been previously estimated:
The original Quick Scan data indicated 600 R/HR local radiation levels on the top of the plenum. Since the Quick Scan involved only three probes, it is necessary to obtain additional data on radiation levels underneath n the vessel head in order to firm up plans for head removal. It is also (_) important to get this data as soon as possible in order to allcw the 9
---__._.-__________m
, Page 8 of 31 cleanup (core removal) to proceed. The importance of obtaining this underhead radiation data was discussed with Mr. KANGA. KANGA told me he would obtain the data expeditiously so that the cleanup planning could proceed. The investigations of the PARKS /GISCHEL allegations has signif.icantly delayed the GPU program to obtain the underhead data thereby also delaying subsequent cleanup planning. Mr. KANGA has told me that the h
data is important enough that he it developing a contingency plan to obtain the data without using the polar crane. Mr. PARKS implies .there was a "u;; stake" in the underhead radiation. This is not true. The program to obtain and evaluate data was proceeding as planned. Because radiation levels may be higher than originally hoped for is not a " mistake." The whole point of this program is to obtain data because there is no way.to calculate with any certainty what the actual radiation levels are.
- 6. On the PORC Chairman not requiring a review analysis on the hypothetical
'r blems of uncontrolled criticality in the reactor building sump:
In this instance Mr. PARKS is concerned that PORC (KUNDER) is to conserva-tive and made 50 (PARKS) add boron to the reactor building sump when 50 (PARKS) drained the steam generators. Mr. PARKS thinks that an analysis would automatically eliminate any criticality concern. I believe Mr. PARKS over simplifies the situation thinking 6 criticality analysis could totally eliminate the concern. All an analysis could conclude is that it takes varicus amounts of fuel (which depends on baron cc.'.cutration) to create a criticality problem in the cump. Even if this
/
Page 9 ~f o 31' , was done, there is no way to prove that these amounts do not exist () somewhere in~ the reactor building basement. I believe PORC (KUNDER) acted-responsibly:in requiring S0 to maintain 1700 PPM of baron in the sump.
- 7. On the requirement that 1700 parts per million boron has to be added to ,
all water that is added to the sump without doing analysis or calculations on this requirement: The 1700 PPM is based upon a comparison analysis as the historical' minimum sump boron concentration. The TMIPO accepted this figure for the control requirement based on an engineering judgement which the Program Office felt adequate. An incredible amount of fuel, without poisons, in the proper gee 1try has to be present in' order to have a safety problem with O 1700 PPM boron.
- 8. On PARKS' allegation that the load drop calculation on the missile shield had not been completed:'
i l l Mr. POINDEXTER, of the TMI Program Office in Bethesda, Maryland, went to . Bechtel in Gaithersburg on February 23, 1983, and confirmed the existence of load drop calculations on the missile shields. l
- 9. On the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the Underhead Characterization of the Reactor Vessel Head:
l L
Page 10 of 31 , The SER on the Underhead Characterization has not been submitted to TMIPO for approval.: Difficult issues h. ave to be considered in the SER and this will receive careful scrutiny by our office. .
/ On PARKS' allegation that none of the safety evaluation reports provided
\
- 10. !
calculations showing projections from the consequences of a load drop h under worse case conditions: GPU's SER addresses a missile shield drop. Generic criticality analyses have been done for the damaged TMI-2 core, however, they did not do a criticality analysis resulting from a dropped missile shield. The qualitative risk of dropping a missile shield causing a criticality event is being evaluated. I do not believe this presents an unacceptable public risk because of the following technical reasons: h
- a. The crane has a 500 ton rating and is lifting only a 40 ton shield
(<10% of its rating and <2% of its ultimate strength).
- b. The crane has been reviewed and inspected by multiple groups who have all concluded it is safe. This included independent review and personal inspection by a crane expert hired as a consultant by TMIPO (see question 27).
- c. Rigging cables are tested at loads well in excess of the actual load imposed by the shield.
O
'Page- '11 of 31
- d. The missile shield will be' lifted approximately 3 inches (not enough to clear the _ studs) to chec'k. the redundant brake systems. If failure occurs, the shield will slip down the studs and come safely to rest ;
back on the D-ring structure'with no damage resul' ting due to heavily l reinforced designs. - e.- -The height that the' shield is lifted will be controlled such that if I it falls while over the vessel, it will fall on to another niissile shield and the distance it falls will be such that the other missile
, shield will he strong enough to hold it (as shown in the Bechtel j b analysis, which was reviewed by TMIPO staff).
( l
- f. It is virtually impossible (four independent cables have to break in i a certain sequence while the shield is in a certain location) for the Q !
shield to fall down near' the reactor, but even if it did, the health j and safety of the public would still be maintained, as discussed j below.
- g. The shield is approximately 6 feet wide, 3 feet thick and ;
30 feet long. The covered annular open space between the reactor vessel and refueling canal floor is only 2 feet wide so a missile ; shield can not fall through intact.
- h. If fragments do fall through the 2 foot wide space, there is large !
RCS piping (14", 28", and 36" diameters) which should deflect or ; If this or any other RCS piping O absorb the energy of the fragments. fails, the core will still remain covered with berated water. 9 a . - - _ . . . . - _ _ _ - - - . - . - _ _
l - Page 12 of 31
- 1. If pieces fall past the piping they will fall down to the floor. The l incore instrument tubes are in a protected tunnel under 4 feet of ga reinforced concrete below the floor. _ Any piec.es that reach this position would not have enough energy to penetrat'e the 4 foot floor.
- j. Any fragments should come to rest on the floor at this point without contacting any instrument guide tubes. The bottom of the reactor vessel has the incore instrument tubes protruding down into the tunnel discussed above. The vessel bottom and instrument tubes are separated fro,m the floor area adjacent to the vessel (where fragments could theoretically have fallen in "i" above) by a 2 inch thick steel 4 skirt, which supports the reactor vessel.
- k. The 2 inch thick vessel skirt does have twelve 91 inch and sixteen h' 2 inch diameter holes spread evenly around its 52 foot circumference.
It is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, that a fragment could strike the floor and bounce back up and make a 90* angle turn and possibly enter through one of these holes. The energy of one of these fragments would have to be greatly reduced after striking I surfaces and making these directional changes. -
- 1. Even if a fragment possibly enters through one of these holes, it should not have enough energy to be a hazard to the instrument guide tubes because of its small mass and reduced velocity.
O _ _ - - _ -- - 1
Page 13 of 31
- m. . Even if a fragment strikes a guide tube, the tube should be able to- i These.are double extra. heavy wall stainless.
O. withstand the impact. I steel pipes (3/4" schedule 160 with a 0.219. wall thickness). Although these tubes' were submerged in the basement water for over two years, we do not expect significant. degradation (corrosion}. The water in the. basement was relatively non-corrosive from a chemical [ viewpoint. For example, the chloride content was only 11 PPM which i.
'. is similar to ordinary drinking water. Radioactivity'in the water does not degrade stainless steel as Mr. PARKS implies.
( n. Even if a guide tube were to leak, there would not be detectable off-Seven pumps exist (three standby pressure control site consequences. system pumps; two mini-decay heat pumps.and two decay heat pumps) to add borated water to the core.
- o. Even if all the water was drained out of the reactor vessel, there would probably not be any recriticality. The water in the primary system is borated to prevent criticality. If the core were i completely drained, there would be no water to moderate the fast neutrons and the reactor would not be critical. The only possibility for criticality exists during the transient draindcwn period where, theoretically, condensed water vapor (without boron) could form from the decay heat causing a potential criticality problem. This is-most f improbable because the core decay heat is less than 30 kw (approxi-mately 30 home toasters), however, it is very difficult to analytically prove that something is impossible. In my judgement, i
this is practically impossible. 9
Page 14 of 31 4 *
;- p . Even if any of the above were to occur, .the reactor building would be-isolated to protect' the public.
Based on items "a" through "p" acove, I believe this is not an unaccepta-ble public health and safety risk. *
- 11. In reference to the Safety Evaluation Report on the Polar Crane Load Test and'Ed GISCHEL's comments contained in his February 10, 1983 n o..o :
I do not technically agree with Mr. GISCHEL's interpretation of the ANSI
- i. .. standards. If all standards were applied like Mr. GISCHEL's interpreta-l l
tion, the cleanup' would last at least 25 years without any improvement in public health and safety. I don't think Mr. GISCHEL understands the overall cleanup public risk situation. In my opinion, he is' penny wise .O I and dollar foolish. Mr. GISCHEL's judgement errs far too much in requiring extra tests which do not produce real reductions in public risk from TMI. His extra tests may reduce the absolute risk of a crane problem but they would cause delays in defueling/ core inspection and increases in occupational radiation exposure. This results in actually increasing ' public and worker risk far in excess of any risk reductions associated with the polar crane. I believe if Mr. GISCHEL fully understood the crane situation, he would have a different position. It may be that he was never given the opportunity to completely understand the overall safety aspects of the crane and the repercussions of his stand on this issue. O l>
.- Page 15: of '31 "~ 12. On PARKS' allegation concerning GPU sending the Polar Crane SER to NRC for ; 7 approval without Site Operations ,(50) review: 1 4
Tech Spec 6.8.2 refers to procedures and not safety evaluation reports. To my knowledge, there .is no requirement for 50 to approve submittals to !' the NRC. i
- 13. PARKS' allegation that upper management refused to accept 50's comments on the Polar Crane Load Test Procedure:
I do not know what upper management did with 50. comments that were generated by Mr. PARKS (page 20 of PARKS Affidavit). Mr. PARKS told ~me in our meeting on 2/25/83 that Recovery Programs was not following AP 1043/ AP 1047. I told him that this issue was being internally resolved by GPU
.- and that the NRC would not get involved at this time. Mr. PARK 5, himself, stated that QA was reviewing this issue and that he did not desire a special NRC investigation and that he wanted to wait until the results were in from the new QA/QC review.
13a. PARKS discussion of the turnover process for the polar crane (bottom of page 25 of PARKS Affidavits): This is an acceptable method to handle the administrative aspects of a functional test. On the fact that the Test Working Group (TWG) had not reviewed any testing Q 14. since September of 1982:
Page 16 of 31 I'm not sure there was any testing that the TWG had to review in that period. The NRC has not specifically irtspected the TWG activities since September 1982 and therefore I cannot comment on their activities. Since Mr. PARKS initially came to the NRC, I have learned that Recovery Programs classified polar crane tests as construction tests which could be performed prior to turnover to 50. This administrative approach would be the same as that described by Mr. PARKS on page 25 of his affidavit. l
- 15. On layoff or suspension procedures of GPU Nuclear: I I
I have no particular knowledge of GPUN procedures on layoff and suspensions. I do remember a telephone call which relates to the suspension. of Mr. KING. In the afternoon of 2/24/83 I received a call from Mr. ARNOLD, ; GPUN President, and Philip CLARK, GPUN Vice President. Messrs. ARNOLD and. l CLARK asked me why NRC staff members were questioning GPU personnel, including Mr. KING, about the polar crane. (This was Joel WIEBE asking questions and obtaining information relative to Mr. PARKS' initial concern of 2/18/83.) They asked me if this was an official investigation, IE inspection, or technical review. I said none of the above and that the NRC was gathering information on NRC safety concerns to determine if additional tiRC action is warranted. Mr. ARNOLD asked why we were talking to Mr. KING. I said we were obtaining information from several responsible GPU managers, including Messrs. THIESIliG, KIf4G, and others. h He asked if we were investigating kit 1G. I said no. He asked if I had
Page 17 of 31 i ever heard'of "Quiltec." 'I said no'. He said that he had just heard that ' KING may be president of a consulting company called Quiltec, which was i t] hiring away GPU engineers. He said that if it was true, he was going to
~
take personnel action against Mr. KING. I said the present NRC activity I had nothing to do with Quiltec or Mr. KING specifically, and that the KING /Quiltec issue sounded like a GPU internal personnel problem which did not involve the NRC. This ended the phone call. At 7:00 PM that evening, I received a phone call at home from Mr. WIEBE that Mr. KING had been suspended.
- 16. On PARKS' allegation concerning possible safety issues that should be considered by the GPUN Blue Ribbon Readiness Review Committee (RRC) on the Polar Crane:
. l The RRC was a special " extra" review that GPU did on its own to assure polar crane safety. Consequently, I am not sure what they had to consider. I assume the RRC looked at the adequacy of the proposed tests which appears to be the main concerns of PARKS /GISCHEl.. We acknowledge the special GPU review, but we will rely on our own independent judgement and that of our expert consultant in taking regulatory actions on the polar crane.
J -
- 17. On TMIPO reviewing GPU drafts and other documents:
I assign a lead safety reviewer to stay abreast and be fully knowledgeable O of the technic.el issues end other espects of a pert 4cuier c,eenup evolution. I want the THIPO engineers to know the issues of a particular O m__________-_-_____.___._.______.__
Page 18 of 31 , system as they relate to safety from cradle to grave; which means attending planning and tech'nical meetings with GPU engineers and reviewing all documents that pertain to the evolution that they receive. This includesDOEreports, industry (EEI,EPRI.etc.)repor$sandlicensee reports both draft and finals. If a reviewer sees an area of concern, he is to communicate that concern to his technical counterpart in GPU. It doesn't matter what . document created that concern. These communications are usually verbal or sometimes hand written notes in tt 3 margin of the document he is reviewing. I have encouraged technical interchanges between GPU and NRC staffs. I believe these interchanges improve my staff's understanding of the issues and improves the quality at the NRC's l eventual safety decisions (to approve or reject a request). I have from time tc time told Mr. ARNOLD and Mr. KANGA that my staff should have full access to all information regarding cleanup plans and cleanup evolutions. $ This generally includes access to draft GPU .Neuments (e.g. procedures). By monitoring as many aspects of GPU's cleanup effort as we can, I can. better respond in the public's interest. For example, I was concerned with the decrease in quality of GPUN work on the drain down of the reactor coolant system, which came to my attention early on in the process as a result of NRC engineer to GPU engineer contact. I po'inted out the deficiencies to Mr. KANGA and explained that if the quality did not improve I would take regulatory action on GPUN's poor quality procedures.
- Later on I had to disapprove some of these procedures (with documentation in Inspection Report 50-320/83-03) because GPU was unable to respond to the verbal warnings. h
-- - - _ _ . _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
Page 19 of 31-
~
~
. Messrs.SNYDER,DENTON,andIbelieveChajrmanPALADINO,wereawareofthe Q- involvement of.my staff in all phases.of the cleanup including my staff's technical review of draft documents. The possibility exists that some l licensee personnel interpreted the lack of a' TMIPO ' comment in a particular area on a draft as being synonymous with TMIPO approval; and then used this interpretation of TMIPO approval as a means of soliciting. concurrence from others within GPU, e.g. Site Operations. This is wrong and if I was aware of this abuse, I would have taken steps t'o stop it.
.y I believe 'I can best fulfill' my public duties by keeping my staff involved in the early stages (draft) of planning a particular cleanup evolution. I hope that this. investigation does not change this philosophy.
O 18. On the CHWASTYK/ PARKS memo on' 3/1/83 recommending that the Test Work Group-review of all testing performed to date:
-I believe this is part of the AP-1043/AP-1047 applicability issue. As I told Mr. PARKS on 2/25/83, this issue was being addressed by GPU 1
internally and I would not involve NRC until GPU had itself decided what { 1 was appropriate. This controversy was not putting the public at risk l because the polar crane was not being used for significant lif ts and that I would not permit it to be used for significant lifts until this issue and several others were resolved.
- 19. On the Polar Crane Refurbishment estimate, originally set at 5 to 10 O million and since established at 2.5 million:
Page 20 of 31 , The polar crane estimate in 1981 was originally based on the worse case condition. Later, when detailed. inspections of the polar crane were conducted, the damage was determined not to be as great as originally l l anticipated so the estimate was reduced accordingly. 'I believe that the ! l polar crane refurbishment cost will probably be less than the 2.5 million.
- 20. On the Readiness Review Committee and whether the structural nature of the crane, hook, and cable are covered by QA/QC: ,
)
h This possibly shows PARKS' limited knowledge on this aspect of the polar crane. The cable was inspected extensively and a sample was sent to a meta! 'rgical laboratory for detailed analysis. The hook was fully inspected by QC with a non-destructive test. These inspections and analyses indicated that the cable and hook was satisfactory for their intended service.
- 21. On PARKS' remarks concerning KUNDER as the mystery man:
Vic STELLO and John CRAIG probably know more about the mystery man issue than anyone in NRC. However, in my opinion, KUNDER is technically very astute and a stickler for details. He exerts a conservative influence in his area of responsibility and knows the inner-workings of TMI-2 as well as anybody. PARKS may have had a grudge against KUNDER because PORC (KUNDER) sometimes rejected PARKS' procedures.
- 22. On the TMIP0 approval of the 5 ton hoist:
O.-
21 of~ 31 Page TMIPO has approved the use of the 5 ton hoist for necessary lifts of weights considerably below 5 tons, The hoist will be principally'used to lift steel beams and supports weighing up to a few thousand pounds. The first time GPU tried to use the hoist, it.did not function and I called a meeting on February 24 to.have GPU explain why the hoist did not work. I also wanted to test the safety precautions that GPU was implementing on the use of the hoist. Mr. THIESING explained that the hoist didn't function the first time due to a power supply problem (phase sequence),
1 which was easily corrected. TMIPO's safety concerns were met and the use of the.5 ton hoist,was allowed to continue with NRC approval on a case-by-case basis. . 2
- 23. On the QA' findings that the polar crane modifications were deficient and O would resuit in e coa:
TMIPO has not seen these documents. We have not because of this investigation. Possibly, QA wa not pleased with the administrative aspects of THEISING's method of operation. If,-in fact, QA was contemplating a stop-work order then this was an indication that in this case the site's QA was viable and functioning. -
- 24. On PARKS' concerns on the No Load Test Procedures with respect to the timit Switches and the Dummy Fuses:
TMIPO did approve the No Load Test Procedure. I am not sure that GPU ever O 4nteneee the No toed Test to check the limit switches. If the No toed Test did not exercise the switches, then they will have to be adjusted and 9
1 Page 22 of 31 .l tested before the load test. It is my understanding that the No Load Test Procedure was under Recovery Programs and thus would not involve or Eventually,however,SiteOperations(TWG)would hA require TWG approval. have to either accept the Recovery Program test or perform their own test. Technically, the crane appears to be safer with dummy fuses because this change (which was recommended by the crane manufacturer) reduces the possibility of " single phasing" the crane which could possibly overheat ) the motors and prevent the brakes from setting. However, because of this investigation, we have not studied these issues in detail.
- 25. On the TMIPO correspondence to the licensee in early March concerning in-consistencies and low quality procedures in the draindown of the reactor coolant system:
O-As I have previously mentioned, I had already spoken to KANGA on February 16th about Site Operations and Recovery Programs not working together and was concerned that the quality of work was substantially degrading. These difficulties resulted in subseouent NRC disapproval of the reactor coolant draindown procedures.. This was documented in our Inspection Report 50-320/83-03. -
- 26. PARKS' concern that the 5 ton hoist should be written, performed and evaluated as a test procedure:
This appears to me to be the same issue as to which department, e.g. Recovery Programs or Site Operations, has jurisdiction. g
Page 23 'of 31 l
- 27. On Blaine BALLARD's 2/23/83 memo on the Polar Crane Safety Evaluation, h wherein BALLARD said the load test should qualify the same length of cable )
that'would be required for the head lift; and the load testing of the l 1 i fabricated load test frame, prior to the polar crane load test, should be ) addressed as have other rigging components: - Regarding the first issue, possibly a semantics problem exists concerning what one means by qualifying the pola,r crane cable. I think everyone agrees that the cable should be quali.fied, but the details of the qualification is what differs. The TMIPO is reviewing the polar crane safety evaluation and will probably be satisfied with the proposed cable test. This is based in part on recommendations by NRC's outside expert crane consultant, Tom STICKLEY, of EG&G Idaho, who stated that load O testing the same length of the cable that will be required for the head i lift is not necessary, according to requirements of ANSI Standard B30.2. Mr. STICKLEY is highly qualified, e.g. Chairman of ASME Committee on Cranes for Nuclear Facilities, member of the ASME Board of Nuclear Codes - and Standards, author of DOE's Hoisting and Rigging Manual, and past member of the ANSI B30 Committee (the parent committee of B30.2). Concerning the second matter mentioned by BALLARD, the cables of the test rig are load tested. The steel beams in the frame are not load tested but are stress analyzed in detail (see GPU letter to NRC dated 1 March 15,1983). It is not industry practice to load test steel beams. It is my impression that BALLARD wanted these issues addressed and did not take a position that GPU's overall technical plans were n6t adequate. O 9
Page ,, 24 of 31
- 28. On the memorandum for Design Engineering to Recovery Operations on the installation of dummy fuses:
g) . It appears that PARKS believes that Recovery Programs'did not follow the site Engineering Change Memorandum (ECM) process on this matter. He may be correct, but we haven't looked at this because of this investigation.
- 29. On PARKS' concern that the Polar Crane Functional Description was reviewed A and approved only by Bechtel:
KANGA signed the Functional Description and sent it on to TMIPO, where it was approved. PARKS apparently thinks that Site Operations has to approve all GPU documents. This is not an NRC requirement. This was one more example of the continuing power struggle that was occurring between Recovery Programs and Site Operations.
- 30. On the crane maintenance and inspection check list which PARKS felt was ambiguous:
I don't know what PARKS is referring to because I have not seen the GPU internal memorandum he refers to. The NRC did send several guidance . documents to GPU in a letter in April of 1982, which based on our review to date have been followed adequately.
- 31. On ECM S-1017:
O
.+
Page 25 of- 31-The first time I became aware o'f the welding cable / power cable issue was b when PARKS' mentioned ECM S-1017 in his affidavit. ECM S-1017 is not an issue that requires NRC pre-approval as specified in Tech Spec 6.8.2 and therefore the NRC would not preapprove this ECM. We would, however, have received a copy of the ECM. Mr. STICKLEY conducted the polar crane' inspection in January. He stated that everything looked good except for a couple of items he wanted to analyze further, one of those being the supports for the power cable. This was documented in our Inspection
- Report 50-320/83-03. STICKLEY still owes a report on the inspection done in January. -
It is probable that the GPU SER does not discuss details as minor as 2/0 welding cable being used in place o,f 2/0 power cable. Although I have not O researched this, I believe that welding cable may be as good as power cable and not a safety problem at all. Our resolution of this item is on hold pending your investigation. 1
- 32. On PARKS' approval of the Load Test Procedure based on technical content only:
Evidently this refers to PARKS' belief that he could not really identify anything technically wrong with the Load Test Procedure. He believes that it was not adequate from an administrative viewpoint.
- 33. On SNYDER's comments in the letter to GPUN which approved the Functional Description of the Polar Crane, wherein it was stated that QA/QC has been e
Page 26 of _ 31 involved at all stages of the refurbishment process in addition to NRC staff: . Basically this part of the letter just confirms what GPU committed to in their 2/17/83 letter. Bechtel has a QA/QC staff in Gaithersburg and the site QA/QC goes to Gaithersburg and audits Bechtel QA/QC.
- 34. On BARRETT's disapproval of the Operating Procedures:
PARKS misinterprets the approval of the functional description and disapproval of the procedures for the polar crane as being contradictory. The functional description defines the condition of the crane after the repairs are completed. The procedures are the operational steps to safely use the crane. These are different documents and each will be judged on their own merits in relation to safety, as they are submitted to the Program Office.
- 35. On submitting NRC drafts to ARNOLD /KANGA:
The TMIPO does not submit drafts of NRC documents, e.g. inspection reports, to GPU for " editing and comments." The NRC does often communicate its concerns to GPU via multiple pathways to assure prc:'ot attention by GPU. An example is GPU's performance with the reactor coolant draindown procedures. In early February, my staff reviewed GPU drafts of the procedures and they told their GPU technical counterparts that they were poor quality and pointed out specific technical O deficiencies. I verbally told Mr. KANGA that the procedures were of poor
Page 27 of 31 quality and that GPU should take corrective actions. Later I formally disapproved the procedure. After a staff review, we decided that the ! deficiencies were significant enough that this should be included in our monthly inspection report. Consequently.this subject was included as item ! number 8 in Inspection Report 50-320/83-03, dated 3/14/83. - 1 j i As I have previously stated I have encouraged my staff to keep informed of 1 GPU's cleanup plans as they develop. This often involves my staffs ) reading of draft GPU documents. I have also told my staff that if they I have concerns w.ith a draft they have read, they should communicate the l concerns directly to a cognizant GPU engineer. This usually resulted in ; GPU being aware of NRC concerns before they reach a formal NRC correspord-ence stage. NRC staff members have infrequently discussed NRC documents ! O (including final drafts) to clarify NRC concerns to the licensee. These , discussions are not to obtain GPU concurrence on the documents. For example, in late 1982 GPU requested a licensee amendment to revise their I non-radiological environmental monitoring. In subsequent discussions between GPU and NRC, NRC staff members stated that we would not accept some of the requested reductions. In these disc'ussions NRC staff members showed the licensee near final drafts so that GPU couid modify their contracts because the non-radiological contract was up for renewal. In general, however, NRC reviews draft GPU documents but GPU does not review , i draft NRC documents. l l
- 36. On Bechtel's attempt to gain approval from GISCHEL on safety related O Pi Peiine:
Page _ 28 of 31-I am not aware of the pipel-ine that Mr. GISCHEL is referencing. If he has a problem, I wish he would be specffic so it can be resolved. This is a vague generality. I believe there will be a lot of discussions on the classification of systems. The present GPU system classification is based primarily upon pre-accident conditions. Actual plant conditions are quite different and systems classifications should be changed accordingly. I expect some systems to be downgraded, e.g. high pressure coolant infection, while new systems, e.g. defoeling, will be added. 1
- 37. On the Times Article concerning traces of Cesium 137 in the Gate 7 septic tank:
O.. The traces of Cesium 137 are so minimal that it meets EPA drinking water standards for radioactivity. In my opinion, this issue was brought up just to excite public emotions.
- 38. On GISCHEL's comments that the Modifications Control Staff may be removed from Plant Engineering (Site Operations) control: -
I am not aware of any GPU plans to do this. It doesn't surprise me that j GPU is looking into ways to imp, rove their present system. The NRC l position is that GPU must have adequate control over modifications. The method employed by GPU management, e.g. Plant Engineering or some other
. .: Page 29' of ~31
- $ group within GPU, to' control. modifications is not the NRC's primary concern. We focus on the performance of the function, not which group D,
performs the function.
- 39. On GISCHEL's concerns that Site Operations was not included in the review cycle or not involved until the eleventh hour:
This appears to rae as an internal squabble within GPU. Site Operations apparently wanted to check all calculations on various procedures or they would not approve.them. They felt they did not have enough time to go into the detail that they (50) thought appropriate. If GISCHEL is right or wrong depends upon what GPU management expected 50 to do. If they expected a complete engineering design review or engineering design verification then 50 would need a substantial amount of time. If they only expected a coordination against existing plant conditions, licensee requirements, procedures etc., then 50 would need less time. I do not < know for sure what GPU management expected of 50. I do believe that KING thought that 50 should perform detailed engineering reviews of what was prepared by Recovery Programs. I base this belief on an informal conversation several months ago when KING told me that he did not trust the Bechtel engineers (e.g. THIESING) and that the present i situation was similar to a previous situation that he had been in. He proceeded to tell me that before he came to GPU he had a senior position at tne River Bend Nuclear Station, working at Gulf States Utilities (GSU). l l STONE and WEBSTER (! W) was the Architect Engineer for River Bend and had designed the liquid radwaste system which would eventually be turned over e u.___________.-__
Page 30 of 31
**l to KING to operate. KING said his opinion was that the system was not adequately designed and attempted,to have his subordinates review S&W home office design calculations. He said this work was . terminated by top GSU j
management because they said it was S&W's responsibility to design the systems correctly and his (KING's) job was to concentrate on. plant - 4 operations and not to spend resources rechecking S&W's design. King did not agree with this decision and strongly implied to me that this was a l significant factor in his leaving GSU. ,
- 40. On Larry KING's comments to Investigator Christopher on 3/2/83, about an 3 ECM for level indication not being issued on the Draining.of the Steam Generator:
I do not know all the details on this matter, but the TMIPO did approve g' the operating procedures to perform the draindown. Phil GRANT handled this matter and he would have to comment on the level indicator and draindown procedure. , l
- 41. On Larry KING's comments to Investigator Christopher on 3/2/83 that KING's disagreement on the Polar Crane Load Evaluation Report was the final i catalyst on his suspension for conflict of interest:
KING and PARKS admit that KING is President of Quiltec and that several key GPUN personnel left GPUN to go work for Quiltec. I understand this is why KING was terminated from GPU. I do not believe he was terminated because of his disagreement on the Polar Crane SER. gt
- '. Page 31- of _31
.I - I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 31 typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the
$ margin of each page. I swe-3r that the foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signed on Pr/<y rc, /9FT at /07er .
'( da t'e ) (time)
SIGNATURE: . v 1 Subscribed and sworn before me this ',Q6T day of y , 19 /t? ,
/ i at 771Z dL Y 0 .
INVESTIGATOR: [ ~ l j ynie] . WITNESS: (Name & Title) l l O l l l l l O .
,.e L . NEW YORK TIMES - MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1983 Page 1 Of 3
" DEPOSITION EXHIBIT meets 17 Ll/l /57 N"3 J k .L
$Y Jb$ 1 1
Engineers at 3 MileIsland Cite d Waste and SafetyThreats
. By RIOIARD D.LYONS . $P P
- ammeones==sinnum 9 MIDDLETOWN Pa., March TF Four esmeers who have paredpated, i in salvage efforts at the Three MDe la. l Insd audear plant here have amusried shat minumanagement at the El hGuse runevery program has wasted alukuus O. af dollars. posed new thrusts to safety l I
and delayed cleanup operances har ! years. In public stataments and prtvase to. tarviews the engtmeers, wtno tachade the terumar mis operaones meanser for the plast's aperstar, have enusp&atand that landership and directhm have base lacknag. that prenasts ahma safery prob. hans and vioiauses hs= hem ismared j and that Federal hads have hem spent i eut af mR propernas so the rundts l actdeved. ' The charges came on the eve of the fearth aantversary W the aceklant a the taland to the Senna Rtver hers, the worst ta the nadan's cretuna Enclear ptmer program. where casamup upersuans are sdneduled to caucanas ter at least Bye enore yumrt with the cast al. ready ever EB0 milucuL OfBetals of time -W tuvelved ! m in=ver, that the esamesp
. opersoon was gesag abend safety and .
as cruickly as pomutble, considertag the __. g _x7 g the prutnesma. The arScials M hatt there had been delays la inscruting a arw man-iternent rystern that was adoptad last f"w==ad sa Page S18. Catmune 1 Ox s q
< l i
- Page 2 Of 2 l 6-NIM YORK UMES - MONDAY, MARCH 28, 1983 I
.o' i
! 'A Dead Eamphams'
- a ruatand try the e5813mer A sortes af hrs ==*g==== and tuan.
.* ammar to ahaw that cancerns for saf ary 4 muuy is law som aswe emuuruumed amt
. Cumammad Press Pass 1 how h.s uprimed repentadly for at j me nesteamt . Mare 3. IMt. was least a yumr by tamme direc:::.ng the enamed by a ammhanatten af Imanas arrier. defective Procuewus, paar es. simame of "the ded siephant." as t.se hi1. They amid the changes brought artspied renesar a r=m == cong :
, amam as as rundt af the use program age, and tenairy matarsals . the part af hurt ,
8, wenid annamar past and marrent one. ,- the hatidsrs er me plaat and Its equip. As as = =v6= Mr. tung en N ,. g, smaat, and the utallry swalog and aperst. piahms shout ma=====g====r and es. tag st. la Jammary, r.sensral Puddle Utis. , IEER. sent a letter to Jens J. Bart tus
. emastve anna. laandlatssup S
daisys . ses monspiad e,s.T mallies.sortlement. . -.erter was is orputy aita
.ag -t -
"lavesugstlans
. .d -,,. tegu a h,ary lt
-- == m.
, ma,. .ma.n.sh s r.,..
Me C
.ty,
-a. Wr. a.- -r a.e - ,,,
- how amtrisamad a manchs. mW r, ,,e , e, mm,y ,,,e, man ensum ist ens being trucaso aus
,,, s, mandmasgr ame,iad :=mip-.-e mey o.f tena,.
plas.tegnand,das. peed of by maham
. R,ahert u . umArm.eid. m nu a pre.sha C P.r aa. af G.h,,- oral . a,.de . A wr
. ., m.ts iav.-
which spmatas the piant. *' hut we be. Fede, huvudgadan tuumi en es ma8ad:,tnan replymach I d.*t send triumaMr.mem &armo troen
,lieve est.with mm- - -
s as a.Pasw management . .m, ht, s.r.
- N,uclew v. Regenary ,:::;- s":l'.:: r===*a=ed.r.,
tm'"t. x. aaga.a
= eg.,,'w m
,as n,,a ;=st, e,m ,::: m :mi ,
_ h. w. . mm.,aggi.ediss.a.k. d mg .. . d,,y73 g,:;;La,
,s Mon i d ,,am
=
. - -,-smg w- ~w eenam r as . a.d e ,. mas. am a,-
i .g = =a.at s e . ao ingai a mt.d -t t, owr rM ,uMmo, .... . . . t am .r ~
,,, ma
- osuu nage,,,,G .a, Cs,.r .:.dust,
.s s M, d M . as .utr- had -
same a safery usues. r uesta.s w a annuma of redeemmeve g,,,,,3,,, c,,,gg,, - veser essaped sress es . Each of es sour .gissers saad they Mr. Kaas was discharged trum his .
- passpins. smussag tems of ihammeds were afesepry pse,a.cerned shout tam nar ry
. WI,Wh+ year peninsa a mental ass . p to fios aos area la asush.esusrel { af a poses af aqwpassa cated a pa I SAs counp&ataang absut lack of safety areas, watch aparates tanuts the renc.
.. A ^ amar Earfleiners.
' The aanstang aR af satsey pusups kn. sur butidaag.
- and mismanagement sur alaanst a year.
The purpass af the crsas a to hft off a O(- Richard D. Parks. an engsamer wttk ~ ,,,mdag as asket wasar tese es reemer the Decanal Carperstaan, the prians sum. is the esem af as necedent ist is ears as Imas maml tap of the reacsor sad :amn tractar fear the cismaup efforts, alas was evertunatang insnes the fusi ==aa ====8 to llR ma the emet.sa. the 40.2m r r.s
. mased fItut tas pautaan last went and 'gessel and a partial mettag af the urse. that make up the urassum $ sea e erwru seem fuelshumassa. .and the derness that smuros tas al.rrac piaced 9 lasse after maanag slanilar rensess.
. charges -
The engiamars and the crarw was
.. "The aparettas is disorganiand and at " damnamed na the accubset try an esp.o.
7" aald Mr. Parts., To mederusare their protest shout the times L.. , lack af sancura ter safesy, hath Mr. man af byttrugen gas an use tas riac .r.
"There is a surtsus ladt af courtalastnam xing and Mr. Parks ===taataad that Farmer.ary snac, taas q ca.mme
* . barwean toestat. G.P.U.N.. the assen. the man who artierud the puunps turned -
tractors. and the Federal ag.cnes ta. vedved hers. the Nuckest Ragulasary off. These they adL=innad as Geort'
- 1py as ecssearrtas annaang af 800 no f =a mia=um and the Depa#1mem af i Kunder. Is now e director of the Safety gauens of water as the floor af tbs :n 4 Revtew Group. wtucti eversons all hg )ed to the rusca g of asec ncaa em
- Earrgy " trol aqwpment. The cnte %as tam Corporate officials charactertand Mr. Issues partaanang to heanstle and dam.
.r ger.
roomcAuamed as a cast at nr.um King as somaans wtic "was act a tamm la na affidavit filed with a Congree. Imm dadata.
======t
- player." wtals 4aret to e6saal ====== Mass Caanssunas la about Kr. Pstts. pendaag a rewmar of
' has e., -~ a +== latarier and inmaar Attairs try Mr.
Two ingh.ievet =mra==s wtne also Parks, and ta suasequent tatarviews. hath Mr. Paths and Mr. King adspuhed were internewed rwtarstad the muun. of Mr. Klag and Mr. Psrts, add. Mr. Omdur as, la the wares of Mr. that they were a the verre of quit. Parma. "ths mysary man wtio artiered ttng because af the tr.astntaans they; tasMr. aalery tnjecrJan gsamps turnad aff." Arents. the prammeritt W the Gen. wars tunnag trytag as ;sma inrward l arul Puhite it:111: ass Jhla :* " Casw=*a. wuh cleamp p l th roertad test the assasstaus that g og g W { Mr
'1 maru. ms oftKasesar was " ant trarested the unaan 3 mumps TD taEtr4m 181m1
' **; the Mr, Aragni sad that hit. Eaaldt stamars havs amaamma -suss af "cmiainly was savolved la the escssem pages cd inssacs. JLam.1sttars, as map taas reac:a cachat pumps."
r? ports asist eher wman materians wtuck are differsat trwe the maan 0:str assw* pumps. tas that t'us had been dans at ( that Dm8-stasy aud,'h accortsance vita othe:al prucadures V nesth m agam M :sn Mr. Ecder deraad the nuegauan. O Han tbo safety and cocms _n:s uns Aey maggtstaan that I wse at tauit :.s to.
. saraar ;r:ww 1:xhartr7 a4 : = , w*nani
- taQ
- he sad.
we goa r- an dar.: s cam us, Wartts mad c:sta. All fcur W the acC ===g - a r-.y the J2ri;ha.53 and 12#7 rwt f AW:3 e@.
.srs ;it .1uc;ent power v m for:n:7 tas.
favid = .c mary sat nl:an,
" Tbs C:mant =maas paagn.an here L_____________________________.___________.______ _ i
J .
~
L . Page 3 ef 3 4 Tessmg Caned Imadmaysens one engiamar who anW he ed as
< i. sians e, of thm ,unesar is ansended was to be gemas try name wrerus, as A.um hinche of camcrum, as to put la as asa m phs er w assatul , the the hann at the runesar, the mais aAss at wtaf W & gate h a armed a the tiemmy operspous, es poiar creas tempersry samtes taak kir W
' aus be imod reymasadly, resonsstve embrts, mund as laserts
"!! tes erans packs up arther the ama. Westa Staging umsida.
esens biases er une maal hand, thus taals "'There was a 16.anut Me Cyutses ammehse and drupo them. tas poems Amusa wWet aneded a pse." he anM. preenbey wanW ran m ens samr aroussa " Bad Idans ths )st araumd my hemme R the runsaar. whaca is strows wie Impas might have cast NDB. ha this me east otla les8 as etessa Hamil" 2.88. W 51.W k matetals.
"samar m'eto nas r."futginal am.= he n. - ,54l",*,3l;,=. ' a5=fr =s'==-
aan, es cuenas
- aff at water as the reassmr." he added. ,
Es maad if mandt as ancadmus ed esser. "Everytudy base chaut R.-t tem a j thers saight he aesther userheattag af basame as amersmans ) mise." he addet, es sure af the ruoane. wenst only Is. " hist the paast ts thiere are lume af ammus asumans the demand that taas he made kha that in whican ahnard ammmes af af tht tasagnty af as crema. Es austssag usuary are spent." These anagn. esy had ast hema unada. I thusaswelve af enGars spas e One mamastag supstr of the creas smalf, par essa psy. dammie aer. Paras' "" **88 m nasanal empterum amm. Amus, partr9y amtynd to the spenum.
-rhare as as we, to brtag la a 115. ems sustgs made af the summer ap.
misse of meant and have es suas Inca 88"5
- F'a'ed and Mr.
Idr. Arum k ty as a test." this angemer saad. *3s smW ther the mest best stung is a simulauma a em usem af the aban ata . sensa a armas snuse is med as ama sus asammafaspame parts amid m a3 W ass. sans _ the armas's afuas power. The s.usnes of last, a pened etna ahms m saume es creas sempty a saadapsia.
"I des ** huse if as canons d sanwu bans a t,se er ens in ass.ma prudens
'"n ima
.,es,g ,s
u,'msF ef g g *"*"arm **
,e.
.m- e .mia issong. -me as ma anodset, if a ed emeur, would cause se,g ,,n m aJeem immes
,,g,.,,s .,,,,,,,,,,,g
,' ammher wa,y.,", , , , , , , tar. Et,us was pense es remaiar to unds tema is l me damagn." ,,, e, ,,,,,,, y,,ge,, ,,,, e, ,,,,,
agem saad. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,in,,,,,,,,,,,, campesy aspeTessang Adesesse ; ses man warning eight hears a day, ese , 4 A typenal mens ahmut the creas and : . days a week. Ier B ousha." Ahsist M tes pruWesas was seus as Feh. II.1851. man af vartmus r=- are wwheng trass E. E. G&achat, the p6 ass engaser., ' at es runswy spursuasi. Ang eressar. to Mr. Kang. It stated. Mr. Elag tusanad that en laset af S.
"The pa6ar crans land tem assary svam. romans prucsuded any essmat at ereur anan s amesmucany unacampiants sur haleng esen mesmess e semas tems piac mg a simmunes.- -*-m= est wumed have as is as.
88 '
/ Mr. Ring amad' lis had' ressynd" uis' i b"c"amm'sudag as the gemal maps.
meus as ans mapunars ahes wie ans 1 88 M 8 swa man.sauess m.t,,m. sham t.he m.m.u,,, safety of the ! 8"* *' '"" 's" amp'8"fma' e^n' had ydandMr. r. - not huse tahat and the salary of the muy aseem u m daisynd whGs crans was a uan suu unmarwnd. "*8'8 8 *PP' eval bus senssais of as A.X.C.', whos shers klaged an Aseauses Mr. and Mr. W ss.ad, buro-, . *ad she issal seausses kreassa ny 1 sour, thns ibe ersas wedd he ad. arvatary estad amoer a prueeni tha /*",,'_7,, ,;,, eg
)" *. '" ",,." "h,""fdM*' L.=d pr=hans eva Y amass,o,a,,s
=n==* = ===e= =
;innes. umy a m. wm u ,ase e es
?s'*u=that wish es ese naamgemet
- crsas ts capabes of pcs'.ng up at hand i i qacture the alense operstnes are US tems, more them the wingis d Qs * ' rcussung h a amis. M mamene,"
reactar M . -
"We have a tardinacal aste'.mry gr map l , It Armoid and.M aftw the m W5csais d that approved 12m psaa e t.at tas c:r es i I . caurs! W Uukuss mamatas that '
sad we are aanscoc maa a WI voi ' anup sparseems might. m4s sur ~ Mt.Kangaand. . cm a M emes . vs.
. This m mas,was struschad.a s.m atas-yunts.
"d "I"""'"w' to same seguisers
- M br :::: :s. the f:ur ef' ==s .aA : S-O.Se .:at:cacIt esurus W .:s .As tar.g 'tspant r*h c:amary
. h rste Eldags are perig it wG be
;a m -
e: m sr. C ca..ap varmr, , . 4 .se's datore ensame asars:mes are Nr *.a vg I,accatn- n,sd t, w anna n : r. ! rN." Mt. Klag sad.
~
rucs 1.2 M% p k: car X r'.*v=r-we
'm.
Nar 7%s care8*a.did, r- , la 'cs:r ::20.m s $t s m:se rs.sa.us
,W &ad C. acta *.O le ,:GTynd had t.:23b.
sads s x an M A r1ns uns :.cm 0 0.s a:2 teed. Y a 1J e .:' ars!7 re. 2 $9Ab'MD
4 Exhibit A
' DRAFT FOR MYSTERY MAN AFFIDAVIT
'(' .
On pages 36-37 of my affidavit I expressed reservations at George Kunder's role as Plant Operations Review Committee ("PORC") and Safety Review Group ("SRG") chairman, in light of the significant nature of those jobs and Kunder's performance during the TMI accident. I also disclosed that Kunder had been identified in discussions at Site operations ("So') offices as the man who shut off the High Pressure Injection ("HPI') pumps. This portion of my affidavit was an extremely condensed introduction to iny concerns, both about Kunder's role in the cleanup and the events surrounding the damap to Unit II during the accident. e - Since investigators Meeks'and Vors\ are investigating the issue this i statement will fully disclose my concerns. I am available for further interviews with the NRC on the relevant underlying analysis. Initially, certain statements from my affidavit must be clari-O fied e=d are eated i= taeir groeer context- ceneret rublic uetistie- 1 Nuclear ("GPUN") - in congressional testimony summarizing the pre-liminary findings of the Stier investigation for which it contracted -- attempted to rebut my discrosure by dissecting the literal meaning of individual phrases examined in isolation. By expanding my dis- ) closure through this statement, th.ts confusion should be eliminated. For instance, Bernie Smith discussed Kunder's activities at the accident in much more general terms than Joe Chwastyk, who identified l i the safety injection pumps. Further, the discussions about Kunder j and the pumps involved several different actions -- shutting down the Reactor Coolant Pumps ("RCP") and the HPI, or safety injection pumps. (The HPI pumps are also known as the makeup pumps) . 2 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT i
~ fneets M 1 ll&lF7 EW
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ t
A The time frame that I recall Kunder being identified as the man who shut 'eff the safety injection pumps was during March 1983. Earlier conversations involved his actions turning off the RCP's. 4 To the. best of my recollection, the specific language from OHWASTYK in Me.rch involved a statement that George " shut off the safety injection pumps." I am not sure whether he also used the words " mystery man" in reference to Kunder. My affidavit should not be read as a quotation in this respect. I did intend to dis-close the meaning of what I had heard, however. It meant that, if true, Kunder was the " mystery man" written about in the press dCoadt$ ok
'^ the GPU - Babcock and Wilcox ("B&W") trial. . The trial and news accounts naturally were discussed on site, and the term had come up En discussions at the 50 office area.
In addition to clarifying the details, I wish to remove any lack of clarity about my motives in raising the issue. I do not and did not harbor any dislike toward Mr. Kunder. We have'had a professional working relationship since 1980 and only had hard feelings once. That occasion was around last Christmas and 2[' apologized to him within a few minutes. My grumbling at the time was soon forgotten. While I do not wish Kunder ill, I felt that his unique position in the TMI cleanup raised a serious question about management ' competence and/or integrity. The PORC committee which Kunder led had the responsibility to review procedures, although final approval was through Larry King as SG Director. In this role Kunder and PORC still reported to the SO Director and was one of the resources for the department in TMI's checks and balances. While I was l sometimes irritated at delays, it was part of the job.
l
-3 ,, When 7,under began to serve as SRG Chairman, however, his qual'ifications assumed increased importance. SRG would have more legitimacy than PORC, because the members'would work full time.
Most significant, in my opinion and detailed in another statement, SRG represented an illegal attempt to bypass SO without Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval. The new committee would report to Mr. Kanga. It could now be a resource to rebut the SO position, which simultaneously was stripped of the review base ? ORC rmerly represented. This organizational switch to SRG occurred around the time b pressure was building on SO to approve the polar crane and headlift q j procedures before our concerns and comments were properly addressed.
- i
(, Due to SRG's questionable legality and role motivation, tlie cleanup ' couldbesignificantlycomprYsedifthechairmanwerenotsufficient, O objective and invulnerable to management pressure j in order to provic an independent review. In these respects, Mr. Kunder's record, especially at the accident, made me doubt whether management had . I good faith motives to place him in charge of the SRG. l l To illustrate, Mr. Kunder did not appear objective. He I accpeted procedures from Recovery Programs ("RP") with cursory ) reviews but subjected the SO efforts to unnecessary scrutiny on occasions, sugh as with procedures that I prepared and were eventual approved for draining the "A" Steam Generator. I felt that Kunder's quick approvals of inadequate headlif t procedures could lead to safety hazards, while his meticulous reviews of other procedures created unnecessary burdens on well-controlled programs within the (
\,.
cleanup. J
e
,- . I questioned management appointing Kunder to this position -O in light 'of his record at the accident. My concerns about his appointment go beyond whether Mr. Kunder was the " Mystery Man."
At the accident he also followed procedures literally and shut off the Reactor Coolant Pumps, although there were conflicting signals and indications that literal procedural compliance could be a mistake at the wrong time. In short, I was concerned that during the accident Kunder did not see the forest through the trees, and now he would continue that approach as SRG Chaihnan. I sincerely believed that the role of SRG and the qualifications of its chairman were issues about the cleanup that needed to be raised. - I also questioned Kunder's independence from management pressure, due to the events during the accident. ' ' ' "' ' ' ' - -'
.O
~
I was concerned'that Kunder would not feel sufficiently independent to challenge the management pressure surrounding the headlift. He is vulnerable if he indeed was responsible for significant damage. If Kunder is also the l
" mystery man" he would be even more vulnerable.
My concerns about Kunder's indepen4ence were not just hypo-PeaC thetical. I have disclosed specific questionable
- approval practices
- in my other statements.
1 1.1;. m # - _ 1 l O l
.. __ __ _ _ _ _ d
4 ( O M ' I knew that at the trial an analysis from EDS Nuclear, Inc. 1 i was introduced to conclude that the HPI pumps were not turned on l at 5: 41 A.M. (the approximate time at issue in my affidavit). I knew that this analysis was introduced *just before operators Zewe and Fredericks, who were among diose reponsible for the HPI pumps, switched their testimony in conformance with the EDS' palcula-Z Cdd THAf TMQfM TPaJSentep tions.' Operator Faust did not, however. Ofhe EDS analysis had 8 M y /. unproven, incomplete and inaccurate assumptions, which make it KMML c,,g 7,(7j/ especially questionable as a basis to effectively rewrite the #d We' fffugf f.f 7 history or Sequence of Svents[toA Adky!![* already published by GPU and not yet Q amended, to my knowledge. Finally, the trial was settled abruptly and unexpectedly -shortly af ter the EDS report was introduced. I knew of these developments and the mystery man, because as dis-cussed earlier the trial and its settlement was a common topic on site. All of these events convinced me that the " mystery man" issue should be investigated thoroughly. My own review of the EDS report suggests that its conclusions are premature. Access to the relevant supporting data is necessary for more definitive conclusions. My evaluation of the EDS report is based on the adequacy of its premise. The analysis basically l rests on the premise that the level of the makeup tank also deter-mined whether the second HPI pump, makeup pump "C", was initiated at 5:41. EDS analy e and prepared graphs for the makeup tank O i
.I .
l- Lt4t! eovees surrounding two times that it concluded HPI pumps were
.O .,
initiated, at 4:02 and 7:20, as well as for 5:41. The graph for 5:41 did not exhibit the same characteristics. Although the' . EDS analysis is reasonable, it's significance is limited due to the ... e; selective use of data and unjustified assumptions, all biased in favor of the EDS premise. There are a series of questionable factors with re'spect to the EDS claim that turning on the HPI pumps at 4:02 accounts for the graph in its report. In some instances the facts as reported are suspect. For example, ED,5 asserts that an operator started MUP l-A and opened MU-VI6b at the time of the reactor trip. -But the Sequence-of Events 6995% reports that the evolution did not occur until 41 seconds af ter the reactor trip jor 4:01:31 A.M. [}' Similarly EDS offers no citation for its claim that the BWST suction valve, DH-VSA, opened at 4:02:13. This assumption also is not verified in the SOE. In fact, the Emergency Core Colling Syt tua (ECCS), which includes the HPI pumps, did not have to be turned on at all at 4:02 in order to produce the characteristics on the EDS graph. Alternate guAh 3 E sources better explain the increase in pressure. EDS did not ^"=}v4a whether the increase in pressure at 4:02 could have 'come from oepning the MUT Level Control Valve (MU-V-9 ) to refill the tank from the Reactor Coolant Bleed Tanks (RCBT), .instead of from the HPI pumps. This explanation would be consistent with the require-ments in emergency procedure 2202-1.3 for operators. In other words, EDS f ailed to consider the possibility that the operators
]
() I l J _ i__ __ --_---- _ 1- J
l .. 9
.~ followed the procedures at 4:02. Similarly, EDS failed to consider whether at 4:02 water was drawn automatically through the makeup _ level control valve,. again as an alternative to the HPI assumption.
These alternative explanations are even more persuasive when the EDS assumptions are compared with the capacity of the HPI pumps and the data provided by EDS. The ED'S graph discloses a four inch rise (approximately 280 grams per minute) in the makeup f tank during the 26 seconds from 4:02:13 - 4:02:39. That is a sub-stantially higher rise than is achievable ' solely from HPI pump recirculation flow. Finally, even if EDS' assumptions and facts were accurate, the results demonstrate that conditions were not analogous at (} 4:02 and 5:41. For instance, different pumps would have been involved. At 4:02 the A&B pumps would have been used. At,5:41 the A&C pumps would have been running. The C pump can only draw from the BWST. Even more' revealing, the 4:02 incident would have involved ed switchingstwo pumps. The 5: 41 event would only have involved switching ed on the C pump. The EDS analysis. of events at 5: 41 is no more definitive. To illustrate, in some cases the analysis is incomplete. On page 12 of its report EDS states that upon ECCS actuation' DH-VSA was opened. On page 13 EDS states that the injection valves MU-V-16A and. B also opened. Unfortunately, the report failed to identify when they were shut af ter 4:02 and plot the effectr onigraph. f' (2) . i . E_------------ - -
. s
,i O rhe.=Ds anairsis concernins 5:41 con =1= des that the =>I pumps could not have been turned on at 5:41, since the makeup tank lever was only at 59'.' However, EDS failed to analyse the 1
speciat circumstances then in effect, such as increased letdown flow, lowered reactor coozant system pressure, and higher tempera-tures than normal.
- j. Most persuasive, EDS' conclusions about 5:41 contradict other data in its report. On page 16 of the report EDS stated that a makeup tank pressure of 39 ff/f would have been necessary to achieve the'59" level. But figure 14 in the same report indicates that the 59" le' vel was achievable with 31.5 O/8.
Fina11y, the EDS analysis of conditions at 7:20 assumes an initial makeup tank pressure of 27 [/S , only nominally higher O than normal. This assumption fails to analy a the severe effects of the accident; which between 5:30 and 7:20 had led to superheated steam and significant portions of the reactor coolant system in a steam-void condition by 6:00 A.M., to two-thirds of the reactor core uncovered by around 6:20, to hydrogen generation and ha1f the reactor coolant system free votume in a steam hydrogen mixture by around 7: 00 A.M. These conditions cou1d well have led to abnormal overpressurization due to steam and/or hydrogen in the top of the makeup tank, a possibility not considered by EDS. I will cooperate fully with the NRC in answering specific questions in more detail about my assessment. I am confident that my analysis can be expanded significantly if I can examine the underlying data relied on by EDS.
t '. . Exhibit'B l N f h>acbwuu/ &/ j w , w s/J K 6 M?"
/ps
~
O
-- _ __._.--_________________________m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
~
O . TMI. Tbe ~8acRT1reL Cou4ecTioe wr s s ert.ies e. Gro su Aus+1.s. ATrsurr Ta Ts.ve Td rb , ookTi<ce u.c e.LD Th=T %+j IA3Ee5 CompdTbfT Eqh Tcb "DiescT be c) noug a.cT.vitics w TMI L, . Inst.Tures Awdea. e5 l
%3:A EAdaceS "s G Cf.f. AM I 7.ATI4 A33 . *T ke 3 740eleAnag.t,AT,oo "EE50fftb
.a 4. pi.ctomaT # 3. k . v.,, usa As Tke nia r a. en e n 2.. tnis i. sTin A. pli c. e,c.T. .a . +b. p =T cp TkE u:,4.To .. dbd Aus coold GPo Tuca ovan. de t
'D it.tCb4.Shif cF CCE OF Neit. NCd5AS.W M TD AA1 En(ptogte on AneHtm. eq4uy ? Tka Die cma. ee entr- z. is .
'KtD usi+h +kt MBEEtw FtAahl pa,L c18- CaAmtN.Tt ter hatb 304, $sena. M a a e.
A8PtCDCc C.!nnuof ALTiVTite osa Th5 I.5(.,&Asb . ZT soms Wgkki '7"*I'"kI* T k'T Tb '" D '" ' b"I ***I A ""N'* D'* * '' ~ kr
-rkcv t.c.ola ea pod.Ts tke. c.6up AcT. .vmts, awh.ek .e.ol1 J m+ly "ibtur.a ike pan (.T mass h his M.THen gaug. Isa Twa CAksaab* e. 3 s a. t%1. ~bacMTbb, r chaajes TO GPU ms hr(d 9.o..w t.wa.e, , he Q.+ r esa. A,. c 6Av. pt. is j si m m 0 0 ,it m w ie,. rk. regu< , ko r 4 sxacrif j come,4< w A +\t Fsaaeus=g A = u'd pvid tb bsg +Le_ hp44*d l ~
WM m e x _ w .,. , u p . & u e.. s ~ + ; s vb.3 o, s,. , J.s u.+L. h. m t to l A%ums him patssdT '9tett.)9 , i pr La A* Tims 4 p e A% Tkt. vuotiac. r-e. e.ex. h., imee 3 se AA. Bec. art.ts noi. -O -'a e ' 2 ^<r" Ties tr s'ouia 6 - "^><+t$e A + pru. i. fo Fuuoic$ % Og tog , BeoMt.* 5 Roit wks
.sehn Aaet
~QiminisWi4g nu FAT Bac.WTEL tom, TRAuS PEdJt.tA}
a__ m m - ~
.se~
TAs quamTwo EEAts Asiciac, ton.s The Fouetur. Feou . capriur.adt ofu 'Bec.t4%L 'Retewig . +4se ~# A4cmEy ! s- Onc.E ThE < Sec.nTtl CRt.Aust.ATrea toss FitM 1 3 ggrega.(gD tu %e 'Datse.The. skip , GPO (a.no Bec.)mth MacqtMrdr" D To ToTatt 1 hFut.RieM .Tha i .h. lA* CtAct (This ceAA:e is tocitto coed D ec.is..o AT ma The e a TOP im LaT oF^The he.MTbL CadfhuMeasr bJ cutR Tk .*a t pe.3a+. L Tkt pv. ecus TkeMAus TbT4c. hA4E A6043 ogt. Wo b w . h T e t e g le j e s a, T h r { cus? 7 & Sole Foudtoa.: a To g coa.T**t Rance a. Builot44 E4 Tit.ya a .d. meet.k. pseportesd TkAT. tusion. The soitoint. . "Er 36kl be A:oTab ) 15cstn pion. To Aub Smca "The Acc.ibeJT hr r iuya.o e Ga4 ,,ssisT, ,c. enly The O eu- 4 2 3 com vaanic,.~3
** Seevinio T- w e ==~5^==
c-ra ' 'a a k- <- ^== uchr.w.e. The. 'RAbe*Teo/codrAnascA7,ee levels tAg \.sa ,han Ae.eAWFAny: weioa coarniumaaT. EFFitt s.4T A pn.n examp5 oF utte ep FoubiA:tr. TLg bn.s.k op Tha. "Pe)AR C.A.* na t is NEca.seAa.q "To Allasu "Th e C2A4s
% REMeVE The swa sm.tes C. tass ~--m ste,ss
,3k i.,3 ,~ me.5s or 4e Te4 To c iu w. . To aud hous % hTwe.
vemt a.nw. e tur. L = mAr$C- em-m e
, 4.GidK z p:
3
- m. e.eu m- s m u., ,
Thg. hi3kror level oF maoAalsms4T" AT TM.T.,r ~7 AA.Cu v.sgu q %TS The t.cott.k. pts.4n.sweb c4 Aud TM. tuTE.Nbed METnob em t.7T4.it. q 4 he. h lA t. O ps Cit.*MI.. To DATE Theie unkums REMMM y % _ T e7k.3cAocog a +
.5 0' .
sc.kadols. To haen Os. *d.aac.Tett. VtsSEL AGAb (STeu sekaJule.b he. (,fo ev.wMh mar'Acgsna satt" hei.s houoouctO T"o Tkg usen.to T! . T %e "Rabiar,oa laosts man, mA psat,,,t,(g b< Td b 'Tb Al\a.c T h s As pl**Mkb) - A; trtket ExAayle. eF eppie sM- WL4 set . . AntAge A Gst. Ant STAA.4 pha,y to
% t. ejts o# The tcert.}e A r" The. E K y s. eP Co y p is q
+Lt 14enld amed StFh op. 4t Gawad Public .
tTs itt.sasit. % Thaak. 'Th*T Bar kT%(. he Sp T veer ourel.b tlmitMts 7b REPothenk pr pests op SQoymsE 6 AWD 3aT" 3 CAca.uST Tb Thu, dade psece Tk*T d a.T Thsy hawa ha,e A=3 A s.e ta s e v n g w t o is g . is TLs, The tua.y cro O 56 45 *== +M= . sy mum eecose The km T6 W 2.t. w b tyen.sej A=( couc.s. eats as Aew
%vw 4TEL tons, "bsa,uats.s.
IT A AS ' Bema.s persT, ohTkb (A>.b % elde cf.*aad M Digasued
-rh*T %e 'R.aActea. sodoq su9 sa.3 c uTa m sueon k ruet To GT ~6Ec.14Tal N Mp41%.D Tts cPE^s go c.e.iTicAL. ,
M\ froon tema.s T6 The e.scrori. %od=9 To M*k.* m e Asiea Fon. Au:.ew. . %:ia pesm**5 re Moe Tks na kappsa.:> % To Mark s T n, pocaoon AL R.sgote.e MEuT 76 bhamann:: teT' AueW As. sump 4. So c.nmca t u3 A & wn.s oPeu , GPO Folle= *b Tkamuh etN O <irt. leguest AxB h \** mas 4 p 5thlE F*A Al\ Foon d. net.s -fe be. ope 4 ( sT' O*: pa q -tkaT" Somp ca.t4icAliTy uecest occ.un.s , Fon. Th e. SW O e,e~6_4 u3wom4i.J,. .
' m . ,Soght is Frub 4ht Idowfih oF- 4t "CowT8?.0L A.com NsTem) MW +LesfoA +Lein g cm+ im.t fi+5de,, u. sin.
1 4 1 j - G Pt.' .. F .tchs The. CoaTsuTio - e,. 1Wto + Lad f4ts Mau c A. o s.st.fi D " e c. stoprig aP Th< Rev.The, ccol44fr % botig l 4ke. ar.c.tJ4.d' a. d O us Sig e.h l d ly ce.usao Moe.e b awige To de. tort.e Than A d if o + l s et. sqh Ac.Tiou TakaAa by AOfooE A caos.se op -de. ActiJs.d. duc.m gAw GPo Do a.we) tamoosr$7sD Thie. CyALhh M MAuME A ModsA4 M TIANT) don.sg 44c. Mast Rece.d Renaj 44ntAr,es
-Ass t udividon.1 tos.s mE +he. Maruqer op. rle Safeq
'i? vica an.=9 (w $n.y + ash.a0 mek. 4< brem.Lel#y op
-'j2cne 3 wb Appreavg All AcTivinas sur TMI-z, ett C.ou\d yJ 9a. bit.s A j o r.l a 4 s. $ n P a g e R C o m f e o m r.s g Sa. % Aub bLT4 oF The '%blic . IT SLIA, be.
+ke
- em4 d co+ -na.4 es tudivdoed kw R.muoe.l. a t .despesvea O \
P \\ idi:*Ab D ist.ussa.b to Ots Ast:br.ls , op coon.5E Lit Fouub No p.eWem in M Sr4egig Ne. lex 4eit M.4W bp.s e:S<rt. late.dg Th E E hAs 6j149 invesTgAT. g +4t. O A'T T h<. u eJTA4L S ducius, 4Ae Accial4.Cf; 4kis tons a, diascr-k=.boi+ e7 the. Couvt4n.k 5 me64- Re.cd Albq Gaasa.4L . (4e* look.3 Fett Wene 4e pin 4Le be Art 4kt. A<.c I J d et ,
.c w.o\1 h&($$t%ggf(iiifff9) sv s4- + L q SAop Wk.mg in A.e. CeM hm. W 54 s+ lookm3 m Ot. tVon.q "Todalevt.5eP GPO MANMe Mak d. $ foop oF imbsvidusd 5 ucho'% AcTious cuen The past bra. gea,e.s kyt, prwvec 4-ha4. - Ow M bQ.vs Ceme.aus t.oiN Cler nu3
%ut susiesm3 & L,re-T14neATs. dig Meuxs Tc) A;w.fy/ven Q bo4 An.& cNI 3 Coccesost,D wA wAskinj +ktit. owo HAnM oF As tekots kPFrsIr A.Mb zwsoniof 8scHrel. Mkkes
____-_-..-____.__.m___-_____m. . . _
O . A- p a 7 w 'T-
,:rn & f + ben i.s ace a,oef4o n. fw+ &lu+
boaxs diseassiw , m M /m C.Nony (Ace Pos'D **Y p,uo aires,erart. on vur-t-) Sacems bewGud .Disetsnao taill
.+.4<. c/<an,p Ac/>vdro Aan & t) s . d a se d 4 uJ M le cuiF4 8sc4 reL. Rom,ef n Mt r/are u.ms p a s
. 7"*1"*** #'** #' l " # 'l Y " '" *
%e fenme or /ts/ rs foss.ar. I wose in Ne.
il.<sy n, u,aa uraso dow. 1%e.p,,uldrm o f + bis fertexaf taent .slovl/ aerse c.o Masse pan OEnu.oD rfe 4*~varux /f A commssw Q 4e wves/yde 4Le coxtends Kr,exsssso ta +1is Anh4et'c 14PTE< At// leuI GJUAl $1t. ejjeecle do b e. Se e lec h. l tic p.>e s e s / / y A u u r is /* h d 8 e c a u s s Fac#rs( w u Ts A paorir p.ub Vc) is ,lae bus,V 4044ux<sSixj k be cw c w /so. A77aci m o a s I lsWag ggggfsuf DQEjhisc AWS w F#bw& Mru h r,r
- c reauaiproa uvau,,,, R Jea. 3 71,u, s,rpurs a 24a.n.- 4=/, wa che. m sd./ le w4,d 4-.was uss,. s 4 31 ea ue sci . in c.y ereo I 44 5***, M '"*"sek.Jol, w h o k,c4ws e*
CT U Ne=A.\t*1'TAglc. % s q A w o
- p ens,,
An ack =5~" 3 \.suse. i A4 y,ac, so p ca T.cu.q cm,c.=us $5 O
- w r , + u.o m => ..u- w e es e
'Pola t. c.264 aSopfosetI besus3 3 SAF6 3y &lwus4EJ Am L *
- 3 * " Levu T-vom nat. $%,iu9 Ait r,.,v e h L, w .ie i m
6
- g' ATAd.eauT *5 LetTam. Fece W Gru Mio-Level Msnmenusr asfnsssm c.ucsna w %.
%)
ca.. a s h 4. $.t. - 4 .4y.$ MAugeuwT. Avbey b $ ==ce. coenws, O . O A
1 O . 1 A?4 ar.u7 *l i inter.0fflee Memorandum i
" : = u. g : " EI3 Nuclear
$@ ject DOE TUNDING OT AX BUILDING FURGE REPA FIITER CRANCEDUT TM1-2 Licensing moon To M. K. Fastor At the 'present time we plan to change out the profilters on the Rx Building purge as soon as possible andThe the Decon Experiment.
theprofilter IEFA filters following(T replacements of these EEPA filters by March 1, 1982).is loade loaded to 60-.0 mR/hr. NRC (Dr. R. Bellamy) had.previously indicated an interest in funding all or part of the EEFA filter removal and replacement in exchangeHowever, NR for being alloved to esamine the filters.some roadblocks i itiesin setting funds time considerations. we pursue the potential of funding these act v by DCE. Dr. Bellamy has discussed this with J. Kiley o.f DOE and beFleese would be very interested in funding both the pre and REFA filter activities.Because of contact DOE and pursue their funding these activities. timing c. considerations, this should be done as soon as possible. Information on anticipated schedule can be provided by Norganisation 4 organization, Please call if you have any l further information on the filter loading. ! questions.
' ~
. & for ,
s j
. j I
S3 o
- k
TECHNI3L PLANNING - O ""'"5 "'"u5 i
Participants:
Conference Note No.: CON /T-001 Technical Plannino Date: January 5,1983 l R. S. Daniels Location: THI-2 Administration Buildi ' J. C. DeVine Toom 201 G. R. Eidan # T-V. R. Fricke R. L. Gardner
'G. R. Skil k.an Site Operations K. J'. Hofs*.etter Radiotegi el Controls P. E. Ruhter H. K. Peterson EGt.G N. W. Spang Q Recovery Programs W. E. Austin J. Soldt ,
W. J. Engel T. Fritz C. M. Hansen W. Hopkins C. W. Hult: nan R. P. Hetzger N. Osgeod C. L. Reid J. Rodabaugh
SUBJECT:
Underhead Radiation Conditions PURPOSE: To review the results of the Quick Scen measurements, the analytical work done to assess likely dose levels, and the leadscrew examination data, in order to determine the necessary changes in plans for Underhead Characterization and head lift. ; O
m-__-_-__ l ,
- b. Technical Planning Conference Note No.:
January 5, 1983 Page 2 CON /T-001 i DISCUSSION _: f ranna 1, The Quick Sean measurements provided peak hich rendirgs radiation, in water, under the reactor head. (Ref.1) effort was mounted, to infer the likely source distributions w ' could account for the observed dose profiles, here and from ; th tems, to derive the resulting unshielded dose rates in place people would have to work during head lift. 2. Nancy Osgood She sumarized the analyses indicated the observed perfomed dose profiles could be by D in Gaithersburg. accounted forz by a combination l cover. Thisof 4 uC1/c results
.of 25.000 to 50.000 uC1/ca on top of the p enum '
in dose levels (unshielded) of 1200 to 4000 R/hr at a poin
~
above the center of the plenum wmr. Making different Henry Peterson described his analysis using !$0$HLD. i ilar
- 3. assumptions based on the leadscrew data and fuel 000 R/hr compo to that found in the makeup filters,gg he estimated gg 1.000 y7;ggj to (vB dose rate at the same location, 4.
By comoarison, the Head lift Task Force usino based a different tet itofrewwe data was ava41ahia,R/hr doce rate at' the_m analysit made befnre anyaccumottons, that analysis estimated a 40 l'ocation. _ As a result of these analyses. it was the consensus 000 to / o 5. the likely dose rate levels when the Clear 1v. snme_ (~ hea present plans to lift the head an--- + ataa. rn, w..a u n dry were developed.
.a chances will need to ha mada +a +hatake in
- 6. Because of the geometry These include:
of the detect many complex sources and surfaces. a, Material deposited on the inside surface of the head b. c. Material deposited on LeadscrewsMaterial deposited d. e. Material deposited on control rod guide tubes f. Material deposited on the plenum cover g. Material suspended or dissolved in the water. tota Q 7. The Quick Scan measurements can hnot (items hea de dose is attributable to the sources whi is removed (items d, e f and g).
~
.c ,
.Technica1' Planning Conference Note No.: CON /T-001 January 5, 1983 O* -
Page 3
. s i
'how loosely adherent the contamination is, merely from the Quick Scan measurements. However, the leadscrew decontamination tests recently completed by Ken Hofstetter (Ref. 2) indicate that there is a high
, probability that the simple underhead flush presently contemplated will not be able to reduce the dose-levels by a factor of 30 (or more).
- 8. The provisions of the Technical Plan for " Radiation Characterization Under the Reactor Head" (Ref. 3) wer3 then reviewed item by item, to see if they needed to be modified. The consensus was as follows:
- a. Radiation measurements, using the water as a differential shield are still necessary to separate the plenum source from the head source. ;
- b. Video inspections and samole taking are still necessary to determine the degree of adherence and composition of loose material, so that the adequacy of flushing provisions can be defined.
- c. The scrape samples on the undersurface of the head should be deleted, because the tool for doing this is not designed, the head surface seems to be quite clean based on dose readings.
O. and any surface contamination is not likely to Le easily dislodged based on leadscrew flushing tests.
- d. The choice between pulling a CROM and cutting a leadscrew ..
support tube should be deleted from the plan. It is preferable to remcVe the CROM, for the following reasons:
- 1. The support tube cutting tool did not work well when tested.
- 2. The tube can be cut by plasma arc, but this raises too many licensing and safety concerns to be resolved, so that it could not be available in time.
- 3. The solar crane should become available for limited weicit lif ts in time to support the underhead sar.
acter12ation. i
- 4. CRMD's will have to be removed anyway to use an under-head flushing tool. '
- 5. CROM removal allows improved access for inspection devices.
For example, the Task 8 camera positioner can be used for i the video inspection if the CRDM is removed.
- e. A sample of the leadscrew support tube should be cut from the CRDM O that is removed, for radiochemical and metallurgical analysis.
This is in substitution for the scrape sample.
Technical Planning Conference Note No.: CON /T-001 January 5, 1983 Page 4 i ACTION ITEMS: A. Analytical
- 1. Model the head structure as a source to detemine the dose levels at points near the head after it is removed. (H. Peterson action)
- 2. Finalize these preliminary calculations.(W. Hopkins action)
- 3. Calculata scattered dose off the walls.of the refueling canal, due to plenum source. (W.Hopkinsaction)
- 4. Calculata dose effect of parking leadscrews. (H. Peterson action)
- 5. Prepare a Data report, stanarizing the assumptions, methods used, and results of the above analyses, to serve as the new design basis for dose rate estimates. (V.Frickeaction)
B. Hardware Chances I O 1. Inject decision to pull CROM instead of cutting leadscrew i support tube into head lift /underhead characterization program. (R. Metzger/C. Hultman action) l 2. Change design requirements for Quadrex Flushing tool (C. Reid action
- 3. Discontinue work on development of scraper tool. (C. Reid action)
C. Procedural Chances
- 1. Issue Rev.1 of Tech Plan for Radiation Characterization Under the Reactor Head, including the agreed-upon changes. (V. Fricke action)
- 2. Give priority as nece:;sary to be able to remove CROM. (R. Metzger action)
- 3. Select CRDM to be pulled for the Underhead Characterization.
(V. Fricke, to coordinate with W. Engel .and G. Ski 11 man)
REFERENCES:
- 1. Memo, V. R. Fricke to Distribution, 4550-82-067, dated 12/17/82
- 2. Memo, P. E. Ruhter to J. E. Hildebrand, 9240-1324, dated 12/22/82
- 3. TP0/THI-030, Technical Plan, Radiation Characterization Under the O Reactor Head, Rev. 0
p#glasadY ey -
' Bechtel Northern Corporation O' -
Interoffice Memorandum To D. M. Laka oste January 12, 1983
\s, ,
Subrect .Three Mila Island Unit 2 Bechtel Job po. 15737-Prorn R. L. Rider , 1
%%,3 Baron Dilution of the of Design F.ngineering
' Containment Sump Ctoiei DERO-0046 - At Caithersburg File: 0290/8420 !
1 The purpose of thia letter is to apprise you of the potential for boros 1 dilution in the containment susp in the event of a heavy load drop. The proposed loa! patha for the movement of heavy loads carry the loads
'O over several .tystems, which, if daeased by a load drop, would leak unbor-ated water into the containment sunp causing dilation of the boron ec.neenciation in the sump. The systems which are currently filled with unborated water include the Desinstalised Water Systes. the Reactor !
Euilding Normal Cooling Water Systes Reactor Building Puclear Services ! Closed Cooling Water System. Reactor Butiding Intermediate Closed Cooling j Unter System and the yire Service System. j
. l The eptions to ritigate leakage of unborated water into the cecesinment I sump aret o increase the boron concentistion in the containment sump so that the boron concentration does not decrease below the present concentration (1700 ppm),
o remove the se:urces of unberated vatst, or j e drain and cleen the containment susp. Ue recommend that the sources of unberated water be' removed prior to the movement of any heavy Isa4s. However, yeu may utilise any of the above options in order to satisfy operational and time constraints. He advised that as long as the question of potential criticality in the containment sump exists, the concern with the parential for boren dilutien in the containment sump will exist and appropriate sessures nust be taken. O
r - - ION to Mr. Lake DERO 0046 yago 2 Jcnuary 12. 1983 i
..O' ) it =*o 14 *e noted that the se ondarr side or the stes enerators and feedveter piping also contain unborated water; however. Design Engineering vill determine the disposition of this system prior to the seveneut of heavy leads over that system.
You are requested to advise us of how you resolve the probles of potential , boros dilution in the containment sump. This information is requested by Februsty 1,1983 in order that we can notify the NRC. Should you have any questions, please contact me. CL k/Ad R. L. Rider Manager. Design Engineering O~ O 9 I O .' l 1
- - - - - - - - - _ _ i
~~ - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - -
4 .' .
- f. '
- g. .,, unitas eTAfas
'g NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY CoMMisslON
. t% WASHINGTON, D. C. 20tst OY _
**"* NRC/THI 83-010 /
February 7,1983 P'LG Ir. B. K. Kanga 11 rector, THI-2 3PU Nuclear Corp. .
- 8. O. 80x 480 .
41ddletown, PA 17057 Jear Mr. Kanga: In response to your letter, 4410 83-L-0024, dated January 28,1983, the NRC has reviewed your proposal to maintain the doors in ene or both reactor building airlocks open while rtacter building recovery activities are in progress We concur that unimpeded transit through the airlecks will expedi",e the reactor building cleanup and reduce worker exposure without substantially increasing the risk to the environment. In our assessment i; concluded that the potential nd consequences of an airborne release through the open airlocks are minimal the overall effect of opening the airlocks is beneficial. Therefore, ject to our review and approval of implementing procedures, we appro-e the { proposed action. As stated in your letter of Januan 28,1983, there is a reduction in worker ." exposure during transit through personnel airlock #2 when both airlock doors are open. Airicek f2 is currently used during each reactor building entry, and an innediate man-rem savings can be effected by keeping the airlock open when reactor building work is in progress. Airlock #1, the equipment hatch airlock, has net been used routinely for reactor building entries. However, the advantage of using this airlock to expedite future reactor building cleanup , operations has been identified. It is anticipated that airlock fl will be used routinely for reactor building ingress while airlock #2 will normally serve as the egress route. Environmental safeguards associated with opening the airlocks for short periods of time have been addressed in GPU submittals, LL2-81-0192, dated August 20, 1981, and 4410-82 L-0023, dated September 16,1982; and in the NRC Modification of Order, dated September 23, 1981, and Recovery Operations Plan Change, dated i October 7,1982. Based on data obtained during . periods when airlock doors were 6 opened for ther+ the eeriots, the NRC~ concluded that, oiven acoreeriata i procedural centrols, the doors of both airincks can remiin open during work , activities inside the reactor building without significantly decreasing the r3rcinofsafetytothegeneralpublicorworkers." O O
- e e e g
/'
h de e n s t ah h il i e , 3 nmt t ta 8 sh ugne si t , % 9
~1 o ui ob p ga ehl n g itri xnov uo nrt ucioeeti ihnhl oint tct 7
ttecl rge eoac y n m a i h o pd h p e r a s r ogpewtl oet o u a e a u cni i u t s gi o e foehiese r ad q a n nd tl v vth t r l e oia o ' b e )i 1ugesl didrreea o r ph n t F o ie c (bnnii)iiovu1
- r r i o b ( pb recss ioh e u l
i e re rootr ic ottaPr o:elhif dletl w Di f fcit d t tmf teo ans n r ml yd
.tttitv caaw otis a h u ~stcao ire eaO rr eetl rgn e
mensrr yvli aena gc l ao a Brr ehoui rtiouefeu dn .Pgo i t u qh i dl eiegb uoanetceellebhaun qt ii r gp cfdal Hyr
,k eu tP endt rianfnsl sl ehl pI roii shci w aeM
- ew roikec c yeswrisr LD1 2 ho) tl2lltl ot osk
- esnagwif s
f( n vI yc sr.nue no l i gi to eidoirldnt)ilc3vr raestf ali d deeed nriahida(ii sul ta arppee ph s blddc l s uo )xterhleenag aon . ro u .i i laer( ne3e a sidcoesal nutrd dd h eathnri sotsnotcecco dr u s r a der o n o re a si tn eb l eo t pe r e a r r ogok h huoo rrdcen o h o U tl ytlarc i p t e tu npeltcP o hr c gti e t Geirvt daeese.a rs a n r ass ou .idhtyg s s g li etnee n a a d e hld rltcc s n)h eih r ecki2(wf staag . duaeozostiln.ese,o A K uifa r K
. eb st c mrosn rgp orkakiiikikcncnatcmcnin
. roc ptoeoi ioroidi g mndl el l cl cl enrtrrie
. Uarariopoieiour Peil
- ir Grapatocadafba
.f
* - S I' l I
c .. , o .,
. 1
Jf gue February 17, 1983 pgW# Inter Offlos Memorandum ed4
,,3 e - .
- ,T:::::1- MNuglear Te: J. W. Thiesing. Racovery Programs Location: TMI-2 Plant N l 6 i
REFERENCE:
(1) M memorandua N N dated February 10. 1983 t (2) R. L. Freena-man memorandum 6 6 N dated February ;
- 17. 1983 !
O The ~r,ose of eta --rand- is to s.--i.e ee --us of -. m review of the Polar Craus Lead Test Safety Evaluation and i document closecut of6 Engineering's consnants which were the sub-jact of Peferences 1 and 2. ; 6 comunants, ocher than those of Reference 1. have besa rssolved. We assume that ca.'.r.tlations are available to support the load drop analysis mentioned in the SCR. The ec snts of Reference 1 vere discussed extensively at the morning meeting on February 11, 1983 with Mr. Kanga in attendance, i during ta af ternoon meeting on February 11, 1983 vich Mr. Kanga, on the afternoon of February 15. 1983 vich Mr. Barton, and again on the afternoon of February 16, 1983 with Messrs. Barton. Kanga. Thieeing. Treemerman, Ridar and Jackson. As a result of discussions at these meetings. M Engineering agreed to close out the comments of Reference 1 on the basis of over-riding prograar.stic concerns which, in the opinion of program manage- i ment overshadowed the technical concerns of Plant Engineering. It is our understanding that a annagement position has been taken to turn the polar crane over after the load test. Although 6 has voiced a fundamental disagreement with O . the Polar Crane Retest ProCram, we do not chalI1nge the authority of the Office of the Director to proceed with the program as written.
M 22s. f [pur UNITED STATES u 8 g UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI A
. k eE WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
( g** ,
..... p g
;0 '
fiay 27, 1983 1 - f /*
/
f1Ef10RAtlDUli FOR: File . FRG1: Roger A. Fortuna, Deputy Director Office of Investigations t
SUBJECT:
TELECON t/ITH HEf1RY ftEYERS,f1AY 20, 1983 Tf1I 2 CLEAti-UP Henry Meyers spoke with me on the morning of the 20th of flay regarding the Tfil 2 clean-up program that he is involved in. Prior to my commencing the conversation, I advised Dr. Meyers that the only contacts that anyone, other than the Director of the Office, could make would be when - information was to be imparted by him which may have an impact on one of our ongoing or contemplated investigations. Dr. !! eyers advised that he was contacting me after he had made an effort to talk with fir. Hayes and n consequently was speaking to me as Acting Director of the Office. I U agreed to continue the conversation and Dr. fieyers provided in a somewhat disjointed fashion the following information: Dr. fieyers advised that in his 111I 2 clean-up efforts (which several weeks ago included a hearing on the matter) he had talked with several reactor operators at Tf1I including a fir. Faust, fir. fiarshall, f tr. Kunder, and a lir. Swastic (phonetic) regarding the mystery man issue which revolves around whether or not the high pressure injection pumps were turned on and then turned off on the date of the accident. Dr. fieyers'said that in his view there were two possible scenarios regarding the HPI--the first being that in fact the high pressure injection was never turned on and therefore there was no need to turn it off; the second scenario was that the high pressure injec-tion was turned on for a short period of time and then turned off. Dr. fieyers opined that whoever turned on the HPI was not as critical as determining whether or not HPI ever was turned on and then turned off. Dr. fieyers said that he.had reviewed the EDS fluclear water balance analysis and in his view the analysis was not conclusive enough to show whether the HPI was indeed ever turned on. Dr. fieyers felt that in all likelihood HPI was turned on because in the THI accident chronology that was drafted up by GPU it was originally shown as being turned on and then later that portion of the chronology was dropped out. Dr. fieyers believes that the reason flet Ed struck the turning on/off of the HPI from their chronology was that they were involved in protracted litigation with B&ti. Further, if flet Ed could demonstrate HPI was never turned on, f!et Ed could demonstrate that B&tl would be responsible for part of the cost of clean-up at the island since !!et Ed could argue they were 2 DEPOslTION g EXHlBIT s ()1ee [5 ? l lwas 9 M
bw y , V V
*;~
v' File a 2 liary 27,1983 never told how to properly react to this type of accident situation.
- Consequently, in Dr. lieyers view, it makes perfect sense to believe that a Met Ed would be anxious to show that HPI was never turned on when in fact in his view it most likely was.
Dr. Iteyers said that in his work on the Till clean-up effort he was advised by two people, names not provided, that there was a punch list with about 5,000 it .' listed which did act meet contract specifications at the time that the . icense for TMI 2 was issued. He said that although the number was high it is fairly routine for some punch list items at the time of licensing to be outstanding but those items should be worked through in a very rapid fashion and resolved. Dr. lieyers advised that his efforts have shown that a later punch list as modified shortly after the turnover of the plant to the licensee has disappeared. It appears Dr. fleyers feels that
. liet Ed, for whatever reason, caused the punch list to disappear because, in fact, had it turned up, the punch list as it existed with outstanding items, would have shown that the Met Ed had not done a vigorous job in closing out items that should have been resolved bef the accident.
Finally Dr. !! eyers advised that he would be dclighted to share with OI (~ any of the transcripts, tapes, statements, documents, etc. which he had V) acquired during his Till .2 efforts regarding the high pressure injection issua and any other Ti1I issues that he has involved himself in in the past month or two. - Distribution: 01 s/f FAC Ti11-2 OI c/f Pending 6/198304/F m \ 9 Office : 01 lI C's Surname: R.Fortuna:dl ? l Date : 5/27/83 2-8
F j
. C ; October 28, 1983 1
1
,a l
Harold R. Denton, Director () fm MEMORANDUM FOR: Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigations
SUBJECT:
EDS NUCLEAR INC. ANALYSIS OF THE HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION PUMPS Laurence P. King, former Site Operations Director at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2), and Richard D; Parks, former Site Engineer at TMI-2, have made alleg;tions that the analysis presented in the GPUN/B&W trials by EDS Nuclear on the TMI-2 High Pressure Injection (HPI) Pumps activity is not correct. Messrs. King and Parks have stated that they would be willing to explain to NRC the weaknesses in the EDS analysis and show from the analysis that the HPI pumps were turned on and subsequently turned off at critical time periods. Mr. King did not provide further information or details on the EDS analysis. However, a summary of Mr. Parks' assertions on the EDS analysis is included as an attachment to this memo. Per the suggestion of Mr. William T. Russell, Deputy Director, Division of Human Factors Safety, this memo and its attachment are being sent to you so that it can be passed to your group that is considering the EDS matter. Contact point in my office is Ronald A. Meeks, 492-7240. f The OI investigation on the " mystery man" issue is ongoing; therefore, the ( contents of this memo and the attachment should be disseminated on a need to know basis among those assigned to the EDS review. Attachment as stated 2' DEPOSITION EXHIBIT Distribution O'l,6/IL/9 / Nee As 20 70I:s/f - N. # 3 oo k OI:c/f f OI:r/f
! WJWard RAMeeks 01 MM 01 OI 01 RAMeeks/jh WJWa r RAFoJr una BBH_ayg 10/27/83 10%/83 10/25 /83 10/l#/ 3 0
. . *i
. n l \I V RICHARD D. PARKS' OVERVIEW DF THE IDS IIC'.E)R :.' C. ANALYSIS CF THE HIGH PRESSURE INCECTIOil .CV. ' CUPl? G "E TMI-2 ACCOENT Richarc :. Parks raisec the " mystery man" issue, in car , because he was :cn-cerned Onet the causes of a key ever. during :ne accicen : my not nave caen Y' ~
disclosec to :ne pubi'c, the NRC, and later in :ne 3P!]/3&W trial. '4 Mr. Parts knew that at the trial an sniaysis fecn I:S "uclu r, Inc. w'as intro-duced ta conclude that the HPI pumps were net turrec :n 2: 5: 41 f . M. Ac: crc cg to Mr. Parks, the EDS analysic had uncrever, incomciete and ineccurate as.iurp-i: s. which mac.e it especially questionable as s casis to af#ec;iwly rewrits the history of Sequence of Events (SOE) elreac.pr publishea by GP%end, to Parks' knowle@e, f:ot yet amended. > c Mr. Parks' own review of the EDS orep,rt suggests 9a: itsco$.usionsareprr-mature but access to the relevant supporting data - necessary for mSre defini?/e conclusions., Mr. Parks' evaluation of che EDS repor*. is based on the adequacy of its prerise. The analysis basically rests on the premise tt theini*.iated makeup tankEDS clso determine 6whether the seconc e keup pump "c", HP! wa; at 5:41. analy rc'and prepared graphs 'cr t e makeup tank levels surrounding two times that it concluded HPI oun?S wtre 'nitiated, at 4:0? and 7:20 as well as fer S41. 'The graph for 5: 41Jidinot'exhibitthe QV sam # characteristics. Althdugh the EDS analysis is ressorable,iit's signifi-cance is limited due to the selective use of datparc unjustifid assumptior , a 1 biased in favor of the EDS premise. 's [ Acco~ittbto Mr. Parks there are a series of questionable factors with respect to ti@ EDS claim that turning on the HPI pumps at 4:02 accounts for the graph
,m ,in its rejort. In some intstances the facts as reported are suspect. For f%- egnple, CDE asserts that an operator started MVP 1-A and opened P6-VIfb at tne ,
time of the reactor trip. But the SOE reports that the evolution did not occur
, until 41 sb:onds after the reactor trip, or 4:01:31 A.M. Similarly EDS of"ers no _ citation for its claim that the BWST suction valve, DH-V5A, opened at -
4:42:13. Thistassumption Oso is not verified in the SOE. In facte the Emergency Core" Cooling System (ECCS), which includes the HPI pumps, ci f not have to be turned on at all at 4:02 in order to produce the characteristics ce the EDS graph. Alternate sources better explain the increase in preswre. EDS did not analy:.e whether the increase in pressure at 4:03 could have deme from opecing the MUT Level Control Value (MU-V-9) to refili the tank from the Reactor Coolant Bleed Tanks (RCBT), instead of from the HPI pumps. This explanation would be consistent.with the requirements in esegency procedure 220~2-!.3 for operators. In otherbords, EDS failed to consider the possibility that the operators followed the procedures at 4: 02. Similarly, E09 f@ed to congder eether at 4:02 water was drawn automatically t.hrough the makn.) level control .Ove, again as an alternative to the '.WI u sumption. ,
)
i m ( jd These alternative es.planations are even more persuasive wnen the EDS assumptions i arpcomparei with the capacit/ of the HPI pumps and the data provided by EDS. 1
~
w.-_ - ___ ___---_ - _ _ - - - _ _ _
- . y
.'~
The EDS graph-discloses a four inen rise (a; proximately 250 grams per minuta: ir ne makeuo4 tank during the 26 seconds fe:m a:C :12 2:C2-39. That it 1 substantially higher rise than is achievab*e sclely #ren MP'-: ump recirce!a:icn
. nally, even. F DS' assumptions and fact . tere at:ura e,.=eFor results demcc-instance, strate -hat ::rditions were not analcgous 3: 2:02 and 5: 21.
ci#ferent :umos wculd have 'seen involved. 4: 2: Z the' A15 ;tmos would have he C pume nni:n'y-seen utec. At 5: 21 -hs G pumps wculd have been unnirg. craw frem the 3'eiST. Even more revealing, tne 2:0I incicen: would Pave inichec switching on wo punos. The 5: 21 event wculd :n b have in9cived switch.ing cn-the C pump. Mr. Parks relatas that the EDS analysis of events at 5: 21 is no more defini:ive.
"'o illustrate, in some cases the analysis is incomplete. On page 12 of it:
report, EDS' states that upon ECCS actuation DH-V5A was cpened. On page 13. 05 states that the injection valves MU-V-16a 'and 5 also opened. Unfortunately, the report ' ailed to identify when they were shut after 2:02 and plot the effects on a graph. In addition, the EDS analysis concerning 5:a1 concludes that the HPI pumcs .
-)
could not have been turned on at 5:41, since the makeup tank level was only at
$ 59". However, EDS failed to analyse the .special circumstances then in effect, 5 i such as. increased letdown flow, lowered reactor coclant system.p'ressure, ard-a higher temperatures than normal.
Most persuasive, EDS' conclusions about 5:41 contradict'other data in its report. Cn page 16 of the report EDS stated that a makeup tank pressure of 39 PSIG wou?d have been necessary to achieve the 59" level. But figure 14 in the same repo'rt indicates' that the 59" level as achievable with 31.5 PSIG. Finally, the EDS analysis of conditions at 7:20 assumes an initial makeup tank pressure of 27 PSIG only nominally higher than normal. This assumption fails 4' ' to analyze the severe effects of the accident; which between 5:30 and 7:20 had led to superheated steam and significant portions of the reactor coolant system ~ ( y in a steam-void condition by 6:00 A.M., to two-thirds of the reactor core
'"4 uncovered by around 6:20, to hydrogen generation and half the reactor coolant system free volume in a steam hydrogen mixture by around 7:00 A.M. These conditions could well have led to abnormal overpressurization due to steam and/or hydrogen in the top of the makeup tank, a possiblity not considered by EDS.
9 u O l' a - -_ _ ___-_ ___ __- -
l.. , Exhibit 36
/ .
- L)
Place: Jonestcwn, PA Cate: April 8, 1983 I, Ecwin H. GISCHEL, hereby make the following voluntary statement to R. Peeks I dro has icentified himself to me as an Investigator with the U. S. Nuclear l
- e;ulatory Commission. I make this statement freely with no threats or re:Tises of reward having been made to me. Investigator Meeks has typed this statement for me.
In regard to my afficavit concerning defic,iencies in the Recovery Program at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 Nuclear Station, submitted to General Public Utilities
% clear Corporation (GPU-N) President, Robert ARNOLD, on *pril 4,1983, I would like to make additional corments on my concerns of the Three Mile Island Recov.ery Program. On page 2, I stated that there is substantial evidence that the plant was placed in service before it was ready, was operating with important equipment n
Q sericusly malfunctioning; that operator training and qualifications were suspect; and that many improper operator actions occurred from the outset. This informa-tien was cbtained by my reviewing the various accident investigation reports of
\ Three Mile Island, Unit 2. I have no new information to report on the causes
% or issues that led to the accident.
With respect to my statement on page 4 ccncerning my initial task as Director of Plant Engineering, and the fact that I made major personnel and Organi:stional
. % ges and managament's bestility and non-support of these changes. I will state that I was given no written work program on what changes thould be made to prove Plant Engineering (PE). I did receive, as stated in +.he affidavit, n
2 DEPOSITION f EXHIBli ., fChug7W2 pe_s
.O -
oral instructions from Unit 2 Ceputy Director, John BARTON, to make improvements in Plant Engineering. I learned from Larry KING that John 'BARTON, Art BRINKMAN, the Human Resources Director, and Jim TROEBLINGER, the Personnel Director of Unit 2, were investigating the changes that I made. However, I never received anything in writing from the Unit 2 management concerning their disagreement with the way that I was administering Plant Engineering. With reference to the panuary 8,1982 contamination release, which is on page 4 of my affidavit, and the fact that RADCON bypassed my department. The proper
\ procedure would have been for RADCON to notify Site Operations (50) and Site '
4
-s Operations would then assign Plant Engineering to review and take corrective
{") action. 'I will also point out that the ' raind plugs should have been installed . in the filter cabinetsme :: :::rHE P%T u) :::i As oe.3m A113 M T. -
#*=r *% t .t :: ;:::ib'a
}\y Cn page 5, I stated that Larry KING essentially convinced the NRC not to cite due to an irpreved system of organizational controls which v~ id prevent this r atats o t, . s type of activity (the taped drain plugs) from cc : r#g.'"Narry KING explained to the NRC, in a hea in King of Prussia, that Site Operations and all the departments in 50, s'ukri as hlant Engineering and hanthaintenance, were tighten-ing up administratively. He also pointed out that the UWI puckages that <.are being ir.plemented would help pre.ent items like this from occurring in the future. ,
~
With respect to my statenent en page 5, wherein I point out that the polar crane I r conflict had already t;egun during the Spring of 1982. There were several
~
I l
}
3-
)
'j
~
c: :anies working on the polar crane at that time. The , Polar Crane Task Force JTF) c:rsisted of representatives frem EG&G *daho, United Engineers, Bechtel, i anc rscresentatives frcm Site Ooerations. As I recall, Site Operations did not ? issue any paperwork at that. time which pointed out the fact that the crane was ur.cergoing nurerous modifications without the proper administrative procedures. c : : : ; . :: --
......g. ...a. a.
-....,.=._._4-
, . . , . ., ,. o . m. 3,...
<:s : :c f. ,' ?*. ' '
y
.7 ..~ ..cysi...e cdye..a v. ~ ... .
-0 ; c ?,; ;"j.- 7 On page 7, I state that Bechtel representatives s;:ent ever an hour with me to seek my approval for their modifications on a nuclear safe:y related pipeline.
One of the Bechtel representatives was Rick JACKSCN of Bechtel's Gaithersburg q%- , Design Engineering Office. -Bechtel should have all the paperwork on this pipeline. My assistants, Ron WARREN and Bill REAM, were also familiar with i d the cetails of this safety related pipeline as well as other redificatiens that g Ee:htel has ade without timely review or prior ap:roval by Plant Engineering. n spu.w O I will also point out that '...:: has atterp ed to transfer the Plant
^;erations Review C:mmittee's (PORC)' responsibilities to the Safety Review Gr up k(
f\ (SRG), but 'lRC, to my recollection, has .not spproved this c'.ange at this point in ti.e. n regards to my re o en Fe'.,ruary 10, 1983, en deficiercios of the Safety E.aluaticn Report (SER) of the polar crane. I will ;cint out that I prepared that re o by cysebith no input frcm my staff and that I have had extensive F * - w Or!"es. ' el :-d de celep and c';ervise the lif tirg and O . i . :-ri:-n :- vi th "Y e
s handling program for~ nuclear projects f e Electric Boat Division of M E Lic.6 c. Bewr3 . General Dynamics. :c. th: ":m as a ref ling director, I had direct responsibility of critical lifts. I was also involved with the certification and testing of cranes when employed in the Equipment and Facility Division for General Dynamics. It should be pointed out that the SER on the polar crane i consisted of a lot of words but very littie substance. , The SER was phrased in such a way that it would lull one into thinking everything was okay. Bechtel wanted to move the mis.sile shield as soon as possible without due safety con-sideration for the lift of the missile shield. However, I was able to see through this written facade. Only Larry KING's approval as Director of Site Operations ' was needed on the SER. Hewever, KING would not sign unless I approved the SER. If the missile shield were dropped it could damace he reactor vessel head and S in-cocE lu s r% M EcT gwibE TugE,$ i the ' '.: t c.- .;c.; c; d; d ' ^::t'. , .ci;c.;;th th; h;;., c.; ..;1' ;; tS; ;;.f;ty c '-* " M. ; t . m a ,, u a ; s u a . .i ;.-4 near the bottom of the vessel. When Mr. KANGA came ( into the February lith meeting, I received the impression that he did not care about my concerns. He stated in so rany words that this aspect of the recovery program was going to be completed with or without my approval of the Polar Crane T Safety Evaluation Report. One of the tests I suggested as suitable before re-1 moval of the missile shield, was to lift tanks already in containment. These j( { tanks would be filled with water. J-On page 10 of my affidavit, I stated that after the February lith meeting, Mr.
,q f.ANGA asked Larry KING and myself to stay behind for additional consultation.
V There was also 2n addithnal ceeting later on that af ternecn with r.ANGA, CG a r.d mysel f. '.ANGA was r.cre of a gentle .an in this :,eeting as he attempted to have us reconsider cur views on the Safety Evaluation Report. .
5 On page 11, I mentioned that _ Larry KING passed on to me an employee's tip that the Polar Crane SER furor settled L a stoo management
~eto 43 KW3 @plamedCugast to fire me as so@on ac down. A Thatutip came from Joe C;...A~.g.7K, of Site Engineering (SE).
Te i With respect to my corcents on page 11 concerning tne series of meetings that occurred after February lith. I should clarify that I mentioned in these meetings that an engineering calculation on a worse case accident could take the place of a lead test.. I suggested this to both KANGA and SARTON. FREEMER" N of Rec:very Programs had told me that such a calculation had already been cor.e and was on file at Bechtel in Gaithersburg. I asked to review the. calculations but ' FREEMER"AN stated that I didn't need to see them. However, in this industry, ! h va the licensee is always entitled to review the clients work. I asked BALLARD,. the QA manager, to look into this matter.
} BALLARD eventually told me that he
..:as told by Bechtel in Gaithersburg that the engineering calculations had been i
'.\ done. Dm Avean Tat SAEA u '5smo 4 @ DPEEStuT ATioE Tobe:.0 Teen tot .3' s, {
i
' L h as ra h s u . @ ,
C:ncerning my comments on page 12 on the susoension of Larry KING and his con-flict of intsrest through association with the QUILTECH CCMPANY. I reretter sc ret?dy _ telling me, even though I can't recall who, that GPU-N had invest'ga'.ed CG earlier c:ncerning his association with QUILTECH and didn't find ar.y c:n- i flict cf interest at that time. In addition, those employees who lef t GPU-N to accent empicycent with QUILTECH, were preparing to leave TMI ..hether they ..ere
.erk; ally employed by QUILTECH or not. I believe GFU-N's first 'rnc.vledge of CUIL TECF .as the end of last jaar, ..Esn GPU-N personnel . vere stUti g t; te
;5aiad Ot,t and being replac&d by I?chtel erployees. ~..o .} o cc e *.o nd are
'9"
!"'s :-i LIriY and Tec PECKAT-7
In regards to the committees that were set up to investigate the Polar Crane, from which I was excluded. It was my general impression, based on my prior experience, that these committees would not seriously consider the points brought up on the polar crane by Site Operations. It was all a word game. For example, Mr. ARNOLD, in his media releases, stated that a 210 ton headlift load test would prove that the crane is structurally fit. However, the issue thatne.ededtobeaddressedfirstwasthe[,,loadtestforthe40tonmissileshield
. lift. .
I In reference' to my statement on page 14 wherein I state that other 50 staff ' ( ;:ersonnel who challenged polar crane short cuts received harassment and intimi-h dation. Those other personnel were Larry KING and Richard PARKS. v .
'k *
.With respect to the March 23rd meeting at 8:30 a.m., listed on page 15 of my
, affidavit, wherein the PARKS allegations were discussed. My recollection of a individuals peasent at that meeting were Messrs. HUECKLE, DEVINE, THEISING, LARSON, BALLARD, CHWASTYK, FREEMERMAN, BEDEL, KUNDER, PASTOR, JACKSON, and as
.enticned in the affidavit, BARTON, KANGA and ARNOLD. Tust.c w ere E M4 b 9 cT M
%IT I c.A eT 'i?scA e4 TkEj u E'R.E , >
In that meeting, first, Mr. ARNOLD stated that evcryone on site should be co-l cperative but careful concerning inquiries about the PARKS allegations. ARNOLD stated that we should give PARKS the correspondence and memos, etc., that he recuests. Mcwever, af ter Mr. BARTON made the statements that PA?KS shculd be l
]) fired =.nd that Se s
%.2ts := -
d not be allowed on the Island, Mr. ARNOLD stated that 4 sScEc' not be extended any cooperation.
.. +1 =?
Concerr.ing the Ucall
%[ l Cc v.ii tee inquiry en the allegations, it was my impression that Mr. ARNOLD had )
7-already s:cken to someone connected to the Committee in .seme form or another arc that Mr. ARNOLD felt the whole matter would soon pass.' In recards to the March 23rd meetino I had with Fessrs. GRIEBE and LOWE, whicn is menticned on page 16 of my aff'idavit. It appeared that the scope of their investigation, based on tne cuestions that they asked me, centered on KING's allegation made to GPU-N's Vice President, Mr. Phil CLARK. I will state that thsy were very professional in their demeanor and it ..as my in ression that my ccrnents were in line with others that they had orevicusly interviewed. However, I only have ;ersonal kncwledge that these gentlemen interviewed Ron WARREN and *
.Jce CHWA57YK. Also, Mr. GRIEBE is an engineer and baseo on my prior associations o
g and contacts with him, I think he respects my profae ional opinion. Both Mr. GRIEEE anc Mr. LCWE, who is a lawyer, are .. .. - ^^ "" "* M members
)% of 2FU-N's General Office Review Beard (GORB).
Cr ; age 17, ! ::iscussed tne Monday, March 25tn meeting that Mr. ARNOLD called in reference to the '!ew York Times Article. That eeting was called for :erscnnel of Site 0;erations :nly ard was attended by "essrs. EARTON, GNGA, ARNOLD and the Site 0;iri;iurs staff. C.Ril0LD did mention +5
" was irport:.nt that we be care-
-t
'ul Few e say things abcut the recovery prcgrcFs in contacts with cutside oeople.
Cn pye 20, I r.ake a c 7.:nt about the recovery pr: gram no longer being effect-Sely cor. olled. I stated tha.t on " arch 30th three of my staff were upset b=cause E c^ : 21 t ;at tad 'he ;1c.nt c.-;ir.eenng odificaticrs cantrol sys'em in an atterpt l
t g - s U to downgrade safety classifications, The incident I was referring to concerned changing the size of the holes for expansion anchor bolts inside containment, which is safety related concrete. The original proposal to drill the holes had gone through the review c'ircuit as an ECM package. The bolts and the holes were to be part of a fixture for the Gantry Crane. Rick JACKSON wanted Plant Engi-neering to approve a field change request which called for the size of the holes to be made smaller. JACKSON had classified the field change request as not important to safety. .In subsecuent meetings that I had with JACKSON, he explained y that this was not a safety related issue because the holes were to be made smaller
.y
[ not larger. I insisted that the field change request should be classified im- " r portant to safety and go through the review circuit whether the size of th'e holes O,'. were to be made smaller or larser. 9 d Inameetinson4eii7th. iga +5mornias, one of the items di russed was this field change request. Both nTm PRABAHKER l Pem. t' and Pete T.;TTL; o A, as well as Bi'll REAM and myself, pointed out again why the field change request should be classified important to safety. JACKSON just threw up his hands and Stated "I just don't understand you guys." Those three persons in 50 that were involved in this besides myself were Bill REAM, Ed MR'EERT and Jack LAWTON. Also en page 20, I state that MRC should be holding out for the required tens in pushing the utility to upgrade technical documents. This exprese'- is ea iscw.st. r, ' figurative and refers to *iRC requiring the ultimate L.k.:...i 4. do ument pro-cedures as it refers to safety related items. s e
^
i
.}
i On page 20, I also discuss the fact that management is considering removing J the %dificatiens Ccntrol Group out of Site Operations, and transferring this ) function somewhere in Recovery Programs under Bechtel. The Modifications me d C c.m e 0.s iCn 5 Pia uT 40 Control "aff is the administrative leg for 5.. :: - - N
& c';ted.::r&4J cp D %J.14 "ci 2.":r: : c. ; f " -- raintains tnet paper h} :" '"-- _r ;;i,;
o
;r:::+-ee tM -' % , = ; i ::H ; ;-;3- s;. I am a,sare that Cave BUCHANAN of Recovery Frograms has talked to Ed MUMMERT, my Modifications Control l
Su:ervisor, about trarlsferring his functions into Recovery Programs. W eR
- Again on page 20, I discussed the fact tha:RlRC aoproval of a procedure is one
-( ) of the tactics used repeatedly to coerce 50 apprcval of deficient documents.
O V' I would say that this has become the general way of doing business by Recovery Programs in attempting to have 50 sign off on various documents. k'g On page 21, I state that 50 input is not accepted .. hen materials are being pre:ared and 50 is not allcwed to get involved until the eleventh hour. I will add that there is very little consultation between Recovery Pr: grams and Site C:erations cn matters that I have br:ught up in my affidavit. In fact, if we ..ere all working out of the same rule book there oculd be no need far prior consultation, but this is not the case. There is another issue which I ., ant to discuss 'vhich is not detailed in my I affidavit. On March 24th, I discussed with Mr. 2.aRTON the prospect cf receiving 5dditicral .u power in Plant Er.gir.aering. 5.-RT:N S s k ed tha t ! r ut ry . e .e s t and justifications on pa;er, ..hich I e.intually did. On April 4th I es:ei.ed _ _ - - _ - - - - - - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - . - - - - - - - _ - - _ J
l g - L) a hand delivered confidential letter dated April 1st. The letter was from SARTON and concerneo my manpower reouest for Plant Engineering. The letter was abusive in nature and questioned my dedication and that of my staff to work over-i time. I assigned Ron WARREN to prepare a response to Mr. BARTON's letter. On April 6th, Mr. BARTON, in a 3:00 p.m. meeting stated that Mr. ARNOLD had asked for more details on concerns that I had raised in my affidavit. It is important to note that, Mr. BARTON's behavior, in my opinion, was changed. He , ga was polite and gentlemanly. BARTON also told me not to worry about a response 6 to his April 1st memo on the manpower reouest. BARTON stated that the manpower ' request will be considered and stated this in such a way that it looked like ( , the manpower request would be granted. On April 8th I gave Mr. BARTON a status on the field change reouest concerning the size of the holes in the containment wall. During that meeting SARTON mentioned that we were going to have to get Bechtel on board and bring them up to date on procedures. I will say that approximately a week ago a training pro-gram was initiated to bring Sechtel up to par on site procedures. I would now like to make some additional comments on the neuro-psychological examination which is mentioned on pages 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18, and 19 of my i j affidavit. On page 8, I mentioned that a friend of mine, Jim HEr.'CERSON, rentioned to Dr. JENKINS the after effects of my stroke, which were the right 7 (O side visicn of both of my eyes being blocked and difficulties in focusing while i
,, 7'A .
as 4 O .
~
reading, which prevents me from speed reading. Jim HENDERSON suggested that I-i soeak with Dr. JENKINS aoout this matter, which-1 event; ally did. At.the end of January, Dr. JENKINS called and spoke to my wife and inouired as to how the exam. tur :ed out. When Dr. JENKINS was told that I did not take the exam. he acted l surorised and disturbed. I_ thought it interesting that Dr. JENKINS was disturbed. l I 1 He had previously explained to me that only Dr. GORDON and myself would have the re of the' examination. Why'would Dr. JENKINS b urbed if he were not to be ir.volved in the results of the examination? Ie reason that my doctor, Doctor Jcnes of Fredericksburg, initially objected to the exam.ination, was that it wis 4 job placement test. When Dr. Jones told me this .in our first consultation, he bj'
-l1 was not aware of the recovery program matter that I~ was involved in at TMI-2.
OGr j A On page 12, I mentioned that I received a certified letter on February 10th l
<- from Dr. JENKINS.
I called Dr. JENKINS approximately one week later. k _ Mr. j A JENKINS' demeanor was nasty. He told me that the test was important and : 1 . l [ threstaned that if I didn't take the test he had no cr' oice but to report me to GpU-N, and that I would be forced to take the test. I reminded Dr. JENK!NS that the test was for my. sole ber.efit. Dr. JE'iK!NS reiterated that it was important that I get the test dcne and stated that I had two weeks to take the test or that he was going to notify GPU-N to force me. I then repeated Dr. JENKINS' words
" force me" and then asked JENK!NS if he had discussed this test with anyone.
.C,r:NS replied that he had dis:ussed the test with his superior.
I then cues-ti: red Dr. JE.*d!NS about the doctor / patient relationship and Dr. JE KINS replied that he has to tell everythire to his su;erior. _____________O
s O On Page 13, I also ment uned a conversation that I had with Mr. ARNOLD and Mr. KANGA concerning the examination. I felt resentment that Mr. KANGA was present when Mr. ARNOLD brought up such a sensitive issue as the examination. The first time that Mr. ARNOLD mentioned the examination he stated that Dr. JENKINS said that the test was important. The second time that Mr. ARNOLD mentioned the examination, it was in reference to my condition with memory problems and that it was important to find out what effect the stroke had on my thought process. The third time during that conversation that Mr. ARNOLD brcught up the examination, he said that it was iricortant and needed for job placement. ~ g, On page 13, I discuss my personal doctor's phone call to Dr. JENKINS. Dr. JONES later told me that he could sense, in that conversation, that Dr. JENKINS was
) under pressure to have me take the examination. Dr. JONES stated that, if certain conditions were met. I should take the test and that he felt that I would pass the test.
I Cn the afterroon of April 4th, after I delivered the affidavit to Mr. ARNOLD, the two of us had a meeting on the tredical examination. ARNOLD .ias more deter- l mined that I should take the examination. He eventually stated that he aculd consider my c:nditions for taking the examination. On April 6th I received a memo dated April 4th, from Mr. ARNOLD, which indicated that he had accepted my conditions, and that we should proceed with the e.xamination. S. ' I would also like to point ;ut that on April 5th I %d a me etir; ..ith Mr. ARMOLD concerning the issues I had raised on the P0lar Crane. "r. A:'.0LD, at
. j l
the start of the meeting, accused me of being associated with GAP. I replied V that I had genuine safety cencerns and that I had legal assistance in preparing ; i tre afficavit. ARNOLD stated that he felt that my differences were based on
-(( :r:fessicr.al jealousy. at not being in a position to run the program. I discussed 3:
iergth my professional concerns with Mr. ARNOLD and I felt that he began to
- believe somewnat my point of view and that my concerns were genuine.
k.
.{ i
! ' ave raad the foregoing statement consisting of 13 typed pages. I have made '
and initialec any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the argin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct. ; Signed on j v /d /973 at f.*fL [s\ ~ o 5:3 NATURE: .- f h I C' Subscribed and sworn before me this /o
- day of e '44 y , 19f.s , at :
"I~c uvetoa. Ac. .
~
~ '
- NVE37: GATOR:
Name M/ a p. MSgn a: NESS: Name Title O 4
~
t.
. . ' Exhibit 37 1
- r
- s =
3 RJ ik 881.0 kma nee >/,} u d "f' . ... . . .. / .er -.i. _ .r..-hA2.-hv4-nslA A;rw.r_ ...Bw4 p',,.7 g M._
~
. tN.( A . . . _ .. ..
m oseosition . f EXHl817
. . . ... $ a .. - . . - - - . .-......-...___._;, AtOh 2 T .
{&//t/17 fi,.s
.. . . . _ s^. -
- - -- . ...._/d ct eekQ- -
= .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. V / H e,, - .. .- .-. __. ..
. cw >.1 -
..- . . . . . . . l wso n - _ - -
' 0 e./lascok C.(,. w q f;...
9 . -. . _. .
. ,5yg n. - ... . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - _ . . . - . _ . . .
. M .. . ---
/ ' W _ .... _.._. _ _ . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . _ - . _ . . . . . . . . . . .
0c /rc- . . - - . . . . . . . - . . Js.chsan._ J g .. . B r/Erl.a 7 n c-p a 4 o# Pwd 'r , ys ; k.
..v.. . w(A _ .- _
- ...../)cya . s9.i.k a. c / .1fua.A. ce vp <.vA- .. .- ..-a
--= Q ..-rGa,/ Go-.- u;?k a f M' .[.p441 9 }iwres9 Am
' .- c OR.' L. h ty t% d- *y wvesp '
..he-vstud.,..&$ok t-q Ae hk-up6--
a. eu. .
e ) 4 1 O . . . gw)zett' / .yCf f-.. Ao. % yln. Q_.9 y.C _.
. . . n 6 4 A .w 1at 4im.. u .~_g ;su A o vre s-/u4 . sfeaA- G~~ G . . . - . . . .. ..
._.- . //v .w I bl. ;
% /eA.. a>Wi_4aa. .. .Q e!.
----- . .. . Ru h;a". .k wu__
. Ds M. 7,be. A6- den p v&_k.. .bc.-.M_.. _. .
')_.L c6m Js...!s .r .
. / & &..c. A h a
._.... . a la . ua.A. n=..M_%..C+.as; o ,u. # . . A h . L ._
....r w A 6. e. .
vcles.1eA. &- W w. u .. ; _ _ . _ _ _ . 9
.... e . M . A K A .._ c l + 7 4 . ..
/h ha.9 tts v fl.A~ C 9 kov [ &
c.we.q an ; we we s . g vw.A ; a m - pviu We p w w <y I 6W p sk Y k M (,aA-~
- . _ . - . . . /L ..s,/a f . _. .. . . - . ..
_ _ _ = -
.a. . .nsi n .-....esl..l.
gg,gg,,,.,y e e u .e.musuuma s. g _.. w e._ee.. L u. y As se k.d A m ~ 6 % sk-. Le ku_ ale #
. h u c e d . & % ~j _ %_uW c L eye
. w .'. m h
'~
_..$ratek.kyk- .
~ .
7/n/ry c. O Ynd// S& ,b Od-ef @*&c. - Hsri~
/ ., . n i U ... w . % - . f . 4 .. S.. M 4 & & / s p - ..
_ . . . . . i. A . y a ..r9 4 % u % . 4~- Aa.4fs
. .. . i.- ~A. d 4 # + +i /4 % A .lf . m fi w ) fe A h.-s ..
.. .. E. . /-94 .. . _ 8 e .. g 4 r /1 I.M @
W...sw. .be.= rpa4r1, A. a se- ed.f pc,i.$,-.-. _J
' kvwIJ. k4.J_ ... a.-- k. f4 4.g. ' no...-
Q ;p fi ff,k ).e4 4 -.P.go...m ~ .. . i hg. /d M .._ [k' . 4N. . W Y.. Ml-[" _
.j& 4M
-.....- . A ap+, V8_ A : i .ne k . .. - ..
---. Lef.eJy L ...
6
. - . . . . . . ... . . l
. . . . . . .e..
..-.. .d.
1 l
. . . = . - . . . - . . . . . . - - . . _ . - . . - . .. .. ...
. ..... _ -- 1
__ _ __ - . - - .-= -.- a
*/
0
-_--___m_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}