ML20238C688
| ML20238C688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1987 |
| From: | Bruner H BECHTEL POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238C505 | List:
|
| References | |
| CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8712310161 | |
| Download: ML20238C688 (76) | |
Text
-
l UNITED STATES
.,-)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
\\
ORIGINAL IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-320 EA-84-137 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2)
DEPOSITION OF IIERBERT D.
BRUNER LOCATION:
G A I T il E R S B U R G, MARYLAND PAGES:
1-69 DA TE:
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
yn Official Reporters tj 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 0Kbb0 D
0 NATIONWIDE COVERACE i
---_-____--__o
l l
CR29969.0 BWH/sjg 1
l 1
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
(
)
N' 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
5 Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION EA-84-137 6
(Three Mile Island Nuclear 7
Station, Unit No. 2) 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x l
9 DEFOSITION OF HERBERT D.
BRUNER 10
{
yy Gaithersburg, Maryland Wednesday, February 25, 1987 12 l
(( )
13 Deposition of HERBERT D.
BRUNER, called for examination l
14 pursuant to notice of deposition, at the offices of Bechtel 15 Power Corporation, 15740 Shady Grove Road, at 9:45 a.m.
before j
i 16 BARBARA WHITLOCK, a Notary Public within and for the State of j
17 Maryland, when were present on behalf of the respective parties:
1 18 l
DAVID R.
LEWIS, ESQ.
l Shaw, Pittman, Potts i
19
& Trowbridge
{
2300 N Street, N.W.
l 20 Washington, D.
C.
20037 l
On behalf of GPU Nuclear j
t 21 Corporation.
22 KENNEDY P.
RICHARDSON, ESQ.
Thelen, Marrin, Johnson 23
& Bridges j
One Kaiser Plaza
]
Suite 1950 s
24
)
Oakland, California 94612 r~
On behalf of GPU Nuclear
(_)'
25 Corporation.
)
4
-- continued --
f a
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646
_____-_________D
2 l
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
f%
O 2
GEORGE E.
JOHNSON, ESQ.
3 Office of General Counsel United States Nuclear 4
Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 On behalf of United States 5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
7 8
9 10 11 12 0
3 14 15 l
l 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
3 1
CONTENTS
.m
{
}
2 WITNESS EXAMINATION 3
Herbert D.
Bruner 4
by Mr. Johnson 4
5 EXHI BITS 6
BRUNER DEPOSITION NUMBER IDENTIFIED 7
Exhibit 1 62 8
9 10 11 12 f~3 13 V
14 i
15 l
16 l
17 l
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 f
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I.
.9690 01 01 4
.r\\
(,3WHbw 1
PROCEE' DINGS P
l 2
Whereupon, 1
l 3'
HERBERT D. BRUNER 1
I.
I 4
was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, l
l 5
was examined and testified as follows:
6 MR. JOHNSON:
I am George Johnson.
I am counsel-l 7
fo the NRC Staff in GPU Nuclear Corporation involving the 8
imposition of the civil penalty relating to events arising 9
out of events that occurred in early 1983 concerning one 10 Richard Parks who was an engineer at Three Mile Island Unit 11 2.
12 For the record, I would-like participants around
.?
13 the table, whom I think you know, to identify themselves.
14 MR. RICHARDSON:
I am Kennedy P. Richardson with 15 the firm of Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges.
I am 16 appearing for GPU Nuclear Corporation.
17 To my left is David Lewis of the firm of Shaw, 18 Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, also appearing for GPU Nuclear 19 Corporation.
i 20 MR. JOHNSON:
Thank you.
21' EXAMINAITON 22 BY MR. JOHNSON:
l 23 0
Mr. Bruner, would you state your full name, 24 please, and your business address.
N.
25 A
Herbert Dwight Bruner.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MXF336-6646
9690'01 02-5 l
l L;,sWHbw-1 Do you want the actual street address here?
I l
l 2
Q Sure.
3 A
I am with Bechtel Power Corporation.
Our office l
4 is at 15740 Shady Grove Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
5 0
What is your current position?
6 A
I am Senior Vice President and Manager of l
7 Utility Operations.
)
8 O
Senior Vice President for what?.
9 A
And manager of Utility Operations.
10 Q.
Is that different from the position you held in 11 1983?
3 12 A
Yes.
Yes.
In 1983, I was Manager of Operating 13 Plant Services Domestic.
I believe that was the title.
14 0
Manager of Operations and Planning?
'15 A
No, Operating Plants -- well, let's see.
That 16 may not -- I was Manager of Domestic Operations, I believe,
17 in 1983.
Domestic Operations.
18 0
Domestic Operations?
-19 A
Yes.
20 Q
And did you -after that assume this other 21 position?
22 A
I did not become a vice president until May of 23
'86, and the Utility Operations position is just -- it is 24 the same kind of a position, but I have under me now the 25 operations for domestic, the operating plant services and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
p
-9690'01 03 6
N 1,j WHbw 1
inte rnational.
2 O
So it encompasses the same, but more?
I L
3 A
Ye s.
The same type of work but more l
L 4
responsibilities; yes.
l 5
0 And who did you report to in 1983?
6 A
Chuck Sanford.
7 O
And he was vice president?
l 8
A He was vice president and deputy division manager 9
at'that time, I believe.
f.
l l
10 0
And the division was called?
11 A
Gaithersburg Power Division.
12 O
Is that what this operation here in Gaithersburg 13 is called?
14 A
Yes.
It is changed a little bit.
It is called a 15 company now.
We have reorganized where this is really 16 Eastern, Bechtel Eastern Power Corporation.
It is the same 17 cast of characters, same responsibilities.
We changed the 18
- name, 19 Q
And you reported -- the time frame we are 20 concerned with is January to April 1983.
21 A
I reported to Chuck Sanford.
22 Q
And at that time, you were Manager of Domestic 23 Operations?
24 A
Yes.
25 0
And who reported to you?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 l
l:
'9690 01o04 7
j~%
4,3WHbw 1
A Well, in general, the project managers for'the l
2 project reported to me.
In specific, Jim Thiesing for TMI 3
reported to me, but that relationship is a little different 4
than the other. relationships with other projects, because I 5
did not have responsibility or project responsibility-for 6
TMI.' I had administrative responsibility over Jim 7
Thiesing.
It was considerably different than other 8
projects.
That project was run by GPU, and we were 9
supporting them.
It was intregrated.
10 0
And as I recall the chart of organization for TMI 1
11 2 at that time, Mr. Thiesing reported to Mr. Kanga?
12 A
Yes.
He reported to Kanga for day-to-day project O.
13 direction.
I think it was Mr. Barton was between Kanga.
I 14 think Barton was the deputy at that time.
15 0
Mr. Kanga is still and was then a Bechtel 16 employee?
17 A
Oh, yes.
He was -- the way we looked at him was, 18 Mr. Kanga was a GPU employee, but he still received his pay j
19 check from Bechtel, but he took his direction from GPU.
20 0
Administrative 1y, did he report to you?
21 A
No.
Administratively, he would have reporting 22 line to Mr. Sanford.
This is Kanga we are talking about.
23 0
Yes.
24 A
Yes.
25 0
It is a little more complicated than the usual ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(43364M6
g-.
L 9690.01 05 8
n J,3WHbw I
arrangement?
2 A
Yes, it is.
It certainly is.
i:
l-l 3
0 So that if somebody was goingJ to rate Mr. Kanga, 4
it would have been his administrative supervisor --
1 l
5-Mr. Sanford?
6 A
~Yes.
With input from GPU.
7 0
I take it that you had very little. contact with 8
Mr. Kanga?
l 9
A I.had contact when I went to the site.
I talked 10 to Mr. Kanga.
I would talk to him on the phone once in a.
i 11 while, but as far as business contact, very little.
12 0
If an operational matter came up -- and we are l
O 13 going to discuss some operational matters -- would it have 14 been part of your normal procedures for you to talk to 15-Mr. Kanga about those things?
16 A
Not really, no.
He might, once in a while, ask 17 for advice or ask for support from Bechtel that he did not l
18 feel that he was getting by normal contact.
It would be j
19 with Mr. Thiesing, and his contact would be with Thie, sing.
l 20 If he needed support from Bechtel, they would call me.
i 21 0
Were you in regular contact with Mr. Thiesing l
22 during this period?
i 23 A
Yes.
We talked, I would say, probably once every i
l 24 couple of weeks, you know.
It was not daily contact.
L 25 0
Generally speaking, what would be the nature of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverare H(0-336-6646
9690 01 06 9
h3WHbw 1
those contacts?
2 A
Oh, more probably in the line of Bechtel policies 3
for people being transferred to the site.
Maybe buildings, 4
administrative type functions.
That sort of thing, not 5
normally project related as to how to do work.
Bu t we we re 6
going through an integrated change f rom being an independent 7
contractor to integrating into the organization, and that 8
taking place near the end of
'82.
So we were having 9
integrated discussions on how to integrate better and 10 develop relationships, a lot of conversations along those 11 lines.
12 0
Was there anybody else at TMI 2 that reported to
)
13 you?
x-14 A
Everybody there would have reported to me through 15 Thiesing.
Thiesing was the project manager, so he was the 16 Bechtel contact, but nobody else up there reported directly 17 to me.
I had responsibility for all of our people who were 18 under Thiesing to make sure that their interests were taken 19 care of administratively.
20 0
I see.
i 21 A
It sounds complicated.
I I
22 O
It is starting to make a little sense to me.
l l
l 23 You are saying that Mr. Thiesing was the project manager for j
l l
24 Bechtel purposes at Three Mile Island 27 l
i i
25 A
That 's correct.
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, a e. m -3 m sanonwiae cm< rare an 3 won 40
! 9690 01 07 10 1
1 m
jI,,3NHbw 1
0 And that is how he reported to you?
l 2
A Yes.
l 3
0 And operationally --
l 4
A
-- he reported to Kanga.
l 5
0 And through Kanga to Sanford?
l 6
A Well, he reported to Kanga, but he did not report 7
through Kanga to Sanford.
l 8
0 He didn't?
l 9
A No.
10 0
okay.
11 A
That is where it might get a little confusing.
12 Kanga, of course, being in the client's organization,
(]
13
' theoretically, he does not work for Bechtel, but his contact 14 within Bechtel and the individual responsible for watching 15 from an administrative standpoint on the Bechtel side would I
16 be Mr. Sanford, but Thiesing's reporting relationship was 17 really through me, and I would carry anything up there up to 18 Sanford.
19 0
You explained it, and I jumL failed to absorb it 20 the first time.
21 Did there come a time in 1982, 1983, that you 22 first heard of the name " Richard Parks"?
l 23 A
The first time I remember hearing of Parks' name 24 was in conjunction with the Quiltec situation.
25 0
And apart from that matter, you had not heard l
/\\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(433MM6 1
l' l
L ll 9690 01 08 11-A f L,,3WHbw 1
the name Parks?
l 2
A No, not that I recall.
3 0
And what were the circumstances of your first 4
hearing about Mr. Park s?
5 A
We 1~1, it is kind of hard to remember exactly when 6
I first heard of Par'ks' name as an individual.
When Jim 7
Thiesing called me initially about his efforts in tracking 8
down the origin of Ouiltec and the of ficers, I do not recall.
9 that Parks' name came up, but I think in the correspondence 10 in conversations later on, because of Parks' involvement in 11 having some resumes typed up, that is where I first recall 12 his name and began to understand what his role was with fn
'/
13 Bechtel.
He was -- evidently had been hired into Bechtel 14 right'on TMI and put into the plant's organization, 15 seconded into the organization.
So he was a Bechtel 16 employee working inside the client's organization.
17 So sometimes you become lost, and since he had 18 never been in Bechtel's organization --
19 0
To start with?
20 A
Ye s.
21 0
okay.
I would just like to, if i might, put this 22 call in time, based on, I believe there is some information 23 that I have through which we can place the time.
24 A
Right.
25 0
I was given this in discovery by GPU.
Some ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
l l 9690T01 09 12 m
(3WHbw 1
notes, a handwritten memo from Mr. Thiesing tio Mr. Kanga, 2
and it is dated 2-26-83.
3 I would like to ask you if you have ever seen i
4 this before.
1 5
(Document handed to witness.)
6 A
Yes.
7-0 Is that recently, or is 'it something that you saw 8
at approximately the time --
9 A
I saw it at the time that it was sent to us.
10 0
I see.
11 A
I have also seen it recently.
12 13 14 15 16 17' 18
-19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
L
)
i l96900201 13
46
l' l
l 9690 03 03 34
( )MIlma 1
with King and determined that, in fact, there was a 2
problem.
3 Q
He had several meetings with Mr. c.ing?
4 A
And I don't know where that decision.was made, 5
but I think that was one of the key factors was that, in 6
fact, if they determined that King had violated their.
7 ethics, then that would probably shed a different light on 8
our actions, you might say.
9 Q
And once it was determined -- if I may just state 10 to believe to be the chronology.- On the 24th, Mr. King was 11 suspended or removed from the site, the 24th of February.
12 And subsequently, Mr. Arnold met with Mr. King on a number 13 of occasions, and finally, I think, on March 23, 1983, he 14 was terminated.
15 Was it between the time of the memorandum and the I:
16 23rd of March that you are referring to as in that time 17 f rame ?
18 MR. RICHARDSON:
I'm sorry.
What time frame?
19 MR. JOHNSON:
I will explain.
20 BY MR. JOHNSON:
21 0
The meetings or the discussions, you had 22 Mr. Sandford on the one hand and the people on the other 23 side --
24 A
I really don ' t recall.
Ad 25 Q
You can't?
ACE. FEDERAL IlEPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- L___-_-__-___--
9690 03 03 35
( )VHbw 1
A I really' don't.
You have to realize there were 2
lots of conversations going on about this all during that 3
time.
1 4
0 Right.
But I am not saying that you should 5
remember what happened four years ago precisely, but it was 6
in this general time frame that we have been discussing 7
during March '837 8
A Yes.
I would say so; yes.
9 0
Did you ever, in writing, communicate to 10 Mr. Thiesing that no action would be taken?
11 A
No.
Not that I recall, I don't believe so.
12 0
Did Mr. Sandford, as you understood it?
.(
N/
13 A
No, I don't think so.
14 0
Did you ever consider whether the question had 15 been raised by Mr. Thiesing's conduct under Bechtel 16 Directive 2.2-17 17 A
You mean the ethics?
18 MR. RICHARDSON:
Could you restate that question?
j 19 BY MR. JOHNSON-l 20 0
Did you ever consider whether Mr. Thiesing's
]
1 21-actions that we have been referring to raised a question l
1 22 under Bechtel Directive 2.2-l?
l 23 MR. RICHARDSON:
I gather you are asking whether j
24 a question was raised as to whether Mr. Thiesing's conduct 25 may have violated Directive 2-1.
/\\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
}
l l-l l
9690 03 03 36 l
,f%
h 1.
MR. JOHNSON:
Yes.
y Hbw.
2 MR. RICHARDSON:
Okay.
3 0
In my mind, I raised that question.
I don't 4
remember discussing it with anybody else, but I determined, 5
in looking at how far he had gone, that he had not violated 6
any of our policies.
7 BY MR. JOHNSON:
8 0
If you had determined. that he had, what would you l
I 9
have done?
10 A
It depends on the s3 verity,.but termination is 11 the ultimate.
If there is a willful-violation of our.
12 our ethics, that would uave been a possibility.
13 0
But you turned back from the conclusion that he 14 had, in fact, been -- done an improper undercover 15 investigation.
16 A
That is correct.
What he did was not what-I 17' would consider improper.
As a matter of fact, it probably 18 is something that I myself would have looked at, be cause it 19 is an easy thing to do.
It is public information, you know, 20 so it cannot really be undercover, because anybody cna get 21 that information.
22 MR. RICHARDSON:
Excuse me.
I don't think it is 23 clear, but your premise seems to be presuppose that a 24 conclusion had been drawn that improper undercover 25 investigation was initiated.
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage mL336.(M6
l."
l
' 9690 03'03 37 l
<~g
(_j!Hbw 1
MR. JOHNSON:
That's correct.
I'm asking what he 2
would have done.
3 BY MR. JOHNSON:
4 0
The other question I have on this memo is, it 5
says, "This might mean temporary suspension, et cetera.
We 6
will see."
If the situation is as you have said, which was 7
that perhaps it might-have been necessary to transfer 8
Mr. Thiesing, why would suspension have been considered?
9 A
When I see that, it sounds like it reflects back i
10 on ethics, and maybe that is what. Chuck had in mind.
I 11 don't know, but I know that for my own thought process, I l
12 determined from the information that I.had at the time, O
k~/
13 af ter listening to what procurement had done, and Thiesing's 14 story and how this thing hung together, that there were no 15 ethics that had been violated.
16 Now at the time that this was written, it is ve ry l
17 possible that we did not have enough information to make the l
18 determination at that point, and if, in fact, we had found 3
19 that he had violated our ethics, he would have been I
20 suspended until we were ran the investigation and decide.d if 21 that was a violation that he should be terminated for or wat 1
22 kind of an action should be taken.
23 0
Do you recall when Mr. Thiesing le f t Three Mile 1
24 Island?
25 A
No.
I think it was the same year, probably six ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Kk3364M6 I
l
l 9690 03 03 38 t'h l
V;7Hbw 1
months later or something like that.
I don ' t remember.
2 0
My recollection is approximately July 1983.
I 3
can verify that, I think.
l 4
5 6
1 7
i 8
I 9
1 10
.e a
11 1
[
4
+
12 s
)
l
,o l
Q 13
'l a
"\\
14 4
l 1
,6 l
15
')3
- i, ' %
- ,t
, Y) nz s.
. t 16 s
s i Ng3 t
^
17 "t--
s, f.i rw
,3 9, - l u
18 s:
P g
19 T
!4
~(
l
' t.
.i a
s 20 t'-
+ < L4 l
\\
l
's.
'g.
l
~
l 21 x,._
l L
r
-e
\\
l 22 t
s
.j 23 l
o
.l 1
l 24 s
'l
\\
\\
i l
5 l
{'
25
~
j l
1 t
\\
' + -
l AcdSEDERAL REPoltTENS, INC.
, MKk 336-6646 202 247-3700 x,
Nationwis " hpapa 4
L ___
l
~
^
L l
l l 9690-04 01 39'-40
-A
(,3WH/bc 1
On page 3 on his deposition, it says "I 2
was assigned to work at the site from September of '82 l
3
-through the 1st of June 1983."
l 1.
4 A
That is Jim Thiesing's deposition?
l 5
0 Yes, by Mr. Stier.
l 6
A That sounds about right.
l 7
O Do you know the reason why he lef t Three-Mile l
l 8
Island?
9 A
Specifically, we had, of course, Jim had been on 10 that site for about three years at that time.
I think he
-l 11 went there and --
12 O
It says, "I worked on Three-Mile Island project O.
13 for Bechtel beginning April 1, 1979."
14 A
Seventy-nine, right.
So he had teen there about 15 three years.
There was an opportunity for an assignment for 16 advanceme nt, which is, as you know, are normal tenure.
We 17 look at-people being assigned to something on the order of 18 three years, the projects like that, although some run
'(t, 19 longer.
i,,
20 But, if an opportunity for advancement comes
(
21 along, if an individual has been on that site three years, l
22 or assigned to a site, we feel that the client has gotten a j,i4 23 good return on their money.
24 We then will ask him if they will release him 25 pfend, normally, clients will do that if the assignment is,
~
- 4
' t.
1 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 1
L----_---__-------___
l
l l
9690 04 02 41 BWH/bc 1
in fact, an advancement.
And in this particular case, I i
2 think opportunity came up.
And if you look at the history 3
i of TMI and where we were trying to go and trying to change 1
4 from one mode of operation where we were an independent 5
contractor to be integrated into an organization that was 6
l one-company type of approach under GPU.
i 7
l My own feeling and my recommendation at that time 8
to Chuck Sanford was that it was not only a good opportunity 9
for Jim Thiesing, but it was an opportunity for us to make a 10 change and slide in somebody with a little different 11 approach that had not probably over a history of time r-12 l
stepped on as many toes.
It just looked like a good move
(_)'
I 13 for everybody all the way around.
14 O
Can I interpret what you said as suggesting that, 15 given the history of stepped on toes and differences of 16 opinions between site operations and recovery operations 17 that Mr. Thiesing was involved, without saying whether he i
18 l
was right or wrong, or whatever --
19 A
Pight.
Correct.
I i
20 0
-- that it might be profitable for the i
21 integration that he be reassigned.
22 A
Plus the fact that --
23 i
0 You're not --
r~x 24 A
Yes, that part of it is true, but the real key to V) 25 that is that he had a very good opportunity.
And Jim ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
w: wn w-an c.,
mm.n
lj
- / 9690 04'03 42
\\
'BWH/bc 1
Thiesing is a very good man, very highly qualified 2
individual.
3 And I think we all considered that he had earned 4
'an opportunity for' advancement.
Opportunities don't come 5
along that often.
6 0
So both factors were involved?
7 A
Yes.
Without that first -- without the factor of 8
the opportunity being advancement, then we would not have 9
transferred him at that point in time.
Okay?
10 0
Okay.
11 A
To my knowledge, we would not have any -- and I
'12 was really responsible for the ultimate.
13 0
Was his involvement in the audit, procurement 14 audit with Mr. Buell and Mr. Blizzard, Mr. King and Ouiltec 15 a factor in his reassignment?
16 A
As much a factor as all the rest of the history 17 of the project together, yes.
Another point of some 18 conflict, yes.
It added to it, but it was not the 19 overriding reason for it.
20 0
As far as you know, did you receive, you or 21 Mr. Sanford receive any specific requests for the transfer 22 of Mr. Thiesing?
i 23 A
Not that I -- I don't recollect anybody telling 24 us that we had to go take -- no.
The answer is no.
I do r
lnotrecollect that there was any request from anybody else 23 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 2"" ' "
}.96900404 43
[ BWH/bc I
to-take him off the job.
2 O
Assuming that there was no direct request, did 3
you infer from certain actions or statements from Mr. Arnold 4
or others at GPU that it was desirable?
5 A
You know, my own feeling was that I kind of 6
felt -- I don't know whether Mr. Arnold specifically -- but 7~
I felt that GPU would like to see us make a change just to 8.
help out in that area of integration.
That was really how'I 9
arrived at the conclusion that it was probably a good time 10 to look for, or if an opportunity came.long, to go ahead and l
l-11 take advantage of it.
r 12 MR. JOHNSON:
Let's take a short break.
Five l.
l 13 minutes or so.
l l-14 (Recess.)
1 15 MR. JOHNSON:
On the record.
16 BY MR. JOHNSON:
[
17 0
Can you tell me what Mr. Santee's role was in i
i 18 1983, if you know?
l
\\
19 A
Larry Santee.
Larry Santee was in charge of the f
1 1
20 TMI -- I guess what you would call the project controls.
I j
1
\\
l 21 don't know what they called him.
That has to do with the l-l 22 cost and schedule arm of the organization.
?
l l
23 O
Did he report to you?
l 24 A
To tell you the truth, I can't remember if he was l
l 25 secunded or if he was reporting to Thiesing.
I think the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 l
==
' " - - ~
==
l 9690 04 05 44 BWH/bc 1
l only secunded person we had up there at that time was Bahman i
2 and Kanga.
We had individuals secunded.
3 I don't think Larry was.
I think he reported to i
l Thiesing.
So, indirectly, he reported to me.
4 5
l 0
How about Mr. James Troblinger?
Does that sound 6
familiar?
7 A
No.
8 l
0 Right here.
9 (Handing document to witness.)
10 A
That does not ring a bell.
l 11 i
0 I think Mr. Santee's signature is right under i
12 l
there.
This is a memorandum -- it is a letter, March 4, q
v 13 1983, to Mr. Robert Arnold from Larry Santee.
It pertains l
to an interview, I believe, of Rose Rittle, who was a 14 15 j
Bechtel employee working as a secretary at Three-Mile 16 j
Island, too.
17 l
51ad you ever seen that document?
l 18 A
I really don't believe so.
I really don't think 19 so.
It does not ring a bell.
l i
i l
20 l
0 Was there a time --
21 l
MR. RICHARDSON:
Excuse me.
There are several l
22 j pages in that packet.
Have you looked at them?
j 4
23 I (Pause.)
l
\\
l 24 THE WITNESS:
No.
Not that I recall.
I remember l
r'
' (
.i 25 h some of the information, but I do not recall that it came in l
k 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l; l
xmm s - m.-
l
,,e9690 04 06 45 i ) BWH/b'c
'l' 1
this memo.
The information I'm referring to is some of the 2
information about what Rose did in the way of typing these 3
memos.
4 I just don't recall that I ever saw this 5
particular memo.
6 BY MR. JOHNSON:
7 0
The general subject matter is the typing of 8
resumes by Ms. Rittle was covered in the memo that you did.
9 get from Mr. Thiesing.
Isn't that right?
10 A
Yes, that's true.
11 O
But.you did not receive it as far as you know?
12 A
Yes, I don't think so.
13 0
It appears from the March 4th letter and its 14 attachments that Ms. Rittle was interviewed by Mr. Santee 15.
and Mr. Troblinger on March 3, 1983.
16 My question is were you consulted in any way 17 concerning that interview prior to its taking place?
18 A
I don't think so.
19 0
Do you recall a time when you first learned of i
20 that interview?
21 A
I'm not really sure that I learned of it at all 22 other than the fact that the information -- I would ask Jim 23 Thiesing to find out a little bit more about Rose's fx 24 involvement, you know, and was she doing that on company i
l l
25 time, or was it on her own time, that sort of thing.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L___
=""
~~"
1 l
L
,.9690 04 07 46 "1
~BWH/bc 1
So I don't know if he did that through this, or 2
whether that was done through Bahman and Kanga or a request 3
by Mr. Arnold.
4 1
0 From this document, it appears that Mr. Kanga was 5
present at least at some portion of the interview because it 6
says, at 1:50 p.m.,
quote:
7 "Mr.
Kanga gave Rose an overview of the Larry 8
King situation, et cetera, et cetera."
l 9
" Rose is not being investigated."
10 A
Yes, I see.
11 0
You never saw this as far as you know?
j']
12 A
No, not that I recall.
It does not ring a bell'.
C/
13 0
It appears that Mr. Kanga had some involvement in 14 getting this interview and then processing it insofar as it 15 says, quote:
16 "In accordance with Mr. Kanga's instructions, 17 enclosure, you will find signed copies of the two sets of 18 notes."
19 A
Right.
20 MR. RICHARDSON:
Is there a question?
21 MR. JOHNSON:
I was asking him to acknowledge 22 whether it appears that Mr. Kanga had a role in this i
23 interview and getting information forward to Mr. Arnold.
(-}
24 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
~J 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.3 x.,
__. c-
i
.9690 04'08 47 2k)I l
.BWH/bc 1
BY MR. JOHNSON:
L 2
O Do you recall requesting specifically that the j
3.
hours, overtime. hours of Ms. Rittle be looked into?
l 4
A No.
5 MR. JOHNSON:
Excuse me.
6 (Pause.)
7 THE WITNESS:
While I don't recall it, I think 8
it's a very logical thing to do.
I 9
BY MR. JOHNSON:
10 0
I have a document here that does represent-11-someone's investigation of her not brassing out or'brassing-
_f'y 12 in.
Do you know what brassing is about?
l V
\\
13 A
Sure.
Usually, it is a term that is used for
{
14 craftsmen.
It used tc be that every craftsman got a brass l
15 number when he came in the gate and that indicated he had-16 come on site.
And then, when he left at the end of the day, 17 they handed it in.
That was brassing in and brassing out.
18 Since we don't use brass any more, we use 19 identification i.d.'s, you could do the same thing just by 1
20 showing the i.d. or picking the i.d. up.
It would be 21 considered the same thing.
22 0
So that you think information about brassing in 23 and brassing out would be a way to determine if a person
.q 24 had stayed after or come in earlier than the given hours?
A.)
25 A
Yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(x)
Nationwide Coverage M n336W 46
I 9690 04 09 48
-BWH/bc 1
O But your testimony is that you did not have any 2
role as far as you can recollect --
3 A
No, not that I recollect.
4 0
-- in any of this.
5 A
No.
The only thing I would have done was ask i
6 Thiesing to make sure that if she were typing those resumes, 7
to make sure or to check to see if she was doing it on 8
company time, or was she doing it on her own time.
That 9
would be the only. thing I would ask.
And I think I did ask 10 him to verify that.
11 0
Did he report back to you?
n 12 A
I don't remember how it came back, but I
()
13 recall -- whether it is through reading notes, or whatever, 14 that they determined that it had been done on her own time.
15 It was not on company time.
16 0
Were you involved in the decision whether to take 17 disciplinary action of any sort with regard to Ms. Rittle's 18 role in typing?
19 A
I don't know that that ever became a question.
20 0
But you had no role?
21 A
No, no.
That would be something to be handled on 22 site again.
It would not be something --
j 0
It would not rise to that high a --
23
(~g 24 A
Not unless there was a real ethical question.
j l
\\-)
25 And if she was in fact a Bechtel employee on our Bechtel ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t 2C347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(L33M44
i I
j.9690 04 10-49
'1 BWH/bc.
'l roles, I think she was -- then it might come.-- in fact, it 2
would probably come to me that'it was unethical and there 3'
was reason for termination or disciplinary action, or 4
-something like that.
5 But I do not recall that that ever came up after 6
we once determined that she had done it'on her own time.
7 0
When did you first become aware that the internal 8
audit people were going to be brought into the Ouiltec 9
investigation?
10 A
I was part of that decision-making process.
At.
11 some point, Chuck and I looked at the report of Jim Thiesing
~
i 12 where he referenced the fact that Parts had requested to 13 have these resumes typed.
I think what we did was I called 14 Jim Thiesing and asked him to see if he could verify that in 15 fact they had been typed.
16 And I think they went to Rose and she said, yes, 17 she had done that for him.
And it was Parts.
So then Chuck 18 and I talked about this could be a definite conflict of 19 interest, probably was, and our normal procedure for 20 handling conflicts of interest are things that we considered 21 to be what we might call highly unethical, we go get a third 22 party, an associated group to then do an investigation, 23 somebody that is impartial.
24 And, normally, that is our internal auditing 25 group.
And I recommended that we use Hofmann, since I had ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m >e>.
~ ~ m a-m, m-
9690 04 11 50 "I BWH/bc 1
worked with Lee Hofmann in the past and knew his 2
capabilities.
And then Mr. Sanford, I think, instructed'me 3
to ca11'Hofmann and see if he was available, which I did.
4 And that's how we-got him involved.
5 O
Did you define the mission to Mr. Hofmann when 6
you spoke to him?
7 A
I told him a little bit of the background and 8
what we had in mind, and then had him come out.
And he met 9
with us here in this office prior to going off the site.
10 And Chuck and I both talked to him and told him what we l
11 knew.
And he had been identified as having these resumes 12 types up, but we were not sure what his involvement was.
13 O
Parts Eight?
l 14 A
Yes, Parts.
I i
15 i
O And that was the reason why he came back?
l 16 A
That's correct.
17 O
Do you know if Mr. Sanford spoke to Mr. Hofmann l
18 directly about coming back?
19 A
No, he did not until he arrived.
20 0
And that seems to be recorded in a document 21 called " Sequence of Events" on Bechtel calculations sheet i
22 stationary, page 8, which seems to be a running chronology 23 with an index that seems to indicate that when he came, he l
g' 24 came to Gaithersburg and met with you, one of the first L
I 25 people he contacted, because your name is A on this list of l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E__--
2""t""" -- --
_9690 04 12 51.
1 BWH/bc 1
A through J.-
Is that correct?
Did he report into youion 2-March 9th?
3 A
That's correct.
4 O
And did you reiterate this assignment to him?
5 A
As I recall, I took him into Chuck Sanford's 6
office and we sat together in Chuck Sanford's office and-7 went through it together.
8 0
And how did you scope out the focus of the 9
procedures that Mr. Hofmann was to use, to follow in his 10 investigation?
11 MR. RICHARDSON:
Scope out the procedures?
("4 12 MR. JOHNSON:
Let me try to define that a little
%./
13 bit better.
14 BY MR. JOHNSON:
)
i 15 O
Did Mr. Hofmann tell you at that point who he 16
. intended to interview?
17 A
I don't recall that he did.
I am not sure that'
]
18 he knew enough at that point about the characters to know j
19 who to interview.
But I do not recall whether we had names 20 or not other than Mr. Parks.
21 And of course he knew Thiesing and some of the I
22 key players that he would probably talk to.
l 23 0
Is it possible that he got this list from you?
24 A
It is very possible, sure.
Let's see.
- Buell,
]
25 l
Blizzard, King, Loomis.
I don't know why Tom Flynn would I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
u L
~ _. c-smmo
g 690 04 13 52
'q~2lBWH/bc 1
have era. on here.
Ron Nestor because of the conflict of l
2 interest or the policy that we had.
The director would have l
3 him' sign'as to having read and understand, so he would go to 4
Nester and check that out.
.i 5-But the rest of them sound reasonable.
l 6
0
-Mr. Flynn was a public relations person.
I 7
A Yes.
8 0
You just don't know why he would have --
i 9
A No.
l 10 i
0
-- why he would have written that name down?
I 11 MR. RICHARDSON:
Don't speculate, Mr. Bruner.
12 THE. WITNESS:
I wouldn't dare.
q 13.
I 14 15 l
16 I
17 18 19 20 1
21 1
22 23 24 25 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3HX)
Nationwide Coverage 14XF3346646
,9690 05 01 53 i [T
\\'
BWH/bc 1
BY MR. JOHNSON:
2 0
At the time that you had this meeting with 3
Mr. Hofmann and Mr. Sanford, did you indicate to Mr. Hofmann 4
that you believed, as you said earlier, a few moments ago, 5
that you thought there was a situation that possibly 6
involved highly unethical conduct?
7 A
I don't know that I would have said that.
I 8
think the way I would perceive that approach in approaching 9
anything like that is to tell him what we know and have him 10 draw his own conclusions.
That's what they're for.
11 O
It indicates in the same sequence of events that 1.
I 12 Hofmann exited with Sanford, Wheeler, Nestor, Loomis.
l 13 Does that indicate to you -- let me ask it this 1
14 way.
Did Mr. Hofmann pass through your office again before l
15 he left?
1 16 A
I don't recall that he did.
I spent a lot of 17 l
time out of town.
I would have normally been involved in a i
18 meeting like that.
And I could not recall, in thinking back 19 whether or not I was involved in the exit or whether 20 Mr. Sanford brought me up to speed on the exit.
21 If I had been here, I would have probably been 22 involved in the exit.
l l
23 O
Mr. Parks, when he had his interview on March 14 j
l 24 with Mr. Hofmann and Mr. Wheeler, reg'oested to talk to l
f~g
(_/
I 25 Mr. Sanford.
And the next day, he came back to Gaithersburg ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 1
n--
-- a c-1
f 1
9690 05 02 54 BWH/bc 1
and talked to Mr. Sanford.
2 A
Yes.
3 0
Were you involved in that meeting?
4 A
No, I was not.
5 0
Do you remember why?
6 i
A I probably wasn't here and he requested to talk l
7 to Chuck Sanford.
Then he would just go talk to Chuck.
No, i
8 I was not involved.
9 0
Did Mr. Sanford discuss his meeting with l
10 Mr. Parks after it was over with you?
11 A
Yes, he mentioned a meeting.
r' ;
12 0
And what was his statement to you?
xJ 13 A
As I recall, it seems to me that he probably had I
14 l
a reasonably good meeting with Parks.
15 0
Did he indicate to you what his judgment was 16 going to be concerning the conflict of interest?
17 A
No.
We were waiting for Hofmann's report until 18 we got his report -- I don't remember when we got that, or 19 whether it came out of the exit interview.
Until that 20 information came to us, it would not make any difference, I 21 !
guess, what Parkc did because you're really looking at that 22 information first.
And then trying to base it on the basis 23 ll of that.
h
(]
24[
0 At some point -- not at some point -- on the 22nd V
q 25 j
of March, Mr. Wheeler, I believe, went back to the Island j
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m.-,,
~
_,m -
-m_
,,9690-05 03 55
( )
[ BWH/bc 1
and reported to Mr. Parks that no disciplinary action was 2
going to be taken by Bechtel based on what they knew at the i
3 time.
4 And I'm not sure whether it was reflected.
Right I
5 now, I'just can't remember whether it was a formal letter.
6 involved or not.
Were you consulted, or did you have input 7
into the determination before Mr. Wheeler communicated it to 8
Mr. Parks?
9 A
I'm sure I did, yes.
I 10 0
And what was that?
11 A
I think we reviewed what we knew about the case 12 and what the internal auditing group had come up with.
And 13 I think a key factor in our decision was the fact that we 14 had not-in fact informed Mr. Parks of our ethics, our 15 directive, which is our normal procedure when we sign 16 somebody on.
17 So, in fact, he was not aware of our ethics 18 requirements.
And the fact that he really had never worked 4
19 in the Ber.')tel organization, he had been secunded into GPU's 20 organization for the total time he had been working for 21 Bechtel, working under King, as really a King employee, you l
22 might say, it led us to the conclusion that even though we 1
23 thought that was an ethics violation and had he known about m
24 that, we probably would have terminated him, that, in fact,
. (d 25 we had not given him the right kind of instruction and l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2fC 347-3700 Nationu ide Gncrape 8(KF33M446
l l
l l
I.
g 690 05 04 56 j
\\
(2).
BWH/bc 1
direction.
And that we did not have any basis.
It was 2
partly our failure and not fc11owing through on our policy.
3 So he deserved an opportunity to correct that' 4
situation and go on and be an employee of Bechtel, continue 5
to be an employee of Bechtel.
6 0
Did Mr. Hofmann give you a written report of his 7
investigation?
8 A
I cannot recall for sure, but normally you do get 9
some kind of.a written report.
10 THE WITNESS:
Do you know whether we got one?
11 MR. RICHARDSON:
Ultimately, there.was a written 12 memorandum.
13 THE WITNESS:
I' don't think we got all the 1
14 findings, but we usually give a summary.
15 MR. RICHARDSON:
You're referring to a written as i
16 opposed to a verbal report?
- i 17 MR. JOHNSON:
Right.
If you have that, I would I
18 like to see it.
19 MR. RICHARDSON:
I'm not sure.
It is a 20 memorandum from Pace to H.
Brush.
21 MR. JOHNSON:
I think I do have it.
22 THE WITNESS:
Do you mind if I read this?
23 MR. JOHNSON:
Please do.
e 24 (Pause.)
I b'
I 25 I will identify this for the record.
It is a l
e i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mo.m sau_we c-ere mus.
,.9690 05 05 57-
-BWH/bc 1
memorandum on Bechtel Power Corporation, interoffice 2
memorandum statior.ary that says, quote, " strictly l
3 confidential", underlined at the top, it says, "To 4
H.F.
Brush."
It is dated March 24, 1983.
The subject is 5
"Three-Mile Island's code and possible employee involvement 6
with jcb shop operations".
7 And it says copies, "J.M.
Komes, K-o-m-e-s, 8
C.W.
Sanford, J.W. Weiser, R.M.
Loomis."
9 Is this the report of Mr. Hofmann -- obviously, 10 it is from Mr. Pace, but is this the --
11 THE WITNESS:
As far as I know, that is it.
.I 12 cannot recall anything else that I have seen in writing.
13 BY MR. JOHNSON:
14 0
This is as much directed to Mr. Richardson as to
'f 15 you.
It seems reasonable to suppose that this is based on j
-j 16 some input from Mr. Hofmann.
In fact, it says SMP:HLH.
It 1
l 17 is a code at the end.
j 18 A
The secretarial.
1 19 Q
HLH is Ed Hofmann.
l l!
MR. RICHARDSON:
With the caveat that lawyers j
20 l
21 often get things wrong, I will give you my understanding, l
22 Mr. Johnson.
My understanding is that Mr. Pace at this time 23 was Mr. Hofmann's superior within the internal auditing 24 group or department.
25 MR. JOHNSON:
Okay.
And I just had a very ACE-FEDERAL REPO.RTERS, INC.
2I)2-347-3 7(X)
Nationwide Coverage MKL 33MM6
{
l t
9690 05 06 58 l
BWH/bc 1
limited -- was Lee Hofmann's true initials HLH?
2 MR. RICHARDSON:
I don't know.
I think there are 3
other documents that we have --
4 MR. JOHNSON:
The only documents I have with his 5
name on it --
6 THE WITNESS:
I can find out for you quick.
k 7
MR. RICHARDSON:
Here is H.
Lee Hofmann.
I would 8
l say that is a pretty good, intelligent guess.
1 i
i
{
9 l
MR. JOHNSON:
It seems to me that even though q
10 I
Mr. Pace signed it, that Mr. Hofmann prepared it.
i 11 l
MR. RICHARDSON:
Don't speculate, Mr. Bruner.
I
(~]
12 MR. JOHNSON:
He is shaking his head.
That is v'
j 13 his speculation.
l' 14 i THE WITNESS:
A nervous twitch.
l-15 (Laughter.)
i 16 l
MR. RICHARDSON:
We are not denying your I
17 supposition.
18 MR. JOHNSON:
Okay.
f 19 BY MR. JOHNSON:
20 0
Can you just identify to the extent you know who 21 j
these people are -- Mr. Komes?
22 l
A Mr. Komes was the general manager for this 23 division.
Chuck Sanford, of course, was the deputy general
.p 24 manager.
u) 0 This division in Gaithersburg?
25 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
C-2" " ' "
- " 3""
m l
690 05 07 59 1
BWH/bc 1
A This division in Gaithersburg, that's correct.
2 John Weiser is chief counsel in San Francisco for the 3
Bechtel group.
And Rich Loomis was chief counsel here in 4
Gaithersburg, assigned by John Weiser.
i 5
l 0
I see.
Thank you.
Do you know whether this l
6 I
document was given to Mr. Wheeler for his use in reporting i
7 to Mr. Parks?
I 8
l A
I do not know.
t 9
MR. RICHARDSON:
It is confusing since this is f
dated March 24th, and Mr. Wheeler --
10 11 j
MR. JOHNSON:
-- spoke to him on March 22nd.
I I
em.,
12 i
MR. RICHARDSON:
I'm not clear if you're a'
13 h referring to a draft of this or what.
l 14 BY MR. JOHNSON:
15 0
There is some disparity there.
Is it your 16 understanding that Mr. Wheeler, when he went up to, or prior j
17 to the time that he went back to the Island to talk to l
18 i
Mr. Parks, had seen some kind of written document that maybe 19 was not this particular document --
i i
l A
I don't know.
I really don't know.
{
20 l
21 O
Okay.
Did you see this when it was sent to l
il
\\
22 l Mr. Sanford?
23 A
I'm sure I did.
I recall reading something like rx 24 that, yes.
l L) l l
25 O
But, since it post-dates the meeting of Mr.
u l
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
neu m, w,mun unun
9690 05 08 60 BWH/bc 1
Wheeler with Mr. Parks, and you indicated that you had had 2
input to the decision as to the action to take with respect 3
to Mr. Parks prior to Mr. Wheeler going and telling 4
Mr. Parks that the information that is in here, at least in 5 '
the form it is in here in this document, was not consulted?
6 A
Well, it could have been through --
l 7
MR. RICHARDSON:
I'm sorry.
Would you restate 1
l the question?
8 9
BY MR. JOHNSON:
l 10 O
You did not use this document as input when you 11 made your decision?
,r~n 12 i
Not necessarily the document.
')
{
13 l
A Yes.
I cannot remember all of the sequences but 14
{
through various discussions in that period of time and 15 l
having the information from what the results of their l
16 i
findings were going to be, I'm sure we got that over the 17 j phone and went ahead to move, and taking what you might call Mr. Parks off the hook.
18 9
l!
19 l!
O You knew?
f 20 A
Yes.
i I
21 (
0 I see.
So did you dispatch Mr. Wheeler?
?
22 A
I don't know if I did personally or if Chuck i
23 y Sanford did.
I was sort of involved in the decision to do 9
r3, 24 1
- that, i
m/
f 25 1 l
t l
l
. ACE-FEDERAL ; REPORTERS, INC.
i m,-,
~ _. m-m_
l.
l 61 9690 05 09 BWH/bc 1
0 Did you counsel Mr. Wheeler either directly or 2
indirectly to try to get Mr. Parks back on board, so to l
speak?
3 4
A I don't recall, you know, what we counseled him 5
on.
I just don't recall the events.
6 0
Mr. Sanford, as I indicated earlier, and you 7
probably remember it as well, had a meeting with Mr. Parks.
i 8
And you indicated that that meeting, according to l
9 Mr. Sanford, went well.
It --
1 10 A
As I recall, I think he said it went fairly well, d
11 0
Did he indicate to you when you spoke to -- the 12 "he" is Mr. Sanford -- when you spoke with him after the (m) t/
13 March 15th meeting with Mr. Parks, that there was a fairly j
l 14 serious breach of Bechtel policy involved?
)
l 15 A
I don't think so.
The March 15th being the l
16 meetingn with Parks?
l 17 0
Yes.
Did Mr. Sanford tell you after that that it i
18 seemed to him a pretty serious breach of Bechtel policy was 19 I
involved?
20 A
I don't think so.
1 l
21 0
Did he indicate to you that there was a j
)
22 jj possibility that Parks might be terminated?
i l
0 23 A
No.
At that point?
1 24 hl 0
Yes.
gm v
1 25 l
A No.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i
- o: m n.,
s-w cmew m m-a,
9690 05 10 62
'[ BWH/bc 1
O When you made your decision or participated in-2 the decision with respect to the disposition of Parks in 3
.this matter -- strike that.
4 MR. JOHNSON:
I would like to identify this 5
document for the record and include it as an exhibit to this 6
deposition.
7 MR. RICHARDSON:
Fine.
8 (Bruner Deposition Exhibit 1 identified.)
9 MR. RICHARDSON:
I will stipulate we can make a 10 xerox at the close of the deposition and make it your 11 Exhibit 1, or whatever.
12 MR. JOHNSON:
I will mark it.
13 BY MR. JOHNSON:
14 O
The last subject I want to ask you about is the 15 extent of your contact with Mr. Kanga during the sequence of 16 events in the middle of March 1983 with relation to 17 Mr. Parks' role on the test working group.
18 Did you have any conversations with Mr. Kanga 19 concerning the removal of Mr. Parks from his role on the 20 test working group?
21 A
No.
22 Q
None at all?
q 1
23 A
None at all.
Well, let me see if I understand
-(3 24 the question.
Are you asking me if there was any
'q )
25 conversation leading up to his removal, or conversation l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(X)
Nationwide Coverage MX) 336-6M6
j.9690 05 11 63
~1 BWH/bc 1-after the fact?
2 0
Let's take the first first.
3 A
No conversation leading up to that removal.-
4 None whatsoever.
5 0
And assuming.that that was on March 17, 1983, you 6
had no contact with Mr. Kanga before Mr. Parks in fact was 7
removed from that role?
8 A
No.
No -- I had contact but no conversation 9
about that subject.
10-0 About that subject.
That's really what I'm
.11 asking.
12 A
That's correct.
(w)y
\\_
13 0
Once he was removed, did Mr. Kanga report that to 14
-you?
15 A
No.
The first time that I think we heard about 16 that -- because it meant nothing to us down here whether he 17 was on or whether he was off -- was when Parks came back and 18 whatever point he alleged that -- publicly, I think, that 19 that was a discriminatory move.
Then that was the first I
20 h timo we heard about it.
21 0
I believe the first time that probably came to l
22 your attention was a letter that Mr. Parks wrote to l
23 Mr. Kanga.
Let me see if I can locate it.
24 (Pause.)
f3 L
25 A
I have the letter here.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
" = > =
--
- c--
- " ' " ~
L
t'.9;690 05 12 64 (1/- BWH/bc-1 O
Yes.
Did you see that?
That was copied to 2.
Mr. Sanford.
Did you see that at the time it was sent?
3 A
I'm sure I'did, yes.
4 MR. RICHARDSON:
Are you sure that you saw the 5
document -- at what time?
6 THE WITNESS:
I'm not sure if I saw the letter 7
itself, but I did -- I'm quite sure that Chuck or Mr. Kanga-
)
8 talked about the concerns that were expressed in this 9
letter.
Let's put it that way.
-10 BY MR. JOHNSON:
11 O
And was that the first time that you learned of 12 that subject?
(
s 13 A
To my recollection, yes.
1 14 0
Did you give Mr. Kanga any instructions or advice 15 concerning Mr. Parks' charges?
l 16 A
Mr. Kanga did not work for me.
He was the vice-l 17 president.
He was above me.
Okay?
I did not give him any 1
18 instructions, no.
19 (Laughter.)
i i
20 0
I'm sorry.
Got a little confused.
I didn't
]
(
21 actually know he was the vice president.
]
l l
22 A
Yes, he was a vice president.
I l
23 0
Did you have any role in the preparation of this l
l L
I 24 letter of March 24th to Mr. Parks from Mr. Wheeler informing l
25 him, Mr. Parks, of his suspension?
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2"2 -
'" '-
- c--
E_
I i
l l
690 05 13 65 l
l BWH/bc 1
(Handing document to witness.)
l 2
j A
I don't believe I had any role in the formulation 3
of this letter.
1 4
O And did you have any role in the formulation of 5
the decision to suspend Mr. Parks?
l 6
A I am sure that I consulted with -- that Chuck and l
7 I consulted on the actions.
8 0
And what was your input into that consultation?
9 A
I don't recall.
I am sure that we discussed -- I 1
10 don't recall specifically, but I am sure that we discussed what had become a very complex and complicated situation now 11 12 that he had gone public and made a lot of accusations that 13 we felt were unsupported, unsubstantiated from what we knew 14 l
were erroneous.
15 And, in fact, he put himself into a position i
i 16 l
where he had probably alienated everybody on the site and l
j would make it impossible for them to work with him.
And the 17 I
18 fact that they would probably be -- the way I would look at f
19 it is they would be subject to reverse discrimination in the 20,j fact that he was now discriminator.g against individuals Il 21 1 without proof.
I 22 It was a very complicated situation of what to 0
23 p do in this kind of a situation, and suspension was probably d
rx 24 (
the only alternative until we sorted out what you could do
)
v-)
l 25 in that kind of a situation.
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
.w rm
~ ~,,,& n -
- v. -
j r
___-___-__a
i i
9690 05 14 66 1
BWH/bc 1
O So you had a consultation with Mr. Sanford.
It 2
was Mr. Sanford's decision to make?
t 3
j A
Yes.
That is really where the ultimate decision i
would have been made.
4 5
0 Did you have any conversatl.ons with regard to 6
this letter, or the decision that isireflected in the letter 7
i with Mr. Arnold?
8 ]
A No.
Not with Mr. Arnold.
9 l
0 With someone else from GPU?
I I
10 A
I would imagine if there wpre any conversations;
/J 11 with Mr. Arnold, it would be Mt'..
Sanford.
My contact was 1
d
'~)
12 through Thiesing and Kanga.
Chugs contact would be withs j
/
l 13 the GPU, although I attended some meetings.
Bat the direct L
i 14 j
contact would be with Chuck Sanford.
)
i a
i 15 O
Were you aware of any contacts witn Mr. Sanf d. d / * ~
+
l f
16 l
and Arnold on this decision?
4 l
,k/
17 j
A I'm sure they had lo?' of conversations.
I i
18 cannot be specific.
It is tan kind of thino :fou would have i
19 i, conversations with 'four climnt on, yes.
h a,
20 I If; 21 i
e 22 g i
23 i
i
,i t
1
(
)
[
s-l 25 i
ACE-FwERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t x-s _, m < _,.
.m
\\
a
~y Ia 6
/
L
, 4:
(
1 1.
1 67 9690 06 01 4
1 BWH/bc 1
0 Werp you. involved at all in the ultimatp decision 3
2 on the disp:.bsition ef'Mr. Parks?
It relates to the text of i
3 the letter saying Mr. Wheeler says, quote, }Bechtel is going i
s 4
to look inte. the thing further _ and gc-0 bgck to you about c
il yourstakus."
5 %
6 Concerning Mr. Parks' allegations, did you have s
7 any input subcoquently into the determination as to what theuitim.etbdispositionofMr. Parks should be?
8 I
i 9
hE.JRICHARDSON:
Mr. Parks' Department of Labou 10 action was settled.
And, Mr. Bruner, insof ar as you were s
11 involved in. discussions concerning the settlencat of r"3 12 Mr. Parks' Departmert of Labor action in that these in) 4.,
~
13 discussions inkolvedithe attorneys represoad.ing Bechtel, T
t t
14 I
those discussions are privileged.
I f
i s
15 i
'IFE WITNESS:
Itwasn't involved in them(anyhow.
MR. RICHARDCOd:
Fine.
j 16 i
BY PiR. JOHNSON:
17 kj i
O I was not asking you about thos'e conversations.
18 '$
f) 19 [
What I was look. ng t'o was it seems from this letter that j
20 there was a review that went forward from March,24th about i
i t
i i
21 l
what to do apart from the DOL compladnt, or apart from the f
settlement negotiations on the 99L complaint.
22 l
I r
23 J I was just curious whether you had any input into l
l l
24 i
consultations about wEat to do with Mr. Parks.
('s)
)
25 j A
In the same context as a lot of) input that I had i
i l
-l i
i
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l E
" " " f' v'
l'
!L5.
l
, 9690 06 02 68
'hi,) BWH/bc
.1
'with Chuck Sandford.
And that would be Chuck would talk to p
- 1.,
2 l
myself or others and -- and ask for opinions as to what we 3,
might do and where we might go.
- \\
s f
4 And then, based on that input, plus I'm sure 5
' discussions with your Honor or the client would form his 6
decision about which direction we ought to head off in.
7 What was right.
What was the right thing to do, f
8 0
Do you recollect making any recommendations to
'*r
>>9 Mr. Sandford?
i
,Y 1
10 l
A No.
I don't recollect specifically what kind of l
i.
11 l
recommendations.
Are you talking about the decision to 12 suspend him still?
' 13 0
Yes.
Keep him off the site.
g a
['
14 A
I would have definitely recommended that ws go to 15 suspension, yes.
16 O
And once he was suspended, did you make any l
17 j
further recommendations about what ought to be done with i
i 18 him?
^
l 4 '-
19 A
I think what we are looking at is, if I recall,
~
7 jf
. 20 w*e asked Andy Wheeler to look at what options we had as far
+
y, 4
,o
.)
.21 i' as other assignments.
22 We did not feel like it was in his interests or 23 the interests of the job to put him back on TMI.
And we 24 needed to go find alternate assignments.
And I was involved O.
',f 7
l c
25 in that discussion, yes.
i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I J
i xm_
c-mm-
i 9690 06 03 69 BWH/bc 1
0 Prior to the time in which you -- these 2
discussions that had to do with the DOL proceeding and the 3
settlement of the dispute, did you reach any conclusions 4
about what to do with Mr. Parks?
5 A
I cannot even reflect back on that time.
You 6
know, the time sequence.
I'm not sure where that DOL action i
7 lay with respect to these other decisions.
I 8
I O
I believe this proceeding was dismissed
)
i 9
j August 6th or 16th,
'83, and that the settlement was in i
10 l
July, sometime in mid-July,
'83.
I 11 Does that help you at all?
12 A
Not really.
V(^
)
33 (Pause.)
14 1 MH. JOHNSON:
Thank you very much for your i
15 J cooperation, I don't have any further questions.
16
)
THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m.,
the deposition 17 i
l 18 l
concluded.)
I 19 j
20 21 22 l
I 23 1
/m 24 n l 0 l
25 l
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I x.--
~ _ - -
msme
l l
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER
,,.x
't T
\\
/
Ny l
I, BARBARA L. WHITLOCK the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify l
l that the witness whose testimony appears in the l
\\
foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that i
the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand
)
l and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under l
l my direction; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel
- for, related to, nor employed by 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
\\')
employed by the parties
- hereto, nor financially i
or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
lukhm h h' NW(C Notary Public in and for the State of Mary. land l
My Commission Expires JULY 31, 1991 i
n i
IU')
____.__A__.___-
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER the officer before whom I,. BARBARA WHITLOCK 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 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 V
a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
- hereto,
'nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
i Notary Public in and for the State of Maryland My Commission Expires O
i
M w De** w l
1 cy.
(,
Bechtel Power Corporation
(
)~
Df' STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL Interoffice Memorandum l
l H. F. Brush F4 No 83-104 Tnree Mile Island: Possible Employee C**
March 24, 1983 Involvement with Job Shop Operations h" -
S. M. Pace O'
Internal Auditing f
C***
- J. M. Komes
^'
50/11/G-17 bt 7700 C. W. Sandford J. W. Weiser R. M. Loomis The allegation was that a General Public Utility (CPU) employee ("the GPU employee") had a financial interest in a job shop which was hiring GPU people away from work on the Three Mile Island Project.
Further, Bechtel employees have assisted the GPU employee with his job shop operation.
j~g Lee Hofmann conducted an investigation.
It was established that the GPU
(
~
employee was the president of a job shop known as Quiltec, Inc.
Several
(
highly skilled people had left the client's organization and each of them may have had an association with that job shop.
l We determined that a Bechtel senior start-up engineer had received from the CPU e.mployee a number of personnel data sheets and was asked to have resumes typed from them. The engineer found a Bechtet secretary to type the personnel information into resume formats, which she did on her.own time. He also paid the secretary $75 for which he was reimbursed by the CPU employee. The secretary later disclosed to her supervisors that she had typed the Quiltec, Inc., resumes for the engineer. The engineer made no such disclosure until he was interviewed by Lee.
Directive 2-1 was violated. There are mitigating circumstances. When he was hired in May of 1982, the engineer had very little orientation as to Bechtel policies and procedures. We did not locate a signed Directive 2-1 Acknowledgement. He claims that his reporting relationship within the integrated CPU-Bechtel employee mix on the project was clouded. He reported to the GPU employee on a day-to-day basis. On at least one occasion, he found himself in a position where he felt that his thoughts were being challenged.
'The GPU employee seemed to give our employee a feeling of protection during the on-going CPU-Bechtel technically oriented debates on the project.
In short, it appeared that even though he was a Bechtel employee, our engineer may have felt that he was not receiving support from his Bechtet superiors.
[,
When the engineer was asked to get Quiltee resumes typed, possible ethical ramifications did not occur to him.
t 1
$024 (54n
! I;.
. s.
q r
'/'-(
To:
H. F. Brush From:
S. M. Pace IL Page 2 March 24, 1983 I
GPU has terminated its vaployee. The Division has verbally reprimanded the engineer and reviewed with his certain appropriate policy writings. Also, it has counselled the secretary.
The Division is taking steps to reestablish a closer relationship with our employees on the project so that they are aware on a day-to-day basis of the support available to them from Division and project personnel.
Internal Auditing has closed this investigation a
. M. Pace SMP:HLH:cac s-i 1
O o
O
\\
/
T g* iy&a-- -/Mj/R=
/--- i TIKELEN. M ARHIN. J011NSON & 13HII)GES I
AT TO R NC Y_S AT L AW two swe.ac40smo cearse ONE K AISER PL AZ A
**"'**",[,"[*((
- "[,",',"*',**";,"',**"'
SuiTc 1950 s w.on, oc acu. e n e...o e,tassele co OAKL AND. C A 9 4682 satsa so cooe casta vacuan v t ta cop'< m ed'S* *,s-soe s 14151 89 3-019 5
, ELE COPIER Bdise 6959056
,,,J,,,,g,,,,,,
'*oes not seco 22ssow?momaacavthwt Los anocess. ca eco,s
..oo
.........c....
eio.
,,....... o. o o Apri1 24, 1987
"*"",,,,",'.'.*.".'e'e,",
,....e. e, e c. e a 3...
- 6..
..uco................
872795 Ms. Barbara Whitlock Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C.
20001 Re:
In the Matter of:
GPU Nuclear Corporation (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2) 54.74 e #X
Dear Ms. Whitlock:
Please make the following changes and/or corrections to the transcript of Herbert D.
Bruner, whose deposition l
testimony was taken on February 25, 1987:
Paae Line Correction
...v l
9 3
delete " buildings" 9
9 delete " integrated" 27 7
delete "would come up is that" 27 9
delete "and how to work" 27 10 delete "they" 27 15 change "Brimmerman" to "Freemerman" 39-40 15,16 delete "There was an opportunity for an assignment for advancement, which is, as you know, are normal tenure."
39-40,.
24 change "him" to '"the client"
~
l Ms. Barbara Whitlock 1
April 24, 1987 Re:. CPU Nuclear Corporation l
Page Two 42 11-12 delete entire answer 44 2
delete "and" 45 22 change "would ask" to "nad asked" 49 12,17 change " Parts" to " Parks" 50 13,14 change " Parts" to " Parks" 54 11 change "a" to "the" 57 19 change "Ed" to " Lee" 68 5
delete "your Honor or" Very ru I
~
'y,ennedy P
. Richardson
/az cc:
Herbert D.
Bruner George E. Johnson, Esq.
J.
Patrick Hickey, Esq.
s p
_____l----_-.
--