ML20238C733
| ML20238C733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1987 |
| From: | Arnold R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238C505 | List:
|
| References | |
| CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8712310184 | |
| Download: ML20238C733 (251) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- SRGNE UNITED STKfES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-320 I GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Civil Penalty) License No. DPR-73 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2) DEPOSITION OF ROBERT C. ARNOLD y PAGES: 1 224 LOCATION: Washington, D. C. DATE: FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. O OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 NADOMDE COMACE yk23gggg gjO b 20 T PDR
LCR30690.O 1 DAV/COX/dnw
.f A, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
- BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
- - -.- . - - - - - - - - _ _x In the Matter of: :
- Docket No,'50-320 c GPU NUCLEAR: CORPORATION : (Civil Penalty) 8 i,
(Three Mile Island Nuclear : License No. DPR-73 Station, Unit No. 2) :
------------- -y DEPOSITION OF ROBERT C. ARNOLD Washingt'on, D. C.
Fr iday, E April 24, 1987.
~
Deposition of ROBERT C. ARNOLD,. called for-examination
.O pursuant to notice, at the' law offices of Shaw,.Pittman, Potts
& Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W.,; Room 2A,.at 9:40 a.m. before
. D A V'I D L ... H O F F M A N , a Notary Public within and for.the. District of Columbia, when were present on behalf of the. respective-parties:
J. PATRICK HICKEY, ESD. DAVID R. LEWIS, ESO. j Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20037 On behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation.
-- continued -- ,
l O i Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn33MM6
'1
,1
1 "CR30690.O 2 ' 1 DAV/C'OX/dnw i
/ , ..
APPEARANCES: (Continued) I l NICHOLAS S..REYNOLDS, ESO . . ] DANIEL F. STENGER, ESQ. l Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds
'1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 j On behalf.of.the Deponent. i GEORGE.E. JOHNSON, ESO. j Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regula' tory Commission-Washington,.D. C. 20555 . On~ behalf'of the Nuclear Regulator.y - Commission. , .] O-t l l l O-l' ACE FEDERAL REPO.RTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MKk33'-6646 I
, ll CR30690'.O 3 l .DAV/COX/dnw-CONTENTS WITNESS EXAMINATION Robert C. Arnold by Mr... Johnson 4' j EX H I B I TS I ARNOLD EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED Exhibit 1 154.. ' j Exhibit 2 163 i
l O I 1 I I \ 1 l 1 i , j L l-O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 l ..
L
'6900 01 01 4 l 1.
l < V/bc
~
1 P.R O C E E-D I N G S 1 U 2 Whereupon, 3 ROBERT C. ARNOLD
- 4. was called as a witness and, having been duly sworn, was 5 examined and testified as follows:
6- EXAMINATION 7 BY.MR. JOHNSON: 8 0 Mr. Arnold, would you please state your full name 9 for the record? 10 A My name is Robert C. Arnold. 11- , O Your business address, please. 12 A 100 Interpace Parkways, Parsippany, New Jersey A 13 07054. (/ . 14 0 What is your current occupation? 15 A I'm currently an employee of the GPU Service 16 Corporation. 17 0 How long have you been in that position? What is i' 18 the position that you are in? 19 A My position is assistant to the president, and 20 I've been in that position for about three and a half years. 21 O What is the work that you perform as assistant to 22 the president?
.23 A I basically serve as corporate staff to the i i
24 president for generation, fossil generation issues, and l 25 related issues such as environmental activities. I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
6900 01 01 5
<" 'V/bc 1 O Is GPU Service Corporation the overall GPU, or is V
2 there a GPU above GPU Service? 3 A There's a holding company, the General Public 4 Utilities Corporation, that is the parent company of GPU 5 Service Corporation. 6' 0' How does-the nuclear generation aspect of GPU' fit 7 into the picture? How is it related to the holding company, 8 and how is it related to the service corporation? 9 A The GPU Nuclear Corporation is a sister 10 subsidiary to the holding company of GPU service and the 11 three electric operating subsidiaries. 12 0 How would you describe the reporting 13 relationship? Do you report -- is there a subsidiary [} 14 relationship between the nuclear generating facilities and 15 the service corporation? 16 A No, sir. The GPU Nuclear Corporation is a j 17 separate subsidiary company from'GPU Service Corporation to 18 the parent corporation. 19 0 I'm just going to back up a second. Did you 20 receive the notice of deposition from your counsel? l 21 A Yes, sir. ' 22 O Who is your counsel today? I 1 1 23 A My personal representation is Mr. Reynolds. I 24 0 I see. 25 Is anybody else in the room here representing you { l l l
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
l. l 6900 01 01 6
-r'V/bc 1 today?
V 2 A Inasmuch as I'm basically.a representative of the 3 company and I think the expectation is I'll be a. witness in 4 this proceeding, Mr. Hickey, of Shaw, Pittman, Potts and 1 5 Trowbridge, I consider to be counsel that I have obligations 1 6 to. 7 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Stenger, my 8 associate, is also. 9 MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Patrick Hickey from 10 Shaw, Pittman, and Dave Lewis is as well. 11 BY MR. JOHNSON: l 12 0 I assume prior to coming to the deposition here
/ 13 today,'you've been briefed as to the nature of the (3 )
14 proceeding that's ongoing with respect to civil penalty
~
15 action and the nature and possible subjects of this 16 depos1 Pion. 17 A I believe I have an understanding of that, yes, i 18 sir. 19 0 Is there any medical or other reason that would 20 prevent you from giving full testimony today? 21 A Not to my knowledge, sir. 22 0 Okay. If I'm not clear in any of my questions, 23 please ask me to rephrase the question. I will attempt to 24 do so to make it clear. 25 Similarly, if your answers are not clear to me, I [} ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(F336-6646 l
l 6900 01 01 7 I
- /^V/bc 1 will ask you to clari'y or explain your answers, i l
N~)' l 2 A Fine, til j l 3' 0 At the e ' of the deposition, you will have an L 4 opportunity once it's reported to look it over and correct l 5 inaccuracies. i 6 To the extent you make substantive changes to the 7 testimony you give today, I may have an opportunity to 8 examine you further. But that's something down the line, 9 and we'll deal with that.
'10 A Yes, sir.
~11 0 Getting back to your joining GPU Service j 12 Corporation and being assistant to the president for the
(} 13 last three and a half years, could you give me a date.on 14 which you became assistant to the president? 15 A I'm not sure what date we decided upon, a'name to 16 put to my title. But I went into essentially this 17 assignment in November 1983. 18 0 And prior to November 1983, what position did you 19 hold? 20 A I was the president of GPU Nuclear Corporation. 21 0 How long were you president -- excuse me. What 22 was the date of your leaving GPU Nuclear Corporation? 23 A November 1983. 24 0 How long were you president of GPU Nuclear (} 25 Corporation? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-33MM6
6900 01 01 8
/~'V 1 A I was the president since we established the L)/bc 2 corporation in September 1980. The corporation started to 3 function as a corporate entity in January 1982.
4 0 And from September 1980 to January 1982, you were
.5 functioning in the capacity of president of a nonoperating 6 entity. How would you describe that?
7 A The GPU Nuclear Corporation had been legally 8 established, but we hadn't transferred the operating. 9 licenses of the other GPU subsidiaries to the GPU Nuclear l 10 Corporation. The timing of getting all the SEC and NRC and l 11 State Commission approvals is what was inherent. 12 So, during that period, I basically performed the 1 (^1 13 same function to an organization that-was made up of people Q/ l 14 from the other GPU subsidiaries that predated the 15 establishment of the GPU Nuclear Corporation, and became the 16 employees of the nuclear corp when we were able to start 17 that legal entity operating. 18 0 What were those entities that made it up? 19 A We principally had employees from GPU Service 20 Corporation, Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central 21 Power and Light. We probably had a minor number, maybe up 22 to a dozen, from the Pennsylvania Electric Company. I 23 0 Are these all companies now currently within the 1 l' 24 GPU system? (} 25 A Yes, sir. ACE FEDER.AL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
I 6900.01 01 9 C V/bc 1 0 And Met Ed was the entity responsible for the V i 2 operation of Three-Mile Island prior to the formation of GPU 3 Nuclear Corporation? 4 A Yes, they were the licensee for Three-Mile I 5 Island. 6 0 Okay. Prior to becoming president of GPU Nuclear 7 Corporation in September 1980, what position'did you hold? 8 A- Well, immediately prior and during the transition 9 time, I was a vice-president of GPU Service Corporation. 10 0 Say that again? 11 A Vice-president of GPU Service Corporation. 12 0 What period are you speaking to? 13 A I had that position initially from June of 1977 14 to December 1981. I was also in the time period we're 15 addressing a senior vice president'of Metropolitan Edison 16 Company. And subject to verification, that was for the 17 period of August 1979 to December 1981. 18 And I believe, during 1981 and perhaps part of 19 1980, I was a senior vice president of Jersey Central Power 20 and Light. 21 0 That position again, please? 22 A Senior vice president. 23 0 Prior to June '77, what was your position? 24 A I was a vice president, Generation, Metropolitan l. 25 Edison Company. l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Ntitionwide Coserage 8(Xb336-6646 i
6900 01 01 10 7'V/bc 1 Q At the time of the Three-Mile Island accident, U 2 you were senior vice president for Met Ed? Please tell me 3 what your position was. I'm confused here by this 4 chronology. 5 A At the time of,the accident in' March 1979, my 6 only title was that of vice president, Generation, GPU l 7 Service Corporation. Perhaps it will help speed this part 8 of the background information along if I just explain: 9 Following the accident, we consolidated the 10 Service Company and Metropolitan Edison Company Resources 11 directed towards TMI. And I was placed in charge of those, 12 and that was the reason for making me an officer of the 13 Metropolitan Edison Company, so that I could function under (~} 14 the license properly. 15 And, in 1980, we incorporated the Jersey Central 1 16 ' Oyster Creek Station, and the people associated with that, i 17 into the organization that was responsible for TMI to bring ! 18 all of the nuclear activities in the GPU system under one 19 organizational entity. , 20 I effectively headed up all of those sequences of 1 21 organizational structures following the accident that 22 evolved into the GPU Nuclear Corporation. ! 23 0 So, when this evolution was completed, that it 24 would be completed in approximately 1982, the beginning l l {} 25 of 1982? l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 I
6900-01 01 [ 11 l-D V/bc~ 1 A .In terms of all of the . legal' structure being-in V 2 place, that's January '82. In terms of from an operational 3 standpoint, it really was in place in the fall of 1980. 4- Q Where were you at the time of the accident, March i 5 28, 19797 6 A I was .in Parsippany, New. Jersey. ! 7 0 When did you first learn'of the accident? 8 A I think the' term " accident" can be ambiguous in 9 terms of what we mean by that. But let me hopefully be 10 responsive by saying that I learned there had been.a' plant 11 upset, a reactor shutdown, or a plant upset . including a 12 reactor shutdown at 8 o' clock in the morning on March 28th. {} 13' 0 And you were notified by phone? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q By whom? 16 A By a person, a man by the name of George 17 Troeffer. 1 18 0 Could you spell that? 19 A I'll try. T-r-o-e-f-f-e-r. 20 0 In March 1979, you were senior vice president, or i 21 you were vice president for generation of GPU Service 1 22 Corporation. You also held anothar title. that title for l i 23 Met Ed came later. l 24 A That's correct. ( 25 0 That came later. l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46
6900 01 01 12
/"'V/bc 1 A Yes, it came in August I believe of '79.
U 2 O Were you responsible for operations at Three-Mile 3 Island in your capacity as vice president for Generation? 4 A Of GPU Service Corporation? 5 0 Yes. 6 A No, sir. , 7 0 What was your function at that time with respect 8 to the operation of Three-Mile Island, particularly unit 9 two? 10 A I would identify it as having two aspects to it. i 11 One was a carryover. .Well, let me go to the other one 12 first. As vice president, Generation of the Service {} 13 Corporation, I was responsible for design, or more 14 correctly, the management of the design and construction ; 15 activities for the GPU system that were of a major ~ nature. i 16 I did not have responsibility for the operations i 17 of the facilities, but for the design, construction and 18 startup parts of them. 19 In March 1979, we still had some post-commercial 20 operation punchlist type items to finish up that were being 21 done underneath a small project group that was in my 22 organization. I 23 The second relationship I had is I served 24 effectively as corporate staff for policy development, l l l 25 budget recommendations and overview of the generating (} i 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
l. !, I N 1 I.69000101 13' l
<"'y/bc 1 facilities of the operating companies, what I'd call a b
2 typical corporate staff type of. function -- not a line 3 function. 4 -O In the days and weeks and months that followed , i l 5 March 28,.1979, how would you describe your involvement in l l 6 the events of the accident? 7 In other words, how did you become familiar with 1 l' 8 the sequence of events of.the accident? 9 A There were a number of methods by which that 10 happened, and I may leave out one or two but I'll try to j 11 summarize them. 12 First of all, we established a task force to do.a l () 13 post-incident review of the events before'we really 14 I understood the extent of the accident. 15 That was later superseded by another task force 16 that was tasked with investigating certain aspects of the i ' 17 accident that I believe the company needed to have a better 38 understanding of than we were developing at that time. i 19 I was involved with being briefed with results of 20 both of those task group efforts. The Kemeny Commission 21 that was set up, I'was a strong interface point at various 22 times with the activities of the Kemeny Commission in 23 coordinating their interaction with company people. 24 We'had the NSAC investigation, which we supported 25 with our people. That's Nuclear Safety Analysis Center. It (]} ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
6900 01 01 14 1 was initially an EPRI organization that we supported, and I {~'V/bc w 2 was obtaining a lot of feedback from what they were learning 3 about the accident. 4 We had a couple of Congressional investigations, 5 the results of which I was familiar with. 6 0 What about the Rogovin Commission? Did yo'i have 7 interface with them? 8 A Yes. There was a Rogovin Special Inquiry Group. 9 There was the NRC's investigative group that resulted in 10 NUREG 0600, the report on the accident. Then I guess there 11' were various other committee and technical group reviews of 12 the accident sequence itself. {}
, 13 14 I think it's fair to say that I was familiar with what was being developed by all of them. C And we can even 15 go, I guess, into the 1980-81-82 time period, when we had the B&W 1awsuit.
16 ,, 17 We also went back and covered the accident 18 sequence and associated events. As I say, I probably left I 19 out a couple. 20 0 By the time of the B&W lawsuit, which I believe 21 commenced in late 1982 -- is that correct? l l 22 A The trial opened in November '82, I believe. 23 0 By that time, were you thoroughly familiar with 24 the sequence of events of the accident? l (} 25 A Maybe you could clarify for me what you are l Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 l L--___---__--__----__ _ - - _ - - - - _ - - --_-----________________________________o
6900 01 Ol' 15 1/'V/bc 1 including in your terminology of sequence of events.
'U 2 O Had you been involved, for example, in the 3 development of a document -- I think it was called The 4 Sequence of Events, GPU Sequence of Events? !
5 A If I know what document you're referring to and . I 6 if you have it with you, I'd be glad to-cite it and verify 7 that I understand what you're talking about. 8 0 I don't have a copy of it. I have a reference to 9 it, so it's not going to be that useful. 10 A If I'm aware of the document you're referring to, 11 that document was basically developed under my direction 12 within the organization I was responsible for supervision 13 of. I was generally familiar with it. I don't think I (]} 14 would claim to be familiar with it in detail, in all of its 15 details. In some of its details, I was. 16 (Pause.) i 17 0 You're familiar with the so-called Stier report, 18 entitled TMI-II Report, Management and Safety Allegations of 19 November 1983? l 20 A Yes, sir. ' 21 0 Could you identify for me a person with the name 22 D.E. Taylor? 23 A David Taylor, to the best of my knowledge, is a 24 technical consultant who basically is self-employed. {} 25- 0 Are you familiar with the report that's included ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8 @ 336-6646
.6900.01- 01 16
~'y/bc' 1 as Tab 35 in Appendix B of the.TMI-2 report by Mr. Stier (V
2 that.I just referenced, called Report on George Kunders 3 activities relative to HPI activation and control on 4 3/28/79. 5 MR. REYNOLDS: May Mr. Arnold see the document? 6 (Handing document to witness.) i 7 (Pause.) 8 THE WITNESS: Mr. Johnson, I, frankly, don't 9 remember this document specifically, although, from a very d 10 quick and casual scanning of it, it would appear to me that i 11 I'm famil'iar with most, if not all the information that's in ! 12 it. {} 13 BY MR. JOHNSON: 14 0 Okay. When did you first become aware that 15 George Kunder was duty officer on the morning of the 16 accident? j 17 A I don't have a specific recollection of'when I 18 knew that. ; 19 0 Would it have been the day of the accident, when 20 you received the reports initially? Would you have become 21 aware that he was in the control room as duty officer that 22 day? 23 A I was aware that he was in the control room on 24 that day sometime during mid-day, from my recollection. l (} 25 Other testimony I've given, I do not recall that I realized ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-336 6646 \ _ -- - - - - _ _ . - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ -
l 6900 01 01 17
'V/bc 1 that he had been the duty officer for the 24-hour period 2 preceding that. {
l 3 0 And you're describing when you first learned of I 4 his involvement or his being at the site the day of the. 5 accident you're talking about? 6 A Right. 7 Q Did you later learn that he had come to the site 1 8 at approximately 4:50 in the morning? 9 A Subject to checking on the time, I did later i i 10 learn that he was. the first of f site person to come to the 11 plant as a result of the incident, yes. l i 12 O By.later, what time frame can you give us on 13 that? ( 14 A I'm not sure of-the time because I don't have any 15 recollection of it. But I would think within the first one 16 to two weeks after the accident. 17 0 I have a picture here from volume one of Three-18 Mile Island, a report to the Commissioners and to the 19 public. It's on page 45. 20 (Handing document to witness.) 21 BY MR. JOHNSON: 22 0 Is that you? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 O Do you know when that was taken? i {} 25 A I don't have a clear recollection of it, no. ACE-FEDERAt. REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364 646
6900 01 01 18 V/bc 1 MR. HICKEY: Can I ask for some kind of 2 indication of the relevance of this line of inquiry to the 3 issues in this litigation? 4 MR. JOHNSON: I think it will become apparent. l I 5 MR. HICKEY: You're going pretty far afield from j 6 what was specified in the issues, specified in the order. 7 MR. JOHNSON: I think we'll see that it's l 8 relevant. 1 9 Could you read back the last answer, please? 10 (Whereupon, the reporter read the record as 11 requested.) 12 THE WITNESS: Maybe I should. correct that answer. g 13 I'm thinking about it. I don't have any recollection as to 14 when that picture was taken.
)
15 BY MR. JOHNSON: 16 0 Okay. Was Mr. Kunder the technical 1 17 superintendent for TMI-2? l l 18 A At what time period, sir? l l 19 0 During the time of the accident? l l 20 A That's my recollection of what his title is, yes, 21 sir. l 22 0 You were aware that that was his position on the 23 day of the accident? 24 A Yes, sir. g 25 0 What were his responsibilities at the time on 1 l i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage N W-336 4 46 i
6900 01 011 '19 1 that-day as duty officer?
.]("'V/bc 2 MR. HICKEY: Are you using duty officer as j 3 synonymous with technical superintendent?
4 MR. JOHNSON: No. I assume that there may have 5 -been other functions that he had that he was not performing 6 on the day of the accident. 7 BY MR. JOHNSON: 8- 0 Maybe you can clarify that for me. Was one of 9 the functions of the technical superintendent for the unit, 10 too, to be duty officer on occasion? 11 A I don't know if that was in the job description 12 for that position or not, but that was one of several {} 13 14 positions on the staff, to my understanding, that were utilized on a rotating basis as duty officers. 15 0 Okay. And to the best of your knowledge, what 16 was his. responsibility as duty officer that day? 17 A I'd like my answer to be understood in a very-18 general sense, because I wasn't that close to operations. I 19 But my expectations would be that he was the management 20 resource that was to be called upon by the shift supervisor 21 in the event of any difficulties at the plant that 22 management, other than the on shift management, should be 23 informed of and should be in a position to provide 24 assistance. {} 25 0 Was it within his function as duty officer to ACE FEDERAL RJ PORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide 0 merage 8(n33MM6 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
6900 01 01 20
," 'sV/bc 1 provide advice to the operators as to what courses of action d
2 to take? 3 A I think it's fair to say that part of his role 4 would be to advise the shift people, yes. 5 0 would that include advice as to manipulations of 6 controlm 7 A In a consultive type of role, but not in a 8 directive role. 9 0 Would he have had to have been a licensed 10 operator to have actually manipulated the controls? 11 A In general, yes. There are provisions, I 12 believe, for someone to manipulate controls under the 13 direction of a licensed operator, under direct supervision. (~} v 14 But I think that's an exception that doesn't really pertain 15 here. 16 MR. REYNOLDS: It's also calling for a legal 17 conclusien from the witness. 18 BY MR. JOHNSON:
$ 19 0 Have you read the Rogovin report, volume one?
20 A May I look at it, please? 21 (Handing document to witness.) 22 THE WITNESS: My recollection is that shortly 23 after its issuance, I read the section entitled Three-Mile 24 Island, an introduction narrative of the accident. And the i 25 section headed Conclusions and Recommendations. I don't
/] \. l l
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j i 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn3364M6 l
,h ' f<
o .f; **, l ... i a. c 6900:01 01~ ' 21 4' g y g 7'V/bc 1 recall whether I read the twp appendixes. t h}h V ., . .
+ A h}
2 BY MR. JOHNSUit i 3 0 Thank you. Do you'tecall when you would have, ( 4 read that? - 5 A Other than that I repd it shortly after it becan f 6 a public document. I'mnotab1Atoi'fdatifythedatey 7 0 ItappearstohavebeenissuedinJanua[y$1980,
*L q ,, s 8 or shortly thereafter, based on thih forward. That pi',rfaces v .. , j 9 the document that's signed by Mr. Rogovin and Mr. Fram\ ton,-
10 January 1980. So you would place it in the early 1980[bimq. 11 frame? , (- 'M 4, ( ,4 12 A Yes, sir. o t 4, 13 0 Did you become aware of its:es tigative :iriterviews 14 or statements being given by varioud participants in the . 15 control room during the seeks dnd months immediately af tell g j% 16 the accident in 1979? M NI i 17 A I had some familiathty with information that was '
;) .5 18 being developed from those interviews that were beinh 19 conducted by the company people. I don't recall that I had 20 information that was being developed by either NRC or the 21 Rogovin group when those interviews were public, such as 22 Congressional haarings that were held.
23 I think I was generai(y #amiliar g wi,th s what was l 24 said. I don't recall that I did muq6 in thh reading of , e l 25 actual transcripts of those in the '79 ti period. / l
,' } l ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationw id e.fmerage 8$)-336 6646 I 8
o 6900 01.01 22
/~'V 1 LO Did you become aware contemporaneous to the [
. V. /bc .,
2 creation of.the GPU sequence of events that we were 3 referring to, or-prior to that time of tttatements given by 4 operator Zewe, is it? , E 4 5 A Zewe. 6 0 Zewe, Frederick and Faust, concerning 7 manipulation of controln for the reacto coolant pumps and ! i' { 8 .the high pressure injection system? . 9- MR. REYNOLDS: Do you understand'the question?. .( i ,1 ' 10 THE WITNESS: I believe I do. My recoll.ection11s I 11 that I was. aware generally of what different people who were.
- 12. in the control room at the time were providing in the way of 13 information as to what happened during_the time period from
(]) t. 14 4 o' clock until perhaps 4 in the afternoon or so, for' 15 several hours, I think. , 16 BY MR. JOHNSON: 17 0 Was it your understanding that Messrs. Zewe, 18 Frederick and Faust had-indicated in their statements that 19 the high pressure injection p. imps had been turned"on at the 20 time, approximately 5:40 a.m., March 28, 1979, at the' time l 21 the last of the reactor coolant pumps had'bhon secured? 1 l 22 A It's my recollection that I was aware that that l i 23 was there. All account of events of that time in the weeks l 24 after the accident. j i (J 25 0 Approximately when did you learn that? i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(KL336 # 46 l
a ' 6900 01 01 23 V/hc 1 A I thi.nk probably when I became specifically aware t 2 of it, of the focus on it as opposed to maybe having been 3, told it:. But not focusing on it particularly, was in the 1 lj course of reviewing some of the documents that either b 5 !.' preceded the sequence of events or early drafts of the (
^
6d sequenca of events itcoif. 7 When the technical analysis that was being done 8 did not identify the high pressure injection pumps were 5 9 started at the time they were shutting down the last of the 10 reactor coolant pumps, and the operators were indicating 11 that they thought that had been done. 12 O l.nd what were these technical reports that you g 13 were referring to? 14 A Well,.I'm not sure in which documents the 3 15 h information initially arts developed. But we had two or 16 three spacific technical issues, or collection of issues t 17 being pursued by people underneath the two task forces I 18 identified. 19 In the cource of doing that work, I think that 20 information may well have been developed, or it may have 21 been developed just as the result of a sequence of events. s 22 0 Can you place a time frame on the sequence of
. evnnts and those studies being undertaken?
23 ;J> 24 I A The initial effort to understand what happened at t. fg '
~25 the time of the accident started the day of the accident. I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MC-3364M6
6900 01'01 24 V/bc 1 believe it was in June or July that I established -- 2 probably late June or late July that I established what 3 became known as the Keaton task force, which was the second 4 task force, that I referred to earlier. 5 0 This is 19797 6 A Yes. The efforts of those groups resulted in a 7 number of what I'll call technical reports. I couldn't, 8 without going back and reviewing files and things, be more 9 specific than that at this time, I don't think. 10 0 When did you first learn that the technical ,
.i 11 reports were at variance or suggested conclusions about the
)
12 initiation of the high pressure injection pumps at l 13 approximately 5:40 a.m. on the day of the accident?
}
14 Was my question clear enough? 15 A Well, if I understand your question, I think I i l 16 answered it already, sir. I'll be glad to repeat the ' l 17 answer, but I think I did answer it. 18 0 Could you repeat it? I'm sorry. l 19 A I think I became aware of the discrepancy at the 20 time the sequence of events was being reviewed while in 21 draft form, or in conjunction with review of drafts, 22 technical reports that related to the same issues. l 23 0 It's the when that I'm looking for. I'm sorry. 24 That was 19797 1981? {} 25 A No. It would have been I think in 1979. Perhaps Acn. FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 L________-_-____---__--__-_-__ _ - _ - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - ._ .- -- - 2
6900'01 Ol' 25 V/bc 1 if you could identify it'for me. When we submitted the { 2 sequence of events to the NRC, that would put a late date on 3 it. 4' (Pause.)
'?
5 When we have the opportunity, there's another 6 aspect to the answer that I'd like to provide. 7 O Maybe I can find that during a break. Right now, 8 it doesn't seem worth taking the time. But you have I 9 something you'd like to add? 10 A Yes. A sequence of events was also developed by )
/
11 the Nuclear Safety Analysis Center. My recollection is that 12 the sequence of events developed by them, which were /'s 13 finished, I think, in their initial report on it in late '79 V 14 or early '80, did not identify or did not support the 15 initiation of high pressure injection at full flow at the 16 time of the start of the reactor coolant pumps. l 17 In other words, in their sequence of events put 18 together by NSAC, they did not identify, as I recall, when 1 19 that occurred. I also would say that my recollection is 1 20 that they were basing their sequence of events completely on
]
l 21- the technical data they were able to develop. I 22 They did it with the assistance of plan.t people. 23 But I don't think they used testimony that wasn't supported 1 24 by the technical data. j 1 25 0 Is it your understanding that at the GPU B&W j (~Ns-] i
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MG33MM6
- _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _=
l 6900 01 01 26 1 trial, or in depositions prior thereto, that two of the f/bc 2 operators -- Mr. Zewe and Mr. Frederick -- revised their 3 initial view about the HPIs being turned on at the same time i 4 the last reactor coolant pump was secured?
- 5 A I became aware of that at some point. I think it 6 was subsequent to their testimony.
7 0 Do you mean testimony during the trial? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 0 Were you at the trial? 10 A I was one of the witnesses at the' trial, but I 11 was not there other than at the time I was scheduled to 12 testify. 13 0 So you weren't there on November 1st, when Mr.
"}
14 Fiske gave his opening statement? 15 A No, I was not there. 16 0 Did you read his opening statement after it was 17 given? 18 A I don't have a recollection of reading any of it 19 until much later, and then only extracts. 20 0 When did you become aware that as part of the 21 theory of the B&W lawsuit that B&W was contending that 22 because the high pressure injection pumps had been turned 23 of f at approximately 5: 40 a.m. on the day of the accident, 24 which caused the core to be uncovered, that B&W couldn't be I j {} 25 responsible for the damage to the core? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
6900 01 01 27
' V/bc 1 MR. REYNOLDS: Do you understand the question, 2 Mr. Arnold?
3 THE WITNESS: I was just going to ask if you'd 4 mind repeating it because it didn't go where I thought it 5 was going, and I'm not sure I followed it? 6 (Pause.) 7 BY MR. JOHNSON: q 8 O Let me just read from NUREG 0680. It summarizes ! 9 the statement. The statement itself is in the Stier report 10 as Tab 34. Let me just read it from page 11-1 of NUREG ; 11 0680, sub-5. 12 In his opening statement at the trial on {} 13 November 1, 1982, R.B. Fiske, the attorney for B&W, 14 emphasized the GPU SOE. What.is SOE?- 15 A Sequence of events. 16 0 Conclusion that HPI had been initiated at 0541. I 17 Had it remained on, he argued, core damage would not have i 18 occurred; thus, Fiske concluded that Met Ed was negligent by 19 turning off the HPI pumps. 1 20 Fiske further argued that the " mystery man", ! 21 quote / unquote, who turned the pumps off could not have been 22 a B&W employee. Thus, B&W was not responsible for the core i 23 damage. j 24 Were you familiar with that line of reasoning l {} 25 during the trial? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cwerage 80(L33MM6
l l-l l
.6900 01~01 28 l
' V/bc 1 A Yes, sir, I believe I was.
2 0, Is it fair to say that the existence or not of 3 the mystery man had a substantial bearing on liability of 4 GPU for the accident? 5 A Not in my opinion, but I don't think I'm 6 qualified to answer that question. l 7 0 Were you also aware of Mr. Faust's testimony - - l 8 well, it's my understanding that Mr. Faust did not testify l 9 during the B&W GPU trial. Did you understand at the time of 10 the trial that Mr. Frederick -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Faust still 1 11 held the position that the HPIs were turned on at the time 12 that the last reactor coolant pump had been secured on the [} 13 14 morning of the accident? A I don't believe I was aware of that. If that's 15 the case, I think I guess I'd have to say I'm surprised, 16 based on what I thought was in the record subsequent to 17 that. 18 (Pause.) 19 0 During your investigations or participation in 20 the various investigations during the aftermath of the , 21 accident, did you become aware that Mr. George Kunder had a 22 role in the securing of the reactor coolant pumps? l 23- A Yes, sir, I did know that. I don't have a 24 specific time frame to associate with that, but I think in (} 25 the months, if not weeks, immediately following the i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(F336446
6900 01 01 29
/ V/bc 1 accident, I.was aware of that.
l 2 0 Specifically, I'm referring to securing the i-. 3 reactor coolant pumps at approximately 5:41 a.m. the day of 4 the' accident. 5 A Well, my memory isn't very fresh on it now. I 6 was quite familiar, I believe, by mid-1979 with the timing 7 and the decision process on securing of all four of the 8 reactor coolant pumps on the morning of the accident. 9 0 Did you have a role in the settlement that was 10 reached with B&W in January 1983?
- 11. A I don't think it would be accurate to-say I had a 12 role in the conditions of the settlement. I did have a role 13 in deciding how to implement the conditions of the 14 settlement.
15 MR. JOHNSON: Let me take a five-minute break, l 16 (Recess.)' 17 MR. JOHNSON: Why don't we go back on the-record. 18 I want to finish.up.the last line of questions. 19 BY MR. JOHNSON: 20 0 Mr. Arnold, did you say that you had read the
.21 opening statement at any time of Mr. Fiske from the B&W l
22 trial? 23 A I believe what I said and what my recollection is , l 24 is that I had read excerpts from it, but I don't think I l 1 25 ever read it in its entirety. 1 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb336-6646
6900 01 01 30 1 0 Did you read that portion of it that refers to f/bc 2 the statements of Mr. Zewe? 3- A I don't recall. If you could show me those, 4 perhaps it would refresh my inemory. l 5 0 Okay. ! 6 (Handing document to witness.) 7 BY MR. JOHNSON: 8 0 I'm showing you tab -- I think it's 38 -- from I 9 the Stier report, appendix B, page 158 of the transcript. 10 A For the record, it's tab 34. 11 0 Sorry. 12 (Pause.) 13 A I understand that your question goes to his
}
14 comments about Mr. Zewe, which appear on page 1587 My 15 recollection is that I had read that part of Mr. Fiske's 16 opening statement at probably various times. 17 0 within weeks to several months after the 18 statement was given? Would that be a fair approximation of 19 when you did it? 20 A well, I don't have a recollection of it. But my l 21 guess is that it was probably during the summer of '83 at
]
22 least that I have read that. Whether I had read it earlier 23 or closer to the time it was made or not, I can't recall. 24 I would also like to point out that there are i {} 25 some statements made in that opening statement by Mr. Fiske l I 1
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. )'
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
l 6900 01 01 31 l l
/ V/bc 1 that I would disagree with as being accurate, based upon the j 2 .information I had in 1979.
3 0 Shortly after the statement was made on 4 November 1st, was a report of'the statement relayed to.you 5 in some way? 6 A I think when one underscores in some way -- 7 0 In what way? How did you learn of it first? 8 A My recollection is that, as GPU's attorneys were 9 working at how to respond in testimony to the claims made by 10 Mr. Fiske relative to their being a mystery man, that I had 11 some discussions with the attorney team as to who in the GPU' 12 staff might be able to assist. And,as testimony was being 13 prepared, it was contemporaneous with when some of my own-(]) 14 trial testimony preparation was done. So I was in their 15 offices discussing with some of the attorneys and the staff 16 report they had the issue and what information was-being l 17 developed to deal with that item. 18 The impression I didn't want to leave is that I 19 was somehow the specific recipient of a report on that issue 20 immediately after it was made, or something like that. That 21 was not the case. 22 0 But you became aware during those discussions you 23 just referred to during trial preparation that Mr. Fiske was 24 relying on statements by Mr. Zewe concerning the initiation l (} 25 of the HPIs during the morning of the accident? l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 l
6900 01 01 32
.-('}V/bc 1 A I don't believe I'd characterize it that way. I 2 became aware that he had made'certain assertions in the 3 course of his opening argument relative to testimony.
4 Well, I wouldn't even call it testimony. Really, t 5 relative to there having been a mystery man. { 6 0 Would it be a true statement to say that, at the 7 time of your preparation for the lawsuit, the B&W lawsuit, 8 that you and'GPU and GPU's lawyers consistently took the 9 position that high pressure injection was not initiated i i 10 during the time we were just referring to -- 5:41 a.m. -- 11 and, therefore, that there was not a mystery man to turn 12 them off? 13 MR. HICKEY: Taking the position is pretty
)
14 ambiguous. Can you be any more specific about where this 15 position was taken which you're referring to? 16 BY MR. JOHNSON: 17 0 Was my question unclear? 18 A Yes, sir, it was. 19 O Let me try to rephrase it. Was it your position 20 during your preparation for your testimony at the B&W trial 21 that the higa pressure injection pumps were not initiated at 22 5:41 a.m., the day of the accident, and, therefore, that 23 there was not a mystery man to turn them off? 24 MR. HICKEY: His position meaning his belief? 25 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. [} i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
p. c 6900 01 01 33 1
/"'N/bc 1 -THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection, ac V
2 the time of the B&W lawsuit -- I think I'd like to first ; i 3 make it clear that I was'not preparing to give testimony in i l 4 that area. And was not directly involved with the 1 5 development of the testimony or the planning for its 6 presentation. 7 To the extent that I was aware of the issue 8 though, my best recollection is that I did not have a firm 9 belief at the early stages when the issue first came'up, 10 although I had always been doubtful-that the operator's 11 recollection was correct. 12 That is, since it first became an issue, I had {} 13- serious doubts that their recollection was correct. 14 In the course of the trial, testimony and 15 preparation, I believe I was familiar with some of the 16 analyses that were being done to pursue the issue. 17 And I think it's probably accurate to say that by 18 the end of the trial, when settlement was reached, I was 19 convinced that the operators were incorrect in their 20 recollection back in April of 1979. 21 O And that there was no mystery man? 22 A That's correct. 23 0 Mr. Arnold, did you in response to the notice of 24 deposition bring any documents with you? (} 25 A No, sir, I did not.
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
202-347 37(X) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
6900 01-01 34 1 0 Did you consult any documents in your preparation d("TV/bc 2 for this deposition? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 0 Could you identify those documents for me, 5 please? 6 A Well, I can in a. general sense. The notice of 7 violation on the procedural deficiencies, issued as I recall 8 in February 1984; the OI report on their investigation of 9 the technical and administrative issues, which was issued on 10 September 1, 1983; the Stier report that we referred to
. 11 earlier; and related documents to those three items.
12 0 Related documents could cover a lot of ground. ("T 13 Could you identify what those were? U 14 A I honestly don't think I could. I'm talking
\
15 about basically information that was included in the i 16 response to discovery from us, and the information included .q 17 in response to discovery requests from us to the NRC. ! 18 0 Anything else? 19 A Not that I can recall specifically at this time. 20 0 Did you maintain personal calandars -- desk 21 calendar or pocket calendar -- for the period 1982 to 1983? 22 A To some extent. It was not a very complete one. ; 23 0 Do you still have it? 'j l 24 A It was turned over to GPU Nuclear Corp for their {} 25 files. It's still in existence. It happens I think to be ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-326-6646
~6900 01 01 35 V/bc 1 in my office for the moment, for '83 at least.
2 MR. JOHNSON: I would request that the calendars 3 that you refer to be produced so that we can review them. 4 It would have been useful to have them for this purpose, for 5 the deposition. 6 MR. HICKEY: I'll be glad to get them to look at. 7 MR. JOHNSON: I'd appreciate that. 8 BY MR. JOHNSON: 9 0 Could you identify to me -- strike that question. 10 Now you say you reviewed the Stier report as part 11 of your preparation. Did you review your prior statements 12 given to Mr. Stier and his associates? {} 13 A I reviewed the statements contained in the Stier 14 report and the other Stier investigations where I gave 15 statements. Yes. 16 0 You say the report, but did you review 17 specifically your depositions given to Mr. Stier? 18 A The ones -- yes, sir, I did. 19 0 Wasn't there a contract in existence between GPU 20 Nuclear Corporation and the Department of Energy during 1982 21 relating to the TMI-2 cleanup? j 22 A I think the answer to that is yes. Let me go 23 back if I may though and clarify that a little bit. l 24 MR. REYNOLDS: Clarify what? l 25 THE WITNESS: The terminology of " cleanup". {"} l ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n336-6646 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I
6900 01 01 36 V/bc- Cleanup perhaps is not a very precise term. To the extent 1 2 there wcs any contract with DOE, in my recollection, they 3 basically related to R&D efforts, which were related to 4 activities generally in the envelope of what people call 5 cleanup. But they were not contracts for cleanup 6 specifically. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
6900 05 06 37 Vbw 1 BY MR. JOHNSON: 2 O Did you have a contract with the Department of 3 Energy which reembursed your costs with respect to 4 preparation for removal of the core? 5 A I don't believe we had a contract that had those 6 terms in it; no. 7 0 With anyone? 8 A I don't believe we had a contract that gave a 9' cost reimbursement for preparations for removal of'the core l 10 with anyone. 11 0 Please describe the nature of the contract that' 12 you did have. {} 13 A I did not understand it to be in the scope of the 14 deposition request, and frankly, I have not done any review 15 relative to that area, and I don't think I have a very 16 reliable recollection of the contractual arrangement of '82. 17 0 But a contract, you say, with the DOE did exist f I 18 during 1982? J l 19 A There were various contracts with DOE that were j 1 20 in effect in 1982, to my recollection. 21 0 As best you can remember, what were they for? 22 A They were for conduct of R&D activities by GPU on 23 nehalf of the Department of Energy. j i 24 0 And what R&D was involved? ) I {} 25 A The R&d activities generally related to gathering 1 l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(646 l - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ b
1-6900 05 06 38 ("NVbw 1 information that would assist in understanding the accident. V 2 0 For example? 3 A Removal and delivery to a laboratory of the 4 sensing device for offsite analysis and evaluation by a 5 separate contractor to DOS, engineering and technical work 6 associated with decontamination'inside the reactor building, 7 what processes are ef fectivc how ef fective they are, that ; 8 type of information. 9 0 I see. You say, removal and delivery of sensing 10 devices. What kind of devices? Devices that.were already 11 in the core or devices that were to be inserted in the core? 12 A Devices that were in the containment building, {} 13 not in the reactor core that potentially were affected j 14 during the accident. A radiation monitoring sensing device, 15 for example. One cf the kinds of items that were provided. 16 0 Okay. Any other types of devices? 17 A Well, for specific offsite analysis, I don't 18 currently recall any other category of devices, but I am ) 1 I 19 sure there were some. 20 0 Now with respect to engineering and technical I 21 work associated with decontamination of the reactor ! 22 building, did that include decontamination of the material ] 23 inside the core of the reactor? I' 24 A I don't think, in 1982, there were contracts in {} 25 place relative to core removal that might have been and ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37CO Nationwide Coverage 8(0 336 6646 0
6900H05 06 39 1 probably were contracts in place to address research, G(~ \Vbw 2 valuable work,. preparatory to having access to the core. 3 0 Would what was termed the under-head 4 characterization be a part of that? 5 A It might have been; I don't remember, 6 specifically if a DOE contract was involved with that or 7 not. 8 Q By characterization, I mean determining the 9 amount of reactivity that was present in the core or the 10 condition of the core. 11 A That was not what the under-head characterization 12 effort was directed toward. . 13 0 What was it directed toward? (}~ 14 A It was directed toward understanding the 15 radiation and physical conditions inside the reactor vessel 16 and its head, as necessary for head removal, as I recall. 17 O The last part was? 18 A As necessary for head removal, as I recall. 19 0 So that was an analysis that would have had to go 20 forward before an attempt to remove the head took place? 21 A That's correct. 22 O You said you had trouble remembering specific 23 terms, but did the contract to call for the Department of 24 Energy pay money to GPU Nuclear? 25 A Yes. l
/\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646 j t - _ _ _ . . _ _
l .6900 05 06 40
/~TVbw 1 O For?
O 2 A .I am uneasy with your -- apparently your sense of 3 a single contract. We did not have a single contract, to-4 the best of my recollection, relative to these various f 5 research tactics. 6 0 Was it a task-oriented contract? I am sorry. I l 7 keep saying contract. You had a number of contracts for 8 particular tasks. That is what I really meant. 9 A That is my recollection; yes, sir. , 1 10 0 How many of these tasks were there? Were there a l l 11 few or dozens? l 12- -A I think in that context there were a few. There t' 13 might have been as many as a dozen in '82, if I recall. ()S 14 0 Were these tasks the amounts of money involved in l 15 the tens of millions of dollars? 16 A No, sir. l 17 0 Less than that? . l 18 A Yes, sir.
]
19 0 How much? 20 A My recollection is, in 1982, the contract value 21 with DOE, in total, was in the range of $7 million to $12 3 l 22 million. 23 0 You just used the term " contract." Did you mean i 24 all the tasks put together or just one of the tasks? 25 A If I used the singular, I misspoke. I intended { [ l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
~.
I I l 6900 05 06 41 l 1 to use the plural, j b'~NVbw 2 O' Okay. Did these contracts that you had have l 3 milestones to be met? Milestones meaning dates for the 4 accomplishment of.certain tasks? 5 A Not to the best of my recollection, they did not. l 6 I think they did in the proposal for doing the work, 7 identify the plan schedule, but it is not my recollection 8 that milestone events, as typically might be constructed in 9 a contract, were part of the structure of these contracts. 10 0 Were payments disbursed by DOE under the contract 11 made, irrespective of accomplishing things on that schedule > 12 A No, sir. Well, excuse me. I don't recall that (} 13 any of the conditions of payment were keyed to schedule 14 dates. I just would expect that some of the payments would 15 have been keyed to accomplishment of work. 16 0 Did you become aware during 1982 that the 17 accomplishment of certain tasks was not in accordance with 18 the schedule that had been anticipated? 19 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Johnson, are talking about 20 work under the DOE contracts? 21 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 22 BY MR. JOHNSON: 23 0 Were you falling behind the schedule that was 24 called for in the contract? {} 25 A To the best of my recollection, the contract did ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
6900 05'06 42 /~ Vbw -1 not call for a schedule. 2 -0 But you mentioned a schedule. Where was that 3 schedule? 4 A I think that in providing a substantive proposal-5 to DOE for a particular task, our planned schedule, the 6 expected schedule accomplishing the work would be 7 identified. To the best of my recollection, payments were 8 not keyed to meeting that schedule. 9 0 But they were keyed to performing certain tasks? 10 A I believe so. 11 Q Did you become aware during 1982 that money was 12 available for disbursement under the contract if tasks were {} 13 being accomplished, but they were not being accomplished 14 according to the schedule that you had originally posed? 15 A I don't think I did; no. And also, I don't think 16 that that was the situation. So if your question implies 17 that that was a description of the situation, as I 18 understand the question, it's not a correct description of 19 the situation. 20 0 I would like to refer you to a prior statement 21 that you made to Mr. Stier in 1983. 22 MR. JOHNSON: Counsel, do you have a copy of 23 Appendix C, " Witness Statements A to B," that has Mr. 24 Arnold's deposition in it? {} 25 MR. STENGER: I don't have that one available. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336&t6
l 6900 05 06 43 1 MR. JOHNSON: I guess we are going to have to [";Vbw V 2 share this one. 3 BY MR. JOHNSON: 4 0 I would draw your attention to page 89 and 90 of: 5 your. deposition of September 13, 1983, and ask you to look 6 at it. l l 7 A May I request that we go off the. record a few 8 minutes and let me read it in detai1> 9 0 Sure. 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 MR. JOHNSON: Back on the record. 12 BY MR. JOHNSON: 13 0 Mr. Arnold, you have had a chance to read pages 14 88, 89 -- excuse me -- through 92 of your September 13th 15 deposition? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 0 Was there anything in your answers that you would 18 characterize as being inaccurate? 19 A I don't think so. I didn't pick up on anything 20 there as being different than my recollection of what I 21 probably said at that time. 22 0 So to the best of your knowledge and belief 23 today, those statements are true and correct? 24 A I think I would like to know -- well, with regard 25 to the answers I gave; yes, sir. I am not asserting that
)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage m)-336-6M6
6900 05 06 44 Vbw I all statements in there, but the statements that I made, I 2 believe are true and correct. 3 0 That was really the intent of my question. Thank 4 you. 5 Was any of the $37 million of funding for cleanup 6 that you say was to be realized -- this is line 16 on page l 7 91 under the B&W settlement to be used with respect to the 8 head lift work that was undertaken or the preparations for 9 the head lift that was undertaken in the '82 '83 time frame? , l 10 A There may have been a minimal amount of it but I l 11 don't recall that B&W had any major dollar participation in 12 preparations for the head lift that would have given us the 13 opportunity for realizing a significant amount of money {}- i 14 under the $37 million settlement. 15 0 When did that money become available? l 16 A Let me first say what I mean by available. 17 The agreement that discounts, as I recall, for 18 B&W services and equipment and materials from B&W were 19 available was with the signing of the settlement of the B&W 20 lawsuit. They were there in the sense of future business
-21 activities and were not specific to any work that was L
22 contemplated at that time. 23 0 So the money could have been used at any date i 24 after the settlement was concluded for any services that you 1 L 25 elected to give to B&W?
}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
-6900'05 06 45 1 A I am not sure if you really understand the fbw 2 structure of the settlement, so if I appear to be being too 3 cautious on this, I apologize, but there was no cash to be 4 transferred as a result of the settlement, as far as I can 5 recall. It was to be in the form of discounts.
6 0 Discounts on the services? 7 A Right. So to say t!iat the money was to be 8 available might be. misleading. The discount on services was y to be available and not just with'TMI 2 work but any GPU 10 system work that utilized B&W services qualified for the 11 discount under the terms of the settlement, 12 0 Okay. I am a little confused by some of the 13 statements here. The settlement was reached with B&W in the { 14 lawsuit in January 1983; isn't that correct? 15 A You are probably more current in your review of 16 thincs than I am. I would have guessed February. 17 0 okay, but if that is true, then I am confused by 18 this discussion here that indicates that you had discussions 19 in 1982 and that there was money available in 1982. I am 20 specifically looking at the bottom of 91 and the top of 92, 21 where you are saying that the discount that was available in ' 22 1982, unless I am misreading this was not going to continue 23 to be available, at least not at the same level. So it ! l 24 implies to me that this discount was available in 1982. { l {} 25 A I think that is clearly the correct reading of Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 L ____ - . - -
! 6900 05 06 46 1 Vbw~ l' what is there. That is just an error on my part in my 2 testimony at that time. There was clearly no discussions ) l l L 3 relative to a settlement agreement until after January 1, i 4 1983, that I can recall anyway. . That staff meeting in which j L 5 I would have briefed them on that could not have occurred in ) 6 1982. 7 0 Okay. Was B&W providing services with respect to 8 any of the operations that were taking place with respect to 9 the polar crane refurbishment in early 1983? 10 A I don't recall that B&W had any role in the polar 11' crane refurbishment work in '82 or '83. I may be wrong on 12 that, but I don't recall there being any involvement by 13 them. 14 0 Do you recall what work was contracted by them 15 during this period, January to April 1983? 16 A My recollection is that we had a master service 17 list contract in place with B&W in that time period. Under 18 master service list contract, I believe we had at least one 19 and maybe two or three B&W employees assigned to the TMI 2 20 site to augment the other technical resources, in effect, 21 functioning as a TMI 2 organization -- excuse me, staff 22 member. Beyond that, we gave them specific tasks under the 23 B&W master services contract. Those tasks were principally 24 related in that time period, as I recall, to engineering 25 analyses. For example, criticality analyses and chemistry [} ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I I 6900 05 06 47 Vbw 1 services. 2 0 Let me just ask you if we can just run through i l 3 some of the requirements for doing some of the work that B&W 4 might have been able to accomplish during 1983. 5 First of all, was there an end date on which this ! 6 discount was going to be available? 7 A My recollection is that there was. 8 0 Do you recall what it was? 9 A Some of it, I think, went out five years. Some 10 if it, I think, went out ten years. 11 0 Did any of it go out a shorter period of time? 12 A Again, you know, I haven't reviewed the contract, 13 but I don't recall there being anything on a shorter time ggg 14 scale. 15 MR. HICKEY: Can I interject one moment to ask 16 the witness if he knows when the settlement agreement was 17 published? 18 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that the agreement 19 itself went public. I believe there was a public 20 announcement by the parties, the settlement or major 21 elements of it. 22 MR. HICKEY: To the extent that Mr. Johnson's 23 questions go to materials which may be covered by some 24 confidentiality obligation, I must ask you to limit your 25 responses appropriately. ggg ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
l ( 6900 05 06 48
'(~}Vbw 1 THE WITNESS: I have to admit that I don't recall
%)
2 what the commitments of the parties were at the time. 3 BY MR. JOHNSON: ( 4 0 In. undertaking the work of the analysis of 5 criticality and chemistry, we are talking about under-head,
'6 things that were in the reactor core, as well as other 7 places, I assume.
8 If we are talking about criticality, we are talking 9 -about the core, I assume. - v 10 A We are talking about -- the answer to that 11 probably is now. Core criticality was a relatively low 12 concern to us. Most of our focus on criticality issues
, 13 related to fuel material being outside the core envelope in 14 ways which we may not be able to fully define. That is not 15 to say that we just assumed that the core couldn't go 16 critical, but we were pretty confident that that was an 17 extremely low probability and very easy to prevent, whereas, 18 because we could make assumptions that would be sort of 19 bound criticality concerns.
20 0 Would it be fair to say that there were things I 21 that could have been done under the activities that could 22 have been performed by B&W pursuant to the discount 23 arrangement that couldn't be done before the polar crane was 24 put in use, in the sense that the polar crane was necessary (} 25 in order to lift the reactor head? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
g. v' I 6900 05 06~ . l$[ ' i 49 s, 1 A Well, I think that one could construct possible b,P&bw 2 downstream tasks that were going t6 have to be a' accomplished ' 3 as part of the total project thereitha were i$hject to the
, j *
?( y 4 polar crane refurbishment, but I don't think tlie e was any s s
5 etation
.unious or even particularly special kind of' /
asso'It' ' 6 between those projects and the availability of this 7 discount. , y ,y
' s t' ' '
8 (A pause.) < 9 I think it might be helpful, y . Johnson, if I y e S 10 perhaps identified to yoit what our expectation was that a
,c ..
)
{lh 11 z major part of that $37 would be3reali) lt (t eQ by work n r 12 TMI 2 but in other' parts of thd systen'. It.was goodyfor t-l , 13 work at tne fossil plants of the other aObsidiarie O ' It
/]
14 wasn'.t rest.ricted toi the g(clear services at bi1{"- , 15 0 I see. Okay. Thank you. .a h \ 16 A i don't have any recollection of it's'Oeing
- 17 restricted that way, and we had numerous discussion k>out ,
\
18 totakeadvantageofthatdiscountavailabilityinothe% 19 companies. + l>.'g .. 20 0 Okay. I assume that you are familip; with this 21 document that was provided to u 1 yesterday. It is 6alled; 4 b' ' 22 "Agreenont in Principle Acquisition of the DamageLtg TMI 2 / l 23 ReactoruCare by DOE," and is dated 4-7-82 and signed by you ; t l 24 on behalf of the owners. ; 1 25 (Document hand to witness.) I
,, ) lt ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(63364M6 _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .- _ _ l
f, , i 1
'l 3 ? i 1
6900 05 06 50 i Vbw 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 2 - BY MR. JOHNSON: ; 3 0 Was this, in a sense, an underlying doc'ument th at I 4 supported the other tasks that you vere to perform or CPU 5 was to perform, pursuant to various task orders of the DOU? j i' 6 A I don't think I would describe it that way, no. 7 0 What was it then? i S A I think it was a statement of policy on the part c 9 of the Federal Government that participated in its l-10 enunciation and publication by Governor Thornburgh to assure ! 11 people that the Federal Government would take responsibility j 12 for the reactor fuel, when we were able to remove it? ' ld i e
~ /3 13 0 Thank you. Was it true, though, that to tho x/ ,.
14 extent that the polar crane was necessary for various 15 activities -- let me start again. 16 The operation and use of the polar crano was 17 necessary, was it not, for certain activities to proceed 18 with respect to decontamination and defueling of the core? 19 A With respect to defueling of the core, yez-. I 20 don't think I could relate very readily to decontamination 21 of the core or to th? use of the polar cr:ane for 22 decontamination purpraes, specifically. 23 0 In order to be used, the polac crane had to be 24 tested; isn't that true? ( c)) 25 A That was the decision made by the project, ther l { Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
? ?"- , L /,
I' \f
/ ' 4900 05 Do f 50
'4'
. </ Ybw 10, THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
W , fi- > s
.f# 2C - BY MR. JOHNSON:
y [
.Q J 3j Q Was this, in a sense, an underlying document that
% supported the other tasks that you were to perform or GPU 4%
W) p 5h was to perform, pursuant to various task orders of the DOE? 6 A I don't think I would describe it that way, no. 1'
'l O What was it then?
I
\ 8 A I think it was a statement of policy on the part
' 9 of the Federal Government that participated in its g;
10 enunciation and publication by Governor Thornburgh to assure
.. 11 people that the Federal Government would take responsibility
.. n.
k 12 for the reactor fuel, when we were able to remove it?
\ g^ g 33 0 Thank you. Was it true, though, that to the 4 14 extent that the polar crane was necessary for various q' 15 activities -- let me start again.
-t
,J 46 'I 26 i The operation and use of the polar crane was
'M '
17 necessary, was it not, for certain activities to proceed
, .. i 19 )j with respect to decontamination and defueling of the core?
19 'A With respect to defueling of the core, yes. I 20 g don't think I could relate very readily to decontamination a 21 of the core or to the use of the polar crane for i decontamination purposes, specifically. 22 {9 S.
.s y,
3 . 23( < 0 In order to be used, the polar crane had to be
. , 24 tested; isn't that true?
g 25 A That was the decision made by the project, that
,, 1 e Acn FEDERAL. RneoaTnas, uc.
2(12-347-37(K) Nationwide Cmerage NK) 336-6646
' % .. (
6900105 06 51 ("%Vbw I we would'put the crane through a requalification program;
%-)
2 yes. I doubt that we would have had NRC approval-to use it 3 without that. So it was technically the proper thing to do. 4 0 Prior to testing, there had to be a test ; I 5 procedure that was approved; is that correct? l 6 A Yes, sir. ) l 7 (A pause.)
]
l 8 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Hickey, I have written out the 9 two contract identifiers that we have identified as the ones 10 we would like to obtain, if you have them. 11 MR.' HICKEY: I will check and get them. The 12 letter that I got requested that we produce documents, but I l 13 didn't do a contract with DOE relating to the shipment of
)
( 14 damaged fuel'from TMI 2. It is your understanding'that 15 these contracts relate to the shipment of damaged fuel from . I ; 1; 16 TMI 2, because I believe I produced the documents related to l 17 the shipment of damaged fuel. 18 I MR. JOHNSON: I could try to clarify it, but 19 those are the ones that I believe are the ones that we would 20 like to see. 21 MR. HICKEY: Any idea of the dates of the l 22 contract? l l 23 MR. JOHNSON: The 1982-1983 time frame. l 24 MR. HICKEY: I will have to inquire with the 1 25 company whether they have them, but I will look for them.
)
l l l L /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
6900 05 06 52
-(~1Vbw 1 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Counsel.
U 2 MR. REYNOLDS: Off the record. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 BY MR. JOHNSON: 5 Q Mr. Arnold, did you receive a document called 6 "The TMI 2 Polar Crane Recovery Weekly Report" during the 1 7 early 1983 time period? 8 A My recollection is that I had been asked about 9 that in prior interviews, and my answers at that time were 10 that I did not receive them, to the best of my recollection. 11 I certainly have no recollection today of having received 12 them. , 13 0 Would you have been briefed on a regular basis by
}
14 Mr. Kanga concerning the progress of the TMI 2 polar crane 15 recovery program? 16 A I received information fairly frequently relative 17 to progress on work in general. The reports I got, some of 18 which would come from Mr. Kanga and some of which would have 19 come from other communication opportunities were not 20 specific to the polar crane as far as I can recall, but the 21 polar crane would have been included in the work activities 22 that I was maintaining awareness of the progress on them. 23 24 25 (:) I /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 6900 07 07 53
/'N/bc 1 0 In February 1983, did Mr. Kanga brief you on the V
2'
~
progress of the polar crane refurbishment program? { 3 A I don't recall any briefings on that program { j 4 specifically in February '83 in terms of overall progress. 5 (Pause.) 6 0 Do you recall Mr. Arnold being briefed by Mr. ! 7 Kanga on February 22, 1983? Let me back up a second. 8 Do you recall taking a plane trip to Washington l 9 with Mr. Kanga on February 22, 1983? 10 .A Yes, sir. 11 0 Do you recall during that plane trip being 12 ' briefed by Mr. Kanga concerning two items? Comments ma'a by 13 Mr. Gischel and Mr. King concerning the SER for the polar
)
14 crane? Do you remember that? 15 A I thought you said two items. 16 0 I wanted to break it up so I could get answers 17 for each one. I'm sorry. 18 A I think that's consistent with my recollection of 19 that plane ride, an understanding that occurred now, four 20 plus years ago. I'm not completely confident at this time 1 1 21 how much my recollection is based on the events at the time 1 I 22 as opposed to the review of those events that have occurred I l' 1 l 23 many times. ) 24 0 What was the purpose of the plane trip? q l 25 A We were going down to Washington National Airport [} i ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-37(0 Nationwide Coverage MO-3364646
c6900 07'07 54 i V/bc 1 to meet with B&W management people to discuss ways to I 2 implement the B&W 1awsuit settlement, as I recall. 3 O Did Mr. Kanga also brief you on a comment that ! 4 had been raised by Mr. Richard Parks concerning the polar 5' crane load test procedure? 6 A You used the singular there. Would you clarify. 7 the specific comment that you're asking about? 8 O Did you have a discussion with Mr. Kanga in which 9 thelname of Mr. Parks came up?- 10 A I don't recall if Mr. Parks' name came up in the i 11 conversation or not, but it well could have. I don't have a 12 recollection of the name being identified. 13 0 okay.
}_
14 A I think it's still kind of unclear on the record 15 just what it is we're talking about as far as what he was 16 briefing me on. 17 0 Okay. Did he show you a document called Comment 18 Resolution? I'm going to show it to you. It's a March 1st 19 interoffice memorandum to Mr. Lake from Mr. Chwastyk. It's 20 got this comment resolution, UWI-4370-3891-83-PC-01. 21 It stated: The comments by R. Parks are dated 2-22 17-83. This version of it has Mr. Radbill's reasons for 23 rejection on it. 24 But did Mr. Kanga during this plane ride show you 25 this document in a form which did not have the reasons for
}
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(4336 416
l l L Il69000707 55 1' j'^N/bc; 1 rejection? d- 2 A My recollection is that during our discussion I 3 saw this document as you described it. I believe the 4 document is.some four pages long. I don't have a 5 recollection that we-leafed through it because I don't think-6 that the full scope of the comments by Mr. Parks were the. 7 principal focus of the discussion. i 8 0 Okay. What was the principal focus of the l 0 9 discussions you had with Mr. Kanga? 10 A With regard to this document, it was a discussion 11 that we had as to the need for the organization to
'12 discipline itself to'a greater extent in terms of addressing.
{) 13 14 issues during the course of the review of various documents that were within their scope of responsibility. 15 This was shown to me principally with regard to 16 Mr. Parks' first comment as an example of where Mr. Parks -- . 1 17 although, again I don't recall whether the name was even 18 identified, although I probably saw it, but that this 19 reviewer had made a comment relative to there being an 20 unreviewed safety question which, in the opinion of Mr. 21 Kanga, was not really within the scope'of his responsibility 22 to address as it was addressed here; and that this was an j 23 example of an approach used by many people in the course of l 24 conducting reviews -- to go to other issues than what was 1 (} 25 really the primary responsibility they had and was ACE-FEDERAL ' REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
t i 6900 07 07 56 V/bc 1 contributing'to the amount of time which all of us felt was 2 too long to complete the review and approval of documents. 3 O Did you tell Mr. Kanga to do something to achieve-4 that discipline? I 5 A No. I think that, with regard to.this particular 6 comment, he told me how they were addressing it and that 7 they would resolve it. 8 O Do you mean the unreviewed safety question 9 comment? 10 A Yes. In regard to the general discussion _we were l 11 having. 12 O Can I stop you just so you could explain to me 13 what.it was that he said to you that he would do to resolve 14 it, before you get on to the next thing? 15 A He explained to me -- well, let me back up. I 16 don't have a specific recollection of what he told me at 17 that time. It is my recollection that with regard to this, 18 as well as other things we talked about, he included in this j 19 discussion how he was taking care of it. 20 My specific recollection though of how this one 21 particular comment was addressed is based upon the March 12 22 meeting. j 23 I suspect the same kind of information we had at 24 the March 12th meeting was indicated to me by Mr. Kanga. 25 But I don't remember it specifically. ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
'6900L07'07. 57
' W/bc 1 'O Did you have.a discussion with Mr. Kanga about
-(J .
2 Mr. Parks' comments concerning failure to follow AP-1043 and 3 AP-1047? 4 A My vague recollection is that he indicated most 5 of the other comments were relative to procedural compliance 6 and that he was having that reviewed by the QA' department.to j 7 make a determination on that. l 8 O How did the discussion of these Parks' comments 9 come up? 10 A They came up'in the context of the broader 11 management issue'that Mr. Kanga and I were grappling with. 12 That is, how to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of 13- the organization. 1 14 . One of the things that we felt was a problem was 15 with people understanding their role as it was structured in 16 the organization, and the role of others. 17 We had just recently, in terms of the massiveness 18 of the effort, integrated the organization at TMI-2 19 underneath Mr. Kanga. And we were still working through 20 everybody understanding exactly how that organization was 21 intended to function. 22 One of the issues that we believed we had in the
- 23 course of trying to accomplish that increase in 24 effectiveness was the misunderstanding of roles. And this f 25 was an example where, in Mr. Kanga's opinion, the site ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
r l' 6900 07 07 58
' V/bc 1 operation reviewer of this didn't really understand the site 2 operations role in_it.
3 And my sense is that the way in which we felt we 4 would have preferred to'have seen this kind of an issue 5 handled is for Mr. Parks to pick up the phone and call the 6 engineering people that were responsible for making the 7 evaluation of whether or not there was a 5059 issue, and 8 talk to them about it before deciding that site operations 9 ought to say there is an unreviewed safety question. 10 Now, the discussion focused, to my recollection, ! 11 on how do we be sure everybody's concerns can get raised and 12 they can get addressed? That people aren't reluctant to {} 13 14 bring up things that may be outside their scope without having such a laissez faire environment that everybody was 15 trying to do everything. 16 Part of the purpose of the reorganization was to 17 get the organization functioning on the parts of the total 18 effort that we wanted them to function on. We' recognized 19 that we had to try to improve that discipline without l l 20 hampering the ability to raise issues where people were 21 concerned about them. 22 0 Did you discuss the fact that the lack of 23 discipline was slowing down the review process? 24 A I think it was in the context of having 25 procedures ready for approval where the review process is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8/O-336-6646
l L 6900 07 07 59 l l r"'V/bc 1 part of that. The length of time it would take to have a (- 2 procedure-ready for approval for implementation that the 3 issue of the self-discipline in the organization came up. 4 0 So the answer is yes? And that's your 5 amplification of it? 6 A It's yes if you understand that the review was 7 part of the process. It's not a subsequent step that's taken l l 8 after we have a procedure available. 9 0 was it your view or Mr. Kanga's view that Mr. 10 Parks' complaints about AP 10-43 and AP 10-47 being complied 11 with were outside the scope of his responsibilities? 12 A No . . My recollection was that that was considered l 13 to be a site operations type of issue to raise. But it's
}.
14 really an absence of my recollection as to their being any 15 real concerns raised by Mr. Kanga relative to those 16 comments, as opposed to the concern he raised on the 17 appropriateness of the unreviewed safety question. 18 So I think the answer to your question is that my 19 understanding was that Mr. Kanga felt that other comments 20 that were contained in the document were not examples of 21 that type of a lack of self-discipline and, again, I 22 reiterate that I don't recall that we leafed through the 23 four pages particularly. 24 0 Did Mr. Kanga tell you that he thought the I ! {} 25 comments of Mr. Parks on 10-43 and 10-47 were without merit? ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 4 700 Nationwide Coverage 1410-336-6646
2 i 6900 07 37 60
/~ 1 A I don't believe he told me that at all. My ]
Lk_}V/bc
/ i 2 recollection is he told me what he was doing to have them l 3 resolved. My impression was that he hadn't formed a l
4 judgment on it. 5 0 He had not formed a' judgment? 6 A That's correct 7 0 Did he tell you that he had referred the issue to 8 OA? 9 A That's my recollection of what he told me he was 10 doing to deal with the other comments that related to 11 procedure requirements. 12 0 Did he indicate to you with respect to those 13 comments on AP 10-43 and AP 10-47 that there was anything
/}
14 improper with respect to what Mr. Parks was doing? 15 A I have no recollection of the conversation 16 suggesting he felt that way. 17 0 Did you discuss the test working group during the
- 18. conversation on the plane on February 22nd?
19 A Not to my recollection. 4- M 20 0 were you familiar with the test working group at 21 that time? 22 A I was, yes, sir. 23 0 What was your familiarity with it? 24 Well, let me ask you a more specific question 25 instead of a more general question. ace I7EDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn 336-6M6
6900 07'07 61 1 V/bc 1 Were you familiar with the creation of AP 10-47 2 in 1981? 3 A I' don't believe I was familiar with that 4 specifically, no. But I was familiar with the fact that we 5 had procedures in place relative to testing. I don't think 6 I would have had any awareness that AP 10-47 was the 7 principal procedure for the test working group. 8 0 To the best of your recollection, you hadn't read' 9 the p;;ocedure up to that point in the conversation with Mr. 10 Kanga? 11 A I think that's correct. Well, that is correct-12 with regard to my recollection. It probably was the case {} 13 that I would not have had occasion to read it.
- 14. O here you familiar with the use of job ticket --
15 I think it wts C-258, if I'm not mistaken, which was used to 16 turn the polar crane over July 14, 19827 17 A I was distracted. I think it's CA-258. I'm not 18 sure I picked up really what the point of your question was. 19 0 All right. Were you familiar that a job ticket 20 with that designation was created on July 14, 1982 for the 21 purposes of turning the polar crane over for refurbishment 22 to the Bechtel Company? 23 A Could you give me a time frame for when your 24 question was addressed? 25 0 When it was done? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage WG33MM6
)
'l
! 6900 07 07 ' 62 I ! \ l ("'jV/bc 1 A No, sir, I don't believe I was aware of it at the (/ , 2 time it was done. I 3 0 When did you first become aware of the instance 4 of'Mr. Richard Parks on the TMI site? 5 A Would you repeat that, please? 6 0 Had you heard the name of Richard Parks before ] 7 your conversation with Mr. Kanga on February 22, 1983? l 8 A I don't have any recollection of it, but I 1 9 certainly expect I would have. j 10 0 Why? 11 A The previous four years to that, I_ pretty well l 12 lived on that site. And there weren't very many people in 13 the exempt classifications, particularly in technical or-
)
l 14 operational areas, whose names I didn't have occasion to 15 become familiar with for one reason or another. 16 0 Could you describe to me the scope of your day to 17 day activities during this period, say, January, February, 18 March 1983, with respect to the technical reviews that were 19 ongoing with respect to the site? 20 And if that's too general, I'll make it more 21 specific, i 22 A I think it would be helpful if you were more 1 23 specific. 24 0 Did you become involved in the review of safety {} 25 evaluations that were written for various activities? l ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-336-6646
6900 07 07 63 ("'N/bc l' A No, sir. Q) . 2 0 Did you review them? 3 A Not to my recollection, I did not. 4 0 Did you review procedures? 5 A I have no recollection of reviewing procedures, 6 with the exception of some of the new administrative control 7 procedures that we were developing, a major portion of which 8 went into effect on January 1, '83. 9 I had a fairly substantial involvement in certain 10 aspects of those where company policy positions were being 11 determined. ! 12 0 Give me one example of a company policy that was IN 13 being determined that these procedures went to. Q) 14 A A major area of discussion in the course of 15 redesigning the administrative control systems for GPU 16 Nuclear as opposed to TMI-2 specifically was whether we 17 would include in a specific procedure everything that would 18 be necessary for that procedure to be able to be utilized as 19 a stand-alone document, or would we rely upon the 20 hierarchical nature of the procedure and the existence of ; 21 companion procedures to be utilized, to spell out all the 22 administrative requirements. ! 23 0 We're not talking of procedures of the details, 24 say, of the procedure for reviewing the polar crane, or ! 25 something like that,
./ }
1 t ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Covcage lux)-336-6646
6900 07 07 64 V/bc 1 A I did not get involved in any procedures that.had 2 to do with conducting a specific task, you know, a specific ! 3 work item, to the best of my recollection. l 4 (Pause.) 5 0 Were you aware of a memorandum written by Mr. 6 George Kunder to Mr. Burn, dated November 12, 1982, 7 addressing the propriety of usino work packages under the 8 TMI-2 administrative procedures? 9 MR. HICKEY: You're asking if he was aware at the i 10 time it was issued? 11 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 12 THE WITNESS: May I see the document, please? j 13 MR. HICKEY: What is the tab number, George? 14 MR. JOHNSON: Tab 45. 15 (Handing document to witness.) i 16 MR. JOHNSON: I'm showing the witness a document 17 at tab 45 of appendix B of the Stier report, 1983. It's a { 18 November 12th memorandum, interoffice memorandum from Mr. 19 Kunder to Mr. Burn,
Subject:
Polar Crane Electrical Safety
]
20 Evaluation. I 21 BY MR. JOHNSON: 1 22 O Have you ever seen that before, Mr. Arnold? 1 23 A I don't have a recollection of having seen this 24 before. And as far as your first question, I don't have any l 25 recollection of having been aware of this memo at the time 1 I 1 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3XX) Nationwide Coscrage MXb33M M6 j O____________. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
6900 07'07 65 ("^,V 1 it was issued.
- k ) /bc 2 0 Okay. Uas the subject of compliance of work 3 packages with procedures for ECMs or the administrative 4 procedures governing modifications discussed in your 5 conversation with Mr. Kanga on February 22nd? l 6 A. I'm sorry. I hadn't completely shifted my 7 attention'from this document. Could I have that question 8 read back? Or restate it?
9 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, read the question back, 10 please. 11 (Whereupon, the reporter read the record as 12 requested.) 13 THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection, 14 there was-no discussion on that February 22nd plane ride 15 relative to work packages or ECM procedures. 16 BY MR. JOHNSON: 17 0 Did Mr. Kanga say to you during that same 18 conversation that Mr. Parks' comments about compliance with 19 AP 10-43 and AP 10-47 were old issues? 20 A No. I don't believe so. 21 0 Did he indicate to you that QA had addressed them 22 l prior to that date? 23 A I dond t believe so, nor do I believe that was his i 24 understanding based on him, to the best of my recollection, I 25 identifying the applicability of those specific procedures {'} l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. i 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
6900 07 07 66 /~lV/bc. 1 to polar crane work was to be reviewed by QA. V 2 0 So that was a new issue as far as he was ; J
- 3. concerned? l j
4 A I think it was a new issue with regard to whether
]
5 the polar crane work was on track to comply with all 'the l l 6 procedural requirements, yes. 7 0 In your conversation with Mr. Kanga on February 8 22, 1983, did he mention to you that Mr. Parks was a member 9 of the test working group? i l 10 A Not to the best of my recollection. I don't j 11 believe we had any conversation concerning the test working 12 group. , 13 O Did the role of -- let me just step back from [ }' 14 that and say I recognize that the document we have referred 15 to earlier identifies a test working group in his comments, 16 but I don't have any recollection that we focused on the 17 specific procedures or procedure, requirements at all. 18 My recollection is that Mr. Kanga said the other 19 comment issues relative to procedural requirements I'm 20 having looked at by QA to evaluate. l 21 MR. HICKEY: Just so the record is clear, just 22 bacause you keep asking questions about Mr. Parks' comments, 23 witness has testified that he doesn't recall Mr. Parks' name 24 coming up in the conversation. {} 25 I assume that you're using that to refer to the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
6900 07 07 67
- "%V/bc 1 document, just for identification. But the witness' J
2 testimony is he doesn't recall Mr. Parks' name being 3 mentioned. 4- MR. JOHNSON: Okay. l 5 BY MR. JOHNSON: l 6 0 It's your testimony that Mr. Parks' name.did not 7 come up in this conversation? 8 MR. JOHNSON: You may be characterizing one of 9 his answers, but there was another answer which indicated 10 something contrary to that. 11 BY MR. JOHNSON: 12 Q Is it your testimony that you believe Mr. Parks' g] 13 name never came up in the conversation? U 14 A No. My testimony is that I don't have any 15 recollection of Mr. Parks' name coming up, nor that the 16 discussion focused on the individual who made the comments 17 as opposed to the example that the first comment provided of 18 the kind of general concern we had. 19 Q Did Mr. Kanga mention to you that the comments on 20 this document might go before the test working group for 21 review? 22 A I don't have any recollection of that inasmuch as 23 I don't recall that we talked about the test working group. 24 0 What else did you discuss with respect to this 25 document, this comment resolution form? {"}
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1
6900 07 07 68 l r"^iV/bc 1 A I don't recall anything further. And if I were U 2 to guess at how much time we spent. talking about the ; i 3 document, it would have been five, maybe 10 minutes at the 4 most. 5 0 Had you had any conversations with Mr. Kanga, Mr. 6 Thiesing, or any of the other management personnel on the l 7 site with regard to Mr. Parks in the period January-February l 8 19837 9 A I don't have any recollection of'Mr. Parks' name I 10 coming up in January and February in any of the i 11 conversations I had with anybody; nor do I have a l 12 recollection of any of the things that.I'm aware that Mr. I i i 13 Parks was involved with in that time period as a result of
)
14- information developed subsequently, where I would have 15 expected I was involved in conversations where his name i 16 would have come up. ! 17 MR. JOHNSON: I think this is a good point to 18 stop. We'll go off the record. 19 (Whereupon, at 12:10, the deposition recessed to ! 20 reconvene this same day.) 21 3 J 22 23 24 25 ([) I L
/\CEJPEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MG-336-6646 i l
E_-_ -___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j
1 [- 30690.0
, cox' 69 l ,.
[ .C . , I. 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (12:57 p . m .~) i 2 Whercupon, i i 3 ROBERT C. ARNOLD l l 4 resumed the stand and, having been previously. duly sworn, was-l 5 cxamined and tcotified further ao followc: l 6 EXAMINATION (Continued) l 7- MR. JOHNSON: Eack on the record. 8 BY MR. JOHNSON: 9 Q I would like to go~over a couple of loose endo 10 from thic morning, then I will move on, if we may. We were 11 talking about certain pagcc in the tranceript of your I 12 deposition of Mr. Stier on September 13, pagcc 89 to.92. In
.(
~
13 that statement, which starts off, "we were under opending the i 14 budget'in 1982," it goca on to say, "co I was putting-15 precourc on Bahman through him to the rect of the 16 organization, I hope, to get on with the job,.that there was 17 funding available to do it." 18 What funding available to do it were you referring 19 to in that statement? 20 A The budgeted level of funds for the project for 21 that year. 22 Q The budget funding came from where, what cource? l 23 A Recognizing I am not an accountant, and that my I 24 an wcr might not be completely corrcet, let me give vou my 25 undcratanding of it. f ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-37(0 Nationwide Coverage 8(n336-6646
_ _ ~ _ _ - , _ - . - -__ _ _ _ _ . l l 30690.0 l
, cox 70 L. ,
'l -Q Okay.
'2 A That is in 1982, the principal courccc of fundo 3 were incurance money, in'effect stockholder funds, inasmuch 4 as they were cash from the company that were not a part of 5 rates, although it may be that 1982 included come fundo that 6 were a part of our ratcc. I don't remember whether it wac.
7 '82 or '83 that there was an agreement by utility commissions 8 to permit come funding from customer revenucc. I mentioned 9 the 7- to $12 million perhapc of DOE funding. There may have. 10 been come from the State of Pennsylvania in 1982. We 11 'cVentually got approval, they allocated a state general fund 12 budget of $5 million a year, as I recall. rn U 13 Q Any other courccc? 14 A I don't have any recollection of any others. 15 .Q What was the fiscal year that we were talking 16 about, the budget year that we were talking about, what werc
'17 the terminal datco?
18 A For CPU it was a calendar year. 19 Q When you are talking about '82, the budget year of 20 '82 cnded at the end of 1982? 21 A Correct. 22 Q Alco in the same acetion of your previous 23 deposition, and thic relates to B&W ccttlement, I believe, 24 you caid earlier that come of the payments went out three to 25 five yearc; in that correct? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
30690.0 . cox 71 l 1 A I thinL I caid five to 10,~cir. 2 Q Some were in the chorter period and como were in 3 the longer period? 4 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Johnson, he didn't.tcotify that 5 they werc'paymento. 6 MR. JOHNSON: I am corry, you are quitc' current.. 7 'BY MR. JOHNSON: 8 0 It was a discount that was creditable to the use 9 of their cervicco, I take it. 10 A Or the purchace'of materials and equipment from 11 them. 12 Q With respect to a ctatement on page 91 at the..very 13 bottom, line 25, you say, I will back up a accond: i 14 "Alco, I think it's worth pointing out1that the 15 discount that B&W was providing us was not fixed under a 16 long-term contract. And baced upon discuccions I had with 17 B&W management I had in 1982, was not going to continue to bc 18 available, at 1cact not at the came level.r 19 Ian't there an inconciatency between your 20 statemento to me and thic ctatement here? 21 MR. HICKEY: May the witncco acc the tranceript? j i 22 MR. JOHNSON: Ycc. He had it before. I I 23 THE WITNESS: Wcll, I don't think that they are 24 inconciatent, becauce I think my undcratanding of the B&W ) l j 25 lawsuit acttlement is the came today as it was in 1983 when I J
\
l t l t
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3M4646 l l
30690.0 ; cox- . 72 U 1 gave this tcotimony. But I don't remember exactly what I had 2 in mind when I was, making these statemento at that time. But 3 I think that had I been acked, I would have been able to 1 4 cxplain it, and I could cpeculate on my explanation now, but i 5 I honestly don't remember 6 BY MR. JOHNSON:. 7 Q I am corry. What is it that you don't remember? 8 A I don't remember what I had in mind and was t'rying 9 to explain, in my September, 1983 depocition -- ; 10 Q But what you are telling me though, in it was, in i 11 fact, pursuant to a long-tcrm contract? 12 A No. I think that's where the apparent f3 (_/ 13 inconciatency explanation may lic. 14 We had a acttlement agreement, which I would not 15 call a contract, in the way in which I would typically use 16 that term. I cucpect that what I was identifying there in 17 that we did not have in place a contract with B&W for-18 cervicco, materiala or equipment againct which that credit 19 could currently be taken. That wac, I think, probably what I 20 was talking about therc. There wasn't already catablished a
- 21 contractual vehicle for realizing the potentially available I L 22 discountc. I think that'c what the first part of the I
23 contence in talking about. My recollection in that there was { i 24 come flexibility in the acttlement agreement on the part of ' ) l 25 B&W ac to when they could cither decreacc the amount of ( l l l l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m-33MM6 l
30690.0 cox. 73 y l V.. 1 1 discount availabic or no longer apply it to certain aspecto 2 of the initial range of contracts under which it.would bc 3 availabic. I am just very hazy on it. But I think if we 4 went back and looked at the acttlement agreement, there would 5 be come other fcatures there that were decigned to encourage 6 us, being CPU, to direct businccc towards B&W, in the near 7 term, as opposed to five years from that time. 8 Q I think that helpc. Alco, in terms of old l 9 businocc, so to speak, I asked you como questions about the-l 10 weekly polar.cranc recovery reporto, and you caid that you . 11 did not occ them. 12 In the context of your regular activitico, you ym 13 indicated that during thic carly 1983 time period you were 14 briefed by Mr. Kanga and do.you recall Mr. Kanga referring to I 15 the wcckly report on the polar crano recovery during hic 16 regular briefings to you? 17 A Well, I would like to make curc~there wasn't a 18 misundcratanding in terms of the use of regular briefings. 19 We did not meet every two weeks or cvery month for the l l I 20 purpoco of having him review with me individually the status 21 on the project. There were opportunities for me to roccive 22 that type of routine project update, at perhaps two- or 1 23 three-month intervalc, as I would catimate. Then there was i 24 additional briefing of me by Mr. Kanga on specific problem J l 1 l 1 25 arcan when they would come up. It was lecc formally 1
)
l l l l
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. I l
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 e ___-_- -
l l t l L 30690.0 cox 74 l O , 1 structured than perhaps your question would suggcot. I 2 Neverthc1cco, I have no recollection, in any of thoac 3 discuccions, of being made aware of specific weekly reports 1 4 on the polar cranc. 1 , 5 Q Did you talk with -- Mr. Kanga reported directly l 6 to you. He was your direct link to the activitico on the 1 7 citc; icn't that corrcct? l 8 A For those that were within his ccope, I think it's l l 9 important to undcratand that Mr. Kanga's TMI-2 division was 10 not the only division of CPU Nuclear that wac working on l 11 TMI-2 iacucc. 1 l 12 Q Okay. But he wac the only one -- his was the only 13 one working on the polar cranc and head lift? 14 A No. The radiological and environmental controlo 15 division would have clearly been involved with that effort. 16 Q Okay. Did you talk with him more than once a week 17 during thic period? 18 A I would expect that in the January and February 19 time frame, which I think wac when the initial question on 20 thic arca was addrecced, that it was typical for me to talk l 21 with him more than once a week. l 22 Q Were these mainly telephonc conversations or 23 personal convercationc? 24 A They were both. I don't know that I would say onc 25 dominated the other. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30690.0 cox 75 0;,_s 1 Q Wac~your office in any kind of near proximity to 2 Mr. Kanga'c? 3 A It'was about -- cxcuco me,.perhapo.a 100-yard 4 walk. I was in a trailer ocparate from the building he was 5 located in. 6 Q So would it be unucual for you to oce him on a 7 daily basic? 8 ,p A Yec. I think if by that you mean was it typical. 9 that I saw him daily, as a matter of routinc, I don't think 10 that was typical. I think the other activitico that I was 11 involved with would mean that I would acc him face to. face, 12 only when I had occasion to go to hic building or wanted to 13 -get'together.for face-to-face discuccionc. 14 Q During the cource of the period, particularly in 1 15 February and in March, did he indicate to you in 16 conversations that the polar cranc progreco on the polar 1 17 cranc refurbishment and recovery work was falling behind 18 becauce of the clowncos of cite operation approval of the 19 procedurco? 20 A I think I would want to break the time into two-21 piccco. Generally the answer is, you know, I think, very 22 specifically, the answer is no. I don't think that in any of 23 the February-March time frame, Mr. Kanga identified that the 24 polar cranc was falling behind the schedule because the cite 25 operation was clow in approving procedurco. l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
)
I p , 3 m ja .( , 9 \ , f c 30690.0 , ., cox ' 76 a a' ,.x-ft g (V) .
)
1 -Q AhartfromtheseSpecificwords,didheindicate ' 3 g 2 to you it'was falling ichind? l 3 A In that time frame, I think I was being kept 4 abreact o$ where we were in terms of the relatively 5 chort-term progreco, and what problema there were with , 6 achieving schedulo datcc relative-tp being rendy to test th'c polar cranc. When you say "bchind che:dule," I think any g
- 7 lt ,
8 givenday,onewouldhavetoidchtifywhatthestatusofthat .
',t 9 day was and what carlice expectation one had ao to whether 10 they were ahead or behind.f'T,hc#conce #1 had is that until it
)
11 became a cacc of where the NRC was apparently not going to ,
~A-12 move. ahead with letting uc prococd with tccting, that we were 13 gradually taking carc of the issucc and systematically taking, 14- carc of all of-the iacuco neccccary to be reco1ved prior to 15 proceedi.ng with the load test, including come iccuco that I !.
7 16 interjected in terms'of being neccccary before we could ,
)N '
17 procccd. ( l 18 Q Wac your g conversation with Mr. Kanga on thic 22nd l 19 of February at all -- well, you have said it was an attempt t
, s 20 to provide come discipline. Wacn't part of putting come ,
0 21 diccipline on the review procccc to accure that it didn't Ih I 22 fall behind? f 1 1 23 A No, I didn't intend that. I think the -- first; of 24 all, I think the n. orc accurate term that I chould have u t g 25 ic "cc1f-diccipline," " organization of aclf-diccipline," 1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ; 202-347-3700 N.nionwide Coverage 800-33M446 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . __ __ _ __ _.. _ ____.______3.______.______.]
, ~rnrg _ , "
l s. :' 1
'l 30690.0 .
t 7W: J u (~)
'- cox 1 L 1- which I think is a little loca ambiguous in terms of what I l L I 2 thought I'wac trying to portray. 1 0
3 I think that our feeling was that accomplishing i 1 l- 4 that would automatically move not just a polar cranc,~but 5 work activitico generally ahead more effectively than they 6 were proceeding with the attitudca that we felt currently 7 cxisted. 8 O Those attitudes werc -- ; 9 A' Leco sclf-diccipline relative to focucing on the l 10 iccuco that the particular organization that was involved 11 with the review reprocented in being accigned to do the l 12 review, and to look t.o othere to resolve locuco and address L 13 incuco outside their primary responsibility, but do that in a 14 way that again did not cignal to the organization we weren't 15 willing to deal with any incuco that anybody was concerned 16 about. But there arc different ways of handling concerna, 17 and come of them can be more efficient to the use of the 18 organization'a time and recourecc than otherc. 19 Q Would the objections that Mr. King, Larry King was 20 raicing about the lack of an integrated cchedule for the head 21 litt fall into that category? 22 A Into what category? 23 ( Thc category of you weren't saticfied with the 24 attituden ot unreing together and comehow -- let me back up. gs 25 Were you awarc that Mr. King had raised objections ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
g . t+- Tj[ ' .,. , b / [
~
7k'/.; ,
?
,I L '30690.0
' ccY i 78 h<
l- 1 about_the lack of an integrated ochedule for the head lift? !- 2 A In_what time frame? I 3 Q Well, he raised it in a memo, among others, on 1 4 February 7, 1983. 5 A I don't recall if I was awarc of it'in that time 1 6 frame. l 7 Q Was it one of the subjecto that Mr. Kanga briefed-8 you on when he talked to you, the complainto by Mr. King or 9 cite operations in general, that there was a lack of an 10 integrated.hcad lift schedule? 11 A I don't have any recollection of Mr. King'-- or, 12 cxcuse me, Mr. Kanga bringing that icouc up with me. I also 13 would disagree with the characterizations Mr. King 14 subsequently made, at 1cact, relative to the lack of 15 ocheduling toolo. 16 Q Were you unawarc of: hic complainto until you 17 talked to him on -- with regard to the Quiltec -- after_the 18 Quiltcc matter came up to you? 19 A The reason I have been kind of hccitating, I think 20 that Mr. King and I had discussions, prior to February '83, 21 in which he generally complained about scheduling tools, but 22 I think they would have been maybe the accond half of '82 23 cometime, or a part of other kind of informal conversations 24 that we had from incidental contacto, not a focuced complaint 25 on his part. Ocncrally I fclt that his criticisms of the j
?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverag MK)-33M646
l I 30690.0. l
, cox 79 i ?
k 1 ocheduling techniquec_that we were using werc'more a matter 2 of what hic-preference wac as to what we had-in place and-
'3 were not indicative of a fundamental problem.
4 Q -Did Mr. Kanga tell you that he thought thc.way in j I 5 which Mr.-King wac raicing hic ob$cetionc to the recovery l
.6 operations people was clowing thingo down, clowing the. review i 7 proccco down? ,
8 A I don't recall that_Mr. Kanga cver identified to 9 me that'Mr. Kanga wac raicing objections -- i 10 MR. HICKEY: King-11 .THE WITNESS: Mr. King, thank you, was raising 12 objections, and so I don't have any recollection that he put 13 it in that' kind of a context. 14 BY MR. JOHNSON: 15 .Q When did you_first become awarc that the NRC was l 16 conducting an investigation into concerns or complainto that 17 were being raised about the polar cranc? 18 A My recollection is that I became aware of that i 19 cither the 23rd or 24th of February, 1983. 20 Q How did you becomo aware? 21 A I think that Mr. Barton called Mr. Clark and 22 myoc1f, or we cubacquentiv both were involved in i 23 conversation, with Mr. King -- excuce me, with Mr. Barton, in (
- 24 which Mr. Barton told us of a visit he had from Mr. Barrett 25 in which Mr. Barrett identified they were looking at come I-l ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 30690.0 cox 80 1 locucc. 2 Q 'Mr. Barton called you and.Mr. Clark? 3 A My recollection is that both of us were in 4 Parcippany at the time that we found out about it, that we 5 were informed of what.the NRC had pursued come complainto 6 about the polar cranc refurbishment. 7 Q Did you have convercatione directly with 8 Mr. Barrett about that on either of thoac datcc, the 23rd or ] 9 24th of February? Let mc back up a accond. 10 Let me just explore the conversation'you had with. 11 Mr. Barton. What did Mr. Barton tell you? 12 A My recollection is that he called un and told ua
,e '
13 that Mr. Barrett had told him come.complainto were made to 14 the NRC about polar crano refurbishment work, that it wacn-t 15 any more detailed than that, really, that the NRC.wac 16 pursuing them and had not yet decided if they would purcuc 17 them through an inspection mechanism or through an , 18 investigation, and that Mr. Barton was just )ctting us know 19 that that was taking. place. 20 Q Did he indicate to you why -- what the 1 21 circumstancco of Mr. Barrett's coming to him were, whether he 1 22 called him or he vicited him or anything cice? 23 A I don't have any recollection of that. 24 Q Did Mr. Barton ack Mr. Barrett to provide come
)
25 details to him? O l l
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 l
.30690.0 -
cox 01 l V 1 A I don't think I know. 2 -Q Did Mr. Barrett tell Mr. Barton anything about the 3 cource of the information that he had gotton aoout 4 complaintc? 5 A Not any recollection I'have in termo of Mr. Barton 6 paccing.it on to un or to Mr. Clark and me, or indicating 7 that he had anything of that nature. B Q Did you curmice anything from what Mr. Barton told 9 you concerning the cource of the complainto that were coming 10 to the NRC? i 11 A I don't think I did at that time. 12 Q Did you connect the conversation you had with 13 Mr. Kanga on the way to Washington, concerning the complainto 14 raised by Mr. Parka, and Mr. King and.Cicchel, with the 15 information that Mr. Barton told you Mr. Barrett gave him? 16 MR. HICKEY: Just a minute. I don't think therc 1 17 is any tcctimony in the record about conversations with j 18 Mr. Kanga about Mr. King initially. 19 MR. JOHNSON: I think there is. 20 MR. HICKEY: Arc you referring to Parks? i 21 MR. JOHNSON: No. I think we covered both -- ! 1 1 22 BY MR. JOHNSON: j I 23 Q It's true, isn't it, in the conversation that yott l l 24 had with Mr. Kanga on the trip to Washington, that you 25 discucced both memoranda that were submitted by Mr. King and j ( l l ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364446
l I 1 30690.0 . cox 82 - 's) - ) 1 Giochel on the SCR, on the polar cranc, and Mr. Parks' 2 complainto in-that rcoolution? 3 A ~That's my recollection relative to the February 22 4 plane ride and, frankly, also to the morning questions and 5 answers. 6 MR. HICKEY: Yes, that's correct. 7 BY MR. JOHNSON: 8 Q I am just acking you, that occurred in the 9 afternoon of the 22nd, I accume, that planc rido? 10 A Evening might be more accurate. I think it was on 11 the way back to Washington. It was a 6:00 meeting or ' 12 comething like that. We probably took the last chuttle or .q \d 13 last flight back. 14 Q It may have been the very next day that you had a 15 conversation with Mr. Barton about the NRC information? 16 A It may have been. 17 Q You caid it wac the 23rd or 24th. 18 A I lean towards the 24th, but it was one or two of 19 those dayc. 20 Q Did you connect the conversations, that in the 21 fact that you had learned from Mr. Kanga that thoac threc 22 individuals at cite operations had raised incuco about the 23 polar cranc and the NRC investigation that Mr. Barton was 24 informed about? 25 A I don't think I did, nor would I cxpect to have ( ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
30690.0 cox 83 1 made that kind of accociation. 2 Q Why not? 3 A Two reasons. One in that.my fcc11ng was that the 4 incuco that were raised by all three of them were being dealt 5 with by the organization in a very open way in the iccuco or 6 the items at iccue and the reasonc for.the differing 7 pocitions was all clearly' stated and diccucced forthrightly. ! 8 Secondly,-thoac kinde.of discuccionc on the sido and those 9 kindo of iacuca I would have expected to have been readily i 10 known to the NRC, and no one would have had to go to 11 specifically identify them to have them typically know about 12 it. O- 13 Q Did Mr. Thiccing come to you concerning this 14 investigation during the came time frame, February 23 or 24? 15 A The NRC? 16 Q 'Ycc. Did he inform you that the NRC wac 17 investigating comething about the polar cranc? 18 A I don't recall there being any information from 19 Mr. Thiccing or even having any diccuccionc with him in that 20 time frame. 21 Q At all? 22 A At all. 23 Q How about Mr. Hanson? Do you know a Mr. Hancen, 24 Charles Hancen? ( l- 25 A I do know Mr. Hancen. The only conversations I i ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MO-3364M6
1 1 30690.0 l i g .c o x 84 V 1 can recall being involved with with him were on the March 12 2 readincos review committec'mceting. 3 Q How about Mr. King?-Do you recall any 4 conversations with Mr. King during thic time frame, February 5 23, 24, prior to the conversation that you and Mr. Clark had , 6 with Mr. Barton about Quiltcc?- 7 A I have no recollection of any-conversations with 8 Mr. King that whole wcok. 9 Q How about Mr. Kitler, Edward Kitler? Do you know 10 the name? 11 A I know the name. I don't know if I cver met the 12 individual and I don't recall. I can't think of any N l 13 conversations with him. 14 Q How about~Mr. Cicchcl? Did you cycak to him about 15 the NRC investigation on February 23 or 247 16 A No. I don't recall having convercationa about ! 17 that with anyone other than Mr. Clark, Mr. Barton, and 18 perhaps Mr. Barrett. 19 Q What did you tell Mr. Barton as a rcoult of l 20 learning thic? Did you give him any instruction or provide 21 any advice? 22 A My recollection ic that the only aspect of it that 23 we discucced is that I told Mr. Barton that our preference 24 would be that they handle it as an investigation, if they had 1 25 come allegations to purcuc, because based on the experience I ( ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I L30690.0 cox 85-1 we-had had over the pact two~or three yearc,'it was important 2 for thoac'corto of things to.bc developed with a very colid- > 3 record and documentation of it, and an NRC. inspection report 4 frequently did notiaccomplish that, in my opinion. 5 Q Did you suggest that Mr. Barton contact' 6 Mr. Barrett again? 7 A I think I did. 8 Q Did Mr. Barton. report back to you caying that hc 9 had? ! 10 A- I don't have any. recollection of that. 11 Q Did Mr. Barton tell you that he had como guccccc i 12 about who was involved? O
\/ 13 A I don't have any recollection of-it, and.1 don't' 14 believe he did. We were not particularly uptight about 15 people raising complainto. It wasn't comething that happened.- l
. i 16 frequently, but'it certainly wasn't unknown for members of j 17 our. organization or othere working at the cite over the pact 18 ccveral years, to have occasionally gonc to the NRC and j 19 voiced complainto. That was not.comething we liked to ace, 20 circumstanecc where they felt it neccccary to do that, but it 21 wasn't comething that we were'particularly alarmed about.
22 Q Was it unusual for Mr. Barrett to come to l 23 Mr. Barton or come other high management official at the cito I 24 to inform you or whomever that an investigation wac under way j L 25 about complainto that were raiced on-citc? ACE.FEDER.AL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8043364646 _ _ _ _ __-______._. _ __.___ _ _ _ _ ]
i l. l-i 30690.0: 1 A Well,11ct me cay first of all that I don't have- l 2 .the recollection that Mr. Barrott said they were conducting L l 3 an investigation, an I would understand that term to apply, 4 as we today would think in termo of an investigation. It.was 5 not unusual for the NRC,:in-fact I think it was more their 6 practice, that .if they were conducting an unannounced or air 7 unscheduled inspection, becauce of complaints,.that.they 8 would identify to us that they had roccived complaints, and 9 that's why they were purcuing an iacue without identifying.
.10 the specific complainto or the individuals involved.
11 But the-fact that they had received comet 12 complainto and worc purcuing them, I think it was typical for 13 them to tell, and thic gocc back to interaction with region 14 1, not just with the program office. 15 Q In a memorandum that Mr. Barrett wrote to 16 Mr. Snyder summarizing variouc allegations, and activitics 17 related to the polar cranc incuca, he notco that you and 18 Mr. Clark. called him at 3:00 p.m. on February 24. Do you 1 19 recall such a conversation? 20 A I have a recollection that I wouldn't contcot that l 1 21 that'c when it occurred. 22 Q Was thic conversation -- did it take place after 23 you had 1carned from Mr. Barton that he had information about 24 Mr. Kanga and Quiltec? 25 A I believe 30. Excucc me, I bcg your pardon. I
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationw1d: Coverage 8M336-6646 a__-___-_-___
li 30690.0' 87 j_ cox.
.tg 1 spoke too quickly. I definitely do not think it was before I 2 heard about Mr. King and Quiltec. I think it was -- I don't 1
3 have a cicar reco11cetion of-it, but I am not --
]
4 Q. You are cicar though that it was before? 5 A- No. I think I will just say that I don't1 i 6 remember, and there nay be documentation availabic to-accict 7 my memory, but I think it could have been cither. 8 Q I appreciate your saying that. 9 MR. HICKEY: Just, for the record, I think~therc. 10 10 at 1 cast come testimony that suggcato that Mr. Barton. 11 called Mr. Arnold and Mr. Clark around 6:00, so this record 12 that you quoted from, says the call to Mr. Barrett was at ! 13 3:00. 14 BY MR. JOHNSON: 15 Q Do you have any records of these typco of 16 conversations in your telephonc logbook or anything like 'l 17 that? 18 A I did not maintain a tolophone logbcok, and I l 19 don't know of any records of the conversations. I don't 20 believe that I created any at that time. The only place that 21 might be worth checking is the memorandum I wrote to 22 generally document the locuce related to King and Quiltec and j 23 whether or not there is comething in there relating to that 24 conversation, t 25 Q We will be getting to that. Well, in hic ;
.O i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
l ,1 l-l l b; 30690.0 cox 88 7s
'L 1 . memorandum, Mr. Barrett says that you, that in -- he cays 2 "they," referring to Mr. Clark and youroclf, demanded to know 3 if it -- well, let me back up.
4 "Mr. Arnold and Mr. Clark," co goco this memo, 5 " called at 3:00 February 24 and asked why.the NRC has been 6 qucationing CPU operations and engineering perconnel about 7 the polar cranc. I said we were. gathering information," this i 8 ic-Barrctt speaking, "at thic time." I am corry, "I caid we 9 were. gathering information about cafety, and I was not at ) 10 liberty to discuco it further at this time." 1' 11 Do you recall that conversation any better at this i 12 point? Let me finich saying what he said. "They demanded to
.g}
k- 13 know if it wasn't an I&E inspection, NRR technical review or 14 OI investigation."
- 15. Do you recall that conversation now?
16 A I can relate to the last centence, but I would, I l 17 think, put a different emphacic on it than would appear to be j 18 there from that reading. ; 19 Q First, before you do that, put whatever emphao' 20 you want, doco it refresh your recollection with regard to ; 21 the timing of the conversation? 22 A No, it docon't, not relative to knowing about King 23 and Quiltec. 24 Q Co ahead. How would you characterize thic 25 conversation? l C:) l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M616
30690.0 89
.,Dcox i) 1 A Because of the previous experience I had had, 2 particularly with regard to the NRC's investigation of the 3 accident that led to NUMIG-0600, I was very concerned about 4 whether.this was going to be an I&E inspection effort or an 5 OI -- I will take that back.
6 I am-not curc I realized OI existed, or whether 7 this wac going to be an investigation. I was, I believe., 8 .puching Mr. Barrett to make a decision on it carly on, .1 9 ' expressing my desire that it be an investigative format where 10 a . good Iccord would be developed that we could all have for 11 reference. 12 Q Did Mr. Barrett tell you that if it made you feci 13 better he would characterize it ac an inspection activity? 4 14 A I don't recall that. My reco11cetion in that my 15 intercot was on the other side of it. 16 Q But you did discuss which it should be and which 17 it wac, and you caid I prefer it.to be an OI type of 18 inspection rather than an enginecr's inspection? 19 MR. HICKEY: Not OI -- 20 BY MR. JOHNSON: 21 Q But you caid an investigative type of format l 22 rather than an inspection format? 23 A The early part of what you played back to me, I 24 don't think I agreed with. So maybe we can either start over E 25 again or -- O L ACEJPEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
30690.0 cox 90 l 1 Q You did discucc what format the activity of the ' 2 NRC ought to be in and you preferred the invoc.tigativo 3 format? 4 A I don't think we diccucced what it ought to be. I 5 think we discucced my decirc to know whether-the company was 6 being cubject to investigation or not, and, if there had bcon 7 accusations _against the comptny, my preference, based on my L 8 cxperience, was that the NRC purcuc thoce iccuco with an
- 9. investigative format.
10 Q The way you say that, did you say that to l- 11 Mr. Barrett? 12 A I think that I indicated to him the cocence of 13 what I am trying to dcocribe today, I thought that it wac_- 14 preferabic, but it was -- but I don't think that I was : 15 indicat'ing to Mr. Barrett that I fc1t in any way it was my l 16 call. to make. But that I did think.that ti.c company-was 17 cntitled to know if there was an inspection going on or not-18 or an investigation going on, and that -- not neccccarily the 19 cubject of it, but juct whether or not we were being ; 20 investigated. Ac I say, I think I indicated to him that I 21 would like to be cure that a good record was developed, and I , l l- 22 I thought that was more likely under investigative format I 23 than an inspection format.
'2'4 Q once you Icarned that --
l 25 A Let me clarify one other thing. To me, the
]
L _O q l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ J
30690.0 cox 91 1 difference was not-neccccarily the kindo of people that werc 2 involved. You indicated no opposed to a technical ~ inspection j 3 or comething like that. I wasn't exproccing a preference for 4 .the kindo'of pcopic involved, I wac cxproccing a preference S for the kind of documentation that wac developed. l i 6 Q Based on your conversation and what you learned 7 from'Mr. Barrett on the 24th of february, did'you get back to' 8 cither Mr. Kanga or Mr. Arnold -- Mr. Barton, with respect to 9 'what you had learned from Mr. Barrett?. , 10 A I am pretty cure I didn't talk to Mr. Kanga. I am'
-11 fairly confident that after 3:00 in the afternoon I had 12 occasion to talk with Mr. Barton, and I don't have any 13 recollection of briefing him on the conversation I had with 14 Mr. Barrett, but it wouldn't have been uncharacteristic.
15 Q So you are referring, I gucca, to the discuccion
~
16 of Mr. King'c involvement with Quiltcc that you-had with 17 Mr. Barton and Mr. Clark? 18 A Yec, sir. 19 Q Later that day or cometime that afternoon. 20 A Yes, sir. My recollection is there were two 21 conversations. 22 Q one was Mr. Barton giving you information that he , 1 23 had learned and the second one was hic calling you back with ! l 24 the information he had learned pursuant to your instruction? l l 25 A Yes, cir. { L: ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 ' i 1. I-l- L 30690.0
. ,s cox 92 i / 4 l \_/
h 1 Q Apart from those discuccions about King and , I 2 -Quiltec, did you discuss further -- is it your testimony that 1 ! 3 you did, perhaps, discuss the NRC inspection activity or ] 4 following up on the polar cranc as well with Mr. Barton? I don't recall that we knew that it was a polar I 5 A 6 cranc. I am not sure on that. But I think I could well have. l 7 but don't have any specific recollection of telling 8 Mr. Barton the cacence of the conversation with Mr. Barrett. 9 Q When you were interviewed by Mr. Aulick, 10 A-u-1-1-c-k, the man who works for Mr. Stier,.I believe, do i 11 you recall speaking to him in your trailer on May 23, 1983? 12 A No, cir, I don't. 13 Q Do you recall Mr. Aulick? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Do you recall meeting with him on a number of 16 occasionc? 17 A No, sir, I don't. I am also confident I did. 4 18 Q One of the statemento that is attributed to you is 19 paragraph 10 on page 4 of hic notec. It says " Arnold doca 20 not remember that the initiating factor in hic understanding, 21 King had cafety concerna to exprocc, was the NRC 22 investigation. Arnold's recollection ic he know carlier that 23 the NRC was rocciving complaints from comconc about failurc 24 to follow procedures regarding the polar cranc." 25 Now, we have just been discuccing Mr. Barton ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
i 30690.0: cox 93 1 telling you what Mr. Barrett told him. Io thic a reference 2 -- I am going to chow you thic:-- is thin a reference to come 3 other cource of information other than Mr. Barton was telling 4 'you what Mr. Barrett wac telling him? 5 A I think the answer to that is ycc. 6 Q Would you please study that, if you want, and tell. 7 me what it refore to. 8 A Inasmuch as I don't have any recollection even of. 9 the discuccion with Mr. Aulick, but which I am confident took 10 place, and also I gucac anying for the record that I did not l 11 acc thecc notes, to the beat of my recollection, at or noor-12 the time in which they were written, so to check on whether g U 13 or not the notes reflected what I was saying at the time, I 14 can, from the document, I think, tell you what I think my 15 answer is, but it'c baced upon a construction of that from' 16 the context of the couple of pagcc herc. 17 MR. HICKEY: Rather than on a recollection; ic 18 that what you are saying? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 BY MR. JOHNSON: 21 Q Okay. 22 A Item number 10 hac two centencca. Let me take the 23 first one firot. " Arnold docc not remember that the 24 initiating factor in hic undcratanding, King had cafety 25 concerns to exprecs, was the NRC investigation." That ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(F336-6646
, 30690.0 cox 94
.1 centence, I.think, is referring to the previous couple of 2 paragraphs, maybe three paragraphs, in which Mr. Aulick and I 3 appear to be talking about.why did I undcratand, by the 4 afternoon of the 25th, that when Mr. Clark would meet-with 5 Mr. King, we could expect Mr. King to' start voicing safety 6 concerno.
7 Q Ycc. 8 A I identified earlier that I had tried to go back l 9 and. reconstruct, including talking with Clark and Barton, as 10 to why my_ perception would have changed between the 24th and 11 25th. I say here opccifically that I couldn't figure that 12 out. [s/ : 13 Ac far as my recollection.--'I do have the 14 recollection that I knew carlicr, carlier than the 25th, I 15 believe that would bc -- 16 Q Okay, whatever you say, I thought it was the 24th 17 in thic context. 18 A I don't think co, becauce I don't think I changed 19 my mind baced upon what thic cays the 8th and 9th.
- j 20 Q The question related to your expectations though 21 of what would transpire on the 25th, I thought. That's why I l l
l 22 thought it was the 24th. 1 L 12 3 A No. The reason I don't think it was is becauce'I 24 went back out to Three Mile Island from Parcippany the ( fs 25 cvening of the 24th, with having nothing more than a 1
,1 i
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
L 1 1 30690.0 95 O .cox NJ 1 recounting from Mr. Barton of-the interview he had with' King ; 2 and what cubacquently transpired. l 3 Q Yes. l-4 A Mr. Clark, ac I recall, war ccheduled to meet l 5 cometime in the afternoon of the 25th with Mr. King, and my. 6 recollection is that he came to oco mc prior to going to mcct 7 with Mr. King. He reviewed come of the conversations he had 8 had w'ithEMr. King and thc' conditions under which Mr. King 9 would meet with him or the conditions which he refused to 10 meet with him, and'during that conversation, Mr. C1'zk and I 11 understood at that point that Mr. King would probably be 12 cxproccing -- claiming to have cafety.concerna. 14 A I couldn't reconstruct that back in 1983, but my 15 gucos is it was because of the statemento made to Clark by 16 King in their conversations on the 25th. 17 Q I gucco I michcard what you were saying. I 18 thought you caid you had a conversation with Mr. Clark before 19 he spoke to Mr. King. 20 A Ycc. 21 Q It's then that you undcrctood what he was going to 22 talk about had to do with cafety. 23 A A conversation with him before he met with 24 Mr. King. He had already had at least one telephone
- 25 conversation with Mr. King in conjunction with -- that's my ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 _,_____)
l
.t l
t- 30690.0
, cox- 96 i
V ll 1 recollection, anyway. l-2 Q .If that's true, then, still, I don't think you l 3 have' explained what the cource of thic information, that came 1 4 from other than Mr. King, was, the last contence.
-5 .A Well, I think that the NRC had received complainto 6 from comconc c1carly came from the Barrett to Barton l
- . ,7 conversation,. initially. I don't have a recollection that we 8 undcrotood at the time with regard to the polar cranc. I 9 don't know if that was, in fact, truc, and thic ctatement'io 10 accurate, or whether I was not careful enough in the cource 11 of thci interview, and I put comething in there based on.-what 12 I knew cubacquent, but I don't have any -- I just don't have 13 any recollection one way or the other as to whether or pot I 14 knew on the 24th the polar cranc was the focus of whatever 15 complainto had been received.
16 Q Thank you. Again referring to the came interview ] 1 17 with Mr. Aulick and Mr. Aulick'c notcc on page 6, he -f I 18 discucoco in paragraph 14 your decision to convene the 19 readincon review committee. Do you recall deciding to ; 20 convene a readincco review committee to review the polar 21 cranc? 1 i 22 A Yes, cir. Not the specific moment I did it, but I i 23 recall that I did require that. l 24 Q He cays that you caid that it was after the 25th 25 of February, during the week of the 28th, that you did co; ic . O-ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 .
30690.0 cox- 97 1 that your recollection now? 2 A Well, I don't have a recollection as to when I 3 specifically did it, but that is probably inconciatent with 4 other documentary evidence I know exista. 5 Q Inconciatent? 6 A Ycc. 7 Q Why? 8 A It's my undcratanding that the members of the 9 staff that werc' going to have to provide presentations to the
'10 readineco review committec met initially on the 28th. So if 11 it was the wcck of the 28th, it would have had to have been 12 .the day of tho'28th, and Mr. Bahman Kanga would have had'to 13 immediately start the staff to work. That's'poccible. It's 14 probably morc likely I talked to.Mr. Kanga on. Saturday or 15 Sunday preceding the 28th of February, and told him at that 16 time I wanted it done.
17 Q Again, if you had a calendar or come kind of log, 18 it would be helpful to -- perhapa we might find comething in 19 your calendarc if you can produce them to ched como light on 20 the dates here. ! i 21 A I can accure you that you won't find anything in 22 the nature of the calendar that I kept that would go to that 23 type of detail. 24 Q You caid that thic was not accurate, but it occma i l l 25 to me that your testimony ic conciatent with the statemento j l l ACE FEDERAI. REPORTERS, INC. l' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(k336-6646
l l l , 30690.0
.cox 98
- l. ()
l 1 that are here. It cayo after the 25th, during the week of l 2 the 28th. So it's likely that it was after the 25th, if the 1 3 25th was a Monday and you caid it was likely.to have been a 1 1 4 Saturday, then that would have been the 26th; correct? 5 A Yca, sir, i 6 Q There is nothing neccccarily inconciatent between 7 these statemento.and your recollection. 8 A With your acceptance of the kind of minor date 9 inconciatency, there isn't anything inconciatent. I am i 10 confident that it was becausc'of the meeting between l i 11 Mr. Clark and Mr. King that I determined that I wanted l 12 Mr. Kanga to act up a readincos review committec. I 13 Q Okay. That's' covered in the came paragraph here, 14 and I will chow you the document so that you can review it. 15 The readinoco review committcc approach in what is being 16 referred to herc. It saya "thic approach was decided upon, 17 given the fact that King had raiced qucations, and the NRC 18 was investigating." 19 What were you referring to -- well, why don't you 20 look at thcoc acntencco and tell me what you may have been 21 referring to when you caid the NRC was investigating, and was 22 that, in fact, your view. 23 A I don't know today if that wac my view or not. I 24 am very uncomfortabic with being tied to notes taken by 25 comebody while they are trying to talk in an unstructured ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
30690.0 cox 99 1 way, ac to how much precision can be attributed to those 2 notes. 3 Q Why don't you read that paragraph over and tell mc 4 what you remember. 5 A The aspects of this strike me immediately as being 6 a littic bit cither uncharacteristic or differing from my 7 recollection today and my conce of thingc are two. One is 8 that the NRC investigation would have played any role in the 9 decision, ao opposed to it will have a value to it in termo 10 of what they have_to do as well, Just come chift'in 11 cmphacia, but probably an important onc ac far as whether 12 that wac an important factor in whether or not we did it. I (- 13 don'tthinkitwas,butIdon'tknowhow{1portrayeditto 14 Mr. Aulick cither. 15 The other is the suggestion that when challengcc 16 are raised, a standard approach in the context of all that wc 17 arc being involved with here, I wouldn't want to think that 18 it's challenges of the nature that King raised, that arc 19 neccccary, before this comco up; or that every time comebody 20 raicco a challenge, we neccccarily go to a readincos review 21 committcc kind of effort. 22 But as a management tool, when you have got 23 complicated incuco that come aspect of the organization that 24 has not -- or that is involved with that is not caticfied l 25 with the way it's going to be handled by those that have to l ( I ace.FEDERA'L REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
30690.O cox' 100 1 make the decision, it is typical to refer those to comething 2 like, in our case, a general office review board. In come q 3 cacco they might be referred to a plant operations review 'l 4 committec. Dependo on what the nature of it is. 5 I cucpect that when I identified this standard H 6 approach, it was in.a much 1cco specific' cort of actting that 7 'I was thinking of than the particular example we had'here. j 8 Not that this' example of King's concerns, weren't grounds for 9 using this approach, among others, but that it didn't take l 10 that sort of an event before we would invoke thic typc of 11 approach. 12 Q That's a pretty long answer. But you are not l
'13 caying that your first answer was a littic bit cicarer, I- .l 14 could understand it a littic bit better. That in that once 15 you knew that King was raising safety questions, after.hc 16 . raised them with Mr. Clark, that you decided to call the 17 readincos review committee into acacion, ao to speak. That I l 18 .undcrotood. That acomed to be clear.
19 What you just said was a characterization, I 20 think, of when you do it in general. But you are still 21 caying that the main reason that you did call it was what you l l -22 learned from Mr. Clark about Mr. King's allocations? l 23 A Let me clarify that. The thing that prompted me 24 to think about it was King raising hic concerno. Had I 25 reflected on it without King raicing the concerna, I think I
- O l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30690.0 cox 101 1 would have decided that that was a~ good approach to ucc. I 2 had not reficcted on that way, King raicing his concerno 3 caused me to go back and kind of think about the procccc we 4 have been through, and to conclude, we really ought to for 5 the polar cranc load test have a review committee, much as we 6 did for the cubmerged mineralized cyctem and operation, for 7 the first time we brought highly cor.taminated water out of 8 the reactor building. Thocc'were events that were also well 9 cerved by this type of an approach. What I was acknowledging 10 there, and I still do acknowledge, is that King's voicing of 11 his concerns triggered me to realize that I had not accigned l 12 that to Mr. Kanga to do. t 13 Q My undcratanding was that you believe that by 14 calling the readincos review committec, that.its review of 15 the polar crane would serve a dual function'of recognizing 16 the allegations and not a playout of all the allegations that 17 King wac going to be making to you, coupling them 18 unneccccarily co that you could get on with the program, ao 19 to speak, of testing the polar cranc, operating it and so on; 20 is that correct? j 21 MR. HICKEY: I have to cay that I find that 22 question very hard to follow. ] 23 BY MR. JOHNSON: 24 Q Okay. I will be glad to repeat it if you don't l 25 undcratand it. I h ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coverage 8(X)-336-6646 L---_---_______-
l l i L30690.0 l ,. cox 102 l k. 1 I would request that you do. i 2 Q Finc. My undcrotanding, from your tcotimony or 3 deposition of Mr. Aullck's notes, was that you thought it 4 desirable to decouple the proccco by which Mr. King'c 5 allegations would be investigated, and the review of the 6 polar cranc,.for purpocco of accuring the cafety and the 7 compliance with procedurec and co forth, so that although the-8 readincoc review, committee review, would be valuable in 9 determining that perhaps what those allegations were, the 10 validity of them, that you wouldn't have to wait nccoccarily. 11 for all of his allegations to have been investigated, before i l 12 moving on with the project; is that incorrect? (-
/"[% 13 A I don't think so.. I think it ic correct that'I 14 believe that the polar cranc-specific iccucc raised by 15 Mr. King could initially be addrecced by a readineco review 16 committcc and that had the potential, depending upon how that 17 readinces review committee effort really played out, to provide us a basic for procccding with tocting of the polar i 18 19 crane prior to completion of all the other incuco that he 20 raised. I don't think I made a judgment as to whether that 21 would, in fact, be the result. But it was a way of at lcact 22 pursuing that poccibility and taking advantage of it if the 23 potential was there to take advantage of it.
24 Q When the readincos review committee did meet, 25 among the items that were discucced and on the agenda, werc
.O ACE-FEDERAt. REPORTERS, INC.
h 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
l l
'30690.0 i cox 103 I
L 1 the item bulleted "QA/QC program requirements for polar cranc l 2 refurbishment and testing." 3 I am chowing you an item that in tab 1 -- 128 in 4 the Sticr report, appendix B. That's correct, ic.n't it? 5 A Yes, sir. That was an agenda item. 6 Q -Do you recall that being discucced? 7 A To come extent'I do have a recollection of that, 8 ycc. 9 Q Did that discuccion cover the complainto that 10 Mr. Parks had raised on AP-1047 and AP-1043 with regard to 11 the polar cranc test procedure? 12 A They covered 1047, I think relative to 1043. I Qx3 13 don't have a recollection relative to 1043. 14 Q Do you recall specifically discuccing compliance 15 QA dctormination of how Mr. Parks' allegations would bc 16 resolved? 17 A With regard to 1047 I do. 18 Q Yes. That wac that his views were accepted? 19 A Yes, cir, and that the procedure had been 20 rewritten to comply with the 1047 format and the test working 21 group was functioning on it. 22 MR. JOHNSON: Off the record for a accond. 23 (Discuccion off the record.) 24 BY MR. JOHNSON: 25 Q Cotting back to Mr. Barrett's memorandum that he ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n336-6646
t l % u I L 30690.0- \ 104 1 l !j f
; 1
(
.]" cox 3 ,y5 r.'
l 1 wrote -- !y < 2 A Arc you going to show that to mc? I 3 Q Yes, I will chow it to you. He tacntions that he 4 met with'Mr. Kanga and Mr. Barton on February 25 in'the 5 afternoon, to'discucothe.qualityofunit2perforehec. *
.2
. Ig 6 Among the things that were caid, he caid that hc t4fcght
\
7 Barrett thought, that Kanga puched the schedule tooThard, and. 8 that he expected CPU to get their houac in order, and he:was 9 doubling the watch, the first full paragraph or Second 10 paragraph'there on that page. 11 .Did Mr. Kanga or Mr. Barton report that 12 information back to.you? 13 A I don't have a specific recollection of Mr. Kanga 14 reporting that or Mr. Barton reporting that to ac, but I 15 cxpect they would have. 16 Q May I have it back, pleacc. Do you recall 17 Mr. Barrett, in his conversations to you,. raising the iccuc 18 of pushing the schedule too hard, during this came time 19 frame? 20 A No, although I recall generally having 21 conversations with Mr. Barrett in that general time framc. I 22 don't recall him exproccing an opinion that we were pushing 23 the schedule too hard. 24 Q Mhat about his other statements here? Did he g 25 cuggcat to you that you better get your houac in order with V H ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Kn336-6646
l l. 30690.0. l cox 105 L 1 recpect to the animositico betwcon GPU and Bechtcl? 2 A I don't recall him ctating it in thocc termo. I 3 Mr. Barrett frequently provided to us his conce of how the l 4 project was going and what kind of. management problems we J 5 r.ad. I listened to him and took them ceriously. I did not, 6 in all honesty, believe that Mr. Barrett had either the l 7 cxperience bace'or the insights to really underctand fully 8 what the nature of our problems werc. 9 Neverthcleco, he had an unique vantage point that 10 wac helpful for me to acc the perspective that he gained. 11 Q Was the convening of the readincca review 12 committee at all related to your perception of what you know 13 to bc Mr. Barrett's perceptions about conflict? _j 14 A No, sir, I don't think co. Again, I don't think 15 that I would characterize what he described to me ac , 16 conflict. 17 'Q How would you characterize it? 18 A Ac working relationships developed, that were ao 19 productive as they needed to be in terms of the effectiveneca 20 of the communication and ability to resolve iscuca 21 efficiently. I might also add, if I may, that I provided 22 explanations to Mr. Barrett and to his cupervisor, 23 Dr. Snydcr, as to the atcpc that we were taking to improve 24 the performance of the organization, and that that had been 25 an updating of them that had been my practico cince the Acr. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 20L347-3700 Nationwide Coverare 800-3364M6
F 30690.0 , ~ -cox 106 I 1 accident with them or their predeccccoro. 2 Q Cctting back to the Barrott memorandum, and the 3 conversation that you had with Mr. Barrett on thc 24th of 4 February, did you speak to Mr. Barrett about a conflict of 5 intercat investigation of Mr. King prior to Mr. Barton's 6 cccond conversation with'you that day about what hc learned 7 from Mr. King? 8 A I don't recall. I recognize a document was 9 provided as part of discovery responaco, and I believe that 10 Mr. Barrett's recollection of the acquence of come of those 11 is comcwhat at. variance with my own. I don't know if it'c a 12 critical variance, but it bears come. variance. t0 I would specifically like to know what your
\> .13 Q 14 recollection is when you first told Mr. Barrett about
-15 Mr. King and Quiltec, whether it was before or after you 16 1carned the answers to the two questions you asked Mr. Barton 17 to ask Mr. King.
18 A My -- I can't say " recollection," but my conce of 19 was it was after and it was the following morning, after I 20 had gotten back out to tbn citc. l 21 Q So it wasn't on the 24th at all? i 22 A Again, I don't think co, but I don't have any 23 documentation to cay one way or the other. Excucc me, I am 24 not sure if there's anything in the -- at thic point in the I 25 memorandum I wrote to the file of the document. Those might i i
.l i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M n 3 E 6646
l l 30690.0' cox 107 l havc'comething. I 2 Q I don't think there is anything in that.- Let-me 3 look it up. I think it's tab 8. I don't cec any reference 4 to any conversations.at all,'with Mr. Barton -- with 5 Mr. Barrett. 6 A .Then I won't spend a lot of time going over it. 7 Q It's also possible that you spoke to him before 8 you got those answera? 9 A My recollection in I talked with Mr. Barrett 10 twice. The first time was.before I got the answers and maybe 11 cven before I got the information. I think the accond timo
-12 was after the suspension of King. It may have been the ,ss O 13 following morning.
14 In fact, my conce is that there were two 15 conversations, that the'occond.one was the following 16 : morning. 17 Q Well, his log also sayc that "at 8:00 a.m., 1 18 February 25, I called," Barrctt called you, Mr. Arnold, "and 4 19 cxprecccd his concern that CPU cmploycon may interpret King'c I I 20 cucpencion as a signal that bringing up cafety concerns were i 21 discouraged by management." 22 MR. REYNOLDS: In there a pending question? 23 MR. JOHNSON: I am about to ask the question, 24 ycc. 25 i l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage H(0-336-(M6 1
l l 4 l I 30690.0
, cox 108 L) 1 BY MR. JOHNSON:
2 Q The question is, do you recall Mr. Barrett calling f 3 you and exproccing that concern at 8:00? 4 A I don't have a recollection of which of uc called 5 the other. I would not contcot that he called me. My 6 recollection la that in the first conversation we had in 7 which we -- I talked with him about King and the Quiltec 8 incuc. I don't remember him exproccing that concern to me. 9 However, I don't think that it would have been i 10 uncharacteristic nor would it have been a concern I didn't 11 have myocif. 12 Q I am having trouble. I just wanted to know, to 13 the best of your recollection, you arc caying that you 14 believe you spoke to Arnold twice on the 24th or once on the 15 24th and once on the 25th. The first time you are not curc 16 whether you diccucacd Quiltec with him at all. The accond 17 time you informed him, I accume, that King had been 18 cucpended. 19 MR. REYNOLDS: Yott said " Arnold." Did you mean to { 20 cay "Barrett"? 21 MR. JOHNSON: I am corry, that's correct. Pardon 22 me. 23 THE WITNESS: I am not sure it all came out 24 right. If I could perhap give you what --
,- 25 l L-)
l i l t ACE FEDERAL REvoRTERs, INC. 202 347-37(n Nadonwide Coverage 8(0 33MM6 ____-_-___________________________j
1 i
'30690.0 cox 109 1 1 BY MR. JOHNSON:
2 Q Pleacc. .I am just having troubic. 3 A I undcratand that. What I think the ccquence was 4 that I got informed about midafternoon of the -- on the 24th,. 5 of the NRC necding to purcuc-allegc.tions relating to safety ) 6 iccuco, and I caid I don't recall whether I undcrotood at 7 that' time whether it was.the polar cranc or not. I had a 8 conversation with Barrett.following being told that by 9 Barton.- I think it was -- I think it was cubacquent to that, 10 that I got told about the potential involvement of King with 11 Quiltec. .I don't recall, following the receipt of that 12 information, calling Barrett back, but I might have.. Ildo 13 recall getting a report, while I was still in Parcippany, ac ; 14 to the outcome of the meeting with King by Barton and 15 Trobliger,.T-r-o-b-1-i-g-e-r, I believe I talked to 16 Mr. Barrett the next morning, and my recollection Ic-that 17 that was the -- my beat recollection is that that was the 18 first time that we talked about the fact that I had to have 19 King cucpended and that we had the juxtaposition of whatever 20 accusations were made, regardloco of what my undcratanding. 21 was, juxtaposition of those events with the fact that I found 22 it neccccary to suspend King for a conflict of interect 23 investigation. 24 Q Thank you. 25 MR. JOHNSON: I think thic is probably a good time l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(X)-33Mrf 46
'30690.0
~~ cox 110
( , I to take a five-minute break. 2 (Recco s . ) 3 MR. JOHNSON: Ready to go back on the record, 4 please. 5 BY MR. JOHNSON: 6 Q Between your conversation with Mr. Barton on the 7 23rd or 24th in which he related to you what Mr. Barrett had 8 told him about an investigation or inquiry of the NRC going 9 on on-cito, did you have any other conversations with 10 Mr. Barton in which the naturc.of the NRC investigation about 11 cafety locuco or polar cranc incues was discussed? , 12 A I don't have any recollection. I don't believe 3% p)s 13 co. If we are talking about the wcck of the 22nd, both the 14 23rd and 24th, I believe I cpent in Parcippany. 15 Q Also, the next few dayc, up to about the 28th of 16 February, to the end of February, when you cpoke again with 17 Mr. Barton after the 24th conversation or 23rd conversation 18 about the came subject, i 19 A I don't believe I did, about the came subject. I 20 Q Have you read the -- 21 A Let me juct perhapc amend that a little bit. My 22 recollection is that I did talk to Mr. Barton at come point 23 in the time framo you are asking about, and based upon 24 recordo I reviewed, I believe that to have been Saturday, the 1 l f-25 26th, in which I inctructed him to maintair. the accurity of i ( $~ l l I /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MXF336 6646
1 30690.0 cox 111 1 1 Mr. King's office. Arguably that might have been motivated -] 1 2 -- not arguably, but potentially that might have been i l 3 motivated'to como extent by the recognition.that the NRC was I l 4 coming in to follow up on their inquiry, purcuc-their 5 inquiry, and whatever documents and records werc~in j 6 Mr. King's office ought to stay there. I 7 Q Did Mr. Barton, in any conversation with you l 8 during that time period, after the 24th but before the lot, 9 cay, of March, indicate to you that he had learned anything 10 moro about the cource of the information that the NRC was 11 pursuing? 12 A I don't have any recollection of that. 13 Incidentally, I don't have any recollection of knowing, till 14 really we got into the investigation of the Parks insucc, of 15 who might have gone to the NRC. 16 MR. HICKEY: You say when you got into the 17 investigation of Parka incues? 18 THE WITNESS: In when I have a recollection of 19 being aware that apparently Parka, at least, had gone. 20 Whether others did or not, I don't know. 21 MR. HICKEY: That's after when? 22 THE WITNESS: March 23. 23 BY MR. JOHNSON: 24 Q Your mcmorandum, which dcccribec the termination L 25 of Mr. King, and has a number of attachments, starte at tab ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
; 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30690.0 icox 122. lD
.u r 1 8. It'c'a March- 21,-1983 memo to the file, and there. arc a 2 bunch of taba after it, going through tab 23, I believe, that 3 were attachments to documento that you appended to your 4 . memorandum.
5 Why did you preparc this interoffice memorandum 6 Jand attachments? 7 A To.the beat of my recollection, and, again, 8 recognizing thecc cvento arc over four yearc.old, I-felt it 9 was important to catablich as contemporaneous a record no 10 practical of the evento.and judgments I made that led to the- j 11 termination of Mr. King. I think this was in_ recognition 12 that we had not yet completed an investigation of all of the 13 allegations of mismanagement and'cafety'iccues, as he tcrmed 14 them, anyway, and that it was rather unpredictable as to what-15 type of proceedings may be forthcoming that this would become. 16 an ionuc. 17 Q 'Ac a result of an interview that -- let me back 18 up, plcacc. 19 It's my undcratanding that you directed Mr. Kanga 20 to interview a occretary, Bechtel accretary on the site named 21 Roco Rittle, and that cuch an interview was conducted on i 22 March 3 and is documented in a letter to you from Mr. Santcc ! 23 on March 4. It's attachment 12, tab 22; is that right? Yes, 24 tab 22 of appendix B; in that correct? You directed 25 Mr. Santcc to have, or Mr. Kanga, to conduct an interview : I 4 [ Ace-FEDERAL RneonTens, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
- = ___ - _ - _ _ _ - __
30690.0-113 (-):.cox -{
.k/ ,
I with Ms. Rittle? 2 A I would have chocen the words differently. I am-3 not sure there's a different effect. On becoming. aware of 4 the identification by Mr. -- cxcuse me, by Mo. Rittic, of her 5 having typed the rcoumcc, Mr. Kanga and I agreed that che 6 ought to be interviewed and that we would have Mr. Santec and-7 Mr. Trobliger, I believe it was, conduct the interview with 8 her. , I 9 Q And the information that this was based on, your ! 10 decicion to have her interviewed, was based on information 11 contained in a memorandum from Mr. Thiccing to Mr. Kanga; in I 12 that the cource of it? 13 A That's not my recollection, Mr. Johnson. 14 Q What wac the reason -- what was the information j 15 that you were bacing this on, the decision to interview 16 loc. Rittlc? 17 A My recollection is that it was because of the 18 conversation in the accond contence of the third paragraph of . I 19 the first attachment to the tab 22 document. 20 Q Say that again, which centence again? 21 A Third paragraph, accond centence, which reado, 22 "che," being Mo. Rittle, "caid that she had not known of thic 23 accignment until yecterday, March 2, 1983, when che asked 24 Bill Austin what was happening with the Larry King i 25 cituation." ' 1 l ACE FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb3364M6
30690.0'
, cox- 114 '%s '
1 Q Okay. 2 A Then if you go down to the next paragraph,.you 3 will occ that what,trancpired there, and I:think that 4 information was relayed to mc because iir. Austin went to, I 5 think, Mr. Thiccing, and Mr. Thiccing notified Mr. Kanga . 6 =about it. 7 Q So it was an oral chain of evento? 8 A That's my recollection, although I recognize.that. 9 the reference that you made to the information being 10 comeplace cloc exista. !
-i 11 Q But that other memorandum was not to you,.it uac j 12 to.Mr. Bruncr, and that was on Bechtel stationery, co thic:ic' 13 your tcctimony that you didn't sce that memorandum until {
.t 14 later? l 15 A No. 'I haven't given testimony relative to that' 16 iccuc, I don't think.
17 Q What is your tcctimony today? 18 A I believe that -- I am corry, I was referring to 19 today. I believe that that Thiccing to Bruner memorandum was 20 provided to me; and, to the best of my recollection, or not 21 recollection, but based upon the documentation, I would say 22 I probably had, in my office, at leact, by March 3, 1983. 23 0 It was transmitted to you from Mr. Kanga, an IOM, 24 dated the 2nd of March. So it was cent to you. I 25 But you cay the information you were acting on was I
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
g 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(h3364M6 I . !
- - - _ _ _ _ = - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l~ s-30690.0
- f _. cox 115 k) .
!, 1 information you had learned orally.through a chain starting 2 with Mr. Austin speaking to Mr. Thiccing? j, 3 A That's my recollection. I have a particular 4 recollection of having it recounted to me how dictrccced 5 Mr. Auctin was that he'may become entwined in an
'6 investigation of Quiltec, and hic expreccion of concern that l 7 there not be a misundcratanding on the part of management 8 that he was not out looking for'another job, he liked what he 9 was doing, and he wanted to stay with us.
i 10 0 When did you first become concerned about the role 11 of Mr. Thiccing in the investigation of Mr. King? 12 A February 24, I would say.. i 13 Q 'What was that concern based on, what information? 14 A My recollection io that Mr. Barton indicated in.a 15 general way the information that Mr. Thiccing had been given 16 .by members of his staff, and then what he had done with that 17 information; namely, the une of the procurement and 18 contracting group at acchtcl, to try to cubotantiate the 19 rumore as he deceribed them, I think, before bringing the 20 information to either CPU management or Bechtel management, 21 and my initial reaction of that was that it didn't appear to l 22 me that that was an appropriate way for him to function on j h 23 that information. f l 1 l
'4 Q Did ycv speak to Mr. Thiccing directly about that )
1 V i i 25 problem? j f~g_ T/ w
)
1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 ; i
'30690.0 cox' 116 1 A No, sir, not to my recollection.
2 Q Who did you raice it with, firat? 3 A I think I probably raiced it first with 4 Mr. Kanga. I know I. talked with Mr. Sandford cventually 5 about'it. I probably alco talked to Mr. Bruner about it. 6 Q I would accume you talked to Mr. Kanga about it 7 first? 8 A That's really an accumption on my part, but he is 9 the first one I had the talk with, I.think,.among the threc. 10 Q. Would you tell me when you talked to him about it' 11 and what you. told him? 12 A I think that I talked with him cither on May -- 13 c>:uce me, on cither February'25 or February 26, and that I 14 told him that, at 1 cast, I would like to know more 15 specifically what information Mr. Thiccing had and what was 16 done'with it. 17 MR. HICKEY: Mr. Arnold,.are you recounting a 18 recollection of a conversation or what you arc accuming took 19 place? I understood you to testify that you don't remember 20 whether you spoke with Mr. Kanga, but probably you did. 21 THE WITNESS: I thought I took the lead in, if I 22 didn't, I chould have, that this is what I would expect I 23 conveyed to Mr. Kanga at that time. 24 BY MR. JOHNSON:
. 25 Q Okay. Did Mr. Kanga ther,, provide to you a --
1 l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(XK33MM6 _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ ..J
l 1 i 30690.0 J I cox 117 I I well, I will represent.to you I don't have it right handy
]
2 here, I can find it, I think, or your counocl will provide 3 it, a handwritten memorandum of events was provided by j 4 Mr. Thiccing at Mr. Kanga's request, to Mr. Kanga, of-the 5 cvento, about 13 handwritten pagcc in which Mr..Thiccing ! 6 describec what he did. Did Mr. Kanga chow you a handwritten 7 document written by Mr. Thiccing? 8 A Not to my recollection hc'didn't. I am.awarc that 9 such a document exista, in eccentially.the came text as a j 10' typewritten one dated March 2. 11 Q Ic.it your tcctimony.that the form in which you 12 roccived'that information about what Mr. Thiccing did, hic O (/ ~ 13 account of what he did, was first conveyed to you through 14 that. March 2 memorandum? l 15 MR. HICKEY: Apart from the Barton discuccion? 16 MR. JOHNSON: Yes,.mcaning tab 21. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't think I would like to cay 18 that is my testimony. I recognize that I was provided.it at 19 that time and confidently at least I was provided it, as the 20 document would indicato. Whether there was carlier oral 21 deceription to me by Mr. Kanga of the cocential parte of that 22 memorandum, I don't know, but it wouldn't curprice me if 23 there was. 24 BY MR. JOHNSON: 25 Q We had it from the 26th, precumably, or on or LO ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb336 6646
q l
'30690.0 cox: 118 \,J 1 about,1and this was the accond --
2 A I think you have to remember that the 26th was.a-J Saturday. . I don't know if cither Mr. Kanga or Mr. Thiccing 4 were at the site. So it's quite likely that Mr. Manga didn't ) i S ccc it until the 28th, just based on it having been a j l 6 wcckend. 7 Q What.kindo of directions did you give to Mr. Kanga . 8 when you did roccive that information, whether it was oral or 9 written, with respect to Mr. Thiccing? 10 A I don't' recall that I gave him any instruction. 11 Q What was your next step? Was it to contact 12 Mr. Sandford? 13 A The next event I can recall that related to this 14 was a telephone conversation that I had with Mr. Sandford I 15 cometime during the week of the 28th, and based on the other 16 cvents, I would expect that it was probably the 4th of 17 March. 18 Q Why do you say probably the 4th of March? ; 19 A Let me perhaps defer that, if I may, for a ) 20 minute. 21 Q Okay. l 22 A I can't rule out. It may have even carried over i 23 into the firct part of the following weck. But Mr. Sandford , 1 24 called me to say that he was concerned about the poccibility 25 of Parka having violated Bechtcl's conflict of intercot
. 'N ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646
Pl 1 I 30690.0
. cox. 119 ]
l (.,') v' j 1 policy, and that he was going to utilize one of their 2 internal accitors to invcatigate that iacue which was their. j 3 practice, ac I undcratood it, from the conversation; and in 4' the cource of the conversation, I asked them to have the 5 internal auditor also review Mr. Thiccing'c handling of the 6 information he had. I am curc I indicated my concern, 7 although I don't recall the apecific words, but I am 8 confident I indicated my concern at that timo, that he had 9 not exercised very good judgment. 10 Q What was Mr. Sandford's reaction? 11 A My recollection in that he was -- he didn't 12 contcot my preliminary attitude towards it. He didn't refuoc 13 to have the internal auditor include talking with 14 Mr. Thiccing. I don't recall that he specifically committed-15 to do it, but it was my expectation that he would, as a. 16 result of that conversation. 17 Q Did you have any cubacquent conversations with 18 Mr. Sandford or Mr. Bruner on the manner in which Bcchtel 19 internal audit followed up on your requcct with regard to 20 Mr. Thiccing? 21 A Not to my recollection, I did not. 22 Q They never got back to you on the Thiccing matter? l 23 A I dont think that'c quite truc. We cubacquently L 24 had conversations, and I don't remember when they took place, l 25 but we cubacquently had conversations where I was catisfied l i f l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364 446
30690.0 cox 120 1 that Mr. Sandford agreed that Mr. Thiccing's handling of that 2 information had been inadequate relative to their preference 3 and that that-is not the way in which they would expect n' 4 Bechtel employec to respond to thc.information he had; and 5 that, therefore,.my principal concern with that incuc, which 6 was what was Bechtc1's expectation and attitude was 7 satisfied.. 8 Q During that conversation you were catisfied 9 Bechtel didn't want that kind of behavior? ; 10 A And they agreed with me that they didn't want it 11 cither. 12 Q You didn't really pursue specifically with what 13 they were going to do with Mr. Thiccing? 14 A I did not, to my recollection. 15 Q When you had the -- when did you have this 16 conversation that you were just describing with Mr. Sandford? 17 A I don't remember specifically, and I don't 18 remember it -- a specific conversation. I remember that by 19 the time that -- my recollection is that by the time I 20 decided to terminate Mr. King, that Bechtcl'c attitude on 21 Mr. Thiccing's handling of information was acceptable to me. 22 I mean, I understood that they were diccatisfied with what Mr. Thiccing had donc also, i 23 24 Q But you didn't know whether they were disciplining l, 25 him one way or the other? . - l l l l l
.1 ACE. FEDERAL ReponTnns, INC. I 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 +
130690.0 a cox 121 (} v 1 A That'c correct. Frankly, I would not have looked 2 for discipline. I didn't'think it was a matter at that 3 point, based upon what I knew, that would require discipline, L 4 itf would require instruction and maybe diccipline to the 5 cxtent of censure on ucc-of bad judgment, but not a scriouc 6 offensc. > 7 Q Did you at all discuco with Mr. Sandford or 8 Mr. Bruner.Bechtcl'c directive 2-1 dealing with conflicts of' i 9 intercot? i 10 A I don't have any recollection of a discuccion on 11 that policy of theira, no. 12 Q- Did you cver have discuccions about that directive i
%- 13 with relation to the context of a Mr. Parks?-
14 A 'I don't know that the convercationc I had with 15 Mr. Sandford explicitly 10cntified the policy statement or 16 thc. contents of it. My conce in that what we talked about l 17 were the content of Bechtcl'c policy, what they wero trying 1 3 18 to accomplich, what they were concerned about, and that it j 19 was more of a characterization of their policy than an j l 20 cxplicit recitation of the wordo that they had in their 21 policy document. l 22 I will cay, though, that in conjunction -- and 1 23 this perhaps is more germanc to your question, the answer I l 24 gave, is in conjunction with the debrief that Mr. Sandford l I l 25 gave mc on probably March the 15th that he identified to me l '.I ! i I
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTEns, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n3346646 . L____:___._.__u________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _j
I L L 30690.0 I o n 122 L .O cox L X_> , 1 q 1 that Bechtel had not bricfcd Mr. Parkc on their conflict of L 2 intercot policy or had him cign the standard form that they 3 have for that purpocc. That Bechtel management had not j 4 covered that with him when he was initially. hired. 5 And that -- my recollection is that that was part 6 of what he gave me, in the way of a debrief. I think, the 7 day following.the interview of Parks by Mr. Hoffman. < 8 Q Did you at any time, in' conversation with 9 Mr. Sandford, indicate that if it turned out that 10 Mr. Thiccing's allegations were incorrect, that Mr. Thiccing ;
'l l wouldn't be welcome on the cite anymore?
12 A I don't think co. 'On February 24, we (~s.
\ 13 fundamentally had confirmation from King himoclf that the 14 cxtent to which Dr. Thiccing had identified King's 15 accociation with Quiltec was substantiated. So it was never 16 in my mind that Mr. Thiccing had raised allegations relative 17 to Mr. King.that would turn out to be falac.
18 Q In your conversations with Mr. Aulick, as I recall 19 them, and I can refer to them, you told Mr. Aulick that you 20 had come question in your mind about propriety of 21 Mr. Thiccing'c conduct incofar as he may have known about it-22 for several months, perhaps in November or December, two or 23 three monthc'carlier, and had not donc anything about it, but 24 was using it, perhapc, at a time which fit hic intercato. Do 25 you recall telling him that? O. Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n3364646
l 30690.0 L .cox 123 k j' 1 A I don't recall telling him that, but I recall that L 2 that was a concern that I had and that I am cure that I would l l 3 have ctated comething to that effect. i l 4 Q To Mr. Sandford, or to whom? 5 A To Mr. Aulick and there were other investigators 6 that were interviewing me. 7 Q Did you ever exprecc that concern to Mr. Sandford 1 8 or Mr. Bruncr? 9 A I don't recall, and I cort of doubt that I did. 10 Q Did you do anything to caticfy youracif that l 11 Mr. Thiccing know or did not know, earlicr? ! 12 A Well, my conce is that the deceription.given by 13 Mr. Thiccing in hic March 2 typewritten memorandum of what hc 14 knew when was substantiated during my interviews with 15 Buchanan and Austin, and that while I think como 16 cecond-gucccing could be donc as to whether or not the 17 information was cubotantive enough prior to February for Jim ! 1 18 to bring it to management's attention, it was a close enough 19 call that I did not fcc1 that he was subject to that much 20 criticicm, if any. I think I fcit that once he really had a 21 substantive bacic for believing there was an accociation ; 22 between King and Quiltec, as well ac Quiltec havina hired 23 former CPU Nuclcar employeca, that he brought that to the 24 attention, in a reasonably prompt manner, and not delaying n 25 until he could comchow take advantage of it relative to Mr. U ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 !
< 1 l' 11 30690.0
.- cox >
124 - - l I 1 King.- He had the few day' interval where he was digreccing 2 going through this procurement thing, and that was.rcally l- 3 what I wac critical of him for. , L . l l 4 Q Didn't you have conversations with Mr. Buchanan l 5 and Mr. Auctin and othero indicating why-they had not acted t- i l- 1 After all, didn't Mr. Buchanan tell you that 6 more quickly? 7 he knew, around the first of-the year, that Mr. King was 8 : president of Quiltec? , 9 A I.would have to refer back to my memorandum. 10 Q Co ahead. 11 A On page 3 of tab' number 8, in the first full
'12 paragraph, statcc --
13 Q I am just trying to catch up to you. 14 A I am corry.
'15 Q Excuse me. Page 3, you said?
16 A Yes, cir, first full paragraph'. 17 Q Yec. 18 A Where I cummarize the information I obtained from 19 my interview with Buchanan on March 11, I belicyc it wac. 20 Mr. Buchanan stated that he had Icarned from Austin and 21 Reckcrt in November of 1982 that "he and Rcckcrt were all 22 working at Shorcham nuc1 car generating station for Quiltec, 23 and that Mr. King was accociated with Quiltec. In early 24 January, Buchanan wac informed that Mr. King was precident of 25 Quiltec. He stated that he gave the substance of that
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8M336416 l
l l { l p l- 30690.0 1 informa' tion to Dr. Thiccing in January." My conce was that 2 Thiccing had that information in January. February 4 in j 3 Idaho in when he has the incue recnforced by callagher,.or 4 Austin, I think it was, whichever one was with,him, and upon-
, 5 . hic return from that trip, he then pursued it. So I didn't 6 think that Buchanan's learning that King was apparently the 7 president of Quiltec was handicd in an untimely way by 8 Mr. Buchanan, which I think wac the question you asked.
9 0 .Okay, I accm to remember you raicing the point, 10 why didn't-you come to me, to Mr. Buchanan. 11 A I don't think so. I don't think so, cir' . 12 Q .Okay.
-13 A I think thic memorandum would indicate to the
'14 contrary, 15 Q Why was it that you conducted this investigation?
16 Why didn't you -- the one that is recounted in thic rather: 17 long memorandum of May 1, 1983. Why didn't you give it to 18 Mr. Trobliger or Mr. Santee to look into? 19 A I don't think it would have been appropriate to 20 have either one of these peopic. Mr. Santec was bacically a 21 cost and ccheduling type of person. He was over in a staff 22 nupport function for the operations and technical kindo of 23 cffort. , 24 Mr. Trobliger was very junior, both experiencewicc 25 and organizationally to Mr. King, and it just would not have ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
l. I L ; l l
'30690.0 ~l I
. 'cox 126 L 1 been appropriate. l
- t 2 Q Do you have.it or did you have at CPU Nuclear an
. I 3 internal auditor like Bechtc1 had?
4 A The only internal auditors that we had in tho' CPU 5 cyctcm were ones that worked on financial audito. We didn't. 1 6 have an office of Inspector Cencral or come type of. 7 invcatigatory arm. 8 0 so you were the only one left? 9 .A Well, I think Mr. Clark could have donc it. It 10 was not nearly as practical from the organization standpoint 11 to tic him up with that inasmuch ac he was more typically 12 located in New Joracy, but I think it wac important to do it O
\-) 13 at a very cenior level.
14 Q With respect to'the information that you had . q 15 learned about Mr. Parks' -involvement with recumec being typed j 16 by Mc. Rittic, I.accume-that you, from the information that l 17 you provided, that you learned of that cither from the 18 reported intervicw of Ms. Rittic, or through the information 19 that Mr. Thiccing provided to Mr. Kanga; is that correct? 1 20 A Yes. I only have a recollection of knowing about 21 it through the initial report that led to the interview of 22 Ms. Rittic, and the report of that interview of Ms. Rittic, 23 and tnen the cubacquent conversations with Mr. King, and 24 following that, the feedback I got from Mr. Hoffman's 25 interview of Mr. Parks. i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
5 ) L 30690.0' . 7 cox 127 f eO l 1 But what I recognize is identified as having '! 2 occurred in the March 2 memorandum authored by Thiccing.that- 3 1 1 3 we discucced carlier, I frankly don't have a reco11cetion of. 4 picking.up on that point in there, if I did. ; l 5 Q Did you indicate to Mr. Sandford -- when you had . 1 6 your discuccion that you referred to carlicr, in which I 7 believe Mr. Sandford said he was going to have an internal 8 auditor look into Mr. Parks' involvement, did you indicate to 9 him that you believed that Mr. Parks had cerious involvement 10 with Quiltec? 11 A I don't think I did, and I doubt very much if I 12 .did, becauce I was not that concerned about what he had 13 specifically donc in the context of the concerno I had 14 relative to King. 15 MR. HICKEY: He being Richard Parks? BY MR. JOHNSON: 16 17 Q Ycc. 18 A Yec. I thought it was an incue that ought to bc 19 purcued and undcratood, but I did not have a -- nearly the 20 concern aoout whether there had been the kind of breach of 21 obligations to their employer on the part of Parkc that I had , 22 with regard to King. 23 Q Did you 1 carn from your debricfing -- later, you 24 caid it was March 15, did you learn anything new about 25 Mr. Parkc' involvement that you hadn't known when you raised ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202-347 3700 mt; ora;&, Cv...*ipe 80(k33MM6
30690.0
, _s cox 128 r ;
)
1 the incue first with Mr. Sandford or you discucced it first 2 with Mr. Sandford? 3 A Ycc. My recollection ic I learned considerably 4 more about the details. 5 I can't remember if it was from that conversation 6 or cubacquent report. But I became aware in that time frame 7 that Mr. Parks' recitation of how it came about, and the 8 degree of involvement of Mr. King, wac significantly greater 9 and more substantive than Mr. King had acknowledged to me 10 when I talked with him on the 9th of March. 11 Q I am corry. I must not have been lictening 12 carefully. Whoce involvement was more cubotantive? m kl 13 A Mr. King's was in getting Mr. Parks to arrange for 14 the recumec. Mr. King portrayed it as being almoct an -- 15 goch, I got asked just to arrange for payment on behalf of 16 Mr. Sloan for comething that Parks wac doing for Mr. Sloan, 17 and didn't really know much more about it than that. I don't 18 know if it was cach, or a check, Mr. Parkc' deceription of it 19 was cubotantively different. 20 Q You had an interview with, I believe individually, 21 Mr. Auctin, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Chwantyk on March 11, thic 22 ic all documented in your little memo to the file. Do you 23 recall speaking to Mr. Chwactyk individually? 24 A Yes, cir. i ( ,3 25 Q Do you remember having qucations about conflictc I uj l l I 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(V) Nationwide Coserage 8(K)-336 6646
30690.O cox- 129 1 betwcon Mr. Chwantyk's tcctimony -- not hic testimony -- hic 2 statements to you and other.information you had?' 3 A The other information I had at that point, 4 relative to his knowledge of Quiltec and Mr. King'a rolc in 5 it, were from Mr. King in my meeting with him, I believe on 6 March 9. Mr. King had explained to me the bacia on which-ho 7 had included Mr. Chwantyk'c answer or Mr. Chwactyk in.the 8 answer to one of the questions about who, among CPU 9 management, knew of hic involvement with Quiltec. What the 10 memo was identifyin; is when I talked to Mr. Chwastyk, there 11 werc-discrepancica as to time, particularly, when he had'bcen 12 involved with the review of a contract.. 13 I think that was the major diffcrence, although-14 maybe I can refrech my memory with thic. I then -- I believo l 15 when I mot with Mr. King on the lith, brought up the iacue
)
16 again and wacn't able to resolve the difference as to 1 17 timing. I think that was the only discrepancy that I was 18 referring to here that I couldn't resolve. I did not get 19 information from cither one of them at that time of more 20 substantive involvement by Chwastyk. 21 Q Mr. Parks, in his affidavit, March 21, acccrto 22 that Mr. Barton had a conversation with Mr. Chwastyk,.and the 23 cubject comcc up in Mr. Chwastyk's deposition by Mr. Stier as l l l 24 well, in which Barton caya -- Chwactyk cayc he did have a ! f 25 conversation with Mr. Barton. One of the subjects, in
)
I ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! 202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coverage MX)-3364416
a: 13069, - .
.,sicox- 130 i 9el i ! "\ JF !
1 addition to'-- whether comebody from the staff of the CPU wac j 1 2 going to~NRC, was Chwantyk's involvement'with Quiltoc'.- l 3 Did you have any conversations with Mr. Barton in 4 thcLperiod immediately preceding your.diccuccions with. 5 Mr.~Chwastyk concerning Mr. Chwastyk'ofinvolvement with 6 -Quiltec?- l 7 A- I'think that I, as a minimum, asked Mr. Barton to
~
8 make the' arrangement'for mc to meet with Mr. Chwactyk on the ! 9 lith. I don't recall that I asked Mr. Barton to do'any 10 interviewing of Mr. Chwastyk himaclf, I didn't ask Mr.'Barton ! 11 himocif'to interview-Mr. Chwactyk,'but I am quitc1 confident
~
~
12 that on the 10th, when I'cet up the meetings for the lith, ! (; - f(-[' 13 that I.madcLthe arrangement through Mr. B'arton and Chwastyk, j 14 at leact. . , j 15 Q You indicated to Mr. Barton that you had 16 information linking Mr. Chwantyk with-Quiltec?. ) i 17 1A I don't recall, but I would expect I told.them 18 what Mr. King had caid. 19 Q Which was that they had participated in a meeting ; i 20 at Mr. King'c houcc? J 21 A Yec, or that Mr. King had indicated that j 22 Mr. Chwantyk knew of hic involvement with Quiltec. i s 23 Q How did you: follow up the connections between 24 .Mr. Chwastyk.and Quiltcc following your March 11 interview g- 25 with Mr. Chwantyk? i,m / I L> p ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
g
~30690.0, 1 - g ;cox. 131 1 1 1 V 1 A Ac of March 11, in my view, there wasn't anything L'
I: .2 to follow up. 23 Q When was the ucxt time -- I didn't mean to cut you 1 4 off. Did you have comething further to cay? l I think it wac l 5 A Co ahead and ack your question. 6 what I was going to talk about. 7 Q What was the next step, what was the next 8 information you learned that led you to do anything c1ce? 9 A I don't have a recollection of the 1983 10 information flow. But from a review of the documento, I 11 think that what happened was that one of the investigators 12 for -- my memory ic at a loco as to who it was -- but one of Q(/- 13 the people conducting _the investigation developed 14 information that indicated Mr. Chwantyk had a more extencivo 15 involvement with Quiltec than what had been doccribed to me. 16 Q Could I help you, perhaps? 1~ A Sure, I would be glad to have you do so. 18 Q Wac it Mr. Aulick? 19 A It could very well have been. The information, I 20 think, initially came from Mr. Sloan. 21 Q Mr. Ben Sloan? 22 A Ycc. 23 Q How did it come from him? 24 A From whichever investigator talked with him. c 25 Q A CPU investigator? 7s
. ,g ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-33MM6
L
'30690.0 cox 132 1 A Yec. Whether it was Mr. Aulick or comconc cloc, I l
2 am not sure. But at any rate, ac part of the Stier l l1 3 investigation into allegations of haracament by King, that 1 4 iacue was pursued as to what was the extent of Chwantyk's 1 5 invoh cment and it was whatever -- the further . investigation - 6 of Chwastyk'c involvement was prompted by information that 7 .was developed independent of my mccting on the lith and 1' 8 cubacquent to it. 9 Q You were deposed on October 11, 1984, in l l 10 connection with a DOL procccding of Mr. King. During the 11 cource of that you were asked a question that dealt with l 12 Mr. Chwantyk. You cald -- page 108, line'7. "In the cource 13 of the company's investigation into allegations made by 14 Mr. Parks, and subacquently by Mr. Giochc1, additional 15 information wac developed on Mr. Chwantyk's involvement with 16 Quiltec. My recollection ic that Mr. Chwastyk resigned in I 17 the firct week or so of Junc. I would anticipate that the l 18 information that was developed was developed during the month 19 of May, basically." 20 A What was the date of that interview, cir? 21 Q October 11, 1984. The interview noten of 22 Mr. Aulick, of Mr. Chwantyk, I have, arc initialed by l 23 Mr. Aulick and say "May 9." So I am going to show that to 24 you. That ic what that indicatcc to you, isn't it? 25 A Yes, sir, that's what I would -- I prcoume the i 1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33Mi646
= _ . _ _ . . _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
l l l
- l. 30690.0 cox 133 1 years, '83, although I note the year is not indicated on the 2 date.
l l 3 0 I take it from.what you previously.caid that you 4 didn't direct that interview, per oc, that you' conducted, but 5 it was a follow-up of Mr. Sticr's investigation? Let me-ask 6 you onc question at a time. 7 A All right. 8 Q Did you direct that that interview take place? 9 A I don't recall directing that this interview took i l 10 placc. 1 11 Q Did you 1 carn of it chortly after it took place? 12 A I would expect I did, but I don't have a 13 recollection of it. l 14 Q Now, juct going back to thic page 108, the l 15 question is "Mr. Chwactyk was never cucpended or terminated , I l 16 for his involvement in Quiltcc, woc hc?" You cay, "I believe . 1 17 he was, i 18 " Question: But that wasn't an immediate 19 .cucpension? l 20 " Answer: I think it cays he was either immediately l l 21 cucpended or immediately removed from the acting director, or I ! 22 whatever accignment he had in therc," t l
- i. 23 I won't go into the rect of it right thic accond.
1 24 The anawcr in 1cngthy. l l 25 But to the best of your reco11cetion, wac May 9 l . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MKb336-6646 l L__-_-_----__- - - _ _
30690.0 cox 134 1 around the time when Mr. Barton was named acting cite 2 operations. director? 3 A I honestly don't have a recollection on when that 4 occurred. 5 Q Do you recall there being a connection between 6 what you knew about Mr. Chwantyk'c involvement with Quiltec 7 and removing him an acting site operations director? 8 A No, I don't, although I wouldn't contcot it'at 9 thic point. 10 Q You indicated that in your deposition of October 11 11, 1984. You caid "I believe he wac either cuspended or 12 terminated, or at leact removed from'being acting director." r ' l 13 Do you think your recollection on October 11, 1984 was i 14 better, more accurate than it in today? l l 15 MR. HICKEY: Would you show the witnces the page 16 and the context? 17 MR.' JOHNSON: Sure. 18 MR. HICKEY: Let me just cay one thing after 19 clarifying this and stimulating the witncos' recollection, I 20 can tell you there's one mistake in that tranceript and I 21 recently looked at Mr. Chwastyk'c resignation letter. The 22 time frame is wrong. He resigned in mid-July effective late I 23 August. So to the extent that thic transcript says it's 24 happening in May and June, it's in error. If it's refreching 25 ou about the date, you ought to be careful. 1 l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage fMiG-33M646 l
- _ - _ - - _ _ _ - _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ - - - _ - _ - _ k
30690.0 cox 135
-1 MR. JOHNSON: Ycc, I have no probicm with that.
2 That in correct. I was, just ycetcrday, provided with a 3 document that would'have been handy to have comc' time ago, 4 but let me just see if I can find it. It's dated July 1, and 5 it's a meeting with Mr. Chwantyk.that Mr. Kanga and 6 Mr. Barton and Mr. Babczak, B-a-b-c-z-a-k had on Junc 30, 7 1983, which conversation leads me to believe that Mr. 8 Chwactyk was still onboard.at that date. So if that hcipo 9 you, you want to look at thic,.I will be glad to chow it to 10 you. I am juct trying to get the information. 11 BY MR. JOHNSON: 12 Q I am afraid it may confunc you, becauce it's out L0' 13 of time. But getting back to May. What do.you remember, as 14 best you can? In that document more accurato -- Ict me be'
- j. 15 precice.
16 In the statement that you make therc that 17 Mr. Chwactyk was removed as acting director of cite 18 operationc connected with the investigation of Quiltec? 19 A I think that this in better reco11cetion than I 20 have today, at least relative to what action was taken on 21 it. It may be as bad today -- ac bad a reco11cetion then as 22 it in today ac far ac.what the datcc and timing werc. 23 Q I undcratand. 24 MR. HICKEY: Thic July 1, 1983 memorandum that you
- 25 have just shown Mr. Arnold cayo, "on June 30, 1983, a meeting L
1 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30690.0 cox 136 1 was held in unit 2 at Mr. Chwastyk'c, cite manager's, 2 operations." That's the way that Mr. Babecak deceribec the 3 pocition that Mr. Chwastyk was in on June 30,-1983. 4 THE WITNESS: That was his position prior to the 5 February 24 date -- 6 MR. JOHNSON: Ycc. 7 THE WITNESS: -- I believe. 8 BY MR. JOHNSON: 9 Q So at come point he got back to hic original 10 position. He was no longer acting cite operations director. 11 A I think you have to be a little careful with that 12 inasmuch as Mr. Bobecak is in human recourecc over in a staff-5 - 13 pocition that is cort of off to the cidc. He very likely wac-14 using a payroll nomenclature therc,'and I don't think the 15 payroll nomenclature was ever changed for Mr. Chwactyk in 16 1983 until he left the company. So I wouldn't accociate very 17 much significance to how Babecak charactericcc hic titic or 18 his position. 19 Q Okay. 20 A Let me try to -- 21 MR. HICKEY: Can I make a cuggcation? If you 22 don't have a recollection, what you arc intercated in knowing j 23 ic whether Mr. Chwactyk wac replaced by Mr. Barton on a V 24 particular dato and whether that was related to the Quiltec
]
25 investigation? I ( ) i
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0 336-6M6 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
1 30690.0 e cox 137 1 MR. JOHNSON: I am not.co concernedz about whether. 2 you1can remember the particular dato, which-I can undcratand 1' l 3 why you.might not. l' 4 BY MR. JOHNSON: 5 Q I am concerned about what your recollection in l 6 about what happened to Mr. Chwastyk. Firct of all, you caid 7 that there was a pursuit of the connection between 8 Mr. Chwactyk and Quiltcc as part of the Stier investigation 9 that the information came out, and,-to the bect of the 10 information we have in front of us, it appears that como of i 11 .it came out on May 9 in.an interview with Mr. Aulick. L . 12 A~ My recollection ic that the initial information, 1.;- l' I 13 and I don't know if that in May 9 or comething cubacquent to l 14 that,.but-the-initial information was not developed by l- 15 Sticr's investigation, but that the information that was L 16 developed, for whatever rencon it wac, was turned over to 17 Sticr to purcuc further as, in hic investigation, chargcc of 18 haracoment by King, becauce allegations of King's and'other's 19 actual role in Quiltec, were believed, I think, by Mr. Sticr, 20 to be relevant to reaching eventual conclucicnc on things. 1 21 Q I acc. 22 A I have a recollection that the efforts to go dig 1 ! 23 up all the facto to the point where we could function on them L 24 in come way, took a fair amount of time, a few wecka, and l 25 that I didn't take any action until I had a goed basic for l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3HX) Nationwide Cmerage 8(XL3364M6 i
i 1 l
-30690.0 cox 138 1 taking action. ;
I 2 I had, in recent mulling over ofLtheco evento, 3 bcon of the imprcacion that once we were concerned about i 4 whether Mr. Chwactyk had not been forthcoming with me, in my 5 discuccions with him on the-lith, which were my principal 6 concerns in terms of thecc iccucc,.that I had taken come kind Y 7 of action. I think that -- frankly, I thought that we had 8 cucpended them at come point. 9 This would cuggcat:that what we did was -- -t' 10 removement at that time from his accignment as acting cito 11 operations director. That could well have been'what we did. 12 Q Accuming, subject to verification at come later 13 point, that it wac in May that Mr. Barton was named acting 14 cite operationo director, and also, with the evidence and the 15 documents that we have before us, that Mr. Chwactyk didn't-i 16 leave CPU.until July or August, was the information that was ! 17 further developed by an interview between Mr. Chwantyk, Mr. 18 Kanga, and Mr. Barton, Babczak and information that came out ! 19 in hic other Stier deposition, which I believe was late July l 20 or carly August, in which more information about i 21 Mr. Chwactyk's continuing involvement with Quiltec, came out, l 22 led you to take further action? In other wordo, acide from 23 what happened with Mr. Barton, Barton'a position, as acting l
\
24 citc operations director, did you take come further perconnel ! i 25 action or direct come further personnel action be taken with ! ( i l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn3364M6 _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.-_ . _ _ . a
l r t
'30690.0-
.cox 139 1 respect to:Mr. Chwantyk after learning additional information 2 about hic connection to Quiltec'in the June-July' time framc?
3 A I just can't remember at thic point. I have tried 4 to; reconstruct in my memory exactly how we handled that and l 5 'have not been able.to --'in July, when Mr. .Chwantyk submitted. ! 6 his resignation, my recollection is that he was, in effect,.
-7 under a cloud with uc, but we had not yet finished the 8 investigations neccccary to determinc just the extent of any 9 micconduct on his part that might have occurred.
10 Q Wac it your recollection that the cituation would 11 be that he rcoigned before he could be fired? 12 MR. HICKEY: What doca that mean? kJ 13 THE WITNESS: The answer to your question is no. 14 Whether the information would have been grounds for firing 15 him, I am not cure. But I don't think we had developed yet 16 to that point at the time of his resignation. He may have 17 known encugh.more than we did that he would acc that that 18 would be the cource of action wc_would ultimately have to 19 take, and that may well have been where we would have come 20 out. But it wan not a cacc of how that kind of terminology j 21 wac typically used where one has a choice. You are cither 1 E 22 going to resign or we are going to fire you. We were not at i 23 that point. l 24 BY MR. JOHNSON: i 25 Q Thank you. Did you have any reason to doubt l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L__ _ _ _ - -
30690.0 ) cox 140 1 Mr. Chwactyk's credibility when you opoke to him on March 11? 2 A No, sir. To the contrary, I had a lot of f 3 confidence in Mr. Chwactyk'c credibility. I have known 4 Mr. Chwastyk for many ycarc. 5 Q Did your opinion of him change during the 6 cubacquent montha? 7 A Yoc, sir. Let me go back and amend that. Awful l' 8 lot of history here that docon't always come in. I did 9 question whether Mr. Chwactyk'c recollection of some of the 10 cvents on the day of the accident were accurate, and so I had-l 11 - a question about his credibility with regard to hic l 12 recitation of como of thoco cvento. But I did not have a 13 concern about hic willingncac and decirc to be truthful. I i 14 just felt he was mistaken. 15 MR. JOHNSON: Ic thic a good time for a chort i l 16 break, five minutcc. 17 (Roccc o . ) ; 18 BY MR. JOHNSON: 19 Q There is one aspect of the interface between you 20 and Mr. Sandford on Quiltcc that I would just like to 21 clarify. You werc diccuccing a conversation you had with 22 Mr. Sanatu;d in which Mr. Sandford indicated to you that he l-23 was going to conduct an audit or have an audit conducted 24 concerning Mr. Parkc' involvement. To the best of your 25 ability, could you put a date on that? ; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 30690.0 l .cox 141 1 A Let me just say that I think " audit" ic'a wrong. 2 term. I think he was.ucing an internal auditor to' l 3 investigate a potential conflict of intercot. 1. 4 0 ~okay,' fine. 5 A I am sure that it was after March 3. l 6 Q And before? If you can put an end date on it. 7 A Obviously it was before March 14 when the 8 interview took placo, and I can't accociate the conversation 9 with any other events in between there that could "urther i l 10 narrow it down, but my gucca is that it was probably cither 11 the 4th or the 7th or 8th. It was cither.the Friday after 12 the interview of Mc. Rittic, or it was Monday, Tucaday, 13 Wedncaday, at the latect, the following wcck, in my best 14 speculation on.it. 15 Q In that conversation, did you bring up the idea of 16 Bechtel doing an investigation of Mr. Parks? 17 A No, cir. The conversation, as I recall, was 18 initiated for the purpoce of telling mc what Bechtc1 19 management intended to do to pursuo Parkc' potential 20 noncompliance with their policy.
'21 Q What did you do; how did you react?
22 A I felt it was appropriate for them to pursue that 23 incue and caticfy themoc1vec as to what the facts of the 24 matter werc. My conce was that they were doing it in 25 accordance with their standard practice for addreccing such ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage f0 3164M6
30690.0
.cox 142 l
- i 1
1 incuco, and I did not have any concern about them d 2 proceeding.: I encouraged them-to expand itoto Mr..Thiccing,. 3 as:I indicated before, but for a different purpose-with 4 regard to Mr. Thiccing, not a conflict of intercot, really. l
'5 Q But you caid also you worcn't familiar withjtheir 6 directive 2-1 at that time?
7 A Not.ac a -- as to its precisc wording, but my 8 undcratanding from Mr. Sandford, and I think.it probably was 9 -parto of the context of the telephone conversation that.wc 10 have been talking about, was that Bechtel did not want their 11 cmployecc involved in diverting recoureco of a client, 12 personnel of a client, to another party. 13 Q But you hadn't read the directive 2-1 and weren't: 14 able to. interpret its applicability or not to Mr. Thiccing's 15 conduct? 16 A No, sir, or to Mr. Parks, for that matter. I have 17 not acen-the document. 18 Q When did you first become aware that Mr. Chwastyk I 19 and Mr. Kanga had removed Mr. Parks from his pocition ac 20 primary cite operatione department reprocentative on the test 21 working group? 22 A I believe it was the afternoon of March 17. 23 Q How did you know that? 24 A My recollection is that following the meeting of 25 Mr. Kanga and Mr. Chwactyk with Parks, that Mr. Kanga called O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0 336 6646
30690.0
, cox 143 1 me and bricfcd mc on how the mccting came about, what he had 2 donc to insure that Mr. Parks would not misundcrotand the 3 motive for or the purpoco of the reaccignment,'and I gucca 4 that's the cacence of it.
5 Q He recounted, bacically, the conversations that 6 Mr. Parks, Mr. Chwastyk and Mr. Kanga had that afternoon? j 7 A My recollection is he also told me about hic 8 undcratanding of the previous conversations that Mr. Chwastyk 9 and Mr. Parks had that Icd to the drafting of the memo, and 10 that Mr. Chwastyk had called Mr. Kanga to notify him of tho ) i 11 plan on iccuing the memorandum, before cigning it, and that 12 Mr. Kanga had told Mr. Chwactyk that he wanted to review it
\ 13 with him first, that they cubacquently or he, Mr. Kanga, 1 14 cubacquently believed it was neccccary-to review with Parks 1
15 as well directly before it was signed, and that he had donc ] l 16 co, and that he had accured himcclf that Mr. Parks had i I 17 understood that it was not any kind of a retaliation or I l 18 haracament of him. My recollection is that Mr. Kanga called 19 me and briefed me on it immediately after it took place. 20 Q What did you tell him, what was your reaction to 21 him? ) 22 A My recollection is that I fcit he had handled it 23 properly and that I hoped that it would help to deal with 24 come of Mr. Parks' uptightnccc. 25 Q You had no reacon to believe that based on what ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646
t 30690.0 cox 144 1 Mr. Kanga told you that Mr. Parks did not agree with hic 2 removal? 3 A Quito the contrary, based on what Mr. Kanga told 4 me, I thought Mr. Parko was in full accord with it. 5 Q Did Mr. Kanga tell you that in that morning 6 14r . Parks had a meeting with him, I think it was first thing-7 in the morning, pursuant to a request that Mr. Parka had to 8 diccuco a letter that he had drafted to go to Mr. Sandford? 9 A. My recollection is that Mr. Kanga alco' called me 10 after that meeting with Mr. Parks; and generally told.mc of 11 having met with them. 12 Q Who called you? ; 13 A Mr. Kanga, 14 Q This was thc.came conversation or a different onc? 15 A No, I think I had'two phone calls that day for Mr. 16 Kanga at Icast, one following the morning meeting and one 17 following the afternoon meeting. 18 Q What did he tell you in the morning conversation 19 or after the morning conversation he had had with Mr. Parks? ) 1 20 A I don't have a specific recollection of it now. 21 But I had known that the -- on the 15th, that Mr. Parko.had 22 met with Mr. Sandford. I had had a call from Mr. Sandford 23 following that. I am cure that Mr. Kanga told mc generally 24 what cubjects were covered by his discuccions with Mr. Parka,
- 25 but I frankly don't have a recollection on the specifice of V
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xb336 6646 l
L 30690.0 cox 145 1 i t .. 2 Q Is it your recollection now-that Mr. Kanga related 3 that Mr. Parks wac maintaining a pocition that he was not d 4 caticfied with the stcpc being taken with respect to the 5 polar crane load test procedure? 6 A I don't have that recollection or a contrary one. 7 I juct don't remember the specifico. I just have a 8 recollection that I knew, in the March time frame, about the 9 letter that Mr. Parko provided to Mr. Kanga that day and that 10 I had known about that cocentially at the time it occurred. 11 Q Did you have an undcratanding with Mr. Kanga,
'12 formal or informal, that you were to be kept informed on any
\ D
%/ 13 developments with Mr. Parkc?
There was no undcratanding with Mr. Kanga ! 14 A No. 15 relative to Mr. Parks or any other individual ~ specifically. , 16 The only undcratandings were with regard to the normal i 17 interaction between a fairly cenior management percon and hic-L 'I 18 immediato supervicor in termo of the corts of things that 19 they needed to keep each other informed of, and we werc, I 20 think, both very much at case with the rapport and the 21 -judgmento cach of un exerciced in keeping the other i 1 22 informed. l 23 Q Did you discuco with Mr. Kanga, during that ) 24 carlier conversation on the 17th, the poccibic connection or l 25 the relatedncos of the letter that he had drafted from i 1 1 L ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 L- _ _ _ ___ __ ____ _______ _ __ _ ______________________ _ ____ __ ___ _
30690.0 , -cox 146 1 Mr. Sandford and his concerno about the polar cranc? 2 A I am not curo -- l 3 Q Wait a accond. Let me rephrace the qucation. You 4 had a conversation with Mr. Sandford on the 15th, you caid, 5 which dealt with Mr. -- what Bechtel had found out about 6 Mr. Parks and Quiltec. Did you speak to Mr. Sandford.after 7 Mr. Sandford had met with Mr. Parko? 8 A That's my rocclicction, ycc. 9 Q Ac I recollect, Mr. Parks' conversation contered 10 with Mr. Sandford, contered not on hic Quiltec involvement, i 11 but on his cafety concerna and haracoment. In that your 12 recollection-as well? p) (~ . 13 A Well, I think that's my recollection of what Parks 14 claimed. That's not my recollection of what Mr. Sandford 15 relayed to me. 16 .Q What did he relate to you with regard to that 17 aspect of the conversation? 18 A My recollection of the cubstance of the 19 conversation was that he told me what had developed, as hc 20 undcratood it, basically, from the interview that Mr. Hoffman 21 conducted, which was that there was not a substantial 22 violation of the conflict of intercat statement, if there had 23 been one, as he would view it at that point, that they were j j 24 -- they, Bechtel management, worc deficient in having even 25 bricfcd Parka properly on it at his initial employment ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(X) Naionwide Coverage 8(Kk336-6646
.30690.0 . .cox '147 1 orientation, and that it cort of had to run its cource within 2 the Bechtel proccco, but that.hc was -- the imprcacion I had y
3 io he'was of the opinion he would decide there was no rencon 4 to take any.cubotantial action on it, that he had met with , 5 Parks that morning and Parka otruck him as a relatively naive 6 young follow that didn't really know where a lot of the 7 things were that he wac addreccing, that he had very 8 undefined kindo of concerna and ill-defined kindo of 9 concerno, that they would do their beat to work with them and ; 10 ccc if they couldn't get things, kind of on~ track with them, 11 but that he didn't acc any substantial problems relative to 12 Parks at that point. I did not have a'cence -- I don't have i /~T a recollection of a conce of he identified Parks ac_ having (/ 13 14 really expresced c1carly or particularly otrongly, cafety 15 'concerna. l 16 Q What about haracomento?- He didn't mention 17 concerno that Parka had rained to Mr. Sandford that he was 18 being haracced?
-19 A My reco11cetion in that he was at least -- he at 20 least identified how he felt offended by being interviewed by !
21 the internal auditora. I don't remember whether -- internal 22 auditor, cingular -- I don't remember whether that was l. l 23 cxprecocd in terms of haracament or not at this point. But l 24 that Mr. Sandford fcit it was just a failure on hic part to 25 undcratand the significance of the potential prob 1cm that 1 I ( 1 i i ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30690.0 148 (~)
\/
cox 1 could exist and Bcchtcl'.c need to deal with it in a fairly
~2 cyctcmatic way.
3 Q Mr. Sandford didn't raice the subject that l i 4 Mr. Parks had alleged that he was threatened on the cite for 5 raicing cafety concernc? 6 A I don't have a recollection of him telling mc 7 anything like that, no. I think the conduct of Mr. Kanga on 8 the 17th, the concern that'he was chowing to be careful not 9 to do comething that Mr. Parks would take ao an act of 10 haracament, was at leact clear in the afternoon when he had 11 explicit statement in a morning letter of Parks' belief that 12 he was being haracced, but 'I am.not cure that even Kanga had 13 that kind.of a conce of Parks' attitude or feelings abcut 14 things in the morning mccting. 15 Q Well, he discucced -- he said in his deposition 16 with me that'he discucced cach paragraph of the letter, and 17 the last paragraph of that letter talko about being haranced l 1 18 for doing his job. Let me try to find it. 19 A Yec. What I meant, going into the mocting, he had 20 that letter to discuco during the meeting, and cubacquent to 21 that meeting in the afternoon, I think he was very recponsive 22 to the kinds of potential iccuco that Parks was raicing. 23 Q He asked him on a number of occacionc whether hc 24 agreed that it was haracament or discrimination to remove him 25 from hic pocition? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. > 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage @ 0-3364646 i L---___-___-___-___-__-_ _ - - . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _
30690.0' cox 149 V 1 A That was my undcratanding of what he acked me, 2 ycc. 3 Q Let me find thic letter, ycc. Io it in onc of the 4 tabo? 5 A Yec, if it's hcipful to you, it's at the back of 6 tab 24. 7 Q Thank you. I wanted to discuco that third 8 numbered paragraph. It's where it cayo "it is difficult to 9 cerve Bechtel well when I am being intimidated when I am 10 attempting to do my job conscientiously, and for raicing 11 concerno with the NRC." 12 Did the first time that you understood that s 13 Mr. Parks was alleging haracoment or intimidation come with a 14 discuccion of thic. letter on the morning of the 17th of ; 15 March? 16 A I think that's the cacc. I can't remember enough 17 of the specifico -- I don't remember that being an incue ! 18 really in the conversation I had with Mr. Sandford that I j 19 believe took place the previouc day, and I do remember 20 diccuccions that would relate to item 17 and Mr. Sandford's 21 discuccion of that. 22 Q Are you saying it could have come up in your 23 diccuccion with Mr. Sandford? 24 A I think almost anything could have but I don't 25 think it did. I think it probably was in the briefing I got
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(XK3W6646 b
'l 9
F ,
. 'l 30690.0- l cox 150 I l
l l 1 from Mr. Kanga on thic letter that it probably wac_first l l- 2 flagged to mc. You know, I have-to probably readily identify 3 l 3 that with regard to the polar cranc, which subacquently -- I 1 4 you know, all of us tend to focus on, all of Parks' iocuco 5 were being addressed. The organization had agreed with him ) I 6 on a number on which he was correct. They had dicagreed with 1 7 him on others, and it had been -- it was really, I think, a - 8 puzzle to Mr. Kanga and myoclf, and I know to myocif, as to I 9 what were Parko' continuing concerna about the polar cranc. 20 Q What I am trying to get at, you know, at lcact by 1
~11 the end of your conversation with Mr. Kanga, on the morning 12 of the 17th, that Mr. Parks, whether you agreed with him or l 13 not, believed he was being haracced or intimidated becaunc he 14 was raicing safety concerna. i i
15 MR. HICKEY: You mean "claimod"? 16 MR. JOHNSON: Yea, that's what I said. 17 MR. HICKEY: No, you caid "bclieved." l l 18 BY MR. JOHNSON: 19 Q That he claimed, claimed and believed, l 20 MR. HICKEY: You asked whether Mr. Arnold know. 1 21 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I accept that change. 22 " Claimed." 23 THE WITNESS: I don't have a specific recollection 24 of it, but I certainly think it would have bcon conciatent ) 1' 25 with Mr. Kanga's briefing of me to tell mc that Mr. Parks was ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 16
)
30690.0 cox 151 1 cxpressing claims that he wac being haracced becaucc he had 2 raised cafety incuca or insuca in his mind which chould bc 3 characterized ao cafety iccucc. 4 BY MR. JOHNSON: 5 Q Did you undcratand at that time that he had made 6 claims that he was being threatened on the cite and what I 7 mean to cay is that he wasn't relating only to the fact that 8 he believed that the internal audit was haracament or 9 intimidation, but that there were other things that were 10 happening on the site which he believed or he claimed to 11 constitute haraccment and intimidation dicerimination. Do 12 you understand that? 13 A I don't think I had any knowledge, prior to March 14 23, that he was claiming that other evento had occurred which 15 he considered to be haraccmont. 16 Q on March 17 -- a letter was written to you on 17 March 17, 1983 by Congrecoman Morric Udall, chairman of the 18 Committee on Incular Affairo, requesting that you provide 19 accccc to cight individuals. Do you recall that -- I am 20 chowing you that letter. Do you recall that? 21 A Yes, cir, I do. l l 22 Q How did you -- when you looked at those namcc, did 23 you draw any conclucionc or supposition concerning what the l 24 nature of the information sought wac baccd on the namco of l l 25 the people who were provided? O I l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Mn336-6646
30690.0 x cox 152 s 1 A No, cir. In fact, I wac_absolutcly perplexed. 2 Q You wrote back the next day asking what is this 3 all about? 4 A Whatever the record shows it shows. I don't 5 recall exactly when I responded, but I recponded fairly 6 quickly. 7 Q My information is that I have a letter the very 8 next day, if I am not mictaken, must have gotten a telefax or 9 comething, because on March 18, 1983, you wrote a letter back 10 to Mr. Udall acking him to explain what it was all about, 11 didn't you? j 12 A Well, I don't think I want to paraphrace it. I 13 think I would lot the contents of the letter identify what I 14 was asking him for, and it is my recollection that thic was j 15 hand-delivered'to our attorneys here in Washington from the 16 committee staff, by the committoc staff, and telecopied up to 17 me on the 17th, or on the 18th, cuch that I was in a position 18 to have it to respond to on the 38th. 19 Q You did say, "if the inquiry relatcc to potential i 20 cafety iscucc, I would appreciate being provided with any 21 information or allegations of which the committee is aware 1 22 that relate to the safety of activitics at Three Mile Island, 23 co that the company can purcue expeditiously any iccuca"; 24 right? 25 A Yes, cir. I felt very otrongly that conciatent L l 1 i
- i. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 C_________:___________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j
1 l . I 30690.0 l cox' 153 1 with our obligation to addrcca cafety iccuco, people that 2 were awarc of them had an obligation to make us -- make them 3 known to us. 4 Q You had a conversation with Mr. Barrett on the 5 18th as well in which you discuoced'this letter with him that i 6 you roccived from Mr. Udall? 7 A I don't recall that, but I would certainly -- 8 would not be curpriced and the initial document we referred' 9 to the letter from the committcc chairman, indicatcc a copy 10 was provided to Mr. Barrett by me on the 18th. 11 Q Would you read the first paragraph on the last 12 page of the Barrett memorandum we discussed carlier. That's 13 the March 24 memorandum. l 14 A Yea, cir. 15 Q Doco that hc1p you recall the conversation? 16 A No, cir. I would also note that it appears to l
.)
17 have been a telephone call which is more difficult typically 18 than recalling meetingc. 19 Q Thic is a littic bit out of order. I just 20 neglected to show you thic memorandum of March 17, 1983, 21 concerning TWC membership, which is signed by Mr. Chwantyk. 22 Also, this is a note on it from Mr. Kanga, and in addition it , 23 cays "R.C. Arnold 3/18/83." Ic that your handwriting? 24 A I don't think co. 25 Q Did you receive that memorandum on 3/18/83? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46
i l l
)
130690.0 l cox. 154 .i j i 1 A I don't recall that I did._ I don't recal2 having l 2 roccived it at.all. But I don't know what that means. It j 3 may well mean that one was cent to me. ; 4 Q But you don't recall contemporaneously rocciving s 5 it? ; 6 A No, cir. 7 MR. HICKEY: If you don't have an objection, could. 8 we have the letter that you placed in front of Mr. Arnold 9 marked as an exhibit, the one dated March 17, 1983, from 10 Mr. Udall to Mr. Arnold. It has a lot of handwriting on it 11 and I think in different.than the version we produced in 12 diccovery. You asked the witncac about it and ito 13 recordation of the note that it was roccived from-R. Arnold 14 or whatever it caya there. 15 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, I have no objection. I will 16 mark thic as Arnold -- there will be even more ceribbling on 17 top of it -- Arnold Deposition Exhibit Number 1. 18 (Arnold Exhibit 1 identified.) 19 MR. HICKEY: You might want to put the date, given 20 the number of Arnold deposition exhibito. 21 MR. JOHNSON: Yco. 22 MR. HICKEY: For futurc posterity. 23 MR. JOHNSON: Arnold Depocition Exhibit 1, i L 24 4/24/87. We will have to make copica later, 25 MR. HICKEY: Thank you. LO i l li. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage lux).33M,646
,c ll l'
I l '.30690.0 cox 155 L0 / I? 1 BY'MR. JOHNSON: 1-t 2 Q Did you at any time --'when did you first.lcarn j l what the cubstance wac of tho'information that was cought? 3 4 A I don't think I cvor had confirmation of the l 5 'cubotance, but once I had read Parkc' affidavit of March 23, j i o 6 1984 -- cxcuse me, '83, it was otrongly inferred that the l l L 7 cubject he wac purcuing were what we typically. called- .i 8 "myctory man allegations." ( l: j 9 MR. HICKEY: The subject that you were or he wac? 4 I 1
-10 THE WITNESS: The cubject of the letter.
i 11 MR. HICKEY: The cub $cct was ambiguous on the ! l 12 record. i 13 .BY MR. JOHNSON: I: L 14 Q- You.had a meeting on March 22, I believe, in the 1 , 15 afternoon. My boct recollection of the information was that l \ \ 16 it was between-3:30 and about 4:15,'concerning the Udall 17 letter. Do you recall that meeting? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Wac the subject matter of the information cought 20 discucced at that meeting'? 21 A My recollection is only in the conce that I didn't 22 know what it was, but that it was reprocented by Mr. Udall ao l l 23 relating to the accident and cicanup. 24 Q And in the discuccion was any further focua 25 provided for the people who were at the meeting? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 4 47-3700 Nationwide Coverare lux)-33MM6 _j
l l l l 30690.0 cox 156 [ i=O l' 1 A No, sir, there was nonc provided. l 2 Q Wac there any discuccion of it pertaining.to the j
'3 mystery man?.
l 4 A Absolutely not, j i l- 5 -Q Did you rcccive a' copy of a precc relcace o l 6 regarding Mr. Parks' allegations and complaint to the 7 Department of Labor on the afternoon or evening of March 22?
~~
8 A My recollection ic I rcccived it late in the i 9 cvening of March 22. j 10 Q Who provided it to you? l 1^ i 11 A I belicvc Mr. Doug Bedcll provided it to me. , 1 i I l- . 12 Q Was that all he provided to you, did he provide 13 Mr. Parke'. affidavit to you? - 1 l' 14 A I don't think he provided that to me until the. L 1 J 15 next day. I don't think he had it until the next day, but I ]i 16 am not positive. j l 17 Q In the intervicw with Mr. Aulick on May'16, which j 18 I have been provided the noten, I believe, of Mr. Aulick, in 19 typed form, it sayu on page 41, "Bechtc1'c decision not to ; 1 L. 20 return Parks following the statement, Arnold had the l i l .. l 21 following to cay: Arnold decided on the 22nd that he did not i 0 l
-l 22 want to give Parka uncccorted acccco to the restricted arcac
]
23 cince.the situation was too uncertain, as to what is going 24 on, and the conservative approach to the situation with lots l. 25 of unknowns was to deny uncccorted acccco." 10 that j f 7 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(KI Nationwide Coverage h(433MM6
30690.0 cox 157 _O, I accuratc? Did you make any kind of decicion about the 2 uncccorted accccc-of Mr. Parks on the cite on the 22nd of 3 March? 4 A I don't recall making cuch a judgmen,t. 5 Q The only information you claim to have had with 6 regard to Mr. Parkc' allegations is the press relcacc on the 7 22nd of March. That's correct, isn't it? 8 A That's correct, I think all the information I had 9 originated from.the press relcacc or was contained -- was a 10 precc relcacc itself, and I also had Parks' confirmation that 11 the precc relcace had a bacia in terms of hic -- in terms of 12 planc being made to hold a preso conference. If I could just 13 kind of digrecs for a minute, I have a different recollection le than appears in the record anyplace ac far as his responce i 15 goco. That's why I am kind of warbling. j 16 Q Hic response on the 22nd? { 17 A Yec. He had told un he hadn't decided yet whether 18 he was going through with the preca conference, but nobody 19 cloc appearc to have had that recollection or account of what 20 his response was, and I may well be wrong. 21 Q Did you talk to him directly?- 22 A No, cir. 23 Q My understanding ic he talked to Mr. Kanga; in 24 that right? l i 25 A I think Mr. Kanga, Mr. Bedell, and maybe l I ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(K) Nationwide Coverare NKA 3364M6 i i
-30690.0 l' cox 158 '
1 Mr. Whccler. l' ' 2 Q They related what hc caid.to you, or Mr. Kanga l 3 did? E l l- 4 A I don't remember if I got an accounting from 5 Mr. Kanga, Mr. Bedc11, or.both of them. But after the l 6 mccting I did roccive an accounting of what his response had ! 7 .bcen. 8 Q They told you he was going to have a precs 9 conferenec? 10 A Well, I am not cure. My' recollection, frankly, 11 but it's never been abic to bc corroborated, wac.that he said 12 he hadn't decided yet whether to sign the affidavit, and that 13 he hadn't decided whether or not to hold a prcas conference. 14 But obviously he went forward with both. 15 Q What did you tell them? 16 A I don't recall that I told them anything at the 17 time, cither then or before, I had told Mr. Bcdell to try to j 18 obtain for un copics of documents ac coon ac possible of the 19 .two documents, the preco relcace and the affidavit. 20 Q What information did you have when you asked -- i 21 did you ack them to confirm that there would be a preco 22 conference? Mr. Kanga, Mr. Bedell and so on? l 23 A Yec. I acked them to mcct with Mr. Parks and I 24 verify whether or not Mr. Parks was planning on having a 25 presa conference the next day, and I would expect a precc
]
I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 8(n336-6646
- - - . - _ _ __ _ ___._________ _ . _ _ _ _ f
30690.0 cox- 159 1 relcace that related to that was actually out.
~
2 Q How did you know he was going to have a preco 3 conference. How did you have the information about it? 4i A Mr. Bodell had gotten a telephonc call from a wire
;I 5 -ccrvice reporter asking for comments on the precc relcace, 6 and -- which had not been printed yet. It was a press 7 relcacc typically donc and marked the next day, I think the 8 conference time, but the wire serviccc reporter was trying to 9 gather information relating to it while he had time to d.o !
10 co. He had called Mr. Bedcll, I belicve, read to him what 11 the precc relcace said, and Mr. Bcdell relayed that i 12 information to Mr. Bahman and myocif. 13 MR. HICKEY: Mr. Kanga. 14 THE WITNESS: I am corry, Mr. Kanga and myoclf, 15 immediately or very chortly after the~ meeting broke up that i 16 we discucacd earlier that related to Mr. Udall's request for i 17 interviewing members of.our staff. 18 BY MR. JOHNSON: i 19 Q Mr. Bedcll brought the copy of the news relcace to , I 20 your home or comething? 21 A Yoc. My recollection is that he obtained it late ! 1 22 in the evening and delivered it to my home in Herchey about l 23 11:00 that night. ) l 24 Q Did you discuco the presc relcacc with anyonc that 25 cvening? l ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
l 30690.0 cox 160 1 A I don't remember doing co, but cubacquent evente 2 would show that I had to, as well ac that certainly would .< 3 have been expected on my part-that I would have. L 4 Q What did that show,,thic exhibit? We had Mr. Flynn, who wac.a Bcchtel communication : 5 A 7 6 management person, come out from San Francisco, to hc1p.uc 7 recpond to the media intercut that was going to be generated. 8 by-the preco conference and procc'rcicacc.
'9 Q You had a conversation with him on the 22nd?
10 A Yec. I cither did or, through intermediarica, I 11 did, becaucc he came out overnight to accict us. I 12 Q What other conversations did you havc? j r . . 13 A .I don't have a reco11cetion of that onc or others, 14 .but I am sure he would have informed Mr. Dicekamp and 15 Mr. Cifford ac a minimum of what we knew, or I would have 16 incured that Mr. Cifford was told by Mr. Bedc11, but I 17 auspect I talked to Mr. Cifford directly. i 18 Q Who ic Mr. Cifford, pleace? 19 A He was ry vice president for communications of the 20 CPU Nuc1 car Corporation. 3 21 Q When did you decide to have a meeting the next day 22 to diccuco the -- ctaff meeting to discuc- the Parka press 23 conference? 24 A I don't remember whether it wac the evening of the 25 22nd.or first thing in the morning of the 23rd, but it had to i i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 r_1____________ _ _ _ _ __ __ j
l l l' 30690.'0 l 161 L 0_ cox 1 obviously be cometime between 4:00 on the 22nd and'8:00 a.m. 2 on the morning of the 23rd. 3 Q The meeting took place approximately 8:30, 8:45 in
-4 the morning?
5 A I think that's what tho'various interviews l 6 indicate, and I don't contcot that. 7 Q You instructed Mr. Kanga to put together a staff 8 meeting for the morning? 9 A I think that's an adequate doccription. I think l 10 more explicit than that. In fact, one qualification I would 11 like to add to that, actually, is, it wasn't just the TMI-2 1 12 division pcopic that I asked them to convenc, that in thocc l 13 that were on his staff directly, but it also included other 14 divisionc that were on the cito, TMI-1, for example, ! 15 radiological environmental controlo division, and the 16 administration division, communication division. It was i 17 bacically a briefing of management representativoc from all 18 of the various organizations on the cite. l l 19 Q Had you read the affidavit by the time you i 20 convened the meeting? ! 21 A I don't believe co, cir. I am quite confident -- 22 no, I had not. ) l ) l 23 Q According to a discuccion that you recorded by l l l l 24 Mr. Aulick, I believe, on May 16, from your interview with I
)
l 25 him on May 16, 1983 that we referred to before, he indicates l l l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ) 202-347-3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 80433(r(M6 1 1 _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - ._- o
e 30690.0 cox 162 1 on'page 35 that you identified five or cix bullets in the 2 Parks.precc rcicace, during thic mccting. Arnold did tell i 3 them that baced on what he knew, these chargcc did not have 4 cubstanco and the company had not been doing things 5 improperly -- and when the chargcc were examined, Arnold 6 cxprecced the belief that they would be found to be without 7 merit and'thecc incuco could bc behind us relatively 8 quickly. Ic that accurate? Here it is, page 35 of thcoc 9 notes. Ic that accurate? 10 MR. HICKEY: Could you be a littic more precisc in 11 your quection. 12 MR. REYNOLDS: In what accurate, ic what you said 13 an accurate recitation of what ic in the paper? 14 BY MR. JOHNSON: 15 Q No, ic Mr. Aulick's notcc in typed form on that 16 page an accurate reprocentation of what you did? 17 MR. HICKEY: What you told Mr. Aulick? 18 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. 19 BY MR. JOHNSON: 20 Q Is that what you told Mr. Aulick you did? 21 MR. HICKEY: That'c why I didn't undcratand the 22 question you were acking. It seems to me it was ambiguous. 23 MR. JOHNSON: All right. 24 THE WITNESS: As I indicated carlicr, I don't have 25 any recollection of thic interview having taken place, so I l l L ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
30690.0 cox 163 1 don't have any recollection of what I caid to Mr. Aulick. 2 BY MR. JOHNSON: 3 Q I originally phraced the question, "what did you 4 do?" Is that an accurate reprocentation of what you did? 5 That's more important to me than what you caid to Mr. Aulick. 6 A I think that that-is an accurate reprocentation of 7 what I recall were my views and that I undoubtedly expreoccd 8 at the time of that mccting and views which I told, to the 9 cxtent that subocquent events have not chowed them to be 10 resolved relatively quickly. The merits of the incuc I view 11 to be the came then ac they arc today. 12 Q I have a copy of a press relcace which appears to 13 be a telecopy version of it. It has acven bu11cto. That 14 statement says five or six bullets. If you would review that 15 and tell me, did you cover cach of thor < bullets in that 16 document? Perhaps we will enter that ao Deposition Exhibit 17 2. Let mc juct mark it. We will call it 4/24/87, Arnold 18 Dopocition Exhibit 2. 19 (Arnold Exhibit 2 identified.) 20 THE WITNESS: I revicwed the first 2-1/2 pagco, 21 approximately, of Arnold Exhibit 2. I requent you rephracc 22 your question, pleace, or rectate your question. l 23 BY MR. JOHNSON: 24 Q Okay. My question is, on page 2, there arc coven 25 bulletc. I am acking you, are those the bu11cto that you , .(:) l l /\CE FEDERAL REl>ORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
l q. 1' l 30690.0 I 164 O,cox 1 .raiccd in introducing the information about' Parka' preco 2 relcacc? If not all of them, which once were included? ; 3 A My recollection is that I bacically bricted them 4 on the contenta of the press relcacc. I may have even read 5 it in its entirety. 6 In terms of focucing on cach of the ceven bullets, 7 I read those in the context of the other statemento, I 8 believe, in the context of the other statements that werc 9 made in the precc relcace, and wac interpreting them and 10 reacting to them in the context of the total document, not 11 Individually in isolation. I would have expected that the 12 number 5 cr 6 here was my recollection in talking to 13 Mr. Aulick ac to how many bulletc there were, and not an 14 attempt to cay that I was focusing on lecc than all of them. 15 Q But it'a your recollection that you covered all of q I 16 them? 17 A It's my belief, at 1cact, that I would have . l 18 covered the entire presa relcacc. 19 Q Did you provide the attendeco at the preso f
' 20 conference with any other information-regarding to Mr. Parks' 21 allegations? !
22 A I don't think I had any other information rclative i 23 to these allegations and presc relcace, that I had looked at, 24 at that point. There may have been others such as Mr. Kanga 25 and Mr. Barton, who had cither read or skimmed through the
.O l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 !
l-l 30690.0 l cox 165 EO affidavit and had other items in there, but I don't recall ( 1 l I don't recall myocif being awarc of any from any other 2 any. 3 information courcco directly. l 4 Q So copics of the affidavit had been circulated to 5 Mr. Barton and Mr. Kanga? 6 A Well, I don't know if " circulate".in the correct 7 term, but cometime during that morning, and potentially prior 8 to the meeting, with regard to come of them, copica of the 9 affidavit were made and provided to various peopic. 10 Q Do you know, or not, whether at thic meeting 11 Mr. Barton and Mr. Kanga had copico of the affidavit? 12 A I do not recall. 13 Q- Do you recall whether Mr. Barton or Mr. Kanga 14 precented to the media information from the affidavit? 15 A No, I. don't recall there being anything discuoced 16 beyond what was contained in the preco relcacc. I think the 17 record would indicate, and I would not contcot it, that the 18 accociation of Ccorge Kunder with the myctory man allegation 19 in the preso relcace, was understood at that mccting. 20 Whether that was becauce of the words in the preco relcacc or 21 because comebody picked that up out of the affidavit, I don't 22 know. 23 Q In other wordo, the portion that cays " appointment 24 of a key overnight role'of the individual reported on-cite ac 25 the mystery man who chu' off the safety injection pumpo ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M649
l
.j '
30690.0 cox 166 i 1 'rcoponcibic_for much of the damage at the original accident," 2 that is the bullet you are referring to? 3 A Yes. I am awarc that the record indicatco that 4 diccuccions at the meeting accociated that allegation with , I 5 ccorge Kunder. 6 Q From that, you accume that pcopic interpreted the 7 preso relcacc or had further information? 8 A I am not making an accumption about it. 9 Q You just don't know. But you' arc caying that 10 Mr. Kundcr's name was diccucacd during thic mccting? 11 A No. What I am saying is that I am awarc that 12 there arc indications in the record that that was the cacc. 13 I don't have any personal recollection. 14 Q I cco, okay. Did you ack any of the peopic at the 15 meeting whether they had heard rumora on the cite concerning 16 the myctory man being Mr. Kunder? 17 A I don't recall asking that question. 18 Q Did anyonc clac ack any qucation about whether 19 there was validity to the accertion that Coorge Kunder was 20 the mystery man? 21 A I don't recall there being any discuccion among 22 others at the mccting, as well ao -- as to whether that was a 23 correct accortion or not. 24 Q Except that you, it occm3 to me that you said that 25 you told -- well, you agreed with the statement that cayo f-V ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 _1_______________.___._______ _ i
= _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - -
j. l p L ' l 30690~.0 I 167
- v-O. cox.%
L l 1 that Arnold did tell them that, based on what he know, the 2 chargcc didn't have substanec? l l 3 A Yes, with regard to that particular one, it was l 4 very clear to me there had never been any mystery man, and L l 5 that I couldn't' imagine there being' general knowledge on the L 6 cite, or, whatever the words are in there, that is being 7 reported on-cite ac the myctory man. It's just not comething 8 that I could relate to based on what I knew about the wholo 9 origin of the mystery man and the way in which of it had been l 10 dealt with during the B&W testimony, the B&W 1awsuit' 11 testimony. 12 Q Did you tell Mr. Barton, either during the mccting i- 13 or after the meeting, to interview the individuals mentioned 14 by Mr. Parka in his affidavit as courcco of information to him, to Mr.-Parks, that Mr. Parks based his allegation on? I 15 16 A I don't have a recollection of telling him that, 17 but it's my belief that I did tell him to interview those i 18 pcopic. 19 Q Do you remember what you told him, what 20 instruction you gave him? 21 A No, I don't. But I don't have a recollection of 22 the conversation in which I gave him the instruction. I am l 23 just aware that he did it and I agree that he did it under my 24 direction, although I can't remember giving him the 25 instructions. l l /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MG3364M6 l i l . - . A
l 30690.0 cox 168 1 Q Did you put into motion the review of the 2 affidavit at the aceting or after the meeting? q 3 A Well, I certainly put into motion a very 4 substantial effort by the next day. I don't remember if I l
\'
5 initiated anything the day of the 23rd or not, beyond 6 Mr. Barton's interviews, which I know took place on the 7 23rd. My recollection -- well, let me state it differently. I 8 My scnce in that Mr. Barton -- cxcuco me, Mr. 9 Kanga, had initially inctructed come of his staff to extract 10 the iacuco from the affidavit co they could start to be j 11 addrecced. I think that may have been done on the 23rd with 12 my knowledge, but to whatever extent that effort was
\ \ 13 undertaken, I think it was overtaken by other investigations.
14 that I had personally initiated. 15 Q How did you learn of.Mr. Kanga's initiation of 16 come follow-up? 17 A My recollection is that he just briefly described 18 to me what he instructed hic staff to do. 19 Q When did he tell you that? 20 A I don't know, but I cucpectLit was pretty much 21 contemporancoucly with when he did it, which would have been {
'22 the 23rd or 24th.
I ' 23 Q You don't specifically remember whether it wac 24 immediately after the meeting on the 23rd or later in the l 25 day? ! i ('-)
- s. !
l 1 l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j l i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ) L______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
t
~
1 l-l 30690.0 L cox 169-1 A No, I don't'. l l L 2 Q Did you go to Wachington later that day? l l 3 A Yes, cir. i l 4 Q About what time? l 5 A- My recollection.ic we left around 1:30 or 2:00 i 6 from the,Harrisburg airport. 7 Q Who did you go with? 8 A I believe Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kanga. 9 . Q The purpose of the trip was? 10 A To hold a press bricting here in Washington 11 cubacquent to Parko' press briefing in which we could tcll 12 the media what we know about his allegations at that point f
\. 13 and answer any qucatieno that we could.
14 Q Did'you cxpress to Mr. .Flynn -- you cay Mr. Flynn 15 and Mr. Kanga were the people who accompanied you. Did 16 anybody cloc accompany you? 17 A I think those arc the only two that accompanied 18 me. My recollection is that Mr. Cifford came down earlier in 19 the day acparately. 20 Q Do you recall conversations with Mr. Kanga or 21 Mr. Flynn or both of them, on the flight, having 22 conversations with them on the flight? 23 A I don't have a recollection of the conversation. 24 I know that I took the time during the flight, used that 25 available time, to read the affidavit, which is the first 7-
\,./
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage m)-336 6646
30690.0
.: c o x 170
~
'l time-I had an opportunity to do that. .I am sure there was 2 como conversation, but my principal activity was reading the 3 affidavit, and it was a small aircraft which in noicy and not )
4 conducive to that.much in the way of conversation. 5 Q Did you complete reading the affidavit on the 6 flight? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Did you reach any decisionc'concerning what to do. l 1 9 with Mr. Parks, based on your reading'of the affidavit?- 10 A Not at that time, I didn't, no. 11 Q You cay.that it wac an accurato dcocription.of the , p : 12 chargcc that they didn't have any cubctance. Was it your l I , \/ 13 view, after reading the affidavit, that none of the chargcc l 1 14 had cubotanec? Nonc of the pointo raised,. allegations, 15 accertionc? l
- 16. MR. REYNOLDS: The record chould be clear, 17 Mr. Johnson, that you were referring back to Mr. Aulick'c j 18 notes when you refcrenced thic question. I 19 MR. JOHNSON: Ycc.
l 20 MR. HICKEY: Those notes refer to the prcos 1 21 relcace, do they? 1 22 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. Preco relcacc only. Not the , 23 affidavit. 24 THE WITNESS: I think I would generalis:c my vicw 25 of the affidavit as being way off-bacc relative to the ma3or i O l l l l-ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MXF33MM6
l [ - 30690.0 j cox 171 1 1 allegations that were in it. It was well known by'un and by L 2 the NRC, I believe, and by Parks, that as a result of the 3 February 17 commento he made on the polar cranc load test l-4 procedure that was going through review, that QA had l 5 identified four modifications to the cranc that had not I followed the ECM procedurc, and that the question he raised 6 L 7 with regard to the noncompliance with AP-1047 was correct, 1 1 8 and that all of those incuco had bcon recolved or worc in the 9 proccca of being resolved, really, I think with regard to the L .10 polar crano load test, all of them had been rcoolved before 11 March 23, 12 With regard to other specific allegations, to the
- l. 13 cxtent that any of them were valid, I think they were not of 1
14 the kind of conocquenecc that was suggcated by cither hic l 15 presa relcace read in total or the affidavit read in total' 16 and the generalization he made, I believe then and were 17 still then way, way off-bacc. 18 MR. HICKEY: Did you say "off-bacc"? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, were invalid. 20 BY MR. JOHNSON: 21 Q Would trou look at tab 24, which I think is Parks' 22 affidavit, and point to statements which you considered to bc L 23 way off-bacc with reopcet to the aspectc that you werc juct j 1 24 referring to. That is, the failure to comply with AP-1043 or 25 AP-1047? j () l l /LCE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 203-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(b336-6646 l I l m_m-m____ . _ _ - _
li 30690.0 cox 172
.1 A Would you rectate the question, ac far ac which-l 2 examplco you want mc to cito.
3 -Q I would like you to look at the discuccion with 4 respcct to the locuco arising out of Mr. Parks' commento of 5 February 17 which you were just' referring to. 6 A Yec.
'l 7 Q Tell me what, in the affidavit, ic what you would. ]
8 refer to as being way off-bacc. 9 A Let me try to get como clarification here. I 10 don't think the major part of Mr. Parks' affidavit dcalo with i 11 his comments of February 17. Some of them do, but they arc 12 relatively minimal. I think he makca oweeping allegations 13 and chargcc of misconduct that are unrelaved, ao far ac I can
-14 tell, from the affidavit itacif to hic apoc:fic commente on 15 February 17.
16 Q We can got to that. But focucing on the February 17 17 complaints, accertions, commento, is there anything in the ( 18 affidavit that is incorrect or, ac you say, is way off-bacc? 19 A To save me or all of us the time of going through 20 -- for mc to go through page by page on the affidavit, if you 21 know where he addrococo hic February 17 commento, perhaps you j 22 can direct my attention to that part of the affidavit. l 23 Q It's discuoced on page 32, 33, 34. They are also 24 discussed starting on page 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. f- 25 A My initial looking at it is he is just recounting , 1 1 I
/\CE. FEDERAL IlEPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i l 30690.0 cox 173 1 cventa. There are no allegations there. You arc just going 2 to have to give me time if you want me to go through, becauce ! 3 -I think a great deal of the text of thic just recounto 4 cvento. They are not allegations no cuch in most cacco. 'l 5 MR. HICKEY: I undcrotood your qucation,.let me-6 ack for come clarification. 7 I'am looking at the polar cranc tack group comment 1 8 resolution form, which you chowed the witnocs earlier, which i 9 ic Mr. Parks' February 17 commento. I undcrotood your 10 question to be relating to where, in the affidavit, thcoc 11 comments of February.17 of Mr. Parks' arc discucacd. Therc'c 12 about 14 commento. You have given un a number of page 13 referencca that my quick review, appearc to mo'to reflect, 14 that while it's a diccuccion about AP-1043 or 1047, or como 15 mention of that procedure, I don't acc referenecc on thoac 16 pagcc to the particular commento that arc in thic February 17 l 17 document. If you arc asking Mr. Arnold to comment on Mr. 18 Park'c February 17 commento, I think the witncos noods to 19 have a more specific reference as to where it is thecc 20 commento are addrecced. 21 MR. JOHNSON: We can't put anything in the 22 affidavit that's not in the affidavit. What I want you to j 23 tell me is what is in the affidavit, ac it addrecoco thoac 24 concerna, that is way off-bacc. 25 THE WITNESS: Let me first say if the read cat to i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30690".0 cox 174 ! 1 your. question is that I claim ~that the affidavit addrecced 2 the responce to thoco comments in a way that was way i t 3 off-baco, that, I do not believe, was my tcctimony. 4 BY MR. JOHNSON: 5 Q You are not saying to the extent that Mr. Parkc ; 6 addrecced his commento, and the way they were handicd, th'c l l 7 history of it and the pagcc that I cited, where it mentionc 8 those procedurcc that hc did comment on, that they arc way 1 9 off-bacc? 10 A- I would even characterize them ao off-bacc in the 11 conce that my recollection is that they are quite
]
12 incomplete. In other wordo, his account of it docon't carry 13 through to dcocribe how the organization cventually did deal 14 with it and had addressed it prior to March 23. 15 Q So your problem ic that it was incompletc? 16 A With regard to the affidavit addreccing those 17 cpecific commento of February 17, I have et least that 18 problem. As I go and look at the affidavit, I might identify j 19 additional onco. 20 THE WITNESS: Is thic a good time to take a 21 couple-minute break? 22 MR. JOHNSON: That is fine with me. 23 THE WITNESS: I would appreciato it. 24 (Rocccc.)
,. s 25 BY MR. JOHNSON:
L) I 1
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(n336 6646
l f 30690.0 L cox 175 1 Q' Havc you had a chance to review -- well, strike ; 2 that. l 3 Let's go back to the Barton interviews. It scoma 4 to me that those interviewo arc in the appendix. 'Let me just 5 try to. find it for you. 6 A If I could perhaps help. You will find it listed j 7 under a memo reference that has them all as a package and ic 8 not identified.very c1carly in there ac to what they arc. 9 Q I think it's 37, tab 37. Reviewing the itema on 10 tab 37, arc thoac the -- well, did Mr. Barton give you those 11 documents on March 23 or March 24? 12 A I don't remcmber, and I am not awarc of.the record 13 being able to identify whether or not he did. i 14 Q Do you recall Mr. Barton giving it to you or 15 conding them to you at any time? 16 A I have a recollection of having read them in the , 17 -- probably thu wccka following the March 23, 1983 preca R 18 conference. But juct when that occurred, I don't have a
.19 recollection of it. But as I have gonc back and looked at ,
1 20 the various reports, they accm familiar to me in termo of the ) 21 content of them, that I had read them before. I think it I 22 would be in '83 that I read them. 23 Q So you were not shown thccc documents on the 23rd i I 24 or the 24th of March? ! l gy 25 A I am curc I wasn't shown them on the 23rd. I may ) U i ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336W.46
30690.0-cox 176 s 1 have been chown them carly on the 24th. l 2 Q Did you have a conversation with Mr. Barton on the j 3 23rd of March in which Mr. Barton related the rcoulta of hic j 4 ' interviews on the 23rd? 5 A For renconc that I can't tic anything cloc to or 6 why I have the recollection, my ocnce is that Mr. Barton did 7 thecc interviewc relatively late in the day, and that it's j 8 unlikely that the information that he obtained in that would i 9 have been known to me until the 24th. But that's a conce I 10 have of thic, not anything I havc a specific recollection 11 of. 12 Q Were the documents themocives, thecc signed O k-) 13 statemento by a dozen or ao individuals in thic department, 14 with regard to the myotcry man allegation of Mr. Parks, 15 considered by_you in any way in your decision with.rcopect to 16 the disposition -- well, not the suspension, but barring 17 Mr. Parka -- the decicion to bar Mr. Parks from the citc? 18 A Thecc npocific documents were not the best -- I am 19 cure thecc documents were not a part of it, and I don't have 20 a recollection of having roccived an oral report from 21 Mr. Barton at the time that I requested that Bechtel find ) 22 other accignment for Mr. Parks. 23 Q When did you make a decicion that Mr. Parks 24 chouldn't return to the Island? 25 A To the best of my recollection, I came to that I
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l. l l' 30690.0 f i cox 177 1 conclusion.following.the preco conference in Wachington that 2 we had referred to carlier. 3 Q March 23? 4 A- Ycc. ! 5 .MR. HICKEY: Actually, you referred to two prccc 6 conferenecc carlier, one by Mr. Parks and onc by CPU. 7 THE WITNESS: The CPU press conference. l 8 BY MR. JOHNSON: 9 Q That concluded at.what time? 10 A My gucca in comcwhere in the 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. 11 time frame. 12 Q' Where was the press conference held? O
\- 13 A Dupont Plaza Hotel.
14 Q You are caying that it was after that press 15 conference that you decided that Mr. Parkc should not return? i 16 A Ycc, sir, So it was made in the early evening? i 17 Q-18 A No. I think it was literally within'the half hour 19 to hour after the completion of the presa conference and 20 before we had departed from the Dupont Plaza Hotel. 21 Q Wac it proceded by a discuccion, any'further
. :22 discuccion, with any of the peoplc you have traveled with to 23 Wachington, or had in Wachington, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Bedcll, 24 Mr. Cifford or Mr. Kanga, or is this comething that you had 25 decided on your own? >
O I i 1 24CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 f 1
l. o 30690.0 l- . cox 178 1 1 A I think I would -- my recollection is that it Wac 2 a deciclon I principally-came to. We woro.having discuccion 3 about the -- what Parka had said in his affidavit in a 4 general cort of conce, but it's not my recollection that 5 there was a specific discuccion among the management peoplc 6 that were thoro, which included both Bcchtcl, CPU, and 7 pcopic, at least to the extent of Mr. Cifford and myocif, 8 that led to the decision on my part. Rather, I think that, 9 in finally having time to think about it and reflect on what 10 I knew at that point, I came to that judgment and I chared it
'll with the others that were there, that I juct'didn't think it 12 would be reasonable to try to continue to purcuc the cicanup l ' 13 activitico and expect those to be performed effectively if 14 Parks continued to be in the accignment he had been, that 15 that would be just too detrimental to the progreca of the 16 work; and our responsibilities were auch that we were going 17 to have to find another accignment until we could got the 18 incuca resolved that he had to raicc.
19 Q Had you reached any kind of conclucion in -- as to 20 the merits of hic allegations, in reaching your decision 21 chortly after the preca conference, that he chould not return 22 to the Ialand the next day? 23 A Yes. I think that I had reached a conclusion as l j' '24 to the merits of hic broad-based general allegations upon L 25 completion of reading the affidavit. It basically wac the LO 1 l 1 l Ace FEDERAL RneonTens, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M h 336 # 46 l U_--______-____-_______
1
.30690.0 )
179 ) [~)cox-
. %s .
I 1 came ac the judgment I had made upon.rcading hic presc 2 relcace, that his broad allegations were juot.uncupportable, j 3 I think the press statement that we put out trt the 4 beginning of.thc.procc conference on March 23, that was held ~ i 5 by CPU, 10 conciatent with that. ; 6 Q Doco it say that you are going to investigate the ; 7 chargcc? It docon't say anything about he'chould return to 8 lthe Island; docc it? 9 A .No , I didn't undcratand that to bc your question. 10 There was a question'about the merito. 11 Q I was responding to what you~caid, you said the 'i i i 12 presa r^1cacc was conciatent with that. If anything it's l
. )
1 13 inconciatent because you haven't reached a judgment about the. ! 14 merito of his affidavit? i 15 A I am corry, I think I am confused, and.I suspect ! 16 the record is confused. I would just like to kind of fall 17 back 10 yards and let's start over again. 18 MR. HICKEY: In fairneca, the record should 19 reficct that there was come noicy distraction in the hallway 20 which.uc attempted to deal with. 21 MR. REYNOLDS: Which io continuing as we opcak. 22 MR. HICKEY: I don't know whether it distracted 23 the witncco, but it distracted his counocl. 24 , I () ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(X)-336-6646
30690.0 i cox 180 l 1 BY MR. JOHNSON:
.2 Q What.I am trying to get at, and I asked and.I
~3 thought you anawcred, was whether you reached a determination-4 on the merits of allegations, the allegations rained in the 5 affidavit, in reaching your conclucion.that Mr. Parku'chould'
'6 not return to the citc.
7 A I would ccparate the two items. I had, and I 8 think I ctated carlicr, reached a conclucion on the merito of 9 the broad-based allegations that he had made. 10 Q I am going to ask you to explain,that. 11 A That was not.a principal factor in -- well', let me 12 cay different, the fact that I concluded that he wac. wrong-1 . s 13 was not the reason that I -- it was not the direct reason I 14 decided to ask him to be reaccigned. 15 Q Okay. 16 A So I am trying to bc very careful about what 17 coupling is made about'thcoc relationship. { 18 Q Could you explain what the broad allegations you 19 determined to be without merit -- what they werc? 20 A If I ctart -- if I could start with the preco R 21 relcacc. There io the accertion in there that he and otherc f 22 had revealed maccivo quality accurance violationa and' ) 23 significant cafety concerno during the last two months about 24 TMI cleanup and recovery operationc. I don't think that's a 25 proper characterization of what was identified. l l ! l I I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l ! 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8W-3364M6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , l
30690.0
.cox 181 m) 1 He caya further, in here, that Parks charged that 2 thecc practicco were intentional, and thic follows the seven 3 itema, coven bulletc that we talked about carlier, and i
4 compromised the internal cyctem of checks and balanccc. The 5 abuccc reculted from a management attempt to conduct- ! 6 additional radiation monitoring without falling behind 7 cchedule after it was discovered in January that radiation 8 levela under the reactor vocac1 arc 30 times higher than 9 previously cotimated. I, firct of all, don't think therc 10 were abucca of the nature that he characterized and accondly, L 11 I don't think the procedure violationc that we had identified l 12 were in-any way related to what he accerted was the bacc 13 form. l 14 If we go to the affidavit, his accertion that the 15 management of TMI unit 2 hac cacrificed ito own system of l 16 cafety-related checks and balancco for TMI cleanup 17 activitico, in order to meet unrealistic time schedules, I 18 think that is incorrect and unfounded. I think it in 19 incorrcet to say that in the procccc equipment has been L 20 modified and snap judgments made without proper engineering 21 analycic, quality accurance stopa have bcon skipped and I. 22 totally circumvent the rulco and documento have been changed 1 23 to juctify the facts of QA violationc. 24 Incidentally parenthetical to that, I don't find 25 anything in the affidavit that would cuggcat that was the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 2024 47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xh3364M6
'_30690.0 cox 182 1 cacc.
~2 continue the affidavit, those who ha' i defended 3 the cyctem of nuclear checko'and balancco have faced 4 precourc, intimidation and retaliation which stripped them of 5 the authority to function'ao viable membero of the team. .To 6 the extent that hc 10 referring to the actionc.taken by King, l 7 I think hc is absolutely incorrcet, with regard to himsclf.- l 8 I don't bclieve we did that, took thooc kinds of actionc 9 relative.to Parks or for any of those reasono, and we did 10 not, with regard to Cicchel, who is the other one he 11 includca, and, in fact, until King was removed for his 12 conflict.of intercot prob 1cmo, all threc of thoac were 13 continuing to function ac effective members of the team, or 14 werc-in a position to, at 1cact. They were not prevented 15 from doing so. I think I could go on with other examples if 16 you would like.
17 MR. JOHNSON: I would like you to. But I think wo 18 need to take a break for the reporter. 19 (Reccc c . ) 20 BY MR. JOHNSON: 21 Q You were going to continue. 22 A Okay. Skipping over to page 3 in the paragraph at 23 the bottom of the page, therc'c a otatement, "in September, 24 1982, there was a management reorganization to put Bechtel in 25 charge of an integrated program with CPU for cleanup ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043364M6
-____.____-.__________________________________________________________a
L L. 1 l30690.0 I cox 183 LO 1 activitico." That'a dead wrong.
'2 On page 5, in the laat full paragraph on the page, l'
3 there is a statement, "in other wordo, Bechtc1'c job was to 4 rectore the crano to ito undamaged condition."- That'c 5 incorrect. There's a cubacquent centence, "the containment. 6 injury. program covero.iccuco cuch ac perconnci protection [ 7 from radiation. It hac nothing to do with engineering 8 functionc or design QA engineering documentation." That's 9 absolutely wrong. l 10 On'the bottom of page 5, hc ctatcc, "ac L'. King of: 11 cite operations repeatedly reported," there was no 12 coordinated schedule to integrate the ccquence of the polar. 13 head acquence to remove the reactor head and cubacquent 14 activitics to remove the reactor core. Ao a result different 15 groupa did not understand what the othero were doing or what 16 support they nceded." 17 I don't agree with that characterization of the 18 lack of schedules, and I think that the "ac a result" 19 statement is, as a minimum, a significant overstatement of 20 the extent of communication prob 1cmo. I am skipping over 21 thoco thinga that I have a basic today for knowing were 22 overstatements or misstatements or inaccurate and limiting to 23 the ones that I knew at the time that I read thic, that they 24 were wrong. i 25 MR. REYNOLDS: By at the time you read thic, you
. )
l 1 l
/(CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MO-336 6646 l
'30690.0 cox 184 1 mean March'23?
.2 THE WITNESS: Yes, cir, 1983.
3 Coing to the top of page 6,-he statcc that, in the 4 first full: paragraph, "our accond initial concern.was that 5 plant systems and' components had been modified without proper 6 review of the engineering paperwork." 7 In the next paragraph, following on to that,,hc 8 cays "at the head. lift mcctings, wc learned that ECMc werc 9 not being conciatently used-to accomplich plant 10 modifications." Further on, "an exampic included 11 refurbishment of the reac' building polar cranc." The. 12 information'I had as far ac'the reactor building polar cranc. v 13 modifications, in March, prior.to March 23, was that the only 14 vehicic by which the incue came up, was the QA revicw that' 15 was directed by Mr. Kanga on the February 22 meeting and the 16 cubacquent mccting on February 23 is when it started. It_wan 17 not in any way a result of tho' head lift tack force. type of 18 activitice. I don't know anything at that time or 19 subacquently that would suggcot it was the head lift tack 20 force meetings that were the proccco by_which those incuco !
\
21 were raised, nor do I know of those incucc being raised with i 22 regard to any modification other than the polar cranc. I o 23 The only other arca that I know of where there I 24 were disputes about whether proceduren were properly ; I 25 following were a completely different incue relating to t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
l L 1 L E 30690.0 L cox- 185 I whether the QC claccification of activitics were proper, and, j f 2 therefore, what reviews were involved in thocc. That was a. ; I L 3 different kind of problem than the modification of the polar 4 cranc. I don't think cither one of them were really insuco ) i l l 5 that were generated by the head lift tack force, although the l i 6 QCL list incucc might have como up in that meeting. ; i 7 I believe that I was awarc that the statement at 8 the bottom of page 70 -- l 9 MR. REYNOLDS: 7. 10 THE WITNESS: , Excuse me, page 7. That the PORC- ) ll 11 chairman chould have specified that the QA/QC rad j 12 . engineering, the manager of PO, which is plant operations, 13 and plant engineering, review and approve thic procedure." 14 It goco on to say, "unfortunately, he didn't. I l 15 The administrative controla requirca that that i 1 i l 16 decision bc made by the cognizant engincer, not the PORC l 17 chairman. 18 The paragraph that continuco from the bottom of 19 page 8 to the top of page 9, in discuccion of resolution of 20 quality deficiency reports, or QDRs, the claim in made that 21 the addreccing of como still outstanding onco from 1981 were 22 being corrected at the instigation of the director of plant l l 23 engineering, who was reintroducing design reviews for any 24 modification performed by hic organization. The suggcation l l- 25 being there, as I read it, that it wac a director of plant
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage MKk336 6646 l_ Y_-___-_.__-________-_____.
'30690.0
.cox 186
.O 1 engineering who cort of corrected a problem there.
2 The fact of the matter was, and I was familiar. 3 with it, that the QDRc were initiated by quality accurance. 4 They flagged to the organization, including myself, that it 5 wastimetogobacktothenormalqualitydocuranceprogram 6 and all cf its requirements rc2ative to decign verification, 7 'Which[wehadwithNRC'cknowledgewaived, iri-cffect, for s t g 8 modifications immediately after the accident, and that the
" t
\ ,, .
9 plant engineering dit cctor was !no more aggrcceive in , 10 resolving that prob 1cm and played no scdc of a reic - Ircally 11 played ,no role in thE initiation of theichange in the
,s ) , ' %e. Ag , 7y 12 policy. .
3 ( p . _ 13 It's not of importance in termo of chb ar c, bu indicativ'd of Parks ' lack of undcratanding4of cvon the 8' 14 y i s 15 organization,tn2tchthetopofpage10hestatac "on
.s 16 January 3, 1983," CPU Corpo,Jation, of wrdch CPU Nuclear at 1 . .
17 TMI"2 in o guboidiary, implemented the UWI," which stendec-for 7 F 4
't %
y
~
18 unit work instruction proccdurc "to govern al1 wdrk donc at
., n ,. p. ,t 19 all cycc bf the CPU cyctea. Didn'thaveanyth[ngtodo ,
9 20 with the CPU'cystem outside of CPU Nuclear. It gocr, on to !
\/;
21 stay, "thic ctcp was neccccary tcCeliminato an old problem of e different departments working under different cyctcms by i i 22 ,, 1 l 23 starting procedure, development, review and i.mp. cementation. " l 24 I think that'c a costpinte miccharacterization of
- y. 25 the reason that tue,new procedure was neccccory and
/' s
- k. 1 l
[. l . N Aa-FEDERAL PEPORTERS, INC. 203 *E'-T/00 Nationwide etnirage MK).33 % %
- (
{ rQ-t- n-
1 30690.0-cox 187 1 decirabic. Different departments worc working under 2 different cyctcms, or older administrative controla. They
'3 were not neccccarily different once within a given location.
4 They were different between TMI-2 and TMI-1 and Oycter 5 Crock. But within TMI-2 I don't believe they were any 6 different. I think that he hac miccharacterized, and-thought ~ 7 at the time -- beginning about the middle of the page, 8* paragraph, it starts in the middle of page 10, that the unit 9 '. work instruction procedure wac a major policy change and
- 10 imme lately resulted in a major disagreement about procedural
, 11 requirements'and compliance between cite operations ataff
)
12 *membcrc and those of other organizations. It was not a major L; 13 policy. change, as I would understand thocc wordo, and hic
.s y s.
9 14 characterization that cite operationo alone took the position k .15 that unit work instruction system was now the exclusive (- 16 authority, whercas construction reactor operations and' (4- 17 reactor programa initially continued to insict that all work i e #s N. 18 performed incide-the reactor building would be performed with
'l' 19 the work package instead of a unit work instruction.
l , 20 He then goca on to say in mid- to late January the l ,
. 21 incue was resolved. I think that at wac -- as soon as it t
j t i 22 came up, it was almost immediately, I mean, a matter of a few 1 23 days, if not chorter, reco1ved as to how to handic the kl i{' 24' trancition. I don't think there was any major dicputcc !) 25 within the organization as to whether unit work instruction O L : 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(k3364M6
-_-_=____-_-__-_____--________.
t
-' 3069'0.0; h; cox 188
! 'l . applied.
.2 It also ic not my belief that the cyctem requirco L 3 duplicative reviewc which contribute significantly to delaya L 4 and software approval. It' required rcrouting a previously i
5 approved package, work package, under a unit work instruction 6 form. But if the work package hadn't bcon changed from its 7 content at the time it was reviewed previously and approved, 8 there was no substantial effort involved in caying, ycc, we
.9 agrec, that's a work packagcuthat we have reviewed and 10 approved, and we approve it to be accomplished under thic 11 unit work instruction.
12 The whole ccnce of all of thic ic juct completely 13 micleading, in my opinion. 14 BY MR. JOHNSON: 15 Q Let me stop you. 16 A I have got 40 pagcc to go, but okay. 17 Q I would have you go through.all 40 pagcc if we had 18 more time. My question to you is, was it your position that 19 any of thecc thinga that you have just recounted to me 20 justified barring Mr. Parks from the citc? 21 A They weren't the reasono for barring him from the 22 citc, ao I don't know how to answer your question. I didn't 23 really try to make that judgment. 24 Q In other wordo, thecc inaccuracica that you allege 25 to be in here didn't form a part of the bacic of your ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 iNationwide Coverage 8(Xb33MM6
b 30690.0 cox 189 1 decision? 2 A I think they formed a part, and I can either let 3 , you draw-it out of me or I can try to characterize or 4 dcccribe to you.my reasonc for acking that hc not bc 5 continued to be accigned to the cito. 6 Q The reacon I am doing it this way is I would like 7 to know what role your vicwo as to thecc ctatemento played, 8 specifically. 9 A The statemento of the nature-that'I dcccribed were 10 .important to me in terms of forming a judgment as to whether 11 the anxiety that I belicvc cxisted at the site for how Parks 12 used information, would incroace, and would bc justified 13 based upon the contents of his affidavit. 14 But I was not acking for his barring from the cite 15 as a disciplinary type measure.or quid pro quo.for his 16 micatatemento. I was doing it because the effect on the 17 organization, in my opinion, of the allegations he had made, 18 the distortions that he gave to evente at the cite, his 19 micatatement of facts, even, where he chould have been more 20 knowledgeable, indicated an uncertainty to hic use of 21 information that he would gain in the couroc of interacting 22 with the cite in ways that would threatening to the other 23 pcopic he had to work with. That would juct effectively 1 24 prevent them from being abic to work with them, normally. 25 And the cleanup offort, which we had an overriding l 1. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Wh336 M46
l l \ l l 30690.0 190 l . (_g) cox 1 -obligation, I felt, to proceed with an expeditiously as 2 circumstanccc permitted, would be substantively adveracly 3 affceted by that, and I felt an obligation to prevent that. l 4 Q Did you ack anybody whether they would be abic to I 5 work with him before you made your decision about whether i 6 they would be able to or not? 7 A I didn't ask specifically, but I had the reaction 8 of 20 to 25 people or so that were at the morning meeting, 9 the information at leact that was in his prccc relcacc. It l l 10 was very cicar that there was a lot of anxiety on the part'of l 11 the people, and I think what I interpreted to be a ocnce on l 12 'their part that they felt threatened by what Parks was 13 willing to do. 14 Q. What was threatening about it? l , 15 A- The way in which he would take facto and 16 mischaracterize them or micatato them and imply an improper l 17 or incompetent performance on the part of other people of.the 1 10 staff that he interfaced with. You know, if I know that in 19 talking with you that you arc willing to take what I say in l l' 20 good faith, what I believe to be saying in good faith and l 21 straightforwardly outside thic room, and micquote it or l 22 misconstrue it in a way that whether it's deliberate or not, l 23 that says I am a dichonect or incompetent percon, I fcc1 j 1 h 24 threatened by that. I think other people do, and I think f 25 that'c what we had in the way of environment at the cito by l
.(:) i I
l L 4
/LCE FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
[ 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(D-336-6M6 l
)
[ L--______________..______ l
30690.0 cox 191 1 Parks' conduct, and I directed the action be taken that I 2 felt was a minimum that we could take to protect the project 3 progrecc from that, and still do the minimum damage to Parks' 4 cituation. 5 Q Can you identify any other information that you. 6 relied upon, apart from the three things that I would say 7 that I will enumerate, that you have stated, the text of the 8 preco relcace, the text of the affidavit, and.the reactions 9 that you heard at that March 23 morning meeting. In therc 10 anything clac you relied on? 11 A' I don't believe co. 12 Q Just take a minuto and think about it and occ if 13 you can think about anything cloc. 14 A I don't have any recollection of anything cico, 15 nor do I have a recollection of having tcctified otherwisc. 16 Q That's finc. I would like to direct your 17 attention to pagcc 36 and 37 of the Parks affidavit, which 18 dealc with the mystery man. Ic there anything in there that 19 you knew to be falco at the time you mado your decision to l 20 bar Mr. Parks from the citc? l l 21 A Since, in matter of fact, thorc's no cuch thing as l 22 certainty, I gucas I would have to cay no. But in terms of l 23 being confident within the -- what is normally characterized 1 l 24 ac "know," ycc. There are statemento in there that I was 25 completely confident on that day were dead wrong.
/(CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
30690.0: 1 Q Could'you~ point mc to onc? 2 A. Sure. The first centence says "on several 3 occasiono Joc - " cxcuse mc first ocntence of the last 4 paragraph on pago 36, states "on coveral occasions, Joe 5 Chwastyk and shift cupervicor Bernic Smith identified Kunder 6 no t,hc myctory man." 7 I knew that Joe Chwastyk and Bernic Smith were 8 among thoce that were interviewed extensively following the 9 TMI-2 accident. I wac familiar generally with the content of-10 their tcotimony,.and I think.that to the extent there wac any. 11 anomalica in their tcotimony relative to what others might 12 have bcen testifying to, I was familiar with it. I was 13 absolutcly confident that Chwastyk and Bernic Smith had never-14 identified Ccorge Kunder as being comconc who had chut off i 15 the high precourc injection pumps chortly after 5:41 a.m. on q 16 March'28, 1979. 17 Q How about another one?
~
18 A .Yes. If you go on to the next centence, he.licto ) 1 19 a number of poopic that had knowledge that Chwastyk or Smith ) I 20 had identified Kunder ao a man who shut down the cafety ) 21 injection pumps. He includca in that Bubba Marshall, Ron 1 22 Warren and Lcc Rogers. Bubba Marchall and Ron Warren werc l~ 23 also among those that were interviewed extensively following I 24 the TMI-2 accident, and like Chwantyk and Smith, I was ! I , .5 confident that they did not have any cuch knowledge. Loc ] r. t L ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MKb336-6646 L _ __ ___ -- _
l l:
.30690.'0 l- 193 O(cox 1 Rogerc was also one that I was completely confident had.no 2 cuch knowledge of George Kunder being the one who had chut 3 down the high precourc injection pumpo becaunc Lcc Rogers was 4 an employee of Babcock & Wilcox, if he had any information 5 that would have supported hic position in thc lawsuit, I am 6 cure he would have donc co and I am confident-that he never l
7 cuggcoted that was the cacc. 8 0 Anything cloc, cir? 9 A Thocc were the people that I was familiar with 10 their knowledge of the TMI-2 accident. Others on the.lict 11 cither weren't here or would have had nothing but the 12 cocondary information, anyway. 13 Q Okay. 14 A I think therc'is another aspect, though, that is , 15 important-relative to thic recitation on the bottom of page 1 16 36. That is to say that people-like Chwastyk and Smith, 17 Warren, Marshall and Rogerc, know that and didn't identify.it 18 in the cource of all the intervicwo and sworn tcctimony they 19 gave, I think is a terrible thing to say about those peoplc. 20 What it says is that they had knowledge about the accident, 21 which I will completely agree with, I think the way Parks 22 charactericca carly in his affidavit, ao the worst near i 23 dicaster in the history of nuclear power ao of that time. 24 And to cuggcat that those peopic knew comething like that 25 about the accident and didn't identify that when they were 1
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage fun 336 6646
l
\
)
30690.0 cox 194 9 1 giving cworn testimony, ic to make a terribic accucation 2 against those people, I believe. 3 I believe that othere would take the came I 4 interpretation of it. l 5 Q Can you point to any statements in the Parka 6 affidavit which you belicvc that Mr. Parks knowingly -- would 7 chow that Mr. Parks knowingly made a falce statement there? i 8 A I think I can, although that wasn't the incue I I I 9 was trying to make a judgment about on March 23, but I think 10 I can anyway. l l 11 Q In making your decision you didn't try to reach a 12 conclucion ac to whether he knowingly made a falce statement? 13 A No. I did make a judgment as to whether he should
)
14 have known differently, but I did not reach a conclucion as I l 15 to whether there wac deliberatenecc on his part or gross l 16 negligence or juct indifference or irrcaponsibility or what 17 was the rencon, ao to speak, or the explanation for why it ic I 18 incorrect. 19 Q His motivcc? 20 A Yes. I did not make a judgment on that. I think 21 that what I know today, I can certainly identify where he, in 22 fact, knew differently. But that wacn't baced on information 23 I had at that time. 24 Q Would you point me to one or tt.o exampics that you 25 know -- that you think you know based on what you know now? ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202-347-37(O Nationwide Coserare Mn 3364M6
30690.0' ! cox 195 l 1 A I think we can take page 36 and 37,,where you arc I think l 2 talking about the Coorge Kunder and the myctcry man. j 1 3 all of the tcatimony-that wac developed since that chows that' l 4 4 he had to have been -- he had to have known those peopic were 5 not claiming Ccorge Kunder was the mystery man. In fact, I , l 6 think that things that have come to light in the discovery 7 period in preparation for thic chow ample support that even. ; i 8 he recognizco he didn't have a basic for it. He makcc a 9 statement relative to the February 22 or 23 meeting, for 10 exampic. Let's acc where that 10. j i 11 Q It's in the 203. 12 MR. HICKEY: 21 or 22. Bottom of 21,.I think, 13 maybc. .j 14 BY MR. JOHNSON: ; 15 Q Ycc. Bottom of 21 in the February 22 mcoting and i 16 continucc on to page 22. ) 17 A He statcc at the bottom page 21, the last full 4 l 18 centence, "the aceting accomplished nothing." He was at the 19 mccting. He clearly should have known that a great deal was 20 accomplished by the aceting and in fact it Icd directly to 21 the meeting the next day of February 23. 22 Q I am corry, I didn't follow you. Where docc it 23 cay that? 24 A Bottom of page 21, lact complctc'acritence. i 25 Q Pardon mc? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
30690.0 cox 196 1 A Makco a flat statement, "the meeting accomplished 2 nothing." That's wrong. He had to know it was wrong at the 3 time. 4 Q Can I just ask you to tell.me, you made a 5 ctatement about the pagcc 36 and 37, and a general reference 6 to information that you have Icarned since discovery'and i a 7 clocwhere. Would you give me an exampic of one of thecc 8 piccca of information which chows that Mr. Parks know that 9 .any of this information was falac? 10 A Therc'c a document that I undcratand, it's my 11 .undcratanding that Mr. Parks drafted,'that appears to be, to 12 me at least that appearc to be a draft 1ctter to the editor, 13 in which he talko about the incue of chutting down of pumps, 14 and he is talking there about reactor coolant pumps. 15 He cubacquently, in, I believe, a draft affidavit 16 that he providen to OI in November of '83, trica to, in 17 cffect, explain away all of thic with what I juct find l 18 completely unpersuasive in terms of him having a basic for 19 the kind of allegation he made in the affidavit. 1 20 Q I am at a loca as to the first document you were 21 referring to. Ic it a document that we produced in diccovery j 22 or that you produced in discovery? l 23 A I believe it's one that you produced in i L 24 diccovery. L 1 25 Q Could you identify it a littic more specifically 1 O I 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6645
- h. -_____-
1 I: l 30690.0 l .- cox- 197 L l- 1 co that I could undcratand what it ic? l 2 MR. HICKEY: I think it's the one that is the 3 cubject of your objections to our discovery attempt to learn - l- 4 what the cource of the document wac. It's the subject of 5 your motion for a protective order. It's one of the threc 6 documents that you caid was not sufficiently relevant to thic 7 procccding. 8 MR. JOHNSON: I coc. It's the onc from an 9 anonymous whistic blower? 10 MR. HICKEY: That's how it's doccribed. 11 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I just wanted to know what 12 you were referring to. Okay. 13 BY MR. JOHNSON: 14 Q When did you contact Bechtc1 with thic information 15 about your decision about Mr. Parka being barred from the 16 citc? 17 A I know the term " barred" has come up, and I don't 18 have a real quibble with the effect of it. It was the came 19 as if I ... said I was going to bar him from the cite, but it 20 wasn't that kind of harch, I gucco I would say, terminology 21 that was used. I believe I identified to the management 22 pcopic of Bechtel that were at the Dupont Plaza Hotel, that I 23 just considered it inappropriate to try to continue to have l 24 him in his present accignment and would like them to find
, 25 come other use for him, and, becauce, I didn't want to try to i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Mxb3364 M 6 l l __ __j
30690.0: cox- 198-1 utilize him there at the citc. 2 So it wacn't that kind of a -- it wasn't stated in 3 those kindo of termo, but that's my reco11cetion. 4 Wo subacquently, or I cubacquently, at least, mot-
~
5 with como of thooc pcopic and Mr. Sandford at the 6 Caithersburg office, later in the day on the 23rd, and we 7 discucced it further at that time, that we needed to find 8 come other way to, in effect, cmploy him or accign him, and 9 Mr. Sandford agreed that they would do co. And what they 10 cventually cano up with, ao a most practical'colution, I 11 think is better than the one I cuggcoted, which was to place 12 him on an' administrative Icave with pay. 13 My suggcation was maybe tacy could accign him to 14 work down in the Caithersburg office. I wacn't really 15 conscious, I gucos, of the fact that he had two conc that 16 lived with him and such an accignment would have been 17 certainly a major prob 1cm for him, I think. 18 Q This wac a discuccion you had in caithcraburg on 19 the evening of the 23rd of March? 20 A Yec. 21 Q With Mr. Sandford? 22 A Ycc. 23 Q Anything cloc? l l 24 A I think that at one time or anothct, part of the j l 25 discuccion included Mr. Kanga. I don't know if at the l
)
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(XK336-6646 )
30690.0
#
- 199 1
1 Caithorabm 7 affice or here in Wachington. Mr. Rich Loomic, 2 l 'L-o-o-m-1-c, and I think he wac.hcre at the Washington-group 3 and I think he also went back to the Caithersburg office ! 4 afterwards. 5 Q So part of theco discuccions -- anything cloc,.I 6 am corry. 7 A I don't recall it apccifically, but I think that 8 Mr. Whccler was at least present during discuccions at the j 9 Dupont Plaza Hotel. I would sucpoct Mr.'Bruner was, but I 10 don't remember specifically. Mr. Bruner was fairly recently l 11 accigned to the project, and I didn't know him very well at 12 that time. 13 Q Mr. Sandford was back in Caithersburg? 14 A Ycc. He did not'come down to the Dupont Plazar 15 Hotel. Again, I don't have a specific recollection of all of 16 those people being part of the discuccions, but they werc 17 there when they were taking place, and I think that he would 18 have been aware of them if not a participant. ; I 19 Q , Did they agree on the spot with your views that it 1 20 would be best if Mr. Parks did not return to the citc? l 21 A I bc3icvc that was the opinion of everybody that { ' 1 22 was exposed to the idea, so to speak. l 23 Q Worc any of those peoplc authorized to take action 24 with respect to Mr. Parks? l 25 A Well, Mr. Whccler would have been, Mr. -- L 1
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
30690,0 cox 200 l 1 Mr. Sandford clearly would have been. It may have been 2 debatable whether Mr. Bruner would properly do no or would 3 really do co through Mr. Whccler. 4 Q Latcr Mr. Sandford caid he was the author of the 5 cucpencion, you said in a congreccional hearing, and he 6 interpreted that to mean that he was the person who 7 authorized it, or he was the authority behind it, . other than 8 he didn't mean he was the percon who wrote it, which ho 9 clearly didn't. Was it your undcratanding that the decicion 10 was up to Mr. Sandford and that as a result of the 11 discuccionc he went up to Caithersburg and that it wac 12 decided there by Mr. Sandford? 13 A No, I don't think we went to Caithersburg for that 14 purpocc. It certainly would have been my expectation that 15 Mr. Sandford would have function on it. We had the 16 opportunity, in going up to Caithersburg, to talk about it 17 directly. My recollection is that Mr. Sandford accepted and j 18 agreed with my. judgment and committed to talking with the 19 ctaff about it in deciding what is the best way to implement 20 it. , 21 The actual method of impicmentation I did not know 1 22 until the next morning. But when I caw the 3ctter and how 23 they had donc it, I thought that was an appropriate 24 approach. 25 Q But you had no role in the phraccology or the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(433MM6
l. l' I L 30690.0 l_, cox 201 1 drafting of that .1.ctter? 2 A -No, sir.- I would want to, I think, state for the L 3 record, that it was my intent that he be kept whole. Aa, for 4 cxample, CPU continued to pay his normal calary' cost.under 5 the project. So we didn't take any action, in my opinion, 6 beyond the minimum nococcary to accomplish tho'objectivcc
-7 that I fcit we had to meet.
1 l 8 Q Back to the March 23 morning meeting, are you 9 aware that Mr. Cicchel alleged that -- accerted, stated in.a 10 sworn statement, that Mr. Kanga had said that Mr. Parko l l: 11 couldn'.t be fired in responce to a comment perhaps Mr. Barton l 12 -cr comebody cloc made that he chould be fired, becaucc he had 1 Ji .. l .A 13 made.cafety allegations, and therc wcro projections, but that 14 he could be trancforred and quietly gotten rid of later. Arc f 15 you aware that Mr. Cicchel made auch ctatemente in hic 16 affidavit? , 17 A Arc you referring to his affidavit that wan 1 l. 18 provided to me on April 4? l 19 Q I believe so. The tab, plcacc. L 20 A Tab 1. i 21 Q Tab 1? l l 22 A Yec, cir. l-l 23 Q Okay. , L l l 24 ,. Bottom of page 15, top of page 16, I think, is the 1 1 o 1 l 25 paragraph that you are referring to. O
- 1. 1 1
l. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
30690.0 j
. , - .cox 202 ;
-) i 1 Q: Okay. Ycc .' j 2 A' I read Mr.-Cicchc1's affidavit at the time hc 3 hand-delivered it to me in hic presence, so I read that 4 paragraph on April 4, I belicyc. '
5 Q Did you form -- when you read it on that'date, did i you form an opinion about the accuracy of that statement? ! 6 7 A I don't have a recollection of it, but I don't 8 think I have over fc1t that that was an accurate deceription - 9 of what was said, in my hearing. ; i 10 Q How was it inaccurato - well, it says'Kanga caid I 1 11 "we could juct trancfor Parks or put him on a leave of 12 abconce for a month and then get rid of him quietly." (~\ s_) 13 THE WITNESS: That ocntonce I don't relate to in-14 any conce anything.I recall or heard Kanga' cay. 15 BY MR. JOHNSON: 16 Q You don't recall anything.about hearing him 17 trancfor Kanga or Parka as an option? 18 A No, sir, not at all. In the time frame we have 19 been talking about, obviously cubacquently in the nummer ao 20 part of the agreement with Parks for the withdrawal of his j i 21 complaint, he was trancforred. l t 22 Q Right. I am just referring to the statement that 23 Kcnga might have made or was accerted to have made at the 24 meeting, k 25 A I don't believe that Kanga made such a statement i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 l l _ __ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - _ . - - . _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ - _ - - - - - - _ _ - - - - -
l i 4 l 30690.0 cox 203 .I 1 at the mccting in my hearing. 2 Q Wac the idea of putting Mr. Parkc on a-1 cave of 3 abcence discucocd at the mcoting? j 4 A .I don't believe co. I don't have any. recollection 5 of that, and it certainly would not have bcon an appropriate 6 incue to discuco at that mccting. l 7 Do you recall Mr. Barton caying that Mr. Parko l " Q 8 chould be fired? 9 A I don't recall what he specifically said, but it ! I 10 is my recollection that at the March 23 meeting, Mr. Barton j
\
11 was very distrccced by what Parks wac embarked on doing,'and j l , 12 stated hic -- in come form or another, which'thic isn't -- I ! (- Tss 13 wouldn't quibble that this would have been the interpretation t 14 of the-thruct of hic statement, even if it wasn't a good ! 15 quote, that' Parks' behavior was cuch that he chouldn't bc 16 continuing in the project. l 17 I also, though, would add that it is my i l 18 recollection, ao pcopic voiced criticicm of Parks' conduct, 19 that both Kanga and I cautioned the group as to the fact that 20 he had Icgal rightc and we had to respect those and that they 21 had to respect them. l l 22 Q Do you recall that on page 82 of your deposition l l 23 to Mr. Sticr, that you indicated that the first time that you L 24 became aware of the iacue of poccible precourc being put on 25 memberc of the profcccior,a1 ctaff at TMI-2 to approve l l /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l " l j--
'30690.0
.cox 204 l%I' 1 procedures, there was'a practico to use the approval-of NRC l
2 of draft procedurec of similar documents to try to obtain I 3 approval of. cite' members to the procedurcs? l
^
l l 4 MR. HICKEY: I didn't undcratand. Arc you stating i. L 5 that there was a practice or that Mr. Arnold stated that 6 there wac a practicc? 7 BY MR. JOHNSON: 8 Q I am referring to a specific ctatement which 9 Mr. Arnold made on page 82 of his deposition. 10 MR. REYNOLDS: Can you give us a linc. 11 MR. JOHNSON: I am corry, line 10, page 82. 12 MR. HICKEY: Second question is which Arnold 13 deposition? 14 MR. JOHNSON: The firct one in the book, 13th of 15 -September, 16 The discuccion of the iccue starta, I believe, on 17 page 80, where the qucation was asked, "Mr. King and 18 Mr. Parks have also alleged that NRC informal review and 19 approval ic often used by other individuals in the CPU 20 organization in an effort to precourc other individuals who 21 have review and approval responsibilities to cign off on a 22 document. 23 "Are you specifically aware of or have personal 24 knowledge of any cuch instanccc?" That is where the 25 discuccion starts. It goco on, and on page 82, you say at ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 370'1 Nationwide Coverage Mn336-6646 u________________ __ i
~
L L '
-30690.0 l z cox 205 . G-
, N-) 1 line 10, "I'think the first implication of it that I.had was 2 .in the allegations by Parko of March 23." 3 Is that correct, to the beat of your 4 . recollection? 5 MR. REYNOLDS: Take your time in reading it. 6 BY MR. JOHNSON: 7 First of all. Strike that. ! Q 8 A I have reviewed pagcc 81 and 82 of that 9 ctatement. Could I have your question again, plcacc. 10 Q Was it true that the first time you learned of the ' 11 problem of -- that is addrenced in the question on page 80, 12 was from reading the allegations of Parks on March 23? J
/~T
(/ 13 A I don't think co. I don't think that is what my
]
14 subacquent tcotimony would indicato. :1 15 Q What doco your cubacquent tcctimony indicate? L l 16 A Reading from the document, I don't think it was j 17 mentioned by King, although I would have to go back and look 18 at the memorandum that I worked with from him on it, I gucco, , 19 in order for Lowe Cricbc to be concerned with it, it must 20 have been contained in the King lict of concerno. 21 Q Did you mean by that that you had ccon it prior to 22 the Parks affidavit? l 23 A That I had ccen the allegation? I i 24 Q No. You had becomo awarc of the incuc. 25 A It meanc that I became awarc of an allocation of ! l i I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46
l i 30690.0 $ cox 206 1 1 thc. nature of the one you quoted.from page 80 of the document 2 as a result of the interaction with King of Clark and i 3 myoclf. I do not believe that I had any indication that that 4 was a concern prior to that time. I think I also would like 5 to note that to the best of my knowledge,-neither Lowc Griebe 6 nor any of the other investigations over identified a 7 apccific inctance of that happening. I don't think there wac- ] 8 cver any -- I don't think any investigator was able to cay it I 9 happened on thic procedure with this person and thic < l 10 reviewer. { 11 Q 'Do you dicagree then with the statement at the top. 12 of page 81, line 1 that says "they did find that there was f% O 13 apparently cubotance to that allegation and I agree with 14 their judgment on it, and took otcpc to provide guidance on 15 the organization concerning that." 16 A What I agree with is contained on the bottom of 17 page 30, which is -- 18 Q The otatement in the report? 19 A I agreed with their judgment that this practice 20 should be stopped but profcccional communication on technical 21 iacuco chould be encouraged between the NRC and the TMI-2 22 ctaff. I was willing to concede that they had formed the 23 conclusion that on occasion -- or I acknowledged that they 24 had formed the conclucion that "on occasion claims of NRC 25 approvalc have been used by come TMI-2 personnel to argue for l l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 L
l l l l J30690.0 cox 207 o l l 1 1 approval from thoce responsible for approval" ct cetera, cnd l L 2 of quote. l 3 Q Yes. 4 A HowcVer, my recollection is when I attempted to 1 1 5 find out the bacia for their conclusion that on occasion it 6 happened, they were not able to identify any apccific ! 7 inctance, but they became convinced, apparently, it had 1 8 happened, even if they couldn't tell when. I 9 Q You accepted that judgment? 10 A- Well, I didn't really draw a conclusion as to l
~
11 whether or not it happened. I accepted their judgment that
'12 we had to tell the organization that was verboten. That was 13 not to happen, and we did co. That was the important thing 14 in my mind, not whether or not it had occurred carlicr. Let 15 me just bc cure that'the record is clear that when I said I 16 agree with their judgment on it, I agreed with what I 17 undcratood to be their judgment as to the appropriatencco of l
18 cuch a practice or of such an interaction between the staff.. 19 That ic, that it chouldn't be done. Independent'of whether 20 or not anyone was over able to catablich it, it should bc -- 21 they believed and I agreed with their conclucion that it 22 ought to be cicar to the staff that that was not to be donc ; 23 on the TMI-2 project. l 24 Q But you didn't cay -- you didn't reject their i 1 n 25 finding that it had occurred? 1' 1' l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
30690.0 ,
-cox 208 !
1 A No. There was no -- nothing to be gained by 2 debating'whether or not it had occurred. We needed to 3 addrecc the implications and c1carly the project procococa 4 were vulnerable to that.if people didn't undcratand it wac. 5 unacceptabic. 6 Q Did you become awarc of a position by the NRC . 7 ctaff in June of 1983 or carlier that "becauce of all the 8 open incuca, the staff can draw no conclusion regarding 9 management integrity at thic time." 10 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Johnson, how is that poccibly 11 relevant to thic matter? 12 MR. JOHNSON: In that an objection? 4 13 MR. REYNOLDS: Ycc. 14 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. It's noted. 15 MR. REYNOLDS: The basic for the objection.ic that 16 this in apparently a document generated by the staff 17 subacquent to the decisionmaking point, which 10 relevant 18 here, which was March 23, 1983. l 19 MR. HICKEY: Can comebody identify the document? 20 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, 21 THE WITNESS: I think your question maybe needs to 22 be rectated. I think you might have had a mictake 23 inadvertently. 24 BY MR. JOHNSON: i 25 Q I am showing you a document dated June 10, 1983. t O I f ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
30690.0 209 p O cox 1 Letter from Herbert Dicckamp, D-i-c-c-k-a-m-p -- 2 A Herman Dicekamp. 3 Q. President of Cencral Public Utilitico Corporation 4 to Chairman Nunzio Palladino of the NRC. I 5 Were you awarc in 1983, in the time framo of thic 6 1ctter, June 10, 1983, that the staff of the NRC was -- had l l 7 rccervations with respect to making -- being able to find j 8 that the management integrity at TMI-1 was cufficient to . 9 allow it to take a position in favor of rectart of TMI-1?
]
10 A Let me, I guccc, anawcr the question by anying 11 that I was familiar with this letter and the time trame in 12 which it wac. written. I think, more than that, I ] 13 participated in the drafting of it. I'was familiar with the 14 -- if it's the one I-am thinking of, without having looked at-15 it completely, and I believe that I wac -- well,.I was 16 familiar with the NRC document that ic quoted there. I would 17 prefer to have the~NRC ctaff'c position be based upon a i 18 reading of that document, as opposed to my agrccing to your l 19 kind of paraphrasing of it or deceription of it at thic 20 time. ! 21 Q Did you cubacquently become awarc that the 22 Commiccion proposed -- in light of a number of ongoing 23 investigations dealing with the calcification, faloc ; 24 certification of the licence operator, the Parka allegations,
-25 and allegations of falac statements in responce to a notice i 1
i < l Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30690.0 l- -cox. :210 1 1 of violation in October, 1979 - :among other things -- that i 2 propoccd to the licenace of an alternative approach to . 3 decouple the restart decision by the NRC from the ongoing-I 4 investigations of those matters? 5 A If you have a document that doccribec that 6 approach or proposal by the NRC staff, I gucos I would like. 7 to see-it. I think it'c accurate to say that I followed the 8 TMI-1 proceedings very closely in 1983, but I don't have a 9 opecific recollection of what you are referring to. 10 MR. HICKEY: Maybe I heard wrong becaucc the hour 11 was late, but I undcratood you to say when the Commiccion-12 proposed. Did you mean the "ctaff or Commiccion"? l ,_
- 13 MR. JOHNSON: I meant to say "Commiccion."
, 14 BY MR. JOHNSON: 15 Q I will chow you a news relcace of CPU of November i 16 28, 1983, which is entitled " CPU presento ' alternative
~
17 approach' to resolve TMI rectart locucc." , 18 The first paragraph statcc "the CPU planc were 9 19 precented in responce to the Commiccion's notice of October 7 1 20 caying that it wac "propared to consider alternative 21 approachec" to recolution of open iccuco concerning l 22 management competence and integrity which could postponc the 23 timetable for an NRC decision on restart." 24 A Let me say that I had no inkling from the l 25 deposition notice that iccuco related to TMI-1 rectart would LO L AcEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(O Nationwide Coverage un-336-6M6 o -
']
h t L I L 30690.0-l ,cox 211 1 be included in the depocition. I have donc no preparation in-2 this area. I will try to be responsive, but I think I need ; L 3 to identify, to the extent you arc going to purouc thecc . L 4 incuco, I am not prepared. 5 Q I appreciate your telling me that. l 6 MR. REYNOLDS: What in the question, counsel?~ i 7 MR. JOHNSON: Wac he aware of that? 1 8 THE WITNESS: I was awarc of thic press rolcacc. 9 Some of what I heard you include in your introduction of the l 1 l 10 question cnr explanation of it, I don't think is in here. l 11 BY MR. JOHNSON: 1-12 Q In particular, thero io.a acetion of the presc
) 13 relcace which containa statemente by youracif. If you' turn l 14 the page, I am not cure which page it's.on, dcocribing your i 15 resignation ac president of CPU Nuclear?
I l 16 A' 'Yes, cir. l 17 Q May I have it back? 18 A Yec. 19 Q Were you asked by Dicekamp or other -- anyone clac 20 in the management structure of CPU Nuclear or CPU, to submit 21 your resignation ac president of CPU Nuclear? 22 A I think the correct answer to that is no, but 23 Mr. Dicekamp and Mr. Kuhno and myoclf discucacd what p 24 impedimenta existed to moving forward the procccc for restart L 25 of TMI unit 1. It was c1 car in Mr. Kuhnc' opinion, and I can LO ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
l l' l L L 130690.0 L cox 212 1 dicagree with him, that having me etcp down'ac the president l
'2 of CPU Nuclear offered an opportunity to have unit i rc' a tart 3 more expeditiously, than.if I continued in placc.
4 Q- What was the rencon for that? 5 A I think the one that in given in the press relcace 6 that you referred to. j 7 Q Did your role in the open'insuca that I referred 8 to earlier, was that part of it in termo of.the open incuco l 9 on management integrity? 10 A I don't think my role in those open incues was
-l 11 really what was relevant, it was the accusations that have 12 been made by'various onco about what role I say or may not 13 have played and.the fact that I was accociated with come of 14 those open iccuco, at leact. But the actual' facts accociated 15 with my role in them, I don't believe, was any kind of a 16 basic for making it neccccary.
17 Q Had Mr. Kuhno or othere that you had conferred 18 with -- was it mainly Mr. Kuhnc who you had had discuccionc 19 about thic matter with? 20 A No, it was Mr. Kuhno, Mr. Dicckamp and myocif. 21 Q Did they reach any conclusions with respect to 22 your rolco in those open incuco that I mentioned? 23 A Ac to the cubstance of my role? i 24 Q As to the cubstance -- as to the cubatantiality of 25 the allegations as they involved you? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage IO)-33MM6
l 1 1 I 30690.O cox- 213
.hw - '
3 1 A I belicyc -- :, 2 MR. HICKEY: What doce that mean, " substantiality j 3 of the allegations?" Arc you saying did they decide'it'wa.: 4 accurate or are you trying to say comething cloc? 5 BY MR. JOHNSON: 6 Q Had they reached conclusions with reocrd.to ;our y f m . ( 7 responsibilitico for any of the yeen incuco, the dealing wN R 8 cither the NOV ot' October of '79, the'falcifibation of ' f 9 certification of Mr.-Floyd or the' Parks allegatih o?' > r4 10 MR. REYNOLDS: I still think the quch,tibn,ic - rc r , i, ,- 11 vague, Mr- Johnson. Obviously str. Arnold was ip Alvez$ 4 n Sc',J,, j; c h 12 l Parka matter. Wat question are you'acking him? , y 13 BY MR. JOLNSON-p- j '- 14 Q Did they tell you ' that they believed thLt ypu f werc 15 -- strike that. 16 Did Mr. Kidnu or Mr. Dicekamp'tcl$ you that they 17 had reached a finding'that,you were n c responsible for the
- )-
18 -- or that the chargcc that implicated you were unfounded? J-19 A I am not curc how many negativen we fiad $ h Ethe.t! That's a comysund question, t o o'. 20 MR. REYNOLDS: i 21 BY MR. JOHNSON:
~ .;
22 Q Did cithe; Mr. Kuhnt on Mr :91cckamp tell ydg.'thuy .p
, : 'i 23 had reachcd conclusions that the allegatSonc, ac (ncy h
l 24 Tmplicated you, were unfouded? r l 25 A We had many discuccions over many toonths ac to the , i Ace-FEDERAL RneonTERs, INC, - l 202-34747tK) Nationwide Cov tape NN36-6646 c l L_ _ _ _ - - - - . - - _ . - _ _ . - - __
, . . + 'j
y _ _ . _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . _f,____- , l ir ? c JM t i 3 . l- u,( ii r ,, 1t' i N s 4 g V 4y
>1
( .n x, f fik ; f ..
- 9. P,r j ,
> 3 d6YO . 0 -
l' -cox [1 )214 b r.
- w.
9 1 variouc allegations that were being made dnd the factual
.s
~ n 2 basic for them. ,
- d. 3 it -
g ,t
, 3 To the bact oD; my reco11cetion,, or to t'tc beat of .
*f my[ understanding, really, both Mr.14uhnc t and . Mr. Dicckamp 5)' fift At ny performance with regard lo' all of t occ iccucc, F 3 ,
1> l 6 was not .3.hacio. f or cenetire and that to the iMtent the 7 allegations were that I was lacking in.maragement integrity, l I 8 .they were uncubotantiated. <
]
9 Q Did they over document.that finding to you?u ) 10 A I think you will find that Mr. Kuhnc' ctatement to g 11 the NRC Commiccion on the came date ac that procc~r'leauc c 12 statcc that.
'13, MR. HICKEY: And Mr. Dicckampb ;
n 14 T THE WITNESS: I think that Mr. Dicekamp wac scked-l 15 -- in the cource of the proceedings referred Os"au the
]
16 %ailgramproceedings,"wacabked:nquesti8iS[thatrelatcofio, 1 17 thic, and exprecacd a concluci'on atmtha,t t,,ime in hic l I 18 depocition that wac not critical of me.
- 't +
19 MR. LEWIS: I have to didrify, it dos the Keaton .q
^
20 depocition of the mailgram procccoing wherc Mr. Dicckamp was 21 deposed. 22 j ., SY MR. JOHNSON: 1 23 Q Is that correct? 24 A I amfcure that Mr. Lewic ic more familiar with the N~ .. 25 document than I am'at thic point. But if it's of importance L, j ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Co.~trage 800-336-6M6 m_ ______.___._.______..__m__ _ . _ _ _ . m. .
i I I' E k- [" -
?30690.0 cox 215 bcy ;
'"- 1 I a,n' cure we can identify the actual document.
2 Q Did Mr. Kuhno or Mr. Dicckamp cver tell you'in i 1 l 3 connection with the findings of the Office of'Invcatigation j 4 'roport of 9/1/83, that they had reached a conclusion that the 1 5 chargcc of mismanagement at TMI-2 were unfounded? '! 3F 6 MR. REYNOLDS: Did you follow that, Mr. Arnold?~ l ! 7 THE WITNESS: I think so, but I am not curc, ! 8! becauce, again, of the negatives involved. Sg, BY MR. JOHNSON:
- i. , 10 .Q I will repeat it. If I can do a better job, I' 11 will try. Did Mr. Kuhnc or Mr. Dicckamp, in November of o
%s., 12 1983, tell you.that they had reached -- cither one had l 13 reached a conclusion that the findings of the Office of .
l 14 Invcatigation, in ito 9/1/83 report, ucrc unfounded?
/i '
l 15 A I would like to see the specific findings and hear i 16 a reference in terms of the report. 17 Q I don't'have that. Arc 3ou familiar with that . I 18 report, you cited it earlier as a document you reicrred to. , i 19 A I am. But I also know from my fam8,liarity that I
'20' it's.a very difficult document to undcrotoad, and it's also- I s
i 21 my understanding that OI was not drawir.g conclusions that .) 22 they were developing a fact based reimarily with the OI i .. I 23 report. So I am not really cure that what you are 1 24 characterizing is findings c2 mismanagement. I think we are ,
~a. i I
\
25 - both handicapped by the 'say in which that report is l
- n. J Il] , /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
202 '47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i.. l _i
30690.0 cox 216 h.v 1 structured. 2 Q I.tried to bring-everything, but obviously I 3 didn't. 4 MR. HICKEY: I am not cure that report would bc 5 much help, ao the witncos has commented. It's its structure, 6 not it's absence, that is the major problem. 7 BY MR. JOHNSON: 8 Q Do you recall that 01 report finding that it 9 substantiated the allegations of failure to follow 10 procedurcs, administrative procedurcs, as Mr. Parks had' 11 alleged, and that'that finding, or those violations of 12 procedurcs, were indicative of. larger scale failure to follow 13 the technical specifications atrictly at TMI-2 witn respect 14 to the polar cranc refurbishment? 15 MR. REYNOLDS: That'c two quections, Mr. Johncon, 16 can we take them one at a time? 17 BY MR. JOHNSON: 18 Q Okay. Were you awarc that -- are you aware that 19 01 reached conclusion with respect to the validity of the 1 20 Parks allegations on the polar cranc procedurcs? j f 21 A I really am very reluctant to try to give j L 22 testimony on what that report says without reference to the l l-23 document. I am corry, I don't mean-to be uncooperative, but i L l l 24 I think that's such a difficult document to deal with because l I i 25 of the way that that is written, that I would want to be abic ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 t J
l 30690.-0 coX lO 1 to know that we are all talking about the came thing. 2 MR. HICKEY: What ic.the relevance of the question
. 3 to the report? I can got the report if that's cocential, but 4 what is the relevance of the question, about whether the .
I 5 witncos ic aware of what the language of the OI report is. ; 6 He cays he hac scen the OI report. The OI report says what 7 it says. What are you acking'him? I precume it's a 8 preliminary question to comconc cloc'c, but what in the real 9 qucation and why ic it relevant? 10 MR. JOHNSON: I will withdraw'the question. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 MR. JOHNSON: That's all I have. Thank you. 13 (Rocccc . ) 14 MR. HICKEY: Wo. arc ready to go back on the 15 record. 16 THE WITNESS: Mr. Johncon, there are two arcas in 17 which I would like to provido additional testimony, and they 18 basically relate to the questions you asked regarding locuca 19 raised relative to my integrity or my management integrity,
'20 an it was titled.
21 MR. JOHNSON: Yoc. 22 THE WITNESS: . My culpability I think was as a 23 result of problema that did exist. In amplification of what 24 my understanding was as to the judgments reached by Mr. Kuhno 25 and Mr. Dicckamp, I would like to cite a couple of Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l 30690.0 cox 218 1 documento. The first one in Mr. Dicekamp's OI interview of 1 t. 2 December 15, 1983. l 3 MR.~ JOHNSON: Could you-cay the'date again,. 4 plcacc. L 5 THE WITNESS: Yco, December 15, 1983. 6 'MR. JOHNSON: This is an OI statement that hc 7 gavc? 8 THE WITNESS: It's an OI intervicw and is 9 identified by Mr. Matakas, who was one of four NRC ctaff 10 individuals taking part in the interview of Mr. Dicekamp. 11 MR. JOHNSON: Could you give me the titic or the 12 caption of whatever it was. 13 THE WITNESS: I didn't, because it's not very 14 helpful. It says "In the Matter of Investigative Interview-16 of Herman M. Dicekamp." But on the first page it identifica 16 that thic interview in being conducted as part of the NRC's 17 investigation involving the integrity of CPU's internal 18 l investigation known as "Kcaton Tack Force Report, into the 19 March 28, 1979 Threc Mile Island Unit 2 Accident." I should - 20 correct that that is on page 3 of the document. 'I 21 On page 163 of the document, Mr. Dicckamp is asked 22 by Mr. Hayes. 23 MR. HICKEY: Bon Haycc. ; I 24 THE WITNESS: "Mr. Dicekamp, why did you remove l i 25 Mr. Arnold from his position?" The response is, "well, the j O i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 4 646
I 30690.0 cox 219 7, 1 company hac been under co much fire, you know, thic kind of ! 2 an cvont today in one manifcatation of that fire. Ac I cit j 3 here, I have a lot of confidence in Bob Arnold, ac a j 4 technical manager, as a percon, as a man of integrity. I ) 5 think that we found, between us, in discuccion with Bob and 6 myocif and Mr. Kuhno and othero, that we needed to do more 7 things that.would reflect change. We needed to improve the 1 8 abilRty to say the organization, a major fraction of the , 9 organization, is under new management. Bob, by virtue of 10 havir.g been out there, from the time of the accident forward, 11 neccccarily had to take an awful lot of choto in dealing with 12 the public. He became identified as Mr. CPU Nuclear. So it 13 was kind of mutual agreement that maybe we could improve our 14 total picture if Bob were to resign, and he did resign. In 15 fact, he volunteered to resign. C1carly, there was a 16 discuccion about theco problems, and what were the possible 17 colutions." Completion of answer. The next question goca to 18 ; a different cubject. 19 Conciatent with that, I think is a statement 20 provided by Mr. Kuhna to the Nuclear Regulatory Commincion, 21 at a public meeting on November 28, 1983. Do you want more 22 dcocription than that? 23 MR. JOHNSON: Yco, ploacc, just the caption, if 24 you would. 25 THE WITNESS: The title is " Presentation and ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043%&t6
-30690.0.
220 l I'}cox 1 Diccuccion Regarding Treatment of Management Incucc in TMI-1 l l 2 Rectart Procccdings." 3 MR. JOHNSON: May I just ack again, in this a 4 meeting.of the Commiccion? 1 5 THE WITNESS: Yco, cir, it's a public mccting of l 6 the commiccion down at their officco at 1717 H Street. 7 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 8 THE WITNESS: On page 17, following a dcccription 9 of the context, I think, conciatent with Mr. Dicckamp's 10 doccription that I read, Mr. Kuhno statcc, "againct that f 11 background, Mr. Arnold has resigned ac prcoident and a 12 director of CPU Nuclear Corporation." Dropping down about 13 coven linen it goco on, "within the CPU organization, we have 14 a high regard for the ability of Mr. Arnold and, in our view, 15 his integrity in unimpeachabic. Even though vu will miss the 3 16 technical and management contributions of Mr. Arnold, we have 17 cufficient depth within CPU Nuclear to operate our nuclear 18 facilitica cafcly. I certainly agree that management 19 integrity ic cocential to the safe operation of nuclear power ! I 20 plants. We arc anxious to resolve the open incuco identified { 21 by the Commincion'c ctaff just ac coon ac poccibic. Indeed, 22 fairncos to the individuals who are explicitly or implicitly ) 23 involved in thecc open incuco requirca that auch incues be i 24 resolved at the earlicct practical date." ) 1 25 That lcado mc into the accond incue, which is a 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrape 800-336 4 46
i I i 30690.0 cox. 221 l (~) i 1 resolution of open incuco on management integrity as they ] 2 portain to me. I 3 I might refresh your memory that the two j 4 referencco that I previously read from were both in 1983. My-5 recollection is that in March of 1985, there having been no 6 action by the NRC ctaff'to resolve the open iccucc with ; 7 regard to me, that I requested an opportunity from the 8 Commiccion to addrecc any-open lacuco that acted no a 9 constraint on my utilization of any activitics regulated by 10 the Commiccion. 11 In responce to that, they iccued a document which 12 counocl indicates to me I chould identify as CLI-85-19, dated ( 13 December 19, 1985,.and reported as 22 NRC 886 (1985). 14 That order was the Commiccion's responce to my 15 request and I think thc.cubstance of the order was that they 16 reviewed the four items they identified ac potentially acting i 17 ac a constraint on my utilization of NRC-rclated activitica. 18 Those four included allegations of haracaments of Parks. In 19 , the cource of the discuccion within the order, they 20 identified that thecc four incuco potentially raised 21 questions about the integrity of CPU Nuc1 car's management, 22 and specifically NUREC-0680, discuccion of thecc incucc, and 23 NUREC-0680'c identification of come of those incues with me L I 24 perconally. 25 With regard to three of the four iccuco, the l. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmenage 800-336-6646
l', i j 30690.0 t:ox 222
'l Commiccion determined in the three that they made a 2 determination about, included the iacuc relative to the 3 haracament chargcc of Parkc, that thoce three iacuco chould 4 not act as a constraint on my.cmployment in activitica 5 regulated by the Commiccion. They went on to state that, 6 therefore, the only remaining.iccue which may.bc viewed as a 7 constraint on Arnold's and Wallace's employment in a 8 notification requirement in CLI-85-2, which grew out'of the 9 December 5, 1979 response to the NOV. That was the October 10 25, 197,9 NOV that you referenced carlicr.
11 With regard to that incuc, they provided the 12 opportunity for further comment from the staff and partico to v 13 the NRC unit I rectart procccdings, and following the 14 completion of the comment period in document CLI-86-9 dated 15 May 15, 1986, and identified ar 23 NRC 465 (1986), page 466. 16 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 17 THE WITNESS: That "the Commiccion findo that 18 there is no reasonable basic to conclude that Arnold made n 19 knowing, willful or reck1cco material falac statement in the 20 NOV responce, and it doco not view Arnold's involvement in 21 the NOV ac requiring any constraint on his employment in the 22 regulated nuclear industry." I think it's worth noting that ! 23 that advisory opinion and notice of hearing was commented 25 upon by Administrative Law Judge Ivan W. Smith in ALJ-86-3 l i 25 dated August 19, 1986, and identified further as 24 NRC 321 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8m-336-6M6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .l
'30690.0 cox 223
)
1 (1986). 2 In'the background ocction of.that memorandum'and 3 order terminating the procccdingc, et cctcra, Judge Snith 4 states, "both Mr. Arnold and Mr. Wallace took exception to 5 the implication recpecting their reputation and integrity 6 contained in CLI-85-2, cach requested a hearing. 7 "on May 15, 1986, the Commission incued an 8 advicory opinion and-notice of hearing effectively 9 exculpating Mr. Arnold," ct cctcra. I think that thoac 10 determinations arc germanc to the arcas of questioning 11 carlier in the day. 12 MR. JOHNSON: That's it. Do you have anything 13 further? 14 MR. REYNOLDS: Do you have anything cloc to add, 15 Mr. Arnold? 16 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 17f MR. JOHNSON: I have nothing further. Thank you 18 very much. 19 (Whereupon, at 7:20 p.m., the deposition was I 20 concluded.) 21 1 22 l-23 ROBERT C. ARNOLD 1 24 5 4( ) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 6
1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC &-REPORTER 224 l
'I, David L. Hnffmmn , the- officer. before whom the foregoing deposition was taken,.do hereby. certify 1 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 a relative. or employee of any attorney or counsel .O. emg1oved sv the .gertiee herete, ner finencie11v or'otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
Y m n-Notary Public in an or the District of Colu V My Commission Expires 6/30/90 O r _
-m - - v v -_ _
._uv g 7 ~ g v. , , , ,
s .a .e . ..s . , . 6.;d. 6.6: u .A/ L.c MJ8 4 4 . d" E d k ATTACHMENT 17 oJ.m-sm w e.e. a. em:.u. ,
.- A,g ; ;, 4 , ,. . ;, , , , ;
a ,,s .:.e.. fa es : c., wx 4 6ua.
- - w. coa,pp,ii e
nn E c O h.g i hgT E R I O rn e. 2
,. ....,.m
. ._. n.v '
""".'ri :7 ::f r a, A AND INSULAR AFFAIR "E<ilfcL.: .
> .: . . ~
. ~ t.4: >, v. c.::::.. ..
ev Ans, us-, sm*4. 4 . u m, .- m sar., U.S. HDUSE OF P.!PRESENTATTV!a. pma., g ,m 1 2ffN'ad 4 " EEvia,, WASHWGTON, D.C. DE1! / 3e tr.. a == ,m. . ca
. u4 ucio. a .
H'a"ch 17o 'CB3 I 4.
, [@'A .
2 s. w "s a"s.*u"*m*om. --
- j artMr t. cat.
Oansat. sob . f
- w. a.* .
29 e. e===. *e-J &&Ae:L ** .. )i O spapeet coe6
- C 6.M I'El6 *'
2 m sarm4% ed. . . J treast.ww., *
- Ob l 2 L .sm40=4sr. w. W4. 7) e J D W cwt. fLt.
D f a.edt.9T. .s4.. 4.ss",, a m s-w
%A%/g l Mr. Robert Arnold 'T President . !
GPU Nuclear Corporation . Post Office Box 480 : Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 ', i 1 Dea.: Mr.. Arnold. .
]
I would appreciate your encouraging and facilitating
'O. cooperation of the following person's with the inquiry of the Cor:mittee on Interior and Insular Aff airs into the TMI-2 '
accident and clesnup: 4 gay guy - Te-e4.,. e ,n##' lANIyNY ~ f ' I
*br)
A' * * - ' C'*ai9 Faus /
.- f wss + 44,l, ( D.'If &l:s..e ) .
Robert Guano .,,,
- Lawrence P. Kine M 's~
~
#' #N '
Richard Parke sc.:' g o hn p e r :v .
~ #a f# n ,;
' . A 0 FN.l
)?f'
-: , : J' e 6fS ,,
n Jo s eph A. " Smith - On M *", . ?> . . .' ~ 4 p. 3 / ,N.4 . j .' ? A #f ~{ Joycs H. usnger - m-L..a c l. , j. A ye g. , ., p , , , . , , p l Thank you for your assistance. . Sincerely, .
,($A .
HORRIS K. UDALL
- Chairma.n
. t E
\ 6
( l 8
- i- - _ - - - O
,w -
~ ~ ~ ~
y} Q: =m - g. N)t ~ ^
, '. * $6J g G H N TEXT OF GAP NEWS RELEASE W S"f4-
~
MORE INFORMATION. , FOR AELEASE:'8:00 Pbf CONTACTt Billie Gards (202) 234-9352 Tom Devine (202) 667-7904 March 22, 1583 - l THREE-MILE ISLAND ENGINEER FILES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR COMPLAINT, CAP ANNOUNCES TMI-II INVESTIGATION Mr Richard Parks, a senior startup engineer for the Bechtel Corporation at the Three Mile Island (THI) Unit 77, today charged his manecemont -- a joint Bechtel and General Public Utilitien (GPU) team -- with reprisals and hkrassment after he and others rev'aled e massive quality assurance viola- . tions and significant safety concerns during the last two. , months about TMI cleanup and recovery operations. Through his counsel, the Government Accountability project (GAP), Parks filed, a Dopertment of Labor complaint charging that man 69mment ' harassment, intimidation a'nd actions to strip him o6 signiff = cant duties on-site are illegal under the Atomic Energy Act. As a result of Mr. Park's allegations, CAP has begun a prelim-Inary investigation into the TMI cleanup. '< Parks, an engineer with over a doten years of military and commercia3 nuclear power experience, detailed his charges in a 56-page affidavit. His primary concerne center around use of - the " polar crane" which will lif t and remove the reactor ves-nel head and other heavy equipment to a13cw cleanup of the Unit II reactor. His char 5es include -- ' O
-i.
O
- l. ,, .................... .
xg ox m .Ecc=:ER 495323- 3-833 9121AM e- 3 4 331664663580 &
- l
.k .
safety-related modifications to equipment and components without ful) prior. engineering and approvair ~ quality assurance violations through issuance of test and administrative procedures without prior review and approvalt ! j
- 1
. plans to use the polar crane _without conducting all nee __essary safety tests and conclusions appointment to a key oversight role of the individual reported on-site as the " mystery man" who shut off the safety injection pumps responsible for much of the dam-age at the originsi accidents
- lack of an integrated schedule between polar crane and other reactor vessel headlift activitiest ;
severe harasement and retaliation against those who internally challenged these violations, including in . vestigation and diamissal for utterly pretextual, - - previously-undefined offenses, and l NRC collusion with the misconduct. I
- /
4 setts4essasa a e,m3n.ccceten 4 r5:2s. s-ess 9:rann I
. Parks charged that these practices were inter 1tional and compromise . the internal system of ' checks and balances. .The ,
l abuses resu.lted from.a saanagement attempt to conduct eddi. - tional radiation mohitoring without f.alling behind schedule' - I after it was discovered in January that radiation levels under , the' reactor vessel are 30 times higher than previously esti-m.ted. InalettertodaytoNR$ChairmanNunzioPalladino', GAP Legal Director Thomas Device atated -- .
.We are . alarmed that Mr. Parks' experience mirrors that of so many other nuclea'r workers who have contacted us. He ']
reports that your agency has failed to aggressively pursue-his concerns. Instead, NRC representatives violated h'is
- confidentiality, flatly yafused to investigate his charges
'of, reprisals, and rejected his allegations on f1atly inaccurate grounds contradicted both by NRC notes and corporate qd records issued at the same time. Perhaps most disturbing, he reported a practice at TNI for NRC representatives to provide the licensee with advance drafts of Commission documents, and vice versa. Atter'a consonous was reached, the " official
- version would be -
released. [ r
-3a .
/
. . . , l ' .N .3 . . . . . . - . - . . -- - ~ ~ < ' - . " *~~~~~~" ~ ' '
Tho continuing allegations of NRC' ~ , utility collualon oro shattering public confidence in the commission. , . . M V Mr. Parke, and BAP, want; to cooperate with the NRC, As's. result, we are submitting his affidavit for your review. Unfortunately, to date Commission representatives have not responded to Mr. Parks in good faith. As a result, we have advised Mr. Parks not to communicate further with the . NRC until we con negotiate with the commission to ensure that objective, Independent technical and investigative staff will be assigned to his case. '
. Mr. Parks' affidavit also has been forwarded to congressman tidall's House' Interior Subcommittee on Energy and . the Environ-ment. Like many whistlebrowers, Parks first attempted to w0!k '
within the system -- both the corporate and NRC versiendt. In
- a prepared statement, he explained why he is " going publio' and legally defending his rights --
' If
...I am disillusioned that GPU and Sechtel managenknt,are taking such a sloppy approach toward restoring Mr ' Unit In light of the damage already done at W I, tharo is II.
no excuse to ganible on public health and safety in order to meet cost and production schedules. 8 M M e .nsamum. - a 9
.mw _ - ---
~
1 I am equally disillusioned that the NRC has knowingly pcovided informal guidance and formal approval fbr thle I misconduct. At the same time, the NRC has failed to work i in good faith with employees like myself who seek to up- f
)
hold the law. If the NRC and the nuclear industry are I i this careless at TMI, how much can we trust the programs at other plants? .
)
O
- l 5
e 9 l l e t 0
- e N '
J . s. D
7 f. & lWl / k)* %[ %/re ,
/
( y pg SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNER &Mip INCLUDING PRQFES$10NAL CORPORATIONS 2300 N STREET, N. W. l VIRGINIA OrriCE l TELEE/ CABLE WASHINGTON, D. C. 20037 iso: FARM CREDfT ORivg 89 2893 (SMAwL AW wSH) MCLEAN, VIRGINIA Salof f7os)7eo-7eoo TELEPMoNE (2o2) ee3-eios 874444 po,) ,,'3i'* }"I'" 3 3,,, IAP MAIL J. PATRICK HICKEY. P.C. (202)775-0338 July 15, 1987 George E. Johnson, Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9604 MNBB , Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear George:
Enclosed for filing with the deposition of Robert C. Arnold in the above matter are Mr. Arnold's certification and correc-tions to the transcript, and an affidavit dated July 13, 1987 clarifying one matter which came up in the deposition. Very truly yours,
\
J. Patrick Hickey Enclosures cc: Robert C. Arnold (w/ enclosures) N.) t
,~
O CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT I, Robert C. Arnold, have read the transcript of my deposition taken on April 24, 1987 and, with the exception of the corrections noted, find it to l be a true and accurate record of my testimony, i 4 >s Robert C. Arnold Sworn to and subscribed before me this /M vAday n (J
) of July, A.D. 1987.
$dvb knhea,.-
Notary PtibYic Bern Township, Berks County, PA My Commission Expires: 11/8/88 rm
/
\ ,
% l l
G ' r-
/ i
( f / July 6, 1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLER REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE In the Matter of )
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-320
) (Civil Penalty)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station ) License No. DPR-73 Unit No. 2) ) EA 84-137 CORRECTIONS TO TRANSCRIPT OF DEPOSITION OF ROBERT C. ARNOLD DATED APRIL 24, 1987 Transcript Reference Correction
/ \
{%,.]) Tr. 7, line 15 Delete comma. Tr. 8, line il Change " inherent" to "the impediment". Tr. 8, line 16 Capitalize initial letters in " nuclear corp". Tr. 9, line 15 Change " Metropolitan" to
" Metropolitan".
Tr. 10, line 10 Lower case initial letter in " Resources". Tr. 13, line 17 Change "believe" to
" believed."
Tr. 14, lines 16 and 17 No paragraph or sentence break between lines 16 and 17; delete period and lower case "W" in "We".
/' T t.)
l ;o ' '.
- co;. i Im\ Transcript Reference Correction k
Tr. 16, line 2 Change "Kunders" to the possessive ("Kunder's"). Tr. 16, lines 24 and 25 Change " recollection. Other testimony I've given," to " recollection of other testimony I've i given". Tr. 18, line 20 Change "is" to "was". Tr. 21, line 6 Delete the period after
" document" and insert a comma.
Tr.'21, line 21 Upper case "G" in " group" and insert a period after
" Group".
Tr. 21, lines 21-24 Change to read "When those interviews were public, such as Congressional hearings that were held, I think I was generally ['\ . familiar with what was 3 said." Tr. 22, line 23 Delete period and insert "in our" and delete "All". Tr. 23, line 2 Delete comma and insert a hyphen. Tr. 23, line 3 Delete the period and insert a comma and lower case the "B" in "But". Also delete the comma after "particularly" and insert a hyphen. Tr. 23, lines 6 and 7 Change the period to a comma; no paragraph between lines 6 and 7; lower case the "W" in "When". Tr. 24, line 2 Change the second " late" to "early". Tr. 24, line 21 Delete the comma after
<~'s " drafts" and insert "of". ! \ 'J
e [
,,~
j Transcript Reference Correction { sm- ' Tr. 25, line 1 Delete "it", delete the period, and lower case the "W" in "When". Tr. 25, line 12 Change "were" to "was". Tr. 25, line 16 Change " start" to "stop-ping". Tr. 25, line 18 Change "when" to "that". Tr. 31, line 6 Insert quotation marks around "in some way". Tr. 31, line 10 Change "their" to "there". Tr. 31, line 16 Change " report" to "sup-port" and insert "for" between "had" and "the". Tr. 32, line 3 Delete the period and insert a hyphen. Tr. 32, line 4 No paragraph, lower case
/'*; the "W" in "Well"; delete x / the period, lower case "R"
in "Really", delete the comma at the end of the line and insert a hyphen.
Tr. 33, line 4 Delete the period and insert a comma after
" area" and lower case the "a" in "And".
Tr. 33, line 14 Delete the comma. Tr. 38, line 15 Delete the period after
" example" and insert a comma; insert "was" and lower case the "0" in 3 "one". j Tr. 38, line 25 Insert a period after i
" removal". Change "that" j to "There". j Tr. 39, line 1 Delete the comma.
Tr. 39, line 2 Change " valuable" to rs "related". l (J s_ l
3 ,
,/ ~ 3 i\ j Transcript Reference Correction
/
Q ,/ Tr. 39, line 6 Insert a comma after "specifically". Tr. 40, line 5 Change " tactics" to
" tasks".
l Tr. 41, line 25 Change " contract" to
" contracts".
Tr. 42, line 6 Insert "for" after "sched-ule". Tr. 43, line 8 Change the bracket sign to a question mark. Tr. 46, line 16 Change " service" to
" services".
Tr. 46, line 17 Delete " list" and insert "the" after "Under". Tr. 46, line 18 Change " service" to
" services" and delete
" list".
, \_
i \ i' 'j Tr. 46, line 25 Delete the period, insert a hyphen after the first i
" analyses," and lower case the "f" in "For"; insert a hyphen after the second
" analyses".
Tr. 47, line 10 Change "if" to "of". Tr. 47, line 17 Change " published" to "public". Tr. 47, line 19 Change "went" to "was". Tr. 48, line 11 Change "now" to "no". Tr. 48, line 17 Delete "whereas,". Tr. 48, line 18 Delete "be". Tr. 49, line 10 Change "what" to "that". Tr. 49, line 17 Insert "how" after "about". f'"3j Tr. 49, line 22 Change " Damage" to
" Damaged" and delete "to".
(w_- m_.___ _ _ _ _ . _ _
w' c'
.m
( \ Transcript Reference Correction
\s -
Tr. 50, line 12 Change the question. mark to a period. Tr. 51, following line 10 Insert "(Document handed to Mr. Hickey.)". Tr. 51, line 12 Delete " but I" and , insert " including". Tr. 51, line 13 Delete'"didn't do". Tr. 51, line 14 Change "It is" to."Is it". Tr. 53, line 19 Change "an" to "and"; insert "that" before
" occurred";. insert a period after " occurred",
and' capitalize "n"'in "now". Tr. 53, line 20 change "ago" to "later"; change the period to a comma.
,/- m
(\/ ) Tr. 53, line 22 Change " review" to
" reviews".
Tr. 57, line 25 Capitalize the "s" in
" site". ,
Tr. 58, line 1 Capitalize the "o" in
" operation" and change
" Operation" to " Opera-tions"; capitalize the "s" in " site".
Tr. 58, line 2 Capitalize "o" in " opera- i tions". l l Tr. 58, line 7 Change "5059" to "50.59". j
}
Tr. 58, line 8 Capitalize the initial a letters in " site opera- ] l tions" l Tr. 59, line 10 Change "10-43" to "1043" i and change "10-47" to "1047". 4 1 yS Tr. 59, line 13 "apitalize the initial J letters in " site opera- l
;% -) tions".
'gi
(,rhl Transcript Reference Correction t / sv -- Tr. 59, line 14 Change "their" to "there". Tr. 59, line-25 Change "10-43" to "1043" and "10-47" to "1047". Tr. 60, line 13 Change "10-43" to "1043" and change "10-47" to "1047". Tr. 61, 1ine 1 Change "10-47" to "1047". Tr. 61, line 6 Change "10-47" to "1047". Tr. 64, lines 6 and 19 Change " Burn" to "Byrne". Tr. 65, line 19 Change "10-43" to "1043" and "10-47" to "1047". Tr. 66, line 13 Insert after the hyphen a new paragraph; insert "A" to begin the witness' answer; capitalize "1" in "let". D
-i j\ Tr. 66, line 23 Insert "the" before
" witness".
Tr. 71, line 6 Change " current" to !
" correct".
Tr. 72, line 13 Change " inconsistency" to
" inconsistent".
Tr. 74, line 8 Delete the comma after
" scope" and insert a period.
Tr. 75, line 18 Change " site operation" to
" Site Operations'".
Tr. 75, lines 24, 25 Change "the site opera-tion" to " Site Opera-tions". I Tr. 76, line 25 Change " organization" to j
" organizational" and delete "of".
Tr. 82, line 1 Change "SCR" to "SER". ( \ V
.4 * /\
[ ) Transcript Reference Correction
\ /
Tr. 82, line 4 Change "the morning" to "this morning's". Tr. 82, line 11 Change "to" to "from". Tr. 83, line 5 Change the second "in" to "and". Tr. 83, line 8 Change " side" to " site". Tr. 86, lines 13-14 Change " region 1" to
" Region I".
Tr. 86, line 20- Insert a hyphen between "that" and "I". Tr. 88, line 13 Change "wasn't" to "was". Tr. 89, line 6 No paragraph; change the comma after " existed" to a hyphen. Tr. 90, line 21 Delete "I".
/ \
k Tr. 92, lines 20-21 Dt/lete the commas. Tr. 93, lines 24-25 Delete the commas. Tr. 94, line 19 Change "the 8th and 9th" to read "in the 8th and 9th paragraphs." Tr. 96, line 5 Insert "the fact" after "think". Tr. 98, line 3 Change " Monday" to
" Friday".
Tr. 99, line 5 Insert "that" after "this". Tr. 101, line 2 Insert "it in" after "on"; change the comma to a period. Tr. 101,.line 4 Delete the second comma and insert "that".
/O l O
s. 3
/7 L( Transcript Reference Correction 1 ,
Tr. 101, line 6 Change " mineralized" to
" demineralized";~ delete "and" and insert- :
" initial"; insert "and" 1 after theLcomma.
Tr. 102, line 8 Change " readiness review, committee review," to
" Readiness Review Committee review".
Tr. 102, line 14 Change the word "believe" to " believed". s Tr. 103, lines 12 and 13 Change to read: . . . I 1 think. Relative to 1043, , I don't . . ." { Tr. 105, line 18 Change to read: . . . developed, they were not ! as . . . " ) i Tr. 105, lines 24 and 25 Change to read: . . . organization, and an j/~} updating of them had been Q ,) - - * \ Tr. 106, lines 18 and 19 Change to read: . . . my sense is that it was after > Tr. 109, line 3 Delete the word "What". i Tr. 112, line 15 Change to read: . . . forthcoming in which this would . . ." Tr. 113, line 22 Change to read: . . . she had notified no one of . Tr. 114, lines 15 and 16 Change to read: "No. I- i do not think I have given
. . . issue."
Tr. 114, lines 21 and 22 Change to read: . . . j based upon the documenta-tion, I would say I probably had it, in my office at least, by . . ." A ( x
,\ ? ,
.a
_ o_
< - , y
% L y -
-j r
,q . '
x
, ,. ,l Transcript Reference
( , Cdrrection < - f Tr. 115, line 7 Place a hyphen at the end -l i of the line. 1 . Tr.,115, line 21 Change the word "of" to I l "to". . - , l . 1 i Tr. .116,.line-8 Changs.thf-word "but" to N i "that't > Tr. 117, line 19 3
, ' Change'to read: ,
and am confiderstr at . . .
, ~,. .
Tr. 118,-line 22 ~oelete the peridd dcd
' insert a hyphen),
Tr. 119, line 3 '# belete tue second comm. l Tr. 122, line 7 , Change ."Hof fhaav' to ' .
"Hofmann". i
//
Tr. 124,, line 20 Start the se.d tence w! ':n ,,
~
quotation ma ks. c Tr. 124, line 21 Change to Nead: " N November of.1982/that
. Slone, Her'tihy 3nd f.eckert".
Tr. 124, line 22 Change te :ead: ". . . Sh6 ehaR NucleartGenera- " tina Filation . . a Tr. 125, line 3 Correct spel14.ng of " rein-forced". ,e Tr. 128, line 18 l'. Replace,second comma with
. a par.iad. ,,
Tr. 129, line 5 thange;"were" to "was". Tr. 130, line 13 Cha'nge'"and" to "for". Tr. 130, line 17 - Change "them" to "him"<- Tr. 133,, 3ine 1 Change to" read: '. l 1- 4 year'is '8J, although [ Tr. 133, line 9 '
, > ria g t.F the verd "took" to.'
1 uv ke". . ., I
's
'\
f L________.________ ' i'
~
,t e -. , . 1 y '
j 4 y } j : X t v . -
.i ,. . - ]p) Trans:ript Reference ' Correction \.,)
Tr. 1 57, line 1 Change to read "further in his investigation of ' i charges". Tr. 138, line.8- Change the word "them" to "him".. Tr. 138, line 10 Change the word " remove-ment" to " remove him". Tr. l'39, line 21 Change the period to a .
' colon. th Tr. 140, lines h and 8 Change to read: ". .
that. There is an w,.ful j I-I lot.. . . come to rind. ' K
^\ . ..
( Tr. 141, line 1 Change the' word "a" to
+ , "the".
Tr. 142, line 9 Change the word " parts" to "phrt". f^ (x Tr. 142, lirte '16, g' Change the word "have" to "had". , t . Tr. 143, line 11 Change the word "on" to
'for".
Tr. 144, line 11 Change the word "them" to
" b i m t' .
Tr. 144,i line 15 Chalnge the word "for" to "from". Tr. 147, lines 2 and 3 Change to read: '". . . I had was that he was of the opinion that he . . ." l Tr. 147, line 9 Change the' word "them" to "him". ! Tr. 147, line 10 Delete the comma following the^ word " things" and
'l change the word " ht# to "him".
1 Tr. 147, line 13 Change-the word "of" to "that". C (w
w f_ , a ,
<..+ su...
p-
/
f ] Transcript Reference Correction
'QJ -
'i Tr. 148, line 10' Add to the end of the line the words "seen the".
Tr. 148, line'21 Add a comma following the word " meeting". 1 Tr. 149, line'I , change the word "me" to t
"him".
Tr. 149, line 20i Change the number "17" to "1". 4-
,,, Tr. 150, line 3 Replace hyphen with a comma.
3 Tr. 152, lines 23 and 24 Change to read: . . .
. any such issues"; right?"
Tt. 153, line 9 Insert a comma following , the word "to". r Tr. 157., line 15 Change the word " warbling" to " wavering". (~ Tr. 158, line 17 Change to read: Either then . . .
" time.
( L Tr. 159, line 7 Change to read " . . . done and embargoed until 1 the next day, . . ." n-Tr. 160, line <14 Change the word "he" to
) "we'.
Tr. 161, lines 15 and 16 C:,ange to read: "Radiolo-gical and Environmental Controls Division, and the Administrative Division, Communications Division." Tr. 163, line 8 Change to read: . . . which I hold today, except to . . . Tr. l'63, line 10 ' Change the word " issue" to
" issues".
Tr. 164, line 24 Insert comma after "others". Tr. 165, line 14 Change the word " media" to
- ]n -
" meeting".
1 % 1
.a :
, .. ~ A -- fx Transcript Reference v) Correction Tr. 167, line 9 Delete the word "of" after the word "which". Tr. 171, lines 16 and 17 Change-to read: . . . he made, I believed then, and still think, they were way off-base." Tr. 172, line 14 Delete the comma after the' word "tell" and insert a comma after the word "itself". Tr. 173, line 25 Change'to read: . . . if the recap to". Tr. 178,111nes 6 and 7 Change to read: . . . Bechtel, GPUN_ people, at i least . . ." Tr. 178, line 18 Change to read: . . . he had raised."
/N Tr. 181, lines 12 and 13 Change to read: . . .
( was the basis for them." Tr. 181, line 22 Change " circumvent" to
" circumvented"; and delete the word "the".
Tr. 181, line 23 Change to read: "after the fact to justify QA violations." . 1 Tr. 182, line 7 Change to read: ". . . i absolutely incorrect. With regard to himself,". Tr. 183, line 6 Change the word " injury" to " entry". Tr. 183, line 11 Remove the quotation marks following the word
" reported,"
Tr. 183, lines 12-14 Change to read: "inte-grated schedule to coordi-nate between refurbishment of the polar crane, the
-s, sequence of events to l remove the reactor head, 1
i
e W. o: A-I Transcript' Reference Correction
\g .
s_ and subsequent activities to remove the fuel from the reactor core." Tr. 184, line 24 Insert the word "being" between the words "were" and " properly". Tr. 184, line 25 Change the words " follow-ing were" to "followed was". Tr. 185, line 1 Change the word "classifi-cation" to "classifica-tions". Tr. 185, line 10 Insert quotation marks before the word "the". Tr. 185, lines 11 and 12 Change to read: . . , specified that the NRC, QA/QC, Rad Engineering, the Manager of PO (which is Plant Operations)," f\ l,
) Tr. 185, line 19 Insert the word "the"
\/ between the words "in" and
" discussion".
Tr. 186, line 19 Change to read: . . .. system." It didn't . .. Tr. 186, line 23 Change to read: "standar-dizing procedure develop-ment, review, approval and implementation." Tr. 187, line 6 Add the word "so" after the word " thought". Tr. 187, line 7 Change to read: . . . time. Beginning about Tr. 187, line 9 Add quotation marks before the word "was". Tr. 187, line 12 Add quotation marks after the word " organizations." i Tr. 187, line 15 Insert the word "the"
, after the word "that".
L l
,m' q' y Transcript Reference Correction Q)
Tr. 187, line 19 Add the words "was wrong" to the end of the sentence. Tr. 187, line 20 Add quotation marks before the word "in". Tr. 187, line 21 Add quotation marks after the word " resolved". Tr. 189, line 22 Add the word "be" after the word "would". Tr. 189, line 23 Change to read: ". . . work with that would Tr. 189, line 24 Change to read: ". . . work with him normally." Tr. 190, line 21 Add a comma after the word
" straightforward 1y" and delete the comma after the
'5 word " room".
\~s' Tr. 190, line 22 Add a comma after the word "that".
Tr. 191, line 21 Change the word " matter" to " matters". Tr. 193, line 3 Change to read: ". . . pumps. Because . . ." Tr. 193, line 5 Change the word "his" to "its". Tr. 193, line 9 Change the word "that" to l "for whom". t Tr. 193, line 11 Delete the word "the". Tr. 193, line 20 Replace the comma with a hyphen. Tr. 193, line 21 Change to read: ". . . ; agree with the way I think ! Parks". Tr. 193, line 22 Insert the word "it" after
./ " characterizes" and delete k, the comma.
e e- [' ') - Transcript Reference Correction w) Tr. 193, line 23 Replace the period with a hyphen. Tr. 195, line 2 Delete the word "the" preceding " George". Tr. 196, line 12 Insert a comma after the word "least". Tr. 197, line 25 Delete the word "and," Tr. 199, line 17 Change the word "he" to "they". Tr. 200, line 15 Change the word " function" to " functioned". Tr. 202, line 14 Change to read: "any sense as anything I recall I heard Kanga say." Tr. 202, line 18 Change to read: . . . at all in the . . . Tr. 202, line 19 Change to read: (A ') about. Obviously, subse-quently, in the . . . Tr. 205, line 25 Change the word "alloca-tion" to " allegation". Tr. 209, line 11 Change the word "and" to "in". Tr. 211, line 25 Change "can" to "cannot". Tr. 214, line 20 Change the word "of" to "not". Tr. 215, line 21 Add a comma after the word
" conclusions".
Tr. 215, line 22 Change the word " based" to
" base".
Tr. 217, line 8 Change "someone else's" to "something else". Tr. 217, line 20 Replace the period with a rN hyphen.
!.d
r: , J l Transcript Reference Correction Tr. 217, line 22 Change to read: "what my capability, I think, was as a . . ." l Tr. 221e lines 9 and 17 Change the word "of" to "for". Tr. 221, line 22 Delete the comma. Tr. 222, line 15 Change the period to a ~ comma. j 1 Tr. 222, line 17 Change to read: "found that "the commission i i
=
v
p d t
- AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT C. ARNOLD Robert C. Arnold, b'eing duly sworn, deposes and says:
- 1. I wish to provide additional information concerning y learning of Mr. Chwastyk's involvement with Quiltec, an issue discussed in w testimony given at w April 24, 1987 deposition (Tr. 128-140). On the basis of a further review of documents and further effort to recall the circumstances, I believe the following is the correct sequence of events.
- 2. Mr. Chwastyk was named as Acting Site Operations Director in place of Mr. King on February 25, 1983. On March 21, 1983, Mr. Kanga named Mr. Barton to replace Mr. Chwastyk as Acting Site Operations Director. At that time, the only information I had concerning Mr. Chwastyk's involvement with Quiltec was the information which Mr. King had given me on March 9, and that which Mr. Chwastyk provided in y conversation with him on March 11, as set out in g g memorandum to the file of March 21,1983 (Stier Report tab 8). I do not believe this information was a factor in the March 21 decision to replace Mr. Chwastyk.
- 3. With regard to the development of additional information concerning Mr. Chwastyk's involvement with Quiltec, I believe the following to be the chronology: Mr. Aulick interviewed Mr. Chwastyk as part of the Stier investigation on or about May 9,1983 (the notes of that interview were the basis for a question to me in y deposition of April 24,1987 (Tr.132), but I was not asked to review them at that time). I have reviewed the 22 pages of notes by Mr. Aulick dated May 9 of his interview with Mr. Chwastyk. I do not believe that that interview resulted in y having significant additional knowledge of Mr. Chwastyk's involvement with Quiltec from what I understood to be the situation as of March 1983. On June 20, 1983, as part of the Stier l 0 i V
a t
.' f,m
- \
\ -
) investigation into King's allegations of harassment, Mr. Aulick interviewed Mr. Ken Lionarons who indicated that Mr. Chwastyk had participated in a trip on behalf of Quiltec to the Beaver Valley Nuclear Station. I believe that I was informed of that information and directed that the matter of Mr. Chwastyk's involvement with Quiltec be pursued further. The information subsequently developed led to the June 30, 1983 interview of Mr. Chwastyk by Messrs. Kanga, Barton and Babczak. The extent of Mr. Chwastyk's involvement with Quiltec and the adequacy of his response to questions relating to that issue during earlier interviews continued to be pursued. I had determined by July 19 that Mr. Chwastyk should be suspended from his duties until the matter was resolved. However, on that date and before Mr. Chwastyk was notified of my decision, Mr. Chwastyk submitted his resignation, which proposed that his last day at work would be August 5. Mr. Chwastyk was relieved of this duties
(,) on July 19 and remained in a suspended with pay status until August 5, when his resignation became effective.
- 4. My statement in my Octcber 11, 1984 deposition in the King proceeding ;
(and quoted at Tr.132 of my April 24, 1987 deposition in this proceeding) that "Mr. Chwastyk resigned in the first week or so of June," and my assumption that the information regarding Mr. Chwastyk's Beaver Valley trip came to light in May, I now believe was mistaken with regard to the chronology of the events. This statement dated July 13, 1987 sets forth the facts to the best of my knowledge and belief. g 7 h Robert C. Afnold Subscribed and sworn to before me this /8 I ay d of July,1987.
,a , ,. -
(' hch/w v <a. A r \--
, Notary Public l MARY LOU:SE DRESLiu Notary Pub le cf New m,4 My Commiman Expires May 20,1990
-}}