ML20238C789
| ML20238C789 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1987 |
| From: | Parks R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238C505 | List:
|
| References | |
| CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8712310216 | |
| Download: ML20238C789 (500) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ., 551 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e 3 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 4 --- ---
CT ED C0?Y 5 IN THE MATTER OF ) L 6 ) 7 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ) DOCKET NO. 50-320 I 8 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR ) CIVIL PENALTY 9 STATION NO. 2 ) LICENSE NO. DPR-73 10 ) EA 84-137 11 -------------------------------- 12 VOLUME IV, PAGES 551 through 818, Inclusive 13 e-14 - t' 15 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE, PARKS 16 August 18, 1987 17 e 18 19 REPORTED BY 20 REBECCA L. LUCE, CSR NO. 1778 21 22 - ' 23 24' TOOKER & ANTZ
. 25 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 26 131 STEUART STREET, SUITE 201 27 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 28 415/392-0650 8712310216 871209 PDR ADOCK05000ggO FREDERIC R. TOOKER KEMBLE ANTZ
see pai -um ammmF P' 552 1 I N D E X f ? f 2 ll 3 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS 4
, 5 6 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE 7
8 MR. HICKEY 555 9 10 11 DEPOSITION EXHIBITS: 12 13 58 USNRC Report of Interview dated 9-1-83 795 14
- j. ([' , , 15 59 Prepared Statement of Richard D. Parks 809 16 before the Energy and Environment
~
17 Subcommittee of the House Interior and . 18 Insular Affairs Committee, 4-26-83 19 20 ---o00--- 21 1 22 23 24 25 26 e l
, 27 (i, 28 i
)
TOOKER & AUTZ 131 Steuart Street Fan Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- ~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ -
553 J l 1 1 BE'IT REMEMBERED that, pursuan; to Stipulation' ! 2 among the respective parties, and on Tuesday, August 18, c
-{
,3
( 1987, commencing . at the hour of 9:05 o' clock a.m. , at the
;i 4 Law of fices of Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges,' Two
- l. ',
L- 5-- Embarcadero Center, 18th' Floor Street, San Francisco, ; l L 6 California,;before me, REBECCA L.' LUCE, a Notary Public ,
. 1 7 in and for the State of-California, personally appeared 8 RICHARD DALE PARKS, i
, 9 . called as a4 witness by the GPU Nuclear Corporation, and 10 the said witness, being by me first duly affirmed, war 11 thereupon examined'and testified further as hereinafter i 12 set forth. I 13 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 14' Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop 9604,
( 15 Washington, D.C., 20555, . represented by George E. - l l 16 Johnson, Esquire, and Gregory A3an Berry, Esquire, 'l 17 - appeared as counsel on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory : 18 Commission. - , 19 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, 2300 N i 20' Street, N.W., Washingt'on, D.C. 20037, repr esented by J. 21 Patrick Hickey, Esquire, and David R. Lewis, Esquire 22 . appeared as counsel on behalf of GPU Nuc3 ear Corporation. l 23 HOBERG , FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN, 703 ; i 24 Market Street, 18th Floor, San Francisco, California ; i
, 25 94103, represented by Barbara A. Zuras, Esquire, appeared i
. 26 as counsel on behalf of the Deponent. ;
27 THELEN, MARRIN., JOHNSON & BRIDGES, Two > k> 28' Embarcadero Center, 21st Floor, San Francisco, California 3 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
554 1 94111, represe;rced by Kennedy P. Richardson, Esquire,
,.-' 2 appeared as c.citt.ael on behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation.
3 --o00-- , 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
- 20 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
v . . _ _ . - - - . - - _ . - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - 555 ?' l- RICHARD DALE PARKS 2 having _ been first duly af firmed, testified further as
.. {'
, 3 follows:
4, EXAMINATION BY MR. HICKEY t 7 5 MR. HICKEY: Q. Good morning, Mr. Parks. 6 A. Morning. 7 Q. We're here to reconvene the deposition that we 8 began about a month ago in Newport Beach. And hopefully 9 conclude it tomorrow. 10 Just for the record, I know you are aware that 11 I'm Pat Hickey and counsel for GPU Nuclear. At my left 12- is Mr. David Lewis, another attorney from my firm. y 13 Other counsel at the' table I guess can identify 14 themselves if they have not already.
\.
15 MR. JOHNSON: ,I'm George E. Johnson with the 16 Nuclear- Regulatory Commission, General Counsel's of fice. 17 MS. EURAS: I'm Barbara Zurat, Counsel for Mr. l 18 Parks. 19 MR. HICKEY: Q. I have a couple of matters
, 20 initially that are in the nature of wrap-ups, so I want 21 to try to do those quickly and then move on.
22 You've previously testified, I know, that your 23 job assignment was changed from the startup and test i 24 organization to the site operations department in about 25 September of 1982. Do you remember that? 26 A. I seem to recall that, yes. 27 Q. Okay. Before your transf er to site operations, (/ 28- did you have any responsibilities specifically relating ( TOCKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650.' L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a
556' 1 to the polar crane? r 2 A. At the moment, I can't recall if I didlor not.
\
3- Q. Okay. When you were assigned to site 4- operations, do you know whether Mr. King had requested 5- you be assigned there specifically? 6 A. You'll have to clarify what you mean by
- 7. assigned where.
8 Q. Assigned to site operations in September of '82. 9 A. I believe, or at least if my memory serves me 10 correctly at the moment, that . Larry King requested that I 11 be assigned to that department, yes. 12 Q. Did> you have a. discussion with Mr. King about
- 13. you moving to' the site operations department before you.
14 'went? i ( ~15' A. -I can't recall at this' moment if I had one 16 before or after or what. I seem to recall that at the 17 time, it was a management objective to totally integrate 18 the organization and place Bechtel personnel in all' 19 departments on the job site. 20 And I believe that's how I came to be assigned 21 to Larry King's department. 22 Q. And you went there -- I believe you described 23 your job position, you went there as an operations 24 engineer? Was that your position in site operations? 25 A. Y es , si r , it was. 26 Q. And you reported directly to Mr. King? 27 A. Directly to Mr. Kingt in a kind of A lateral
\:.- 28 reporting post to Joe Chwastyk.
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 g - - - - . . . _ _ . ,
,.-.----.-------m------ - - -.;
L________..._ __ __ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --
557 i 1 Q. Was that true from the time you first went in (- 2 in '82 that you reported laterally to Mr. Chwastyk? 3 A. At this moment in time I believe it was true,
~
4 yeah. 5 Q. I'm just trying to get the basics of the 6 situation. Normally during the fall of '82 after you 7 transf erred, who did you get your work assignment from, 8 Mr. Chwastyk or Mr. King or somebody else? 9 A. Technically speaking, it would have been from 10 Larry King. But I could have also received work 11 assignments from Joe Chwastyk. It was within his 12 cognizance to request that I do certain things. 13 Q. And in the site operations department -- and 14 let me put a time limit on it. From the time you 15 ( transf erred there until February 18th,1983 -- which you 16 may recall is the date on which a memorandum was issued 17 which had some impact on your responsibilities. 18 During that time period, did you have any 19 specific responsibilities related to the polar crane? 20 A. Yes and no. 21 Q. Why don't you explain what you mean by that. 22 A. Well, the specific responsibilities would be 23 what I'd have to take exception with. It was more of a 24 general responsibilities that fell within the realm of 25 the position of operations engineer reviewing the work 26 packages, that type of thing. 27 Specifically assigned? I couldn't at this (_/ 28 point in time say I was specifically assigned other than 1 TOOKBR & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 1 415/392-0650
.. ,. . - .. m. .
j
558
- l. by specifically being assigned to represent site
(~ 2- operations in the. head lift task force of which inherently
.s 3 within that group would have com_e the. polar crane and all
- 4. the refurbishment of it.
5 Q. Okay. You mentioned two dif f erent things. Let 6 'me see'if-I can explore them_just briefly. 7 You said you did have the: task in site 8 operations of reviewing work packages as an operations 9 engineer. Are you indicating that some of those work
., 10 packages related to work on the polar crane?
. 11. A. I can't at-this point in time recall what the 12 work packages were on or what they were not on. But work 13 packages was a generalization of.'various paperwork tha..
14 'was ongoing at the job site at the time. Such things as
.( 15 ECM's.
16 -Q.- Such things as? 17 A. ECM's, as in electro Charlie Mary. 18 Q. Or engineering change -- 19 A. Modifications. 20 Q. -- modifications? 21 A. That type of thing. 22 Q. So when you're saying work packages, you're 23 using the term loosely, if I can so characterize it, to l 24 mean tasks or paperwork related to jobs, not some 25 specific form of paper? 26 A. That's correct. t-27' O. Okay. And you don't remember what those work l k.L 28 packages related to or specifically whether any related j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l L ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - - - ]
559 l 1 1 to polar crane work? ' Not any more I couldn' t, no.
~
r 2 A. 3 Q. Were these work packages that were being 4 generated with inside work operations? 5 A. Some were within, some would have been 6 generated external to our department. 7 Q. Okay. And then you said you were assigned to 8 the head lif t task force to represent site operations and 9 I think you indicated that the head lif t task force had 10 some involvement with the polar crane. Is that right? 11 A. Well, I don't think that would have been -- I 12 don't think it's a proper definition. The head lift task 13 force was oriented specifically for removing the reactive 14 vess el h er.d . As a mil'estone objective to allow that to ( 15 happen, we had to refurbish and place back into operation 16 the polar crane. 17 So it was not a hand-in-hand involvement 18 between the two task forces. Rather, one depended upon 19 the other to be accomplished. 20 Q. Are you saying that the head lift task force 21 did not have direct responsibility for refurbishing the 22 polar crane? 23 A. That's what I seem to recall at this moment. 24 Q. All right. But you were, if I understood you 25 correctly, assigned to represent site operations on the 26 head lift task force? 27 A. That's what I seem to recall at this moment, ( 28 yes. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
--___n.,
_ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ = _ _ . ._____- - _ _ _ _ _ _ - j 1560- H l l- Q. By Mr. King -- l
' q^ 2 A. Y es .
3 Q. -- were you assigned? Was there some kind of 4- formal documentation of that? 5- A. There may have been. At this point in time I 6 couldn't tell you if there was or not. 7- Q. And your duties then were to attend on behalf 8 of site operations head lift task force meetings?
)
9 A. Well, there were several people who attended on 1 I 10 . behalf of site operations. A gentleman, Dick seiglitz, I l 11 believe, to represent site maintenance or plant . 12 maintenance, and myself or Bubba Marshall. 13 There may have been somebody else to go in and 14 represent the operational aspects of the plant, represent t- 15 operational considerations for what they were wanting to 16 do. 17 Q. Was the head lif t task force in the nature of a 18 coordinating body to make sure that a lot of different 19 pieces came together to get to the goal of being able to 20 lift-the reactor vessel head? 21 A. It was a consortium of minds and talents and
, 22 representatives of various departments with one main goal 23 in mind, yes.
24 Q. And I'm trying to understand whether the head l l' 25 lift task force was actually fixing things or overseeing the fixing of things or was more involved with scheduling. 26 27 A. I think the more appropriate definition would
/
t 28 be that they caused to occur rather than forcing the {. l 1 F TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street sa:t Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1 _ _ _ - _ - _ l
'561
- 1. actions themselves.
, 2. Q. Okay. They would' direct other groups on the 3 site to perform actions or encourage them to perform 4 actions --
5 A. Define what needed to be done, right. 6 Q. . How did you or Mr. Marshall decide who would go 7 to the head lift task force meeting? Did you have some 8 . division of work where you went on Tuesday and he went on 9 Thursdays or you went when some subject matter was up? 10 Q. Usually Bubba and I try to go together. And if 11 not, then'whoever wasn't busy would'go. Or whoever:was 12 there and available. 13 Q.. How of ten did the task force meet, do you know? 14 Roughly?
, 15 A. I couldn't really tell you any more. l i
16 Q. Now, anything else that you can recall in this 17 period during your'first months at site operations up to 18 February 18th that were responsibilities of yours related 1 19 l to the polar crane? 4 20 A. The only thing I could suggest, sir, would be ,
. 21 to ref er you to the previous testimony that I gave in my 22 depositions for the Bechtel lawsuit. My memory at that 23 point in time was a lot more clear with respect to these 24 matters than it is now.
25 I may have identified some responsibilities
, 26 there that I can no longer recall at this moment.
27 Q. Okay. But as of now, you don't remember s 28 anything else? TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 u n _ _ _ ____ _________u __ ___ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ .- _
r____ __ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ 562 1 A. No, sir, I do not. Not at this moment.
, 2 Q. In that same time frame, were you asked to l 3 review the polar crane saf ety evaluation report prior to i
4 February 187 i
. 5 A. Once again, sir, I couldn't tell you at this 6 point in time if I was asked to review it or if I 7 reviewed it or not.
8 Q. The load test safety evaluation report? 9 A. I really couldn't tell you, Mr. Hickey -- 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. -- whether I reviewed it or not. 12 Q. Were your duties in reviewing work packages in 13 this time dif f erent f rom Mr. Marshall's duties or were , l 14 they ones that you shared? ( 15 A. They were no dif f erent .from Bubba's. Not that 16 I can recall at this moment. 17 Q. Were there other operations engineers in site , 18 operations besides you and Mr. Marshall that had roughly 19 the same duties? 20 A. Well, there was one other guy who -- if I can 21 think for a moment I might can recall his name. Adam. I 22 can remember his first name. 23 Q. Adam? First name was Adam? 24 A. Righ t . I believe so. 25 Q. Adam Miller? 26 A. Adam was also -- Adam Miller, right. Adam was 2 designated as site operations engineer, but he was more ( 28 oriented to the day-to-day operations of the plant on TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
q 563
. 1 shift than what Bubba a'nd I were since neither Bubba or I 2 held a shift position.
3 So I guess you 5:ould almost have to say, if you 4 draw a distinct division between the three of us, Bubba 5 and I were more for the site operations and Adam was more 6 for the plant operations side. 7 Q. How about Ron Warren? You knew Mr. Warren, 8 didn't you ? 9 A. Yes, I Anew Mr. Warren. 10 Q. How did his position in site operations dif f er 11 from you and Mr. Marshall's? 12 A. Well, Ron was assigned to plant engineering. 13 And therefore, his duties were dif f erent. I mean, th ey 14 were more towards the design aspects of the plant rather ( 15 than the operational aspects of the plant. 16 Q. All right. We know from prior testimony, Mr. 17 Parks, that on February 17, you reviewed end commented on 18 the polar crane load test procedure, prepared written 19 comments on February 17th. You recall that event? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. The assignment to review that procedure I 22 assume was given to you by Larry King? 23 ' A. No. Actually, if memory serves me correctly at 24 this moment, Mike Radbill walked in the office with the 25 procedure in hand, kind of flustered, with the statement 26 that he had to get this reviewed right away 'cause NRC 27 was waiting to bless it. Had been on board with the
's
. 28 whole process and was happy with it.
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ ~ ' ~ _T_T~lT _--_ - _ x-_---_-- -_?2_~~;T ~~~ _~~ ~ ~~ ~_~_T_ ~ _~ T ~~~ T_XT-~ L L~ ~ ~
y . _._. w ._._ ,
'q l4 '
964 '; p i 1 So since it was'---if I recall correctly, Bubba 2 (~ .and I were the only ones in the office and I told Mike I 3- would review it. 4 I reviewed it and af ter I had completed my 5 . review, I knew that if I turned in the comments, it was
.' 6 gonna create a lot of hate and discontent. So I took it 7 to Larry King. .
- 8. Q. Took it, meaning --
9 A. The procedure and my comments and brief ed him 4 10 on what my review had found. And asked him if he wanted 11 me to issue the comments. And he thought we'd issue them,- 12 so I did. 13 Q. -You said you knew when you finished it if you i 14 turned. in your comments it would create a lot of. hate and (I? 15 what? 16 A. Discontent.. 17 Q. Discontent. What made you think that, Mr. i 18 Parks? IS A. Well, because they had violated almost every 20 administrative procedure we had on the job site. Th ey 21 had been people who had not only prepared that procedure,
', 22 but performed the testing up to that point in time.
23 Q. The procedural violations that you documented
'24 in your February 17th comments?
e ! 25 A. Y es . 26 Q. And did Mr. King indicate that he had any 27 problems with you filing your comments? l 6 [ K- 28 A. No. Not at all. ; ! I l 3
. TOOKER &-ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,4
,- 565
.n "i .
1,
. Q. Did Mr. Marshall participate with you in this. 'i 2 r evi ew?
'{*, - .
13- A. I don't think Bubba actuallyfparticipated in l 4 the review, but.I think I may have discussed ~some of the 5 comments'that I had on it with Bubba. But I couldn't' li really tell you at this moment in time if I did-or not. f 7' I'do seem to' recall pulling out the [ 8 administrative procedures manual and-reviewing the 9 problems that I had.found with Larry King to show him in 10 black and white what procedure points had been violated. 11 Larry was not the type.of guy to jump and draw 12 heat without making sure he had ice to' throw on the fire. l l 13 Q. Your expression indicates that Mr. King wanted 14 to be sure he agreed with your comments?
. .r ( ' 15. A. .That's correct.
16 Q. But in terms of work assignments, I understand 17 you to be testifying, Mr. Parks, that basically.you 18 volunteered or took upon yourself to make these comments
'19. on the polar crane load test procedure and then went to l B
20- Mr. King and showed him that you had done 'it and 21 basically got his approval of your doing it? -
,l 22 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. I'm going to object to 23 the question because I think it misstates his previous 24 testimony, specifically with respect to that he 25 volunteered to do the assignment, I think to the extent l
26 that he did it gratuitously versus it was an assignment 1 27 that was brought to his particular office at that point (C) 28 in time.
-{.
TOOKER.6 ANTZ 131 Steuart Street- San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
566 l 1 But if Mr. Parks understands the question, then ! f 2 he can respond to it. Or if he needs to have it 3 clarified, he can respond to it. Or request that it be 4 clarified. 5 THE WITNESS: Well, actually, I think, you know,
. 6 an edifying comment might -- may be in order. j 7 How does this thing work? Does it screw off?
8 MR. HICKEY: Maybe we might take a minute while 9 the witness refills his coffee cup. 10 THE WITNESS: It had been an established 11 practice within the organization that procedures relevant
, 12 to the testing program on the job site would be reviewed 13 primarily by me or by Bubba Marshall, mainly because 14 between the two of us, we had the most experience with g ., 15 the testing program for people in our department.
16 Should have brought my 12-year-old. He could 17 have done it. 18 So that was generally the ap'proach that Bubba 1 19 and I took. j 20 MR. HICKEY: O. All right. But Mr. Radbill 21 didn't assign the procedure to you, he didn't have the l 22 authority to assign the procedure to you to review, did l
, 23 he?
24 A. That's correct. 1 25 Q. And when I said volunteer, I meant that as 26 between you and Mr. Marshall, you decided that you would 27 undertake to review this, you had not been assigned by (- 28 either Mr. King or Mr. Radbill to do that review?
'I TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
567 1 A. That's correct. (, 2 Q. But then you told Mr. King af terwards that yoc
's
, 3 had done it and got his approval of your comments, right?
4 A. Correct. 5 Q. And when you met with Mr. King to discuss your 6 comments, you had made a comment about the no load test 7 in your February lith comments. And did you discuss that 8 comment with Mr. King? 9 A. At this point in time, Mr. Hickey, I couldn't 10 tell you the particulars of our conversation, only the 11 generalities of our conversation. 12 Q. Okay. And the generalities don't go so far as 13 to help you remember whether you discussed that 14 particular test with him? ( 15 A. I can recall discussing the comments that I had 16 on the procedure I had reviewed. 17 Q. Did you take Mr. King through one by one each 18 of your comments? 19 A. : really couldn't tell you if we went one by 20 one or if we concentrated on the whole thing as an 21 overvi ew. i i 22 Q. On February 24, Mr. King named you and Mr. 23 Marshall as the site operations representatives on the 24 test working group. You remember that, Mr. Parks? l 25 A. I remember that act occurring, but whether it i 26 was on February 24th or not, I couldn't really tell you. 27 Q. Okay. Well, my question can proceed without
. k. , 28 that specific date.'
l l TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 d + % _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _-
-a _ 2 ._:: = w a __.. a w w - _ _. - - .
568 L 1 After you were named site operations (~~ 2 representative on the test working group, did you have 3 any particular responsibilities because of that 4 assignment related to the polar crane? 5 A. I think you'll have to expand your question. I 6 don't think I fully understand, you know, what you're 7 getting at. 8 Q. Well, Mr. King issued a memorandum on some date 9 around February 24 that designated you as -- you and Mr. 10 Marshall as the site operations representatives to the 11 test workinc group. You recall that happening, right? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. And my question is what did you understand that 14 meant your responsibilities were? And specifically did ( 15 that give you any obligations with regard to the polar ; 16 crane? 17 A. Well, mor e if -- what I can recall at this 18 moment, it tasked me with certain responsibilities to 19 satisfy the requir,ements of the test work' group and the
, 20 test manual relative to the various representatives in 21 the test work group.
22 So I guess the upshot of what I'm trying to say 23 is yes, it provide me with certain responsibilities.
. 24 Q. Related to the polet crane?
25 A. Related to anything that f ell under the ! l 26 jurisdiction of the test work group or the test manual. 27 Q. Well, when you got the assignment, did you (/. 28 believe that you had any assignments related to the polar j l
E TOOKER & ANTz 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
_ _ _ _ _ __I
569 - e
, 3 1 crane because of that assignment? -!
. 2 A. Y es .
(c, 3 Q. What responsibilities did you think you had? 4 A. To fulfill all the obligations of the site 5 operations test work group member relevant to the polar 6 crane review and testing. 7 Q. And what did you think those were? 8 A. Make sure it was done adequately, saf ely and to 9 the letter of the law. 10 Q. Was there someplace where you could find 11 written down what your responsibilities were as the site j i I 12 ops representative to the test working group for the I 13 polar crane? t 14 A. If memory serves me correctly at this point in i j i l , 15 time, I believe those responsibilities would have been ! I i' 16 delineated within AP 1047, the test manual. But that may 17 d not be the right place. j l 18 Q. I'll show you this in a minute, Mr. Parks. But j 19 it's Administrative Procedure 1047 which I know you're 20
- f amiliar with 'cause we've discussed it before. It has a 21 section in it -- and you can look at it -- that says --
22 section 2.4, responsibilities to TWG, test working group, 23 of individual members. And then it lists the different 24 members of TWG. 25 The one that I assume fits you, by the way, is
.. 26 called in this procedure plant operations manager or 27 designee. Is that who you were representing on TWG?
{ l ss 28 A. I believe that probably would be a safe l
.s A TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
' ^ '
g 570 ; 1
. I
;,,, 1 assumption at this point in time. i i
.f., (' , 2 MR. JOHNSON: Could you wait one second, please? l
.%.- 3 MR. HICKEY: Sure. i 4 MR. JOHNSON: I'm just trying to find the 5 procedure, r
, 6 (Brief recess.) j i
.s 7 MR. HICKEY: Q. Now, Mr. Parks, I'm putting in 8 front of you what has previously been marke6 as Exhibit 9 24 to your deposition which as you can see is a copy of 10 Administrative Procedure 1047. And let me direct your !
11 attention to page 6.0. Is that where it's opened? 12 A. I would prefer, sir, if you don't mind, allow 13 me to read this whole section first before I answer any 14 of your questions. ( 15 Q. Which section do you want to read? 16 A. Section two. 17 Q. All right. Do you want to know what the
. 18 question is before you make that request?
19 A. Not particularly, sir. It's been about four 20 years plus since I've reviewed this procedure, so I'd l 1
+
21 like to look through it again.
.. 22 Q. I think you reviewed it again when we were 1 23 having the deposition.
. 24 A. I think I reviewed selected pages of it last 25 month, sir.
.; 26 Q. Well, my question -- you can take as much time c .), 27 as you like, Mr. Parks, but just so you're aware what
( ,; l. s 28 you're looking for, my question is whether section 2.4.2, I TOOKER & ANTZ , c, c't 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
571 1 which is on page seven, relates to the responsibilities {" i , 2 or describes the responsibilities of the plant operations l 3 manager or designee. His responsibilities on TWG. i 4 That's what this procedure deals with. 5 A. All right. Now, could I get you to repeat your
,, 6 ques tion?
. 7 Q. Sure. I'm directing your attention to page 7.2
~
8 and asking you whether section 2.4.2 on that page 9 describes the responsibility of TWG to the position that l
. t 10 you held, namely, that of the plant operations manager or 11 designee?
12 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Could I ask you to 13 clarify whether or not you're asking him whether or not 14 that particular section is the only source in terms of , (, 15 his responsibilities? Or is the only portion of that -- 16 MR. HICKEY: I'm asking him -- I'll clarify it, 17 yes. I'm asking him whether the section I've ref erred to 18 is the only source that specifically relates to the 19 position he held as distinguished f rom any member of TWG. 20 THE WITNESS: I don't think I fully understand 21 your interpretation. Or your explanation, I should say. 22 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well -- 23 A. But I think I can answer the question you're
. 24 trying to get at.
25 Q. All right. 26 MS. ZU RAS: Well, do you understand -- see, the
... 27 thing is that he's supposed to ask a question and you're
- k. 28 supposed to understand it and then respond to it. I L
; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 e: _ _ _ . - -- =_ - - , _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - -
..,,.;4 572
, 1; caution you not to speculate as' to what he is getting. at.
.+ .2 MR.; HICKEY: Well, I think'it's fairly obvious
.j l 3 from.the. questions I've been asking. I want to know what-4 Mr.' Parks' responsibilities were.
. . ' [/ 5 Q. You were ' named as a member of TWG on behalf of
; ,. , 6' the plant operations department. I assume you had some i
i 7 knowledge of what your responsibilities were. h c' 8 I'm asking you -- you said they were spelled
,- 9 'out in the procedure. I'm trying to find out where in
. 10 the procedure they are spelled out.
11 A. I would believe, sir, that the responsibilities-12 of any TWG member is more accurately defined by the 13 section 2.2. 14 Q. Section 2.2, which is principal (j 15 responsibilities, applies, does it not, to byery member 16- of TWG7 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And in addition to' those responsibilities which .! 19 are common to every member of TWG, the person who sits in 20 the seat you were holding as of February 24th or 25th has
.' 21 the responsibilities described in 2.4.2; isn't that right?
.q 22 A. Those -- that individual would have those
. 23 responsibilities described in section 2.4.2 plus the added 24 responsibilities assigned to him by virtue of the 25 technical specifications and 10 or -- I forget which 26 appendix it is. Anyway, it's relative to licensed
.? 27 specifications of the power plant.
(r-)
, + . . 28 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you just said.
o
%l ~
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
5 __ _ _I _. ._ ._ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - 573 1 I heard you just refer to technical specifications?
- ) p' 2 A. Cor r ec t.
. 3 Q. Did you say you had additional responsibilities 4 as a TWG member that were described in the --
,4
, 5 A. Not as a TWG member, but by virtue as the 6 position of plant operations representative..
7 Q. To TWG7 8 A. No. Not the tech spec definition. In the unit 9 two technical specifications.
, 10 Q. Are you ref erring to someplace --
11 A. In our 2.4.2. 12 Q. 2.4.2. Okay. 13 A. Where it says, to paraphrase it, that that 14 / individual or his designee has the authority to make the 15 determination relevant to unreviewed safety questions in 16 accordance with unit two technical specifications. 17 Q. Okay. So what you re saying is that the unit 18 two technical specifications also authorize the person in 19 this seat, which was your seat, to decide that something 20 is not an unreviewed saf ety question? 21 A. I don't know if that's a fair and accurate 22 interpretation of what I just stated. 23 But unit two technical specifications, which 24 were Appendix A to the license, delineate certain 25 requirements that have to be satisfied relevant to any 26 modification to the plant that would establish the type 27 of testing and the necessary review change for the type
~ '
28 of testing to satisfy the Code of Federal Regulations
,gn TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,. : ;.;--- -,- n g- ,.. _--___________,
, - ..-..~,-.__*=_-----
i
, e m- -
574 1 1 _ relevant to the saf e operation of a licensed nuclear 3
'2 -
\
C 2 power plant.- I N 3 And the personnel in the operations department ) 4 were assigned those responsibilities by the Code of
'3 4
-O 5 Federal Regulations and the tech' specs.
{
'. 6 So you can't just pick.out one paragraph
~
\
7 consisting of three or four sentences or consisting of I 8 three or four subparagraphs and say that clearly defined ; ic . 9 our responsibility relevant to the test working group n 10 because that would not be a fair and accurate statement. 11 Q. You say you should look instead -- to find your 12 duties as a TWG' member you would look to the technical 13 specifications as well as this procedure? 14 A. No, sir. That's not?what I said. I said I ( . 15 would look for -- at those other sources of information 16 relevant to the responsibilities tasked with anybody 17 representing the plant operations group because they are 18 th e -- n
. 19 Q. Representing the plant operations group and the 20 TWG or just being employed in the plant operations 2 21 departments?
22 A. Well, by virtue of being a site operations ;
, ; 23 engineer, we were tasked as. ef f ectively being the liaison 24 for the operations director. .' . 25 Q. Liaison to who?
26 A. To whoever he wanted us to be liaison with, i
^
j 27 And the buck stopped with that man's desk relevant to
. . - C. 28 saf e operation of the power plant. * : TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
575 t 1 So.that was anLauthority that was inherent with 4' r~- 2 the position to ensure that everything was done to
, \.
l ; . 3 satisfy the tech specs and not be in violation of the NRC.
- ,h '4 MS. ZURAS: I think the Court Reporter might be j; 5- having difficulty --
.- 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. I was trying to watch the a- 7 ENTERPRISE leave.
. 8 MR. HICKEY: Q. Are you saying that you as a 9 member of the plant operations department had the l
; i 10 responsibilities held by the site operations directly?
, 11 .A. No, sir. That's not what I'm trying to say at j
12 all. 1 13 I am of the belief at this point in time that ' i 14 any individual in the plant. operations department had the q ( 15 responsibilities as tasked to that individual by the Code 'I 16 of Federal Regulations to assure that everything done in 17 the power plant was in a saf e manner.
. 18 Q. Well, does that apply just to the people in the ;
19 plant operations department? 20 A. Well, no. It -- I guess it applies to everyone. 21 But the plant operations group is held responsible for
". 22 assuring that everything is done safely. ;
, 23 Q. And that responsibility is imposed by what?
, 24 A. Code of Federal Regulations and Appendix A, B 25 and -- I mean Appendix A of the license, of the tech
.,. 26 specs.
', 27 Q. And it's a responsibility that's shared by all 7
s.- 28 members of the site operations department or the plant r.
,j TOCKER & ANTZ- 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 9410L 415/392-0650 ~a1________________.____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c= = w a .w. . u ,- - 576
]
1 operations division or what group? Well, site operations and plant operations are
/
.{ 2 A.-
3 almost synonomous with one another. I think it was a
'I 4 division of responsibilities that in some respects N
5 existed only on paper.
'y 6 But yes, to answer your question, that
; 7 responsibility is tasked with the plant operations group
; 8 by the Code of Federal Regulations.
' 9 Q. Let me see if I can clarify it. Are you saying 10 that it also applied tc the plant engineering department?
11 A. In ef f ect, it did. 12 Q. Because they were part of site operations? 13 A. Righ t. 14 Q. How about plant maintenance? That was part of
,'(, 15 plant operations, too.
16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. So the people in the plant engineering and 18 plant maintenance and plant operations all had the 19 responsibilities that you just described; is that right?
; 20 A. I think the responsibility -- to make sure 21 there is no vagueness, the responsibility rested with the 22 director of plant -- plant operations or site operations 23 in this case. So anybody that worked below him, yes, had 24 the responsibility.
25 But he was the captain of the ship. Anything l
"#<' 26 went wrong, he was the man who went to the trial, nobody j 27 else, because his responsibility was the final f
28 r responsibility. l
- IN TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
~ _- __________1
577
",, 1 Now we've took an awful long time to answer 2 about your answer.
.. - (-' I hope I answered your question.
3 Q. Well, I think you did. Maybe this will clarify l
,4 4 it.
5 On March 17, you were replaced as the primary
, 6 plant operations member on the test working group with 7
respect to the polar crane and Mr. Marshall was named in
-l 8 your stead. You remember that?
9 A. Yes, sir, I do. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. I couldn't be so sure about the date, but I 9 12 r emember what happened. 13 Q. Okay. And when that happened, did your
, 14 responsibilities with regard to the polar crane change?
',_( 15 A. Y es .
16 Q. And how did they change? 17 A.
. I was no longer invited to participate in 18 review process by virtue of the change in position.
19 Q. No longer invited to participate in which 20 review process? 21 A. Anything relevant to the polar crane. j 22 Q. Who had to invite you to participate? 23 A. Well, I was kind of speaking euphemistically. 24 What I was trying to say was when I was removed from 25 being the primary site operations representative from the { - 26 test working group with respect to polar crane only, that i
.. 27 was a way of, you know, limiting my involvement.
I' 28 Q. Well, I'm trying to understand what the
..>. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco
, ni; 94105 415/392-0650 w _ - - - -- - -
.y e .g .
. w w w - an
- t
--aww--.-----------
578 l
^
, .4 ' 1 limitation was. How did your responsibilities change i 2 with regard to the polar crane?
. .,-{.7 ..
. e 3 A. Anything that happened with respect to the test I 4 work group for the polar crane was given to Bubba 5 Marshall instead of for me.
6 Q. And as of March 17, were you aware of any 7 actions that were going to happen with the test working 8 group related to the polar crane? 9 A. Could you run that past me again? 10 Q. Y es . On March 17th -- assume that's the date 11 when you were replaced by Mr. Marshall. I think it's in 12 the record that it was. Were you aware on that date of 13 anything that was to happen with the test working group 14 related to the polar crane that you were no longer going ( 15 to participate in? 16 A. Y es . The test of the reactive polar crane and 17 the resolution of my outstanding comments that were 18 generated in the middle of February relative to the i 19 testing of the polar crane. 20 Q. Resolution by the test working group? 21 A. Resolution by anybody. 22 Q. Well, you said you were replaced on the test 23 working group.
! 24 A. That's correct.
j 25 O. So what you were being excluded from you're 26 saying, I believe, is that you were excluded from the
, 27 test working group's resolution of your comments?
< 28 A. No. I don't think I stated that.
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 4t.- )4
f 579' I-q i i 1 Q. Well -- 1
- 2 ,' p 2 A. If I did, it was a mistake.
j 3 Q. What were you excluded from when you were ) 1 . 4 replaced on the test working group on March 17th?
. 5 A. From any further involvement with the test 7! 6 working group relevant to the polar crane.
7 Q. Okay. So you were excluded from anything that 8- had to do with what the test working group was going to.
. . , 9 do af ter March 17th?
o 10 A. That's correct. l
, 11 Q. . Did you know on, March 17th of anything that the 12 test working group was going to do with the polar crane 13 after March 177 14 A. Well, some time or another they were gonna do 1
( IS their best to test it. 16 Q. Anything else? 17 A. At this point in time, I couldn't really tell
]
18 you anything else that they did have planned. 19 Q. The test working group had already resolved 20 your comments about the polar crane, hadn't they, Mr. 21 Parks, on March 17th? 5 22 A. At this point in time I'd have to disagree with
- 23 that, sir.
24 Q. What is it that makes you disagree? l
,; 25 A. Because the point I can remember at this moment, g 26 I never had a satisfactory resolution to my first comment
. , , 27 in that it was an unreviewed safety question.
- ,' wY 28 Q. Did you say in that it was an unreviewed saf ety I
-[1 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
...u--- - __ - _ _
580 s
.. , 1 question?
, , , . { .1 ,
2 A. I believe that's what I said. l. l . , . - 3 Q. That was your first comment? r + 4 A. Right. 5 Q. And was the test working group resolving that 6 issue?
, 7 A. Well, I couldn't really say if it would have i 8 been the test working group that was resolving the issue.
! 9 I think that would have more properly come to rest with 10 respect to the licensing department. 11 Q. You agreed that's where it was properly 12 addressed, did you not, Mr. Parks? 13 MS. EURAS: Excuse me. I'm going to object to 14 the question as vague and ambiguous. (, 15 Do you understand it? 16 THE WITNESS: No, not really. Who did I agree ; 17 with? You made a statement of fact. 18 MR. HICKEY: Q. Yes. 19 A. A nd I don ' t --
. . 20 Q. You've agreed in your written comments that the
, 21 issue of whether it was an unreviewed saf ety question 22 should be addressed by licensing?
23 A. I believe that I agreed that that was the 24 proper department to address it, period.
. 25 Q. That's what I said.
26 A. Well, I misunderstood you. I'm sorry. f ,, _ . 27 Q. The TWG wasn't addressing the question of [k/ 28 whether it was an unresolved saf ety question? , }
. ,1 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
581 i' 1 1
- l. 1 A. That's true. 4 i
LJ' ('. 2 MR. JOHNSON: Just to be clear, we're talking ] ( l
, 3 about the licensing department? Is that --
Li 4 THE WITNESS: The licensing, correct. 5 MR. HICKEY: Q. If I don't know if " department" 6 is the correct technical name, but -- I 7 A. Well -- 8 Q. -- the licensing group. 9 A. Righ t. 10 Q. Did you have any responsibilities regarding the 11 polar crane readiness review committee?
. 12 A. At this point in time, I don't seem to recall 13 that I did. I may have.. You may have better insight 14 into whether I did at that point in time than I do.
([ 15 MR. JOHNSON: Because I'm not sure that it's 16 absolutely clear on the record, when you say readiness 17 review committee, which readiness review committee and 18 when it was empaneled? I-think you ought to clarify that 19 for the record.
, 20 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, do you recall, Mr. Parks, 4 21 that in about March of 1983, there was a readiness review
*l .
22 committee set up with regard to the polar crane load test?
, 23 A. I believe there was a committee set up that
.. 24 wen.t by that name.
L 25 Q. All right. And there was to be a presentation 26 made to this committee about steps that had been taken to I. l 27 get the polar crane ready?
> ' p _.
- v. 28 A. I'll take your word on that.
'v i -
9
- .Q1$, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 w .m . .m . se==us.e *=est, - N-***=#"*""* "?
582 1 0 .' Okay. Well, I thought --
'- ~ 4: 4 2 MS. ZURAS : Mr. Parks --
4 3 MR. HICKEY: Q. -- you had sore experience in
. - 4 it. That's what I asked you. ;
i 5 A. I. believe I already stated I can't recall at t 6 this point in time if I had any participation. 7 Q. Well, I'm trying to refresh your recollection. I 8 Didn't you go to a meeting on March 12, a Saturday, where
~
9 there was discussion about what presentation was going to 10 be made to the readiness review committee? Does that q 11 ring a bell? 12 A. No, sir. .I do not ever recall attending a 13 meeting on Saturday relative to readiness review ) 14 committee. ! (, ., 15 MR. JOHNSON: In fairness to Mr. Parks, I think 16 you've got the dates a little bit jumbled up. 17 MR. HICKEY: Maybe. 18 MR. JOHNSON: I think the record would show, if i 19 you don't mind me representing, it was February 26th that 20 it was decided that the readiness review committee would
, 21 be empaneled. February 26, I believe, is the date on 22 which it was decided to convene that group for the 23 purposes that you're discussing, I believe.
24 MR. - HICKEY: I think that date is right, 25 February 26th. And I had the wrong Saturday in mind. 26 Q. Mr. Parks, your affidavit -- and you can look f 27 at this if it will help you -- reflects, page 30, that
! 28 there was a meeting on Monday, February 28, that you TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- 5. _ - _ _ -
, r__._ _,_,_ _ _ _ ___ -._.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
583 1 attended to identify items for the readiness review _g; 2 committee. 3 Why don't you take a look at your af fidavit 4 while we go off the record here for just one minute. 5 (Discussion of f the record.) 6 MR. HICKEY: Okay. Can we go on.
;, 7 Just so the record is clear, during the break
#i . 8 Mr. Parks has been looking at a portion of his affidavit 9 subscribed and sworn to on March 21, 1983. And I
, 10 directed him specifically to page 30 and a meeting that 11 was held on February 28th.
12 Q. Mr. Parks, does that refresh your recollection 13 about your participation in efforts to get ready for the 14 readiness review committee? (, 15 A. My review of tne pages in question does not 16 provide any additional information other than what 17 appears on the pages. 10 Q. Let me ask you to flip a little bit forward to 19 page 34. About the middle paragraph there ref ers to a 20 meeting on March 3, and you indicate in that af fidavit 21 that Mr. Seiglitz stated that you were his backup for the 22 presentation on operator training which was going to be 23 made to the readiness review committee. 24 Do you remember having that assignment? 25 A. Again, I can't at this point in time recall 26 anything that would dispute that statement. But I know I 27 didn't do anything with it, so apparently Dick must have N 28 given the presentation. W TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart St5eet San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 4
_. _ _ w._:. .:_s : - w . a : = - - :. 584 ) i Okay. In other words, you remember that you 1 Q.
(- 2 didn't make the presentation on operator training which apparently was scheduled for Saturday, March 12th?'
3 ] 4 A. That's what I remember. I did not make the 5 presentation. 6 Q. Okay. Apart f rom being assigned as Seiglitz' 7 backup or substitute in case he was unavailable, do you ' 8 remember being assigned any other duties with respect to 9 the presentation to be made to the readiness revicw 10 committee on the polar crane? 11 A. Not that I can recall at this moment. 1 12 (Discussion of f the record.) 13 MR. HICKEY: Q. On page 30 of your af fidavit, 14 Mr. Parks, let me ask you one more brief item about this ( 'l 15 February 28th meeting that you attended.t 16 At the bottom of the page your af fidavit says 17 that "We identified engineering." You see that sentence? 18 And it goes on from there. I want to ask you about the 19 language that "we identified the polar crane SER." . 20 Who is the "we" that is being referred to in your sentence there, by the way? 21 22 A. I would only have to believe it was 23 collectively the attendees of the meeting. 24 Q. Everybody that was at the meeting, you're 25 saying? 26 A. Y eah . I think -- 27 Q. Okay. (:.' . You know, but there again, it's -- that was L. 28 A. ~ U TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 _ - - - . . ~ . - m
585
- , 1 something that happened several years ago and I can't
. " (;j 2 really recall anything at this moment to amplify my 3 comments here.
4 Q. Okay. Well, maybe you can address the next one 5 because it more specifically relates to you. Your
. 6 af fidavit continues that you contended that the polar
, . 7 crane saf ety evaluation report, meaning the load test 8 safety evaluation report, only covered the head lif ts and 9 needed to include miscellaneous crane use and light load, 10 special shape, load drop analysis.
. 11 Why did you believe that the polar crane load
*- 12 test SER should cover these additional items that you've 13 desc;ibed there?
14 A. Are you asking me for my recollection at this (~ 15 moment?
. 16 Q. Y es .
17 A. Only thing I can tell you is at the time that I 18 mad e, you know, the comments, I f elt they should be
. 19 covered.
20 Q. Well, was miscellaneous crane use and the white
.- 21 load, special shape, load drop analysis part of the '
22 program for lif ting the head? 23 A. I really couldn't tell you at this point in i
.. ', 24 time if it was or not, Mr. Hickey. I have to apologize l 25 for not being able to provide, you know, amplifying l
l ; 26 information, but I can't. 27 Q. Okay. Were you listing this simply as an k.., 28 agenda item to be addressed at the readiness review
- " 'l TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
( '.a--_-___-___----___. _ - _ . _ _ i 1
.. s - -
586 committee?
~
. I
, 2 A. No. I believe that -- anyway, at this moment I
. . 3 believe that I.was identifying here the -- some point in
'N 4 time previous to this I was of the opinion.that those 5 items should be covered by the SER.
6 Q. Okay. But you can't recall today why you
', 7 thought that? ,
<
- 8 A. Well, not specifically, no., Again, I would
, 9 ref er you to the depositions that Mr. Richardson took
, 10 with me. There may be comments in there that s'ere 11 responsive to his questions that provide amplifying 12 instructions or better insight to why I wanted that.
13 Q. Okay. In your affidavit -- and I'll let you 14 look at it so you can have it frethly in mind -- you
;( 15 talked about some of your responsibilities at an earlier 16 time period, that is, in your role as alternate startup 17 and test supervisor to Mr. Kitler.
18 You may recall that in about December 1982, you 19 were designated by Mr. Kitler as the alternate startup
+
20 and test supervisor. And if you want to look at your
,.' 21 affidavit, pages 24 and 25, bottom of 24 and the top of 22 25, you talk there about a meeting at which you were 23 informed that you no longer had that role.
24 Why don't you read that bottom paragraph and 25 refresh your recollection. 26 .A. Okay. I've read it.- 27 Q. Okay. And my question is, what did you mean by i (.. 28 this responsibility that you said that you had, quote, {
,a TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ;
.ia m ___ _ _ _ - - - 3
e 587
-, 1 "To identify potential QA audit deficiencies," close
, ( ,, 2 quote?
, 3 A. J ust exactly as it says.
t 4 Q. Are you talking about -- can you explain at all 5 what you're referring to by " potential QA audit 6 deficiencies"? l 7 A. Well, from -- you know, at this point in time
. . 8 from the retrospective review of what I was writing four 9 and a half years ago, the things, the problems that I had 10 identified with the polar crane load test procedure were
- 11 program violations, not only administrative violations, 12 and which are totally disregarding their potential saf ety 13 impact.
14 We had violated our QA program and I knew that ( 15 sooner or later QA was gonna come by and provide an audit 16 for startup and tent department and their audit would 17 have resulted in deficiencies being noted and either Ed 18 Kitler or myself would have done a song and dance trying 19 to explain how we got ourselves caught with our pants 20 down. 21 And that 's what I meant by that. 22 Q. I see. That does help. You're saying if there 23 was an audit -- when you say potential QA audit 24 deficiencies. If there was an audit of the startup and 25 test organization, you believe there would be 26 deficiencies found and either Mr. Kitler or you as his 27 alternate would have some responsibilities for resolving 28 those deficiencies? I .
'v.e TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
..g.____-._,-.-.__---_.--. _
588
+'
K.
,- 1 A. Well, I have to take exception to several words i=
- f. p 2 in your statement.
'J 3 First of all, it's not if there was a QA audit.
,, 4 It's more like when there was a QA audit because the QA 5 plan required us to be audited on a regular basis. And pf 6 it would not be that Ed Kitler and/or I might have to f :.. - 7 respond to that, it's we would have to respond to this,
- 3 8 one of the two of us. -
", 9 Q. -Well, if Mr. --
-a 10 A. We would have to resolve it.
. . - 11 'Q. If Mr. Kitler did, you wouldn't have any 12 responsibilities? 13 A. Well, that's true. Mr. Kitler had already 14 talked to me about leaving the job site and if he lef t, ( 15 it would fall on my shoulders. And I didn't want to be
. 16 responsible for something that I didn't have any
, 17 involvement in to that point or in that mess, anyway. {
18 Q. Well, did you expect to replace Mr. Kitler when 4 19 he lef t? 20 A. Not if I could help it. j
- . 21 Q. Indeed, hadn't you told him that you weren't l
22 interested in replacing him? ( 23 A. That's correct. But, you know, working at a
. 24 power plant is sometimes like being in the military. You 4 25 don't always have the choice.
l' 26 Q. You thought you might be forced to replace Mr 27 Kitler whether you wanted to or not?
, n (/ 28 A. At least temporarily, yes.
s i !
..,;] TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l
..! I r m - - ____ _- _ __ _ _-_ - - .
g .,.,_ __._ _ _.._ ____- - -._ - - - -------------- 589
<. 1 Q. And as of February 24th, did you still expect
~
- a {, w 2 that Mr. Kitler was going to leave?
- ,3 3 A. I really couldn't tell you at this point in 4 time if I was of that opinion at that point in time or i :: I; 5 not. I was not as concern'ed with.Ed Kitler. leaving as I
,.s 6 was with getting the problems and the deficiencies that I . $ 7 had identified corrected and straight on the whole ball e . 8 of wax that I thought existed.
9 Q. Let me understand something about the timing of j 10 what you're describing. I understand you to say -- but 11 correct me if I am wrong. I understood you to say as an 12 alternate startup and test supervisor, when there was an
. .13 audit, you or Mr. Kitler would have the responsibility to 14 resolve whatever audit deficiencies were identified in
(; 15 that audit, right? 16 A. Cor r ec t. 17 Q. But now you just were talking about some 18 responsibility you had before and audit occurred.
. 19 A. Well, you know, I don't think I-understand '
. 20 really what you're -- the dif f erentiation you're trying
,, . 21 to make, so maybe you can explain it to me a little bit 22 better.
23 Q. Well, I'll try. I thought it was pretty clear.
.
- 24 You've testified, and your affidavit says that 25 as a alternate startup and test supervisor, when there was a QA audit of the startup and test department, the
. 26
.. 27 audit vould generate deficiencies in your view.
7
\.: 28 And when an audit generates deficiencies, the
,, i
, 'f.$ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 !
590
, 1 procedurs is, isn't it, Mr. Parks, that those
. 2 deficiencies have to be answered?
. ; 3 A. That's correct. !
j 4 Q. And correct me if you don't agree with the way k;- 5 I phrase it, but in general, deficiencies are answered by 6 the audited organization agreeing that it is a deficiency 5, 7 and taking steps to correct it or explaining why it is 8 not a deficiency, but responding to the findings of the 9 auditing group? 10 A. That's genera 31y what happens, yes. 11 Q. Okay. And so if, or as you say, when the next 12 QA audit occurred of the startup and test organization, 13 you and Mr. Kitler would have to respond, right? 14 A. True. l q 15 Q. Now, before the audit occurs, what were your 16 responsibilities as alternate startup and test supervisor 17 with regard to deficiencies? 18 A. Make sure they didn't happen to begin with.
, 19 O. Was that your obligation whether or not Mr. !
20 Kitler was there or only in his absence? 21 A. Whether or not Mr. Kitler was there, in my 1 J l 22 opinion. I 23 Q. And whether or not you were assigned to the 24 site operations department as opposed to the st. -tup and 25 test department? 26 A. That's correct. 27 Q. Did you do work for the startup and test b/ 28 department af ter January 1, 1983? l
.- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
591-1- A. I believe at' one point in time, Ed Kitler was
= '; -
, 2 of f the job site on vacation or sick or something.
^ , 3. Whatever the' reason, I4 believe he was unavailable and I 1 ,
I' i
, 4 ended up having to process some paperwork -- I don't even .
\
. 5 recall what it was now -- that was within his 4
'j- 6 jurisdiction or his department that he would have !
7 normally been tasked with pushing through the system. .] G , 8 Q. And this is because Mr. Kitler was absent?
' I '! 9 A. Or unavailable. He may have been there. and 10 just been' unavailable. I don't recall now. Not at this j 11 point in time.
j 12 MR. JOHNSON: Did you fix a time on that, just 4 13 to clarify? 14 MR. HICKEY: I" don't think ' the witness was able ; ( 15 to. I asked'him after January 1 and he said at some 16 point. i f 17 THE WITNESS: That's right. 18- MR. HICKEY: Q. But I believe you didn' t kr.ow - 19 when? 3 4 20 A. No. At this point in time I don't know when it { 21 was. ] < l 22 Q. Can you say whether it was before or af ter { 23 January 1, 1983? 24 A. No, I could not. 25- O. Did you have the same responsibility in your 26 role as an operations engineer in site operations to
'?-; , 27 correct potential QA audit deficiencies that related to -
C 20 the site operations department? i
- I l
(- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 j
, d. .' _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---_--I
,, 592 1 A. I think -- I would only have to speculate now, .',X.; 7, 2 but I would --
l -. ai 3 MS. ZU RAS : Excuse me. Nobody wants you to 4 gu es s. I 5 THE WITNESS: I really can't recall at this ; 7- 6 point in time exactly what the QA manual said. 7 MR. HICKEY:
. Q. Where in the QA manual would t 8 you find this responsibility described?
9 A. God only knows. I really couldn't tell you t 10 right now. May not even be in the QA manual. I can't 11 provide any better insight for you than that. 12 Q. And your testimony is that you simply don't 13 know today whether you had in 1983 responsibilities.to 14 identify potential QA audit deficiencies related to the ([ 15 site operations department? 16 A. From what I can recall at this moment, the Code 17 of Federal Regulations that govern the operations of the 18 licensed -nuclear power plant require anybody 19 knowledgeable of a deficiency or discrepancy to report 20 that deficiency or discrepancy to the appropriate powers g f 21 that be. 22 So I would have to say based on that belief 23 that yes, regardless of an individual's position in the 24 power plant, if he knows of discrepancies or deficiencies, 25 he's bound by the governmental regulations to report. it. 26 Q. Is there a particular part of the Code of 27 Federal Regulations you're thinking of when you make that k.. 28 s tat ement? TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,q -
, y ._ . _ - _ - - _ - - _
, i',' :. 593
, k :l i
,. 1 A.- Well,'how about 10 CFR 50. And'I couldn't nail' '!
2- it' down any better than~ that. ,
, f; . 4 3 Q. But if I understand you correctly, Mr. Parks,
; 4- _ that same responsibility or obligation would have been 5 shared by Bubba Marshall, would have been shared by Ron
~
. 6 Warren, would.have been shared. by Adam Miller, other 7 employees in the site operations department?
8 A. That is correct.
. 9 Q. This is something that isn't assigned to 10 Richard Parks to the exclusion of others? j 11 A. Relevant only to my role as site operations
; 12 engineer?
13 Q. Y es. 14 A. I would not say that that pertains to only me ( 15 and~no one else.
.16 Q. It would apply to the other employees of the 17 site operations department?
18 A. Sure. 19 Q. And how did you understand you were to report 20 or document to the appropriate powers your discrepancies 21 or deficiencies that you found? And in which role are 22 you talking about? 23 MR. JOHNSON: I think this is going to get 24 confusing because you're trying to slice this 25 responsibility that he has in different ways. I think 26 the potential for confusion is great. If you just keep
. 27 it. clearer, I think we can go ahead.
b 28 MR. HICKEY: You have. l
;. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 . 't .* .e =*
594 1 Q. Well, you've described your responsibility, the
-(~ 2 one shared with the other members of the site operations s
3 d epar tment. Let's talk about that. <
.,' 4 Under the Code of Federal Regulations, you were N ,;- 5 required as a member of the site operations department to 6 document and report to appropriate people, you said, 7 deficiencies that you believe existed. And my question 8 is how were you to document them?
9 A. Well, you could either document them written, 10 you know, in a written f ashion, or verbally. It depends 11 upon how the circumstances arrived. Or -- 12 Excuse me. Good cof f ee but boy, it's g etting
. 13 me back.
14 At the point in question, I documented the (j) 15 deficiencies that I perceived on the comment control form 16 review of that procedure. 17 Q. Those are the comments you wrote on February 18 17th? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. All right. And that document, the comm,ent
, 21 control form, in your view, that discharged your 22 obligat. ton under the Code of Federal Regulations to 23 report deficiencies that you had observed; is that right?
24 MS. ZURAS : Excuse me. I'm going to object to
, 25 the question on the basis of vague and ambiguots.
26 Are you saying discharge meaning he had no 27 further responsibility other than to write the comments 4' t',- 28 and then he could let go of the issues? 4
. ' /,I TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
595 1 MR. HICKEY: I'm saying he testified that he { 2 was obligated under the Code of Federal Regulations to 3 report the deficiencies he observed. And I'm asking Mr. 4 Parks if he believes he discharged his duty to report the 5 deficiencies by writing them on the comment control form. 6 MS. ZURAS: I'm asking you to describe what you 7 mean by "discharg e. " 8 MR. HICKEY: Discharge the obligation to report.
, 9 MS. ZU RAS : He had no further obligation?
10 MR. HICKEY: Yes. 11 Q. Did you believe you had satisfied the Code of
, 12 Federal Regulations when you reported the deficiencies on
+
13 the comment control form? 14 1 MS. ZURAS: Do you understand the quest' ion? (, 15 THE WITNESS: I understand the question, but I 16 think I'm gonna have to ask for some amplification. 17 MR. HICKEY: Q. In what way? 18 A. Are you asking me for the moment of time when I 1 l , 19 completed my comments on the comment control form and 20 returned them to Mike Radbill, did I feel at that time,
. 21 that very distinct time, that I performed my duties to
; 22 the ' Code of Federal Regulations?
23 Q. I'm only talking about one specific duty, the 24 one you talked about. 25 A. The one I talked about. 26 Q. You said a f ew minutes ago that the Code of 27 Federal Regulations requires you, or anyone in the site L/ 28 op era tions, to report to the appropriate people
,, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1
1C,;g - - --- - ,-- - - - .
-m-------, :--------,.--.-.---
'596 1 d' discrepancies or deficiencies that you believe you 2 observed.
d(r. 3 And I'm asking you whether you thought you
..- 4 discharged or f ulfilled that obligation when you filled
.- 5 out the comment control form or did you think you had to 6 do something more?
i 7 MS. ZURAS: Okay. I'm going to have to object 8 to the question as vague and ambiguous. Because there 9 can be two things to what you're asking.
;, 10 You ask whether or not he f elt when he wrote 1 11 his comments he was acting under his responsibilities at
; 12 that moment. And there can be some other meaning to your 13 question in the sense that did he f eel as though he had 14 no further responsibilities with respect to those written
.Q 15 comments.
16 And I guess we need clarification on that 17 because he can't respond. The question at this point 18 could have possibly two dif f erent meanings. 19 MR. HICKEY: Well, let me see if the witness 20 can respond.
. 21 MS. ZURAS: Well, I'm going to instruct him not
. 22 to answer.
23 MR. HICKEY: Well, I'm about to attempt to meet
.0 '
,; 24 your objection if you let me state the question.
t 25 Q. On February 17th, when you went over your 26 comments with Mr. King and he approved them and you I 27 signed them and sent them forward wherever you sent them
- 9. - 1 28 to, sent them on in the chain, did you think you needed i
.g.j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
V m---.---.--------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 597 i I
+- 1 to makeLat that time some further report of these- i
(, 2 deficiencies you believed you had seen in order _ to 3 . satisfy the Code of Federal Regulations? ! 4 A. No. n; 5 Q. All right. And did you -- besides filling out
; 6 the comment control form on February 17, did you utilize l 7 other documents, written pieces of ' paper, to record other 8 discrepancies that you found, or deficiencies-that ycu 9 believe you perceived?
10 A. On February 17th? 11 Q. No. Not necessarily on that date, no. I'm 3 12 asking you with regard to the polar crane from January 1 13 to the date you left the site. 7 4 14 'A. Yes. I did use other vehicles to document f 15 problems.
, - 16 Q. And what vehicles or documents are you
, 17 r ef erring to?
, 18 A. Site operations problem reports. I believe I
; 19 wrote a couple memos to various people. Or caused Joe !
;+ 20 Chwastyk to write a couple of memos. In some cases --
;] 21 why, I guess that would be about it. Other than verbally fj 22 identifying problems.
23 Q. Right. No. I'm trying to focus you on written y
,a 24 recordation of your problems.
25 A. And, of course, several times I went to NRC and
,. 26 told them what was going on, especially after I was 27 threatened.
. 4 ke 28 C. Y eah. But I'm trying to focus you on -- just
)
i
- l. j
, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. i
,-;JL____________-----
598
-a 1 so you understand where I'm going, on written reports of your problems, deficiencies that you'saw, as opposed to
{ 2
)
. 3 verbal. As distinguished from verbal.
4 A. Well, you know, I have to lump verbal reports
. S to the NRC as a written report because they generate a 6 written report out of it. .
; 7 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me, Mr. Hickey. Does your
. . . 8 question include up and through March 21st, the day he 9 submitted his affidavit? '
10 MR. HICKEY: Yes. 11 THE WITNESS: And, of course, the. affidavit .o. 12 tha't I filed with the Department of Labor and the NRC. l 13 MR. HICKEY: Q. Just so we're talking about' 14 same language, will you allow me to use " written" not to (;, 15 include a verbal. report to the NRC because I think it 16 will be very confusing if I ask you questions about 17 written reports and you say, well, I mean by that verbal 18 reports to the NRC. 19 So let's lump written reports for the purposes 3 20 of these f ew questions to documents that have writing on 21 to proceed. 22 A. Sure. 4 23 Q. So we're clear.
-l 24 A. Sure.
25 MR. JOHNSON: Also, maybe I'm being a little
't i 26 bit too particular, but when you I hear you say " verbal,"
27 I think you mean oral. Is that what you mean by " verbal"? (O/ 28 MR. HICKEY: Yes. { 1 c i,d TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 f
..____________________________ Z__O 599
. 1 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. l
('* g 2 MR. HICKEY: Is everybody clear? It's been 3 pretty tough getting the dif f erence down between a piece l
. 4 of paper and somebody saying something. But is everybody 5 clear?
6 Q. You're clear, Mr. Parks, right? 7 A. Yes. Other than the reports that are
, 8 referenced in my 56-page affidavit or any reports that 9 Mr. Richardson and I discussed in my deposition in the - ( 10 Bechtel civil procedures, at this point I think I've 11 pretty well described them all for you. Anyway, all that i
12 I can remember.
~
13 Q. All right. And basically what you remember are 14 the site operations problem reports and that memoranda (, 15 that you caused Mr. Chwastyk to write, a couple of 16 memoranda you said? , i 17 A. Or that I wrote. 18 Q. Are those two different things or are you 19 talking about the incident when you and Mr. Chwastyk 20 jointly produced two memoranda on March 17 21 A. I think that's the instance I'm thinking of. 22 Q. I'm just trying to get it clear. March 1 there
. 23 were two memoranda that were issued over Joe Chwastyk's
,l 24 signature, but it has your initials along with his as the 25 preparer of it. That's the memoranda you're talking l
26 about, right? l 27 A. That's the one I am thinking of presently,
/
I , (1' 28 right. l l l , l ..s.- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
, .c
__.-______..--------------------------R 600
, , 1 Q. That's the one you remember?
, , ". j .; {, .
2 A. At the moment I can't recall any additional
; , , , 3 memos.
4 Q. Site operations problem reports, what were 5 those?
., 6 A. Just that. They were a vehicle to document 7
problems within the operation of the power plant, or not
. , ,j 8 necessarily the operation. It could have been about a 9
bad design or anything that you wished to flag for the
, , 10 attention, you know, of upper management.
7
, ',3 , 11 Q. Were they governed by a procedure?-
12 A. I really couldn't tell you at this point in 13 time if they were or not. And if they were, which 1 s, 14 procedure it'was.
, ( ,, 15 Q. Well, what did you do when you filled out a
.a 16 site operations problem report? Where did you send it or 17 what did you do with it?
e} 18 A. I'd only have to speculate at this point in !
. ,' 19 t im e.
.j 20 Q. You don't remember?
,. j . 21 A. No, I don't.
.; 22 Q.
Did it go to the head of site operations, do l 23 you think? l 1 24 A. I am of the belief that it went there and to
, 25 the director of the facility. But who else it may have .
1 26 gone to I really couldn't tell you.. 27 Q. And was there a procedure, formal or informal, . , Jk 28 for getting some response to you about what happened with l TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105
'% 415/392-0650
,. , , . . _m mm m m--- - - - -- - - - - - - -
601 1 the site operation problem report you filled out? ! m 2 A. Well, from what I can recall of the site ops 3 problem r epor t, it does. There were a couple of 4 diff erent blockadings for what the problem was and for 5 someone to respond to it providing, you know, or 6 addressing how they were going to handle it and prevent
,, 7 it from reoccurring, if necessary.
. 8 So now whether the procedure that governed that 9 was formal or informal, again, sir, I can't tell you.
10 Not at this point in time. 11 Q. Were you aware of site operations problem
. 12 reports being used outside the site operations department?
13 A. I really couldn't tell you at this point in 14 time if they were. ( 15 Q. Do you remember ever pulling out any which were 16 employed in the startup and test department? 17 A. I don't know if I did or not. 18 Q. And Mr. Parks, from your experience, are you 19 f amiliar with the term " quality records" or " quality 20 documents"? 21 A. Under the general heading, yes. 22 Q. What do you understand generally by --
. 23 A. Records or documents to be maintained relevant l 24 to the quality of systems components, or the plant. Or j 25 the department. ;
1 e 26 Q. That sounds like kind of familiar language. I 27 Are you paraphrasing the language of Appendix B to CFR? (<- 1.' 28 From what I can recall at the moment. A. i I l
,9 d TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l "f I
602
. 1 Q. I assume.you nave some familiarity with i
, {r. 2 Appendix B given your years in the nuclear industry? $
, .3 A. Well, my years of experience'in the nuclear l
l... .. 4 industry have been kind of neglected in the past four and f . 5 a half years. .So you're asking someone to allow their
',". 6 mind and recall to digress over a period of time.
.. 7 But that's what I recall at the moment.
. . 8 Q. You haven't forgotten the Appendix B, have you?
9 A. I've done my best to. 10 Q. Were the site ops problem reports quality 11 reports as you've just explained that term?
., 12 A. Are you asking me for my opinion at this moment?
13 Q. Sure. 14 A. I would think they would be, yes. (y 15 Q. Do.you understand that quality reports, or 16 quality records, excus e me, need to be governed by 17 procedures in order to be qual!ty records? 18 A. I do not.have any inf ormation at this point in
.19 time to dispute that statement.
. 20 Q. Well, let me put it to you this way: If there 21 were no procedure that governed the handling of site 22 operation problem reports, would you think they were
', 23 quality records or not?
a 24? A. I would have to say at this point in time, sir, j 25 you're asking me for an interpretation of quality control
") 26 requirements for nuclear power plants that I'm no longer 2 27 qualified to give an interpretation on.
; k/ 28 Q. So you just don't have any idea whether it
- ]
Oj TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 g.. .r .
603 _
., 1 would be required to be a quality record to be governed
( 2 by some procedure? 3 A. I think it would call for me to speculate and
': 4 I'm sure Barbara wouldn't want me to.
5 Q. I wouldn't want you to, either. If you don't
, 6 have any recollection, you don't recall.
i 7 MS. ZURAS: We've been going for a little over 8 an hour. Can me take a break? 9 MR. HICKEY: Sure. 10 (Brief recess.) 11 MR. HICKEY: Okay. Back on the record. 12 0 Mr. Parks, shortly before the break, I was 13 talking to you about the circumstances when Mr. Kitler 14 and Mr. Walker, Dwight Walker, were named to be the (' 15 startup and test department representatives to the test 16 working group. 17 That happened -- I believe your affidavit says 18 that you learned of that at a February 23rd meeting where 19 Mr. Thiesing told you that Mr. Walker was now the
. 20 alternate startup and test supervisor and I don't know, 21 did Mr. -- let me stop and rephrase the question.
22 Did Mr. Thiesing on February 23rd at the
.. 23 meeting tell you about the appointment of Mr. Walker to
; 24 the TWG position?
i 25 MS. ZURAS: Excus e me. Mr. Hickey, are you , 26 going to have the record reflect that you're striking 27 that factual scenario in this question? Because I think b_ < 28 there was a couple of misstatements.
.3 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,
l
__ ______.__.m_-____._._.. I 604 l l l- , 1 MR. HICKEY: Well, let me see if Mr. Parks can l l' 4 2 just address the question which I asked him, which is (,'
- 3 whether De recalls at the February 23rd meeting being
'/ 4 informed that Mr. Walker -- informed by Mr. Thiesing that 5 Dwight Walker was to be the test working group 6 representative from startup and test.
7 THE WITNESS: Well, once again, sir, I think , 8 you misspoke. As I heard you, you asked me if I recall l l 9 whether or not Mr. Thiesing informed Mr. Walker if Mr. 10 Walker had been appointed. Either that or my hearing has 1 l 11 an accent to it. 12 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, I meant to say informed l 13 Mr. Parks. 14 A. Well, I'm Mr. Parks. (_) 15 Q. Right. Informed you is what I meant to say. 16 A. From what I can recall that happened at that 17 meeting, Mr. Thiesing just stated something to the effect 18 that he had issued a memo having me replaced. And he did 19 not provide amplifying comments who my replacement was,
, 20 et cetera, et cetera. I believe I learned of that later.
' i
,- 21 Q. And specifically at the meeting you were not j 22 told what you were being replaced as, what position you i 23 were being removed from or replaced in?
24 A. No. I didn't say that, sir. 25 Q. Well -- _' 26 A. In fact, I -- 27 Q. -- I'm trying to understand what you mean when
^
b' 28 you say he didn't provide any details. Did he tell you -- 1 l- . 1 ,
'r ,. ; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
605
;, 1- what did he tell you that you remember?
l: 2 A. Well, I would just have to refer-you to my 3 original affidavit, sir, and I believe that I addressed b . ,' >. 4' that on[page 25.
, 5 Q. Okay. And that indicates that Mr. Thiesing 4
6 informed you that you had been removed as the alternate -
,, , 7 startup and test supervisor; is that right?
0 8 A. That's correct. That's what I can recall at a
., 9 this moment andt ' hat's what my affidavit states.
, 10 Q. Okay. . And is it your recollection, Mr. Parks,
[ 11 that Mr. Thiesing said he had issued a memorandum causing [ 12 that to happen? 13 A. I believe. that that 'is what he stated. Either 14 he had issued or had a memo issued. The inference was
/ (}j 15 that the memo came from him.
4 16 Q. Did you ever see a memo issued by Mr. Thiesing 17 that had that ef f ect? ! 18 A. I don't recall at the moment in time who signed 19 the memo that I eventually saw replacing me with Dwight g 20 Walker as the alternate startup and test supervisor. 21 Q. You think it might have been Mr. Kitler?
.. 22 A.. I really don't recall at the time, sir, who did
.: (, 23 sign it. Or who issued it.
. 24 Q. What did you know on February 23rd at this u.
_. t 25 meeting -- did you know Jtr. Walker at the time this [ ! 26 meeting happened and you were informed that he was 27 replacing you? k2. 28 A. No, I did not.
.i-fajd . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.m.d
-. . w _ , .
_m~~~ t" e
'606 1 Q. ' Had you met him?
. 2 A. If I had met him, it was just -- would have
,, . 3 just been in~ passing.
I
,e -
4 MR. JOHNSON: Just to clarify that question,
?- 5 the way you said it, you also 'put in the question .at the
~
m 6 time you learned that Mr. Walker was replacing you. Now, 7 it wasn't established that he knew that when he was
, 8 spoken to by Mr. Thiesing at this meeting that you're
. ,[j 9- referring to.
10 So I . think there's some lack of clarity about
; 11 when he knew that.
?'~ 12 MR. HICKEY: Q. You don't remember whether Mr.
13 .Thiesing named Dwight. Walker as your replacement in his 4 . 14 comments at the February 23rd meeting; .is that right? j ([. . 15 A. I do not recall Jim Thiesing stating that 16 Dwight Walker would be my replacement, no. 17 Q. At the meeting, what did you know, if anything, 18 about Mr. Walker's experience or qualifications?
, I mean 19 as of the time of the meeting.
20 A. I -- at the time of the meeting, I don't think
~
21 I knew a whole lot about Mr. Walker. Most of the 22 information I knew of Mr. Walker came af ter the meeting. 23 Q. When' you heard the announcement from Mr.
. 24 Thiesing, did you form an opinion or have a view about
- 7. 25 whether the replacement of you by Mr. Walker as alternate
,'- 26 startup and test supervisor was appropriate?
27 A. Well, I think your question is two part and onc a /- i k.) 28 part makes an assumption. I don't believe I've testified v O TOOKER . & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
'GL---____---__----___--_.
o 607
.l -
x
'i l' that I knew during the meeting that I was being replaced
- s. 2 with Mr. Walker, just that I was being replaced.
5I 3 So I couldn't really make an assumption at that 1
. - 4 point in timeiwhether my replacement was an appropriate
! ' '[ -5 replacement or not. But -- ' 6 Q. f I understand your point. -
] 7 A. -- did I consider my replacement, period? You
.; 8 know, the act of me being removed from that position
- -l 9 appropriate? No, sir, I did not consider that
.g-.,
10 appropriate.
.- l 11 Q. When' did you learn about Mr. Walker being the-
' -'i 12 replacement for you?
;. ' 13 A. -Well, I can't really state with any certainty,
~
'14 but I believe it was when I read the memo.
Q 15 'Q. When did you read the memo?
, 16 A. Sometime after the meeting. Now, whether it i
s 17 was several days or not, I don't know. I can't recall at 18 this point in time. 19 Q. When you read the memo and learned that it was Walker who was replacing you, did you inquire about c- 20
; 21 Walk er's qualifications? -
22 A. I couldn't really tell you at this point in j 23 time if I did or not. I do recall being made aware of 24 the f act he had not been on the job site very long. 25 Q. In your view, did that af f ect the
']
26 appropriateness of his selection as alternate startup and 27 test supervisor? b 28 A. Well, I guess you'd have to describe to me what
.t d l .jd TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 3 .1 e91_________--__...______---__ _ ---
. .. , , _ _ - _ ~ _ .- - - - - - - - - - ---------
608 4 l' your definition of "the appropriateness" means. f7- 2 Q. Well, do you think it was a factor to
. \!
s 3 disqualify Mr. Walker from being the alternate startup
.. 4 and test supervisor that he had only been on the Island a
.I
< 5 short time?
6 A. No. I don't think that that -- you know, that " ' . .}
-l 7 did not limit his potential ef f ectiveness in any f ashion.
A
,. . 8 But it seemed kind of -- kind of out of the ordinary in ; .( 9 that we had a pretty unusual system set up there on the .. 10 job site, especially in regards of startup and test.
s 11 Q. I don't understand what you're saying, a pretty 12 unusual system. What do you mean? , N ' 13 A. Well, we had a f ew more departments than most 14 [ folk did. And a lot of times, the delineation of 1(jr 15 responsibility within those departments was not 16 absolutely clear. 17 . And so I felt that, you know, he may be an 18 excellent replacement, qualification-wise, education and
~
- 19 exp e r ienc e-wis e, but as f ar as experience on the Island 20 and how things were done, it was like throwing a -- you 21 know, Daniel in the lion's den.
22 0 Why do you say that, Mr. Parks? Because he had 3 I 23 only been there a short time? l 24 A. That's right. And if I can reca'11 correctly, j 25 he had only been assigned to the site engineering group 26 which was -- their responsibilities did not really cover u 27 the entire scope of everything that was going on on the 28 job site. i
.J ?U TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- $- __ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ - _ - _ - - . _ _ - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -n---- - - - - - - - --
. . w_-
609
. . cj '
.l sf[ 1 Q.. But-you don't know what his startup and test i
. (3, 2' experience prior to coming to the Island was?
v <w 3 A. At the time that I was replaced, no. And I was
,. 4- not so concerned with the fact .that the man may or may
- 5. 5 not be qualified. The concern that I had was that the
',u*j 6 man was not f amiliar with the requirements that we were
, 3 7 governed by at TMI 2 and the f act that I discovered I was t .
being replaced af ter I had become a -- you knbw, af ter I 8
]e*
J- 9 had documented problems, af ter I had voiced dissent 10 within the organization.
}, 11 I considered that to be just. like the same when
*[ t 12 'I was removed from the test work group as primary site
.; 13 ops representatives. They were limiting my involvement
., 14 because - and they were also removing my dissent. I 15
' knew that as .long as I was involved everything was gonna
_; (" 16 be done by the book. Every time I opened my mouth to try
), 17 to document anything, somebody tried to step on my tongue.
18 Q. When you say Mr. Walker was not familiar with 19 the. requirements you were governed by at THI, you mean ] l 20 the startup and test was governed by, I assume? I - 21 A. Not just necessarily the startup and test
.;.1 22 organization, but the way all the dif f erent' departments
~
23 were governed. 24 I was unsure whether or not Mr. Walker was 25 thoroughly familiar with the technical specifications
-(f}
j 26 that govern a technical power plant because the I " ' ' '. 27 requirements for a licensed and fueled nuclear power 28 plant were dif f erent f rom what was under construction. I 1
, 4 'Jc.'Yf TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,
Sk . - _ - - - - _ _ - - - _ _ - _
sv.;.__ . . - . . _ _ _ . . . _ - - 610
,W
; ,,q 1 Q.- Did you raise this concern with anyone about
,, ; -2 whether Mr. Walker had been appropriately trained with
., .3 regard to the requirements in the technical
, 4 specifications?
., .' 5 A. Well, you know, after-I had been. replaced,.I 6 figured I better keep my mouth shut before they 'did
, 7 something else.
, 8 Q. So your answer is you didn't raise that?
i ~9 A. No, I did not. 10 Q. And your knowledge of these requirements --
" .'. 11- A. Well, I want to back up a second, okay?-
5
'12 Because I think I may have misspoke.
13 Af ter I was removed, I. voiced my displeasure, 4 14 if you will,' at the act of my removal with the guys ( 15 within the site operations group, Larry King in 16 particular.
; And Larry, if. I can recall correctly, was 17 j
just as concerned about my removal from the -- having --
. 18 how do I want to say it. Constructive input channels 19 within the test work group or -- or within the startup 20 and test department, he was concerned by my removal, too.
21 And as a result, to ensure that my input was 22 still available for the groups trying to test the polar 23 crane, he appointed Bubba and myself as the site ops test
; 24~ work group members to make sure that we still had our
, ; 25 input and that nothing was done that was not above board 26 and.by the book.
. ,, 27 Q. You talk on page 26 of your af fidavit, which I s
.; b$ 28 think you have there in front of you, Mr. Parks, the
.;i +
, . ,g. ' TOOKER & ANT 2 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105
'1 s' 415/392-0650 '
l_
7-p . 611
.x y
.(. . 1 >
middle paragraph, last sentence, about not recalling any' i' 2 commitment' at the February 23rd meeting to reconstitute 4 k"?.
,. 3 'the test working group.
-y,
.i- 4 What did.you mean by that?
' '. 5 MS. EU RAS : I'm sorry. What are we referring 6 to? What paragraph?
-[ 7 MR. HICKEY: Last sentence of the middle 8 . par agr ap h.
a 9 THE WITNESS: Well, again, if memory serves me
"! 10 correctly, I believe there had been identified during o
-; 11 that meeting that we needed to get the TWG together as a
. L
; 12 group and, you know, to really assess everything that we 13 had done that ellowed us to get up to the point we were
, 14 a t.
([j 15 But subsequent to that meeting, the test work 1 16 group was not really formed or reconstituted, if you will,
, 17 reorganized and pulled back together as a single entity.
s'.. 18 And the only time it finally happened, if I l [, 19 recall correctly, was af ter Joe Chwastyk and I sent out j 20 those memos on or about' the 1st of March saying look, i e 21 guys, we better get our act together and get it going i 22 again. Shortly af ter that, we got the TWG together. ;
, :23 Q. Well, am I correct that you f elt there was a
- ) .
4 24 need as of the time of the February 23rd meeting to R 25 reconstitute the test working group but nobody promised 26 at the meeting to do it? Is that what you're saying?
, '27 A. I -- I couldn't really tell you if that's the
( kI C 28 way it -- you know, if you're accurate or not. What I [-
- N
> 9 (',i TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- -. ; ap_. . _., _ ,._ y._,, _ _ .- - - _------
612 e 9 4 1 seem to recall was there may have been a commitment to
- 2 put it tog ether, but then subsequently it was not done 3 and we jogged our memory again, saying look, we better do
'. 4 it.
, 5 Q. Put it together in the sense of appoint people 6 currently available to the slots? Is t$at what you mean?
7 A. Appointing people to the group, getting the 8 group together, starting to review everything we had done 9 relative to testing on the polar crane, et cetera, et
/
10 cetera. 11 Q. Some of the people who had previously been 12 appointed to group had lef t the Island; is that right? 13 There were vacancies in the group at the time of February 14 23rd? (f 15 A. I couldn't really tell you if they had lef t the 16 Island or not. 17 Q. or at least changed organizations? 18 A. Yes, I believe some of them had changed 19 organizations. S 20 Q. And you're not certain whether there were
< 21 people who had lef t, prior test working group members who 22 were no longer there?
. 23 A. Well, f rom what I can recall at this moment, a 24 there was -- people were assigned to the test working
. 25 group that were no longer available to fulfill those
; 26 functions. And there had been reorganizations within the i 27 departments, et cetera, et cetera, and this had been a
- b. 28 complete reorganization on the job site itself.
. .)?? TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,e:L________________._______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
613
-+. :
. /:,
, l'- So we needed to get representation that was
. .(
jL 7, 2 more ' representative of what existed. , A c.
, 3 Q. And didn' t that happen, Mr. Parks, that is, j ,a 4 that the appointments to the test working group were made
-i 5 within a matter of days, or let's say a week hf ter the
* .; 6 February 23rd meeting?
.. 7 A. Yes, there wer e.
8 Q.. Okay. And specifically, you were appointed, 9 and Mr. Marshall, as the site operations representatives; 10 is,.that right? (( 11 , A. That's correct. e 12 Is it your testimony today that that happened
. Q.
13 after you had gone to Larry King and complained about a ,.
,- 14 your removal?
- c,
,](j! 15 A. What happened?
16 Q. That you were named as the site operations 17 representative.
., 18 'MR. JOHNSON: Would you repeat the question in
; 19 complete because I think it's confusing.
. - 20 MR. HICKEY: Q. Is it your testimony -- well
. 21 let me put it this way: Did you go to Mr. King and ask 22 him to appoint you --
1 23 A. No, I did not.
, j 24 Q. -- to the test working group?
2 25 A. No, I did not. i 26 Q. But you did go to Mr. King and have some
. .i 27 discussion about your replacement by Mr. Walker?
aq
.:, 28 Replacement you didn't know by whom?
;4 i
-;) ,
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
'.?,,)
lu f]'
% :S
i ,......_ .-- --- - -- ------- ------ ----- 614 r _ s j 1 A. That's correct.
, 2 Q. And what did you tell Mr. King?
3 A. I didn't like it. 4 Q. But you didn't ask him to appoint you?
, , 5 A. No, I did not.
6 Q. When did' you have this discussion with Mr. King? 7 A. After that meeting was over with. 8 Q. Immediately, you mean? 9 A. Well, it may not have been immediately. The
- j. 10 meeting was held up in the admin building and we went
,' 11 back to our office spaces. I believe the discussion
, 12 happened in our office spaces that same day. And I
, 13 believe he issued a memo the very next day.
14 Q. Was Mr. King at the meeting where Mr. Thiesicq (- 15 made these comments? 16 A. I believe he was, yes.
. . 17 Q. Did you ever ask Ed Kitler about why you had 18 been replaced by Mr. Walker?
I 19 A. I believe at some point in time that there was 20 a discussion either with Ed or with somebody, I can't i 21 really recall now who, as to why. 22 Q. Well, focusing now on Ed Kitler. You said Ed
. 23 Kitler or somebody. Do you have a recollection now of 4
24 discussing with Ed Kitler your removal or replacement by i 25 Mr. Walker? 26 I may have, but at the moment I can't tell you A. 27 with any certainty whether I did or not.
~k 28 Q. You just don't have any recollection?
* *d .$ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,,9
f , _ - - -- -- O - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.' Er. 615
.- 1 A. No. Not 'at this point in time I don't.
2 Q. Do you. recall discussing it with anyone besides
', . 3 Mr. King?
> :; . . 4 A. What? The act of me being removed?
5 MR. JOHNSON: At what-time?
,j. 6 MR. HICKEY: Q. Up until the time you left.
gi ei 7 Let's say up through March 24.
. 8- A. Well, I think- I discussed it with several 9 different people. I mean, you know, I discussed it with ,. 10 a lot of people af ter I served notice to the NRC and the-11 Department of Labor.
12 Q. Well, let me focus you on the time frame 13 shortly after the events happened. You were at this 3 14 meeting on February 23rd and you believe Mr. King
,c (.' - 15 appointed you as a site operations representative, let's 16 say within a day or two of that day. In that time frame,
, 17 in those three,. four, . five days, did you discuss it with 18 anyone besides Mr. King?
c 19 A. I really couldn't tell you at this point in 20 time who I did -discuss it with or who I didn't discuss it
'l 21 with. I just really can't provide any better answer for
,J 22 you than that, Mr. Hickey.
. 23 Q. Also of the time of this meeting, February 23rd, did you view Mr. Kitler as a f riend of yours, Mr. Parks?
l 24 25 A. Up until the 23rd? i 26 Q. Well, including the 23rd. 27 A. Yes.
~
. ku 28 Q. Did it change immediately on the 23rd? Is that
. i
* *M )f, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 g'$ %- _ _m _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ - . - --
O.:: m : :: = : _: = ww: :wa._: a - n u w - - - --,- - - - - - - - - - -
'616' I
s.
<* 1 what you're saying? Or what? Are you --
*+ -
2 A. No. l 3 Q.- -- making some distinction of the 23rd as [*}-} 4 opposed to ' the 24th or 25th? Y 5 A. No. You were the one that couched it in 6 certain terms. I just wanted to make sure I understood
.- 7. your terms.
8 Q. Oh, all right. . I didn't know if you were. trying to draw some distinction. But you're not. 9 10 Mr. Kitler was your friend during the period of 1
'. 11 February and March 1983; is that correct?
12 A. I, consider Mr. Kitler my friend. 13 Q. And you did then? You just answered that.in i j
. 14 the present tense. J
('j i 15 A. No. I said "I considered." 16 Q. All right. You considered him your friend in 17 February and March of 19837 18 A. Y es. 3 19 Q. How about Ben Slone? Mr. Slone was a friend of 20 yours, too, wasn't he, Mr. Parks? 21 A. Y es , he was.
. 22 Q. You'd known Mr. Slone for about how long as of 23 February '83?
24 A. I had known Mr. Slone how long?
" '; 25. Q. That's my question. >
26 A. Oh. Oh, I guess maybe two or three years,
'" "' 27 something like that.
^
.; iO 28 Q. You knew Mr. Slone was a half owner of a
!L 7 d. y'i 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 TOOKER & ANTZ Aidd _ _ _ .______ - - - - -
- 617 ' fl e V- '\
l w i 1 . company called 1Quiltec, didn't you, in February of '837
. .~ ' n.
2 MS. ZURAS: j
- Excuse me. Are'you asking him if g,- [ hq s 3 he knew that in 83 or Mr. Slone was half' owner in '837
,r 4 MR. HICKEY: If he knew in February of '83.
' i 5 THE WITNESS: Well, I knew ' Ben Slone was an ;
6 owner, but now whether he was 50/50 or, you know, what I i 7 the percentile breakup was in February of 1983, I 8 couldn't really say that I knew who owned how much stock
, ~
9 or anything like that. But I knew Ben Slone was a part 10 owner, anyway. 11 'MR. HICKEY: Q. And in 1983, in the time frame
'4 12 we're talking about,. February, you~ knew, did you not,
, 13 that Ben Slone and Larry' King had formed Quiltec in the 14 summer of 1981?
()
~
,, 15 A. Well, I knew that he had formed Quiltec. I 16 couldn't really tell you how long that they had had the 17 company together.
But I knew that they were Quiltec, yes. 18 Q. You had discussed it with them at the time it l 19 was set up, discussed a company like Quiltec at the time 20 it was set up in the summer of 1981, didn't you Mr. Parks? 21
, A. I discussed it with them in 1981, yes.
22 Q. You don' t remember if it was summertime or not?
,l 23 A. I could only speculate on that.
1 24 Q. And when you say Mr. King and Mr. Slone were i
.f 25 Quiltec, did you understand Mr. King to have an ownership
, ;. 26 interest in Quiltec?
.' 27 A. Y es. I believed Mr. King to own part of
. ; p-
.l.; Ki 28 Quiltec.
g)i TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco
$j ei li 94105 415/392-0650 gggnmee m- -"- ^ *~~~" ~ - ~ --~ - - ~~~' " r ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
...+._-----a.-n------.-~~--------------
618 d6 1 Q. But you don't know exactly how much? Is that
, 2 what you're seeing?
{, 3 A. Well, I didn't figure it was my business. If
~ '
4 they wanted me to know, they'd have told me. 5 Q. Did you know of any other owners besides Mr. 6 Slone and Mr. King in February of 19837 7 A. I knew there were other owners, but I was
, 8 unsure who they were.
9 Q. Did you know Mr. Hode, who was a relative or j
-; 10 stepson or something of Mr. King's?
4 11 A. I know I learned that sometime in 1983. But
} 12 now whether I knew that in February of '83 or not, I 13 don't believe I did.
n 14 Q. Ben Slone went to work at Shoreham -- you will
-(' 15 recall I think we talked about this the last time. Ben 16 Slone went to work at Shoreham in about May of 1982 and 17 you.came down to Three Mile Island at approximately the 18 same time; is that right?
19 A. That's about the same time f rame. Right.
'i 20 Excuse me. You did say 1982, right?
21 Q. Yes. After Mr. Slone went to work at Shoreham, 22 did you have occasion to see him in the 23 Three Mile Island-Harrisburg area?
' - 24 A. I know -- can recall one time when Ben was back 25 ~
at Three Mile Island and that was during Quick Look which 26 would have been in July of 1982. There may have been s
, ; 27 other occasions that I saw Ben, but when they were I
- 28 couldn't really tell you.
j
.i 1
! 6:.' .
' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,,,. r.Af
l f 619 I,
-l 1 Q. And do you remember him being at your residence g<. .
2 in 1982 af ter he had begun working at Shoreham? So af t er i 3 May 1982.
'J
. 4 (Whereupon, Mr. Berry enters the deposition.)
, 5 THE WITNESS: I think it was either like at 6 Christmas or New Year's or possibly Thanksgiving. I s e em 7 to think it was more Christmas or New Year's time frame k 1
8 of 1982 that Ben was'do'wn. I think we got together and 9 celebrated the New Year. 10 But I wouldn't swear to it. But that's what I 11 seem to recall. 12 MR. JOHNSON: Just for the record, Mr. Berry
- 13 has just arrived. Mr. Berry is with the Office of
.,, 14 General Counsel of the Nuclear Regulatory ~ Commission. ( 15 Gregory -- 16 MR. BERRY: Alan B erry , B-e-r-r-y. 17 THE WITNESS: The question you asked me 18 previously kind of troubles me and I want to make sure 19 you understand. 20 You asked me earlier if I thought Ed Kitler was '
, 21 my friend. And I did. But I tell you what, you know, 22 af ter -- af ter February 18th when he conveyed that threat 23 to me about me being transferred of f the job site because 24 I had pissed of f upper management, I kind of really
', 25 started to wonder if that man's my friend or not or 26 whether he was just really conveying something to me that 27 zanagement had said to him out of friendship or not.
. * (? 28 But I know shortly thereaf ter, Ed had started M,
4 .., ,. 1
. .: : s1 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. .i y-
, 620 f
. 1 putting a lot of distance between himself and me. And we l- g: 2 had always been pretty close before. So that kind of s <
- l. . 3 made me wonder, you know. Especially taking into 4 consideration some of the other things that happened to 5 me af ter February 18th, kind of made me wonder if I
. 6 wa s n ' t a ma r k ed ma n. And Ed didn't want to go down with
. .. 7 the f all.
8 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, mark ed man. But did you 9 think that Mr. Kitler was the one who was marking you? 10 Did you think Mr. Kitler was your enemy? 11 A. I could not really tell you now if Ed Kitler 12 had for one reason or another become my enemy during that 13 time frame or not. And I couldn't really tell you if Ed
, 14 Kitler was the man who was marking me or if somebody else
( 15 was marking me and he was just passing information to me. 16 I don't know. 17 If I had been able to have that insight years 18 ago, maybe I wouldn't be sitting here today. P 19 Q. Well, when Mr. Kitler spoke to you on February 20 18, didn't you think he was speaking to you as a friend? 1 21 A. Well, it's always been a shortcoming of mine I 22 that I put too much trust in most people. And so I 23 refused to believe that at that point in time that --
- . 24 that Ed had become my enemy and I took that threat to be 25 s er iou s , so I took it that he was telling me something 26 that came f rom upper management.
. .. 27 Q. Let me go back to where I think we were.
S.- 28 Besides your New Year's Eve -- or New Year's celebration t
>f
.; , TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 E _ _ _ -- - - - -
.,,y- =
621 1 with Mr. Slone at your residence, do you remember other 2 occasions when Mr. Slone in 1982 was in your presence, e {9 a 3 other than the Quick Look at the Island and the New Year's
,, 4 Eve?
5 A. There may have been, but I couldn't really tell J
, ,[ 6 you at this point in time if there 'were or not.
. 7 Q. Do you recall being at Mr. King's house in 1982 8 with Ben Slone?
9 A. I can recall being at Mr. King's house in early 10 1983 with Mr. -- with Ben being there. l
. 11 Q. When are you recalling? <
12 A. Oh, it would probably have been shortly after 13 Larry was fired, that time frame. 14 Q. When you say fired, do you mean suspended, ({, 15 which happened on February 24? 16 A. Right. I consider suspended only window 17 dressing for firing him. 18 Q. Well, one diff erence was he was paid af ter he i 19 was suspended until he was terminated. 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. You're talking about the time while he was
; 22 still being paid but was suspended?
23 A. I would say, you know, af ter he lef t the job
. 24 site. That way you and I would not have to argue over
.. 25 the semantics of whether the man was being paid or not.
. 26 Q. Now, what was the occasion when you and Mr.
s 27 Slone were at Mr. King's house early 'in '83 on this event k,e 28 you've just discussed?
.f,g, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
-i 4%A__________.__________---- --
..,..;. _ - . - - = ,
621-1 'with Mr. Slone at your~ residence, do you remember other i g . ( r.: ;2 occasions when Mr. Slone in 1982 was in your presence, n -
, 4 3 other than the Quick Look at the Island and the New Year's 4 Eve? l
>! 5- A. There may have been, but I couldn't really tell
, 6 you at this point in' time if there -were or not. I
. I' 7 Q. Do you recall being at Mr. King's house in 1982
. . 8 with Ben Slone? '!
9 A. I can recall being at Mr. King's house in early '
; 10 1983 with Mr. -- with Ben being there.
. 11 Q. When are you recalling?
12 A. Oh,.it would probably have been shortly after 13 Larry was fired, that time f rame. 14 Q. When you say fired, do you mean suspended, (,) 15 which happened on February 247 16 A. Right. I consider suspended only window 17 dressing for firing him. 18 Q. Well, one diff erence was he was paid af ter he 19 was suspended until he was terminated.
+'
20 A. Okay. 21 Q. You're talking about the time while he was 22 still being paid but was suspended?
!}
23 A. I would say, you know, af ter he lef t the job
. 24 site. That way you and I would not have to argue over
.. 25 the semantics of whether the man was being paid or not.
Jy 26 Q. Now, what was the occasion when you and Mr.
. 27 Slone were at Mr. King's house early'in '83 on this event
.s l kN 28 you've just discussed?
3 1 D 4
., TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart - Str eet San Francisco 9410'S 415/392-0650 . W - - _ _-_-___ - _ - - - _ - - - . - -
622 j 1 A. I really couldn't tell you. I would -- I can l (. ,
. , 2 r ecall, you know, being around Ben Slone frequently after Larry was suspended and I was suspended, so, you know, I 3
I 4 really couldn't tell you if there was a particular reason
. 5 in mind why Ben was there and why I was there or not.
6 Q. The time you're talking about, though, Mr. 7 Parks, at Mr. King's house, you were not suspended at
. 8 this time; is tha't right?
9 A. I really couldn't state witn any certainty at 10 this point in time if I had been suspended or not. I may q 11 have been, I may not have been. 12 I guess what I'm trying to say, Mr. Hickey --
. 13 and I'm not trying to give you a song and dance. I'm 14 just trying to state that there were several occasions
( 15 that I was around Ben Slone af ter he went to Shoreham and 16 all the way up until I was transferred to California. 17 Now what we were doing at each one of those 18 times, other than drinking beer or -- I really couldn't 19 tell you. 20 Q. Well, I'm trying to focus us geographically. 21 There is a particular occasion when you were at Mr. King's a 22 house with Mr. Slone. 23 A. And as I stated previously, sir, I can recall 24 being at Mr. King's house when Mr. Slone was there, but
. 25 exactly when I really couldn't tell you.
26 Q. Well, did you talk about Mr. King's suspension 27 or status or situation with his employer on this occasion
. kJ 28 when you and Slone were at King's house?
P. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
~ -____ -- __
V lL., V , 623i
- " 1 MS. ZU RAS : Excuse me. Could you read that
. . . ; , ,3 2 questibnback,please?
3 (Qu es tion "r ead . ) -
,, f 4 MS. ZURAS : Okay. Just so the transcript is 5 clear and nobody gets confused 1about its use later, 6' you're not saying that Mr. Parks discussed with Mr. King's
,. 7' employer' his suspension, you're talking about a
'8 conversation that he'had with Mr. King af ter Mr. King was 9 suspended from his employment?
- 10 MR. HICKEY ' I'm talking about a conversation
.,. 11 he had at Mr. King's ' house on an occasion when Mr. Slone
;. 12 and.Mr. King were -there relating to Mr. King's suspension.
13 MS. ZURAS: Thanks. 14 THE WITNESS: I want to make sure I understand (, 15 this. If I . understand the question you're asking, you're 16 trying to determine whether or- not' when Ben Slone and I 17 were there at Larry King's house, whether' or not we 18 discussed Larry being canned. 19 MR. HICKEY: Q. Yes. , 1 20.- A. Probably. But I couldn't really, you know, 21 tell you what we talked about other than I'm reasonably fi 22 positive that if it occucted af ter Larry was suspended 23 from the job site, that we would have talked about it. 24 } Q. And your best recollection is that it did occur l
, 25 probably shortly af ter he was suspended as you testified
, 26 a f ew minutes ago?
, 27 A. Probably.
'o k, 28 Q. I'm asking you for your best recollection. I t
f3 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 I" ~-- = _ _ _____ _ _ _.____ ___ _ __ a
L
.;. _ w a - - ~ .- . y _ - . - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - --
624 y ., 1 assume that's what you're giving us. 3 2 A. That's what I'm trying to give you, sir. l 1 3 Q. Okay. You had referred Ed Kitler to Mr. Slone 4 -4 with regard to possible employment with Quiltec, had you 5 not, Mr. Parks? I.' 6 A. Y es , sir. I believe you and I' talked about 7 that last time. If I didn't> talk about it with you, I 8 sure did talk about it with Kennedy Richardson.-
; 9 Q. About when did 3cu ref er Mr. Kitler to Mr.
., 10 Slone?
. 11 A. It would have been sometime during th.e summer
, 12 of 1982. Prior to the reorganization, which I think took 13 - place in like August or September of '82.
14 Q. Did you recommend Mr. Kitler to Mr. Slone? Did ( 15 you speak well of Mr. Kitler to Mr. Slone?
; 16 A. Well, I didn't have_to speak well of Ed Kitler 17 to Ben Slone. I mean, you know, Ben had knowledge of Ed A
18 Kitler.
. 19 Q. Yeah.
20 A. Ben and Ed and I had also worked together on 21 the SDS project years before. So Ben had some knowledge 22 of Ed because Ben and Ed had worked together at TMI 23 before my retirement, so I didn't have to recommend the s 24 man. J' 25 O. Did Mr. Kitler indicate why he wanted you to
; 26 contact Slone for him? .
27 A. I don't -- maybe I'm misunderstanding your 28 statement, but I can -- I can't state it that he had l
) 'n . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- . -e - - - - __ - ____
1
I
. g ,,,,__ _ ___.___ - - - - --_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
625
, 1- requested I contact Ben Slone. I think it was more he
, ,, A 6, 2 asked me how to get ahold of Ben Slone, something to that
.-l 3 effect. And if I recall correctly, I think I picked up
, 4 the phone and called Ben's number and handed the phone to t' 5 Ed.
6 Q. Do'you recall having any other discussion with Mr. Slone about Mr. Kitler's possible employment with 7 8 ' Quilt ec ? . 9 -A. I may have, but I really.couldn't tell you at i 10- this point in time if we had subsequent conversations or i 11 not. l i 12 Q. .You 'also talked to Mr. Slone, did you not in
, 13 late '82, I mean November, December, about Mr. 'Chwastyk's 14 involvement in Quiltec, didn't you, Mr. Parks?
, 15 A. 1.really couldn't tell you at this point in 16 time if we did or not.
17 Q. Well, you remember talking to Ben Slone to the 18 eff ect that Mr. Chwastyk was interested in getting 19 involved with Quiltec and with Mr. King? 20 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me, Mr. Parks. Before you -- 21 I just want to caution you about speculating. If you
. 22 have -- we're only entitled to your recollection.
23 THE WITNESS: I couldn't really tell you i 24 whether I did or not, to be perf ectly honest with you.
. ; 25 MR. HICKEY: Q. You were aware in the latter
.. 26 part of 1982 of Mr. Chwastyk and Mr. King being together J 27 a great deal more than their job duties seemed to require?
' d (v 28 Do you remember that?
s6% TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. Jl. - - - - - _ - - _ _ . _ - -
e
.om-mmsww .
626 D 'l 1 MS. ZURAS: Could you please read back the
, (0 2 question?
s, 3 (Question read.) 4 MS. ZURAS: I'm going to object to the question 5 as vague and ambiguous.
-s 6 Do you understand the question?
- 7 THE WITNESS: Well, I think I - know what he's i
8 driving at, but I don't think the question -- I don't
. . 9 understand what he's getting at with that question, no.
10 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, instead of trying to 9 11 worry about that, why don't you see. if .you can answer the 12 question. If you don't understand it, I'll rephrase it. 13 I'm asking you whether you were aware in the
, 14 latter part of 1983 that Mr. Chwastyk and Mr. King were
([ 15 involved with Quiltec and were spending a great deal' of 16 time together? 17 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Involved in spending a 18 great deal of time together with respect to Quiltec
. 19 activities?
20 MR. HICKEY: Yes.
. 21 THE WITNESS: I guess I can safely say that 22 that I knew Joe Chwastyk was definitely interested in 23 Quiltec and that Joe Chwastyk was to some extent or 24 another involved in Quiltec. And, you know --
4 25 MS. ZURAS: Okay, Mr. Parks. Please listen to
. 26 the question. He's asking you if you're aware of 27 meeting's or negotiations between Mr. Chwastyk and Mr.
' d 28 King about Quiltec.
;(j) TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,. 2. 4 ..
.,y,'p____.-_._-- _
---.--~~--------- -- i i # ', 627
- 1 1
l' MR. JOHNSON: In a' particular time frame, as ' o ; 2 well. 3 MS. ZU RAS : Yes.- And unless you were there or 4 have some knowledge independently, you're speculating. f
< 5 So all I'm asking you to do is please listen to the
.sd 6- quest'on i and give your best recollection.
7 THE WITNESS: I guess I'd have to say I don't-8 know what Larry King and Joe Chwastyk talked about when l
+ - 9 they were together.
10 MR. HICKEY: Q. You know that Chwastyk f attended a Quiltec meeting at Mr. King's house around 11
.3 12 November of '82? Didn't you know that, Mr. Parks?
13 A. Are you' asking me do I know it now or did I 4 14 know it then? l ( 15 Q. No. Did you know it in November, December '82.
'. 16 A. I don't have any recall of knowing that in 17 November and December of 1982, that Joe Chwastyk had 18 attended a meeting ' for Quiltec at Larry King's house, no.
19 Q. Well, around November or December of 1982 you 20 did know, didn't you, that Mr. Chwastyk had gone to l
/ 21 Beaver Valley Power Station on behalf of Quiltec with Mr.
22 King's son-in-law, Mr. Hode, or stepson or whatever? 23 A. Once again, I have to refer you to the 24- testimony I have given Mr. Richardson. Not to delay this 25 procedure, my memory now is not as clear as it was then 4 26 because I was boning up on a lot of stuf f. 27 Q. You mean in preparation for your deposition b, I 28 with Mr. Richardson? 3 1 . ; c ",; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 1 - 94105 415/392-0650 l q.cj 4
,,,~.c--~--..~----------- - - - - - - - - - -
628 q i
- ., l' A. Right. Right.
2 Q. Not for this one? ! fs
, 3 A. Nope.
4 Q. .Go ahead. l e 5 A. But anyway, the point I was trying to make is 1
- 6 at some point. in time I became aware that Joe Chwastyk 7 went over to Beaver valley and represented Quiltec for 'a 8_ proposal. But, now, at what point in time I became aware
)
9 of that information e at this very inntant in time I I J 10 couldn't tell you.
. 11 Q.. Well, let me see if I can refresh you. I'm I 12 going to show you an exhibit previously marked as Exhibit l 13 39 to your deposition'. It's your signed, sworn statement i
14 dated July 25, 1983, to the NRC sworn to by you on July 15 25. It's 10 pages. And I'm ref erring you to the middle 16 paragraph on page three. 17 MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. Could I just delay
-18 you for a second while I try to find this page. Okay.
I4 19 And again, the number? 20- MR. BERRY: 39. 21 MR. JOHNSON: 397 And the reference was to 22 what page? I'm sorry.
. 23 MR. HICKEY: Three.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay. I've read through that 25 paragraph. I 26
; MR. HICKEY: Q. Do you recall being aware in
- ,: 27 November or December of '82 that Mr. Slone was telling ku 28 you that Chwastyk was involved with Kirg and Chwastyk was 1
1 i
.[y . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 .4 R_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -- -- _ - -
l,,;..w,-----.------.-------
- p. . 629 i.
pp.. I trying/ to get a position with Quiltec?
< rl- 2 A. What I can tell you at this point in time is
\
L 3 that my memory does not serve to provide any additional
,- . 4 information to dispute that statement.
. 5 Q. And at the time you swore to this statement in u 6 July of 1983, . were .you trying . to tell the truth in this M'
7 statement as best you could? l
.-: 8 A. Y es. Definitely. I'dL also like to point out 3 her e,. this statement, I know that _ chwastyk attended a 1
. 10 Quiltec meeting with Ben Slone and Gloria King at King's ;
11 house, et cetera, et cetera, up through and including the 12- statement that he went to Beaver Valley, there is no date
. 13 that appears in there.
14 And I think it would only be an assumption on ( , 15- your part that I was aware of. that information in 16 November or December of 1982 because my statement does 17 not provide any amplifying comments as to when I became 18 aware of that. 19 Q. That's why I was asking you. You don't have 20 any recollection of when you became aware of it? 21 A. Well, you pointed out I swore this -- when did
)
1 22 you say it was, July 1983, or something like that?
, 23 Q. Righ t.
. 24 MS. ZURAS: July 25.
25 THE WITNESS . All right. I would say I became fd 26 aware-of that before July 25th,1983. ( f. 27 MR. HICKEY: Q. Can you place it any more
"' i k ? ' 28 accurately than that, Mr. Parks?
l l 1 sfil TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 I s ei$
, w .. m . _ _ _ _ - - - - - - ~ ._ - ~ _ _ _ _ - _ _. _ _. _ _ _ - _
q- 630 L'
, .. 1 A. No, sir. Not at this point in time I can't.
.- (" 2 Not to interrupt the flow of things, but when
, 3 do you all plan to start breaking for. lunch? 4 Q. About 12:00 o' clock j, 5 A. .Well, my day started at 3:30. Do you reckon we 6 could reconvene at 11:30 and start at 12:307 7 Q., Probably pretty close to 11:30. 8 A. All right.
- b. 9 Q. Help with the lunch crowds, too.
l l> 10 The paragraph that you just read refers to Mr. i j 11 Chwastyk contacting a gentleman named Don Skidmore. Did l
- 12- you know Mr. Skidmore was an employee at the Beaver i 13 Valley Power Station?
l 1 14 A. At the time I made t is? Yes, I did. (. 15 Q. How about before then? ' 16 A. Well, I would imagine I probably -- well, there 17 again, I have to speculate. I can only say I don't know. 18 But I'm sure I did. j 19 You know, it's really hard to tell you when I i l 20 became aware of the f act that Don Skidmore was an l 21 employee at Beaver Valley Power Station. I probably 1 l 22 became aware of it about the same time I found out that i. L 23 Joe Chwastyk had been going over there talking to the boy.
.. 24 So I can't judg e.
^{ 25 Q. Didn't know him before that?
26 A. No.
. ; 27 Q. You didn't know Don Skidmore before that? 1 7;(a/ 28 A. No. I have never met the man or talked with l
L s(M TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 lse,"1 t .
. , .... .s ;a _ . - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ . - - - - - --------- 631
, . . 1 the man in my life. . J , 2 Q. When Chwastyk informed you, you assumed j i
4 3 Chwastyk informed you when he talked to Skidmore, !
+
4 whenever that was? -
' i . 5 .A. No, sir. That would be misstating what I said. !
6 Q. What did you say? I thought you said you found 7 out when Chwastyk told you. 8 A. No. I said I probably learned when I became 9 aware of Chwastyk going over and talking to the boy. 10 Q. Oh. Well, who do you believe told you that? 11 A. I would only have to guess or speculate. And I 12 don't believe I want.to. 13' Q. Well, can.you identify some of the likely 14 candidates who would have told you that? ( 15 MS. EURAS: No. No. He just told he has no 16 recollection and giving you names of people who might 17 have given him the information is speculating. 18 MR. HICKEY: I think it's an evaluation by him 19 of people who might have known about it. 20 MS. EURAS: Well, I respectfully disagree and
-i
. 21 would instruct him not to speculate.
22 MR. HICKEY: Q. You can't throw any light on 23 that, Mr. Parks?
+. 24 A. No, sir. Not with any reasonable certainty.
25 Q. You remember Chwastyk telling you when Beaver
,- 26 valley came through none of us would have to worry about
'~
, 27 the way Bechtel is trying to move the schedule ahead or a 28 trying to take over things?
af'N .TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
'1 ?: d L - - - - -- __-_ - _ __ - _ _ _- . - -
. _ . ., .. : s . . .. . . n. g; .3, 632 1 A. I can remember Joe Chwastyk making comments of 2 that nature to me,'yes.
'{
I 3 Q. About when did that happen? 4 A. Oh, I'd say probably in the last part of 1982, 5 up through and including the time that I was removed from 6 the job site. 7 Q. Why do you say up through and including the < 8 time you were removed from the job site? 9 A. Because I can't pin it down any better than 10 that. And that would have been the time frame it would 11 have been occurring in. At least that't, the best my 12 memory serves to provide it. 13 Q. Well, when was Quiltec seeking a contract at 14 Beaver valley? What was the time frame? ( 15 A. I can only -- I hate to use the word " speculate," 16 but I am of the belief it was the last part of 1982, 17 early part of 1983.
. 18 Q. And do you know when they learned about whether 19 they were going to get or not get the contract?
A. No, sir, I do not. 20 21 Q. Did you have some discussion with Ed Kitler in
" 22 the latter part of 1982 and the early part of 1963 about 23 the need for Mr. King to be more careful about his 24 Quiltec activitics?
25 A. Well, I think it's more a fact that Ed had a conversation with me where he' mentioned something along
. 26
** So yes, 27 that line just like I state in that statement.
- k. 28 it did occur sometime during that time f rame.
' f- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. z- -_-- - - - - -
J.;j)_ __ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - -
~
633'
, ~ y y/ j a )
1 Q.. And the time' f rame. you're ref erring to -is what? g iz, ( ' 2- A. Last part.of '82, first part of 1983.
,. 3, MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Would you please read
,, 4 back Mr. Hickey's last question. Not_ima,ediately last 5 one, but the one before that.
J 6 (Question read.) .
.,/
. 7 MS. EURAS: Thanks.
,. ,- 8 THE WITNESS:- Yes.
9 MS. EURAS: Mr. Hickey, you weren't suggesting 10 by that question that Mr. Parks was the one that stated 11 Mr. King'needed to be careful? l , 12 MR. HICKEY: I think Mr. Parks's answer 'said-13 that Mr. Kitler told him that. 14 MS. EURAS: Thanks. 15 MR. HICKEY . Q. Yes. 16 A. I think I said it was more like Ed Kitler had a 17 ' conversation with me making those statements. 1 18 Q. Did you ever talk to Ben Slone about the need l . 19 for Mr. King to be more dis'creet or careful about his 20 'Quiltec activities?
,. 21 A. If I did, I sure don't recall at the moment.
1 22 Q. In February 1983,' you had a discussion with Ben 23 Slone about possible work for Quiltec at TMI writing 24 procedures; is that not the fact?
,. 25. A. I think you'd have to provide just little bit I
26 of amplification. You mean did I call up Ben and say, g; 27 hey, Ben, go for it, or what?
, .) 28 Q. Did you have a discussion?
+
, [: n,. ,
TOOKER fr ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 \ . ?;_ _ _- - - -- -_-
634 1 A. I can recall discussions when Ben contacted me
<' 2 one time at the job site and told me that he had been
\;
, 3 approached by somebody for procedure writing at TMI for
.." 4 Bechtel, asked me what my opinion of it was, that type of
, 5 thing.
6 Q. What did you tell him? 7 A. I told him that it stunk to high heaven and I 8 would n ' t touch it with a 10-foot pole. 9 Q. Why did you stay that?
'Cause I thought Bechtel was setting him up.
10 A. 11 Q. What do you mean? 12 A. Just that. 13 Q. Setting him up for what? 14 A. Conflict of interest. ( 15 Q. Ben contacted you at the job site. Do you mean 16 by telephone or in person? 3 17 By telephone. I) A. It was just -- it seemed like 18 everything~was happening all at once. I mean, there had 19 been some dude by the name of Blizzard or Buzzard or 20 something like that contacting the job site and getting l 21 ahold of Larry King's secretary and trying to talk to 22 Larry King. 1 23 And I had talked to Ben and he was telling me ! 24 the same thing, that Bechtel was trying to, you know, get ! 25 him to come on down, write some procedures there that was
, 26 needed there on the job site and everything else. I l
. 27 And I just -- I thought there was a rotten fish I
, J- 28 in that barrel somewhere. And that's exactly what I told l
l
- , TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 . t__________ - _ - - - - - - _ - - -
..,y..w s;:.e..u::w a w -u - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 635 < 's e J4 . 1 him.
, fn:, 2 Q. Did you understand that what Mr. Slone was n~
i 3 telling you about was a possibility of Quiltec providing
k 4 Mr. Slone to write these procedures?
', 5 A. That's'what I understood.
6 Q. And who did you think would be involved in a 7 conflict of interest? 8 A. Larry King. 9 Q. Were you aware of some conflict of interest 10 rules or guidelines that applied to Mr. King? 11 A. I was not aware of any conflict of interest
'~
12 rules or guidelines that applied to Larry King, no. I 13 was not a GPU employee. 14 Q. And why did you think this would be a conflict (, 15- of interest? 16 A. It just seemed to me that if Larry was involved 17 in Quiltec and was supplying people under the letterhead 18 of Quiltec to TMI, that that would be a conflict of l
, 19 int er es t.
'. 20 Q. Did you discuss it with Larry King?
c 21 A. Nope. 22 Q. Did Mr. Slone indicate why he was having this j i 23 discussion with you about the proposal? j l
. . 24 A. I don't think I understand the question, sir. j l 25 Q. Well, it's a simple one. In the conversation
',' 26 you had with Ben Slone, did he tell .you why he was
. ' s +: 27 seeking your advice about this? j ku 28 A. No. And I didn't ask him.
r ; 1 i bn".\ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
'A?O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _
w p .. ' 636 c
, 3. ; . 1 Q. All right. Do you have any. recollection of
..; 2 ever seeing or handing Mr. Parks a-copy of the GPU 3
+
3 conflict of interest guidelines while you were at the
.- !. 4 Island?
[ 5 A. No. If I did have a copy of it, I sure don't - k. 4 6 recall -it at the moment.
, 7 Q. And you don't remember going through them or 8 examining them to see what they. provide?
, 9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do.you remember ever discussing what they were
. .. 11 with anyone at TMI?
e 12 A. Excuse me. Can'we get a clarification, when. 13 you say the rules -- i 14 Q. Guidelines. j ([ 15 MS. ZURAS: Are you referring to guidelines in 16 general represented by GPU? 17 MR. HICKEY: No. We're talking about GPU, you
, , 18 understand.
'19 MS. ZURAS ' - Yes, I do
.,. 20 MR. HICKEY: Q. Do you recall discussing GPU
, 21 guidelines? Whether or not you saw a piece of paper, do
, 22 you recall discussing any GPU guideline on conflict of 23 interest with anyone at TMI?
24 MS. ZURAS : What time frame? 25 MR. HICKEY: When he was at the Island.
.., 26 THE WITNESS: I believe at one point in time --
;,.. 27 and I'm not absolutely certain of the time frame involved,
~~ 28
-; .- ) but I believe it was 1981 when Ben and I were talking j I
s
- g/.j; TOOKER'& ANTZ' 131 Steuart Street' San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
{,
. m____________
3....__ m . _ __. --------------------
'637 r
g- 1 about his idea of forming a company, I think I asked him r' 2. at that time if there were any way he 'could be considered' {-
, :, . . 3. being a conflict of interest with GPU if he did'that.
d,/ 4 And I believe at that - during that
' T, 5- conversation that he informed me that either he or ' Larry 6- or somebody had reviewed the conflict of interest
, 7 statement and did- not' f eel by starting their own company 8 and doing' consulting work that they'd being_ violating the
'&. . 9 conflict of interest rules-or guidelines, whatever they 10 wer e.
s
-. .11 MR. HICKEY: Q. Did Mr. Slone, in your 12 telephone discussion with him in February of '83, ask you 13 to pass any of 'this information on to Mr. King?
14 A. If. he - . you mean information ab'out him getting
- (; 15 the contract for writing the procedures or anything like 16 that?
17 Q. Y es. Y es . 18 A. If he did, I don't recall it at the moment.
. 19 Q. And you have no recollection of discussing with 20 Mr. King this proposal for Quiltec to get Slone to write 21 procedures at Three Mile Island?
<d 22 A. I don't -- I can't recall at this moment if I 23 said something to Larry or not.
., 24 Q. How about Joe Chwastyk? Do you remember
, ,o 25 discussing it with him? \ : l, . 26 .A . Not at this point in time I can't recall 27 discussing it with him.
.,3 , be) 28 Q. How about Gloria King?
s 4
'q [;, TOOKER '& ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- 7:n _ - - _ _ - -_ _ --
638 Eu- 1 A. No. I.can't recall if I did or not.
. ' *' ~ 2 I'm going to take that back, now, because af ter l- 3 I was suspended, you know, I had ample opportunity.to sit 4 around and talk to a lot of people about a lot o'f things.
l 5 Q. No, I was talking about before you were
, 6 suspended. You were answering in that vein, right?
7 A. Righ t. 8 Q. I was talking about before you were suspended. 9 A. I can't recall whether I talked to anybody or 10 not. 11 Q. You made a ref erence previously, Mr. Parks, in 12 one of your statements -- and I can show it to you if you 13 'need it -- to learning about a telephone conversation 14 that Larry King had with a man named Juba. Do you-( 15 remember a Mr.' Juba, or the name Mr. Juba? 16 A. Yes. I remember the name. 17 Q. I think it's Dick; is that right?. Is.that the 18 first name? 19 A. I guess. I don't know. 20 Q. Was Mr. Juba someone that you knew? 21 A. No. 4 . 22 Q. You'd never met him, as far as you were aware? 23 A. Nop e. 24 Q. But the occasion I'm referring to is one in I 1 25 think you said late '82 or early '83 when Mr. King told 26 you that he'd had a phone call from a Mr. Juba. Do you ) s r. 27 remember that? e (.- 28 A. I can remember more about the name of Dick Juba, l l J E*C TOOKER & ANTZ 94105 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 415/392-0650 i
.m_.__________ _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
y ; -- s -
< 639.
9 a 1 if that's wh'at his first-name was, than I can about any
.,g
^
2 of the circumstances involved in what was going on.
.' 3 Q. Well, you can look at that. exhibit there in 4 front of you. Maybe it will help you. It's on page four.
.) 5 This is the same exhibit you were just looking at.
; ., f 6 Exhibit 39. Page four and the reference is the third 7 paragraph on' that page.
', 8 A .- Okay.' I've read it.
9 Q. Okay. When Larry King -- let me ask you this 10 question: Did Larry King-tell you about this phone call 11 that he had had f rom J,uba or. how did you learn about it?
, 12 A. Well, it says here -- I Con't have any further 13 recollection to dispute it -- that I learned it f rom 14 conversations with Larry and Gloria King.
9
.(,
15 Q. And did you learn it during the latter part of s 16 '82 or the first part of '837 17 A. That's what it says here. 18 Would that be before you were suspended, Mr.
~
Q. 19 Parks? 20 A. I'd only have to guess.- 21 Q. Why do you say that?
- . 22 A. ' Cau s e I don ' t know .
23 Q. Do you have any recollection? 24 A. No. It says here I was in King's house when 25 the second phone call was received and I don't recall I
.- 26 ever going to Larry King's house till af ter the man was ;
, 27 suspended, so -- but that was before I was suspended. So
., (
. .- 28 I don't -- I couldn't really tell you any better than i
% {4a TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
** 'L-_---__---______._
.a - - -- - ~ .
- ._,,-, n n . = = ,= = = == =. .__ _ _. i
. '640 1: that.
{'* - 2 Q.- Was Larry ' King informing 'you about Mr. Juba to
*J-3; ask'yo'ur. opinion about him or ask you to -- to.give you
~
.# 4 some information? Give him some information? Excuse me.
'l 5 A.. No.
,., 6 Q. Why was he telling you this?
Did he say?
, 7 A. .
Well, I think this -- well, actually, it calls q[ 8 for speculation on my part for what Larry was thinking.
. - - 9 I don't know what Larry was thinking.
,- 10 Q. Did he indicate in the conversation the context
. 11 of his comments to you, the reason for his bringing it to 1
i 12 your attention? ! i 13 A. Based on my conversations with Larry King, I { 14 believe' Lar ry King . f elt he was set up.
;{, 15 Q. Set up with regard to Mr. Juba in some way?
16- A. No. Set up for conflict of interest. 17 Q. I'm asking you about your conversation about 18 Mr. Juba. 19 A. That's what I --
. 20 Q. We'r e disconnecting somehow.
i i , 21 A. No. You 're not disconnecting anything. That 22 was the context of the conversation. 1
. 23 Q. You 've lost me. I just don't understand what 24 you're saying. Why did Larry King tell you about Mr.
, 25 Juba is the question I was asking.
. 26 MS. ZURAS: Okay. And he said he can't 27 speculate as to why. ,
.'k- 28 MR. HICKEY: Right. And then I asked him a m
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
;al________.____--- -
641 - 1 more precise question which I assumed the witness still 1
-(*
2 remembered, which was: 3 Q. Was there something in the conversation you had i l 4 with Mr. King that indicated why he was bringing that to l your attention? cf 5 ,., 6 A. Yes. And I stated he f elt -- I felt he felt he 1
- q, 7 was being set up.
8 Q. And why did that prompt him to tell you about
, 9 Mr. Juba? That's what I don't understand.
10 A. That somehow or another, you know, the Bechtel 11 people in personnel had been aware of it for quite awhile, 12 but it only became an issue when he backed me on the 13 polar crane issue at work. 14 And then bam, he was gone. And after Larry was s 15 gone, there was a systematic attempt to dispose of all 16 the other dissenters, myself included.
, 17 Q. I'm just trying to understand what you're 18 saying, so correct me if I'm wrong.
19 A. That's all right. I speak sometimes with a 20 brogue. 21 Q. In this conversation you had with Larry King, i 1 22 you understood from the context and what Larry King said 23 that Larry King thought the Juba phone call was not a 24 good faith phone call, it was a setup, it was a trick. 25 Is that what you're saying? 4
., 26 A. No. That's not what I'm saying at all.
27 Q. Why is the Juba phone call related to the setup? e 28 I'm not understanding. ; i i
'r}-
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 c+-_____---__-___--_-__---__-__ _ __ _ _
642 4
..I 1 A. Again, I'm trying to string.together events (r 2 that happened a long time ago, okay?
,. 3 Q. Sure.
. 4 A. And based in some cases on input from Larry 4
.-( 5 King. I don't remember what Juba's position was in the
.., 6 Bechtel empire, but I can only believe he was somebody,
,, 7 you know --
8 Q. You mean somebody in the sense of somebody 9 important? 10 A. Right. Or, you know, a fairly well-placed 11 individual somewhere within the organization at Nine Mile 12 Point, who was also a Bechtel employee. 13 And if I am doing Larry's beliefs justice, he 14 f elt that if a Bechtel employee at Nine Mile Point, way l
, ( 15 out in the boondocks, was cognizant of the fact that he 16 was Quiltec, then other people in this Bechtel empire and 17 therefore probably the GPU empire had knowledge that
. 18 Larry was Quiltec.
l 19 And it was never a problem until all the issues ' 20 surfaced on the reactor polar crane. And then it became 21 a issue. I mean the conflict of interest became an issue.
. 22 !.nd I -- I am of the belief that he felt that 23 they just jumped on the conflict of interest like a
. 24 chicken on a June bug. Use it to get him off the job i
, 25 site.
26 Q. As far as you know, did Mr. King identify Mr. 27 Juba as a Bechtel employee who was aware of King's quick
. 1
, k- 28 tell activities?
T 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l
'._ _ _ _ _ OOKER & ANTZ
. _ _ _ - - l
643
.,'. 1 A. I think that's what I state right there.
\
2 Q. I don't mean identify to you, I mean identify {.s
;. 3 to the rest of the world.
'4 4 MS. ZURAS : Whoa, whoa.
Excuse me. Could you 5 read back that last question?
,, 6 MR. HICKEY: Let me rephrase it. I think it's
!> 7 simple enough.
. 8 Q. You just told. me if you were doing Larry King's 9 ideas justice, you thought what Larry King f elt was that 10 Mr . Juba, away out in Nine Mile Point, knew that King was 11 involved with Quiltec, then probably a lot of people in 12 Bechtel and also in GPU knew that King was involved in 13 Quiltec, right?
14 A. Right. ( 15 Q. Okay. My question to you is did Larry King 16 tell anybody at GPU besides you that Juba, Bechtel 17 employee at Nine Mile Point, knew about King's Quiltec 18 involvement? 19 A. The only information I have about who Larry 20 King told what to was the letters either I've already
, 21 discussed with you or with Kennedy Richardson regarding 22 his responses to Bob Arnold's inquiries.
23 Q. So you don't know whether Mr. King identified
. 24 Mr. Juba as comebody who was already aware of his Quiltec 25 activities?
l
- 26 A. No, I do not.
27 Q. Give me one more minute here and I think we can 28 finish up and break for lunch. I just want to complete TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
644 1- this topic. f?; , 2 MR. HICKEY: Okay. That's it. Good place to q 3 stop. Can we reconvene in an hour, please? t 4 THE WITNESS: Well, let's set our watches. Now, j 5 I have 11:34 and a half. 6 (Luncheon recess. ) 7 ___ooo___ 8 9 .
. 10 3 11 12 13 14 (s .; - 15 16 17 18
. 19 20 ,
21 22 23 24 25 l'..' 26 27 (' ' , i s- 28 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1 -...i_u__2__________ _
645
- e. 1 AFTERNGON SESSION- 12:37 P.M.
f;.((;t 2 EXMM ATION BY MR. HICKEY (Resumed) s 3 - MR. AKKEY: Okay. Back on the record. 4 Q. Mr. Parks, we previously discussed, you and I, VQ 5 at your last deposition session some circumstances 3 6 surrounding a copy.of some TWG meeting minutes dated
; 7 February 25, that if I can refresh your recollection just f 8 briefly, I think you said there wasn't any meeting but
. 9 either Ed Kitler brought to you or you got in the 10 interoffice mail some documents and they wanted you to 11 sign them and you wouldn't sign them because there hadn't 12 been a meeting.
13 Do you remember that? 14 A. I remember us talking about that. ([ 15 Q. Okay. I just want to get the subject matter in 16 front of you so I can direct you a little more 17 specifically. 18 I think you also expressed a view that I want
. 19 to have you clarify, if you can. And it was 20 approximately that you thought that the TWG should meet 21 and review some documentation that existed about the 22 polar crane, that the TWG ought to sit down together, all 23 the TWG members ought to sit down together and go over 24 some documentation and that's why you were not willing to 25 i
, sign off on these supposed minutes that Mr. Kitler sent 26 l .
to you.
,, 27 Do you remember that? Remember feeling that (J 28 way in 1983? *J.
TOOKER & ANTZ '131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 t : Y,____________.________________________ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ ____._ ___.__ .___ _ _ ___ ____ _ ____ ______ _ __ __._ .___
Y._-____.__.--_-----------------------
. ; 646
. .l' A.. I. remember f eeling in 1983 that the TWG members
@,1(b 2 should review the-supporting. documentation, yes.
3 Q. . Okay. What I wanted to ask you was what do you 4- think 'it was that the TWG members ought to review? 'Was ; 5 ' the no load test.one of the things?
.!: 6 A.- Yes. ' 'd 7 Q. That had already happened. You .are aware of l
8 that? l
~
9 A. Yes.
. 10 Q. Okay. But you wanted the TWG members .to sit 11 down and review what had gone on during the no load test 12 and review the documentation that related to the no load 13 test; is that right?
l- 14 A. That was one of the things I felt'should. be [. 15' reviewed, yes. 16 Q. Okay. What else did you. think should .be
'17 reviewed?
18 A. ' The work packages that had been utilized to
. 19 reflect changes, modifications or repairs to the crane.
20 Q. Now, earlier this morning you used " work 4 21 4 : packages" in kind of a general sense to mean any 22 paperwork, I think. Is that how you're -- l 23 A '. Rfght.
., 24 Q. -- using it today? Not about a specific form 25 called a work package or something?
26 A. No, but part of the paperwork would have been a ,
^
27 specific form identified as work packages, r1.U 28 Q. Specifically, did you think that the TWG l 1 J I jh TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 4
- c. - - _--- - - _ _----- - - - - - - i
647 1 members should convene and review documentation relating j;, . 2 to modifications that had been made on the polar crane? 3 A. At least that, yes.
, 4 Q. And you really would have pref erred that they 5 go beyond that, that the TWG go more broadly into what y s
; 6 had been done to the polar crane?
. 7 A. No. Just review what had been done to the 8 polar crane and determine if we had satisfied all the n
9 testing that would have been mandated because of the 10 modifications or changes. 11 Q. Okay. Maybe I understand you now. You're 12 saying that TWG should look at various modifications and 13 work packages that had been done to the polar crane for 14 the purpose of determining whether those changes or (, 15 actions or whatever it was required testing and if so, 16 whether the testing had been properly performed? 17 A.. Right. 18 Q. Okay. Because that's the test working group's 19 specialty, I guess, is testing; is that right? I mean, 20 that's what they focus on? 21 A. That's what they primarily focus on, right. 22 Q. Okay. Did you think that that review by TWG of 23 these documents to see if testing had been properly done 24 was required or did you just think it was a good idea to 7 25 be done? 26 A. I felt it was required. l , -) 27 Q. By a procedure? l !, (_ )> 28 A. Y es .
, e; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,
I 4_ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ --
,, _ .p ;
648 1 Q. Do you remember what procedure?
.; -(F:s 2 A.- Would probably have been -- I think you and
;, 3 I've covered'this before. I believe it would have been
~
; 4 covered by AP 1021, 1043 and/or 1047.
5 Q. That would have required TWG to review it? E 6 A. Would have required that the modifications been reviewed relevant to testing requirements.
^
. 7 Not
; 8 necessarily.TWG to review it but that, you know, 9 somewhere along . the line there TWG would have been
.10 involved on some of 1.t.
11 Q. That's what I'm trying to pin down. See'if you
, 12 'can help me a little bit more. You're suggesting that .
13 the decision whether testing requirements had been met
'14 could have been made by someone other than TWG7
(' .f 15 A.- I couldn't tell you'at this point in time if 16 that' capability existed within the procedures or not back 17 in those days. Or if it-would have been required to have P 18 been done by TWG. I 19 Q. Well, when there was -- maybe we can get at it 20 this way: If there was any, some kind of action with i
. 21 regard to the polar crane that was the subject of a work I 22 package, an engineer would have -- a cognizant engineer 23 would have described what it was that was to be in this j
'a 24 particular operation?
25 Isn't that the way that it was handled normally? 26 A. I really couldn't tell you. Not any more.
, 4 J'
27 Q. Well, where would the testing requirements b 28 normally be specified with regard to the work package? I
- -Q TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,._y,. 4
.j;_._________-___.
649 . c y; l- A. By the review of the test work group or the-
'+ (< , 2' startup and test manager.
3 Q. They were not put in initially, they were 3
;, 4 identified for the first time by the test work group?
5 A. .I can't state that that was, you know, a
.- '6 chipped.in stone factual occurrence. But because, you know, some cases some cognizant engineer may.have
.,, 7
.]. 8 realized that hey, you have to go out and test. this for 9 this. -
l 10 Q. 'Well, like when you as an operations engineer 11 were reviewing work packages in the broad sense, if you 12 thought that there was a need to test this particular' i 13 change that was reflected in the work packages you were 14 reviewing, it was proper for you to indicate the need for y 15 testing on that work package?
- l 1
16 A. I would make that comment, yes. 17 Q. All right. But you wanted the TWG to check and 18 see .if that had been done as required throughout the
. + 19 course of these changes to the polar crane? f
\
20 A. It would have been proper for TWG to review it,
] . ., 21 yes.
22 Q. Okay. 23 A. And make the determination if there were l
. 24 testing requirements that had to be satisfied and if 25 those requirements had been satisfied. {
, 26 Q. Okay. Now, you say'it would have been proper I
. 27 for TWG to do it. Just let me just make sure I've got j i
- k. 28 your testimony straight. Is it your belief that it was
.h- !4 .j k' .i TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,
V , ww. -
650 1 required for TWG to do it or do you simply not recall or
' , gr-2 what is your view about that?
1 3 A. I'm of the belief it was required for TWG to do l,,,' , 4 a review for modifications to determine whether or not it
,' 5 was, you know, necessary, that type of thing.
. ; 6 Q. Modifications meaning those that are covered by
- 7 the ECM procedure? Or any change?
8 A. In this case -- in this case it's a lot of the e-9 work that was performed was performed under the auspices 10 of a work package which should have been performed under ;
. 11 an ECM. Then yes, they should have reviewed those work 12 packages.
13 Q. Okay. There was some work done on a polar 14 crane that I think you agree didn't have to be done by an ( 15 ECM. Less significant things. Not all the work on the 16 polar crane required an ECM? j , 17 A. That's correct. l l 18 Q. Okay. For the work that did not require an ECM, a 19 was it your view that TWG had to review those packages? 20 A. No. I believe -- but there again, you're
. 21 asking me for an interpretation on procedures I haven't 22 reviewed in depth for years. But I believe that the 23 vehicle existed that the startup and test manager or the 24 startup and test department could have reviewed those 25 work packages and just said, you know, no retest required, 26 that type of thing.
27 But I'm unsure because I can't remember how the
. (: 28 procedure reads.
l l
,g TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
___ _1-____C 1- - ----_ _ - _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,,_t.,_ _ __ _._____._.___ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l 651 l . .; ' 1 Q. Did you know when you suggested -- let me j l ' ,r * (;. .
2 rephrase that because I don't want to make an assumption. j w T; -3 Did you suggest that TWG should convene and review these
,l. 4 work packages? I
.. i
,-j 5 A. Y es .
f 6 Q. And to whom did*you suggest it?
. 7- A. ~I believe, if memory serves me correctly at the ;
1 8' moment, that I made that suggestion during either the l
, 9 February 22nd or the 23rd meeting.
10 Q. To the group at those meetings?
, 11 A. Yes.
12 Q. At one of those meetings? 13 A. I believe we also -
"we" being Joe Chwastyk l 14 and myself -- reiterated that belief during one or both
( 15 of the memos that we issued on March 1st of.1983. 16 Q. I'm ref erring to your af fidavit, Mr. Parks. Is
," 17 that what you have there in front of you?
i 18 A. Yes, it is. j 19 Q. Specifically on page 25. In the middle
~
20 paragraph you talk about a suggestion you made at the t
~
l' 21 February 23rd meeting that the issue in your judgment was ) i 22 whether the polar crane load test procedure was a 23 functional test procedure or not. l f 24 And as your af fidavit reflects on that page,
'.s . - 25 you suggested, did you not, that it could be classified O 26 as a construction test?
,, 27 A. Are you asking me? d 28 Q. Yes. You did suggest that at that meeting, did 4 4
. ,, ; . .; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ae .
,,c..-.-.-------.---------------------------
. 1
', 652 j
u- - l you not? ,
-l y > 2 A. That's apparently what the statement says in g*J
; the af fidavit here.
..'. 4 4 Q.
..^ { Did you mean by that that there would not be a 5 requirement that there be TWG review before the test took
,1 in- 6 place?
{ 7 A.- I don't think I understood what you were asking. i l 1 r,; . 8 Q. Okay. Did you mean by your sugges' tion that it d' 9 be treated'as a construction test that that would I 10 eliminate the need for TWG review of the test before the i l 11 test took place? ] 12 A. No. I don't think that's what I implied there
)
13 at all. 14 Q. Well, what would follow if your suggestion was ( 15 documented 4and it was treated as a construction test? 16 What would be the result of that? 17 A. I really couldn't tell you at this point in 18 time , 'cause when I wrote this af fidavit, I had a much 19 better grasp of how the precedures worked on the job site. 20 So anything I can testify to today would only be my
. 21 understanding of what used to exist as I can recall.
22 But I think if you'll read further on down that ! 23 it states in the affidavit when questioned whether or not 24 another test would have to be performed after turnover to 25 satisfy the functional test requirement, I stated that
, 26 either we'd have to perform another functional test or
., 27 else have the test work re-reviewed and approve the b.J 28 procedure prior to turnover.
a J ~. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 a ,12 - - _ _ .__
-. m . I 653'
.?
.( l Q. Does " prior to turnover" mean before or af ter
; '- -4. (,p 2 the test has. been done?
.m 7l 3. A. It means prior to turnover.
.- '4- Q. And did you intend by that to suggest that this 1
5 turnover would come after the test or before the test? 6 A. I really couldn't.tell you what I' meant four 7 years ago when I wrote that, four~and a' half years ago. 8 I could only refer you to the' procedures that were in ; 9 place at the time. And as you know, I'd be happy to 10 review those procedures in depth and give you my best - 11 guess answer to that. I 12- Q. . One of the issues that you had raised in your i
, 13 February 17th comments was about the format of the polar j 14 crane load test. Do you remember addressing that issue
(' 15 in your comments? j 16 A. Yes, I do. 17 Q. And was it your view that it was necessary to
'18 have the load test reformatted or the format changed?
19 A. When I made those comments, I was of the 20 opinion that in order to satisfy the administrative 21 procedures, we had to satisfy all the requirements of the l
]
22 administrative procedures. One of those requirements was i i 23 the specificity of the format. Therefore, I made the t 1 24 comment. 1.
. . 25 Had we have complied with the overriding 26 administrative procedures, then that comment would have
]
27 gone away because we would have been complying with l
. b.. 28 everything. l Ka ,-
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ! 1 .;. : , ea - - - - _ __ _ _- --- - __ _- -- 1
m
, 654 +
1 Q. I'm not sure I understand what' you just said.
- (y .
2 A. Well, the comment regarding the format, whether q.: 3 where the procedure was laid out would have been '
,. J 4 satisfied had we have complied with the procedure to
, {
5 begin with. You understand what I'm trying to say? 6 Apparently not, huh?
. ; 7 Q. Are you simply saying that if it was in the 8 appropriate format to start with, you wouldn't have had
. 9 to criticize the format?
'- . 10 A. No. If we had complied with all the i
. 11 requirements of the test manual to begin with, I wouldn't i
;- 12 have had to criticize the format. Because one of the 13 requirements of the administrative procedure for testing 14 specifies a format that you have to follow.
(, 15 Q. Did you talk to QA around the time of this 16 February 23rd meeting or shortly thereafter about the
- 17. need or desirability of reformatting the test?
18 A. I really couldn't tell you at this point in 19 time if I did or not. 20 Q. How about Mr. Fornicola? You know Mr.
, , 21 Fornicola?
22 A. I know Mr. FOrnicola. 23 Q. He was a QA employee?
, 24 A. Yes. He was a QA employee.
25 Q. Do you have any recollection of speaking to Mr. 26 Fornicola about the need or desirability of reformatting l-27 the polar crane test in the period from February 23rd to I -? (J/ 28 about March 4th or 5th? l l J L-! TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.?
u ~ .-
g_ e -
. 655 4
.y.7v 1 .A. I seem to recall speaking to Fornicola on some y - }/.. 2 issue, but.now whether it was regarding reformatting a
/ 3 procedure I couldn't really tell you at this point in s 4 time. ,
?. ,, 5 Q. Okay. You knew that as a result of the
. 6 February' 23rd meeting the QA organization was. going to . ,, 7 review the polar crane, did you not?
8 A. I was aware that they committed to do so, yes.
'9 Q. Who did you understand was gbing to be doing 10 that work for QA?
11 A. QA. 12 Q. .Did you know any of the particular people who 13 were going to be doing the work or who did do the. work?
. 14 A. If I was aware of the individuals assigned the
," 15 task at the time, I do not recall being aware of that now.
16 Q. Did you understand at the time how QA was to 17 document their review of the polar crane? 18 A. No. Not that I can recall at the moment. a 19 Q. Did you know at the time -- I'm not going to 1 20 ask you details of it today, obviously. But did you know
.. 21 then the procedures for issuing and resolving documents 22 called QDR's, or quality deficiency reports?
. 23 A. I know that there was a procedure in place and ;
i J 24 that was a vehicle that QA would document discrepancies !
.s . 25 that required r'esolution. But what my understanding of f
,," 26 those procedures is today is just zero.
. '27 Q. Right. But at the time it was a procedure that En (a. 28 you were somewhat familiar with; is that right?
, Jy} .
, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,a*.. . I
-m ,
;, ., ,_ ~ - - - - _ . - - - - - - . . .. 656 l' - -A. I would believe so, yes.
t,.. 2 'Q. .Okay. I'm not going to test you by asking you {y
;u 3 today.
4
.;, 4 A. Good, because I couldn't answer you.
jl 5 Q. Did you provide any information to QA as part i cr 6 of their review about what you knew .or thought or 7 believed about the pol'ar crane?
~
8 A. Beyond what was discussed with Blaine Ballard
<. , 9 present during that second meeting we had, February 23rd
., 10 or so, I can't really recall if I talked to anyone else
, 11 with additional information or not.
-p 12 Q. Did you tellfany of the QA representatives that E you believed modifications.had been done to the polar 13
; 14 crane without an ECM being completed?
.,i(l 15 A. I may have. I'really couldn't tell you.
16 Q. You don't have any recollection of specifically 17 saying that to someone?
.. 18 A. Not at this moment, no.
.- 19 Q. Can you recall identifying any other procedural
. ,l 20 violation to the QA people who were doing this review?
", A 21 A. At the moment I really couldn't tell you if I 22 did or not.
23 Do you recall whether you gave them a copy of
.' Q.
.- 24 your February 17th comment sheet on the load test result?
> ! 25 A. I don't recall ever giving a' copy of those .
..' 26 comments to somebody in QA. I may have. I don't know.
27 I can't recall at the moment. Tho'se comments wer e
,p available for TWG and TWG had a OA representative so I 28
- i 4
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
~ - - - ~ - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -
.o ; 657
+
;Q l' may:have_given them one. I don't know. I.can't recall.
m ,' " <
, -2 Q. Mc11, am I correct th&L yvu were supportive of
. 3 the review that QA was doing? You wanted QA to do this
. ',3 4 review that . they ' set out to do?
.d 5 .A. By all means.
, 6 Q. You didn't refrain from giving them any_
, - 7 information that you had?.
- . . .s
- 8 A. No.
9 Q. I mean deliberately not? I mean on purpose not
. 10 give them some information7 f 11 A. 'No. Not that I can recall. I guess my problem
^ i
. 12 is that I can't recall at this point, you know, in life 1
- 13 if somebody walked up and said Rick, do you have a -- can 14 I borrow your file, you know, can I see your commento or
{g 15 . anything like_ that. But if someone did, I would_have 16 given_it to them.. 17 Q.- Okay. 18 A. You_know, the -- the overriding concern that I had was after I issued my comments on February 18th, I 19
, 20 was threatened, you know, with transfer and it was-i
. .' 21 elevated up to the top level management meetings and 22 people wanting to know what I was doing making these type 4
o 23 of comments and if Larry King agreed with the comments j] 24 and that type of thing. 25 We were being accused of trying to throw a 26 monkey wrench in the works and, you know, the next thing i 27 I know, I'm being replaced from one position after
* ; h.:/
28 another. - i-I jr;[ TOOKER . & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
~
.e cV$.L__.__b._________________________
4.. -
= 658 p 4
- > <. l' _I was more concerned with the whole thing-being
, 'l 2' swept under the rug' than anything else. Because it
'g .
. 3 seemed to me they were - "they" being top level
?, .". 4 management position types --' were more concerned with
. 5- addressing the problem finders than addressing the h 6 p robl'em. ' They were systematically retaliating against :
, 7 each one of us.
8 MR. HICKEY: I am going to move to strike the 9 last speech. There was no question pending. It wasn't 10 responsive to anything. I guess Mr. Parks -- it made him 3
- 11 f eel good,. but- I move to strike it from the record. l 12 THE WITNESS: Well, I thought it did apply 13 to -- you were asking me questions that lef t me with the
,$1- 14 opinion- that you were trying to paint a picture that I (y 15 was. intentionally withholding information or trying to 16 construe sequence of events that I was -- you know, had a-17 axe to grind with someone.- That's.just simply not the 18 way it was.
19 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, you shouldn't be.so t 20 sensitive, Mr. Parks. I didn't mean to imply anything.
,c 21 I simply asked you whether you intended to withhold 22 anything, your answer was no.
23 (Discussion of f the record.)
.[ 24 (Whereupon, Mr. Berry enters the deposition.)
;j_ 25 MR. HICKEY: ' O. In your affidavit, Mr. Parks,
[, 26 on page six at the bottom you made an allegation or an. r 27 accusation that top level management representatives took the position repeatedly that the ECM procedure was
! 28 i
e TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
659 1 cumbersome and would force unnecessary schedule delays. J. 2 Then you name a bunch of individuals there at the top of 3 page seven.
$ 4 Will you look at that? Bottom on page six. It 5 actually starts at the middle of page six. i 6 A. All right. I've look ed at it.
7 Q. Am I correct that you were saying in those two 8 paragraphs that top level management people were 9 deliberately and knowingly avoiding the requirements of
', 10 the modification control procedure?
11 A. Well, you know, as I replied to that same 12 question to Mr. Richardson -- and again, I would refer 13 you to the answer that I gave him during my previous 14 depositions because I was more cognizant of facts at that
.(, 15 time than I am now.
i 16 Butin1[ghtofallthat, yes, I was of the 1 4 17 belief at that time tQat it was an intentional decision 18 on the part of managemeqt to streamline the work and push m .. 19 the schedule.
. 20 Q. Well, you just said something quite different 21 from what I asked you, Mr. Parks. Let me put the 22 question to you again.
23 Were you charging in your af fidavit on pages 24 six and seven that top level management representatives 25 deliberately and knowingly violated the procedural
,, 26 requirements regarding modifications control?
27 A. I believe my statement says that management
' bs 28 took the position that the ECM procedure was cumbersome l
4 l 1 4 'O TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 m.e - - - _ _ - - - _ - _ _ - -
Ta - -
)
l ? :. ?. } 1 and would force unnecessary; scheduling delays and then
- 2 stated that as a result -- how's that. No, stated that
{. . .? 3 as a result work packages woul'd be used. They
- 4 wholeheartedly endorsed the us'e of work packages.
',, 5 Q. You don't see any distinction, I take it, 6 between what you just said and the question I. asked. Is 7 that it?
. 8 A. Yes, I do see a distinction. .
~! 9 Q. I'm asking you about an allegation of 10 deliberate, intentional wrongdoing and you keep 11 responding to me that management thought that the ECM 12 procedure was cumbersome.
4 9 13 MS. ZURAS: Well, I just want to object to your 14 question to the extent -- -
- s. ;
(9 15 MR. HICKEY: I haven't put it. I'll be glad to
, 16 let you object when I finish it.
17 MS. ZURAS: Well, maybe you can alleviate my 18 concerns that there's some language in here about 19 " deliberately" and " knowingly." I might be missing it. 3 20 MR. HICKEY: No. I'm asking Mr. Parks what he 21 was charging. I wasn't qucting from his document. I'm 22 asking what he was charging.
., 23 THE WITNESS: I am charging exactly as it 1 24 reflects verbatim in my affidavit.
. 25 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, Mr. Parks, was it your 26 view during y'o ur tenure in site operations from the f all i
27 of '82 to the spring of '83 that this ECM procedure was
) 28 at times cumbersome?
44 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
661
-=
- .f. 1 MS. ZU RAS
- Could you repeat that question,
., (y 2 please?
, 3 -MR. HICKEY: Q. Sure. Was it your view when e t 4
you were in the site operations department in late '82
, 5 and early '83 that the ECM procedure was at times
. 6 cumbersome?
>, C, 7 MS. ZURAS: He? He was. of the opinion?
8 MR. HICKEY: Yeah. Did you not hear me? i 9 MS. ZURAS - I just want to clarify because it's 10 a diff erent question than the previous ones. The focus 11 is different. Okay.
, 12 MR. HICKEY: Okay.
13 THD WITNESS: If I understand you correctly, 14 you're asking me if I ever held the opinion that at times ([j 15 that ECM process was cumbersome. Yes. i 16 MR. HICKEY: Q. That's right. That's the 17 question. 18 A. Definitely. i' 19 Q. For the fourth time. 20 A. But, and the answer for the fourth time is that
.' . 21 although it was cumbersome, it was the law we had to live
, 22 with, just like the 55 miles an hour speed limit's a law j 23 we have to live with.
. 24 Q. Let me put any next question to you, Mr. Parks.
J 25, You state in your affidavit at the bottom of page six l
+
26 that management representatives repeatedly took the
, 27 position that the ECM procedure was cumbersome.
d$ 28 A. Y es. I bg,gl TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ( h .h! .e%-.~. _ - - - - - - - - -
[__.-_..-------------~-------- 662 4-
}
3- 1 Q. And you agreed, at.least in part, with that
. . 2 view, did you not? The view that it was cumbersome?
. . '6 3 A. Y es .
~
. 4 Q. That it was a cumbersome procedure?
5 A. Yes. U 6 Q. Were you aware -- you were aware that there was
,.., 7- a procedure revision in process to modify the ECM
.;' 8 procedure in an attempt to streamline it and make it less
- .] 9 cumbersome? You knew that was going on, didn't you?
C 10 'A. I couldn't tell you at this point in time if I 11 was aware then or not.
. 12 Q. Well, when there were discussions -- well, did
. 13 you do anything as a result of your view that ECPI 14 procedure was cumbersome to attempt to streamline it or 15 improve it?
(f 16 A. Not that I can recall at the moment. 17 Q. You don't remember making any suggestions or 18 procedure chan_ge requests or anything like that? 19 Relating to this problem. 20 A. I believe at one point in time during a test { I 21 work group meeting I suggested that we can probably use a j i l 22 temporary lead lif t head jumper or something like that. l
- c. 23 There was a log that we could maintain to make temporary 24 electrical modifications. I believe that I l' l
. 25 we -- I suggested we should explore that or use that one
~
, 26 tim e.
27 Q. Well, let me ask you about the other sentence 28 that is more to the point. You say, quote, "It was
;.p. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 2 - - - - - - - _ _ - - -__.
s 663' e , i 1 immediately appparent to So," meaning site operations,
, 2 "that plant management made that decision intentionally."
.l 3 What's this decision that you're talking about,
. ,. A 4 Mr. Parks?
I j; 5 A. To use work packages rather than ECM's.
'. .;; 6 Q. Are you talking about using work packages in 7 violation of the modification control procedure?
8 A. Yes.
/ 9 Q. And who in site operations was it apparent to
.; 10 that plant management deliberately tried to use the work 7
, 11 package to circumvent the modifications control procedure?
12 A. The site ops staff, guys such as myself, Larry 13 King, Bubba Marshall, Joe Chwastyk, that type. , f 14 Q. And let me . talk about you, since you're the
,(=,
15 only one I have here at the moment. How did you learn l 16 that any member of management had decided to use work
. 17 packages to circumvent the modifications control
, 18 procedure?
19 A. Well, once again --
, '; 20 Q. Intentionally.
21 (Whereupon, Mr. Richardson enters the
', 22 deposition.)
, _q 23 MR. HICKEY: Q. Let me ask one other question q 24 first.. When you talk about circumvent the procedure, you 4
25 mean in an improper fashion, do you not?
>.' 26 A. Right.
o 27 Q. You're not talking about this suggestion you (d
% 28 just made about using a jumper cable which I believe you l
34; TOOKER &'ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. , )L _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - - - -
p,.,.;;,._,___-_.-_-_,_w-_-______.__.-__ o; 664 l 1' l'
;3 l' implibd was a proper way ~ to take care of some temporary.
t ff. '2 change, right?
.. ; 3 A. Or another way that could be proper, right.
1 . '4
/ .1 4 Q. That's not a circumvention of the procedure?
; 5 A. No.
;, 6 -Q. All right. But what'you're talking about with
.: 7 the management here is a circumvention of the procedure i,< >
8 meaning an improper and deliberate avoidance of the If. 9 procedures' requirements? 1
. 10 A. I don't know'if I agree necessarily with your 11 . characterization or.not. But the point I was 'trying to
'# 12 make here was that we had certain rules that governed
'i 13 modifications for various systems in the plant. And S. 14 those rules had been in place for a 'long time.
And upper (, 15 level management was aware of those rules because we had D 16 been complying with them all along until the polar crane 17 had come up.-
, 18 And so when the emphasis was shif ted to 19 accomplish work by way of work packages rather than by
}, 20 engineering change modifications, then it had to be a
.- 21. decision made by someone in management because I don't
, 22 think a lower level individual would have assumed that
- c. 23 responsibility.
..]
24 And they got approved all the way through the
'9 25 cycle regardless of the f act that they did not comply. I
'y 26 with our administrative requirements.
"J 27 Q. Well, I'm putting it to you, Mr. Parks, that 4 i~
J: uj 28 that language in your affidavit suggests that'you are i.". j . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 f.j
., ,. w .
~.--- -~~~~- ~** -~.----.-------~
- y.
- 665 -
. p .
',.y.c 1 l' : accusing named individuals of deliberately.and
. ?:
(; 2 intentionally improperly avoiding an administrative J- :3 . procedure requirement.
. .! 4 Now, did you mean to mak'e that charge or not?
,. . 5 A. Yes. 1 l' . 6 Q. You _.did. And specifica11y' you meant to make i l , 7 that charge as to John Barton?
, , 8- A. ' Y es .
. 9 MR. JOHNSON: Did you'--
. 10- MS..ZURAS: Just a --
. 11 MR. HICKEY: Q. And did you --
[ 12 MR. . JOHNSON: Wait a second. Just so we have a 13 time, what time frame are you ceferring to? When he 1 14 wrote'this affidavit? u ,
. 15 MR. HICKEY: It's the charge that's in the 16 af fidavit,- yeah. We're talking about the time frame of
, 17 when he wrote the affidavit.
18 Q. When you swore it was true.
; 19 A. Yes. I was of the belief that each of these 7 20- gentlemen that I named had at one point or another
, 21 advocated the use of work packages to accomplish the work
, 22 rather than the proper vehicle, which would have been an 23 ECM.
3 24 Q. That's not the .same thing, Mr. Parks. And I
?.
.' 25 gotta say I think you know it's not the same thing.
26 MS. ZURAS: I'm going to object on the basis
.. 27 that I've put up with a lot of argument from you and I
- j y 28 think you're starting to badger the witness and I think e i i
Ypj TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 u.m________--- _ _ . - _ - - - - - _ - - - . - - - -- - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - _ - - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
666' H i
., 1 he's answered your-question. And I would suggest that
,; ', 2 you ask another question because it's been asked and
. c. 3 answered several times.
.. 4 MR. HICKEY: Q. Was it your charge when you !
swore to this affidavit, Mr. Parks, that James Thiesing L i; 5
. . 6 deliberately and. intentionally violated the site 7 modifications control procedure by using work packages?-
. 8 A. Again, I will state that the man advocated on 9 f requent occasions the use of work packages. His actions 10 had to be. deliberate and willful because a procedure 11 existed, the administrative requirements' existed, and if it '
12 the man did not take the time to make himself f amiliar 13 with them in his position, then it was willful neglect on 14 his.part.
.- (',j 15 Q. What work package did Mr. Thiesing 16 intentionally direct be used to avoid some site a 17 modifications control procedure?
18 A. At this point in time I could not distinely 19 identify which work package was involved.
.! 20 Q. You didn't identify in your affidavit any that
/, ' 21- would result --
22 A. I wouldn't --
, 23 Q. Wait a minute. Let me finish the question so
, 24 you know what you're answering.
25 You didn't identify in your af fidavit, did you, ( 26 any particular work packages that were the result of 1 27 deliberate violations of the modifications control
.e- '/
28 procedure by any of these individuals named on page seven?
;A , TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 T eri LG .h- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
667
]
,t 1 A. Could you rephase it again?
., [ 2 Q. Sure. I'm asking you whether -- you're saying
..a 3 you can't identify some today. I'm asking you whether in i g 4 your affidavit you identified instances which were in
. l, 5 your judgment deliberate violations by these individuals, v
q
. 6 .any of these individuals, of the site modifications 1
..; 7 control procedure 7 '
1 8 MS. ZURAS : Excuse me. I'm going to object to
'. 9 the question on the basis it's vague and ambiguous. Are 10 you saying that in his affidavit did he refer to any such.
11 work packages or are you saying that at the time that he 12 wrote this affidavit he was aware of such work packages?. 13 1 think the affidavit speaks for itself, but.-- 14 MR. HICKEY: Whether he referred in his l i
,j(, 15 affidavit to them.
.' 16 MS. ZURAS: Okay. He's asking you whether or !
17 not there's any specific ref erence to specific work
. 18 packages in your affidavit.
; 19 MR. HICKEY: No. To specific packages that are 20 what we're talking about, examples of these individuals I
i.. 21 deliberately circumventing the site modifications I l
.. 22 procedures, and being stated as such in his affidavit.
{ 23 Q. Can you answer the question, Mr. Parks?
. .. 24 A. The way I can answer the question is I do make
. 25 references in my affidavit to work packages that I felt
.. 26 violated the ECM process. And t. hose work packages
;. . 27 originated from the departments under the control of
~
[ 28 these gentlemen. Therefore, if they allowed it to happen,
. .I TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- s. ,.s ou---___..--.-__.
- v '. w& ua .O w
- :.: w :.-. w s- w .- - ~ .- - - -- --. .--. . -.
668 1
.' m
- t
.._ l
'w
, 1 then yes, it had to have been willful and neglectful.
k p'
~
2 :Q. And what is your basis for the conclusion that
'J ~w..
i 3 if they allowed it to happen, it had to be willful and SEj 4 neglectful? What do you base that on? ; l Well, procedures that govern the forms on the :i l 5 .A.
.j 4 6 Island said we had to do it one way or the other. And
'- .$ 7 since it was done neither way,. that's what I based it on.
"$i 8 Q. Is the point that you're making, Mr. Parks, 9 that if you find a procedural violation and the 10 procedures are well known, it must have been intentional ;
- l
! 11 and deliberate?
a ' 12 A. Well, I believe the best way I can answer that, 13 .it had been brought to the management of ficials' 14 attention previous to this that we'were in effect ([f 15 violating our administrative procedures by the use of 16 work packages and that type of thing within Dave Lake's - 17 organization, which Mr. Thiesing reported to. And one of
. 18 their commitments out of that was one that the . guys would
(- 19 start complying with existing procedur es. 20 So if you make that commitment months previous 21 to this occurring and then you let it happen again, yes,
. 22 sir, I believe that's neglectful. i 23 Q. Did you think that you were accusing these
[ . 24 people of criminal wrongdoing? 25 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. First of all, I want to 26 object on the basis that you're asking a legal opinion of U- 27 him. 7
,G 28 And first of all, I need clarification whether j
s
'db! TOOKER fi ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
-
- ___.--_-___m_m ---em_
C ". '"eJ 669 t, y ,
'E ,_
s 1 or not you're talking about at the time in which he wrote-
* ;y .' , (3,
- s. ,
2 these words or. had these words typed he thought to y 3 himself -that perhaps he was making criminal accusations. j ;.. 4 4 MR. HICKEY: That's the question.
, 5 Q. Yes. 'When you had this thing published under
. 6.
.. your name, sworn to under oath, didn't you think you. were J ', 7 accusing these people of some criminal' activity?
8- ,. .. A. I thought what I was accusing these people of L, 9 were acts of inef fective and irresponsibit management
, f 10 that should ' be looked into 'by the NRC.
11 Q. What you seid was it was plant management made
,U ; 12 that decision intentionally.
13 MR. JOHNSON: Well, this --
- 14. MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. I don't know. Is there
" (; , 15 a question,pending?'
16 MP. HICKEY: Well, if you let me finish it 17 there willibe, yeah. 18 MR. JOHNSON: It's an argument basically.
,.. 19 You've asked him already and he. said he believed it to be 20 neglectful and you keep asking that whether he believed
.. 21 it to be intentional. Or criminal.
- 22 MR. HICKEY: Well, I assume Ms. Zuras is able 23 to make objections necessary to protect her client's j 24 int er est.
I don't know whether we need everybody to ,:, 25 chine in on his behalf. Indeed, Mr. Parks went through ,
, jj 26 two days of deposition without Miss Zuras. l g., 27
- MS. ZURAS: M r . Hi ck ey -- {
d 28 MR. HICKEY: But let me rephrase it. a
.k
, ,; ' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- s _ _ - -
F p.j .. - <_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - l 's 670 l>' 4 '. 1- MS. ZURAS: Do you'think you could' reserve your
; i , ,
2 comments-to asking questions?
- $ 3 MR. HICKEY: Yes. My comment was I don't need
? 4 objections from all counsel at the table.
i 5- MS. ZURAS: I'm sure Mr.. Johnson can speak for
, 6 himself. He has his own interests.
. 7 Let's not get nasty, let's try to keep this a l
5 8 civil procedure. o 9 M R. HICKEY: It's a civil procedure with some
; 10 nasty accusatons. I'm trying to probe into it with this v ~
gj 11 witness and I'm not getting answers. I l % 12 MS. ZURAS: Let the record reflect that you're
,i '13 not getting the answers you want. You are getting
.. 14 answers.
( 15 MR. HICKEY: Q. Can you tell me, Mr. Parks, 16 whether you had one specific example in mind for one of. 17 these individuals listed on page seven that you believe 18 was a deliberate violation by any one of them of the 19 modification change procedure? 20 A. At this point --
, 4 21 Q. When you wrote this affidavit and swore to it 22 and published it to the world.
23' A. At that poinc in time. j
.i 24 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. I'm going to object.
25 MR. HICKEY: To what? 26 MS. ZURAS: To " published it to the world" as 1 j , 27 being argumentative. (w (> 28 MR. HICKEY: Made it public. At a press 4 -
;(
- )
jf[; .TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ad*1
t-
, 671 41' !
k
,[i ~1 conference.
f/ . 2 THE WITNESS: . At this point in time my memory
.-i. 3- -does not serve to provide any amplifying details that are
- 4 not covered in my affidavit.
, - 5 MR. HICKEY: Q. Okay. Mr. Parks, you I think'
.) '
6 . testified previously that you around, oh, the first part 9 2 7 of March or sometime in that time f rame -- I'll be asking-
,4 8 .you specifically later -- stopped driving yourself to 9 work at Three Mile Island. Do you remember that 10 happening in the spring of 19837 11 A. Yes, I do. .
7 12 Q. And I think you've testified already that the e 13 reason th'at you stopped driving yourself to work was some t
; -, 14 fear that you had; is that right? Anxiety, concern?
3 ( 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And what specifically was the concern that was 17 bothering you? 4 - 18 A. I was afraid that there would be contraband 19 planted in my vehicle. - 5 20 Q. And when did this f ear develop?
... 21 A. Oh, I'd Cay --
; 22 Q. I say
- develop." That's a little bit vague.
? 23 But since we're trying to clean up the questions, let me l
,{14 , 24 put it this way: When did you stop driving to work? 9' 25 Driving your own car to work, I mean. 26 A. Oh, shortly after I was threatened with
.g 27 transfer.
' r lj la- 28 Q. Shortly --
i
.i , -f d TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i Gi.hJ - -
.. 9 - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - ..-- - - --.
-; ~672 4
$4r 1 A. Shortly af ter I was removed as alternate
'U gb v,.
2 startup and-test supervisor. Shortly after Larry King pg.; 3 was suspended. And probably on or about the same time
., 4 that my vehicle was broken into one night.
. 5 Q. Okay. . Those are a lot of diff erent dates that
%; 6 you've given. -Shortly after you were threatened with
~ <
i ~ l, 7 transfer. That's the conversation you had with Mr. 8 Kitler on February 18th?
,". 9 A. Right.
i
.; ' t 10 Q. You think you stopped driving your car to work !
.j 11 very soon af ter that or can you put any time on it?
12 'A. I can say it would have been probably about the 13 first week.of March, thereabouts, plus or minus two weeks
'. 14 either way.
' (y 15 , Q. Well, let's see. You remember telling me that 16 on March 10 you had a meeting with your friend Mark Kobi 17 and you walked around the cooling tower.
You remember 18 that incident you discussed before? 19 A.- I remember that incident, yes.
- :. 20 Q. By the time you talked to Mark Kobi on the 10th
- r. ' 22 of March, you had already stopped driving; isn't that
,' , 22 right?
j 23 A. You're making it as a statement of fact and I '
. 24 have nothing at ry disposal today to dispute that.
,d 25 Q. Okay. When .you stopped driving your car to
?! 26 work, did you find someone to give you rides on a regular l fi 27 basis?
T, - 28 A. Well, not on a r egular basis. But I found a d i k
};l' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,.a______-.--__--
a 673-1, . 1- ' ride every day.
,p 2 Q. . What was your practice? Did you just call 16 , 3 somebody upfevery night?
fj 4- A. No.. Sometimes I had my girlfriend ' drop me of f 5 ' at the . gate' and I' walked. Sometimes.I; rode with Mark
.y-
, f 6 Kobi. Sometimec I rode with Bubba Marshall. I didn't c 7 really have a practice, if.you would, other than
. ; 8 alternative transportation.
i 9- Q. Did-you tell Mark Kobi when you were riding
, 10 with him.that the reason you were not driving was 'cause
.. 11 you were afraid contraband would be put in your car?
12 A. I don't remember if I discussed my concerns l 13 relevant to contraband with anyone. I may have. I , . 14 couldn't tell you today if I did or not. (, 15 Q. That would include Mr. Marshal 1. You don't 16- know if you talked to Bubba about it? 17 A. I would include that with' anyone, yes. 18 Q. Let me direct your attention' to.one other
, 19 portion of your affidavit, Mr. Parks. It's on page 39.
20 It relates to a March 4 meeting. I'm looking at the 1 21 middle paragraph on page 39 that begins with the name " John
~; 22 Fornicola."
23 Why don't you read that paragraph, please.
.- 24 A. Okay.
; 25 Q. Did you mean to. convey when you wrote this f 26 affidavit and swore to it by the last sentence that you 27 thought Mr. Walker had deliberately omitted from the f
-." ; u 28 minutes reference to the information contained in that 0
srd ' I
- s. h i
.< .$ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 4 .e'o -%- _____m - - - - _ - - - - - - -
. - .- ~ _ -. - .- - . ~ . - - - - - - - . - . - - - - -. - --.
y ,. - - . . 674 l
,,.,. 11 paragraph;of your affidavit?'
- /S 2 A. Could you run that.past me again?
J i s
,/ .3 Q. Sure. It's meant to be straightforward. Did i o-
)
4 you mean to convey in your affidavit in this paragraph
]
. 5 that Mr. Walker deliberately omitted the information that f
( - 6 you cite.in that paragraph? j
, .,{ 7 A. No. I was trying -- I was not trying to i . 8 deliberately convey anyting. I was simply stating the i 9 fact.
10 Q. Why did you say it was significant? Why did 11 you think it was significant that nothing in the c >
. 12 paragraph was included in the meeting minutes .which were 13 prepared by. your replacement, Dwight Walker?
14 A. 'I think it was less significant that they were ([7 15 prepared by Dwight Walker, my replacement, than the
; 16 information that was omitted was significant. And that 17 according to John Fornicola, Blaine Ballard had been 18 contemplating a stop work order on unit two because of 19 the non-compliance that those guys found but had reserved 20 his decision on the matter until he had a chance to talk 21 to Bob Arnold.
~
22 Q. Is it your testimony that you didn't mean by 23 this last sentence that we've just looked at there, you )
, 24 didn't mean to suggest that Mr. Walker had deliberately. j 25 omitted that?
* ' 26 A. I don't see anything that appears in that
.. 27 sentence that states that Dwight Walker -- or even 28 implies that Dwight Walker intentionally omitted it.
- f .
.i . t fIl 14:
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.a:A4 - - - - - -_ _- _ __ _
- /. . &
675
.. ; , 1 Q. And in any event, you'didn't mean to i,/, . ' (7l- 2 communicate, you didn't mean to convey by that sentence
. y..
3 any suggestion that Mr. Walker had done anything wrong by
.-< 4 not including that parag'raph?
, 5 A. I just simply stated the fact that it didn't J 6 appear.
7- Q. Now, why did you identify who was the preparer i.a ' 'e 8 of the minutes? 2 9 A. Because he was the preparer of the minutes. l 10 Q. Why did you. comment on him being your , zi 11 1 replacement as . alternate startup and test supervisor? 1
., 12 Was that thought by you to be relevant for some reason?
13 A. Not particularly, other than the f act he was my 1 14 replacement and that he prepared the minutes. That was 15 his job at the meeting. ({ 16 Q. You signed of f on the minutes, did you not? 17 A. I may have. I couldn't tell you at this moment 18 in time if I did or not.
. 19 Q. Well, if you'd like to look, I think they've
. 20 already been marked as an exhibit previously. Did you 21 want to review the minutes to see if your signature is on 22 th em?
l > 23 A. If you tell me they're on there, I'll believe 24 it. 25 Q. Why don't we go on and I'll ask Mr. Lewis to 26 pull the exhibit up while we're proceeding and you can 27 confirm it.
- s. .-
(.i. ' 28 In any event, you didn't complain about or seek
- ) .
1 l{ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
-t_ u ___ _ _ _ _ _ - - - -- - ---- - . -
.,,,,_a-_--.------------------------ '
.t 676
/.?c . 1 to add'to the minutes this information about Mr.
. g y 2 Fornicola and the stop work order?-
3 A. At what point in t,ime? f 4 Q. At'the time that you approved the minutes. A. No. 5'
] I do not recall at this moment having
. 6 approached anybody to have that added to the minutes.
. J. 7 Q. Why didn't you'do that?
8 A. Because Blaine Ballard hadn't talked to Bob 9 Arnold, as f ar as I knew, and there could still be a stop a 10 work order pending. I' didn't see any reason to make any
, 'll statement-to'anything until I found out what the result
, '12 of- that was gonna be.
13 Q. Is it your : testimony that you later learned 14 what the result of it was going to be? What the result ({ : 15 'of the Blaine Ballard-Bob Arnold discussion was? 16 A. I think the readiness review committee was to 17 take place on a date that occurred af ter I was suspended 18 from the job site. 19 But to answer your question, yes, I later did 20 learn what happened, but I wasn't working at the job site. 21 Q. How did you learn that?
.. 22 A. I couldn't really tell you at this point in 23 t im e , sir, how I came to this information. It just came
(~* 24 to me one way or another. Somebody at NRC may have told 2 25 me or I may have seen a document relevant to that or what. l- 26 I just really couldn't tell you.
-i
.' 27 MR. HICKEY: Just for the record, I'm showing rs
' , - ~ ke' 28 Mr. Parks what has previously been marked as Exhibit 33 n
'i 7
I,4y) TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.a ,%c________________---__ _
- s L. , ,
Ti
- J '677
' .1:
j, ( l . which is .a memorandum dated March. 7, subject TWG meeting 2 minutes' of March 4,1983, .so that he can confirm that his 3 - Cca(3-
- r. 3 signature ' appears on the second line at the bottom.
I w q' 4 THE WITNESS: Yes.- That's my signature. And _l a 5 also I'd like to add in response to your question ) J ?' 6 regarding'why I didn't have anything additional added to 7 it, there is comment here from John Fornicola regarding. 8 the QA comments saying the comments .will be provided to ] !
. . 9 the group members when issued.
.; 10 I assume that if Blaine Ballard was -going to l 1
g, 11 issue a stop work order, we'd all found out about it i
~
, 12 whether it was in our minutes or not.
13 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, then why did you put in 14 the affidavit that it was significant that the (, 15 information didn't appear in the minutes? 16 A. I' thought it was very significant that Ballard 17 was considering a stop work order because of 18' administr'ative violations but was waiting to discuss his
. 19 decision with Bob Arnold; that apparently after he 20 discussed his decision with Bob Arnold, nothing ever came
- t 21 of it.
~-
22 Q. Was it your view that someone should have gone 23 back and changed the minutes to include Mr. Fornicola's 24 comment? c'k 25 A. No. I think what you're -- you know, I'm not 26 going to try to speculate on what you're trying to do,
'l
..- 27 sir, but I think you're trying to take things of context.
- 3 (lJ' 28 I was trying to identify to the NRC that these 1 l 4
'nM TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 3
m _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - . - - . -- - - 7_ _ _ - - - _ -
, .,,.__._.m.__m._.__------------------------
.. 678 d
c,. f 1 problems had been apparent to various management 77 2 officials on the job site and it had been all the way up { s !
. . 3 to Bob Arnold, apparently. Or the intention was to go 4 all the way up to Bob Arnold, anyway.
5 And yet the problems were still there, the l 6 violations were still there. The people, myself, Larry 7 King, Ed Gischel, we had been harassed'and had suffered 1
. 8 with one form of retaliation or another and I was trying 9 to recreate more or less like a documentary trail for the 10 NRC to go back and check out. And I think that is what I
, 11 was trying to do there.
. 12 You know, whether it was added to our minutes 13 here is irrelevant. With the f act that this discussion
. 14 occurred and this consideration was ongoing, NRC needed
( 15 to be aware of that. That is what the intention was of 16 the paragraph. j j i 17 Q. What you said, Mr. Parks -- correct me if I am I 18 wrong -- quote, "It is significant that nothing in this j l 19 paragraph is included in the meeting's minutes." l 20 That's what you --
, 21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- said, right? 23 MR. JOHNSON: Wait for the question to be asked. 1 24 MR. HICKEY: Q. March 9, Mr. Parks, you'll i { 25 r ememb er , I think, because you got a phone call from l 26 Larry King that evening, which you've told many of us l 27 about on more than one occasion, regarding Mr. King 's 3' 28 discussion with Mr. Arnold. that evening. i l
] t
. l
id TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 b
. w - __ -- -_-----_- ._-- - -
. ; ,: ......... ; u w = , g . . __ m.u a.a.a.. 679 I'/ 1 You remember the event I am talking about,
, p, 2 don't you?
3 A. Yes, I do. 4 Q. Okay. That's the time frame I want to focus 5 you on. As of March 9, Mr. Parks, what did you know
- 6- about Mr. King's Quiltec activities? l 7 A. Not as much as you've been trying to think I 8 know. But I knew that Larry King was a part owner in 9 Quiltec, or strongly suspected it. I knew that Ben Slone 10 was a part owner in Quiltec.
11 I knew that Ben Slone was working as Quiltec at 12 Shoreham. I knew that Ed Kitler had approached Larry 13 King -- or anot Larry King, but Ben Slone about getting j l 14 work for Quiltec, or as Quiltec, as the Quiltec employee, 15 however you_want to term it, down at some power station (} 16 in Florida. I knew Ben Slone had been approached by 17 Bechtel, or, a Bechtel representative for potential 18 employment at the TMI job site.
, 19 I believe I knew that they had sent a proposal 20 over to Beaver Valley and that Joe Chwastyk had gone over 21 there and represented himself as a Quiltec person, or 22 representative.
23 That's about it. That's what I can recall at 24 the moment, a nyway. 25 Q. Did you know about the f act that the proposal 26 to Beaver Valley contained a number of resumes of GPU and 27 Bechtel employees?
' ik 28 A. I believe Mr. Richardson and I belabored that
?
'i
- h. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,? :.S$ - - - - - _.- -,, .- ,
- i Q'.I[fC 680 . :~L i 7 . , n. 1
- a. .. . y. . point. . I' think 'you and I, have belabor ed that point. !
2 Q. You did know it?
, " ,, j{l j 3
,,, .A. I've definitely been made ' aware of it, anyway, f
4 4 .since then. ! 5 Q. ~ Well, that's .not the question. . The question is 6
- f. n whether you knew it on March 9, and you did,'didn't you?
1 7 MS. EURAS: Excuse me, Mr. Parks. If you're.
/
8 having a . difficult time distinguishing - between March 9 9' and what you know by reasoning a lot of sources of { i
, 10 information today, I think you should be cautious to !
11 ! 1-listen carefully to the question and only respond to the
' 4 12: question.and not speculate. q '
13 MR. HICKEY: ( Q. Do you have my question in 14 mind, Mr. Parks, or would you like me to repeat it? l ( ,,- 15 A. If I recall correctly; your question was I 16 knew -- you stated that I knew at the time a number of 17 GPU employees' resume appeared in there. 18 Q. Knew as of March 9. 19 A. I knew that -- or I believe at this moment in
. 20 time I knew of at least two guys' names was in there.
21 Q. Knew as of March 9. 1 22 A. I think so, yes. I knew on March 15th when I 23 talk ed to Lee Hofmann.
.24 Q. And did you know about any contacts between 25 . Larry King and representatives of Chemnuclear Company?
1, 26 MS. ZURAS: At_what point in time? .. y 27 MR. HICKEY: know on March 9.
' (. ..23 28 Q. These are all addressed to March -9. Did you 1
a<n TOOKER & ANT 2 131 Steuart Street San Francisco- 94105 415/392-0650'
.,w---__----- -
{,
,,..,q.___--~~_------ _=--_- - - - - - - - - - - - -
, ) (' 681 e
..I 1 know on March 9.
. ._.i 2 A. No. I don't think I did.
3 Q. You knew about Ken Lionarrons doing ~ work with' E .' 4 -Quiltec with regard to the River Bend Station, didn't you,: 5 Mr. Parks, on March 97
; 6 A. No. I knew that Ken Lionarrons was doing work C- 7 for Quiltec.
' 1 8 Q. You didn't know where? 9 A. No. i 10 Q.- Before Larry King got suspended. Did you ever 11 talk to him about possible job markets for Quiltec? 12 Opportunities, business opportunities for Quiltec? 13 MR. JOHNSON: At any time? 14 MR. HICKEY: Before Larry King got suspended. ( 15 THE WITNESS: I really couldn't tell you at 1 16 this point.in time if I did or not. That's a pretty j s 17 broad area and I knew Larry King for three years. 18 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, let's make it smaller in
' i 19 terms of time. Af ter you came back to the Island from !
i 20 Shoreham in the summer of 1982 up until the time that i
; 21 Larry King got suspended, did you talk to Larry King J j
22 about business prospects or opportunities for Quiltec? 23 A. There may have been times when Larry talked to
. 24 me about what they were doing, but I really couldn't tell
#l 25 you for certain if there was or not.
26 Q. How about possible Quiltec employees? Did you
, 27 talk to Larry King f rom the time you came back to the l'
. v- 28 Island in the summer of '82 until King got suspended 3:
-(Ly TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i
+t I t / ' 'dL _ _, _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.f.,3..-_m._.m_.,___-_._.__-_______.__.__._____._
J
, [., , 682 p .1 about which employees would be potentially good employees
,S c
[.. , ; 2 for Quiltec? y 3 A. Not that I can recall at this moment, no. l N 4 Q. Well, how about Mike Herlihy? You talked to 1 ,; 5 Larry King about Mike Herlihy, didn't you? I l 6 A. Not that I can recall at this point. :1 7 Q. How about Mr. Rekart? Do you recall talking to t
...<- 8 Larry King about Ted Rekart?
', 9 A. No, sir, I sure do not at this -moment.
10 Q. Do you remember talking with Ben Slone about
,' 11 either of those. individuals in the same time frame? i 12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. And you said at the start of your comments, Mr. 14 Parks, on this subject that you knew Larry King was a (, 15 part owner or you strongly suspected it. What do you { l 16 mean when you say you knew it or strongly suspected it? l
. 17 A. Just-that. I was reasonably certain in my mind
. . 18 that he was. But I had not seen anything in writing that I l
1 19 said he was. 20 Q. How about Ben Slone? You didn't make the same ! 21 qualification with regard to him. Had you seen something 22 in writing that said Ben Slone was a part owner? j 23 A. Well, Ben told me he was. ! 24 Q. Larry King never told you before he got 25 suspended that tue was a part owner of Quiltec? l
~V 26 A. Not that I can recall at the moment, no. I
!. . 27 Q. And Ben Slone never told you that Larry King (.
; .- '~- 28 was a part owner of Quiltec before King got suspended? '/,71 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,,,,.3_..__.s-___.-_-------------------------
4 ' 683.
.s: ,
s a 4 I I " ,pt 11 A. Ben may have, but I-really.couldn't tell'you at
.a
. . ,f ;
. 2 . this point in time if he just out and out.said yes, Larry
!'v , 3 owns part of Quiltec or not. But I had reason, like I
' , - ;., 4 said, like I've testified before, 'to strongly believe 5 . Larry.was because Ben had talked'to me about it as'long:
6 ago as summer of '81. 7
'7 Q. And besides the Beaver Valley and the Shoreham T 8 activities of Quiltec and the Florida coal-fired plant, 9 were you aware of any activities, any other utilities ;. . 10 that King, Slone or Quiltec representatives had~
11 approached prior to King's suspension? q 12 A. No. 13 Q. You. testified last time about having in your L 14 possession: for a ' time some business cards which listed (- 15 you as a consultant for Quiltec. 16 HR. JOHNSON: He disputed that characterization,
, 17 as you'll recall.
,' 18 MR. HICKEY: Q. What did you dispute about it?
, 19 MR. JOHNSON: The form.
t 20 THE'WIONESS: The form.
, e, 21 MR. JOHNSON: If you look in the record, there
- t. 22 was a discussion of whether ne was a consultant to 23 Quiltec or a consultant -- not whether he was, whether he considered that discussion that he had -- let me start 24 m
V 25 again. i 26 The questions dealt with whether he was indeed
, 27 a consultant for Quiltec or that the cards indicated he 5, (i, ,
28 was a consultant for Quiltec. And ih . Parks contested 3pl$ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
'll .
x - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _
...... m ,__.m w -._ - - - - - -- --
3'. , 684 s .
', [ 1 that characterization. I'll leave it at that.
1
,., [f 2 MR. HICKEY: Q. Mr. Parks, you testified -- i
;, 3 correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Parks -- that the word 4 "for" did not appear on the card. !
? 5 A. That 's correct. '
,, 6 Q. That was your point about making sure that the.
- 1 7 description of the' card was accurate, that it didn't have t t 8 the word "for" on it, right?
i
, 9 A. That's corr ect.
i 10 Q. Who else had Quiltec business cards with their ! name on it besides Richard Parks? 11 s '- 12 A. I really couldn't tell'you.
. 13 Q. You don't know whether Ben Slone had business 14 cards with:Quiltec?
(] 15 A. I think I told you last time that we talked on this that the way those cards came into my possession was 16 17 when Larry King come up to me or called me over to him. 18 and said he just had business cards printed for Ben or ) 19 for him or whoever, and gave me a box of business cards 20 that had my name on the Quiltec letterhead with ,
. 21 "co ns ul t a nt" below my name.
. 22 And I told him at that point in time he 23 shouldn't have done that because I was not an employee
. 24 and I was not a consultant for Quiltec. And he 25 characterized at a gif t for me helping Ben get the
.l 26 contract. l f
27 Now, who else he had in his possession business
. h.) 28 cards for I have absolutely no idea.
1
. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
y.,...~--
- 685 ,
. :i l
e y n .' 1 Q. Well, I think you just said that he said to you ~ , c .( ;, 2 that he had business cards printed for Ben, Ben Slone.
',f 3 Is that what Mr. King told you?
]
,/k 4 A. 'Right. I think that's who it was. It may have l ,' 5 been for him for all I know. I didn't look at it.
f
,I 6 Q. I'm not asking you what you saw. But what did 7 he tell you? Didn't you just say he told you he had 8 business cards printed for Larry King and Ben Slone? {
9 A. What I told you is what I can remember. Was 10 either for Ben Slone or for him. And whether it was for , t 11 him or for both. 1 8 12 Q. And how about Joe Chwastyk? Were you ever told 4 . 13 before you were suspended that business cards were I 14 printed for Joe chwastyk on the Quiltec name? 15 ([ A. I was never informed by anyone or did I ever 16 see any Quiltec business cards for Joe Chwastyk. I never
. 17 saw another Quiltec business card for anyone other than
,, 18 the ones that Larry King gave me and I promptly threw 19 them in the desk.
., 20 Q. You did testify that you gave business cards
. 21 with -- Qui 3tec business cards with your name on them to 22 two people, your f riend, Miss Krackenbush, and Ed Kitler.
23 Have you been able to think of anyone else since then
,". 24 that you gave a copy of your Quiltec business card to
. 25 besides Mr. Kitler and Miss Krackenbush?
.- ; . 26 A. No.
.. 27 Q. Anything else that you can recall, Mr. Parks, U p?
<- 28 about your knowledge on March 9 of Mr. King's -Quiltec
., p'; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 x, _ -
i p;i:~ _ / .' 686
/ 1 activities? . '.c gs 2 A. No. Not at this moment. You know, I may be > , : f, 3 taking this all wrong, but I'sure do get the opinion that
, .t , , 4 you're trying to weave a web of total involvement with me
- c. 5- and Quiltec and that's simply not the way it was.
' .".1c 6 Q. Well, if you'll just answer the questions, I'm
. 7 sure it will all'come out.
f 8 A.' I'm sure it'will, sir. v- 9 Q. You've testified, I think, that you thought -- e 10 when Larry King got suspended 'on February 24, that you 11 thought at that time that the suspension was retaliatory or improperly motivated or some expression like that.
;o 12 13 That was your belief at the time that King got
, 14 suspended?s
-( 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I. mean, you didn't decide that later on, you
+
17 thought it right at the time it happened? 18 A. Y es. 19 And did King express that view to you, too, at Q. 20 about the same time he was suspended, that he thought it 7 21 was retaliatory? 4 22 A. Yes.
- 23 Q. Did Larry King indicate at about the time he
.' 24 was suspended that he was interested in trying to keep
.. 25 his job and avoid being discharged?
? 26 A. I couldn't tell you if he did or not. I don't
.t c, 27 recall at this moment he ever made that comment or a
.,.- i> 28 comment like that to me.
, :jd
, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 y;
L ac,P*
- l,......-u.----.------------------------
L.
- 687 l
..y . - 'N 1 Q. I'm talking about after he was suspended, after rrs 2 he was of f the Island on February 24. Maybe it wasn' t
( l . 3 clear in my-question. L' 4 A. I can't recall a conversation like that ever I 5 happening, no.. l,* , 6 'Q. Well, did Larry King seek or did you offer to 7 Larry King after he was suspended your support or help in 8 having him return to the Island?
.- 9 A. I think that Larry King had my moral support as 10 an individual and as an ex-boss. There was nothing in my 11 power I could do to get him back on the Island.
12 Q. But you would have liked to have helped him if 13 you could?. 14 A. I think what happened to Larry was wrong and so (, 15 yeah, I would like to have seen that wrong righted. 16 Q. Did you understand from Larry after he was 17 suspended that Larry was afraid the company would misuse
'; 18 information about his Quiltec connections to try to
. 19 justify firing him?
20 A. I don't think I understand your 21 characterization. 22 Q. Okay. Let me rephrase the question. Did you 23 understand from Larry King af ter he got suspended that he 24 thought the company would use information about his
. 25 Quiltec activities to try to fire him?
r- 26 A. Well, I think that I've already testified
. 27 earlier this morning that Larry was of the opinion that J. ; b 28 the company was trying to use the supposed conflict of
.' i l
d .'d TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
' ;;::] .
n . _ . ~ . _ - _ _ __ _ __ _ - -._ _. _ _ _ - - __ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _. g' . 688 a =, 1 1 interest as a justification for removing him from the job
. :. : 2 site, yes. Is 'thet what you're looking for?
3 0 I think that's the question I asked, yes.
. 4 Did King suggest to you that you were in danger l'+* 5 shortly af ter he was suspended? Or, you know, from l.
6 February 24 on, up until March 9 and this telephone call, 7 did King suggest to you that he thought you were at risk 1 8 or in danger, since he'd gotten suspended, you might, too? 9 A. Well, Larry King had suggested to me that I was 1 10 in danger previous to February 24th, like shortly after I [ 11 was threatened. l ! ,.. 12 0 But I want to ask you about the period from 13 February 24th to March 9. 14 A. I'd have to say in all fairness in (, 15 consideration to your question that I am of the belief 16 that Larry thought something was gonna happen to me and I 17 thought something was gonna happen to me and a lot of 18 people thought something was gonna happen to me because
, 19 everything seemed to be happening systematically.
. 20 0 Who else? Who are the lot of people you are 21 referring to besides you and Larry King thought something 22 was going to happen? And again, I'm focusing on the time 23 after Larry King's suspension on February 24th.
. 24 A. Well, on several occasions Bubba Marshall made
., 25 a comment to me, Rick, if you keep doing a good job, 26 Bechtel is gonna fire your ass.
27 0 This is after February 24, right? 5 bl 28 A. Y es. Je.f TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
, 689 x ~ l Q. Anyone else that you recall af ter February 247 .- ' (~ ~. 2 A. Well, I think that was -- you know, became kind
( 3 of a slogan almost that, you know, Bechtel would get me
,. 4 or was gonna get me.
5 Q. Did you tell Larry King af ter he was suspended 6 that you'd gotten rid of the Quiltec cards and the Beaver 7 Valley proposal and resume so that those wouldn't be able
.- 8 to be used against you?
9 A. No. Not that I can recall. Not at this moment, 10 anyway.
, 11 Q. Did Larry King tell you after he was suspended
, 12 that he thought Joe Chwastyk was in danger of getting 13 suspended or disciplined or fired because of his Quiltec 14 activities?
( 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did Larry King make any comment to you af ter he l 17 was suspended reflecting the view that Ed Kitler, in King's I 18 opinion, was in danger of getting disciplined or fired or 19 suspended? )
.- 20 A. No.
21 Q. When King told you on the evening of March 9 in 22 your telephone conversation that Arnold had -- Bob Arnold 23 had asked about you, did you and Larry King discuss
. 24 whether you should go to the NRC with that information?
25 A. I can't recall at this point in time if Larry 26 and I discussed it or not. But I know it was a decision
)
. 27 that I ma d e. Now, whether I discussed it with Larry k 28 King -- I know I definitely discussed it with Ed Gischel.
{ l Ii: TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 \ w, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --- - - - - - - -- i l
[j ..l, 4 a - y 690
.- 1 Q. On the morning of March 10 you discussed it-2 with Gischel, right?
. . (c' .
'.- .' 3 A. Yes. !.-; . 4 Q. But you can't recall whether you discussed it [ *: 5 with King 'on' the evening of March 9 in that phone 6 conversation?
. 7 A. I r Aally couldn't tell you at this point in 8 time if we discussed it or not.
9 Q. Did you talk to Larry King that evening of the
-}' 10 9th about whether or not you needed an attorney?
l
. 11 A. No. I didn't really come into the belief that l
} 12 I needed -- l 13 MS. EURAS: Excuse me. Could you please listen 14 to the question, just respond to it.
( 15 THE WITNESS: No. 16 MR. HICKEY: Q. When did you decide that you 17 needed an attorney? 18 A. Af ter Joe Chwastyk told me I better get an 19 attorney. 20 Q. That was on the afternoon of the next day, the 21 10th of March? 5 22 A. Y es.
. 23 Q. Had you spoken to Larry King's attorney prior
. 24 to Chwastyk telling you you needed an attorney on March
. 25 10?
.- 26 A. No.
,' 27 Q. On March 9 when Larry called you about this bi 28 conversation with Bob Arnold, were you aware of the q]2h,' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 s _ ___. _
+ -
691 i
)
- . i
. 1 provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act and the Code
}
-- ;s 2 of Federal Regulations about harassment or discrimination 3 against employees?
4 A. I really couldn't tell you exactly when I 5 became aware of that. I 6 Q. How did you learn about it?
- 7 A. By talking with lawyers. !
8 Q. That's where you first learned about those 9 provisions? 10 A. No. I knew that the Code of Federal 11 Regulations protected against harassment and retaliation
- , 12 for nuclear workers. But, you know, statute and section 13 and all that, no. I couldn't -- I was not aware of 14 exactly what provisions they were. I was aware of it in
(, 15 a general sort of way. 16 -Q. When you went to the NRC the next morning on 17 the 10th of; March, you took a man named Carl Hrbac with 18 you, right? 19 A. That's correct.
. 20 Q. Why did you do that, Mr. Parks?
i 21 A. I wanted a witness. 22 Q. A witness to what?
.. 23 A. My conversation with the NRC.
. 24 Q. Did you tell Mr. Hrbac that's why you wanted 25 him to go with you?
^
26 A. Yes.
.,, ' 27 Q. Did you ask Mr. Hrbac to take noteE,7
- k. 28 A. No. j l
l l "" TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 a.
.m-n.---.~.-~~~.----------------
l 692
!).
; 1 Q. Did you ask him to pay particular attention to
<: what was said?
{:; 2
*>. 3 A. No more so than, you know, just.tell him --
just. asked him if he'd go with me and he had said yeah.
~
4
"; 5 And I told him-I wanted him as a witness, as an impartial
. 6 witness.
7 Q. What'was it that you were planning to say to
. 8 the NRC that made you decide you wanted to take a witness 9 with you?
10 A. I was going to request an Office of
.t 11 Investigations investigation and at that point I'm -- or 12 by that point in time, I had little or no reason to trust 13 the NRC and I' wanted somebody to verify what had happened 14 and what we talked about, that sort of thing.
(' 15 Q. To verify the fact that you had requested the 16 investigation? , 17 A. Y es. And the results of my request. 18 Q. What did you expect before you went into the 19 NRC meeting were going to be the results of your request?
. 20 A. I was unsure. That's why I wanted a witness.
I 21 Q. Well, the last time you had been at the NRC on 22 the 25th of February, you were of f ered an NRC 23 investigation which you declined, were you not?
--- 24 A. I disagree with your term of decline. I told, 25 oh, Lake Barrett, who was the head NRC on-site deputy 26 director, something like that, that I would -- I was 27 putting the decision to request an OI investigation, l 28 putting it into abeyance to await to see the outcome of
\ * * *j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
-J a.bd- . _ . _ I
, 693
,. I the QA look-see.
;i','
- p. 2 Q. Well, you hadn't gone back to the NRC prior to 3 March 10th to say that you now wanted to revivify that 4 r equ est?
i- 5 A. That's right. I was kinda hoping all the
'I 6 harassment and everything else would die down. But it.
.. 7 didn't, it intensified.
. 8 Q. Well, the QA investigation wasn't related to.
, 9 your harassment, was it? It was not an investigation of 10 your. harassment, was it?
. 11 A. No, it was not. But I felt --
. 12 Q. Excuse me.
13 A. I felt that af ter QA looked into the problems 14 that I identified that everybody would realize that my (_ 15 only concern was getting the problems documented, getting 16 them identified, getting them corrected and I f elt 17 everything would go away and everything would be happy. 18 I was wrong. 19 Q. And what made you move to go to NRC on March 10 20 was that Larry King told you on March 9 that Bob Arnold j 21 had asked about your knowledge of Quiltec; is that right?
? 22 A. I felt at that point in time after talking with Larry King that there was indications, anyway, that
. 23
.. / 24 management was going to try to implicate me in the same
'n 25 conflict of interest as Larry King, that they had used on 26 Larry King, and get another internal dissenter of f the 27 job site.
l J" Ic. 28 l Q. And why did you conclude that from King's phone
- o. t1 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1 b
4.g_~-_..-------w.------------------- 694-a
- , 1 call to you?
c : ', g 2- A. Well', because it seemed to me that somehow or
.i -' 3 another they had - "they" being Bob Arnold' and/or other-
!' 4 management officials --'had.already decided that I was,-
- 5 you know, a Quiltec type or something to that ef fect, 6 that I was just as deeply into Quiltec as Larry King was
, 7 because Bob Arnold went out af ter Larry King and kept 8 insisting, well, Parks knew, didn't he, Parks knew. And 9 Larry hadn't mentioned anything, from what Larry told me, 10 that I had known.
11 So it seemed to me that he had gone in there
~
12 . with a pre-conception . they were gonna get me and I knew I 13 was innocent. The only thing I'could even remotely
, 14 understand for why they'd want to get me was because of
.(.- 15 the problems I identified.
16 Q. Well, were you aware when you spoke to Larry 17 King.on March 9.thtt your obtaining Miss Rittle to type 18 resumes was known on site?
~. 19 A. Y es , I knew it was known on site.
_ .. 20 Q. Did you know whether it was known to Mr. Arnold 21 or not?
.. 22 A. Well, I didn't know if it was known to Mr.
. 23 Arnold or not. But I knew it was known to an awful. lot
-
- 24 of the Bechtel managers -- not managers, but high level 4I 25 supervisors.
26 Q. That you had Miss Rittle type the resumes?
. j' 27 A. Yes.
v C- 28 Q. Who knew about that, to your knowledge? ; ...!.th TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650-om." _ _ _ _____ ____________________ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._ __ l
695 1 MR. JOHNSON: When are we talking about? j 2 HR. HICKEY: {- 5 On March 9th.
- - 3 THE WITNESS: Rich Gallagher, Ed Kitler. I u 4 know all the guys that I worked with over at the Bechtel
, 5 group knew. And I have to believe Bob Rider and Bob
.. 6 Jackson. Rich Jackson or whatever. Mr. Jackson.
. 7 MR. HICKEY: Q. Let me take them one at a time.
8 How did Ed Kitler know that you had Ms. Rittle type 9 resumes? 10 A. Oh. I believe I probably worked it over with 11 him. Ed and I worked in the same office for a long time { 12 so he may have just become aware of it. 13 Q. Well, is it your testimony that you told Ed 14 Kitler that you were having Rose Rittle type resumes? (- 15 A. Oh, I can't state with certainty at this moment 16 if I told him or not. Like I say, he just may have i 17 become aware of it. 18 Q. How about these other people that you referred
. 19 to? Did you tell any of them specifically that you were , 20 having Rose Rittle type resumes or had had Rose Rittle I
21 type resumes? ] 22 A. I didn't set out and intentionally call Rich 23 Gallagher and Bob Rider and say, fellows, I'm having Rose o
. 24 Rittle type these resumes. I know that Rich Gallagher !
( I 25 was aware of it. l l
-, 26 Q. And how did you know that then?
. 27 A. Because she was his secretary. And I have
, (? 28 reason to believe that -- and if I can recall correctly --
1 1 l TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 Ikl osTm ____m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - - - - - ^ - --
',y*-.w-~~~~~~--------.--------------
696 i.i
- ~ .I 1 may be off of~a bit of a tangent. But I' believe- Bob-lj;- 2 Rider and' Rich! Gallagher at 'one point in time in the
'-l- , 3 summer of 1983 asked me about' Larry King being in Quiltec.
..)
. 4 And so I.just probably at that time assumed that'they .
. - 5 knew that Rose was typing that package. Maybe that's how l
. [ '
6- I put it together. 7 Q. Let me understand what you're saying. It's 8 . your. testimony that because Bob Rider and -- who was the
.,., 9 other gentleman? Jackson?.
- 10. A. Rich Gallagher.
4 11 -Q. Rich Gallagher asked 'you about Larry. King's , . - 12 involvement with Quiltec, that indicated to you they were u .- 13 aware. that Rose Rittle had typed resumes? Is.that what . 14 your testimony is? I ;(, 15 A. No. You know, that may be a loose stringing I 16 together of-isolated instances. But I was reasonably 17 confident that Rich Gallagher and Bob Jackson -- or Bob 18 Rider were aware of Rose Rittle typing those resumes for 19 me. Now, I could not --
,' '20 Q. And, of course, Larry King knew about Rose c 21 Rittle typing the resumes?
22 A. No. I don't think Larry ever did know who I 23 had do it. l 24 Q. He knew the resumes had been typed, you're
"'- , 25 saying he didn't know it was done by Rose Rittle?
26 A. Y es. 27 MS. ZU RAS: We've been going about an hour and I k 28 a half. Can we have a f acilities break?
^
.;j.; '. TOOKER & ANTZ-131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 12.
..J. s w - _ - - __ --_ _ --- .- - - - - - -- - - . - - - - -
697
~- 1 - MR; HICKEY: Yes. Can I have one minute to 2 finish this line?
(:: .'. 3 MS. ZURAS: Yes. 4 MR. HICKEY: Q. You also mentioned Mr. Rider.
.. 5 What was your basis for thinking that Mr. Rider knew that )
6 Miss Rittle had typed resumes for you? 7 A. Well, there again, I can't state it with
'i 8 certainly that Bob did know. I'm assuming that he knew. l 9 That was probably a misstatement on my part.
10 MR. HICKEY: Okay. Thank you. 11 (Brief recess.) l .. 12 MR. HICKEY: Q. We were talking just before 13 the break, Mr. Parks, about your visit on March 10 to the l 14 NRC with Mr. Hrbac to request an OI investigation. Let i 15 (. me go back to that subject just briefly-. 16 What did you tell the NRC, as best you can 17 recall, what you wnnted them to investigate? l 18 A. Well, I know it's in my original affidavit. It 19 probably provides more amplifying comments than I could f
, 20 at this moment. How about if I just look at it.
21 Q. Yes. Please do. I think what you may be 22 referring to 13 your discussion on page 45, kind of the 23 middle of the page. But it didn't completely answer my 24 question. That's why I thought I'd put it to you. 25 You say in there that you wanted to request a 26 special investigation. But I'm asking you what it was 27 you wanted them to investigate or what you told them.
. b. 28 What did you tell Mr. Wiebe on the 10th of March that you ." :f TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i . +,- _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ - .- _ ___-
,3,,w-._-___.--.m__~-------._.-----------. j 698 r
I
- - 1 wanted the NRC to. investigate?
.." 2 A. Well, at this point in time I just have to
(.c
. 3 stand with what I have written on page 45 'cause I' .' 3 4 couldn't really tell you a whole lot more at this point 1
in time what else I said or what else he said.
~
,. 5 j
.i
{- 6 Q. Well, all you say there is you wanted to J 7 request a special investigation. Is it your testimony 8 that you don't have any recollection of what you wanted 9 them to investigate? I 10 A. No. I think you're kind of jumping over a f ew 11 statements. Then I went to the NRC to discuss the
. 12 Arnold-King conversation. I stated it was another 13 management > act to intimidate or remove f rom the Island --
i 14 just like Island -- anyone who tries to stop them from ' ( 15 violating government or industry standards.
- 16 And I go on to state that I asked Joel Wiebe 17 for a special investigation and I explained Larry King's
- 18 call the previous night and my concerns.
19 Q. Well, did you say in substance to the NRC that 20 you wanted them to investigate your Quiltec activities? 21 A. No, sir. I told them then, as I believe now, 22 that management was systematically harassing me and 23 retaliating against me and that's what I was wanting 24 people to take a look at. I thought I was being set up 25 to be rode out of town on a rail.
., 26 Q. By being f alsely implicated in Quiltec? That
. 27 was your fear?
- . 28 A. I considered that to be only one more act of I
t.
'f.- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
, w _ _ _ _., _.__ - - ~ _ .
699 l
.. ; 1 management's attempts to silence dissent with me being
(~. 2 the dissenter. ( 3 ! Q. Well, I'm asking . something a little more 4 specific, Mr. Parks. Let me see if I can focus in on it. m
. 5 I'm not asking you about diff erent ways in which you ,
i 6 believe you were harassed, okay? I'm asking you what you i 7 think was the vehicle or means by which management !
. ~8 planned to get rid of you.
9 And wasn't that that you thought they were 10 going to use this Quiltec connection, for want of a 11 better phrase, as an excuse to get rid of you? An unf air, 12 but that would be the excuse that would be offered? 13 That's what.you feared? 14 A. I;was concerned that they would do that, yes. ( 15- Q. But you knew, did you not, that.there wasn't 16 any evidence that would implicate you improperly in 17 Quiltec? Isn't that what your belief was? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. So why were you worried? 20 A. Well, in my opinion at that time, it didn't 21 stop them from getting rid of Larry King and I didn't 22 believe he was guilty of any conflict of interest. I 23 kn ew I wa s n ' t , but I didn't have any faith that they
, 24 weren't going to get rid of me and use that as a 25 prefabricated reason to justify their actions.
, 26 Q. And you've testified previously that the NRC 27 told you that they thought this was a matter that should t.
i V. 28 be handled by the Labor Department and gave you an 1
..;g . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.ti-__________--_.----- _ _ _ _ _ - - )
,..y,,--.-.--..------------------.-----
700-V- . se : 1 address and telephone number for the Labor Department,
,' '{.2
- p. 2 - right?
3 A. Yes, sir ,
, 4 Q. Did you express to the NRC.any dissatisfaction-
.] '5' or any concerns about that action on the part of the NRC7 -
. ., 6 A. Are.you asking me did I express --
7 Q. At the time. 8 A. -- any concerns to the NRC?- o 9 Q. No, no.. Let me rephrase the question. I think 10 you have said in your affidavit that you weren't 11 satisfied with the NRC simply telling you to go to the 12 Labor Department, right? 13 A. That's true.
' 14 Q. I;want to know if at the time on March 10 you
(. 15 told the NRC,that you didn't think that was a good way to 16' handle it or-you didn't like it or you wanted something 17 else?
. 18 A. No. From what I can recall at this moment, f
19 when Joe '. Wiebe basically told me to take my problem 20 somewhere else, I was just shocked probably would be the 21 best way I could describe it. And I didn't really know 22 what to do. But I eventually did exactly as he advised ! 23 and took it to the Department of Labor. 24 I also decided to take it above their head, 25 take it to the NRC Commissioners simultaneously with
. 26 going to the Department of Labor.
27 Q. When Mr. Wiebe said the Department of Labor
~
s 28 handles these things and here's their phone number, 0' 131 Steuart Street San Francisco TOOKER & ANTZ 94105 415/392-0650
.d h Qga6db ______m._----m-
enw- - 701
,4 H- 1 address, did you believe-at that time that that's what
? a (,. 2' you would do?- Did you decide to go to the Labor s
'- 3 Department?
l 4 A. That very instant? Is that what.you're asking I 5 me?
, 6 Q.- Yeah. You know. Within a matter of hours,.
l l 7 let's say. 1 8 A. No, sir. I did not make that decision within a matter of hours after that. ! 9 10 Q. When did you first contact the Labor Department?
- 11. A. I believe I contacted them on the same day that
. . 12 I sent the af fidavit to the NRC, which would have been 13 like March 22nd or 23rd, something like that.
14 Q. Not before? You didn't. call any Labor (* 15 Department office before the affidavit was sent in? 16 A. No, sir. I did not talk with any 17 representative f rom the Department of Labor. 18 Q. Why didn't you contact the Labor Department on 19 March 10th if you were interested in having an
. 20 investigation done, and Mr. Wiebe had told you the Labor
~
21 Department would do an investigation? 22 A. Because there were a few other instances that 23 served to sway my opinion about what my list of 24 priorities should include. 25 Q. You're saying other things took over your 26 attention on March 10th? 27 A. Yes, sir. 28 Q. What was that?
. i
- V TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
) 4 d ._ ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _______________._m _----____I
-4 702.
1
.,g A. Well, later on that same day, Joe Chwastyk and
, ;. g ' ',, ; .. 2 I had my conversation where he warned me I should go get
, 3 a lawyer, that management. knew I had talked to NRC and 4 were gonna get me for it. And so I did.
I started 5 looking for a lawyer. 6 Q. On March 10th? 7 A. Yup. That evening. 8 Q. Did you see somebody that evening?
,[ 9 A. Hop e. -I tried, but I wasn't successful.
10 Q. Who did you try to see on March loth? 11 A. I don't remember any of the gentlemen's names
, , 12 now or what law firms they were with. They were local 13 guys. ,
14 Q. In. Middletown? (, 15 A. Middletown, Harrisburg area. 16 Q. Where did you get their names? 17 A. I let my fingers do the walking and used the 18 Yellow Pages. 19 Q. Did you talk to Larry King for possible names I 20 of lawyers to represent you? 21 A. No. i' 22 Q. How about Ed Gischel? Did you talk to him 23 about possible lawyers?
, 24 A. No.
'e. 25 Q. Anyone else that you spoke to on March 10 to i
. 26 obtain suggestions or names of lawyers to call?
, 27 A. Other than my girlf riend and friends.
i se 28 Q. What friends? l l ,;j TOOKER & ANTZ
, r., 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i
;. Oe----,m--- - - - -
- ,j 703 .. - 1 A. P eople I knew. of f the job site and did not work ; w .'- , 2 at Three Mile Island.
l,. 3 Q. How about Mark Kobi?
.- 4 A. I don't think I talked to Mark Kobi.
5 Q. Okay. You did have -- so I understand your
,- 6 answer, you didn't talk to Mark Kobi about a possible 7 lawyer, right?
8 A. I don't think I did, no. 9 Q. But you did have a discussion with Mark Kobi on
, 10 March 10, remember?
11 A. Y es. R 12 Q. That's your date of the cooling tower taalk 13 discussion with Mark Kobi that we talked about earlier. 14 A. Yes, I did.
- (' 15 Q. Okay. Am I right that in part you were seeking 16 guidance f rom Mark Kobi about what you should do and 17 explaining .your problems or situation to him?
18 A. Well, yes. And, you know, Mark had been with the company for a while, so I figured maybe Mark could
-19 20 give me some insight, you know, as to who do I talk to.
21 Q. He suggested that you contact Mr. Wheeler, did
- 22 he not, and request a meeting with the Bechtel 23 vice-president?
,. , 24 A. Well, I can't remember at this second whether 25 or not he suggested I contact a Bechtel vice-president.
.[ 26 But Mark did suggest I get ahold of senior Bechtel I.,--
27 management.
, kv 28 Q. I'm just ref erring to your language in your l
L'Jy, . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,i . _ - _ - _ - - - _ _ _ - - - _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - 1
,m--__._____,--__-<____._._.____._.__.__.__.____.__._.__.____.__ j 704 i i
1 af fidavit on page 46, Mr. Parks. 2 j 'On March 10 I asked Kobi how to get in touch 1 3 with senior Bechtel management in Gaithersburg. Mark told me to contact my Gaithersburg contact, Andy Wheeler, 4
, 5 and request a meeting with one of the vice-presidents."
6 So that wan his advice to you, right? 7 A. I have nothing at present to dispute this 8 s tat ement.
, 9 Q. And when Mark gave you that advice on the 10 afternoon of March 10, did you plan to do that?
11 A. I was giving serious consideration to what his 12 advice was. 13 Q. But you hadn't decided on that day? 14 A. I was still kind of confused as to what to do. (,. 15 Because shortly af ter that is when Joe Chwastyk and I had 16 our talk. 17 Q. Your talk about you ought to get a lawyer at 18 that time? 19 A. Right.
. 20 Q. And after you had your talk with Chwastyk, did 21 you pursue contacting Andy Wheeler or anybody in 22 Gaithersburg in Bechtel?
23 A. No. I pursued getting a lawyer. 24 Q. That sounded like a decision you made, before 25 doing anything more you wanted to contact counsel; is 26 that right?
, 27 A. Well, I felt that, you know, I might need one
- k. 28 because I jutt couldn't picture Joe telling me to get one,
.- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
p,,.._.___.------------------------------ a, '705-1 l' you know, just as an of fhanded remark. .So I; felt I:was
,,j. 2 soon gonna need one.
fj 3 Q. To file your Department of Labor complaint? -
. 4 A. To advise me of my legal rights.
'5.
~
,. Q. Well,.I thought you said that you. decided'after
-; 6 your conversation with-Joe that you were going to ---
,,i' 7 maybe I'm misquoting you.
8- MS. EURAS: Yeah. I think so. 9 MR. HICKEY: Q. 1&en did you decide that you-10 were going to file the Labor Department complaint? 11 A. I did not state previously that's when I
. 12 decided I was gonna file my Department of-Labor complaint.
; 13 Q. Okay. Well, when did you?
14 A. After.I talked to a lawyer. 9 ( 15 Q.- Before. you spoke to a lawyer,' you hadn't 16 decided one way or the other about whether you'd go to l
)
17 the Labor Department?
]
l 18 A.. I didn't know what to do. It was -- you know, 19 here was I was ' faced with several dif f erent choicgs and c : 20 several different avenues and I was unsure of what my l s 21 legal rights were. And I wanted to make sure that my l 22 legal rights were protected. ' 23 Q. When you say --
.c 24 A. So I sought counsel.
25 Q. When you say you were faced with several _p 26 dif f erent choices and avenues, what are you thinking
, 27 about? ' ' - l kt ' 28 A. Well, I could have gone directly to the .' ", ;j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1 . h.n.' l
N-. - - _ - - - - - - - - -.- .- - - - - -._ --.- -.- - --.-.-.- -- - - 706 1 Depar tment of Labor by myself. I could have went down to ( 2 Gaithersburg or, you know, talked to somebody in 3 Gaithersburg, but I had reason to believe that Mr. l 4 Thiesing was involved in, you know, the harassment and J
. 5 everything that happened to me on the job site, so I was 6 just a little bit leery about going to Bechtel management.
7 Q. Well -- excus e me. You haven't finished. I 8 A. So -- and I could have gone to a lawyer. And I
, 9 chose -- I figured if I was going to pay a man, at least 10 protect my interests for me.
11 Q. That sounds like you felt because Mr. Thiesing 12 might have been involved, it was useless to go to 13 Gaithersburg. Is that what you're'saying? 14 A. I didn't say that. I just wanted to make sure ( 15 that if I had to get up to bat, I held a stick in my hand. 16 Q. And the stick would be the lawyer? 17 A. I wanted to make sure I had someone, you know, 18 standing in my corner for once. By this time I had 19 started to los e trust and, you know, in NRC, management
. 20 on site. I wanted somebody to, you know, make sure what 21 I was doing was protecting my legal rights. Somebody 22 advising me of what to do.
23 Q. Mr. Wiebe that morning had also given you the 24 telephone number of Mr. Christopher, Keith Christopher of . . 25 the NRC and told you that you could contact him, too, 26 didn't he? s 27 A. Y es , sir. I knew I could contact him if I so
'. k.. 28 desired.
., TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
l ,. 707 e j 1 Q.- You didn't desire to? ' 2 'A. Well, no.
. 3 Q. You didn't contact him, did you?
4 A. No. 5 Q. And why didn't you contact him?
.'- 6 A. Simply because when Mr. Wiebe gave me all this 7 information, he told me he'd already discussed it with 8 Keith Christopher, an OI type, and that they had -- or-9 they or Keith Christopher, one, had reached a decision 10 that it wasn't an NRC matter and I found it kind of hard 11 to believe. It sounded to me like they were making a 12 judgment without looking at the facts. So - .
13 Q. You may have misspoke yourself, Mr. Parks. Or i 14 I may have; misheard you. Did you say that Mr. Wiebe and (:, 15 Mr. Christopher had decided that it was or was not an NRC 16 matter? 17 A. I stated that Christopher or the OI types that 18 he had talked to had decided it was not an OI matter. 19 Q. And you felt that was a wrong decision? 20 A. Well, I f elt it was a decision made hastily, at 21 least. 22 Q. Why? What made you think that?
.A 23 A. Well, when he told me that their opinicn was it
.' 24 was an employer-employee relationship problem, it sounded 25 to me like they'd talked to somebody other than me 26 because nobody had talked to me. You know, that they had 27 taken the opinion, that hey, you know, maybe Parks is I
. J.$' 28 guilty of this conflict of interest but nobody had asked
/N TOOKER, & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1
c h_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- .nn--- -~ .
708
!" 1 Parks anything.
l c;, ;. 2 And just seems to me you can't really make a l l' .} 3 decision on something until you talk to the party i l
. 4 involved.
J 5 And now whether that opinion for me to draw was 6 right or wrong, that was the conclusion I took. And I l 7 d ecided , you know, I better get somebody that is more
. 8 well versed in legal workings of a system to help me.
9 Q. Well, the NRC had spoken to you about your 10 claims on February 18, right?
, 11 A. No.
. 12 Q. When you came in to see Mr. Wiebe and report 13 about the parking lot threat and so son?
,' 14 A. I talk ed to him on February 18th, right.
([ 15 Q. And you gave him information then about your 16 concerns or claims, did you not? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And then you went back on February 25 at their I 19 invitation? 20 A. Y es.
... 21 Q. And you went in again on March 10th?
22 A. Yes. 23 Q. But your feeling was that they didn't have
, 24 enough information to decide that your claim should be 25 investigated by the Labor Department?
, 26 A. Well, it seems to me that when I had reported a threat and then for them to -- you know, when I had 27
(. 28 requested an OI investigation, that threat and all the i i
- ' 1
(
.' r ) TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l .aAL-------________.___-_____-
-.,-~~ - ------------------------
709
.~,
A 1 circumstances'behind it hadn't gone away. But for'them
'-' 'r }/l.
-2 to categorize:it as an employer-employee relationship 3 problem- just -- I don't know, just didn't sit right with
'M ', 4 m e. I smelled something fishy.
. , 5 Q. Well, I'm having a hard time understanding.
6 You did Lthink that it was an employer-employee problem,
, 7 did you not, -in the sense that your employer was 8 harassing you improperly, retaliating against you?
- 9. A. Yes.
10 Q. For doing what you viewed to be your job as an 11 employee?
'i 12 A. Right.
13 Q. Okay. So when the NRC told you they viewed it
'> 14 as an employer-employee problem, why didn't that sit well
([, 15 with you or-why did it smell, if that was your expression? 16 A. Because I was probably not as educated at that 17- point in time as I subsequently became, and that I was 18 not aware at that time that the Department of Labor 19 investigated those types of thing and nobody at the NRC
;J- 20 bothered to explain that to me.
21 I thought the Office of Investigations did all { 22 the investigation on that, which I understand now they
. ,' d 23 also do.
, . 24 But when I kept getting hands down every time I i L,d 25 turned around, I decided -- well, I didn't really decide 26 at that point in time, anyway,' but later on that I
- h 27 decided to go get a lawyer which was the best advice I 7 28 had all day.
t I figured if the lawyer thought it was the
/E'd TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.O a.sc-
.y..nw-,-.-a---~-----------------~~--
710 i 1 best thing to do to go to the Department of Labor, that's g, 2 what I'd pay the man for.
,,.' 3 Q. Mr. Wiebe told you on March 10, did he not,
^
4 that- it was the Labor Department that investigated -- _. 5 MR. JOHNSON: Asked and answered. 6 MS. ZURAS: Asked and answered. Mr. Hickey, 7 you know, we -- 8 MR. HICKEY: I don't recall the answer. Maybe : 9 I'm wrong.
~
10 MR. JOHNSON: Well, it's right in the af fidavit 11 and he subscribed to it on the record here. I would 12 suggest that you move on to something else.
. 13 MR. HICKEY: Yes. If I get the answer to the 14 question, I'11 be glad to.
,y ' .15 fQ. Did Mr. Wiebe explain to you that the Labor 16 Department- investigated these matters?
17 A. No.
. 18- Q. He didn't tell you about that?
19 A. He told me that in NRC's viewpoint it was an
,, 20 employer-employee relationship problem and was best 21 handled by the Department of Labor. Gave ne the address
. 22 and phone number and the whole shootin' match.
, 23 Q. Did you ask Mr. Wiebe for any information about 24 the procedures that he didn't give you on March 10th?
25 (Interruption by the Reporter.) j 1
+ 26 (Question read.) l 27 THE WITNESS: I don't think I understand what J ku 28 you mean.
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
V ,q '
'711 f:
,, 4
.~k ,
1- MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, I'm asking whether you A 2 . sought'information to clear up, the confusion or lack of
^
.. 3 knowledge in your mind from Mr. Wiebe and he didn't
'. ;f 4 provide'it.
u i 5 A. He did not provide me with anything other than ,- 6 --what I've already talked about and I didn't ask him for L - 7 anything other than what I've already talked about. 8 Q. Okay. That was my question, whether you had 9 ask ed him . 10 Your events of March 10 that you've been
- 11. describing included one more that I need to ask you about, 12 Mr. Parks. That's your telephone or other conversation 13 with Gloria King on the evening of March'10. Are you
' N -
14 able to recall for us .today whether in f act you didn't go (j 15 to the King's home on the evening of March 107 16 A. No.
. 17 Q. You don' t know? .
.I y 18 A. No. !
i 19 Q. Are you saying you didn't go or you don't know?
- j. 20 A. No. All I can tell.you is that -- would-be n 21 based on what I have here in my affidavit and it says I
,, 22 spoke with them. Either on the phone -- and I believe
.' 23 that's what happened, that I spoke with them on the phone. t
\
.. 24 But I wouldn't swear to it at this time.
'?,, 25 Q. Are you speaking with them, meaning both Larry i
; 26 and Gloria King?
4
- ) 27 A. No, Gloria. I c'
t{ k/ 28 Q. Did you speak with Larry? ) i
. :q f;
.TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 .l
\
MC _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - -. _- - - - - - - _ l
1
, - - - - - - . ~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
712 4 j ,. 1 A. No. Not-that I recall. I'd ref er you to the
*" ,. / - 2 affidavit.
Righ t. 3 Q. I've r ead that. Did you understand L,. 4 from what Mrs.' King told you that there was some threat l-l+.. 5 being made to th'e physical well-being of your children? 6 A. Yes, sir. That's exactly how I took it. l 7 Q. And specifically, did you think that someone 8 was planning to kill them'or do them serious bodily harm? 9 A. Well, I don't know what people were planning on 10 doing. But I took it as a threat. 11 Q. Yeah. The question is what you thought, not 12 what people were thinking. But what did you think people 13 were planning to do with your sons? 14 A. I had no idea, but I knew I wasn't going to (, 15 give them a chance. 16 Q. You did think it involved physical harm? 17 A. Physical or mental. 18 Q. Your description of the phone conversation is 19 that Gloria King reported that Mr. Chwastyk said your 20 ex-wife was trying to get negative information to use 21 regarding the custody of your children, right?
. 1, 22 A. Right. To take away the custody of my children. t 23 Q. To take away the custody of your children?
. . 24 A. Right.
.-r, 25 Q. How did you interpret that to be a threat to 26 their physical saf ety? What made you think that was a 27 threat to their physical safety?
. \/ 28 A. Well, that someone would -- in my opinion, you
. I 1.:< . ' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 2
L L E-~ _ __ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _
y_,_._.__.-_.------------------------- 713
, ', 1 know, when she was relaying this information to me, the
' _ _'e. . g ~.
2 only'way somebody could take those two boys away from me
'/ 3 was if I was in jail or they physically took them away
? 4 from me. And if they were going to physically take them c- 5 away from me, I'd be dead first.
'_l 6 Q. I don't understand your answer. I'm asking you l . . . 7 why it was you interpreted Mrs. King's comments that j,. 8 Chwastyk said someone was trying to get custody of your l .
l 9 children as a physical threat to your children? 10 A. Just that. Physical-mental-type threat. You
,; 11 know, doing damage to them emotionally, which is a 12 physical threat or physically harming the children, taking them away from me one way or the other.
13 I didn't 14 really -- you know, I didn't categorize it any other way 0-u 15 than that.
. 16 I thought my sons' well-being was in jeopardy
[' 17 and that's the best way I can explain it to you.
. 18 Q. And you knew there was not a threat coming from
. 19 your ex-wif e, right?
20 A. Yes, sir, I knew that.
. 21 Q. And you knew basically everybody at the Island j 22 knew the same thing, namely, that your ex-wif e was 23 deceased?
.? 24 A. As f ar as I knew, everybody knew that.
25 Q. So why did you interpret Mr. Chwastyk's 4 i 26 questions as Gloria King provided it to you as providing I
~'
27 some potential threat? l l I 28 MS. ZURAS: Asked and answered, )
,0 ?. TOOKER & ANTZ 94105 1
131 Steuart Street San Francisco 415/392-0650 o.,CL____________._._._ _ - - - -
,.. 714 y
1 .THE WITNESS: I stand on my previous reasons. e 2 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, I don't think it's been 3 asked. You've said that you knew that these people who
, 4 were transmitting this information to you were aware that
- 5 your wife was dead.
, . 6 A. Righ t. 1 i . 7 Q. So why did you think it was a threat?
. 8 A. Well, how could someone take -- how could my 9 dead wife take away custody.
10 Q. Had you had any dispute about the custody of I
. 11 your children prior to this information coming to you on ;
12 March 107 s 13 A. No. 14 Q. At the time of your wif e's passing, Mr. Parks,
-({ 15 was there any question raised about who would have f 16 custody of the children?
17 A. No. 18 Q. And no dispute about it? 19 A. No.
;. 20 Q. As far as you were aware, no one had ever tried .- 21 to, quote, get custody of your kids?
22 A. No. 23 Q. And who did you think was going to try to get 24 custody of your kids now? I J 25 A. I didn't know. Period.- 1 26 1 4 - Q. Was there any relatives of your wife's that 27 were possible sources of a threat to get custody of your l l.H 28 kids?
'l t
'. ul TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,o__________ - - _ - -
D ' 715 1 4
',.- 1 A. No, sir.
)
4
. r;
.(
2 Q. You didn't think GPU personnel were going to
^
'+
3 try to get custody of your kids, did you? 7
, 4 A. You know, without sounding flippant, there's
, 5 'actually times I'd probably give custody of my kids to l; 6 somebody.
a 7 'But no, I did not -- I guess the best thing I 8 could, you know, state for you, Mr. Hickey, without us
; 9 beating around the bush so much, is I knew that there was 10 no one that had a legitimate claim to custody for my 11 children.
12 And for Joe Chwastyk to report that type of a 13 comment to; Larry and Gloria King, I took that as -- you
. 14 know, and reported what he -- somebody in management had
([, 15 made that comment to him, I took that as a -- you know,
.' 16' ways that people were exploring to get me. And they 17 could get to me through my children.
18 Q. You just said something that I wasn't aware of.
,,' 19 You said that reportedly management had made this 20 statement to Joe Chwastyk?
21 A. Yeah. I believe that's the way it all came 22 about. But I wouldn't really swear to it. I do know 23 that Joe told Gloria or Larry that, you know, my ex-wife
^' -
24 had been trying to get dirt on me to take away custody of
,. 25 th e boys.
l i: 26 Q. Right. 27 A. And so, you know, that had to come from
" (U 28 somewh er e.
OGij , TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
-.:.....__------.--.._~~u----w--~~-- "y ' 716-A ., ' e[ l Q. Well, you assumed it came from management? A '* 3 2 A. Well, Joe was manag ement. f*.' 3 Q. -.Well, Joe wasn't the source of the threat, ' Joe S :' 4 was just the reporter, right?
'q ' . 5 A.- Righ t. That's what I took it as. That was the .'$ 6 way I interpreted the messag e.
7 Q. I'm 'not clear about your- answer. .You-didn't
, , , 8 think Joe chwastyk was threatening your children, to take ? .
9 away custody of your children, did you?
-[ 10 A. Not really, no.
11 Q. You assumed this was a friendly -- a phone call from Joe Chwastyk that was meant to be helpful? d 12 13' A. Y es. That's the way I interpreted it at the N 14 time. a.
'([ 15 Q. Okay. So why are you saying it was reportedly c .16 a threat from management?
17 A. That is the way I interpreted it. It had to be 18 a thr eat f rom somebody. I didn't believe Joe would just
' 19 pick this out of thin air.
20 Q. Well, did you ask Joe where the information
,. 21 came from?
E 22 A. No.
. . 23 Q. Why not?
j 24 A. Never really had the oppor tunity to. .~ 25 Q. Couldn't you have picked up the phone af ter you ! 26 hung up with Mrs. King and called Joe Chwastyk?
* +
27 A. Probably.
.~
f. .p W 28 Q. If it was a matter that involved the saf ety of i e r t '(:} TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Stteert Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
'.h.
e c _____ -- _ ___ __ __- -___-_____-_. _ _. ._ __
. 717
\ .. - .
~
;- 1 your children, wouldn't you have been interested in 4 f~ 2 finding out as much as you could about what the source of w
3 this threat was so you could take action?
,. 4 A. I wa s -- you know , there's a lot of things I l
5' could have done. Hindsight's always 20/20. What I did 6 do out of this, whether it was right or improper or any
- - 7 way you want -- any term you want to couch it in, I chose
', 8 to first of all assure the safety of my sons and I did 9 that. I acted on that immediately.
10 The second thing I chose to do was get a lawyer. 11 And that's the best way I can answer.
'.' 12 Q. What did you do you when you say you acted
'. 13 immediately to assure the saf ety of your sons?
94
, 14- A. I picked up the phone and called my younger
;? 15 brother and told him to be on the next plane.
,! 16 Q. To come to Middletown?
17 A. Right. 18 Q. And how did that protect your sons? 19 A. 'Cause he took them back to Kansas with him. ;
. 20 Q. Were they in school at the time? i 21 A. Yes.
~
22 Q. You had two children, two boys; is that right? 23 A. Yes.
~* 24 Q. About what age were they at the time in '837 v 25 A. 12 and eight.
e' 26 Q. So you called your brother, told him to come 4 27 immediately to Middletown and then he picked up your sons? j
, (0 28 A. Righ t. !
l I N I _- , j
< ;l:;; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 3j2
..,..._--.--..- - - ~ ---- - - -.- ----- -- - -- 718 i
- ,. . 1 Q. Took them out of school and took them back to a
."' 2 Kansas?
( I 3 A. Righ t.
. 1
- o , 4 Q. How long did they stay there?
,. '5 A. They finished the school year there and stayed 6 ther e until I was transf erred to California. I picked
. 7 them up and enrolled them in school in California.
8 Q. Did you explain to your brother what the reason 9 for this request from you was? 10 A. Yes. And I knew they could live on a ranch and 11 be well protected. By a bunch of redneck cowboys. a 12 Q. Did your brother inquire at all about Mr. 13 Chwastyk and any further about the information you had 14 received secondhand from Mrs. King? ( 15 A. Oh, I don't -- I couldn't really tell you at 16 this point in time what my younger brother and I -- what 17 all we talked about or not. I know he was willing to
. 18 stay there with me and have his wif e come out and pick up 19 the sons.
20 If I understand your testimony, Mr. Parks -- Q. 21 please change it if I don't -- even though you had had 22 this meeting with Mr. Chwastyk on the af ternoon of March 23 10 where he suggested you get a lawyer -- and I think
., 24 you've described that was a friendly meeting -- and even
.. 25 though you viewed his message to Mrs. King for you as a 26 friendly message, you didn't contact Mr. Chwastyk to get 27 any more details.
I*' 28 i. And are you saying you basically don't know why I 1 G TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
, ~ , _ _.___ _____._ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
,,,,,,! 719
. s. . :
<3,, !.g:jj l' you didn't or you didn't have time to? What is it?- Why didn't you contact Mr. Chwastyk after you got this <. *e (ca. v. / 2 j.q 3 surprise information?
, :- 4 MS. ZURAS . This has been asked and answered.
A., , 5 He explained to you that his first concern was getting [ ' ,' 6 'his boys into physical safety. 7- MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, after that. After you
^:
.,,',, 8 made the phone call to. your brother, why didn't you call ~
?'- -9 -Mr. Chwastyk then?
- 10. A. 'Because the next major event that happened was 11 my apartment was broken into after I went down to
- - 12 Gaithersburg to talk to Chuck Sanford.
13 Q. Well, that didn't happen on March 10, did it? c ;- 14 A. No. no.
' 15 f~ - Q. Why didn't you call Mr. Chwastyk af ter you got 16 of f the line with your brother?
17 A. Because I was too busy looking for lawyers.
. 18 And I did meet with lawyers.
19 Q. I beg your pardon? I didn't hear that.
.: 20 A. There was a whole bundle of things that was , 21 going on and I was reacting to them as best I could.
i . 22 Q. How about on the lith? 23 A. If I remember correctly, the lith was a g 24 Saturday.
. 25 Q. Let me just check. I think you're right.
26 A. I know I'm right.
- . !. ; 27 Q. You're sure?
~'
l"' 28 Positive. 3- A.
~
.q l
,;Q TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 )
':P l
__ _ -__ _ -_ _ ___-- - - ____-_- __ _ -_ -____- - -_ -- _ _ _- -- \
.,,.m_.__m-__-u_---__.a-~.-.-.------------
; 720 "J ' ' , 1 Q. How about Friday?
R /e J. 2 A. Sounds good. That was a leap year, right? Or l; 3- ' year.after leap: year.
., 4 Q. Here's your calendar that shows March lith was l'. 5 Friday in 1983.
P
. 6 A. Okay.
l 7 Q. Did you go to work on Friday, I assume?
.. +
8 A. No.
~
9 Q. You didn't go to work. 10 A. Nope. Why didn't you go to work on Friday?
.' 'll O. .
12 A. I was afraid to leave my sons unattended. lI
. 13 Q. Did you call in to work to let them know you l
14 weren't coming? ( 15' A. Y es. I called in sick, 16 Q. Did you call Joe Chwastyk? s 17 A. I don't recall who I called. 18 Q. At that time, Mr. Chwastyk was your supervisor, 19 was he not?
. 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Under normal circumstances, would you have 22 given notice to your supervisor that you weren't going to 23 be in? 24 A. Under normal circumstances I would say so. =r 25 O. You're not certain whether you spoke to Mr.
.'" 26 Chwastyk on the lith or not?
27 A. No.
. 5 k'. 28 Q. Do you have any recollection of inquiring of '
'* { ' s
.'.'5'![ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 I
.m__________________-- --_ _ __---__ _ - _ _ _ - - - _
721
,$i E:c 1 Mr. Chwastyk on the lith about this information that he o
a g, , 2 had passed'to Gloria King the night before? 3 A. No.
.'- 4 Q. You said somewhere,' Mr. Parks -- I at the 5' moment can't think where -- that at some later point you.
- f. 6 said to Mr. Chwastyk, I think - af ter. you. were suspended,
~
7 that in' substance you viewed his phone call to Gloria 8 King as a friendly gesture or an ef fort to warn you or 9 something.like that. Do you remember? 10 A. I took that phone call as a warning, yes. 11 Q. Lat ao. My point is that at some later point 12 you mentioned it to Chwastyk af ter you were suspended? 13 A. Are you making that as a statement of fact? 14 Q.. I'm trying to ask you.
;(; 15 A. I can't remember making that statement to Joe 16 Chwastyk, no. Not at this point in time.
s . 17 Q. The call to Gloria King from Chwastyk you have-18 said -- and it's in your statement if you want to look at 19- it -- not your affidavit, but the exhibit that's there in 20 front of you, 39. Maybe it's. no longer in f ront of you. 21 It's your 10-page statement. It's Exhibit 39.
. 22 MR. JOHNSON: What page?
23 MR. HICKEY: It's on page eight of it. 24 THE WITNESS: This is 37, so -- l2 5 MR. HICKEY: It's not in this volume? 26 THE WITNESS: Here it is. 27 MR. HICKEY: Q. Okay. There's 39. Find l k . ;' 28 page -- l l aq TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.u*t--_______-_-_______--_
- f. v; :-,:._wz.u =-,yw a .
. .-.w a n w w ~ ~ - - - - .- - -- -- -
U 722' fr,1 - l' MR. JOHNSON: Why don't you use this. Speed it i
" .e f. 2 up.
- a. 3 MR. HICKEY: Q. It's the second paragraph on q
'^
.3 4 page eight there. You stated in'this statement that.you
; 5 signed on July 25 that Chwastyk on March 10 had a
6 originally called-Gloria King and asked her about leaks y2 7 to the press and that this was in ref erence to an article
. 8 in the Washington Post and so on. Did you get that 9 information from Gloria King? q 10 A. I can only, you know, state what's written here.
- 11. That was written a lot closer to the circumstances and 1 c.
12 discussion than what we're talking about right now. So I 13 guess so. 14 Q. Well, right here it doesn't say exactly where - (;,p 15 you got it from. I'm wondering if you got it from Gloria 16 King. Conceivably you could have gotten it from Chwastyk. 17 A. I couldn't give you any better insight today. 18 Q. Why was Chwastyk concerned about leaks to the 19 press? Or why was he asking about leaks to the press?
- '- 20 A. I have no idea.
'21 Q. Did Gloria tell you what she had told Chwastyk
- 22- about this leaks to the press?
,l .23 A. Could you run that past me again?
"* 24 Q. Sure.
25 A. Did Gloria tell me what she asked or what? 26 Q. Yes. What her conversation was with Chwastyk b 27' about leaks to the press? D/ 28 A. Again, sir, I can' t really provide any more
.)
i
'Sh , m-TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 '**I -- . _ - - _ ___ _ - -
723 i
- l 1 amplifying details to what appears here.
yj :- 2 Q. And you've got a ref erence to the particular 3 article in the Washington Post by Arlene Stranahan 4 regarding the GPU-Babcock trial? 5 A. Righ t. 1 6 And you say the article appeared on February '13. Q. ! 1 7 Where did you get that information, namely, that the 8 article appeared on February 13?
,- 9 A. I r eally couldn' t tell you. I could not 10 provide any more insight today than what's already 11 written right there.
J 12 (Discussion of f the record.) 13 MR. HICKEY: O. The following Monday, Mr. 14 Parks, which the calendar reflects was the 14th of March,
< ([ - 1. 5 you were informed by Mr. Kitler early in the morning that 16 Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Hofmann -- that some people were 17 coming up from Gaithersburg to interview you about
. 18 Quiltec.
- 19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. I stopped in my question because I'm not sure 21 you were told the names of the individuals. You knew 22 that Wheeler was coming, though, didn't you? You knew 23 one of them was going to be Andy Wheeler? 24 Righ t. A. Did you know the other one was going to be 25 Q.
; 26 Hofmann? ,
. 27 A. I don't know. All I could do is refer you to i kJ- 28 the affidavit and I did not state that I knew the other !
1 1 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 I sm_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - -
724
.s
,, ; 1 name at the. time.
L . L . {." 2 Q.- When Kitler called and told you.that, were you
.- 'q 3~ - concernbd by that news?
4 A. I guess you'd have to qualify your definition 1
^'
5 of " concerned."
*s 6 Well, isn't - the word clear?:
Q.
, 7 A. Yes. But it also has more than one definition, j,.. ,
8 depending on the ; context you want to use it in. '.~ , 9 Q. Well, I don't know how I can make --
') 10 A. Was I concerned with respect to being al
. frightened-or what?
. -; 11 d 12. Q. Yeah..
..' 13 A. No.
. 14 0 Were .you concerned in some other way?. I don't If 15 know what distinction you're making about the word.
, 16 That's why-I'm puzzled.
17 A. Well, when -- the only real concern I had about 1 18 it was number one, why was it all going on to begin with, 19 because when Ed told me about it, it kind of took me 20 completely by surprise. Especially when he told me what 21 they were wanting to talk about. 22 And I asked Ed if he'd talked to them. He said j 23 something to the ef f ect of yeah,- they called me at home
'j .
24 on the phone last night or over the weekend or something
,] 25 like that.
,. . 26 So there seemed to be a dif ferent level of 27 application here for the investigation, you know. Ed
,iA' 28 Kitler could be talked to af ter hours in the comfort of V J,#. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/$92-0650
.a--__----_- .
t. 725
~
\
I n' 1 his own home sucking down a can of beer and watching the i (, 2 football game. But I get to go down to Mahogany Row. !.,. 3 Q. And you f elt that was less desirable, I take it?' , e i L 4 A. Well, if their intention was to intimidate a
- c. 5 person, that would be the way they'd go abcut it, yes.
l e;. l 6 Q. And did you think that the intention of the 7 interview when you got this message from Kitler was to
,J, ,
8 intimidate you?
! 9 A. Oh, I didn't get that impression from Ed Kitler.
, . _ . 10 Ed was very' calm, cool and collected and very ! e 11 professional in his approach to conveying the information
*' 12 that I was to appear down there at such and such time, 13 what room and what they were to talk to me about. It was
, 14 such a cold delivery it was almost clinical.
( 15 Q. Are you meaning to be critical of Kitler in 16 some way by that comment?
. 17 A. No. I 18 Q. Okay. You're just saying it was unemotional?
19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. Did you say anything to Kitler to 21 suggest that you thought this interview notice was l
, 22 improper or improperly motivated?
.o 23 A. No. Not that I can recall at the moment.
l . 24 Q. Did you feel that when Kitler gave you the
. 25 message that it was not appropriate for Bechtel to ask !
1
. . 26 you about ycur Quiltec involvement at all?
. . 27 A. No. I don't think it was improper for Bechtel
.l '
sr 28 to ask me about my Quiltec involvement at all.
'%4 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,
,, g
.t b_____________
_ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
b>,,. 726
.f L ,. t J 1 Q. If they would have called you at home on the
- t 2 telephone af ter working hours and asked you questions, 9, q ., 3' would you have thought that was. appropriate?
d 4 A.- I .think that the whole situation, the whole
. 5 aff air could have been handled in a much more -- or a 6 much more palatable' fashion,.yes.
7 Q. ~Well, what does that mean?
,c 8 A. I think that the way they went about it and the 9~ way they carried it of f was meant to intimidate.
, '[ ,
10 Q. Well, did you feel it was an attempt to -
'll intimidate you because they asked you to come to meet 12 them in an office on the job site instea6 of calling you 13 at.home?
14 A. Well, yeah. To a degree, I reckon. I would
< ' (' 15 have to say that was an appropriate assumption on your 16 part.
s 17 Q. I'm asking what you f elt at the time, Mr. Parks. 18 A. Well, what I felt at the time was I thought it 19 was completely unjustified to have an internal auditor s 20 come all the way out f rom San Francisco and talk to me
'I 21 about something that I had really no involvement in and I
, 22 could have handled over the telephone with Andy Wheeler.
23 Q. Did Kitler tell you, by the way, that the ) 24 person that was coming was an internal auditor from San , j
,, -{ 25. Francisco?
, 26 A. I believe that to be true, yes. That's what I
, 27 seem to think at this moment, a ny way .
d'S V 28 Q. And your thought was that it was in some way
, 1
.V[t TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.,a sy, .
-_ ~ ,_, -. _ _ _ _ - . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
, . - - - - - . - - - - - - - . . - - . - . - - - - - > - ~ - - - - - - -
727 F
- 1 intimidating you to have this man come f rom San Francisco?
{y ; 2 A. Well, it seemed to me I was getting an awful
,- 3 lot of high level attention for something that, you know, l
l.. 4 I had almost no involvement in. i
. . 5 Q. You would have thought it would have been 6 appropriate for Bechtel to ask you questions about
+
7 Quiltec but not by somebody f rom San Francisco in the i 8 internal audit? When I say from San Francisco, I mean I
. 9 from the internal audit in San Francisco?
~
10 A. Well, you know, I think we're both trying to
; 11 split a hair. If I recall, Bahman Kanga called Rose 12 Rittle into his office and just asked her what was going 13 on, you know, what she knew about the whole thing, with 14 respect to the typing and that type of thing.
(, 15 Q. Was that down on Mahogany Row, by the way? 16 A. Probably. _ 17 Q. Okay. Go ahead. 18 A. Maybe. Maybe not. I really don't know. 19 Q. Well, I'm asking you whether Bahman Kanga's 20 of fice is part of what you ref er to as Mahogany Row? 21 A. Yes. j 22 Q. Okay. Go ahead.
)
23 A. They talked to Ed over the telephone at home. l 24 All Mr. King or anybody in Bechtel had to do to find out 1
~j. 25 what I knew about it was call me on the telephone, say l 26 what's going on, what do you know, can you shed some
.. 27 light on the subject.
. q (. .
28 But instead, i t s e ems to me I was singled out
'-3:. y TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
& L __ ___m _____ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
+- -
,_ . - - - . - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - + - -
728 ,s.- u
= h, j; ;- 1 for;an internal audit, you know, an internal
, ,' [ t 2 investigation. It seemed to me, the opinion I drew at
,; 3 the time was that I was guilty and now they were trying
, .} ,
4' to make sure they put the finishing touches on it. j pf 5' Q. Well', the same people that were going to talk 6 to you. had talked to Mr. Kitler. Isn't that'what he told )1 7 you?
. 8 A. I can't state that with certainty. He may have {
;[ 9 just told me that'Andy Wheeler talked to him. I cannot l 10 recall distinct at this point in time if he told me Mr.
1
.- 11 Hofmann talked to him on the telephone or not.
i
,t . 12 Q. You hadn't gone to anyone at Bechtel to 13 volunteer any information about your involvement with 14 Quiltec af ter you heard from Larry King on March 9th, had
(}j 15 you, Mr. Parks? 16 MS. ZURAS: First of all, I'm going to object 17 to the question on the basis that it states facts, at 18 least from his testimony, that haven't'been established 19 about his, quote, " involvement," close quote, with
< 20 Quiltec. And I'll object to the question on the basis of ; . 21 that and ask that you rephrase it in some other way. !
22 MR. HICKEY: Well, I think " involvement" covers
, 23 what you've described. It's a general term.
;, - 24 MS. ZU RAS: Well, I'm going to have to ask him
--i
.,, 25 not to respond to that question. Unless you can rephrase
, 26 it.
i 27 MR. HICKEY: What word would you suggest? The l y 28- man has testified that he had business cards at one point
't e
q,y(( TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street Sa$ Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 I
729 1
, , 1 that had Quiltec on them. He testified about 2 conversations he --
(~
. 3 MS. ZURAS: Why don't you just ask him about 4 the information that he had about Quiltec, period. But
.. 5 by asking him a question in which you're asking him to
. 6 describe something about, quote, unquote, " involvement" --
7 MR. HICKEY: Well, involvement can be great or 8 smell. H e doesn' t -- 9 Q. You don't claim, Mr. Parks, that you had zero , 10 involvement with Quiltec, do you? Zero, none, nothing. 11 You don't claim that, do you? 12 A. Yes, I do, from a corporate standpoint. From a 13 paid employee standpoint. 14 Q. Sur e. You're saying you were never paid? (. 15 A. Any actions I had that were ever contributory 16 in anything that allowed Quiltec to prosper were done out
. . 17 of the goodness of my heart, out of friendship for the 18 people involved.
19 Q. That's not what I asked. I asked you whether 20 you ever got paid by Quiltec. 21 MS. ZURAS: Excus e me. You're l
, 22 mischaracterizing his testimony.
, 23 MR. JOHNSON: And you're arguing with the 24 witness.
25 MR. HICKEY : Q. Let me put the question this 26 way: Mr. Parks, you didn' t go to anyone at Bechtel and
,; 27 volunteer any information relating to your dealings with
\;
28 Quiltec at any time --
.. , j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 A
s-
.._.______.-~.-----..._-.__-_.-.._---L----.-------
, l 730 x
^
l MS. ZU RAS: I have problems with the word
}
.j {( 2 " dealings." And I don't understand --
3 MR. HICKEY: Well, what is the word you'd like, 4 Miss Zuras?
. 5 MS. ZURAS: I'd like to have you phrase the 6 question did he volunteer any information to anybody at 7 Bechtel about any information he possessed about Quiltec, i 8 period.
9 MR. HICKEY: Fine. Fine. I 10 Q. Would you answer that one, Mr. Parks? j i 3 11 A. Yes, sir, I did. I volunteered that l l 12 information to Lee Hofmann as soon as they called me in
}
13 that office..
. 14 Q. No, no. What we are talking about now --
i (' 15 because what you said earlier, Mr. Parks, don't forget, i 16 was it wasn't necessary for Mr. Hofmann to call you, 17 someone could have just called you befor ehand. ; 18 And I'm asking you before you got the call from 19 Kitler, did you go and volunteer what you knew about 4 3 20 Quiltec to anybody at Bechtel?
, . . 21 A. No.
]
22 I Q. You didn't? j i
-d 23 A. No. !
l 24 Q. But your testimony is if someone asked you, you j 25 would have told all? l 26 A. Told all that I could have thought of at the
, 27 time.
4b 28 Q. Yeah. Told all that you knew, I mean. 4 l l 5 l l h'" f TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l m .'L : -_- -_ __
.731
>A,
,,,, 1 A. Righ t.
7 t;. 2 Q. Would you have told them about the business s
,,j- ,
3 cards that you had destroyed'not too long before?
- v- 4 A. If. I'd have thought of it, I would have.
. . 1 5 Q. Is it your testimony that you didn't tell Mr.
-s 6 Hofmann about the' business cards .because you forgot about
, 7 them, Mr. Parks?
.. 8 A. That's true.
. C 9 Q. How about the resumes that were typed for the 10 Beaver Valley proposal? Did you forget to tell Mr.
11 Hofmann that you had one of those resumes? 12 A. That I had what? 13 Q. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase the question. I've
', 14 got two things in there.
( 15 Would you have told anybody that had asked you 16 from Bechtel that you had also destroyed resumes and a 17 Beaver valley proposal shortly af ter Mr. King was 18 suspended?
, 19 A. If -- let me clarify something here. Are you 20 asking me whether or not I discussed that with Mr.
. 21 Hofmann? '
- 22 Q. No. Your testimony was that you -- all anybody 23 had to do to find out what you knew about Quiltec was ask i
24 you. And I'm asking you if they had asked you, would you s
, 25 have told them these specific things? !
1
. . 26- A. I guess I can answer your question with a very i
l 27 succinct statement. I would not have withheld any i l j.x 28 information from anybody because I was not guilty of j i l l 1 1
;,l;}[ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ss >
I __. R a b _. m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 -
~.' '
732-
, .? '
1 anything about Quiltec except some business cards ' from- a
. .,j { 2 friend.
I J 3 Q. Why did you destroy the' business cards and the
.L.. -
4 proposal and the resumes --
. ., 5 MR. JOHNSON: Asked and answered.
6 MR. HICKEY: I don't.think it has been. 7 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, it was. Ms. Zuras wasn't 4
, w -- 8 here at the la'st deposition. But it was' asked and 9 answered at the last deposition in June.
' -- 10 MS. EURAS: If it was asked and answered, I 11 : instruct him not to answer. 12 MR. HICKEY: Do you recall what the answer was,
; 13 Mr. Johnson?
~
14 MR. JOHNSON: Would you repeat the question?
.( 15 What was the question again?
16 MR. HICKEY: Do you want to' read it, please. 17 (Question' read.) 18 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. And the answer was, as I 19 recollect it -- and I'm sure you do, too -- was that Mr. 20 Parks said that he didn't -- believed that they would be
, 21 used as a pretext to make charges about his conduct.
22 MR. HICKEY: Well, I think I'm entitled to { 23 cross-examine this witness about testimony that I think 4 24 is inconsistent and I don't think it's a proper objection i b 25 that he's asked and answered a question that is not in I i,
~
i ,' 26 . context with testimony he gives now. lI 27 I think the witness ought to have a right to revisit a (7D 28 the answer and see -- n O
%S . ~
TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 t
- s X; 0 . - i
4
,. 733
' m. 1 MS. ZURAS: First of all, he hasn't given an th 2 answer that's inconsistent.
, , 3 MR. HICKEY: Are you instructing the witness
, 4 not to answer? Is that where we are?- l l
5 MS. ZU RAS: Yes. With respect to that question. l
,d 6 MR. HICKEY: Okay. Fine.
n, 7 Q. Before you met with Mr. Hofmann af' r you got i 8 the call from Mr. Kitler telling you to be at the office l ,', 9 at a particular time, did you call anyone, Mr. Parks, to 10 discuss this development? Or talk to anyone in person? 11 A. Not that I can .think. of at the moment. 12 Q. Did you call any representatives of the 13 Government Accountability Project? i 14 A. Not that I can think of. Not at this moment. i
~
\
( 15 Q. Do you know why you didn't seek any advice or 16 guidance about this interview that was about to happen? 17 A. If I' understand your question, you're asking me l 18 why I did not seek advice? 19 Q. Y es. 1 20 A. Why should I have? I mean, I can't justify to 21 you why I didn't, I just didn't.
.',, 22 Q. Okay. Did you tell Mr. Chwastyk, your
~
23 supervisor, that you were going to have to leave your
.; 24 duties for awhile to go up to this interview?
25 A. I really don't know at this point in time if I 26 did or not. If he was around, I'm sure I would have told j 27 him. But I can't state that with certainty.
. (;1 28 Q. And before you went up to the meeting with Mr. 'jd TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,
..). t -.e.'LL__-___--____-__-__----__-___- _ _ - _
., . -. .--- -.- - m.- - -+4-~ ~ ~*~ - - - - - ~+.- - - - ---- ~
l,
,734 7.. . 1 Hofmann and Mr. Wheeler, did you decide that you wanted
{l'g- 2 to have a witness there?
.s 3 A. I decided -- are you asking me if I decided
, . 4 that before?
- 5. Q. Yes. Before you went up to the meeting'.
'. 6 A. . No.
.? , 7 Q. It occurred to you after you got up there?
. 8 A. As soon as I. walked in the door.
9 Q. And is that because you saw two people?
.- 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is it your testimony that you didn't know
. 12 whether there were going to be two people there before 13 you arrived?
. . 14 A. No.
.( 15 -Q. My question or your answer isn't clear. Did 16 you know before you walked in the room that there were 17 going to be two people there? .
18' A. Yes. 19 Q. Well, then I don't understand your answer. Why
, 20 is it that you decided when you walked in the room that -
21 you needed a witness? 22 A. Because they were both taking written notes and 23 they told me that I could not get a copy of their notes l 24 and I. could not review their notes and I was allowed to
.' 25 take notes if I wished. And I told them it was not my 26 policy to talk two on one, especially when there was a
. 1 p ... 27 written record being kept of the conversation, and two
. b.'. 28 written records against my written record wouldn't hold l:9,. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 t
+:.L-_____--_-______ . _ -- -- -_ _ - - - - ---
.ec. - - - - - .
- i. 735
.wjj 1 water.
{:t 2 So I wanted a second witness to take notes. I
,' 3 had asked them if I could review their notes or have a 4' copy of their notes and they said it was against Bechtel
. 5 policy.
6 Q. Did you suggest a Mr. Kelly as a witness that i 7 you'd like to have there? o 8 A. Yes, I did. l 9 Q. Who was Mr. Kelly? lI 10 A. He worked in the -- oh, I don't remember his 3 11 job title, but he worked for GPU. He was a manager ' level I l 12 type for GPU.
. 13 Q. What prompted you to suggest Mr. Kelly? Was he
., '14 ' a friend of-yours?
.( 15 A. No, he was not a friend of mine. But he was a 16 man I had respect for and I f elt he would keep a, you 17 know, accurate set of notes that reflected the 18 conversation and he was a GPU person. I figured he'd be 19 impar tial .
20 Q. Did you know whether Mr. Kelly was available or 21 on site that day? 22 A. No, I didn't.
. 23_ Q. You hadn't contacted him before you went up to 4
24 the meeting? 25 A. No, I hadn't. At least if I did, I don't
~
.- 26 recall it right now.
27 Q. And at some point was it your suggestion that
., h- 28 the interview be conducted of f site, that you weren't -y[j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ~ -
.Gr..u,w._c m a - - -
.n -
l 736
- 1!
r f 1 . comfortable being interviewed there on the site? 2 A. No. I don't recall that. d} (:- F- 3 Q. Well, do you remember any suggestion coming
. 4 'from you or anyone that an option was to have the
~ interview conducted someplace' else of f the job site?
5' J'- 6 A. I believe it was offered to me that, you know, q 7 we could conduct this interview off site. And I said -- 8 I- think what they -- the reason it came up, though,. was 9 they were misinterpreting one of my statements. + 10 Q. Can you. explain what you mean? 11 A. Yes, sir. I'm ref erring to page 48. The next 12 to the last paragraph on the bottom -- on the page. 13 Quote, "I said then that I wanted to meet with a Bechtel , 14 senior vice-president, pref erably Mr. Komes, who runs the (}I 15 Gaithersburg of fice. I explained that I was sick of the 16 threats and intimidation and wanted it to stop." 17 And I'll skip the next line. 18 "They asked me if we should leave the Island. 19 I said no, we should meet now." E, . 20 Q. But your testimony is they off ered to meet 21 outside the job site, but you didn't want to do that? 22 A. No, 'cause -- I don't think that that was, you 23 know, amplifying enough. They were jumping at well, this
', 24 man doesn' t want to talk to us on the job site. That was 25 not the point that I was trying to make with them.
26 My point was, folks, I want to talk to somebody
"" J 27 high up in the organization because there's some N 28 hanky-panky going on around here and I want them to know t
.i i 131 Steuart Street San Francisco
' i{ % TOOKER & ANTZ 94105 415/392-0650
n._______..____--_-----------------------
' l'f y . 737' ;
3 f
., 1 about it. And I figured this guy was just another~ ;
..,; j 4; - 2 vehicle' to get the hanky-panky to consider management as t-y. 3 me going down to Gaithersburg.
~< '4- MR. HICKEY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you (
5 said. Could, the reporter read it back as I coughed in J .J 6 the middle of your statement. i 7 (Answer read.) 8 (Discussion of f the record.)
.: ,. 9- MR. HICKEY: Q. Between my problem with
, 10 hearing your answer and what you said, I got-a little
. 11 confusion in my mind. You f elt that Mr. Hofmann was not 12 a good vehicle to ' communicate to senior management what-13 your views .are?
14 A. No. That's not what I said. (j 15 Q. No. You thought he was a good vehicle to 16 communicate to senior management? 17 A. I figured was as good a vehicle as any. I was 18 going to tell him my concerns, anyway. Get it on the
. 19 r ecord, so to speak.
20 Q. Let me see if I can put the question to you 21 this way, Mr. Parks: Did you f eel that Mr. Hofmann was i 22 too high a person to properly interview you about Quiltec 23 or not high enough? 24 MR. JOHNSON: Do you understand the question? _/. 25 THE WITNESS: The reason I'm snickering is
, 26 because I've never really given it any thought, you know, l
I. .;
. 27 whether he was too high or not high enough. That was not i
- I> 28 what I was concerned about.
i
;'p /4 TOOKER & ANTZ 94105 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 415/392-0650 1
.,g,.___,______-_.,---..--_._.___.------.---------
,- 738 A
.j.4
~l 4 l' , MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, I'm ref erring to your j: 2 earlier testimony that when you got this message from Ed _
..i' 3 Kitler, you thought it was-too much to have somebody from
.[4 4 internal auditing in San Francisco come out and talk to 1 5 you about this matter.
6 A. That's true._ I did make that statement and I
. 7 think you're trying to twist it. The point being that I
. 8 'did not'think, quote, unquote, any knowledge I had 9 relevant to Quiltec mandated an internal' investigation.
10 But'since an internal investigator was already there and q 11 he was going: to talk to m'e about Quiltec, I decided 'to 1
- 12. talk to him about harassment, retaliation and 13 intimidation on the part of senior Bechtel officials and
. 14 selected GPU personnel.
( 15 Q. Well, Mr. Hofmann' asked you about who was 16 intimidating or harassing you, didn't he? 17 A. At one point in time, I believe he tried to 18 tell me that anything I had to say wasn't relevant for 19- his use in this investigation and I believe that if I
..' 20 remember correctly, I told him he was gonna listen,
., 21 a nyway.
22 Q. Let me see if you can answer my question. V 23 Did you or did you not get asked by Mr. Hofmann
, 24 during this interview on the 15th of March who it was
. 25 that was intimidating or harassing you?
..: 26 A. I'm of the belief that if I was asked that 27 question by Mr. Hofmann, I would have told him that I O q t. 28 would discuss that with senior management of ficials of q;
<VO. TOOFIR & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
739
/
7,7 .l 1 Bechtel. rp, 2 Q. And that is in fact what you told him, isn't it, . . . 3 that you didn' t want to give him the names of people who
^
,, 4 were harassing you?
5 'A. I think that was probably true. 6 Q. Now, you didn't ask Mr. Hofmann and Mr. s 7' Wheeler -- by the way, was it Mr. Hofmann who was having
... 8 this conversation with you at the start of the interview
. 9 rather than Mr. Wheeler, or was it both?
10 'A. Well, if I remember correctly, Andy introduced
, 11 the guy to me and, you know, that type of thing.
But it
.. 12 was primarily Mr. Hofmann's, you know, bailiwick.
13 Q. Okay. I haven't forgotten about the coff ee.
; 14 Give me about' two more minutes.
('. 15 And when Mr. Hofmann made this suggestion about 16 a possible off-site interview, you didn't ask Mr. Hofmann
- 17 to conduct the interview in your home, did you? !
18 A. No. Definitely not. 19 MR. HICKEY: Okay. Why don' t we stop ther e.
, 20 (Brief recess.)
S ., 21 (Record read.) 22 MR. HICKEY: Q. Mr. Parks, at the time of your 23 Hof mann-Wheeler meeting there on March 14th, and 24 specifically with regard to this suggestion that the 25 interview could be conducted of f site, you did not have
. 26 any f ear of going of f site with Mr. Hofmann and Mr.
s 27 Wheeler, did you?
%,N 28 A. No.
3-t
@if TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
'd
- iki_ _ _ _ _ -________-_ _ _ - . - _ . - - - - _
g.---~~.----.---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, 740 4
. , 1 Q. Af ter you had proposed Mr. Kelly and he was not
.. (, 2 acceptable to Mr. Hofmann, they suggested -- Mr. Hofmann
. 3 suggested Mr. Kanga, did he not?
< , 4 A. I believe he did.
5 Q. And why was Mr. Kanga not acceptable to you? 6 You did reject Mr. Kanga? 7 A. Y es , I did.
., 8 Q. Why?
9 A. I didn't have any reason to believe that Mr. 10 Kanga would be impartial.
., 11 Q. Did you have any reason to believe he wouldn't 12 be?
13 A. Well, yes.
. 14 Q. What was that reason? Or those reasons, if
(; 15 there's more than one. 16 A. For one thing, he was one of the officials on 1 17 site that had been involved in the meetings with -- 18 relevant to the polar crane and when I identified the 19 problems, that type of thing, and other things that
. 20 happened, and I wanted to get somebody I f elt would be s, 21 impartial and I could trust, provide a reflective record 22 of what happened, or what was discussed in this meeting.
23 So I said no. 24 Q. What meetings are you talking about? He was 25 involved in meetings where you identified problems with ! - 26 the polar crane. What meetings are you talking about? N, 27 A. The January 22nd meeting for one.
. 28 Q. Do you mean February?
1 4 s TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i I ; s ._ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . - _ . _ - . - _ _ . _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jj e 741 4--
<., 1 A. Yeah. What did I say, January? - .
2 Q.
,..,- '83.
3 A. Right.
, l. 4 Q. Do you recall any other meetings with Mr. Kanga 5 af ter that about the polar crane? or before that?
+ 6 A. That I was personally in?
7 Q. Yes. Where you were identifying problems with f.- 8 the polar crane? 2 9. A. No. But there again, like I said, I just -- 10 right at the moment- I can't recall any more, anyway. I I ~11 just did not have a f eeling that I could place explicit .. 12. trust in Mr. - Kanga. So therefore, I'wasn't willing to do 13 i t. I wanted someone I could place explicit trust in. 14 Q. Well, are you saying that you thought Mr. Kanga ( 15 was behind or responsible in some-way for the things that 16 had happened to you that you f elt were improper or
, 17 inappropriate?
18 A. I didn't say that. 19 Q. Well, is that what you mean? 20
, A. I mean to say exactly what I said. I did not 21 feel.I could trust the man explicitly; therefore, I
. 22 wouldn't be comfortable with him being my impartial 23 witness.
((. 24 Q. You said in your statement that you realized { 25 af ter a f ew moments that this was a witch hunt. What
.- 26 communicated that to you, Mr. Parks? i
[ 27 A. Well, had it all been -- the way the whole ' l
- ) 28 meeting took off was they wanted me to tell them
- c. a
.),f. . TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 Jk. - - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ _ .
, , , , _ . _ _ . - - _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . - ~ - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
742
-l i
/.y, 1 .everything I knew about all the east coast job shops, et
..j g 2 cetera, et cetera. Now, if the intent was for me to tell
. 3 them, or for them to find out what I knew about Quiltec, 4 all they had -- they should have just said, Rick, what
. 5 can you tell us about Quiltec and Larry King's
, 6 involvement.
7 I mean it was -- they set the agenda. And the 8 flow of the agenda lef t me with the impression that they 9 already had a predetermined opinion that they were gonna 10 draw from that meeting and I just was not comfortable 11 .with the way it went.
, 12 Q. What was it about the flow of the agenda? What
;, 13 do you mean by the flow of the agenda, by the way?
14 A. Well, just that. If they wanted to know what I ( 15 knew about Larry King and Quiltec, all they had to do was 16 ask me straight out. They didn't have to come in through 17 the back door and say well, why don't you tell us 18 everything you know about east coast job shops. 4 19 Q. Did they ask you about the east coast job shops 20 before or af ter you made your comment about whether you i 21 could read their notes? i 1
, 22 A. I think it was afterwards. Maybe before. I
.t 23 couldn't really tell you. I could only ref er you to the r 24 notes that Mark Kobi took or the notes that Wheeler and 25 Sanford took.
.. 26 Q. Wheeler and Hofmann, you mean?
27 A. Hofmann, right.
. l' '
Vf 28 Q. Have you reviewed those notes, you mean? Have 4 l
- 9)
- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 e m- _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __
s y-743 i ., j g
- 4. b, 1- you reviewed the notes that Wheeler and Hofmann took?
g:3 2 A. No. r , 3 Q. Eow about the notes that Kobi took?
.* 4 A. Well, I think I kept a copy of them. But I 5 haven't reviewed them in a long time.
'. - ~ " 6- Q. But Kobi wasn't there for this first part of 7 the discussion, right?
.. 8 A. We had some conversation before' Mark came into 9 the room and at a certain point -- and I'm really vague
- +
10 on the point at this point in time exactly where I .
,- 11 stopped it and refused to go any further until I had an 12 impartial witness. It was that conversation prior to me 13 stopping it that convinced me it was a witch hunt.
14 Q. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Parks: If (. 15 Bechtel thought that you were assisting a GPU employee in 16 recruiting , employees to work for Quiltec, do you think it 17 would have;been proper for Bechtel to ask you about it?
, 18 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Could you read back 19 that question, please?
20 (Question r ead.)
- 21 MS. ZURAS: And I just want to caution you that 22 you're only expected to give what information that you 23 have in your possession based upon your recollection and
.- 24 no one is interested in having you speculate.
25 And it may very well be that his hypothetical
, 26 that he's giving you does not have all the f acts that you need to make a statement.
27 And if that is the case, then (. vu 28 you should indicate to him that you have a problem with 6{.5 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 n.4i_ - _ _ __ _ _ _ _- - - _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l 4 1 e - - --- - , - - - - - . --- -- - - - - - - - - - - = - - - = p,y s ' 744-e/9
.,y ;.: 1 the ' question. So don't speculate, please.
.. /B1 2- MR. HICKEY: I think -- I tried to write ' that
, 3 down -- that was a statement that seemed. to me to have a
" - '. 4 lot 9f elements in it. -
- f 5 Q.- Can you answer, Mr. Parks?
~
To be perfectly honest with you, somewhere -
~
? 1, 6. A. 7 along the line I think I really lost the question. 8 MR. HICKEY: Okay. Maybe the reporter would
,$. 9 -read it to you.
, ; 10 (Question read.)
11 MS. EURAS: I just want to also object to the 12 question on the basis that it's vague and ambiguous. 13 THE WITNESS: I guess before I could really 14 answer tha t~, Mr. Hick ey, I'd have to ask you to provide (. 15 some amplifying- conditions regarding how they should talk 16 to me about it. 17 M R. HICKEY: Q. What do you mean, how they 18 should ' talk to you about it? 19 A. Well, should they have Andy Wheeler, you know, 20 to call me, should they have Ed kilter walk down to my
, 21 office and talk to me. Should they have, you know, a guy 22 fly out from San Francisco and talk to me. Should they 23 have Steve Bechtel, Jr., give me a call.
24 Q. Are you saying some of those would be proper or
~
; 25 improper depending on whether it was Ed Kitler talking to j
' I
, 26 you or Steve Bechtel flying out?
7q 27 A. No. I'm not trying to draw a distinction I' 28 between what is proper or improper, first of all, because
?-
I'4 4.jf TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 s ~ _ ___ __ - - _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l' ! 745
.1 1 I'm not well enough versed any more to provide an opinion .z . ; (q.
y 2 about what their policy is, what their policy was and whether information I might have had could have shed some
,q 3 - , I, 4 light on what they were trying to find would have
(,* 5 mandated any type of, you know, investigation like we had,
, 6 a discussion or what. I am not a personnel man, I really 7 couldn't tell you.
8 Q. I'm not asking you about Bechtel's policy, Mr.
. 9 Parks. I'm asking you about Richard Parks' feelings.
P
- 10 A. I think we already know Richard Parks's
.. 11 feelings.
>' 12 Q. Not about this.
13 A. The way it was handled I disagree with it. 14 Q. I'm trying to ask you a question. I'm asking 4 ([ . 15 you to assume the facts I gave. That if Bechtel, a 16 Bechtel employee had been involved with a GPU employee in 17 recruiting people to go to work for Quiltec, would it
. 18 have been proper for the company to know about it?
, 19 MS. EURAG: I am going to state the objection
. 20 again. The witness is telling you he has problems 21 because he doens't know the conditions.
22 MR. HICKEY: He indicated one problem and when 23 I asked him if that was the problem that was troubling t-
, ,. 24 him, I thought he said no. I'm trying to find out 25
. whether he's able to answer the question or whether he
- j. .lj 26 doesn't think he can.
,A. 27 THE WITNESS: I believe that before the break I i
. 6- 28 told you I had a problem with the way I was subjected to
) L' d
.ng, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 D' - - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - - -
..;.p..-._~~-.~------- '
' ' 7, 3 746 nl . 3,a 1 an intenser scrutiny-than was Ed Kitler who did have
- j. .} '. {. 2 involvement with Quiltec.
- 3 3 MR. HICKEY: _ Q. Intenser --
T 5,i 4 A. Or with Rose Rittle._ So I guess if you want
? ;,' 5- to -- you're talking about the position that yes, they.
',*- 6- had the right to. ask' and I' do'n't have anything at -- any -
", N 7 information at my. disposal to dispute their right to do
* ~
, 8- that. But I'm telling yo'u the way they-handled it, I 9 disagreed with it. And we can discuss hypothetical :
i 10 situations all day. 11 Q.- I'm trying to find out what you mean when you i 12 say way it was intenser scrutiny. What was it you-felt 13 was worse or bad or improper about yours somehow that 14 wasn't -- didn't aff ect the interviews of Rose Rittle or { 15 Ed Kitler? _16 A. That: did not -- I didn't hear the last f ew 17 words. 18 Q. That didn't af f ect the interviews of Ed Kitler
.. 19 or Rose Rittle. Yours is worse, as I understand. And I l
20 I'm saying what was worse about it? 21 A. Well, seemed to me more like it was a kangaroo 22 court. 23 Q. What do you mean by that? 24 A. Well,-they brought out an internal investigator
. 25 type, they brought my boss up f rom Maryland, and they 26 really had no other information than what Rose had told .*i 27 them and that was I asked her to do some typing. Okay. !
Y 28 And it seemed to me that based on that input of M< , TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- . _ . - _ - - . - _ _ - . _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * ~ ^ - ~ ^ ^ - - - ^ - - ^ - - - ' ^ ~ ^ - - " ^
.N,:
, 747 d , ',
3 : e3 .1 information that I t.ad asked her to do some typing for (f. l ,.
; 2 Larry King and it was on Quiltec stationery, et cetera,
',- 3 et cetera, . that it sure was escalated up the elevator a
.<! 4 little bit to require an awful lot of intense scrutiny
./ . 5 for what I considered' to be a harmless act. s 'do 6 -Q. You're saying that you didn't think then that
, $j 7 there was anything improper in having resumes typed of 8 GPU employees on Quiltec stationery for Larry King,
9
. whatever Larry King did with it or whatever the circumstances?
10 r 11 A. I felt that my involvement of asking Rose
~
12 Rittle to type that packet of stuff for Larry King, I
- 13 didn't see anything improper with it, no.
, 14 Q. Is that because you didn't get paid for it, Mr.
15
~{ Parks? ..
16 A. No. Larry asked me to get it done as a favor.
,- 17 I did it for him as a favor. I asked Rose to do it for 18 her -- for me and I told her not to do it during working 19 hours and that I'd pay her for it.
. 20 Q. You told her to keep it confidential, too, 21 didn't you?
22 A. I did not tell her to keep it confidential. I 23 told her not to do it on business hours. 24 Q. Did you read Mr. Kobi's notes after the ' 25 interview was over? !
. 26 A. I think I did, yes.
'm. 27 Q. Did you take his original notes and copy them
. l UJ 28 or did you keep the originals?
t
'O, ,* j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ML_____________________ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
748 f
/ 1 A. I couldn't really tell you which way it was.
(. 2 It was one way or the other, though, l.f 3 Q. And was it shortly af ter the interview that you 4 read Mr. Kobi's notes?
.'., 5 A. I believe so.
*. 6 Q. Did you find things in Mr. Kobi's notes that 7 were erroneous statements of the interview?
8 A. They were erroneous statements?
.s 9 Q. Yeah. They were erroneous. Did you find l l
. 10 mistakes or things that you thought were not accurate? '
11 A. I don't think that I set down and read each, 12 you know, thing that he had put on the paper for an ' 13 itemized accounting word for word that was said. I 14 basically reviewed to see if the general gist of
. . l' ' 15 everything that was said was there.
16 Q. Well, you had specifically wanted Mr. Kobi to 17 come so that you could have an impartial, accurate record 18 of the meeting; isn't that right? 19 A. Yes. But, you know, Mark was not -- 20 MS. ZURAS : Excuse me. There's no question 21 pending. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 23 MR. HICKEY: I think the witness maybe wanted
. 24 to amplify his answer. But I guess if you don't want him 25 to, I shouldn't insist.
. 26 Q. Did you at any time during the intervicw with
., 27 Mr. Hofmann, Mr. Parks, decide that you were going to U' 28 conceal any information from Mr. Hofmann?
[ryh TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
-- -------- --~~~ ~
( ' ;; 5 749 17.g 1 'MR. JOHNSON: Could you read that question back? 2 I'm sorry. I just missed it. l} { s l, 3- (Question read.) . '. / , 4 MS. ZURAS: Well, there's just one point I want 1
., 5 to raise. He has mentioned just shortly before that. he - ',*- 6 would not tell him the names' of the people -in upper .. ; 7 management who he believed were harassing him. So with --
s . 8 MR. HICKEY: Other than that.
$, 9 THE WITNESS: No. I did not make a decision to
.- . 10 consciously conceal anything from Mr. Hofmann.
11 MR. HICKEY: Q. And'why is it that you didn't 12 want to tell Mr. Hofmann the names of the people who were 13 harassing you?
. 14 A. I~f elt that he was not -the proper person to ;
[(. 15 bring thatsto the attention of. 16 -0 Why? 17 A. 'Cause I wanted to bring it to the attention of 18 a senior vice-president of Bechtel.
,e 19 Q. And that had been arranged for you to do the 20 next day?
2.1 A. At some point during this conversation, yes. 22 Q. Why was it that you thought it was 23 inappropriate to bring it to the attention of both? Why
.; 24 didn't you tell both Mr. Hofmann and then the senior *' 25 vice-president of Bechtel the next day? l 26 A. I can't explain at this point in time my , , 27 reasons for choosing only to reveal it to a senior n'i k. '
28 vice-president of Bechtel, At the time I made that l l , 4' d TOOKER & ANTZ '131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- d
, ,,r.--.-.-.-.~~~--..--~-----------------
d'2: ..g,.. 750. lI . i v]
- [h
.~ ,
I decision,.'I-felt'it was a right and appropriate thing to
; ff , ..{ ,, 2- do.
f- T 3 Q. You also report a discussion with Mr. Kobi
..7 4 af ter the meeting in which I: think' you quote Mr. Kobi as -
- :: 5- saying in substance either -- you' say Kobi said that. w' hat
/ i.. 6 he had seen was not th'e Bechtel way.
b 7 Was Mr. Kobi referring to the questions that 8 were asked you about other east coast' job shops before
; 9 getting to Quiltec when he made that statement?
. 10 MS. EURAS: If you know.
,' 11 MR. HICKEY: I didn't hear _you.
'f 12 MS. EURAS: I'm just telling him if he knows.
13 Don't speculate. 14 MR. HICKEY: I didn't hear.
,(- 15 THE WITNESS: I couldn't really give you any 16 better insight today than what I have in my affidavit.
17 MR. . HICKEY: Q. You asked to see a specific 18 person at the Gaithersburg f rom -- asked Mr. Wheeler, 19 didn't you, for Mr. Komes'or something like that? 20 A. I believe so, yes. 21 Q. Was that a name that Mark Kobi had given you? L:. 22 Or where did you know Komes's name f rom?
. 23 A. I think it came out during a conversation with
\ 24 Wheeler and Hofmann.
+j , 25 Q. You asked them who was like the highest man in 26 Gaithersburg.or something?
, . ~'; 27 A. Well, I don't think I really knew the gentleman's M 28 name before that and I was speaking more in terms of 4
,,j.
g' TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 s ant- - _ _-_- ___ - - _- --- - _ _ __ - - - _- -- -- -- . - - - - - _ - - - ---- - - --
, ;,1 751
.3,?
4 1 title. 2 . e. .
.,1 p, 2 Q. And Mr. Komes was'not available, so Mr. Sanford , '; 3 was made available?
7 4 A. I couldn't really tell you why I- didn't get to
-*/ 5 speak to Mr. Komes.
6 Q. Did Mr. Wheeler -- I'm sorry. Did Mr. Hofmann 7 say anything to you about who you were going to see and
. 8 why?
- . 9 A. The only thing I can recall at this point in
; time is that, you know, he called somebody, and I don't 10
. 11 know who he called, but that I was to meet with Chuck
',,. 12 Sanford the next day. And that satisfied me at the time.
13 Q. And what did you tell Mr. Hofmann was the
,, 14 reason why.you wanted to see a senior Bechtel
, (. 15 vic e-pr esident ?
16 A. I.think I've already answered that question. I 17 think I answered that right before the break when I read
. 18 you a direct quote out of my statement.
19 Q. Well, the break may have erased my memc y. l 20 Let me look back at your statement. 21 A. It starts with the next to the last page on 22 page 48. And the paragraph before that, for that matter. 23 Q. In substance, did you tell Mr. Hofmann that you 24 wanted to report threats and intimidation to the senior 25 vice-president? 26 A. That's what I say there, sir. And I can't
.; 27 really amplify any better today.
Ut 28 Q. Okay. The next day when you met with Mr. t 0 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 m.y -- __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - --_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,,.___.._;_2-_______.~____
~
O 752
;f s.
1 Sanford and had a senior vice-president- give the nam'es of
.y.- er ?. 2 your -- the persons who you thought were harassing you,
- I 3 what names did you give to Mr. Sanford?
s 4- A. On the 15th of March when. I- met with Mr. q 5 ' Sanford, he really didn't do anything to instill a
/ 17 6 feeling of confidence in me that he was going to act on
)l .
7 the information that I was giving him.
; ,' 8 And in fact, he kind of summed up the little s, 9 dissertation that I had been giving him after a few 10 minutes and challenged me wanting to know why he
.. 11 shouldn't fire me 'for making poor judgment calls by 12 putting Bechtel in a bad light with the client, for
. 13 assisting Larry King in stealing GPU employees and several other comments like that.
. 14 And at that point in
(; s, 15 time, any confidence I had in the man was thrown out the 16 window. ~.
.. 17 But I do believe that somewhere during that 18 conversation before all that occurred that I did divulge 19 the threat regarding taking my children away had come 20 from Joe Chwastyk. And that we did -- the initial threat of being transf erred, that type of thing, was conveyed to
,. 21
., 22 me by Kitler. I didn't know who was the originator of 23 the threat.
.. {
.. 24 Q. In both cases, right? I just want to -- I 25 think your statement was a little bit ambiguous
+^ 26 unintentionally. You didn't suggest to Mr. Sanford that
. 27 Joe Chwastyk had threatened you. He was just the
,t
, . } t.} 28 communicator of threatening information, right?
+
,. ~ :.?
i.pj TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 sq
>i:.cf~----_-_-__-__-_-.__________ - - - - _ - _ - - - _ _ - - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
.j . .; -
', 753
,'* 1 A. That's right.
,.,g- 2 Q. And the same thing about Kitler. You didn't i ,i.' 3 suggest to Sanford that Kitler had threatened you,- but
~
l4 wi' 4 had transferred information about a threat?
. 5 A. That's corr ect. . That's what I. seem to recall
'. 6 at this point in time.
,, ~7 Q. And do you recall naming anybody else to Mr.
t 8 Sanford either as~c' communicators of threats or as people
~.. 9 who were, you know, threatening? ']
10 A.- No. As I just said previously, any confidence
. 11 that I had in the man was destroyed shortly af ter the
.12 meeting took place. I mean, shortly af ter the meeting
,, 13 convened when he started making accusations.
.' 14 Q. Did you do anything to prepare yourself to meet 15 with Mr. Sanford on the 15th?
16 Well, I guess you'd have to kind of expand what
-4 A.
17 you mean by preparing myself. l 18 Q. Well, I'm not talking about. driving down there 19 in the car or getting dressed in the morning or getting
,- 20 out of bed. Did you take any steps to think through what 21 you wanted to say to Mr. Sanford, prepare information you
. 22 wanted to present to Mr. Sanford or anything like that? I 23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What did you do?
,j
( 25 A. I'd like to talk with my attorney for a minute. l
- t. , 26 (Brief recess.)
.,9 27 MR. HICKEY: Do you want to read that question -C- b 28 back to the witness, please.
I e.f.:.d. TOOBER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
y'"9---__----------------.--:------------
, wu s o. 754
.f ;
.:; j qf _
- 1. (Question-read.)-
9,; _ 2 THE WITNESS: I think I answered that question E 3 was yes.
,' 4 MR. HICKEY: Q. And then the next question was ..A ;j 5 'what? Wasn't that the next question? ',. 6 A. I accumulated documents and thought about what ..~, 7 I wanted to say.
- ', 8 Q. Did-you do this after your meeting with Wheeler
.- 9 on Monday the 14th?
10 A. That evening.
. 11 Q. Documents that you accumulated where? At your
. 12 office at the site?
.. 13 A. Right.
. 14 Q. What documents did you collect?
(, 15 A. Oh, same ones I turn'ed over to the NRC.
. 16 Q. Can you be a little more specific?
17 A. Well, I really would like to, but I recall _i 18 there's like 600 and 39 of them so I really couldn't, Mr.
. 19 Hick ey, elucidate any more than that.
20 Q. I see. The documents, though, that you turned
,' . 21 over later on to the NRC, 639 pages -- I think you've
,. 22 seen the receipt for it at the last deposition -- those !
23 were documents that you collected prior to going to see 24 Mr. Sanford on the 15th?
.].
e.. 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. All of them?
,'. A 27 A. What do you mean, all of them?
28 Q. Were all of the documents that you turned over {'J' J 1.! '#Nh TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.:-i?, , .
u.A _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ - - - - - - -
,J,s . . . _ _ - _ - . - _ . - - . - . - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r_ h i, .. >} N.; 1 755 at ,#, t 1 to the NRC documents that you collected before going to
- s. , , c:,;. 2 see Mr. Sanford?
y
;r 3 A. I would- say vast, vast majority. And I also .. .- 4- met ' with my lawyers.
H _ . ,<. 5 Q. In Harrisburg?
, 6- A.- No.
,; 7 Q. Where did you meet?
. 8 A. Washington, : D.C.
.* 9 Q. When did your children leave for Kansas?
10 A. The next day.
, ,c' 11 Q. The next day after what?
. . 12 A. After I met with Sanford.-
. 13' Q. So the 16th of March?
.. 14 A. Icthink so. Right along in that time frame.
( 15 Q. Did you -spend the evening of March 14th, Monday, 16 before the Sanford meeting, in the Washington area or the 17 Harrisburg area? 18 A. I drove down to Washington late at night, so 19 kind of a smattering of both. 20 Q. Late at night meaning -- like you mean 10:00,
, 21 11:00 o' clock?
22 A. About that. 23 Q. And met with your lawyers after that?
.l-'
24 A. Righ t.
., 25 Q. fou did.not come back to Harrisburg then after
. 26 you met with your lawyers --
, ;, 4- 27 A. No. l
' 1 l
4 ',
- 28 Q. -- that evening? l
.. 4 ' - kf.,") TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ML - - - - _ _ - _ - -_ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
N.._w--*-~~~-----=~---------- 756
'j .-
1 .A. No.
. ".0" - 2 Q. And did you tell Mr. Sanford, by the way, the
- d. ,
- . 3 next day that you had driven down f rom Harrisburg that l 4 morning, meaning the 15th?
5 A. I don't recall at this point in time if it came I
.e 6 up or not.
. 7 Q. That wasn't the fact, though, you had driven
,s 8 down the night before, right?
. . 9 A. I had driven down early in the morning, right.
10 Late at night, early in the morning. 11 Q. Where did you get all these documents at the 12 site, Mr. Parks, that you were accumulating on the 13 af ternoon and evening of the 14th of March? 14 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Could you please read
/. 15 back that question?
16 (Question read.) 17 MS. ZURASr I'm just confused about the 18 question. All those documents at the site. What are you 19 referring to? 20 MR. HICKEY: I'm referring to the witness's 21 testimony that he accumulated a group of documents at the 22 site on the af ternoon and evening of March 14th. 23 THE WITNESS: I don't think that's what I 24 stated. I said I accumulated documents and thought about 25 what I wanted to say. I don't think I characterized it
; 26 as accumulating them at the site. - 1 27 MR. HICKEY: Q. Maybe I misunderstood you. I 28 thought that's what you did say.
f*}' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 J
- *** * - ====== an=== -mai-sm emean. amamme =mmesse==============ma====e====eoesmew. .._________auep==_=_es=pem_______________
memoge_eun em emuume w=== m emmmen es==sye
_y 1, . . _ . _a . w_J -- -_. -_
]
ef,' 4 757. 1 1 Where did you get the documents that you
,: ,f- [g '3
. 2 accumulated on the af ternoon and evening of March 14th? j i
i. 3 A. Originally on the job site. 4 Q. 'Where on the job site? 5 A. Various files. ;
- I
+
6 Q. Were they files in your possession? ) (
. 7 A. Well, I guess you'd have to qualify in my 8 poss ession. Do you mean by that were they in the
^
9 possession of site operations? 10 Q. No. I actually meant Rick Parks. ) 11 A. No. They didn't come from my desk, not all of }
, J 12 th em .
13 Q. Were they all files that were within the site j 14 operations offices? ! c. 15 A. I couldn't really tell you at this point in { 4 16 time, Mr. Hickey, where all they did come f rom. 17 Q. Well, do you remember going around the site to 18 other locations to try to find documents or locate 19 documents?
. 20 A. I don't recall going around the site and, you 21 kn ow , rummaging through files, no. If that's what you're l
22 asking. l 23 Q. Well, not quite. I didn't indicate rummaging 24 through files. I mean, did you like go to some other
" 25 office to get a particular document?
26 MR. JOHNSON: What's confusing to me, if you
-< 27 could just clarify whether you're talking about when he 28 did this. Did you specify? '
1
'.- I . */: TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 10 W d _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...~__.~__-~___-,_u_.m._------- , 758 7
l '.i. 1 MR. HICKEY: That's the one part I would hope !
, ";.. 2 is not confusing. i 3 Q. Do you know when we're talking about, Mr. Parks?
.'. 4 A. Yeah. Before I went down to see Mr. --
". ' 5 Q. Sanford.
,' 6 A. -- Sanford.
^
7 Q. Yes. On the 14th of March. 8 A. And there again, I wish to make explicitly
,- 9 clear that I did not accumulate all these documents on 10 the 14 th of March. You know, I did not decide to spend 11 the af ternoon of the 14th of March just going around, you 12 know, putting together a box of files.
13 Q. Well -- 14 A. Maybe I'm confusing you, but I'm not trying to, ( 15 I assure you. 16 Q. Well, let's see if we can break it down a 17 little bit. On the 14th of March, did you go to offices, 18 as best you recall, around the site to get documents or 19 copies of documents to use in connection with your 20 meeting with Mr. Sanford scheduled for the next day? 21 A. Not that I can recall at this moment. j l 22 Q. Did you get documents that were in the site 23 operations area offices on the 14th? i 24 A. I believe I did, yes.
. . . 25 Q. For that purpose? )
l
'- 26 A. Yes.
]
, - 27 Q. And is there anywhere else that you went
i
'; : 28 besides site operations and elsewhere on the site to get
, I c J';.8 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 m,.-_______. _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
,.,,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
759 l.? p 1 . documents? 1 ','1 . O ,. 1 A. I do not recall going to other locations and 4 .'t, -Q 3 getting flies, no. .Not at this point in time I don' t, 4 anyway. 3 '5 Q. Did you have files at home relating to your
.. 6 work that you reviewed to get documents for this meeting?
7 A. Yeah.
+l 8 Q. What files did you have at home?
9 A. At on' e point in time I had decided to start 10 taking documents that could~ substantiate what was going 11 on when I couldn't get any satisfaction from the NRC and I i 12 was toying with the idea of, you know, going further up 13 in the chain of command of the NRC. 14 I was trying to put together a -- for lack of { 15 better words, I was trying to put together a paperwork 16 trail to convince somebody in management, regardless of i 17 who that individual would be, that here are the problems ; 18 that I perceive them, here are the documents that I feel l
. {
19 prove my belief and here are the responses from the
, 20 people that's telling me go take a hike, that type of j 21
.- thing.
22 I was trying to -- I was trying to put together 23 sufficient paperwork where no one would have to believe 24 the word of Rick Parks, they could sit down and read the
. 25 documents and could form an unbiased opinion and say yea
- 26 or nay.
} 27 Q. And you indicated that you did this or began V
28 doing it when you saw you couldn't get satisf action from
. It, TooKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 m
n ' ode A _ w - _ -_ --_ - - ---- :~
'.;; L:a a.: .:.::<= :a .w : r=um.w w www-w ~ - --
760 1 the NRC7 N t', 2- A. Well, that --
, 3 Q. ' Or thought you weren't going to get 4- sa tis f action. '<' 5 A. I'd ~say on or about that time f ram,f that last ' ,' ; 6 part of February, first part of March time f rame.
7 Q. Well --
~ ' 8 A. I can't pin it down any better than that, Mr.
9 Hickey. 10 Q. We can put two dates on it. We know you went 11 to NRC on February 18th. That was the first _ time. Then
'4 ~12 you 'went back there on February 25.
13 A. Yes.
, 14 Q. The first time was to tell them about your 15 probl em. . The second time they told you what they found l 16 or didn't find, right? I ~ ,' 17 'A. That's a fairly representative characterization 18 of what transpired.
19 Q. Okay. Was it not then af ter the February 25 20 meeting that you began to try to put together this paper 21 trail, as you described it? 22 A. I've already told you to the best of my 23 r recollection, Mr. Hick ey, the best I could pin it down. 24 I can't give you a better answer than that. Not at the
% 25 present moment.
26 Q. Well, why would you'have started doing that
.' 27 before you heard back from the NRC7 i o ,_
/? 28 A. I didn't say I did.
.T1 UY TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Franedsco 94105 415/392-0650
~ Ah! _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .
't!
761
,, 8 :
- l 1 Q. You apparently think you may have.
- c 2 A. Well, I said on or about the last part of 3 February, first of March.
The second time I met with NRC - i
^
4 was the second part. of February. e,. ' . 5 Q. Okay. Do you have any basis for thinking you I 6 started collecting these documents at home before 7 February 257
. 8 A. No.
, 9 Q. Did you take these ' documents to the meeting
<. 10 with Mr. Sanford? ,
11 A. Are you asking me did I take them with me to
, , 12 Gaith ersburg? Or what?
- 13 Q. What did you do with the documents? Maybe we
, 14 can get at. it that way.
, 15 A. I took them with me to Gaithersburg.
,_ 16 Q. And did you take them all the way to Washington 17 or just to Gaithersburg? i 18 !
A. I took them all the way to Washington, too. t
. 19 They went with me in my van, you know.
. 20 Q. Did you show them to your attorneys in l c 21 Washington that evening of the 14th or late on the 14th? I 22 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. To the extent that
, , 23 you're asking about communications between his attorney 24 and Mr. Parks, I want to caution Mr. Parks not to reveal
,' 25 any communications. If you're asking him whether or not g- 26 he specifically gave the documents to his attorneys, I'll 27 permit him to respond.
28 MR. HICKEY: That's what I'm asking. 4
$s lf ,;;,- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
! ' _ . A
.'f9 ,
762 e
. 1 THE WITNESS: I did not give the documents. to
. Q j {: 2 my attorneys.
m f, 3 MR. HICKEY: Q. Did you show them to them and f'. 4 - take them back?
.t .
. 5 A. I showed some of them to them,.yes. And took
., 6 them back. -
7 Q. And then you took them 'in your van to 4 8 Ga ith ers burg. Did you take them in to your meeting with s i, 9 Mr. Sanford? I j
' l 10 A. No, sir, I did not. !
-l 11 Q. Why not? '
.' 12 A. On advice of my attorneys. (
i
. 13 Q. Before 'you went into the meeting with Mr. I 14 Sanford, Mr.. Parks, had you prepared any kind of list,
(;, 15 either mentally or actually on paper, of points you a 16 wanted to make with Mr. Sanford or concerns you wanted to' 17 raise with him? 18 A. I think. I told you previously I had given a lot 19 of thought as to what I wanted to tell the man. 20 Q. Righ t. I'm asking you a different question, or l 21 slightly dif f erent. Did you make up some kind of a list, 22 a written list? 23 A. Mentally, yes.
; 24 Q. No, no. Written. 1 I
25 A. Written? I really couldn't tell you at this I
.~ 26 point in time whether I did or not. Events were pretty J 27 fr esh in my mind then.
.f C 4 28 Q. Pardon me?
oi k
..! ? TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 m,,hk__-_---.--__----- - - - - - - -
,". 763 1 A. I said the events were pretty fresh in my mind 7, 2 then.
.,,; 3 Could I step out real quick and get a cup of 4 coffee?
,l t 5 MR. HICKEY: Sure.
'. r 6 (Brief phus e. )
; 7 MR. HICKEY: Q. Where did you go af ter your 8 meeting with Sanford was completed, Mr. Parks?
9 A. I met with my attorneys. Back down in Washington? 10 Q. 11 A. Y es. 12 Q. And while you were there, did you inform your 13 attorneys of what had transpired during the interview 14 with Mr. Sanford? (- 15 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. I think what you're
, 16 asking for is communication that he had with his attorney 17 and I would caution Mr. Parks not to reveal those 18 communications. i 19 MR. HICKEY: Well, I don't quite understand 20 your instruction to the witness, can he answer the 21 question whether he told his attorneys about what 22 transpired at the Sanford interview?
23 MS. ZU RAS: No. I would caution him not to 24 answer the question based on his attorney-client N 25 privileg e. 26 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, did you prepare any 27 documents while you were meeting with your attorneys f. t 28 af ter the Sanford interview, Mr. Parks?
.. /,7 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 x ca_ _ _ _ _ - __ - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - -
,,m_- -_-__ _.---- .._.__._~ ___----------
'[ ,, - 764
; I- 1 MS. ZURAS: Could you read back that question, J'.k a . n 2 please?
-(s (Question r ead.)
.',. 3 4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
37 5 MR. HICKEY: Q. Specifically, did you prepare j, 6 or' participate.in preparing this March 16th letter that's 7 Exhibit 1 to your affidavit? l 8 A. Is that the letter to Mr. Sanford? 9 Q. Yes. 4 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Any other documents?
. 12 A. Not that I can recall at the moment.
, 13 Q. Am I correct in understanding that you worked 14 on this letter with your lawyers af ter the Sanford i
15 meeting? * ' 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did you finish it that afternoon?
. 18 A. Yes.
t 19 Q. And then you didn't mail it, you took it back
, 20 up to Harrisburg with you?
. 21 A. Y es.
22 Q. Why didn't you drop it of f in Gaithersburg on 23 your way for Mr. Sanford? 24 A. Again, sir, I could not provide any 25 justification for why I didn't do something different
; 26 than what I did. I was doing what I felt was the right
. 27 and proper thing at the time given the circumstances that 4- 28 was going on.
4, If, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 %sL_ _ _ _ -. -- _. _ --- - _ _ - - _ - _ - - . _ - . _ - _ _
~ * ; ;;g., ,- 765 , I j
- y , 1 Q. I~ only asked becaure I don't know whether you
'../ c '. p . 2 had some reason or not. -I mean, one answer might be you u.
' f;< 3 went through Baltimore instead of Gaithersburg. That's
.- 4 why I asked the question.
.'+~ 3 Your letter.to Mr. Sanford, though, you did
. ,l 6 deliver the following. day to Mr. Kanga's of fice, right?
7 A. Y es.
'- 8 Q. And Mr. Kanga was not there at the- time; is 9 that right?
10 A. He was unavailable. 11 Q. Did you tell his secretary that you wanted to
.. 12 schedule an appointment to talk to Mr. Kanga?
T 13 A. I do not believe so. 14 Q. Did you communicate that information in some j [ 15 way to Mr. Kanga or his secretary? J. 16 A. I think I lef t a note 'on the interof fice mail 17 bag that I put this in saying something to the effect of
.[ 18 I had come back to give you this, discuss this with you, 19 you weren't here, something to that eff ect.
20 Q. Okay. Is your testimony that you did not ask 21 Mr. Kanga to set up an appointment or to meet with you? l
'. 22 A. That is my testimony that I can recall at' this l 1
23 moment, that's correct. l 24 Q. Did you expect or want to have a discussion
]
1 i 25 with Mr. Kanga about the letter?
., i 26 A. Nop e.
,. ! 27 Q. That's two questions. Did you want to have a
"; , 'I - -
28 discussion with Mr. Kanga about the letter?
,)
1
.;.;.j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
_.6L_---_--_____----_----_-- . - - - - _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
', 766
- 1 A. Not particularly.
,. 2 Q. It was immaterial to you one way or the other?
{r
. ,' 3 A. That's correct.
4 Q._ Let me ask the other question. Did you s ',. 5 anticipate or expect that there would be a discussion
,'.', 6 with Mr. Kanga as a result of your delivering this letter?
7 A. I really -- I didn't know if one would occur or 8 not. I expected Mr. Kanga to get that transmitted down 9 to Mr. Sanford in Gaithersburg. I didn't know how to go 10 abou t i t. 11 Q. Your letter -- do you have it there? Yes.
+ 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Your letter talks about, in paragraph one, 14 numbered paragraph one, that you want to state that ( 15 you've never' sought nor received any financia?. 16 compensation and/or gain f rom Quiltec corporation. 17 That's in your paragraph about conflict of interest, 18 right? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Had you told Mr. Sanford that in Gaithersburg? 21 A. Y es , sir. In fact, I gave Mr. Sanford my 22 permission to go to the bank and have Bechtel perform an 23 audit of all my financial records to prove that I'd never 24 had any any money f rom Quiltec, that I could account for 7,5 - 25 every penny coming from the Bechtel salary. 26 Q. You said that you stated that to Mr. Sanford.
. 27 Are you sure you said it to Mr. Sanford as opposed to Mr.
. 28 Hofmann, Mr. Parks? Or do you think you said'it to both?
^; .: TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 .,a - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ . _
,.ym-__ . l; - 767 9 2- 1 A. I. am reasonably certain at this point in time
- F, g'
, 2 that I made that comment during my meeting where Mr.
.s
,1l.' 3 Sanford and Mr. Hofmann and Mr.. Wheeler were all present.
,W- 4 Q.- Well, how about before the Sanford meeting on I l
.. 5 March 14th, did you say the same thing to Mr. Hofmann?
~
- 6 Do you remember? q
)
- - 7' A. I do'not believe so, no.
2 8 Q. Do you recall any particular rdason for not 9 making that of fer to Mr. Hofmann on the ~14th, Monday? !
,- 10 'A. No. I 11 Q. And then you include this pledge, quote, "I 12 pledge not to seek or receive any financial compensation 13 and/or gain.from Quiltec during.my Bechtel employment."
14 Was it your view that that resolved any 15 possible conflict of interest problems about Quiltec and 16 you, Mr. Parks? 17 A. No. What I was trying to convey to them was 18 that number one, I was innocent; number two, I promise 4 19 you I'll remain innocent. 20 Q. Well, let me ask you to answer my question.
< 21 Wa s it you r vi ew , then, when you wrote this letter, that 22 if you did not receive any -- seek or receive any i 23 financial compensation from Quiltec during your Bechtel
, 24 employment that that took care of any potential conflict
25 of interest problem?
. 26 A. I think as bad as I hate to, I'm going to have o 27 to ask you to repeat that again because I think you're
,3
. ~. ua 28 cutting a real fine line and I'm not so sure I can
' %n .
, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ed. - ____ -__ - __ __ --- _--
I ;L 768 <.f' l' clearly discern your attempt. 2 Q. It's meant to be a simple question.
. .T } 7 h.2 r 3 was it your view when you wrote this letter
<; 4 that if you did not receive, seek or receive any
.k " 5 financial compensation or gain from Quiltec during your
; .i
,., 6 Bechtel employment, that took care of any potential-7 conflict of interest problem?
8 A. I was of the belief that when I wrote that 9 letter that not only was I not guilty of any conflict of
.10- interest, but that by promising not to get myself -into a 11 conflict of interest I would keep my nose clean and that 12 was what I was trying to convey to my bosses. That I was-13 innocent and: intended to remain innocent.
14 MR. HICKEY: Well, let me ask the Reporter to l 15 read it back because that's not - the question I asked. 16 THE WITNESS: Well, I think I did answer it. 17 MR. HICKEY: Q. No. I think you are. I'm
. 18 asking'you whether it was your view at the time you wrote l 19 the letter that not seeking any financial compensation or 20 gain from the Quiltec Corporation while you were employed s>}
- s. 21 by Bechtel would take care of any potential conflict of 22 interest problem?
23 A. As I understood the conflict of interest or l i 24 definition of conflict of interest, I felt that that
.. 25 statement would absolve me of even the shadow of doubt of
'. 26 being involved in a conflict of interest because I had
- *$ 27 never been exposed nor had the opportunity to review the j' -
.' .." %9 28 conflict of interest policy that Bechtel maintained. 9 Pl'h TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 a .,,; _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ - _ - - - - _ --___- _ -__-- -__----- __--__ _
l 769 1 Q. Okay. So you're giving me the reason why, what (., 2 your knowledge of conflict of interest was. You hadn't
, 3 seen the Bechtel conflict of interest policy; that is
, 4 correct?
i I' 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. At the time you wrote this letter on March 15th,
. 7 16th?
8 A. That's correct. My understanding was what I 9 was telling th em, I'm innocent of any conflict of 10 interest and I promise I'll remain innocent of any 11 conflict of interest, now please tell me what it is you 12 wish me to uphold. 13 Q. And the way you were going to remain innocent 14 was you were never going to seek financial compensation (. 15 or gain from Quiltec? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. While you were a Bechtel employee? 18 A. That 's corr ec t.
~
19 Q. Okay. Your letter that's Exhibit 1 to your 20 af fidavit there in f ront of you, Mr. Parks, talks about 21 in paragraph number two the f act that you, quote, 22 "Have been pressured to eliminate my objections without 23 any explanation of the flaws in my analysis," close quote.
,' 24 Who was it that was responsible or who was it that pressured you to eliminate your objections?
. 25 26 A. I believe I have already answered this question, 27 too, in previous testimony, but I'll go over it again
. 28 rather than argue with you.
;.j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
V'.
.l(.,,,-.-'... i .- - a _ -- ~ - ~-+.~. - -.. - . ~,. ~.-. - .~. _ _ _ _ -~ ....
". . w ' 770
; j ', , -1 And--in one instance, Mike Radbill accused me of 6 / (; . 2 having a personal vendetta against the polar crane by not A. .
- l. 3 acquiescing on their responses.to my comments.
, 'c 4 'Q. Not before you wrote this letter. That's after.
lN .. 5 A. No. m ,
. 6 -Q. Right? That's March 17th,'isn't it?
7 A. I don't believe so. 8 Q. I'm pretty sure, Mr. Parks. i - 9 MR. JOHNSON: Well, do you have something you 10 could show him? 11 MR. HICKEY: Yeah. If you'd wait till I'm 12 finished turning the page, I'll be glad to find it. 13 Q. Well, here's one thing I.-can refer you to, Mr. 14 Parks. I'll have this marked in just a minute. But this [ 15 is Mr. Feinberg's notes of his interview of you on May 2, 16 1983. It's- not paginated, but it's the fourth page. 17 Quote -- I'll show this to you in just a minute. 18 MR. JOHNSON: Whose interview is it?
~
19 MR. HICKEY: Feinberg's. 20 Q. Quote, ' Parks's 'respons e. On 3-17, Mike
. 21 Radbill had accused Parks of a quote, ' personal vendetta,'
22 close quote, against the test procedure on the polar 23 crane and told Mike that so long as his comments of 2-17 24 were unanswered he wouldn't sign off on it." I
';f- 25 MR. JOHNSON: What's the page number?
26 MR. HICKEY: As I said, the document is not ! t 27 paginated, but it is the fourth page.
,. (.:i 28 MR. JOHNSON: It says number four on the top of
.c l TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 tw_____._______________-___-_- _ _ - - _ . . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
]<
..____._._._____._---_-----_--~.,-..-------------------------'"-'--------m ff 771
.,.' 1 it. So it's the -- I'm sorry. What-date is it?
% .rq 2 MR. HICKEY: May 2.
( l 3 MR. JOHNSON: May 2. I'm sorry. The fourth
.: 4 page of that series. Okay.
., 5 MR. HICKEY: About the middle of the'page.
- c. , 6 I've put it in front of the witness.
- .', 7 MR. JOHNSON: Oh. I'm sorry.
8 MR. HICKEY: O. Do you have my question in 9 mind, Mr. Parks? I was asking you whether in f act Mr. 10 Radbill hadn't made these comments to you about personal 11 vendetta on the 17th instead of the 16th? 12 A. He.may very well have'. I do not have any 13 information at my disposal at this time to dispute Mr. E-14 Feinberg's statement. Nor can I vouch for the accuracy (: ' 15 of this date. 16 But that's irrelevant for the point in question. 17 The point in question is we cannot overlook such things 18 as has been threatened for documenting the problems -- 19 Q. Let me just in the interest of time take you 20 back to remind you of what my question was. On your 21 March 16 letter, okay? Paragraph nwnber two you said, "I 22 have been pressured to eliminate my objections." 23 And my question to you was who was it that you
,' 24 were ref erring to when you said you'd been pressured to '47 25 eliminate your objections?
26 . A. That's what I was starting to explain before
- s. 27 you interrupted me.
... ?- 28 Q. Okay. , ; . ,'; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. ' . . .i _ _ - __
G T _i_ . ... . . . _ . _ . _ . . - - . _ . _ . . . _ . - _ _ . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I* 3'. 772 l.' e ,, l' A. Okay?
'i (?'; 2 MS. ZURAS: He wants names.
.. 3. THE WITNESS: I think I've already testified I 4 couldn't give names. I can only -- ynu know, in this
}y 5 case was Ed Kitler. Ed conveyed the threat. I don't 6 know who the threat really came from. I can't,.you know,
~
1 l',. 7 vouch for who it came from. With respect to removing me
-l 8 f rom the alternate startup and test supervisor, I'm of L .? 9 the belief that that originated with Jim Thiesing.
10 I considered those two acts to be subtle -- not 11 necessarily so subtle, either -- pressure to get me to
. 12 acquiesce on my belief s. Those are two of the instances 13 that pop to mind immediately.
14 MR. HICKEY: Q. Anyone else that you think was 15 pressuring you prior to this letter.that you wrote on 16 March 15th or 16th to eliminate your objection? 17 A. Well, I tell you the truth, I really considered
. 18 that, you know, the whole .Quiltec investigation to be I i
19 pressure to, you know, get me to silence up. But-now who d 20 that originated with I really couldn't tell you. Not at
,. 21 that point in time. But I knew it originated somewhere.
22 Q. Are you saying that later on you learned where
~ 23 it originated?
24 Q. Well, I -- I can only guess now. So I really 25 don't know who it originated with. 26 I also believe that conveyance of the comment
- 27 regarding welfare of my two sons to be a not-so-subtle r~ !
, %/ 28 attempt to get me to back of f. But again, all I can say j b'
a;q TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- > 1 m.
,;._;,.-.._-..~----.------------------------ L 'JE . 773' j . . ,f [v* .
~
v ( . ', 1 is the gentleman who conveyed 'it. Where'it originated at
. lp }3 2 I have no idea. Or the persons involved that it.
s,-Q 0 ? ' 3 originated with I have no idea of their identity.
..,, 4 Q. But your belief was that it was someone in l ' '. ' 5: management at Bechtel or GPU? .' 6 A. Yes, sir.
Either one? 7 Q. Did you have a belief that it was 1-l , 8. one --
., 9 A. Or both..
10 Q. You don' t know? g 11 A. No. L. 12 , MR. HICKEY: I think maybe.while we're on this, 13 let's finish this up. I'm going to ask the Reporter to 14- mark as ourtnext exhibit number -- and I think I can ('. 15 u , provide-that.to you in a minute -- this document. 16 MR. JOHNSON: Could we go of f the record just a 17 r, econd? , 18- (Discussion off the record.) 19 MR. HICKEY: I've been advised that the 20 document I was going to mark, which is the interview i 21 notes by Mr. Feinberg of his May 2nd,1983 intervics of
. 22 Mr. Parks, has previously been marked in Mr. Parks's 23 deposition as Exhibit Number 57.
24 (Discussion off the record.) 25 MR. HICKEY:
.,3 Just to make it clear, since I had 26 not noticed that Mr. Johnson and Ms. Zures had walked out
, 27 before I made my last comments, let me repeat that I have 1 28 discovered that Mr. Parks's interview notes taken by Mr.
J
' i.
e i
}Qj TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 n? .;. r 4%~__ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I
D 774
.f .-
,t .bj 1 Feinberg on May 2,1983, have previously. been marked as
,., fp 2 Exhibit 57 to Mr. Parks's deposition, so I'll not mark 5p, 3- them as some new exhibit number because that's the 4 document I wanted to ask him ab'out.
g: 5 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Exhibit 57.
- f. 6 MS. ZURAS: Just so the record'Is clear, these 4 7 are Mr. Feinberg -- is that Feinberg's notes?
. 8 MR. . HICKEY: Righ t.
9 Q. Mr. Parks, you've seen this document before 10 I've shown you, right?
+
11 A. I believe I saw it about two months ago. 12 Q. Was that the first time? You mean at our 13 deposition? ; 14 A. Right. (l 15 Q. When I was asking you questions? Was.that the 16 first time you'd seen it?
. - 17 A. Well, I couldn't tell you if it was the first l
- 18 time or not, but it's the only time I can remember at
. 19 this moment.
20 Q. Okay. , [ 21 MS. ZU RAS : p . In all f airness to the witness, I'm 1
+' 22 not even sur e, but I believe it was the subject of 23 questioning by Mr. Richardson in the Bechtel litigation.
<, 24 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, in any event, you now I I
25 have in front of you Exhibit 57 that's previously been '
26 marked as an exhibit to your deposition and I want to ask
', 27 you whether you recall on May 2,1983, be_ng interviewed
."- (- 28 by Mr. David Feinberg of the Labor Department at your J .'.h TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 !
.i .
m.t,
]
775
, : .. i 1 home together with Mr. Devine regarding your complaint to
.. (: 7,- .2 the Department of Labor?
, ' c. , 3 A. I believe I was. -
i
.- 4 Q. And at the meeting or the interview with Mr.
Feinberg, did Mr. Feinberg give you an opportunity to p 5 6 r espond to the. company's, meaning Bechtel's, answers to I
. 7 your complaints? !
I 8 A. I believe he did, yes. 9 Q. This was not your first meeting with Mr. J 10 Feinb erg? . 11 A. I do not believe it was. l 1 i
,- 12 Q. You had previously on April 20 been interviewed 13 by Mr. Feinberg and given him a signed statement?
i 14 A. I. believe that was round about the date, anyway. ( 15 Q. 1111 mark that when we get to it. But just so 16 you have the. chronology, this is May 2. 17 And when Mr. Feinberg presented you with the ; i 18 company's response response, as he calls it, to your l 19 charges, how did the interview go? Can you describe the ! 20 circumstances of the interview? i I. 21 MS. ZURAS : Excuse me. I guess the queri8en 22 I'm having problems with is vague. How did the interview 23 go? 24 MR. HICKEY: I asked him to describe the l 25 circumstances of the interview. i 26 Q. Wh er e wer e you ? At your home? 27 A. To be perfectly honest with you, Mr. Hickey, !
, k) 28 couldn't really provide any details at this point in time
-[Q TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 j l
mE____-___--_--_-__--___-__-__-----------__------ _ - - _ - - - _ - _ - --- ----- --- --- --- ---- ----- - - - - - - 4
.. . - . ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - -
q.
. 776
<L-1 of what we talked about or what we'didn't' talk about,
^
, ; fs 2 'whether it was in my home, my girlfriend's home, day or
,.,3
., 3 night or anything.
.' . e . 4 Q. Well, let's --
. ;.. : 5 A. I just don't recall.
-f J., 6- Q. Well, let's try a little bit.and see if you jr 7 can't remember some of it. Do you remember anybody else ,
;; a 8 being present at this interview besides yourself, Mr.
; 9 Devine and Mr. Feinberg? ,
. 10 A. Not specifically, no. Not at'this moment.
, 11 Q. Did you try in the course of the ' interview to 12 respond fully and truthfully to Mr. Feinberg, the
,- 13 statement you were making to him?
14 MS. EURAS : I'm going to object to the question 15 as compound.. 16 M R. HICKEY: Well, let's break it up. 17 Q. Did you try to tell the truth to Mr. Feinberg? 18 A. Yes.
.' 19 Q. And did you try to answer his questions fully?
.. 20 A. Yes. To the extent of my knowledge at the time.
21 Q. All right. Why don't you read to yourself, Mr. 22 Parks, if you would, please, the material on the first 23- page and a half of Exhibit 57. That's the discussion of
.. -] 24 the first charge.
/ . 25 A. Okay.
y 26 Q. You read down to where the black line is about
~
y, 27 halfway down the page?
- r. ,. , d' 28 A. I read what I could interpret.
g o j M. 'd, TOOKER & ANT 3 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. e a$ 0m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
,s .777-
.n
. ~ y
- . 'l Q. . Okay. 'Did. you tell Mr. ' Feinberg,~ Mr. Park s, . on (q 2 this' occasion that'Mr. Barton was involved in two
. jr, 3 positions which you-felt had conflicting duties? ' ." 4 A. I can only state what the man has written here.. I
. 5 I do not have any other information -- '. 2 6 Q. What-do you mean?
7' A. -- at my disposal at this moment'to dispute l
., 8 what the man says.
9 Q. Do' you believe it's accurate? 10 A. I have no reason to believe it's not accurate. 1
.,.. 11 Q. Do you have any recollection of making any j 3
, 12 comments to Mr. Feinberg on this occasion about Ron
~13 Warren in plant engineering being'a TWG representative 14 and that being some sort of conflicting position?
. 15 A. .I -- again, I have no --
16 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Before you respond to 17 that, perhaps I'm missing something. But are you 18 suggesting that there's some ref erence in Mr. Feinberg's j 19 notes that the context of what's being said demonstrates
. 20 a conflict? And I'll stand corrected if you can point it' 21 out to me.
.. 22 But I'm basically concerned about the 23 assumption you're asking him to make.
.:. .24 MR. HICKEY: Well, at the top of the second
,[i 25 pag e, five lines down or six lines down -- five -- this
., 26 is in regard to Mr. Barton. Two high level conflicting 27 duties. But .let me ask the witness.
k.a/ 28 Q. Mr. Parks, what you were doing with Mr.
~.
G,j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 m---_-_____- _ _ _ _ _ _
, 7,,
o
" 3, 778
- - [ >> 1 Feinberg was responding to the company's claim that it
- y. {;w 2 was appropriate to remove you as alternate startup and I
, 3 test supervisor, right?
4 A. Yes. j 5 Q. You were giving my Feinberg your answer or your
. . 6 response to that?
. . 7 A. Righ t.
8 Q. And what you cited in your answer is examples !
. 9 involving Mr. Barton, Mr. Warren and Mr. Marshall and the 10 reason you cited those individuals and talked about their
. 11 jobs was to suggest that these people had conflicts, too, 12 and they didn't get removed from their duties? Isn't 13 that the point you were making?
-- - 14 A. L can't say that I was making a point that they
( 15 had conflicting duties. That may have been his choice of 16 words. 17 What I was trying to identify was that here 18 wer e other gentlemen -- I- can only state based on my 19 review of this document was that what I was trying to I
. 20 identify was here were other gentlemen, three of which
. 21 were names in his notes, that had more than one duty,
. 22 okay? In two different roles, if you will.
23 And that so therefore, I had two different
.- 24 duties and two dif f er ent departments, but I was not
.. j 25 removed f rom those duties until, you know, I had i
, - 26 id entified problems. Then suddenly I was r emoved. i
,t -
27 Q. Well, but the reason you said that to Mr.
> ?
'u> 28 Feinberg was to suggest that therefore, there wasn' t a ny T
.e
', ,*, ,>i , TOOKER & ANT 2 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,t. +
*.A. . _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _______ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ .
g,,___ _ _ - _ - - - - _._. - - - - --_ - - - - - - - - - c,:3 779
-5...e
- j. 1 need to really remove you since these other people hadn't
..< i p3 '
2 been removed?. w 3 A. I think you're trying to trying draw too fine a
} .;.
g-,' ~4 line of distinction. I 'was not saying - since I was
.;.. 5 removed remove these guys --
i :, ; . 6 Q. No. , 7 A. I was giving him other examples of gentlemen 8 that fulfilled collateral positions with collateral
.. 9 responsibilities in two dif f erent departments.
'. 10 Q. But the reason you were making that point was I 11 to say therefore, it was not necessary, legitimately, 12 honestly necessary to remove you from two roles? )
,..; 13 A. I .think I was trying to make the point with Mr.
.;6 14 Feinberg that there were ulterior motives involved in .;
,- 15 removing me.
. 16 Q. Righ t. Not honest, not legitimate needs to 17 r emove you?.
18 A. Yes. o 19 Q. Well, had you expressed this view, by the way, 20 about Bubba Marshall having two jobs being in some way 21 inappropriate to anybody before? .
.t-22 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. I think you're
,.! 23 misstating his testimony as being inappropriate. He
.'. 24 hasn't testified to that. I will let his testimony stand
. l.2, 25 for itself, but I don't think he testified to that.
.f 26 MR. HICKEY: Q. What you said about Bubba i- 27 Marshall, in other words, was that he had two jobs? And
*b g/
C 28 I think that's what your counsel is suggesting. l
,?$ .
jp(f TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
&L__-__________-___-___--_---- - - - - --
[ , z y - - - - a ~ .- ~ ~ - .
- . . a - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
(;,, . 780
,1-1 Is that.what your. point is?
2 A. My point is -- and I was ' not saying,; you know,
..., 3 .these gentlemen having more than one job is inappropriate L
i
'." 4 and contrary 'to the functional requirements of our
.: 5 organization.. All I was saying-was here were other
.; 6, gentlemen that had more than' one' job. And nobody saw a
- 7 problem with that. Nor'did I see a. problem with it.
-./'. 8 Q. Okay. You didn't see a problem'with it, either.
9 So the statement up here at the fif th line about, quote, 10 "two high level conflicting duties," that doesn't
- 11' accurately reflect what you told Mr. Feinberg? -
, 12 A. -In this point right here where John Barton 13 could approve the work that was done and then was in the
; 14 same position to review the work that he approved to
(* 15 begin with .do not superimpose a checks and balance system l 16 that was inherent and required by the technical 17 specifications of our license. 18 Q. I'm sorry. I don't understand what you just 19 said. Could you try to repeat it or rephrase it?
. 20 A. I'll try. The only point that Mr. Feinberg ., 21 took from that, was there a chance for conflicting duties 1
22 to be imposed on Mr. Barton and that -- and as a deputy 23 director he was responsible for assuring management
. 24 review or higher level management review of the duties to
~
25 be performed by a site operations director. J( 26 So by fulfilling both duties, assistant 27 director of the job site and acting director of site
' : ; . ., ' 28 operations, he could be put into a position where he's
;-{ j
- r. n
.' ,i,@ TOOKER & ANTE 131 Stcuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.c
- siAL -- - _ - - -_ - - _- _.-- . _ -. - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - . _ _ _ - - - _ - _ - _ - _
. ;...____ -_.__.- _ _____ ~.._.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
. : !;. , 781 ( c-dp 1 removing one of the checks and balances required by the N 'g g- 2 tech specs.
. l #; 3 Q. Well, did you think him-holding the two . i. ' '4- positions was~ in violation of the tech specs?
re 5 A. No. I was just trying to show.him where in
. 6 this case with Mr. Barton, he had two positions and they.
,, 7 could in fact conflict with one another. 'I
,' 8 Q. -Did'you - -
9 'A. And I was not complaining about it. 10 Q. Did you express to Mr. Feinberg on this 11 occasion the view that they did conflict with each other? 9 12 A. I don't know if I expressed it or if the way I I 13- explained it he understood it to be the potential for
>, 14 conflicting. duties.
, 15 Q. That's what you meant to convey, the potential 16 was there for conflicting duties?
17 A. Well, the potential was there, so I could
. 18 only -- you know, I told you previous to this that I can
; .19 only answer. you based on my review of the man's notes
.f; 20 because I have no additional recall at the moment to
': 21 allow me to amplify what the man was talking to me.
.[ 22- Q. Well, let me ask you to read on. You started 23 on the bottom -- I mean, you lef t of f in the middle of t
24 the second page where it says " Charge." Why don't you 25 read that and then I think that charge goes about the d- 26 next half page, as well.
- , . 27 A. Okay.
,- n
'i ; ; v!!
. 28 Q. You've read that down to the middle of the next d
$.) TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 !
?S_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ . - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _
.~ , - .
. s .#. '782-L l'd - l jj'
'.,[ r s?,;. l' page, Mr. Parks?
.*s .
s 7 2 A. Yes, sir. y; /w.g
.{ ' 3 Q. Okay. Do you recall telling Mr. Feinberg with t y ;{! ~ '4 regard to the charge that the interrogation by Mr.
,l 5 Hofmann was retaliatory, that the manner in which the ,
6' company had described the circumstances was about right?
,; , 7 A.. Again, you .know, I hate. to sound like a parrot
[ 8' or a stuck record, but I don't have any information at my 9 disposal to allow me to dispute' what the' man has written 1 1 10 down.
,, 11 Q. Did you tell Mr. Feinberg on' this occasion that )
12 you_ thought it was harassment because it was based on the, j i
i 13 what . you call isolated, innocent incident of the typing _ '
14 of the resumes? I
,(' 15 A. Well, you know, I have to take exception with ]
l _~ 16 the way you characterized that statement as my words. j
,- 17 Q. Oh, okay. Did you not call it an isolated ai 18 incident? Innocent incident? l i
.s' 19 A. I know at the time I f elt it was harassment. I l 1
, 20 feel it is harassment at this time. Or was harassment. j
(
,-i 21
, So I'm sure that we spoke in those terns that it was j 22 harassment. Now, he and I may have talked for five or 10
- 23 minutes on that one issue and he wrote down 10 and a half 7
ci 24' lines or what have you.
., 25 Q. Well, my question --
E;] 26 A. So I'm sure he paraphrased what I was saying. ! J6 27 Q. Excuse me. My question is whether you told,
/:, .
. .v LU 28 whether you described this Rittle typing of resumes as an Y l
//nh TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 j
',,d._______----_-----_----___---.-_
j
g-____ _ _ _ . - - - - - ___ - . - - - - - - - - - _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - - - . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 703
;// 1 isolated incident 'to Mr. Feinberg?
.c 2 MS. ZURAS: Do you understand his question?
.' , . ' 3- THE WITNESS: I think he's asking me --
l- e
../> 4 MS. ZURAS: Wait a minute. Just so -- and 5 perhaps Mr. Hick ey can correct me. He's asking you 6 whether or not you described your asking Rose Rittle to
/ 7 type the resumes as an isolated incident, not whether or
~
i 8 not you considered the harassment an isolated, innocent 9 incident. . 10 Am I correct? 11 MR. HICKEY: Of course. 12 MS. ZURAS: And I think there was some
- 13 confusion on his part.
, 14 MR. HICKEY: Well, let me restate it.
.( 15 Q. Do you understand what your counsel just said?
16 A. I think I understand her interpretation of what 17 you're trying to ask me, if that's what you're trying to la ask me. 19 Q. Yes. I'm just asking if you used those words
. 20 to Mr. Feinberg with regard to the Rittle typing, that 21 that was an isolated, innocent incident?
22 A. I don't -- I can't tell you at this point in 23 time -- 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. -- Mr . Hick ey , if that was the exact choice of i 26 words I used or if that was his choice or what. j 27 Q. That's what I was asking and all you need to . 1
- C. 28 say is you can't remember. .l'I TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ],
t
---.,-.----=----.-.<--------"'*****'**]'
784~
' ',- 1- There is noth'ing in this material we've just
.- * ,{o 2 read, this ' paragraph on this charge that I see, Mr. Parks, 3 that complains about the f act - that the interview or
. 4 investigation or interrogation was conducted by Mr.
5 Hofmann. 6 Did you make that particular point to Mr. 7 ' Feinberg, that you thought it was a form of harassment l 8 because Hofmann, the internal auditor from San Francisco, 9 did it? ye - 10 A. Well, I guess 'there again, I have to take i' -
=11 exception with your characterization of what the l : .- 12- gentleman has written. He states, " Charge, interrogation
, 13 of Parks by Bechtel execu - " something or other.
14 " Internal audit about Quiltec matter was retaliatory." q 15 Q. Right. l : 16 A. I think again the man was paraphrasing. We all i 17 know I can be very long winded and I think the man was 18 paraphrasing. 19 Q. Was paraphrasing you? 20 A. I guess.
,- 21 Q. Well, don't guess.
22 MR. JOHNSON: I would suggest that you not 23 speculat e. If you don't know what he was indicating by c 24 writing " charge" down there, don't make any assumptions. 25 THE WITNESS: I don't know what the man was 26 trying to indicate. 1 27 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, I come to back to my , 28 qu estion. My question was whether you complained to Mr. l i
" (p< TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. l n ein'
. 785
( )
- l. Feinberg on'May 2 that it was a harassing f actor, a part. _
f
\
L ,. ; + 2 of the harassment that the interview of you was conducted . j l 3 by Hofmann, the internal auditor.
..- 4 A. No. I realize I can be pretty dumb at times 5 and slow to catch on, but isn't this document where he is~
. l l, -
6 coming back and saying, after he's already talked to me i 7 the first time and he's talked . to Bechtel, GPU management -)
~ 8 the first time, and I had to make whole my position and 9 they are saying no, these are our reasons for not making
- x. .10 the man whole? Isn't.he coming to me with their l 11 responses to. original charges?:
i.
) 1
. . 12 And I believe that was one of the original 13 charges during the, you know, the whole onset on the
- (
,y 14 Department of Labor investigation that I thought that the 15 internal auditor investigation of me was shabby
; 16 pr etextual smear, something to that eff ect?
-l 17 I think this is really what -- the man is 18 coming back after results of his original investigation
, 19 and saying here is our make whole position, now can we 1
20 all get together. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I think 21 that's what he's talking about here. I 22 Q. Well, you lost me with your response. I'm
~
23 asking you what I think is a simple question.
., 24 Did you tell Mr. Feinberg on May 2nd that one
; 25 of the things you thought was harassing about the Hofmann ,
4
. 26 inter vi ew , interrogation, was that it was being conducted L'
27 by Hofmann who was the internal auditor in San Francisco? I
. C.~ 28 Did you complain about that to Mr. Feinberg on May 2?
- ;*f ,
TOOKER &'ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 no - _ ___ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - .
l'c,. . - - _ .
~
786 1 MS. ZURAS: Well, I -- 1
- n. . ~
'? 2 MR. HICKEY: The answer is yes, I did, no, I 1
.: 3 didn't, or. I don't r emember, it seems to me.
..- 4 MS. ZURAS : Well, I think he's indicated in l l.., 5 there there is some reference to it. And beyond -- )
G MR. HICKEY: I know. I didn't ask him-about ii I asked did he make a 7 the parts of the document.
- i 8 statement to Mr. Feinberg. Either he knows he did or.
9 knows he didn't or he doesn't remember. I
'e 10 MS. ZURAS: Okay. One other concern I think a 11 he's expressing is you're insinuating that he never made 12 the reference to Mr. Feinberg on any other occasion.
[ 13 MR. HICKEY: I'm not insinuating anything. I'm 14 asking what he said on May 2nd. The question is May 2. ([ 15 Not May 3rd, not May 1. 16 Q. Did you say it to Mr. Feinberg on May 27 You 17 either know or you don't know, it seems to me. 18 A. Well,. you know, Mr. Hick ey, I hate to sound 19 like I'm dumb or stupid. I just can't recall anything to 20 amplify anything other than the man has written down. I
.' 21 told you before this line of questioning --
22 MS. ZURAS: Just a minute. 23 MR. HICKEY: Wait a minute. He wasn't finished.
/ 24 THE WITNESS: Well, I was finished.
25 MR. HICKEY: Well, you were in the middle of a 26 word. 27 THE WITNESS: Well, like I said, I told you
. . . . (h 28 before this line of questioning, I didn' t have anything 4 ..,*. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 c.L-____-___--_-_---. _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - -_-_-_ -_ -_ - - -_ -_ - _- _-___ -____
'. 787
....,, 1 available to amplify this very minute. To amplify.what c, ;* .
l 2' this man wrote down. 3 MR. HICKEY: O. Well, Mr. Parks, you are
- 4 f amiliar with the technique of trying to stimulate a man-5 recollection. If it doesn't stimulate it, you can say so.
'6 MR. JOHNSON: I've been trying to make-a point.
7 I think you can ask your questions. It's perfectly fine
,f 8 to ask your questions.
9 MR. HICKEY: Thank you. Y,. 10 MR. JOHNSON: But I think because you first.
, 11 ask ed him , you know, does he remember what was said. He 12 said he couldn't remember. He said that again just a 13 second ago.;. Then you show him --
14 (Int er r uption. ) (. 15 MR. JOHNSON: My point is -- what my point is, 16 Pat, is the~ only conf usion is coming in here I think 17 because you're using this document, which appears to be 18 Mr. Feinberg's notes, and suggesting that what he's
. 19 written down here is reflective of .what Mr. Parks said.
20 MR. HICKEY: I'm asking the witness if it
. 21 refreshes his recollection. If it doesn't, then it j 22 do esn ' t. And that's all the witness har to say. And I'm i 23 asking him whether he remembers saying this to Mr.
, 24 Feinberg or saying that to Mr. Feinberg. It's a 4 -.I 25 straightforward - .
; 26 Q. On May 2nd, Okay?
l 27 MR. JOHNSON: My point is I don't know if its ) (! , 28 calculated to be confusing, but it is confusing. The l l ij,3 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.... - - ___________-----___________________________________________________i
. ,. ,.-m_.-._. _ . _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ - _ . . - .
(, 788 l' l
- 1- effect of it is confusing. ... 2 MS. ZURAS: Anyway, I think-the witness has 3 taken care of the problem because he's replied to Mr.
4 Hick ey's last question. 5 MR. HICKEY: Let's go on to the next one so we 6 can finish up here. 7 Q. I think the next area, Mr. Parks, goes f rom the 8 middle of the page where you stopped to the end, 9 basically, of this document. Why don't you read all of
- 10 that.
11 MS. ZURAS: And I just want to state for the
, 12 record that the handwriting of Mr. Feinberg, no
- 13 disrespect intended to Mr. Feinberg, is not real legible
., 14 in all respects. So I just wanted to point that out in 15 the record. We're doing our best to interpret his 16 handwriting.
17 MR. HICKEY: Sure. The documcrat's in the - 3 18 record. 19 Q. Have you had a chance to read that material, l 20 Mr. Parks?
', 21 A. Y es , I have.
22 Q. Let me focus your attention on the part that ; 23 begins " Parks's responses" because that's really what I'm 24 interested in asking you about.
. 1 25 As you reviewed the material here, did you see
. 26 anything that you thought was inaccurate in terms of what 27 Mr. Feinberg had written about your statements on May 2?
(. 28 MS. ZURAS: Well, I think there's a little bit llij TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 w L ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
(, 789 'l Y
. 1 of' a lack of foundation here as to whether or not he-has j
-; (j , 2 any recall as to-what he told Mr. Feinberg on May the 2nd.
. v.-
3 MR. HICKEY: Well, I think the question, yeah,
~,.o 4_ asks if he has a recollection.
. 5 Q. Do you see anything that you recognize here as
, i/ being inaccurate?
6 7 MS. ZURAS: Well, answer --
.. 8 THE . WITNES S : Of regarding what I told Mr.
9 Feinberg?
.. . 10 MR. HICKEY: Q. Yes. REgarding the part that f
11 starts " Parks's response" and goes down to the last note c r .. 12 at the end. , 13 MS. ZU RAS: But the first question is do you I 4 14 have any recollection as to this discussion. (} ' 15 THE WITNESS: Again, no, I do not. Not at this 16 moment. 17 MR. HICKEY: Q.. All right. And as you read
.- 18 this, do you see anything that strikes you as- being 19 inaccurate in it that you can point to and say I didn't 20 say that or I don't believe I said that or. I don't
. 21 remember saying that?
22 A. Well, pref aced with the f act that I can't read 4 . , 23 all of the man's handwriting and understanding he was
- 24- paraphrasing everything I was apparently telling him, I 25 think he did a fair job of representing what my concerns 26 were.
27 Q. Well, does that mean you don't see anything (
.' w.v 28 there that you believe was inaccurate?
gfi TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 I a- .I. - - - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - -- - - - -
_.___-- - _ __-- - - - - - -- 1
~790
. i
' H
, - , 1 MS. ZURAS: Well, you know, he's testified, d
"'/*
2 he's responded to answer the question the best that he 1 Id 3 can.
.,;. 4 MR. HICKEY: I don't know that.
,, 5 MS. ZURAS: Pr ef aced -- l l , 5. f 6 MR. HICKEY: He didn't answer the question that
,f 7 I asked.him.
,. 8 MS. ZURAS: He just -- 1 9 ~MR. HICKEY: He said he . thought he did a f air
. 10 job. .I asked if he saw anything in it that he believed 11 or recalled or thought-was erroneous. Fair job or not ,
., 12 fair job.
13 Did you see anything .that you think was wrong?
~
Q. 14 A. If I saw anything that I thought was blatantly ([ ., 15 f alse, I would have told you that. j 16 Q. Well, how about not blatantly, but just f alse? 17 A. Well, there again, based on what I can decipher I 18 of the man's handwriting, I think he did a f air job of ' 19 paraphrasing. I don't see any glaring discrepancies. 20 But then, I can't read everything the man's written. 21 Q. Did Mr. Feinberg take notes during the time he 22 was talking to you and Mr. Devine on May 27 23 A. I really don't recall if he did or not. 24 Q. Did Mr. Devine?
; 25 A. I really don't recall if he did or. not.
. 26 Q. Did you?
, 27 A. No.
' . . kf 28 Q. Your answer was no?
-i. P. . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
791
- 2. 1 A. No. '
(x, 2 Q. About how long were you with Mr. Feinberg and
',- 3 Mr. Devine on this May 2nd occasion?
~
.. . /. 4 A. I really tell you, sir.
. 5 0 .
Can you give me any estimate to the best of
- i. - l 6 your recollection?
7 A. No, sir, I couldn't. . 8 Q. Did you ask during the interview whether you 9 could review any statement or notes of Mr. Feinberg? - 10 A. I don't recall that I did. Not at this point 1 11 in time.
'.- 12 Q. Do you know whether.Mr. Devine asked during the 13 meeting to have an opportunity to review any of Mr.
14 Feinberg's notes? 15 A. I don't recall if he did or not. _ ({ - 16 Q. Did you or Mr. Devine ask Mr. Feinberg for a ! 17 copy of any report he was going to prepare? I mean of 18 the interview, any record of the interview he was going i 19 to make?
, 20 A. I don't think -- I don't think we did.
~
. 21 Q. Did he tell you at the outset that he was going 22 to write up what you were telling him?
5 23 A. There again -- well, I'm going to sound really. 24 stupid, but I really don't have that much recollection of 25 everything that we did discuss then, you know. That's 26 the best I can answer you, Mr. Hickey. 27 Q. Well, forget about the statement. Did you tell (.
' - v; 28 Mr. Feinberg, if you remember, Mr. Parks, that your l
diT TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.f ij _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __________________l
792
. 1 suggestion to Mr. Chwastyk that Bubba Marshall might sign
/cg
\'
2 off on the load test procedure was meant as a joke? 3 A. I couldn't tell you if I told him at that point 1- 4 in time that I was being f acetious or not. 5 MR. HICKEY: I told Mr. Parks earlier for his I
, ; 6 planning purposes that I'd try to stop by 5:00 and I went 7 on a little bit. So why don't we --
8 THE WITNESS: Well, why don't we -- 9 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me, Mr. Parks. 10 THE WITNESS: Well, I just wanted'a question 11- about scheduling that's all. 1 12 MS. ZU RAS : Well, why don't we go off the 13 record for just a second. And if it appears it's
< 14 something that should be on the record, I'll be happy to (r 15 go back on the record.
16 (Discussion of f the record.)
^ 17 (Brief recess.)
18 MR. HICKEY: Back on the record. 19 Q. Mr. Parks, I want to direct your attention to a
, 20 new subject area, if I can.
,' 21 In about shortly before you were suspended from 22 the site, which you remember was on March 24th, you had
. 23 occasion to meet at least once, maybe more than once, 24 with an FBI agent in Harrisburg named Brinkley. Do you 25 r emember that? j 26 ' A. Y es. l s l 27 Q. Before you were suspended? '
b' 28 A. Y es. 1
.y . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l
)
4,.___T__.________-_.__..______.____________._.________________._-- J 793 q
.y 1 Q. -Okay. Did you meet more than once with him
., p 2 ' before you were suspended?
s 1 3 A. I believe so, .but I really couldn't swear to it.
,'.~
4 Q. .Well, I'want to ask 'you about a meeting that I
; 5 believe was about March 21 with Mr. Brinkley, but I'can't 6 swear to the date for you, to see if that fits with your 7 recollection of it. An incident where you had a 8 conversation with Mr. Brinkley about Keith Christopher of
- i; 9 the Office of Investigations.
10 Do you remember having . a discussion with Mr.
; 11 Brinkley about Mr. Christopher?
., 12 A. No, not particularly. But, you know, if'you 13 have in your possession some documents that might jog my
< 14 memory, by all means.
Q 15 Q. Well, let me try to do it without the documents 16 first, since it's been suggested that the documents might 17 somehow conf use you. 18 Do you remember having a discussion with Mr. 19 Brinkley in which, according to your report of it, Mr.
.. 20 Brinkley told you that Keith Christopher of the Office of-21' Investigations had described you and Larry King as l
I 22 leaders of a gang of malcontents? t, 23 MR. JOHNSON: Please don't answer that question.
. 24 I'm going to object on the grounds of relevance.
, 25 And also, I think although this is no 1 26 instruction as to the scope of this deposition because it 1
, 27 was voluntarily attended, it strikes me as very similar b:/ 28 to the kinds of questions which were barred from the
'a f .
l .f.jj TOOKER '& ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l 2.:] _. __ __-___-_-- _____- ___ _ _ - . _
- 4. -
,, 794-
,9 l' Meeks deposition as inquiring into the validity and-a gr3. ,
2 impropriety of staf f conduct.- And that is I'm afraid. 3 what this sounds like. h '4 MR. HICKEY 2 It's not related to' staff -- well, 5- okay. He stated his objections., l
,:l 6 Q. Can you answer, Mr. Parks? l
,. 7 "MS. ZURAS : Well, I will, based-upon your O representation, instruct the witness not to answer. I 9 MR. HICKEY: Well, I don't think counsel is 10 making a representation that this question or a question 11 like it is precluded from some- kind of order that'a been
'12 entered, are you?
13 MR. JOHNSON: No, I'm not. 14 MR. HICKEY: Q. Okay.
,; (j ; 15 A. I really don't know. I really can't recall a ;
16 lot of the details, or actually very few' of the details 17 of any of the meetings I had with Ron Brinkley. 18 MR. HICKEY: All right. Let me see if this 19 will ref resh you at all. I need to have the reporter
. 20 mark as the next exhibit a document, six pages. I'll try -
21 to find a clean exhibit. This one has about three'small
,- 22 pencil marks in it that are not part of the original 23 exhibit. But if I can find one that doesn't have them, I
.2 '24 will substitute.
; 25 Anyh ow , this document which I'm asking the 26 reporter to mark as the next exhibit is a U.S. Nuclear
, 27 Regulatory Commission report of interview, date of
.in k 28 transcription September 1,1983, of an investigation on
...- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i
-u - _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ - - - - -
195 g , 1- June 23, 1983. j #;g 2 MS. ZU RAS : It's important that you listen to l
. 3 what he's saying.
i: 4 MR. HICKEY: In which Mr. Parks was interviewed, 5 Mr. Parks, accompanied by his counsel, Mr. Devine, was
., 6 interviewed by the Office of Inspector and Auditor.
7 MR. LEWIS: 58. -) I 8 MR. HICKEY: And this will be Exhibit 58. i j 9 (Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit 58 i 10 was marked for identification.) ~ i e 11 MR. HICKEY: Okay. I'm handing to the witness 12 what has been marked as Exhibit 58 to Mr. Parks's 13 deposition and I want to direct the witness -- well, let 14 me ask a preliminary question first. v, 15 Q. Have you seen before, Mr. Parks, this Exhibit
'?
(31 16 58 which has been placed in front of you? s
.17 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Let me -- I'm going to 18 interpose an objection. I think I may have misstated the 19 fact in stating my previous objection.
20 It seems to me that inquiries into the conduct
~
21 of NRC investigations are beyond the scope of discovery 22 as indicated in the Administrative Law Judge's 1986, 23 August the 13th,1986 memorandum and order following a
. 24 pre-hearing conference in which the judge sets out six 25 areas for discovery.
. 26 Unless counsel can indicate to me how these 27 questions about Brinkley and the conduct of OI or OIA km 28 investigations are relevant to this proceeding, I am 4
t t*,: TOOKER & ANTz 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 q
- n. rP
'E 196L
.J.
'l,
.. 1 ' going.to object to further questioning on this subject.
.j -
2 MR. HICKEY: Well, the exhibit, as you may not v 3 have seen yet, is 'a record of an interview of Mr. Parks - _l
+- 4 and I'm not inquiring -- I'm inquiring about matters 5 relevant to Mr. Parks's credibility, namely, statements
'['
6 that he made in this interview. The subject matter of 7 the statements is Mr. Christopher and Mr. Brinkley, but
,. 8 the statements are Mr. Parks's statements.
}}. 9 MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'll let you proceed, but I
~
10 reserve my right to make further objections.
'll Do you have'a copy for me?
g
- .12 MR. HICKEY: I don't think I do right here, but
} 13 I suspect you probably have one. Let me just ask the
.' 14 witness --
,., b. 15 MR. JOHNSON: Not with me.
16 MS. ZURAS : Okay. Before you ask the witness 17 any question, I'm sorry , there was a lot of activity
.' 18 going on in front of me and I didn't hear all of your 19 representation as to what it was. And I'll ask the Court c 20 Reporter to read it back rather than to trouble you to --
21 MR. HICKEY: Well, I just tried to describe the 22 document. Why don't you just look at the document 23 yourself and see what it is. I just described the date 24 and the title and it was six pages.
., 25 MS. ZURAS: Well, I guess I have no basis of
,f 26 objecting to your characterization of it unless I've
., 27 heard what your characterization is. So that's --
- b' 28 MR. HICKEY: Well, why don' t I not characterize
.i 131 Steuart Street San Francisco ,;.). TOOKER & ANTZ 94105 415/392-0650
. s.:w - _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ --
197
's
.,, 1 it. Let's just. call it Exhibit 58.
. , rig 4 v 2 Q. The question that's pending, Mr. Parks,.In case 3 you've forgotten it, is have you seen Exhibit 58 before?-
, 4 A. Well, I want to look at it now.
, 5 Q. Sure.
?! 6 A. I'm not trying to be f acetious, just I haven't S 7 had a chance to look at it yet.
l l i-8 Q.- Have you had a chance to review the document,
'+0] 9 Mr. Parks?
c .
' S. 10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. My question is whether you've seen it before. l
. 12 A. I believe I have seen it once before.
[ 13 Q. When was that?. , i
/ 14 A. After it was: published.
(['; 15 O. Well, I guess I could have guessed that. Can 16 you be any more specific? Well, I'd have to say between September 1st of ll7 A. 18 1983 and oh,.I don't know, probably around July of 1985. 19 Or '84. o 20 Q. Sometime in that time f rame? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Why did you put the July -- did you say '85 or
, 23 '847 s
.- 24 A. '84.
- 25 Q. Why do you put July '84 on that as the end of
, 26 it?
27 A. Because I believe during that time frame was in/ 28 when all the published reports came to light. tpd, - TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650'
\ ...a---____---_-_-_ '
- - - - - . - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - -
l 798 l' i 1 Q. Okay. (m 2 A. And I can't pinpoint any better than that.
~ N. .
3 Q. Okay. You saw this as part of a published 4 report, you believe? 5 A. I believe so, yes. 6 Q. Okay. I want to direct your attention to the
. 7 f ourth page in. Again, this is another document that 8 doesn't seem to have page numbers on it. But if you'll 9 go back to the fourth page and look to the next to the 10 last paragraph on that page, that's a paragraph that
, 11 begins, quote, " Parks described a separate incident
. 12 involving Christopher."
.' 13 Let me direct you specifically to that
^ 14 paragraph.
([
~
15 A. Okay. 16 Q. You see where we are? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Have you read that paragraph? 19 A. Yes, I have. 20 Q. Do you recall, Mr. Parks, having a discussion 21 with Ron Brinkley on or about March 21, 1983, where Mr. 22 Brinkley told you that he had had a conversation with 23 Christopher, Keith Christopher, where Christopher 24 described you and Mr. King as, quote, " leaders of a gang 25 of malcontents"? l 26 A. At this point in time, Mr. Hickey, I do not ; 27 have any additional information at my disposal to dispute k.s 28 the statement that appears in here because I can't recall
,< TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1 .:t
d
. 799
.. .t 1 if'I had that meeting-or not. And if'that was said or
. 7. :- 2 not.
.- 3 Q.- You don't have any -- but your testimony is you i- 4 don't have any basis to dispute this report of it?
k 5 A. Well, my basis is I' don't recall having a 6 meeting with Mr. Brinkley or.if that was discussed or not. i f 7 (Discussion of f the record.) 8 MR. HICKEY: Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you a 9 dif ferent question. This document, ' Exhibit 58, says that 10 it's the report of interview by Patrick McKenna, Jr.,
' :.s 11 . investigator, on June 23, 1983, at Bethesda, Maryland.
12 Do you recall meeting, you and Mr. Devine, with 13 Patrick McKenna, Jr. , of the NRC on June 23 at Bethesda, e., 14 Maryland, to discuss matters relating to Three Mile {} 15 ' Island? 16 A. Well, I recall having a meeting with somebody 17 'from the OIA of the NRC with Tom Devine present during l . - l' 18 the summer of 1983. So that's -- I guess that was the 19 man -- I guess that was the date. 20 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Guess, guess. We're 21 not interested in guesses, please. This is why I'm 22 concerned about getting tired in the evening. What you y 23 can recall, not guesses, please. 24 MR. HICKEY: Q. You met with an OIA person,
*- 25- but you don't recall the man's name? Is that your 26 t estimony ?
. 27 A. Or the date.
Ici 28 Q. Or the date. But that was in the summer of
' }.j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 A. _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ .
g . _. . -.- - -- - - - -- -- - - - - -- -..-- - - .
~
800
.- 1
. .. 1 19837
. . 2 A. Righ t.
{.? - 4, 3 Q. But Devine was there and it was' in Bethesda? O 4 A. I believe.so, yes. 5 Q. jDo you recall af ter the reports were published 6 that you described up to the time period of, I guess July
. 7 ' 84, you said, when you saw this document, making any 8 statement or making any complaint about the accuracy of
.. l. i 9 the OIA interview of you that had been held in June of-
;; 10 '837 Summer of '837
'f 11 MS. EURAS: Excuse me.. Could you clarify? Do 12 you mean a complaint to the NRC or just making note of 13 some problem that he had with the report?
14 MR. HICKEY: A complaint to the NRC. o(}; 15 THE WITNESS: If memory serves me' correctly at 16 this time, I believe that there was a complaint lodged , , 17 with the NRC regarding the accuracy. of the OIA report. 1 l . 18 MR. HICKEY: Q. Lodged by you or on your l 1 19 behalf ? 1 20 A. On my behalf. l.e 21 Q. By Mr. Devine? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. I assume you knew it was being lodged? 24 A. Yes.
'l 25 O. And authorized it?
26 A. Yes. 1 1 i
. 27 Q. To be done on your behalf, I mean.
,g Vs 28 A. Yes. If memory serves me correctly at this
*j. .
TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 mm &_______ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - .
801 1 moment. g,' 2 Q. .Following your -- I'm saying "your." Following
. 3 the lodging of the complaint on your behalf, did you have 4 a later meeting or interview with representatives of the
; 5 Office of Irspector and Auditor to address your
.. 6 complaints?
-: 7 A. I believe I did.
[ 8 Q. Was that about the summer of 1985, Mr. Parks?
,$ 9 A. I believe it was.
10 Q. And was the purpose of your meeting with the ;
< 11 office of Inspector and Auditor in 1985 to obtain any 12 clarification or corrections or additional information 13 that you had felt was not adequately reported in this 14 Exhibit 587
([' 15 A. To be perfectly honest with you, Mr. Hickey, I 16 can't really recall what all we did discuss during that ] 17 meeting. 18 Q. I'm asking you if you remember why the meeting I I J 19 was net up. l 20 A. Well, the meeting was set up, to the best of my 21 recollection, anyway, because I was dissatisfied with 22 the way they handled the original investigation and the 23 inaccuracies that we perceived to be in the original
< \
24 report of which I -- you know, this is part of, I reckon.
,, - 25 Q. Part of it. So the interview was for you to 26 say your piece about what those inaccuracies were; is 27 that right?
E 28 A. I guess that would be a f air statement.
's 1 TOOKER & ANTZ 94105 415/392-0650 , J', Z 131 Steuart Street San Francisco t
, , . _ . _ - - - - _ . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - ~ ~ ~ -
<; 802
,h l~ MR; JOHNSON: Don't guess.
. :n, -2 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's a bad expression on
' 'a
, 3 my.part. Yes. It was a vehicle or a forum for 4 complaints to be lodged.
; 5 MR. HICKEY: Q. And in the. July '83 or summer "d 6 '83 interview that you' had with the Office of . Inspector 3
. 7 and Auditor, do you have any recollection of addressing
.]
8 this~ question'of whether or not.this paragraph in Exhibit 9 58 about Brinkley telling you that Christopher'said you 10 and King were leaders of a gang of malcontents -- did you 11 criticize or attack the accuracy of that statement in the. Pq 12 summer of 1985 to OIA?
, 13- A. I don't recall at this point in time if I . M 14 addressed that issue in 1985 'or not.
{,4 15 Q. Mr. Parks, can you, to the best of your
, 16 recollection, tell me where you think you met with Mr. i
17- Brinkley. in' about March of '83 in the Harrisburg area?
18 A. I could narrow it down to about three places 19 for you. 20 Q. What would those places be? 21 A. His house, my girlf riend's house, or the FBI 22 office in Harrisburg. 23 Q. Okay. But the particular -- do you have any i 24 recollection of having a particular meeting with Mr. 25 Brinkley in one of those three places where you discussed 26 Mr. Christopher? 27 MS. EURAS: I think he's testified -- well.
% :. V. 28 THE WITNESS: No. I cannot provide any ,4 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 . .a . - _ _ _ . __. . _ _ . -
': L; 803 a
1 M,' 1 amplifying details at this moment.
') , 2 MR. HICKEY: Q. Okay. When you were interviewed by OIA in 1985 to express your complaints and
. 3
;h- 4 so on, do you recall that there was a record, a j 5 transcript made of that interview, Mr. Parks?
.U. 6 A. I believe there was.
.- 7 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the
. 8 transcript that was made of that interview?
9 A. I could not tell you at this moment if I 10 reviewed it or not.
.: 11 Q. Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 58 again, if ** j 12 you would, please, and I will direct your attention to a 13 different portion of it.
1 14 okay. It's on the fif th page, the one af ter
" (j 15- the page we just looked at before. It's in the middle of 16 the page, the paragraph that begins, quote, "As another
;5 17- example of alleged impropriety on the part of Barrett, 18 Parks described an April 22,.1983, address reportedly
., 19 made by Barrett to the Concerned Mothers of Middletown,"
, 20 and so on.
, 21 Would you read that paragraph, please. !
.- 22 A. Okay.
.'- 23 Q. Do you recall in June of 1983 indicating to an I
'"! 24 OIA investigator in the presence of Mr. Devine that Mr.
1 j
- . ; 25 Lake Barrett of the NRC had made a statement to the
. . .) 26 Concerned Mothers of Middletown that there were
. 27 essentially no saf ety problems associated with the pola-a f 4
.. B '
28 crane? 1 1 - [
. .i!
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.h ___ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _
,.3,;.____--_--.-~---.-----~-~~----------
804 jn f3 - ,
" . I. - 1; .A. 'I can recall discussing ~ the general topic but
[ p. 2 not using that phraseology.
..j , 3 Q. I'm sorry. Could you say that again? I didn't
,. :..;< 4 hear you.
5 A. I said I can recall talking about the' general 6 topic, but not using that phraseology.
; 7- Q. Discussing the topic <with the OIA investigator?
1-8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Well, whatever phraseology you used, was the 4
- 10 concern you were expressing to the OIA investigator that 11 Lake Barrett was deceiving the concerned Mothers of
)
12 Middletown? I
. , 13 A. Well, I think it would be -- it's kinda hard to 14 explain because that's not what I said. And so you're
,(.
- 15 asking me to draw a conclusion or to make a statement of }
16 fact based on something that's recorded erroneously. 17 Q. Well, I'm asking you -- no. What I'm trying to ( 18 ask you is did you tell Mr. -- the OIA investigator whose d 19 name you've forgotten, did you tell that gentleman that
,s 20 you were concerned because Mr. Barrett had misled or l 21 misinformed the Concerned Mothers of Middletown?
, 22 A. I was of the opinion that Lake Barrett was
- 23 misleading the Concerned Mothers of Middletown regarding
' 1
. 24 me, specifically.
,,5 - 25 Q. On this specific occasion, the April 22, 1983 26 address?
4 27 A. I have no reason at present to dispute that bf
; 28 date.
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 w.
,.._- -.----- ------- -- - --- l 805 n
5 1 Q. And in what way did you understand that Mr. l 3 {., 2 Barrett was misleading the Concerned Mothers of i 3 Middletown about you?
. , 4 MS. EURAS: Could you read that question back?
5 (Question r ead.) 6 THE WITNESS: You'll have to bear with me while 7 I recall the conversation. 8 Now, if I recall the way everything went,
., 9 sometime after I went public at TMI, filed my complaint 10 with the NRC and the Department of Labor, Lake Barrett 11 had a meeting, a public meeting with Concerned Mothers of
, 12 Middletown and the topic of, you know, what were all
. 13 these engineers doing making these complaints at TMI came 14 up.
15 And although I can't remember the exact i 5 Q: 16 wordings for the lif e of me, Lake Barrett basically 17 passed it off as a fact that I was going public to cover ; 18 my involvement more or less with the Quiltec matters but j 19 that I kind of jumped the gun, I shouldn't have dcne it 20 because the investigation would have exonerated me anyway.
. 21 He did not address the f act that there were saf ety 22 concerns involved.
d 23 I was lef t with the impression that it was more 24 he attempted to impugn my motives and paint me as having
. J. 25 ulterior motives and was trying to draw the heat and 26 light away f rom my behind-the-scene actions as he 27 perceived th em.
V' 28 MR. HICKEY: Q. Were you present on this l l
". TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- i----.--.-.---.----------------------
, _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ . _ _ - _ _ _ - - . _ . - - . _ - - - . ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -
.j 806 I l e s, . '. , 1 occasion when Mr. Barrett allegedly made these comments?
x i 2 A. No, sir, I did not.
\.m )
1 3 Q. How do you learn that?
~
4 A. From a friend of mine who was a Concerned a 5 Mother of Middletown. I should say she was more a friend
)
6 of my girlfirend. She was a concerned Mother of 7 Middletown.
.- 8 Q. She was a member of the organization? [
9 A. Yes. i, 10 Q. What was her name? 11 A. Joyce Cratti. Don't even ask me how to spell 7 12 it. 13 Q. But like Cratti? / 14 A. Yes. She was Italian. Or is. 1
.( 15 O. Did you speak to Miss Cratti about this meeting?
16 A. Yes.
- 17 Q. And did she tell you that she had been at this
..) 18 meeting?
19 A. Y es.
, 20 Q. And did she tell you she heard Mr. Barrett make
,j 21 th ese comments?
, 22 A. Y es .
. 23 Q. And do you recall Miss Cratti telling you 24 specifically that Mr. Barrett said specifically there 25 were no saf ety problems associated with the polar crane 26 issue?
...- 27 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Are you quoting this
- . ie.. 28 report? Because he's just stated that it's inaccurate 4
K ;; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 n w ._ - _. _ _ ._
s .- TE, 807
- u. . ..g
, l. l : '
.no,
.f, ,
- 1 and h'e's ~ just described for you what it is'he was told.
,t . ,1 gp 2L MR. HICKEY: Well, he's described some things.
_3- I'm asking specifically --
'*L MS. ZURAS:
q 4 Why don't you ask!-- b; ' S~ MR. HICKEY: -- whether Miss Cratti --
.- 6 Q. Whether Miss- Cratti; told _ you there were no
.. 7- safety. problems associated with the' polar crane.
8 A. I;have explained to you, sir, eve'rything I can
- . 9 recall regarding the conversation that was related to me
.- 10 by a Concerned Mother of Middletown. I have no 11 additional recall at the moment.
?= 12 .Q. You don't recall whether Miss Cratti said that
~
13 or not? : s !
, 14 A. 'I;-- I think I've given you the best of my
, '{,. 15- r ecollec ticn. -
i l 16 Q. I!m just trying to understand what the best of 17 your r recollection is. You don't have a recollection of
.1 18 her saying that, right? {
19 A. That's basically true, I guess. Well -- 20 Q. Well, don't you know whether it's true or not? ' J
! 21 A. Here's the thing, okay? I've told you what I J I
22 can recall and you're probing for more and I can't give
, 23 you more.
. 24 Q. Then the answer is yeah, you don't have a 25 recollection of her saying that, right?
.y 26 MS. ZURAS: No. The answer is his recollection
' :. 27 is he doesn't have a recollection either way.
, , I kr . 28 MR. HICKEY: Well, I think that's the same
; ,7,? TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 !
2
.1 % f 4_. _ _ _ _ _ __._. _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
,..( --- .
- 808
. ' ,'; , 1 thing. Bu t a nyway , we --
't (;;, 2 MR. JOHNSON: Then there's no reason to go n
3 further.
'. 4 MR. HICKEY: Q. When you testified before the
~ '. 5 Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Interior 6 and Insular Af f airs Committee on April 26th,1983, you 7 had a prepared statement that you provided to the
~ 8 committee, did you not?
9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. Do you remember addressing with the committee 11 claims about statements made to you by concerned Mothers
. ,l 12 of Middletown who had had discussions with Lake Barrett? . 13 A. Could you one run that past me again?
14 Q. Sure. Do you remember discussing with the
. (q., 15 House Committee when you gave your statement the f act 16 that you had had discussions with Concerned Mothers of 17 Middletown who had heard Mr. Barrett make charges about
. 18 you?
19 A. I could not tell you at this moment whether 20 that was in my prepared statement or not.
, 21 MR. HICKEY: Let me ask the reporter to mark as 22 Exhibit 59 to Mr. Parks's deposition this document which
, 23 is titled " Prepared Statement of Richard D. Parks before
.', 24 the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House l 25 Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C., j 26 April 26th, 1983."
.; 27 This copy actually has a prior exhibit sticker l
~, bo' 28 on it f rom an earlier deposition or Mr. Parks,' but I'd l
- '. ;f TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l
\n s L ___ . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --
- _.__Z.___________-- . - _. - __ .._._ _ _ . _ - .. _ _ .._ _ _ _ _ - _
'.:.- 809
./,;
- 'g f 1 ask the Reporter to mark it with today's date and Exhibit
,;.. {lg 2 Number 59.
- V- 3 (Whereupon, Def endant's Exhibit 59 4 was marked for identification.)
., 5 MR. HICKEY: Q. Take a look at that, if you .. 6 would, please, Mr. Parks, and then I wanted to direct you 7 specifically to some material on page six that's marked 8 by a clip.
9 Have you reviewed that exhibit, Mr. Parks?
,5 10 A.- No, sir, but I've reviewed the paragraph that 11 you have the paperclip on.
,1 12 Q. Okay. Well, do you'rocognize the exhibit as 13 being your. prepared statement submitted to the House
'4 .
14 Committee in April of 1983?
, ,, {) 15 A. Yes, sir.
16 V. Okay. I assume you wrote that statement, did 17_ you?
- 18 A. No, sir.
19 Q. Did you participate in the writing of it with
, 20 your attorney? .. 21 A. I reviewed it.
i
, 22 Q. And did you approve what was contained in the
.a 23 statement?
24 A. I didn't take exception with anything that was 25 in the statement.
; 26 Q. Well, you authorized its filing with the
.., 27 committee of the United States Congress, did you not? l
~
28 A. It was -- I guess I could say it was presented i l$*I TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 3:
. nn , _____-._._._______._---_____---_--_-_-_.j
.~,_,y _ - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
810 [ .?' . *
, f, ,, l' to be a prepared statement to the Interior and insular- !
p 2- Affairs Committee, but I didn't speak f rom- it.
,, - A.q
; ., 3 Q.- ' Well, let me get something clear. I'm assuming' L ,.j:: 4 because this says " Prepared ~ Statement of- Richard Parks to
'5' 5 the House Committee" that you authorized the' preparation-6 and ' filing of this statement with the House Committee.
.- 7 Now, if you didn't do that, we ought to get i 8 that clear.
i'[ 9 A. No, sir, I gave my concurrence to submit to it 10 th e committee. J .]. ' 11 Q. Did anybody participate in the preparation of i 12 it besides you and your lawyer? l' 13 ~A. No. 14 Q.- Okay. Now, look at the material that has been 3 (} 4 15 clipped there on page six. That relates to a discussion i 16 which you claim in your statement you had with some 17 Concerned Mothers of Middletown. And I've got a couple
- c. 18 specific questions to you.
4 19 Is the conversation you're referring to in 20 Exhibit 59 the same conversation you've just told us
},: 21 about with Miss cratti?
., 22 A. Y es .
, , 23 Q. So there were other people beside Miss cratti l
l
.; 24 in the conversation?
)
,. 25 A. Well, there were actually two ladies that were
,. 26 members of the Concerned Mothers of Middletown that were
;. ' 27 fricnds of my girlfriend. And both of them were involved
' k I. 28 in the conversation, but the only one whose name I can
'l :
a
, T.[y; ;
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 A Ef% ' '
a + :.c . q 811 i
)
7, , 1 remember was Joyce Cratti's.
',j , r," , 2 Q. Okay. But these two women, one of whom was I V
>' 3 Miss Cratti, do you remember them explaining to you that I p/ 4 Mr. Barrett had charged these f our items listed here as 5 one, two, three and four, namely, that Barrett's
.. 6 explanation of your charges was,"one, it was all a turf I 7 fight; two, an unnecessary dispute was created because I 8 couldn't back down and had to have my own way; three, 9 there are questions about the emotional stability of the
, 10 whistleblowers; and four, the reason I challenged the 11 polar crane was to divert attention from an investigation 12 into my own conflicts of interest," close quote?
; 13 Do you remember Miss Cratti and her companion b
14 reporting to you those statements allegedly made by Mr.
,,(, 15 Barrett? -
16 A. Now, if I recall at the time, that was a fair 17 paraphrasing of what they had related to me, yes. And
. 18 what'I had tried to recall previously to this question.
19 Q. Could you say that again? I'm sorry. I didn't 20 hear what you said. 21 A. I said that that was a paraphrasing of what the 22 ladies had related to me. And that was the same -- if I 23 remember correctly, the question or so before this, I
. 24 told you you'd have to bear with me while I tried to 25 recall, you know, what was related to me. And that's 26 what I was trying to recall.
l 27 Q. And do you have any recollection as you sit [* 28 here today, Mr. Parks, of ever being told that Mr. i!j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
..y isi - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
- . *,1 '
r , ,
} /g _ 1 Barrett 'had said to the Concerned Mothers of Middletown
,,- j.i f {h 2 thatL the polar crane issues were not -- that there were e . .y 3 no. safety problems associated with the polar crane?
' ,h Oc, 4 MR. JOHNSON: liould=you mind reading back the 5 question? 'I'm sorry.
.. 6 (Question read.)
7 MS. EURAS: Now wait a minute. .You're asking 8 him whether or not any of this that you've presented to 9 him has jogged his recollection that that's'--
, 10 MR. HICKEY: I'm asking'him if he has a
-j~ ,
11 recollection now, yes. .
.,- 12 THE WITNESS: I want to make sure I understand' 13 the question.
j 4 14 MR. HICKEY: Q. Sure. 7}.(' 15 A. 'Your question was asking me whether or not I 16 could recall whether or not any Concerned Mother of 17 Middletown related to me that Lake Barrett relayed to
.y l 18 them that there were no safety problems with the polar 19 crane? Did I understand your question correctly?
J 20 Q. Yes. t, 21 A. I don't recall. Not from reading this.
.. 22 Q. -I'm going to show you, Mr. Parks, just in an 23 effort to refresh your recollection, a portion of a
. .. 24 document which is a transcript of the interview of 25 Richard D. Parks by the Office of Inspector and Auditor 26 dated Tuesday, June 25, 1985,'and I'm going to direct you 27 to a portion of the transcript, specifically page 34, a
_.: / 28 paragraph that begins at line 14 and basically goes down
,;e 1
?lp!* TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.?,
e h - - - - - - ' - - - - ' " - " - - - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - - ' - - -
k.q._.
~
~
,_~ -------- .
i Ji' 813 ,
-ah. '
*e-
, U 7. 1 .to line 25. a g}y 2 LLet me ask yck :o read those lines on page 34,
,7 ,
'- J M, 3' pleas e. 1
)
. , 1
'; a- 4- MS. ZURAS: Bty,aning on page nine? I mean ..e4
, a 5 line nine? I'm sorry. .l
[4 < 6 MR. HICKEY: 14, I think I.said. q
'rj 7 MS. ZURAS: 14. '
8 MR. HICKEY: It's where the paragraph starts. A
-i 9 MR. JOHNSON: For the record, I believe there i
\
10 are some deletions from the transcript. Is that correct? 11 MR. HICKEY: I believe that is right. I think
*i 12 that's the transcript as it was produced to us.
13 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I don't recall 14 specifically, but I think that we produced that to you (() 15 with some deletions of identifying information for 16 privacy reasons for something like that. Okay. 17 MR. HICKEY: Q. My question really is whether 18 having read that material, . Mr. Parks, you now have any i 19 recollection of having claimed that Mr. Barrett had told 20 the Concerned Mothers of Middletown that there were 1 21 basically no safety problems associated with the polar
. '22 crane? ,. 23 MS. ZURAS: Hold on a second. Are you asking 24 him whether or not in his June 25, 1985, interview he 4 2 25 made the statements that are here, or are you referring i 26 back to this -- and I don't think we've really agreed'on
- . ' ^
27 what the date was, but this 'ref erence to Barrett back in
, ; [J. i 28 the OIA report that's dated September 1, 19837
.i .
;('g - TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 2
9( g __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ --
1
.,n.._.~_.__-_..-_.-.--.----.------------- )
,? , 814 i, .y ,
7 1
- /. j 1 MR. HICKEY: It's a simple question. The
, f; : .g 2 question is whether.. reading --
. 3 MS. ZU RAS: Well, I know, Mr. Hickey, that I'm
)
': 4 not as bright as you apparently are, but to me, I have a 3 , ,, 5 concern about the vagueness of the question. I J
.6 MR. HICKEY: Well, I'm trying to clarify it.
II 7 There is no implication about your brightness or lack of 8 i t. All I'm trying to see is whether Mr. Parks q remembers -- having read those lines of the transcript I
. 9 10 directed him to, whether he remembers making a claim that 11 Mr. Barrett had said to the Concerned Mothers of 12 Middletown that there were no'saf ety problems with the 13 polar crane.
. 14 THE WITNESS: I believe earlier, a f ew minutes
,- 15 ago, I testified that I did not recall having reviewed 16 this transcript. But based on my limited review of the
. 17 paragraphs involved, I believe there is a statement that 18 appears at the top of page 35 that says, "All you can see s
19 here he is saying there is no problems with the polar
. 20 crane that he wasn't aware of. "
_ 21 So I don't know how else I could answer your 22 question, Mr. Hickey. I don't have any independent
,- 23 recollection of what you're asking me. But I don't see
, 1 24 anything in here that would lead me to believe that I
' 25 ever made that type of statement.
26 MR. HICKEY: Q. I'm sorry ?
. . .; 27 A. I don't have any recollection better than what
. (,
.,C- 28 you're showing me here.
' Y;.] TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
~. - - _ - - - _ - - - _ - - _ - _
w
/, , / 815 my ..
j;; 1 Q.' I understand you have no recollection. That's Q, 2 a partial answer. But.then.you said something else. You
. .i( 3 don't see anything in there that leads you to believe you l
,x; 4 made the statement?
, . c c, 5 A. That's correct.
,( 2 6 Q. What about the language I directed you to? Let
- s. . 7 me'just come over here and look.
8 Doesn't the document that's in front of you on
<d -
- 9. page 34 quote you -- maybe you need to go back to see
; 10 that -- the witness, who is Mr. Parks, doesn't this + 1 11 document indicate that you, Mr. Parks, said, starting 12 here at line 19, referring to paragraphs where I talk 13 about Barrett addressing the Concerned Mothers in 14 .Middletown, that that was part of the testimony.
15 You're saying one of the Concerned Mothers of (]) 16 Middletown even went to the Congressional hearing in
. 17 April 1983 to give was the f act that Barrett assured them 18 there was no problems at TMI 2, there was nothing wrong
, 19 with the polar and that the people who were raising all 20 those problems had ulterior motives.
. 21 I just want to understand. You don't recall
< 22 you said what these words are saying? ;
.f 23 A. No. I'm saying, number one, I don't recall
~ '.
24 reviewing this or having the opportunity to make 4 l 25 corrections to it and sending it back to NRC. And second
.1
. 26 of all, I think you're intentionally omitting the top M 27 line on the next page where it continues on talking about ;
&, \
,.-q? ,
U 28 th e repor t, OIA report to say that "All you can see here
.vi e
{'f.1, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 J:L-___--_______ _ - - - - -. _- _ --- I
,._,. . - . . ~ ~ ~ - ~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - -
,3 816-ra s .. / ; j j 1 is he's-saying there's no problem with the polar crane j
,Cy 2 he's not aware of."
ll
.\ 3 I don't think you can take that statement out l
. 4 of context with this statement and make beans.
If that
, t 5 makes sense.
] 6 Q. Well, let me.put it to you this way: Is it
'r; 7 your testimony that to the best of your recollection, you !
8 did not say what's on page 34 and 35 of this transcript?
.I 9 A. I am telling you once again, as I testified 10 previously, I do not recall reviewing this and I 11 definitely do not recall having been presented with the 12 opportunity to make corrections based on any review that 13 I would have performed. l 14 Q. I understand that. But that's not my question.
(; 15 I understand you didn' t review it. You don't believe you 16 had an opportunity to review it and you don't recall 17 making cor rections to it. But that's not my question.
. 18 My question is do you have a recollection one i 19 way or the that other that you said or didn't say the 20 material that's on page 34 and 357
. 21 A. I think I answered that, not more than four or
. 22 five long winded answers ago, af ter reading that I could
. . 23 not recall at this point in time whether I said that at j
'; 24 this point in time.
4 25 Q. Is that true as to both page 34 and 357 26 A. I can only base my responses on this review for
'. . . 27 this comment. ,
,j 28 Q. That 's not clear to me. Is your comment
.Y d'!k TOOIGR & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,,
.h.L _- - _ - _ __
__.-'w.
,-- -,-e-- ==--**-*~*--~+w .--e- -+- - ..-- - - h- - - ---* +=- - -
1];' 817 i s s .n
." i. T . <
n oy . {,g 1 directed to both page 34 and -5 or just page 34?' Your 2, comment saying'you' don't -- l g /. ;, = {,. l s 7, . 3- A. 'I'm telling you I don't remember anything s; . 4. relevant-to this whole thing 'and-I'tried to clarify,it
~> 5 = with 'the f act .not only had I not reviewed it, .but I can -
J+
,- 6 distinctly say. I recall not being presented with the ., 7 opportunity to make any comments or; corrections to it.
[. 8 So I don't guess I understand the question. i .' , 9 MS. ZURAS : Well, it's a little after 6:00,--or 10 at least my watch says that. And why don't we adjourn -l
;. s -
- 11 THE WITNESS: Sounds like a winner to me. ]
' l
;$ 12 - MR. HICKEY: See you tomorrow,' Mr. Parks.
]
. 13 (Whereupon, the deposition was adjourned to: be
. 14 continued on Wednesday, August 19, 1987, at 9:00 o' clock <
.: \
(-[ 15 a.m.) ! l 16 17
]
. - 18 ________________________________
.. 19 WITNES S ' SIGNATURE 20
., 21 22
.- s 23
.h '
24 i 1
, -/ 2 25 i
. ,., 26
.r
.,,,' 27
.'.',b 28 .
' ' 'f .
l
. .r e
n .1 ij f ?, - TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,
.;aa w--- ___ _ _ _ - _.
r
.;, , , , , , (.,:,
a = -n.~.-n---~~--...;. :, c - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~x
. , 818 y .s 1 STATE OF' CALIFORNIA ' ) ;
1 (rr*.,.
... 2 i : ss. / .b 3 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )
i,. i 4 I, Rebecca L. Luc e, a' Notary Public of the c,i: 5 State of California, hereby certify that the witness in I
.' 6 the foregoing deposition was by me duly af firmed to I 7 testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the i
, 8 truth in the within-entitled cause; that said deposition 9 was taken at the time and place therein stated; that the '
testimony of the said witness was reported by me and was
. 10
- l. .
11 thereaf ter transcribed under my direction into j 12 typewriting by computer; that the foregoing is a full, , 13 cor.plete and true record of said testimony; and that the i 14 witness was given an opportunity to read and correct said
) 15 ' deposition and to subscribe the same. Should the I 16 signature of the witness not be affixed to the 17 deposition, the witness shall not have availed himself of I I
18 the opportunity to sign or the signature has been waived. 19 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 1 20 attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing ] l 21 deposition and caption named, or in any way interested in '
. 22 the outcome of the cause named in said caption.
23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand )
. 24 and af fixed my seal of of fice 4th day of September, 1987.
- i l
25 f ( .-
]
.- 'r 26 ~
*~~* '
. .; 27 __ ___. . ._ REBECCA L. LUCE, NOTARY PUBLIC e
. 4 OFFICIAL $EAL
, , 28 war,REbECCA L LUCE av pusuc. CAUFORNIA In and For the State of Callfornia
) '
' CITY ANDC0uht 0f SANTRANCl$CC i
l Mr Comm bpwes feb78.1991
. s,
{ A;;'.e:U TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l
.A . :a ..
. . , , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . m. . . . . . . . . ~ . , . . . . >
. \
a, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON f Office of Inspector and Auditor I o.w.eo,nunen. September 1,1993
. i I ,. Report of Interview ~
1
^ I' I
Richard D. Parks, accompanied by legal counsel,, Thomas M. Devine Legal l Director, Government Accountability Project (GAP) of the Institute for Policy Studies, 1901 Que Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2009, was interviewed in the
.s, Office of the Assistant Director for Investigations. Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Parks was advised that the interview concerned obtaining any l
', additional / amplifying information concerning the Three Mile Island (TMI)
Nuclear Power Station other than that which had been provided by him in an affidavit executed March 21, 1983. Moreover, Parks was informed that the specific areas of interest to 01A's investigation pertained to the information in his affidavit regarding allegations of harassment and possible retaliation by General Public Utilities huclear Corporation (GPUN)/Bechtel North American Power Corporation (Bechtel) management toward employees; in addition, NRC's reported breach of confidentiality concerning Parks' reporting of safety I conce'rns and other allegations of collusion between NRC and GPUN/Bechtel were topics which OIA wished to discuss. Relatedly, Parks was informed that the scope of the OIA investigation did not
.. encompass all aspects of his March 21, 1983, affidavit as a concurrent NRC Office of Investigations (01) inquiry was ongoing in related technical / safety >
areas regarding the licensee and its contractors. As stated in his affidavit, Parks described being formerly employed by Bechtel as a senior start-up engineer at TMI Unit 2. Parks stated his duties include working as an operations engineer reporting directly to the Director of Site i Operations (L. P. King) and the Manager of Plant Operations (Joseph Chwastyk). , In addition, Parks described serving as alternate start-up and test supervisor i for Uni.t 2, acting start-up and test manager from July 31, 1982 until l August 9, 1982, and also serving as the alternate Test Work Group Chairman. i In approximately mid-November 1982, Parks stated Site Operations became '
. involved in the Head Lift Task Force (HLTF) regarding removal of the reactor vessel head at TMI-2. During subsequent meetings between groups which com- j prised the HLTF, it became somewhat apparent to assigned Site Operations l personnel (Parks, King, and Edwin H. Gischel, Plant Engineering Director) that a there were significant deficiencies in the planned program to remove the l
~
6 9 EXHIBIT
,{$ sh A
[. . h.. [: '
, ,.... .. .. June 23.1983 ,, Bethesda, Maryland ,,,,, 83-45
.. 7, Patrick McKenna. Jr. . Investigator o.,,,,,,,,,, June 23. 1983 j THIS COCUMENT #5 pmCPEmTv os Nec i8 LOANEC 70 ANOTMER AGENCY e7 AND iTS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO OE DISTRieuTEQ l' CUT $iot twE agCElviNG AGENCv WatMOUT PE AMIS $ TON of TME Op8sCE 08 INSPECTOR ANO AVQlTOR '
T 10 $P
~ . . .+.a. _ . _ _ _ _._ _ _~ _ _ - ---- - -- --- --- i
. . .~.
. ...-. . c . ...---~~......~s . - . ~ ~ .~ ~r- - - - "< ~~~~~~~~
s ... ,
=
\
reactor vessel head as well as subsequent activities to remove the fuel. To accomplish removal of the reactor vessel head, a Polar Crane was to be utilized to remove other heavy equipment inside the containment and to stage any support equipment required to remove the damage core from the reactor s' vessel. GPUN had assigned Bechtel to refurbish the reactor building polar crane to its undamaged condition. The issue of the Polar Crane becomes one of q the focal points of the concerns, inter alia, expressed by Parks in his ' March 21, 1983, affidavit. , Concerning the Polar Crane and ot.her related issues (viz, HLTF and Safety Evaluation Reports (SER)), Parks expressed an extreme degree of concern regarding what ne described as questionable activities by Lake H. Barrett, Deputy Director, NRC Three Mile Island Program Office (TMIPO). Parks related j that as he realized numerous concerns regarding the Polar Crane and related issues at TMI, it became somewhat apparent, in his opinion, that Barrett was ! acting improperly in his dealings with GPUN/Bechtel. In an attempt to maintain a chronological sequence regarding these concerns, Parks was requested to focus his attention on his initial contact with NRC personnel leading to his allegation of impropriety by Barrett and/or other NRC personnel. Parks described meetings which were held during November 1982 through February 1983 between various GPUN/Bechtel management personnel and subordinate staff individuals involved in the Polar Crane and related issues. Specifically, Parks said that GPUN, on July 19, 1982, assigned Bechtel to restore the Polar Crane to its undamaged condition pursuant to a July 14, 1982, work request (CA258). Subsequently, the HLTF was formed with site operations becoming
- involved circa November 1982. During the November 1982 - January 1983 period, Parks explained that several aspects of the SER being prepared for submission
' to the NRC were questioned by Parks, King, and Gischel. These concerns included lack of appropriate calculations regarding possible load drop, lack
' of an integrated. schedule to coordinate the Polar Crane with the reactor vessel head lift schedule, modifications of various plant systems without appropriate engineering review, inadequately qualified personnel involved in the HLTF and other relatively general concerns questioning the applied technical methodology.
During the period January 20 to February 10, 1983, the Safety Evaluation Report for use of the Polar Crane was reviewed by Site O determined by the Manager of Plant Engineering (Gischel)perations. It was that the Polar Crane safety evaluation was technically unacceptable and suggested required pro-cedures were cited. On February 11, 1983, King informed Site Operations' staff of a meeting held to obtain the signatures of King and Gischel, indicating their evaluation and approval of the Polar Crane Safety Evaluation Report. Parks stated that Messrs. King and Gischel advised Kanga that they felt there were still signif-icant problems with the Polar Crane program and would not sign the SER; Kanga stated he would take the concerns of King and Gischel to Robert Arnold, GPUN President, as the next highest level of management to resolve this matter. However, Parks related that on February 14, 1983, John J. Barton, GPUN, Deputy 1
, Director, TMI-2, expressed his displeasure at Messrs. King and Gischel's
. refusal to sign the SER. Later, that same date, King and Gischel sent a memorandum to upper GPUN/Bechtel management expressing their fundamental ;
l 4
......,._.-....~.-~,----~~---7;L _ r_ __ ~ ~ A
. . m...-. .~.........~........,o ......-,.-...-.-.....-.~.m.s.....m...... , . . .
i r . U. l , . , L. [, q 1 disagreement with the Polar Crane program although recognizing management's 1 '.' .e - prerogative to proceed as they wish. l On February 15, 1983, a meeting with GPUN upper management personnel resulted i
" in a decision to proceed with the Polar Crane issue notwithstanding the j disapproval of Site Operations. Consequently, on February 17, 1983 King asked ]
Parks to review the Polar Crane Load Test Procedure. Parks expressed his q concern regarding the lack of compliance with.various technical requirements a and notified King. The following day, February 18 Parks was approached by {
~
Edward Kitler, Supervisor of Start-up and Test, who asked Parks what he was ' doing (regarding his refusal to approve the Polar Crane Load Procedure) saying ! l that GPUN/Bechtel management was " pissed off" at him for his actions (in not - approving the Polar Crane issues). In this way, Parks advised he learned of the apparent possibility of potential transfer which he clearly interrupted as a form of management retaliation for disagreement with portions of the SER which were otherwise approved by the other members of the HLTF. Since such retaliation is protected under 10 CFR,.Part 19, Parks decided to report the mt.tter to the NRC. Parks then related that after his conversation with Kitler (during the morning of February 18,1983,) he telephoned Phil Grant of the NRC's Office of Nuclear j Reactor Regulation (NRR), regarding p'r~o'fedures to report a reprisal threat. At Phil's suggestion, Parks met later that same morning with Joel Wiebe of NRC, Inspection and Enforcement (Senior Resident Inspector (SRI), TMI), in Wiebe's office. Parks advised he informed Wiebe of the above situation which he considered a possible retaliatory action by GPUN/Bechtel and asked how he could proceed with reporting this threat. Wiebe informed Parks that he would research the matter with the TMIP0 and get back to Parks with a response. Parks stated that he requested that his identification not be made known to anyone for obvious reasons of possible additional reprisal (s). Wiebe's response was reportedly that Parks' identity would not be made known "unless absolutely necessary." At this point in the interview, Mr. Devine interjected a question specifically inquiring of Parks whether he was informed by Wiebe that he (Parks) would be advised if his identity were necessary to be made known to any other personnel. Mr. Parks stated he did not specifically recall if that provision had been agreed to in the conversation with Wiebe; however, Parks stated his presumption was that Wiebe would notify Parks if his identity were disclosed. On February 25, 1983, Parks again met with Wiebe at the NRC office and they proceeded directly into the office of Lake H. Barrett, Deputy Director, TMIPO. Barrett explained that TMIPO personnel had reviewed Parks' concerns regarding the Polar Crane. This TMIPO review included a surprise NRC inspection of Bechtel Polar Crane calculations at their engineering office'in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Barrett then asked Parks if he wished for an NRC Office of Inves- . tigations inquiry regarding the possible threat of a retaliation transfer due to comments he made made regarding the Polar Crane issue. Parks responded that he wished to " hold that decision in abeyance" pending the results of a Quality i Assurance / Quality Control Review. Parks stated he then asked Barrett what NRC
. would do if GPUN/Bechtel transferred him; Barrett responded that the NRC could not do anything until that incident occurs although stating the NRC would certainly "take a dim view" of the matter.
9
-.._-..__..,.....m. . .....,..~ ~ - , - - ..---. - .
.-___ _______ _______________ _ m
{ ,. . . . . . . . , . . . . .. . . . ... .. - - . . - ~ - >-- " ~ -* ~ ~ ~ ' l [ l l \ At approximately 8 a.m. on February 28, 1983, Parks learned that a meeting was to be held with upper level management GPUN/Bechtel personnel; on February 26, 1983, Arnold, GPUN President, had appointed a readiness review committee to l . review the Polar Crane issue. Parks explained that he offered to and did attend the meeting; after the meeting was adjourned, Parks related he and Ron Warren (plant engineering) were requested by Jim Theising, Manager, Recovery
' program, (who coordinated the meeting) to remain behind for a moment. )
Theising, in the presence of Ron Warren, inquired what management could do to
" smooth over the growing split between Site Operations and the other
. organizations."
A brief discussion then followed regarding King who had recently been suspended and other issues. Theising infonned Parks that he was aware that a _ second or third level Site Ophations supervisor had already spoken with the NRC; additionally, in light of the King suspension and the recent termination of other employees to solve inter-departmental disagreements, he (Theising) could understand an individual reporting this situation to the NRC. Parks stated these comments by Theising were clearly construed to mean Theising was aware Parks was the individual who had contacted the NRC. Parks characterized this event as the first clear indication that his expressed requested con-fidentiality, guaranteed in his meeting with Wiebe, had been violated. Continuing, Parks then described receiving a telephone call at his residence on March 3, 1983, from King. King expressed his concern regarding the NRC having possibly violated Parks' confidentiality. Parks described how King informed him of being telephoned by Mr. Keith Christopher, NRC Region ! Office 7 of Investigations. King reportedly stated that Christopher was inquiring about King's concerns of various problem areas at TMI; during this conversation, Christopher asked King if his safety concerns were the same as those related by Parks. Parks stated that this obvious knowledge by Christopher of concerns ) f expressed by Parks, further supported Parks' contention that the NRC had violated his requested confidentiality. Parks described a separate incident involving Christopher and explained that some time on or about March 21, 1983, he (Parks) spoke with Special Agent Ron Brinkley, FBI, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (717-232-8686). Brinkley report-edly was describing to Parks a conversation that he (Brinkley) had with Christopher. Brinkley reportedly stated that during a conversation regarding TMI/ Parks and King, Christopher described Parks / King as " leaders of a gang of
~
malgatant.t". Parks explaine3 that in his opinion, at a minimum, the comments
' - 'r'eportedly made by Christopher were entirely inappropriate and unprofessional and worthy of pursuit regarding Christopher's continued suitability as an NRC investigator.
On March 9, 1983, Parks explained that he was again called at his residence by Larry King who explained that earlier that day he had spoken with Bob Arnold, GPU Nuclear President, and it appeared apparent to King that
' Arnold was attempting to implicate Parks in the Quiltec Inc. Consulting Company issue and use that as the rationale for dismissing Parks. Accordingly, on March 10, 1983, Parks returned to the NRC office and again met with Joel Wiebe, Parks asked Carl Hrbac to accompany him to the meeting as a .a witness and Hrbac agreed. _ .1 g *e em o g poe.vse* ,see ev e t*-e v**9* * * ,'*9'** * .****E********WWOY*
- I
.. _...-...,......,,...........,.m.,. . . - . . , ..- m ...
C' , , , i Parks, upon entering Wiebe's office, informed him that he wished to request a special investigation regarding the information which King had related to him i the previous evening. Parks described that Wiebe somewhat summarily dismissed- ! Parks' comments and gave him a slip of paper with the Department of Labor address as well as the phone number of Mr. Christopher. Wiebe explained that
,' NRC's position regarding his situation was that it would not become involved in an employer / employee labor matter and described TMIPO having consulted on this matter with Mr. Christopher. Both Hrbec and Parks then expressed concern over the NRC's apparent lack of concern over retaliation and Wiebe merely reiterated his coments that this situation would have to be pursued with the Department of Labor. Parks advised that the coments of Wiebe on March 10, 1983, directly conflict with the position taken by Wiebe on February 25, 1983, during the meeting between Parks and Barrett/Wiebe when Parks was asked
., whether he wished to pursue the complaint and request an NRC investigation.
[. Parks' coments regarding possible NRC personnel impropriety then returned to Lake Barrett. In this regard, Parks explained how he had teen informed by Barrett that he (Barrett) had initiated a draft review process in an attempt to assist GPU shorten review cycles and expedite clean up issues. Parks explained that this initiative by Barrett was a clear violation of procedures listed in the Code of Federal Regulations and characteristic of a main problem theme highlighted in the Presidential Report of the near disaster accident at
< Three Mile Island (viz, failure to correctly follow appropriate administrative procedures). At this point in the interview, Mr. Devine etplained that the Government Accountability Project has in its possession handwritten notes to/from Barrett and GPU regarding various issues wnich are considered to be unauthorized, informal, forms of communications between the NRC and a licensee.
As another example of alleged impropriety on the part of Barrett, Parks i described an April 22, 1983, address reportedly made by Barrett to the Concerned Mothers of Middletown. During this sessio'n, Barrett explained that there were essentially no safety problems associated with the polar crane issue which directly conflicted with official published NRC reports. Throughout the interview with Parks and Devine, it was explained and reiterated that the OIA inquiry regarding concerns expressed by Parks were primarily focused on NRC personnel impropriety. It was reiterated that the NRC Office of Investigations had created a task force to address the myriad technical issue concerns as expressed by Parks in his March 21, 1983, affidavit and, therefore, OIA would not pursue these purely technical issues. Consequently, numerous attempts during the interview by Parks /Devine to speak i of various purely technical / safety issue concerns were referred to by OIA representatives as the responsibility of the ongoing Office of Investigations task force efforts. In this regard, Parks /Devine admitted having met on , several occasions with Office of Investigations personnel. Concluding, Investigator Ronald Meeks, NRC Office of Investigations, was asked by McKenna to meet with Parks and Devine in order that any concerns regarding technical / safety issues which had not been expressed / addressed might be related to Meeks for possible inclusion in the Office of Investigations efforts. Accordingly, the three men met following the OIA interview. --
, During the interview, it was continually explained that OIA needed specific information concerning reported violations of regulation or statute; Devine l
J
.N.-.,... m ... .-.-... ..,.~.-n-,..c..-.-,,.. - -. . - . - . ~ ~
_ ___.__________L
.u w, . . .: n v . . . . - . . . o , . a ., . s . : .....~~...:;..;.
... ax.a. . e..e, ..
. . : ,e n... am .. : ~, ., . .. .w: . .
- ..m. , .c.:. :
1,
. j . .
i responded that they (he and Parks) were not alleging illegality, but violation 5 by Lake Barrett of Section 2302 B. 8. of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
/ and by the NRC of 10 CFR 50 relative to GPU procedures. Mr. Devine said
' "...there were no problems with law, but there.were with the mission of the agency... (NRC)." Moreover, Devine concluded that.he felt "...there was an NRC
,- lack of respect for the administrative role of the licensee."
i
' The approximately two and one half hour interview with Parks /Devine concluded at approximately 1 p.m. on June 23, 1983.
( e e 4 O e f 4, 6.'
'l 8#g
'#5.,, .
.,_-.+..4 , . . .. . . . . . . - , ., - . . y .
l
. , . . . . . .. . . . . . . . , . . . .........,,........................,...,..r
.a l
- s
- 1 o..
1 005' . . ' i-PREPARED STATEMENT OF I v RICHARD D. PARKS BEFORE THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE i Washington, D. C. l April 26, 1983 g DEeos: Tion N , l EXHIBli % 0 9 ,,, n [I/ 1. e ; 2 cannom numrr #%:MID a)d/M. cl .&[LA,JJ d /t e ,3db iJ k Q .
.x .D.
aQ r3M 2. 27 wic%; PMx.s PLTP 04145
. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . ~ . . . - . . . - - . . . . . . . - . - - . - - . . - - - - - - - . - - - ~
, . . . . , . . . .., . . ~ .. . . . . . . .- . .- -. . .- -
.. o
'4
, . I s',
n P REP A RED STATEMENT of RICHARD D. PARKS Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. My name is 1 Richard P arks . Accompanying me is my attorney Mr. Thomas Devine, from the Go ve rn men t Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy S tudies . I am an operations engineer for the Three Mile-Island-Unic 2 (TMI-2) recovery program, on March 23, 1983 I publicl. challenged safety-related shortcuts for use o f the polar crane to l J lift the reactor vessel head at TMI-2. For months, those of us' . i on-site with legal responsibility for the program had been challeng-ing management's plan to bypass require.d administrative controls, engineering revi.ws and tests. On March 23 I also legally challengee the consistent management response to our dissent -- severe retalia-tion. In my case the reprisals had involved the elimination of my responsibilities for the polar crane. The day after I blew the 9
~
whistle, Bechtel management proved my point by placing my career in limbo. I was put on an indefinite leave of absence and my badge
+
was lifted so that I could not return to the Island. Since then the company has been investigating me and has not yet informed me of what they will do. My March'23 and April 22, 1983 affidavits
,. for the Department of Labor are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to 6
this testimony. i My experiences o f the last month have taught me some important
. s v.; PLTP 04346
,. . . - . - . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - . - . - - . , - ~ , - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - , -
~ - - - ~ - - - - - - ' - - _ .- - :_r_-_- _r m
)
.-. . . . . . ~..
)
-2 -
, lessons, which I would like to share with the subcommittee
,, (1) The saf e ty-related s hortcuts on the polar ersne are not uniq ue in the TMI-2 cleanup procram. The polar crane is merely the issue that brought matters to a head.
For example, I recall that from the accident until De cember 1980 there were over 1700 modifications significant enough to be formally p roce ssed through Enginee ring Change Modification (E CM ) f o rms . Less than a dozen o f these ECM's had the required test data, or quality assurance records. Those fundamental saf eguards had been skipped. Some of the changes were petty. Some, however, in volve d significant systems in the p l an t , such as modifications to the decay heat removal system, low-level waste processing system, ve n ti - lation system, radiation dete ction equipment, and waste' storage facilities. I am f amiliar with this problem, because during late 1980 and 1981 I was part of a team that researched it. In almost every case there was no test data. We wanted to immed ately set up a full testing program, but were in formed o f a management decision with NRC approval to forego quality assurance for modifications. I P deeply hope that this is not true. We invited the NRC to check the test records, but they did not respond to the invitation. Quality assurance (Q A) is particularly important, since the QA department sometimes enforces Atomic Energy Act requirements more l l ; aggressively than the NRC. For example, in a March 7, 1983 review \- . of the polar crane refurbishment, the NRC concurred with the func-
, , tional description for the load test. On March 10, the TMI-2 quality assurance department found eleven violations in the same PLTF 04147 4
..'...........~..-...~....-.-.---....,-~------..~~-~~~-~-'~~r~~Tt-~--"=*=% - - - -
. - . , _. - ~. _ ..
, e
\
'* . . ' ; l
,e . 3 -
refurbishment and announced that a Quality De ficiency Repor- would be issued. u (2) M an a g eme n t should listen to those who express con ca rn s : they can make a vital contribution to finishing the cleanup safely 1 and economically. I believe that the belated actions o.f TMI manage-i ment and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N RC) to restract use of the polar crane to minor tasks is a major vindication of my charges.
. If CPU and Bechtel felt confident that my allegations wer's mistaken, they would still be going " full-tilt boogie" with the polar crane
. for the reactor headlift. And the NRC would not stop them. It is frightening thec management refused to consider my concerns, and i the NRC told me I was wrong, until I went p ubli c .'
s If there were any question about my challenge to the polar crane, it should be compared to the 1980 and 1981 program for use of the fuel handling building crane. Although that' crane lifted much smaller loads than are planned for the polar crane, its modi-fications were controlled through the Engineering Change Modificatier (ECM) system. Safety impacts were analyzed and the crane was f un c-tionally tested before it was used. The current approach represents a deterioration of standards on a tougher job. Of course, the whistleblowers now will be blamed for delays with the polar crane, because we " raised problems at the last min ut e *
- Nothing could be more cynically deceptive. Management is responsible for the delays by trying to illegally, gut the polar crane program at the last minute and then tell us co approve it immediately be-cause there was no time for changes. For e xample , before February, Mr. Edwin Cischel, director of plant engineering, could not have challenged the procedures using the polar crane to lift 40-ton PLTF 04148 ri.
/ t .., ... .ne w.w - w+.ew+ose.*-*eewar.***.*-*****'."'*'****"'*Pa**'*****'MF"**"'"****#*'" * "** *
-________________m___________m._ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. s
- 4 -
missile shields without a load test first. The earlier verstens ' o f the procedures did not contain that loophole. It was slipped into the program which the Site operations department was given 24 hours to review in February. We cannot be blamed for holding the project to legal and organizational requirements: that was our responsibility. - The lesson is to coordinate responsibilities and do the job right the first time, if you want to avoid delays and accidents. One of the most significant findings of the post-accident com-missions was that the near-disaster at TMI was partially due to
, management's failure to follow its own rules. Four years later, the whistleblowers and many other employees on-site have learned that lesson. Un f o rt un a t e ly , management hasn't.
(3) Management's response to much-needed dissent has been to retaliate through investigations , smear campaigns, and dismissal o f whistle blowe rs . Unf ortunately, management has not learned its lesson. Site Operations Director Larry King was fired on pretextual conflict-of-interest charges. His secretary, Ms. Joyce Wenger, also was fired after first being put through extended interrogation, and told to receive psychiatric counseling. On Friday, we learned that !
)
GP U ha s e ven acted to deny her un e mp lo yme n t benefits, w hi c h threatens ) 1 her f amily's e conomic s urvival. Ms. Wenger is struggling to raise )- P two children by herseiz.. Mr. Cischel is under similar pressure to i
/
take a psychiatric test. I have had my house broken into and custody of my children threatened, in addition to all the crief on the job. The culprits have not yet been caught. [ PLTP 04149 l l.! w _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______--_ __ __ _ _ . _ _ --
.sy .. ... . . . j.. . . . . . . . . , - . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . , . . - . . , . . , . . . . . .
, s.
]
1 fs J
)
4 9 . O
--S -
2;ven as I am being vindicated, man age :.e n t will not talk.with me at all an ymo re . 'My Bechtel supervisor told me that my concerns are no. longer a personnel matter. They are a' legal matter and 1 a should be handled with company lawyers.
. I:have'few doubts that~ I-will be the'.next..whistleblower to go. The day Jo f my dis clo s ure , 1
]
Mr. Kanga told a management meeting that the company couldn 't' fire i me immediately because~of my legal rights, but I could be placed on a leave'of absence and quietly dismissed later. ] Those of us who raised concerns are not crazy or greedy. In my opinion, it.is only common sense to play by the rules in cleaning up the worst nuclear accident in history. TMI-2 is dangerous enough already.. We can't taka a chance on making'the plant more dangerous
, because of the way we cleaned it up.
If we were greedy, we would have just kept quiet and our livelihoods would not have been threatened. The day before I we'nt public, management told me that I could stay on the Island as long as I wanted. I took the chance o f losing my jobs the price for maintaining it was to sacrifice my conscience. That's too high a price for me. In the end, we are left with a basic question: How can you trust the public safety to a management team that responds to valid safety concerns by brutally punishing the employees who raised them. If they are that threatened by whis tle blowe rs , CPU
,' and Bechtel must not have auch conf'*ence in their own program.
/
(4) The Nuclear Re gul a to ry Commission must share the blame 4 e equally with CPU and Bechtel for the me s s in the TMI-2 cleanup.
. Unfortunately, the NRC has not yet learned these lessons. For example, I understand that on Friday the NRC Commissioners did not
,e; ; y *
, PL,TP 04150
- ~ . . . . . . - . . _ _ . _ . . , . _ . , . . . . _ - , , . . , , . ~ , . . . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . - . . _ _ . . - . _ . . . .
, . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . - ..w. n.~. u- ~ . " . " ~ " o ' '" ' '" ^
'..,f
- 6 -
4 question CPU at all about retaliation against the whis tle blowe rs . ' What confidence can the' Commis sione rs have in the reports f rom CPU {- !. executives, if those same executives are striving to create an atmosphere where employees will be afraid to tell the truth. Don't the Commissioners care? NRC representatives on-site are even worse; they un de r cut the whistleblowers just as an investigation was getting underway into ouIr charges. At a press conference last Friday, several concerned a mothers who had met with NRC representatives asked me for my response ' to Mr. Barrett's explanation o f my charges : (1) It was all a turf fight. (2) An unneessary dispute was created because I co uldn ' t back down and had to have my own way . (3) There are questions about the emotional stability of the whistleblowers. (4) The t reason I challenged the polar crane was to divert attention from an in ve stigation in to my own con flicts-of-intere st. Those explanations are garbage. For example , I raised my concerns about the polar crane be fore the company began investi-gating me and before Larry King was suspended. Cn March 22 Bechtel management told me I had been cleared of any wrongdoing. After receiving this clean bill of health, I went public with my concerns. It appears that NRC site personnel were colluding with management's shabby smear campaign against us. That is why employees at TMI-2 do not trust the NRC. The cosy HRC-management relatio,pship goes well beyond helping to discredit whistleblowers who are fighting reprisals. It extends to sharing and reviewing each other's draft reports before they are finalized and released to the public. This undercuts us on a routine basis, since the NRC in formally approves programs before we have had
,.~. ' ., q PLTP 04151 )
J . . - . . - . . . . - , . . . . i Q
. --- - - - - - - - -~ -
_--_-_-_-_q
,. s . .
z * . 7 . J.. a chance to conduct full reviews. That allows management to tell
- us that nothing is wrong, and we 're r e s p on s ible for the delays, T since'. the NRC says everything is all right.
-p Management should know better. GPU is suing. the federal government for billions of dollars, claiming that the N.RC is re-sponsible because it mistakenly said everything was all right be fo re y
the 1979 accident. Instead of looking for scapegoats, the whistle-blowers are trying to prevent another accident. And instead'of
.' undercutting us , the NRC should see that its own . role in causing
,the accident is fully investigated by an outside agency.
Currently'the NRC's Of fice of Investigations is looking into my charges with a task force that excludes any representatives from Region I, whare TMI is located. Because ny lawyer, Mr. De vine , is impressed with the independence of the new NRC team, I took his advice and will cooperate with their investigation. We are speaking to the investigators this a fternoon . Until the NRC cleans its own house, however, the TMI scandal r will be repeated again and again at other nuclear power plants. We cannot let the cancer at TMI spread to the rest of the nuclear industry.
. It might be fatal to an industry that our coun try ne eds .
O O O d' 4 - ,s /
. )
' Pt.TF 04152 4
r i
... w . n .,3, y . m .y,,.r u .. m .y... w
,,,+ ,v.,. n v.v;:,.., y ;a,a y. ,...y.y.; ,.g. y ...u-,..., g . .y.,.. u y .3 .,. y .,g .,
..7,. -.- - - - - - - -
-:; 11oo j
.c ',; _ . 1 TOOKER and ANTZ
.at' (3 2 131 Steuart Street, suite 201 3 San Francisco, California 94105 .
.. l 4 September 7, 1987 i
. . 5 1
., 6 Mr. Richard D. Parks
{. 7 c/o Barbara A. Zuras, Esquire 8 Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molligan
,)
"c 9 703 Market Street,.18th Floor '
, i 3 10- San Francisco, California 94103 11
'* ' i 12 Ret GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION i 13 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION NO. 2
. 14 DEPOSITION OP: RICHARD DALE PARKS, VOLUMES IV AND' V l 15 TAKEN ON: August 18 and 19, 1987
=l 16
, 17 -
Dear Mr. Parks:
1 18 Your deposition in the above matter has been completed. 19 This deposition will be available at our office for
,7 20 reading and signing by you for sixty (60) days, after
..." 21 which time the original will be filed with the court of 4
22 jurisdiction. 1 23 very truly yours,
;l( 24 REBECCA L. LUCE, CSR NO. 1778 l j
25 TOOKER and ANTZ
,d J 26 = '
7, 27 cc J. Pattf.ck Hickey, Esquire ef '..F 28 cc: George E. Johnson, Esquire
-9:4 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- .l L __- - _: -_ __- ____ ~_ __. _ _ - _ _ _ - _ .
^
819
;) ,' < 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- .q (l'; 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"> . 3 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 2 - ), ' 4 ---00o--- . 5 IN THE MATTER OF ) ; , 6 )
7 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ) DOCKET NO. 50-320
$ 8 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR ) CIVIL PENALTY STATION NO. 2 9 ) LICENSE NO. DPR-73 10 ) EA 84-137 u ----------------------------- -
CERTlFID COPY . 1
. '. 12 VOLUME V, PAGES 819 Through
, 13 14
-;( 15 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD D'. PARKS 16 August 19, 1987 17
. 18 19 REPORTED BY:
20 REBECCA L. LUCE, CSR NO. 1778
, 21 22
. 23
+-
24 TOOKER & ANTZ 25 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 26 131 STEUART STREET, SUITE 201 SAN FRANCISCd, CALIFORNIA 94105 27 28 ( 415/392-0650 ; X;Cj FREDERIC R. TOOKER KEMBLE ANTZ s : ..'- - __ _-_- -.
1,; p - 820
' *:!/ 1 _I _N _D _E _X
,'. , (~'
2
..~-
3
^ . '/.
, .- 4 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD D. PARKS
) :' 5
,. '- 6
,' 7 EX AMINATION BY s - PAGE l 2 8 Mr. Hickey 823 9 Mr. Johnson 1065 10 e \
i . 11 DEPOSITION EXHIBITS:
, 12 i
. . 13 60 Letter dated 11-10-83 to USNRC Commissioners 828 14 from Devine k; 15 l
16 61 Letter dated 7-24-84 to USNRC Commissioners 840
. 17 from Parks i
. 18
. 19 62 Letter dated 11-27-85 860
. 20
[. 21 63 Letter dated 9-19-83 to Hayes from Devine 863 i
' i
.' 22
]
l 23 64 Letter dated 4-22-83 to Donovan f rom Devine, 967 24 with Af fidavit attached
~~
L $. 25 4^ , 26 65 Handwritten notes titled "Myctery Man Issues" 1044
,, . 27
- hi 28 h
j t
', TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650.
. .v:J
s- '
. _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _._..________.___..s ,e-
- 821-T 4 4
, . .; . 1 ---o0o---
"; *{2,: .
2 t
. 4 l ... .; 3
.-c,- 4 i 5 2, .. . . 6 !
- . '54 7
<%, s '. 8 E -2 9'
. l- -10
. 11
,o..
12
- ." 13 14
(/ 15 16 17 18-19 4 20 21 22
^
23 24 c . . ~. 25
, , 26 '.., . 27
{.,.. .'
, , , 28 i ,
8., e - . 9, %1p e 'y TOOKER & ANTZ' 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 v1 w e' ' ' _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _
.g.g. _._. - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'k: 822-e fi m
'l BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant.to Stipulation,
'; '- .i 2 'and on Wednesday, August 19,-1987,1 commencing at-the hour of 9:14 o' clock a.m. , at the Law of fic'es of Thelen, I ., 3
'4 Marrin, Johnson. & Bridges, Two Embarcadero Center, 21st
'; 47 5 Floor, San. Francisco, California, before me, REBECCA L.
9'
/l?f 6 LUCE, a Notary Public in and for the State of California, l 7 personally appeared c - 8 RICHARD D. PARKS,
' ' .: 9 called as a witness by ' the GPU. Nuclear Corporation, and 10 the said ' witness, being ' by me previously ' duly af firmed,
. 11 was thereupon examined and testified further as
, 12 hereinafter set forth.
~~
13 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 14 Of fice of the General Counsel, Mail Stop 9604, ( 15 .. Washington, D.C., 20555, represented by George E. 16 Johnson, Esquire, and Gregory Alan Berry, Esquire, 17 appeared as counsel on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission.
,- 19 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, 2300 N 20 Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20037, represented by J.
21 Patrick Hickey, Esquire, and David R. Lewis, Esquire
< 22 appeared as counsel on behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation.
23 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX.6 MOLLIGAN, 703
, 24 Market Street, 18th Floor, San Francisco, California
- 25 94103, represented by Barbara A. Zuras, Esquire, appeared
; 26 as counsel on behalf of the Deponent.
27 T!!ELEN, MARRIN, JOHNSON & BRIDGES, Two f $* , 28 Embarcadero Center, 21st Floor, San Francisco, California
", ( , - TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.o
>.,.;,. u_ _ _ _ __ __. _ _ _ __._._ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _. _ _ _ __ _ _ ,
's 823
!r . n (. .i 4' 4 at M ,( -l' 94111,' represented by Kennedy P. Richardson, Esquire, 2 appeared as counsel' on behalf .of GPU Nuclear Corporation..
*;, f*.9 (f
. D 3 --ooo--
' 4 5
... 6
. ; y.
. r 8' t
9 8 11
;~ 12
'13 14
\ 15 16' 17 18 19 !
4 20
)
, , ;- 21
]
"- 22
. 23 1
. 24 i
. I 25
- 26
. . 27 ;
28 i
'4 t . ' ; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ) ,,ALL . -
_ )
,; '824 l.>>: '
J 1- RICHARD D. PARKS jk[f (s.3 2 having been previously duly affirmed, testified further
.; , 2 3 as follows:
. "O 4
. ; w. EXAMINATION BY MR. HICKEY (Resumed)
[ . 5 MR. HICKEY: On the record. [.~ 6 Q. Mr. Parks, at the end of the day yesterday, I
?l 7 was asking you about some statements that appeared in an j 8 exhibit or two that we had marked and then a transcript
, . 9 that I showed you relating to a report or an Jr 10 investigation by the NRC's Office of Inspector and
^
.: 11 Auditor concerning some comments you had made. I've got
~
}- 12 a couple things to finish up that subject before we go on I 13 to something else. -
14 When I was showing you Exhibit 58 yesterday -- ( 15 and I'll put it in front of you again -- I. directed your y 1 16 attention to a particular paragraph on the fifth page of 17 that exhibit which quotes an example of alleged 18 improprieties on the part of Mr. Barrett of the NRC, 19 reportedly given by you, some comments Mr. Barrett made ! 20 to the Mothers of Middletown.
..A 21 And if I recall correctly, you told -- I'm 22 showing you the paragraph I'm referring to. ,
23 And yesterday I think -- but correct me if I am
.' 24 wrong -- that you said in substance that that report on
.- , 25 Exhibit 58, that paragraph on the report on Exhibit 58 26 didn't accurately reflect what you said to the OIA
<j 27 investor. Is that right? I A.
' ^
28 No. I think you mischaracterize it. The point 1
. ;, %.: TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 n.3.~--------__-_-
., _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ . - - -
1,[, . 825-4 7 1 I .was trying -to get across to you yesterday af ternoon, g {, 2 even though it was getting kind of late, was that 'even
. ,. , y 3 though I cannot recall at the moment whether that was
' exactly the exact wording that I had given OI, the gist 4
i 1 5 .of the. matter or the gist of what they had recorded ' there
- c. 6 was ef f ectively the gist of the point I .tried to make
_'; 7 with OIA and the Mothers of' Middletown had tried to make
.. ; 8 to me and had presented to Congress.
. 9 Now, regarding additional recall, exact i '10 phrasing or exact recall, no I cannot recall.
11 Q. 'okay. But the substance of that phra' sing in { , 12 the fifth paragraph on page eight, Exhibit 58,'is the .7 13 substance? 14 A. The fifth page? L 15 Q. The fif th paragraph. The paragraph that begins, 16-
"As another example of alleged impropriety on the part of 17 Barrett," et cetera. It's the third paragraph of Exhibit 18 58.
19 A. , That 's ef f ectively -- that statement 20 contains -- or what that statement contains is 21 ef f ectively the gist of the point I was'trying to make to '
-. 22 the NRC itself.
23 Now, once again, the exact phraseology I cannot
. 24 recall at this point in time.
.. 25 Q. okay.
.., 26 A. And again, I'd like to identify that I was
, , 27 never allowed to review this until it was published,
,o, b 28 so -- '
l
,,' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
., 826
,: 1 Q. Review Exhibit 587
~
2 A. Right. I didn't have the opportunity to '. 3 provide any feedback whether they had recorded my 4 comments correctly or not.
.- 5 Q. Okay. And then just to put this in the context
. 6 we were discussing it yesterday, I think you confirmed 7 for us that later af ter you got that published report and 8 had a chance to look at it, you made some some -- you or
. 9 your counsel on your behalf made some comments to OIA_and 10 you came back for another interview to discuss criticisms 11 or comments that you had to make with OIA about that 12 published report, right?
13 A. Y es . That subsequent interview occurred 14 approximately two years later. And what I testified to (, 15 during the course of that proceeding was what I could 16 recall to the best of my knowledge at the moment 17 regarding the events in question. 18 Q. In that transcript of your interview by OIA on : 19 Tuesday, June 25, 1985, which I showed you yesterday, I i 20 didn't have an an opportunity to finish showing you all l
\
21 the references I wanted to. j 22 I want to show you what appears in that 23 transcript on page 40 and 41 where you discuss that 24 paragraph that I've just shown you from Exhibit 58, 25 namely, the paragraph about Mr. Barrett and the Concerned 26 Mothers of Middletown, and ask you if this refreshes your 27 recollection about making these statements to OIA on June
> 28 25, 1985.
l l
,' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,% 827 j:n 1 And what I'm showing you is pages 40 beginning
~
(.' 2 at line three and continuing on to page 42 at line six.-
?) 3 All right. And that's a. statement of two and a half I
,] 4- pages by you, the witness.
5 I think Mr. Johnson told you yesterday that
.cl- 6 there were some blanks in it, just so you're not puzzled 1
+;. 7 by it. But this transcript was produced by the NRC staff 8 in the course of discovery and they deleted in these
,. 9 ' blank spaces that I'm pointing out to you here some names '
10 of individuals for privacy purposes. But I think you can 11 make the sense of what you said out even with those 12 blanks.
< 13 But in other words, apparently when you gave 14 this statement, you put in names and words or whatever (J 15. where those blank spaces are.
l 16 But why don't you read that material on to page 17 42 and then I'll ask you a question. 18 A. Now, how far did you say you wanted me to go? 19 Q. To page 42, line six, where you stop talking.
, 20 A. Okay.
f 21 Q. Okay. Having read that material, Mr. Parks, do 22 you recall making those statements to the OIA 23 interviewers on June 25, 1985? 24 A. Well, once again, at this point in time, you
, 25 know, over two years ago and I can't recall exactly what 26 was said. But it seems to contain the gist of the points 27 I was trying to make with them back in '83.
S -- 28 Q. You did ask or suggest that the paragraph in
.3 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
l q. . p .} ' '-
- '828 ' y.% 1 ExhibitE 58 that we've' been talking about should be
- . "( ; . . 2 deleted and rewritten, did you not, in the interview on
. ,<.. v -
V1 3 June 25, '857
^
4 4 A. I really couldn't tell you if I suggested that 5 or not.
/ 6 Q. Well, look at the first lines of your testimony . . 7 on'page 40.
8- A. That's what it says here.
, p, 9 .Q. Was that your view? Do you recall thinking 10 that that' paragraph ought to be deleted and rewritten, 11 thinking in 19857 12 A. I really couldn't tell you in 1987'if that was j i
e 13 my thinking in 1985 regarding what I was thinking in .1983 14 or not. ([} 15 Q. When you received and reviewed the Of fice of 16 Inspector and Auditor report dealing with your 17 allegations about NRC impropriety at Three Mile Island, 18 were you upset with the report?
, . 19 A. Well, I think upset's kind of open to
)
3f 20 discussion and interpretation. I was not pleased with it 21 and I did see some things in the report that I took 22 exception with. And I identified those to my lawyers and 23 eventually something was gen- -- something was generated
^ . 24 to document our concerns.
25 Q. Let me ask, did you prepare or direct your
,9 26 attorneys to prepare a letter to the Commissioners 27 expressing your concerns about the OIA report?
'^;'k
28 A. I really could not tell you at this point in
, [. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 . .ee \
, 829
. 1 time what methodology _was utilized or what type of j l
c- 2 vehicle.was utilized to convey our concerns to the -l 3 Commission.
. 4 MR. HICKEY: Let me ask the Reporter to mark as
,, 5 Exh'ibit 60 to this deposition a letter dated November 10, a 6 1983, signed by Thomas Devine on GAP letterhead addressed
. 7 to the Commissioners.
8 (Whereupon, Def endant's Exhibit 60 -
! 9 was marked for identification.) )
-10 MR. HICKEY: Q. You've had a chance to read 11 Exhibit 60, Mr. Parks. Do you recall reviewing that ,
document before it was sent to the Com;niscioners by your 12 ' 1 13 lawyer? 14 A. I culdn't tell you at this point in time if I (I) 15 held the document in my hand and read it before it was { 16 sent, if we talked about it over the telephone or what 17 have you. k I was aware of what it said. j 18 Q. Okay. Just you're not sure whether it was by a , i 19 telephone conversation or in the flesh? Is that what 20 you're saying?
. , . 21 A. That 's correct. I'm unsure at this point in 22 time exactly of the extent of my review of it.
23 Q. I'm sorry? 24 A. I'm unsure of the extent of my review of it.
.. 25 Q. In the letter, though -- you did authorize Mr.
,- 26 Devine to send the letter?
,. 27 A. Y es. 1
+ .. 1 i- 'wo' 28 Q. And in the letter, you called for a independent
. ' r' ) TOOKER & ANTz 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i ___ _ ___ _- _ _
,.,[_Z____._._._____.______________.____.____.__.___._____._
830 l- 1 investigation of these matters by some agency outside CIA, 2 did you not? (a . 3 A. I recommended that they reopen the 4 investigation, made a f ew suggestions as to -- the letter
, 5 makes a few suggestions as to how it could b~e handled,
. . 6 yes.
7 Q. And the suggestion you make is that it should 8 be done by an outside agent? 9 A. That's what the letter says. 10 Q. All right. I'm not cicar about whether your 11 answer is meant to imply something else. That was your t 12 suggestion, was it not? 13 A. I guess what I'm trying to tell you is that at 14 this point in time, I can recall several of the problems ( 15 I had with the OI invest- -- OIA investigation, I can 16 recall this letter had been sent to the NRC Commissioners. 17 Now, whether this thought of an outside independent 18_ agency doing the investigation hatched within my brain or j
, 19 hatched within the brain of my lawyer I really couldn't :
20 tell you, but I agreed with it.
'; 21 Q. Okay. I wasn't really asking you about where )
22 it hatched, but I was asking the last question, whether i 23 you agreed with it. 24 A. I intepreted your question to be was that my 25 suggestion or was that Tom Devine's suggestion or was 26 that somebody else's. I
~
27 Q. You're saying originally you don't recall wh'o
- 28 came up with the idea first?
6 TOOKER & AUTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- ~2
.s 830 1 investigation of these matters by some agency outside OIA, p .3; 2 did'you not? I lu A.
3 I recommended that they reopen the
-4
, 4 . investigation, made a f ew suggestions as to -- the letter -
,,; 5 makes-a few suggestions as to how it could b'e handled,
.: .6 yes.
7 Q. And the suggestion you make is that it'should be done by an outside agent? 8,
; 9 A. That's what the letter says. ~~1 10 Q. All right. I'm not clear about whether your
.l t
11 answer is meant to imply something else. That-was your
, 12 suggestion, was it not?
13 A. I guess what I'm trying to tell you it that at
'. 14 this point in time, I can recall several of the problems (p 15 I had with.the OI invest- -- OIA investigation, I.can 16 recall this letter had been sent to the NRC Commissioners.
17 Now, whether this thought of an outside independent s 10 agency doing the investigation hatched within my brain or
, 19 hatched within the brain of my lawyer I really couldn't 20 tell you, but I agreed with it.
' 'l .
21 Q. Okay. I wasn't really asking you about where 4 22 it hatched, but I was asking the last question, whether 23 you agreed with it. 24 A. I intepreted your question to be was that my
'25 suggestion or was that Tom Devine's suggestion or was l 26 that somebody else's.
+ 27 Q. You' re saying originally you don't recall wh'o s 28 came up with the idea first?
l' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ . . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - 831
+
l' A. That's correct.
,, 2 Q. But you adopted the idea?
, 3 A. Endorsed the idea.
4' O. Endorsed the idea. On the second page of the I
'. 5 letter you . talk about some of the charges that you think 6 require further investigation. And I don't' need to take
~
7 you through all of them because it will take more time
..: 8 than.we have. But let me just focus you, if I could, on 9 a couple of them. ,
,- 10 You did charge, did you not, that there had i
11 been a breach of your agreement with OIA related to the 12 interview which- is reflected in Exhibit 58, namely, your 13 interview by Mr. McKenna on June 23, '837 14 A. Y es . (, 15 Q. A nd I take it you felt -- well, let me ask you, l 16 did you feel strongly that there.were serious mistakes in 17 Mr. McKenna's report of his interview with you? l 18 A. Well, you know, I hate to sound wishy-washy or 19 like I'm trying to play a weasel. But once again, you 20 have to realize that with all the letters that's been 21 written, authorized by me, sent to the Commission, with l 22 all the testifmony I've had over the last four or five l "', 23 years, I really couldn't tell you what I felt at any one
- r. 24 specific moment.
L i 25 What I can tell you is that having read these
.- 26 comments here that relate to the concerns that I felt in 27 the last part of 1983 relevant to the September issuance 28 of the OIA report, I do not see anything that I can 1
iy TOOKER & ANTz 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l
m _ ,, 832
- ; 1 substantively disagree with at the moment.
,' (; 2 Q. Okay. If I understand you, your present memory 3 is such that as far as you can tell, there's nothing in
+
. 4 the Exhibit 60 that you presently have a disagreement v -
, 5 with ?.
6 A. Nothing that I can recall at this moment that 7 leads me to believe that was not what I f elt in November
.. 8 or whatever it was of 1983. November 10th of '83.
9 Q. Just a couple more questions. The second 10 paragraph on page two of that letter, Exhibit 60, 11 complains about a failure to investigate two of your I
.- 12 allegations.
13 And the latter of those two is a claim, quote, 14 "The Three Mile Island program office summarily rejected 3 (, , 15 Mr. Parks' allegations on inaccurate grounds without 16 first conducting a full or objective inquiry," close 17 quote. 18 That rejection that you're talking about is 19 ref erring to your being told on February 25 by Mr. Wiebe
. 20 and Mr. Barrett that they didn't find anything to support 4 ,
21 your claims you'd made on February 18? 22 A. At this point in time, what I can recall would
~
23 lead me to believe that, yes. l 24 And what did you know either on February 25 or Q. 25 when you wrote this letter or authorized this letter i 26-
, about what kind of inquiry the TMI program office had f
*
- I 27 made regarding your allegations? l
< . \
.'\' ,
28 MS. ZU RAS : Can you read that question back, 8.j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i i
.3,_-_.______.------__--------------------
e, 833, a:L
.'- 1 please? l
+
- p. 2 (Question read.) I I'
3 MR. HICKEY: -Let me break that up. It's too
~
L 4- long. It's only Mr.' Parks' third cup of coffee so -- j
.- 5- THE WITNESS: Second. Oh, you have my 6 undivided attention. Feel free to proceed.
'l 7 -MR. HICKEY: Q. 'What did 'you know on February
[, 8 25, 1983, about what kind of an investigation or what.
,; 9- investigative efforts the. program office had made
.- 10 regarding the allegations you'd given them?
- 11 :A. Well, from what I can recall at the moment, it 1
12 seems to me that Joel Wiebe and possibly Tony Fazano, who ! i 13 were the I ~ and E representatives on site, had conducted j q 14 like a week-long investigation. I know that they had (,W 15 -talked to Larry King and other members regarding the 16 polar' crane. I know they'd requested a copy of my 17 comments on the' polar crane. 18 So as of February 25th, that's what I knew to 19 the extent of.the investigation that they had performed. 20 other than what Lake Barrett had informed me of 3 21 when I met with him on February 25th.
-i 22 Q. He' told you that that he had done some more 23 things that you didn't know about until'Barrett told you?
-h 24 'A . Rig h t . '
25 Q. Do you remember what those were?
-.,. 26 A. Only that -- oh, I forget the gentleman's name, 27 but he was with the NRC of fice down in Bethesda, had made
- J 28 a surprise visit to Gaithersburg, had requested to see t
I 3JG, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 t a M .. _ - - _ - - _ - . - . - - _ - - - - _.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
g.; __.___ _ __._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _._ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _
, , .a
; 834 1 the load drop calculations and had looked at them.
(C . 2 Q. Was that Mr. Poindexter, do you believe? L :' 3 A. I really couldn't tell you. 4 Q. Well, did you express to'Mr. Barrett on 5 February 25 that you thought, the steps that had been taken as he outlined them to you were inadequate and that 6
- 7 more should be done?
8 A. Relevant to what, sir? 9 Q. The investigation of your allegations. 10 A. Regarding the polar crane or .regarding the -
'. 11 harassment, threats?
12 Q. Well, either. Well, take the polar crane first. 13 Did you- tell him that you wanted more done about the 14 polar crane? e (j 15 A. No, sir. I'had already been informed -- ao a i 16 result of my bringing issues to light and suggesting that 17 QA be involved, I had been informed that QA would do a 18 review of the polar crane. And I figured since NRC had 19 dropped the ball, QA would catch it and QA would document
, 20 it.
t . 21 Q. NRC had dropped the ball. What do you mean by 22 that? l 23 A. Well, when I was informed they had looked into 24 the polar crane and that they couldn' t find any problems, l 25 I figured they inadvertently overlooked something. But I 1 -26 figured QA would catch what they overlooked. So I-didn't 27 feel the need to push it any further. I was waiting to j
,' t L' 28 see what QA come up with. .
I I v
. [T; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 )
- .<.2.E -- - - - - - - - _ - - _ - - - - _ - - - - _ - - _ _ --- _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - . - - - - - - -
835 4 1 Q. How' about harassment .or retaliation? Did you
' ;. (. 2 make any comments to Mr. Barrett on the 25th of February n, 3 suggesting that he ought to do more to look into that 4 matter?
5 A. No. When he asked me if I wished to have an OI
.i 6 investigation into the threat against me, I told him at , . 7 that time that I'd put that decision in abeyance until I
- 8 had the opportunity to see what QA could produce. I.was
' i 9 hoping the problem would rectify itself.. 10 And that once QA had reviewed everything that 11 was going on, management would realize that I had
. - 12 identified some serious shortcomings and I wasn' t, you 13 know, just trying to be a monkey wrench in the works.
14 That's what I knew on February 25th.
, - (g 15 Q. Did you in any way indicate. to Mr. Barrett on l
16 February 25th that you thought his investigation or 17 inquiry had not been full or objective? 18 A. I cannot recall at this moment if I made any 19 comments, you know, similar to that. 20 Q. Did you later -- well, let me put a date on 21 that. You went back to the NRC on March 10. When you 22 went on March 10, did you make any comments to the NRC ; 23 representatives that you saw complaining about the extent ! 24 of the investigation that had previously been done? l
. 25 A. No, because during the course of the week that >
26 they were supposedly conducting their investigation,
. 27 comments had been fed back to me that myself and Bubba
- E- 28 Marshall were being investigated by the NRC for our i
l Why{ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 'J*0.*L__.__._______._____._____.___________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
836
....! I attitudes displayed at head lift meetings.
1
.j .,. 2 Q. I'm sorry. Dis- -- I didn't hear you. t
- (7. -
,, 3- A. Our attitude displayed at head lift meetings,
.O 4 that sort of thing. And combined with the comments that
." 5 ' were made roughly by Jim Thiesing -- if I recall 6 correctly,.I believe he r.ade those on the 28th of 7 February -- after Larry King had been suspended, that i
8 they knew a second or third level site ops man had gone
.,,' 9 to the NRC and'could see why some folks were worried 9
10 about transfers, that-type of thing, I started to lose
; 11 any and all trust in NRC.
12 I did not f eel they had done an eff ective job 13 to begin with, I did not feel that they were taking
-; 14 adequate precautions to protect my identity, and I became
,l
(-{ 15 very concerned about continuing to share the information 16 with NRC representatives on site. 17 Q. Where did you learn that the NRC was 18 investigating you and you say Bubba Marshall's attitudes 19 as displayed at the head lif t meetings? 20 A. If I recall correctly, it was comments that 21 were f ed back to either Larry King or Joe Chwastyk from 22 some other management type on the job site. ! 23 Q. You don't remember any more than that about who 24 it was? l; 25 A. I -- you know, it'd be speculation on my part 4 26 which gentleman it was. Or lady. So I do not care to i
. 27 sp ecula t e.
- - 28 But what the upshot of it all was, you know, S
) ; .? TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
((...,.,i____.__._--I--_.--------___------------
.O 837 ;, q .
W-
- Q} l starting on the 25th of February, as events progressed, g-
.- 2 the trust I had previous to all this for the NRC on site
^'fi 3 eroded exponentially with each passing day.
4 Q. Did/you know any persons who had been. ( 5 interviewed or contacted by the NRC in this investigation , l .i ['[ 6 .of you and Mr. Marshall's attitudes that you learned
.j 7 about through'Chwastyk or King?'
i
- . l.l 8 A. I know they -talked to Larry King.
O b i ;,i 9 Q. The HRC did? 10 Y es.
'.{ A.
. 11 Q. Okay. This is not the NRC talking to Larry
'h! -12 King about your polar crane concerns, this is another j' '
13 incident when the NRC talked to Larry King about your
? 14 head lift task force attitudes?
", (..r . ' 15 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. When you say "another
-. 16 incident," do you mean another occasion?
17 MR. HICKEY: Y es. Another occasion. 18 MS. ZURAS: Or seperate occasion? 19 THE WITNES: I think you're mischaracterizing 20 the point I'm trying to get across to you. 21 MR. HICKEY: Q. Okay. I misunderstood.
- +
22 That's why - i
, 23 A. To my knowledge, the NRC was never
,- 24 investigating myself or Bubba Marshall for attitudes
.i 25 displayed at head lift. I think that was a misconception
'[- 26 on the part of the individual who was relaying the
.- 27 message to Larry King.
- . U. . 28 Q. Oh, okay.
i . ..g TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.a ! _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ . _ ---
,(_ _ _ _ - - . . - - - . - - - - -
- - - - ~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - ~ ~ ~ -
838 { e' 1 A. But since the message was relayed to Larry King I {, 2 during the week-long investigation under concerns that I brought to the attention of the NRC as an outgrowth of my 3 h 4 threat on February 18th, that's how that all got started. 5 Okay. Larry King was talked to by Joel Wiebe
.. 6 during the course of the week that would have started on 7 the 21st of February regarding one, was the threat made, S
8 two, were there problems on the polar crane, et cetera, 9 et cetera. And I was in Joel -- was in Larry King's 10 office when Joel Wiebe walked up and I walked out and 11 they closed the door and they had the long talk. And 12 Larry told me after it was all over with what it was all 13 about. 14 I subsequently learned that the NRC talked to ( 15 some other folks. I was unsure at the time who all they 16 did talk to.
- 17 Q. But Larry told you af ter this interview with 18 Mr. Wiebe that among other things, Wiebe had asked him 4
19 concerns regarding your attitude as displayed at head 20 lift task force meetings? 21 A. No, sir. I thought I had done my best to clear
. 22 up that misconception on your part, but apparently I 23 failed.
24 Q. Let me try agcin. You heard there was an
. 25 investigation of you and Mr. Marshall's attitude, but you
.y. 26 didn't believe it, you thought that was a mistake, the
. 27 information was wrong? ,
-(>.
a '- 28 A. That's correct. I figured that that was
\
)
1
;f' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- .- L - - ______ __ .- _ _ _
y .. _. _ _ _ _._. _ _ .__ _ . _ _ _ ._. - - _ _ -.- . _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ 839 n- 1 comebody misconstruing what was going on.
~ - *
(. 2 Q. Okay.
. 3 A. Okay?
. 4 Q. And the way the misinformation came to you was
.c 5 someone, you don't know who, told either King or Chwastyk
. - 6 that they believed an investigation of you and Marshall 7 was going on and that got past you? But you thought that 8 was wrong, you didn't believe it?
9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Wiebe asked Mr. King 11 any questions about your attitude as displayed at head
, 12 lift task force meetings in this interview that happened 13 as you described?
14 A. If Joel Wiebe asked Larry King any questions (. 15 relevant to my attitude at head lif t -- 16 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. If you're about to 17 speculate -- I don't want to stop you ancwering the 18 question, but -- 19 THE WITNESS: No, I was not going to speculate. 20 If he did, he did not relay that to me. 21 MR. HICKEY: Q. Returning just briefly to
,- 22 Exhibit 60, Mr. Parks, you make another charge there on 23 the second page in paragraph number three at the end of 24 i t, specifically complaining that the OIA report had
. 25 dismissed your claim that draf t versions of HRC reports l-26 had been provided to the utility without interviewing Mr.
27 Larry King and that that was a deficiency in the kd 28 investigation done by OIA. i TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.6 _ - _ _ _
^
'. 840
.s
.g 1 Do you recall making that charge?
,4: 2 A. It's in the letter. And as I've stated before,
, ,: 3 I cannot provide any amplifying details at this point in
'. 4 time to change what's written there.
,, 5 Q. Well, did you think when you authorized this 6 letter that it was important for the NRC to interview Mr.
7 King because he had pertinent knowledge about the charge
.; ' 8 you were making, the providing of draf t reports' to the
. 9 utility?
10 A. I believed Larry King to have pertinent j 11 knowledge, yes. 12 Q. Did you think what he knew about the matter was c 13 important? 14 A. Well, if I thought he had pertinent knowledge,
;) (; l 15 then apparently I thought it was important.
16 Q. Well, let me use the word "significant." Did I
\
e 17 you think it was significant information? )
.' 18 A. I did not feel it was up to me to make the 19 determination whether the information possessed by Mr.
20 King was relevant to the matter or not. I felt it was 1
, 21 that in my opinion, the knowledge that he possessed was '
. . 22 sufficient that the NEC should talk to the man and make 23 their own determination.
.; 24 Q. I gather from that that you had already heard
* '.' 25 from Mr. King whatever it was he knew about this 26 allegation of the utility being provided draf t reports
-'.; 27 from by the NRC; is that right?
;: kc/ 28 A. I am of that belief at this moment, yes.
l
.','/3 TOOi.2R & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 w ,
- #f ' IV
' (,[! 841
,1 ;
t sT, 1 Q. Larry King had told you about that before you j {. 2 made the charge? 1'4 3 A. Yes. I think at one point in time, Larry King 4 had told me that in the early months of 1983.
, , . 5 Q. What did he tell you?
,' 6 A. At this point in time I really couldn't tell 7 you what he told me.
. 8 Q. Do you remember him telling you that his
, 9 knowledge of reports being provided in draft was limited
". , 10 to overhearing a telephone conversation on a squat box l
\
1 11 between Mr. Barrett and Mr. Kanga in which Mr. Barrett 12 said he was going to send Mr. Kanga a letter? 13 A. As I stated earlier, I really couldn't tell you 14 at this point in time, Mr. Hickey, exactly what o< (j 15 information Larry King had shared with me relevant to 16 this matter. t 17 Q. Let me try one more. Can you recall that King , 18 told you that he had no direct knowledge of any letters 19 or reports being provided in draf t from the NRC to the 20 utility? 21 A. Not at this moment I couldn't tell you that. 22 MR. HICKEY: Let me ask the Reporter, please, 23 to mark as Exhibit 61 to Mr. Parks' deposition a letter,
; 24 four-page, dated July 24, 1984, addressed to the !
- ,4 25 Commissioners, signed by Richard Parks.
; 26 (Whereupon, Defendant's Exhibit 61
/q 27 was marked for identification.)
. 28 MR. HICKEY: Q. Have you read Exhibit 61, Mr.
I n;: TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,
- ,
- u _ - _ - _ ___ ____ ._ i
.- 842 a ...l.
'4 2 . ' ,, 1 Parks?
I ' t . .. (f~ 2 A. Y es, I have. L l _ ,.; 3 Q. Do you recognize the document?
,; . 4 A. Yes, I do.
<* 5 Q. What is it?
6 A. It's a letter that I wrote to the Commissioners
.- 7 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
8 Q. What prompted the letter? What caused you to
, 9 write it?
10 A. Hmmh. If I'm not terribly mistaken at this 11 point in time, July of 1984 was when they issued one of the new regs regarding the outcome of the whole TMI
, 12 13 investigation to this polar crane and I believe -- yeah, 14 I think that's what it was. I just can't recall the new
. (, 15 reg number.
16 Q. And you got that document and read it and that 17 prompted you to write this letter? Is that what you're i 18 saying? 19 A. I couldn't tell you at this point in time if I 20 got the new reg and read it or if I went to the local {
$ 21 library and read it or, you know, if selected portions of '
22 it were read to me over the phone or what have you.
. 23 Q. Okay. And you were living in California at the
. 24 time?
l
., 25 A. Y es , sir, I was.
l
, 26 Q. Your comments in the letter, both at the
- 1. 27 beginning and at the end, suggest that you f eel that the
., t . \
b' 28 points that you're making ought to be made known to the l l
;3D TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1 {
n .a_ _ _ _ _ _ -. ;
4 se
. / 84 3 t
g., 1 . - r f,q;: 1 . licensing board that was hearing-the THI Unit One restart-
. , .5- - (" ? . 2 proceedings; is that right?
a A. ..
.~.: i 3 A.: That's correct.
i .j2.- 4 Q. And you wrote these comments to bring them to
..., 5 the licensing board's attention?,
~
^i b 6 A. That's correct.
I c';
,. 7' Q. Did someone ask to you.do that or did you do-8 that on your own initiative?
9 A. I did that on my own initiative. l i 10 Q. Were you following or trying to keep abreast of 1 l,". 11 ti.e restart proceedings regarding Unit One? 12 A. I was trying to keep abreast of na much
; 13- information as I.could regarding Unit One, not 14 necessarily the restart information.
; , (;- 15 Q. How did you do that? What sources did you have?
16 A. Well, I lived effectively right next door to 17 the university library at Cal Poly and they have a very y- 18 good government document section there and I spent a lot 19 of time in there reading. Since I was unemployed. 20 Q. You were not employed by anyone in July of 19847 A.
~
- i. - 21 No, sir, I was not. I was employed by the -- I 22 guess you could say the State of California, 'cause I was 23 getting unemployment checks.
. 3 24 Q. When did you go to work for the Government 25 Accountability Project? . 26 A. Oh, shortly af ter I was terminated at Cool 4
- . . + 27 Water. i
'q (C ' 28 Q. That would have been in the early months of N# ,
4 .
- I 3
Ch!l TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
% ? Ne +_ _ _ _ . _. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
844 y:,
'g .
, . .[, 1 19847~
. // 2 A. Corr ect.
l ., ;
.. . 3 Q. I don't know the date. February, March?
* :, 4' A. February sometime.
..,., 5 Q.- But your employment with .the Government
, 6 Accountability Project ended by July 24th?
.' $ 7 A. Y es .
l
; 8 Q. When did it end?
9 A. I think I parted ways with them like first week
,c 10 or so of July. It was before I had written this letter.
11 MR. JOHNSON: I think I'm going to object to 12 this line of questioning. I fail to see the relevance of
) , 13 it to any issue that's in litigation here.
14 MR.. HICKEY: Well, I'm trying to understand the 7 (}.. 15 context of the letter before I ask him questions about 16 the specifics of it.
. 17 Q. You told the commissioners in the letter that 18 you were doing, quote, "An exhaustive review" and would i 19 detail all your concerns in a future affidavit.
20 That relates to this concern that the NRC has -- 21 your concern over the way the IIRC has handled the 22 allegations of mismanagement and the THI 2 cleanup.
.' 23 A. Y es .
24 Q. Did you do that, do an exhaustive review and
' ' ' 25 detail your concerns in a future affidavit?
26 A. Well, that's a compound question. Do you want s'..., - 27 a compound answer?
, vs 28 Q. Well, why don't you tell me if you did the 2 ', ;Nl TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1
e $* .
.... g - -- - - - - -
; . .._ . . 8459 f eq .
*- f ,
fi> , 1 exhaustive review?
, , . '(Vb 2 A. Y es .
- N.; ;
JU.[ 3' O. And.when did you complete that?
.# 4 A. Oh, probably about April this' year. .,A. 5- Q. Did you work on it' continuously since then?
2* 6 A. Off and on.at selected times as the opportunity
.. 7 arose.
y 8 Q. Well, let me focus on 1984. Did you work on'it 1 i .' 9 throughout 1984 af ter July? l 10 A.' No, I did not work on it throughout 1984 after 1 11- July. i 12 Q. How about 19857 Did you work on it then? 4
~
13 A. Off and on. 14 Q. Do you remember when? (y, 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you detail your concerns in a future 17 affidavit? In an affidavit, excuse me?
, 18 A. No, I did not.
i i 19 Q. Any particular reason? ' 20 A. Y es . l 21 Q. Why? l l .
- 22 A. I retained counsel sitting to my left and filed
~5
, 23 a civil proceeding case.
24 Q. Are you saying it was on advice that you didn't 25 file --
.. 26 MR. JOHNSON: I'm going to object.
,, A 27 MR. HICKEY: Q. -- an affidavit detailing your
, 3,'j 28 concerns?
,4, i
-$ j
@.j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 a4 _A______---___ _ _ _ . _ __ _ - - - - - _ _ - - - - _ - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - - --
,y,
~ ,yi 846
%.q 1
y , ., j 1 MR.' JOHNSON: I'm going to object to these 3
/1 . pT, 2 questions. It's beyond the scope of the proceeding, 47 3 doesn't pertain to the charges in the scope of the wh 4 violation. Please confine your questions to the scope'of i[,
5 the litigation.
. 6 MS. EURAS: Y es. And Mr. Parks, I would
~
7 caution you not to reveal communications that you had
.., 8 between counsel and yourself.
'. 9 THE WITNESS: Right.
10 MR. HICKEY: I'm not asking him for the
>> 11 substance of any communications with counsel. He-1 12 . explained that he didn't file this affidavit, I 13 understood him to say because he retained counsel. I 'm
; 14 asking Mr. Parks whether that means that it was on advice
+. (,. 15 of counsel.
16 MR. JOHNSON: Let me ask you this question: Is 17 it your position --
,. , 18 MR. HICKEY: Can I have the witness answer
. 19 first?
~
20 MR. JOHNSON: No. I'd like to make my
, 21 objection. I'm reiterating my objection to the relevance 22 of these matters. Unless are you contending that these
~~
23 letters constitute protective activity which are the
- i
,' 24 subject of this proceeding?
- I
*-- 25 MR. HICKEY: No. I think they're relevant to
. 26 Mr. Purks' credibility.
*% 27 MR. JOHNSON: Well, I don't see any connection.
3 .
. l' <
28 MR. HICKEY: Well, the connection is that Mr. ! t fi.$d TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Prsncisco 94105 415/392-0650
- (4
. AcdA _ _ . ___ _. __ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.,..a_.- .- - - - - - - - - - -
[: 847 21 i {
]
.'S 1 Parks has made charges, including in this letter, that
-t
; {j ' 2 the investigation of his allegations was improperly
- '5 3 handled and was mistaken and a lot of other things. And
', 4 I think those charges, if they are found not to be
.- 5 accurate, relate to Mr. Parks' credibility.
6 MR. JOHNSON: Well, then you should confine 7 yourself to the matters that you're trying to use in this proceeding and not ask him questions about litigation in 8 9 another proceeding, it seems to me. 10 MR. HICKEY: Q. Can you answer the question,
! 11 Mr. Parks?
- r. .
12 MS. ZURAS: Well, I'm going to instruct Mr. 13 Parks not to answer. I think he's provided a response to 14 you as to why he didn't. He retained counsel and you can ( 15 take whatever conclusions you want f rom that comment. 16 But that's his response and I'm going to 17 instruct him not to expand any further based upon also 18 the concerns that have been expressed by Mr. Johnson. 19 MR. HICKEY: Q. Mr. Parks, look at page two of 20 Exhibit 61, would you, please. The next to last
,- 21 paragraph. You're addressing the argument that the 22 management breakdown in Unit Two is largely irrelevant 23 for Unit One because the personnel are separate.
24 And you say, quote, " Messrs. King, Gischel and
^
25 myself fully informed Mr. Phil Clark, the entire board of 26 directors and Mr. Kuhns respectively."
, 27 Who is it in that sentence that you're saying i <
', \O' 28 that Richard Parks informed, Mr. Clark, the board of 1 **
1 - l n
*fj?} TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ees
*d. 848 gI .. t . s
,, N: 1 directors or Mr. Kuhns?. t
,,. g:1- .2 A. I spok e with Mr. Kuhns.
'/ 3 Q. When was that?
. 4 A. When I was first suspended.
. 5 Q. Shortly after March 24?
6 A. Y es .
.,- 7 Q. Was it a telephone call or in person?
,, 8 A. Telephone call.
1 .
, 9 Q. Did you initiate it?
1 -*
10 A. Y es.
,' 11 Q. Can you give me the substance of your 12 conversation with Mr. Kuhns?
13 A. No. I couldn't really tell you at this point
. .l 14 in time what all we did talk about.
(, 15 Q. Well, can you tell me anything that you talked i 16 about? l l 17 A. Just basically - let me think. Basically that 18 I wanted to get the problems at TMI corrected. That's 19 about all I can tell you that we talked about.
. 20 Q. About how long was this telephone call?
, 21 A. I really couldn't tell you.
22 Q. Did you write any kind of followup letter to l l
-+
23 Mr. Kuhns? l
' ' l 24 A. No.
25 Q. Were you with anyone when you placed this call ]
. 26 to Mr. Kuhns?
;) 27 A. I really couldn't tell you if there was anybody 1.. 28 in my home or not.
',).
~
- t A
..e ]qj TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 <.b d
*/
849 It was made from your. home? -
., 1 Q.
. . ,(( l ('? 2 A. I believe so. l.1 3 Q. .You don't recall whether Mr. Devine was there? [J. J- 4 A. I don't think so. I really couldn't tell'you.
.,[ 5 , Q. .Is it accurate to say that you' fully informed
;;; 6 Mr. Kuhns about the management breakdown in this phone 7 call of however long it was?
,$ 8 A. Once again, sir, I think you're taking out of
;. 9 context the intent of this paragraph. The intent of this 10 paragraph was to bring it before the licensing board's l
11 attention that it'was my belief at that time that 12 ineff ective and irresponsible management practices 13 started at the top and worked down, not at the bottom and
.14 worked up.
(; 15 'O. Well, I understand that. But I assume you 16 wanted to bring that to the board's attention with ! 17 accurate information, did you not? 18 A. I think you have to elaborate on what the point 19 is you're trying to make. 20 Q. Well, I'm asking you the question whether it's
]
.- 21 accurate to say that you fully informed Mr. Kuhns about )
o l
. 22 the management breakdown in this telephone conversation 1 23 you've just described, whatever length it was?
- ': 24 A. I really couldn't tell you exactly how much we ,
l 25
.- did talk about. I was of the belief when this letter was
' Fl ~ 26 written that there was sufficient information available
!' 27 to the board of directors, Mr. Kuhns and Mr. Clark to 4 E' 28 f ully enlighten them on the management breakdown at TMI 2.
lt J-? ppJ,,l TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 A'
a:
- 850
+ . ..
.gi * -
1 Q. And the next paragraph. has your opinion -
,' Q} 2 expressed that the report designated SECY 84-36 -- that's
- , . . 3 S-E-C-Y, all caps -- SECY 84-36, titled "Staf f Review and
. .,,y 4 ' Response to OI Report on TMI 2 Cleanup Allegations" was
[.- , 5 in your view, quote, "Another instance of collusion
- J' 6 between the NRC staff and TMI 2 management."
7 I assume this paragraphLaccurately reflects
.' s 8 what your opinion was at the times is that right?
.'; 9 A. From what I can recall at this moment, this 4 10 accurately reflects what my opinion was at the time.
. 11 Q. What did you mean when you said the report
. 12 reflected collusion between the staf f and management?
13 A. Well, if you'll continue reading that same
'.- 14 paragraph, I was of the opinion that their statement --
(i 15 "their" being the staf f review and response to OI's 16 r epor t, they were of the opinion that they found no
. 17 evidence of deliberate circumvention of administrative 18 procedure to avoid technical requirements. And I took 19 exception with that. j
, 20 Q. You mean you thought it was wrong?
l
. 21 A. That's correct. : . .' ,; 22 Q. You disagreed?
23 A. That's correct.
.. 24 Q. But you said something more than that. You
~+
f 25 said it was the result of collusion between the staf f and 26 management, didn' t you? le 27 A. Well, OI found, if I recall correctly -- and 28 I?m sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. That OI found m. l s .. 3.,]j , TOOKER 4 ANTZ 131 Steaart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,. g . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - -
.;,y,____.-._,__-_.--__.--:---------------------
m-.. a,' 851
,. o 4., 1 the same cozy relationship, if you will, collusion, o -a 2 however you wish to define it, was a cause for the QA breakdown in the:first place.
r
, 3 And that was the collusion
~
. , , . '; 4l that I~was referring to.
, ,' 5_ Q. Well, what do you mean by " collusion"? Maybe
" .. . 6 we better; get some understanding. here. What do you mean, j 7 or what did you mean in this letter when-you said L .,
8 " collusion"? r . 9 A.- Well, if I remember correctly, OI had found as 10
, a result of their investigation that there had been 11 certain policies instituted and implemented by the NRC 12 field of fice people on site that actually encouraged --
13 in their opinion, encouraged people at TMI to tend to
', 14 disregard the procedures and go about getting various
(,, 15 procedures reviewed and approved in a'less than total l 16 compliance with requirements fashion. i 17 That is the collusion I was ref erring to. 18 Q. Well, did you mean to suggest that the NRC g, . 19 program office at THI had deliberately encouraged people
. 20 to disregard procedures?
.. 21 A. I don't think that I was trying to make any I
, 22 definition regarding their motives, if that's what you're l 23 asking me.
A 24 Q. When you used the word " collusion," your r 25 testimony today is that you did not mean to imply f' s. 26 anything about the motives of the NRC staf f ?
, . 27 A. No. I don't -- there once again, you know, I
( 'd - 28 think you and I often end up in tangents on the A, . IN; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.u a - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
,,,.,.y~.-----~~-------------------------- 852. 2:lc .j
,'* h- 'l . description and/or the definition of one certain~ word.
- 4. .; _ j.']), -2 .The point . I was trying' to make was that' the (W+ 3 policies that .were implemented by Lake Barrett, right, j 7 4 and his staff at the THI field office, had -- I felt they a '* ,
5 were. wrong to begin with. I brought that to the
- a. -
6 attention of the NRC. I felt they were deliberate to
,1 7 begin with. The NRC had looked.into it and I couldn't
( 8 really. tell you at this point in time if- the NRC found l 9 that deliberate or not. 10 Tut since it was the responsibility for the NRC 11 people on site not to allow that to happen, but .they had I s . 12 allowed it to. happen -- in fact, in some cases I think 13 they had encouraged it -- then yes, I would have to
, 14 believe that was deliberate. Or neglectful.
(: 15 So I guess that answers your question. And if 16 it didn't, I'll do my best to answer it again. 17 Q. Well, I'm not sure we're going to make much 18
'l progress. Let me ask you another question.
f 19 You indicated that what you call your cursory
, 20 review of the evidence provided evidence to you that the 21 procedural violations were intentional. Do you mean the (
22 procedural violations, I assume -- well, strike "I 23 assume."
' ? 24 Are you talking about procedural violations !
,' 25 with the polar crane?
,>- 26 A. Can you please direct me to that cite? j i
./ , 27 0. Yes. The next' line down on page three.
,.v kh 28 MR. JOHNSON: Just to to be precise, what's the l-i
?[.ik TOOKER &' ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 6, Vial
...y,----------------------------- 853
.e 1 next line down?
. . c- (, 2 MR. HICKEY: It's the paragraph that begins "A s, 3 cursory review of the evidence." 4 MR. JOHNSON: I see.
- . 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. I've reviewed that j
; 6 sentence. Would you pleast repeat your question.
- f ,
7 MR. HICKEY: Q. Were you talking about l
. 8 procedural violations related to the polar crane? ;
9 A. Not necessarily, but procedural violations en d 10 masse. I 11 Q. In the next two sentences, Mr. Parks, is the ; 12 detailed response to the Commissioners on the SECY report
. 13 that you ref erred to the same document that you were 14 talking about on the first page, the future affidavit (f- 15 that after retaining councel you didn't provide? Or are 16 you talking about t.wo different documents?
17 MR. JO!fNSON: There are a number of elements in 18 the question. Do you understand the question? 19 MS. ZU RAS : Could you read it back? I'm sorry. I 20 I sort of spaced out. 21 MR. HICKEY: Let me rephrase it. 22 Q. On page three you talked about your preparing a 23 detailed response to the Commissioners on the SECY r e:co r t , 24 right?
.. ', 25 A. Cor r ec t. That's a correct statement.
>- 26 Q. I asked you a f ew minutes ago about your
., 27 statement on page one of this exhibit. "I am performing 28 an exhaustive review and will detail all my concerns in a
, '(0) TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 .2E--__-________-___--___--__--___-_-___ - - - - _ - _ - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
-Q .
854
'o '. ..->. 1 future affidavit." .,. (~
- g. .
2 Are you talking about the same document and r 3 study or are you talking about two different things? A. It's one and the same. 4
. . 5 O. In your following the licensing p'roceeding 1, 6 through the university library or wherever regarding TMI 7 restart, I take it you were aware -- let me rephrase the p- 8 question.
. 9 When you were wrote the letter, you were aware, 10 wer e you not, that GAP attorneys were providing counsel N
y 11 for an intervenor group in the TMI restart proceeding? 12 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Could you please read 13 back the question? 14 (Question read.) (} 15 MS. EU RAS: Mr. Parks, I want to cautior, you in 16 answering the question not to divulge any communication 17 you may have received f rom your attorneys. But you can 18 state whether or not if you were aware at the time this
. 19 letter was written what your awareness was, but not the 20 sources of any awareness.
21 THE WITNESS: I was unaware if they were. 22 MR. HICKEY: Q. You didn't know that Miss 23 Bernabei was a lawyer in the TMI restart proceeding? ,
I 24 A. I was not aware that Miss Dernabei was a lawyer j i
.- 25 in the restart proceeding, no. '
26 Q. You did know of Miss Bernabei? 27 A. I have met Miss Bernabei. l<
' Ni 28 Q. I mean in July of '84 you knew who che was?
\
l J'N TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 d' ,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,,,,,. g __ __ _ _.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
855
. :l. .
4 l -O , 1 A. Well, I met her about that time, but I wouldn't
. - ce - (j(- 2 really classify it as knowing her. **u: 3 MS. ZU RAS: Can we take a five-minute break?
j 4 MR. HICKEY: All right. !
.4 1 5 (Brief recess.)
6 MR. HICKEY: Q. Okay. Mr. Parks, let me see
- j. 7 if I can put a little chronology on what my next question 8 relates.to.
9 I've showed you Exhibit 60 which is a November I 10 1983 letter on your behalf f rom Devine to the ;
. 11 Commissioners criticizing the OIA report. And I showed !
12 you yesterday the transcript of your interview, portion 13 of a transcript of your interview in June of '85 related i 14 to that letter. (, 15 And I believe you told me yesterday that you 16 did not recall having an opportunity to review the 17 transcript and make corrections in it? 18 A. I don't think that's a fair characterization of ; 19 what I said. I think what I said was I had not reviewed 20 the transcript and had not as yet had the opportunity to ; 21 or been presented with the opportunity to make j 22 corrections and submit it to the NRC. 23 Q. And I simply don't r em emb er . I don't remember
. 24 if I asked you. Did you ask the NRC for a chance to
.., 25 review and correct the transcript?
- - - 26 A. I couldn't tell you at this point in time if I 27 did or not.
l ( ,
' ' - - 28 Q. I want to direct your attention to a portion of 4
j
/k,f TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
-a c.so._______
.,.,7, l- .a 856
'; A +
. 1 the transcript. This is - ~I need.to ask one more '
- g g, 2 question.
l. 3 You said a few moments ago in response to one
< ;. ? '4 of my questions that you retained counsel,' referring to
... 5 Miss.Zuras. When did you do that?
l 6 A. 1984. . l 7 Q. Can you give'me a month? Approximate? I.? 8 A. I can't recall if the first time we met was in
.: 9 July or August.
10 Q. But in late summer could we say? g 11 A. I would_say it was -- I don't -- I really
. 12 couldn't tell you. It was in the summer of 1984.
i 13 Q. Okay. That's good. When you met with the NRC
.. 14 Of fice of Inspector and Auditor in June of 1985, the
' (. 15 transcript reflects -- and I'll show it to you -- on page i
16 51, that Mr. Logan, who was one of the OIA l 1 17 representatives present, said that during.a break, you, ' 18 Mr. Parks, had told them that you could provide them with 74 19 some additional information and would like the
,', 20 opportunity to do so but it would take 30 days i
; 21 approximately to get it to them.
22 He restated that on the record und you 23 confirmed that that was correct. And he said fine, we'd 24 be glad to get it.
. 25 Let me show you this to you so you know what l
+
26 we're talking about. This is page 51 of the transcript l
.;.. 27 and lines 16 to 23.
.7
.E' O 28 A. I don't think I understand what you're asking.
j h TOOKER & ANTZ -131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. - L _ __ _
.'cQ?- ...
857 N. l
~3 4 i 1 Q. Well, maybe -- oh, excuse me. Go ahead.
1
- d l[ ( , 2 MS. . ZU RAS : Excus e me. " "t -
3 THE WITNESS: Yeah. ~ "" 4 MS. ZURAS ' Was there a question pending? 5 MR. HICKEY: Yes. What was the question? 6 MS. ZURAS:
\ '
~
7 MR. HICKEY: The question was whether he 8 remembered as reflected on page .51, the lines that I 9 pointed out to him, telling the OIA investigator in June
. 10 of 1985 that he would provide them with additional 1 - 11 inf ormation but it would take approximately 30 days for 12 him to do so.
13 THE WITNESS: I couldn' t tell you if I told 4 14 them that or not, but it says that right here. (, 15 MR. HICKEY: Q. Do you have any basis to doubt 16 the accuracy of that? 17 A. Not at this point in time, no. 18 MS. EURAS: I think it's only fair to also 19 refer to the latter portion of that when he's making 20 reference to additional information in response to 21 reading Mr. Devine's letter and anything he could add 22 specifically to that letter as being the additional 23 information. 24 MR. HICKEY: Well, I think the transcript will
,4 25 speak for itself. I don't agree with your interpretation 4,
26 of it. i l* 27 Q. But for the record, can I take it, Mr. Parks,
'q .
"l' 28 you had an opportunity to read -- you did r ead, did you
.3 "n{ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 gd
,,...,.j__------.---------------------
'& 858
. :. . ~ .
4
, i,. lv;;
, 1- not, several pages- before page- 51, at least as far back e
'. .. l {p . .
2 as page > 4 97 i
. , , . 3 A. Yes, I did. .y '
4 Q. Okay. What was the additional.information you 5: planned to provide?
..., 6 A. At this point in time, I could'not tell.you 7 because the thing that we were discussing at that point 5, 8- in that transcript was the OIA report of which I have not 4' 9 seen for quite awhile. So I really couldn't tell-you at
"', 10 .this point in time what information we were talking about.
,, 11 Q. But it related to the OIA report?
,; . 12 A. I -- I would have to speculate at this point in 1 13 time and I.really couldn't tell you.
14 Well, maybe this will help refresh your
~
Q. 1 i (- 15 r recollection. I'm directing you to the material 16 beginning on page 53 of the transcript, line 22, where i 17 you talk about an analysis. And then if you'll read on 18 over to -- did I say 52? It's page 52, line 22 over to 19 page 54, line 15.. See if that helps you. I
.. 20 A. Based on my review of that paragraph, I still S. 21 -could not at this point in time clearly identify for you l 22 which information we were talking about.
, 23 Q. Let me put the question a little dif f erently.
24 You planned, did you not, to send what you call an 4 25 in-depth review of the 1983 OIA report and the 1983 OI
,, i
,. 26 report and the dif f erences between the two? That's what 1
> l i., 27 you had in mind to send to the OIA, right?
ff ' ? 28 A. I really couldn't tell you at this point in
*b ,
- .y l inM5 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 n .'d -- __ --- I
l .. ,;-
. Lll . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ,0 859 d.
su.,- jf 1 that's what I -- if that's what that statement in the j
' ' ..i .e, . 4 2 transcript is referring to or not.- Not without reviewing 3 the whole transcript.
3 . ,;'- 4- Q. That is what the statement says, right?
,. 5 A. I --
, < . 6 Q. Did I read the statement accurately or not?
7 A. I don't know if that's what it says ci not. 8 Q. Well, look at it. Let me read.it again. i 9 Beginning at line 99, quote, "The witness:" -- that's you, 10 Mr. Parks - "For the next 30 days I would suggest so
., 11 that you do not spin your wheels and lose any progress, I
, , 12 would suggest you do a very in-depth review of the 1983 13 OIA report and the 1983 OI report and just take a look at
~. 14 the diff erences .between the two because that's what my 1
(' 15 report coming to you will deal mostly with, that and 1 16 every other part of the public record generated since I i
- 4. 17 went public in 1983."
18 Did I read that accurately?
; 19 A. .Yes, sir, you did. But if I recall correctly, j 20 you had asked before that I stop my reading at the end of \
S 21 the paragraph that ended directly before that paragraph. 22 Q. You didn't read that paragraph before? 23 A. No, I did not. 24 Q. Now you've read it, right? 3 25 A. Now I've read it. s [ ; ., 26 Q. Does it refresh your recollection any more? 27 A. No. L' 28
] Q. Did you submit this report that's described in
,+
.h
,q ,,
hf.] . TOCKER & ANT 2 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ) sA R -- - - -____ _ --_ __- - _ _ - __ _ _ - - - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,.y.,;-_-_----------------------------
+
860
.,p.
c-f'M 1 the material I just read, Mr. Parks? " .p,'. , . 3.< 6. 2- A. No, I did not.
. i(; 3 Q.- Why was that?
n [v 4 A. On advice of counsel. .,
)
(, 5 Q. N ow , the transcript reflects that you had
.(,,, 6' wanted to have an opportunity to sign it, review and siyn 7 it. .Let ze direct you to page 55 where the OIA investigator, Mr. Logan, starting at line one, ' discusses 8
.' '9 with you the plans that have been made for giving you a 10 . copy of the. transcript to r evi ew.
". 11 Why don't you just read that to yearself, -
1 f, 12 please. 13 You might as well read to the end, page 56. ! 14- That's the end of the transcript. t
;( 15 A. Okay. Now, what was your question?
i 16 Q. First I wanted you to read it._ And my question 17 is whether you recall that the NRC agreed to send you a ! 18 copy of the transcript of your interview in June of '85 ... : 19 by OIA for your review? i' 20 A. Yes. They did agree and they did send one.
'.- 21 Q. And they did send one? Did you review it?
22 A. No. 23 Q. You did receive it? ' 24 A. I did eventually receive it. I couldn't even
'. 25 begin to tell you when.
f 26 Q. Did you notice any errors or inaccuracies in I5 I;t , 27 the transcript when you reviewed it?
. 2 b# - 28 A. I didn't bother reviewing it.
L,o ,
- l. .
, ?: -j,jg TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 .b n i _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ -_
,.g,f
, _. --~ - _ - _-__--------------
v y , ,. 5 861 l
. )1 I
$d l '. Q. 'Did you read it?
.( ' (TV 2 A. No. I thought I've'already' answered that.
, . '/ 3 Q. Oh, maybe you did. LI take-it then you never t
t ,' 4' sent:in any corrections or changes to the. transcript to 1 , . Tw... .5 the CIA investigator?
, 6 A. That is correct.
, \
.- 7 Q. Is there any particular reason why you didn't !
.e. 8 read it?
'9 A. I was occupied with other things.
10 Q. And do you know about when you received- it?
..' 11 A. I think I've already stated I did not have any .
. 1
-12 idea when I received it.
l
. , . 13 Q. No idea at all?
14 A. No.
.h. 15 MR. HICKEY: Let me ask the Reporter to mark as
~
16 Exhibit 62, please, this . letter dated November 27, 1985, 17 to Thomas Devine of GAP from Sharon Connelly, Director, 18 Office of Inspector and Auditor, NRC.
, 19 (Whereupon, Defendant's Exhibit 62 20 was marked for identification.)
'N 21 MR. HICKEY: You've read Exhibit 62, Mr.
L Q. l l 22 Parks? l i 23 A. Y es , I have. j
.~' 24 Q. Do you recognize the letter? !
i 25 A. I -- if you're asking me have I ever read this r-7 ,' 26 letter bef ore, I really couldn't tell you if I have or
..i.,J 27 not.
**d
'*)
'o . '"' 28 Q. Do you remember Mr. Devine informing you in
. :t
. -l .
ke
%> t'i, TOOKER & ANT 2 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 lb%e5b _ . _ . - _ - - . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - . _ . - _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ - -
. ,, .,,Y.". ' 862
.. 1 ' November of 1985 that. -- or October of 1985 that- the NRC
-{, 2 Office of Inspector and Auditor had contacted him to get
* 'J l 3_ the additional information f rom you?
.( 4 'MS. ZbRAS: I'm going to object to the form of 5 the graestion on the basis that it's attempting to elicit
.j 6 f rom Mr. Parks communications that he had with Mr. Devine.
'. 7 I think there's other ways that you could possibly get 8 the information that you want without having to ask him 9 what Mr. Devine told him.
10 MR. HICKEY: Well, I can't agree that any
. ,. 11 communications with Mr. Devine is confidential when he's 12 a messenger transmitting a statement in a public document.
13 My goodness. I'm asking Mr. Parks if Mr. Devine passed i 14 on the message Mr. Devine apparently got according to ( 15 this exhibit. It's not secret information,.it's not 16 confidential information. It's not even legal advice. 17 MS. ZURAS: Well, I can't agree with your 18 characterization of the communication. All I would 19 request is that you ask the question -- if you're ; 20 interested in knowing whether or not he was aware of Ms. l 21 Connelly's letter that you ask him that and not ask him 22 for the source of that awareness. i
. i 1
23 MR. HICKEY: Okay. Let's do it that way. l
.. 24 Q. Did you learn about this information, Mr. Parks?
?
25 A. Which information?
, -- 26 Q. The information that the NRC was interested in 27 trying to obtain the additional information you had
' /. . h- 28 promised?
t
, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 .s..su_______________--
p.g __.
.c/ #- 863 1 VA: l
,.,,- 1 A. I think you have to repeat that again. Somehow
, a 2 or another I lost what you were trying to -- what you're 3 trying to say.
)
S/ 4 Q. Well, I was trying to find out whether Mr. l 5 Devine gave you the information that's contained in the .
,- 6 letter. At your counsel's suggestion, I am going to ask ')
. 7 you first did you get the informat' ion contained in this e.' 8 letter? And then I'm going to ask 'if .you did, where did
.. 9 you get it f rom?
10 A. I was aware the NRC wanted the information, yes. 11 Q. And where did you get that awareness f rom? 12 A. I really couldn't tell you.
- 13 Q. Was there anybody representing you in l 14 Washington besides Mr. Devine in 19857
.(: 15 MS.~ZURAS: Excuse me. I'm going to object'to 16 the question as vague and ambiguous.
17 MR. HICKEY: Representing in a legal .since.-
~
18 MS. EURAS: What do you mean, in Washington? 19 MR. HICKEY: Located in Washington, D.C.
-20 MS. EURAS: Okay. So in other words, was 21 anybody who was an attorney who happened to be located in 22 Washington, D.C., representing Mr. Parks?
23 MR. HICKEY: That's exactly right. 24 THE WITNESS: No.
,- 25 MR. HICKEY: Let me just show you one more
.; 26 document here, Mr. Parks. I'll ask the Reporter to mark
.g 4 27- it as Exhibit 62.
{ *.
',. . M '4 28 MR. JOHNSON: 3.
.L 4.: ':q:' i TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.Ms'
- p. . . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
y;Y
- c 864'
. . . >, \* ,
L F - 4
,TS :1 MR. HICKEY: I'm sorry. 63. Thank you. It?s V .;- . (x;,(
2 a letter dated September 19, 1983, to Mr. Ben Hayes
':7 3 signed by Thomas Devine of the Government Accountability
%*I.' ' 4 Project.
= 's - 5' :(Whereupon, ~ Def endant's Exhibit 63 i 1
6 was marked for identification.)
':, 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. I've read it.
'. MR. RICKEY:
8 Q. Exhibit 63, Mr. Parks, is that j 9 a letter that you authorized your counsel, Mr. Devine, to Y 10 send on your behalf to Mr. Hayes of the Of fice of 11 Investigations?
?
12-MS. EURAS: Before he answers that question, 13 could we. clarify the date of this letter? Is it 14 September 19837 , (*- 15 MR. HICKEY: Yes. 16 MS. ZURAS: Okay. Thank you. 17- THE WITNESS: The information contained in 18 reference to me, yes, I authorized it. 19 MR. HICKEY: Q. Are you excluding some 20 information here? I don't understand your answer. 21 A. Well, September of 1983, I was located in the
,t 22 heart of the Mojave Desert, so any communications that 23 Tom sent to the NRC most probably were discussed over the 24 telephone and --
j "
25 Q. Not by mail? i
; 26 A. Righ t. '
4
- 7. j ._ 27 Q. You didn't receive mail f rom Mr. Devine?
' ( .. 28 A. Right. And there ar e two concerns that he g?:; u l
TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ' f(:,Affj
. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ . _ _ . . ._ - _ ___ _ _-- --- _ _- -- _-- ------_ - i
y,,,.,_,___,._____.______.__._.- _ _ ___ _ .-._ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - =- h' s - 865 n# y; , f ij,
)
f /. 7 1 . details- here and the conclusions that he ref erences were
.,4v - (),
s c, 2- drawn by me I confirm. And I had endorsed. q
- V . 3 Q. We've had.several letters now that'have been
'l b e / ,'. , .4 sent by Mr. Devine on your behalf. Was it your practice
', / 5 when letters were being written and you were not
'k. 6 physically where Mr. Devine was that he would read the
',' 7 lettersto you over the telepho'ne for your approval?
~
8 MS..EURAS: Well -- all right. Answer the
,- 9 question. Do you understand the word " practice"?
L. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. I can't state that it
., 11' was a practice every word and sentence -- or, you know, 12 every word in the sentence was read to me.over the phone. _
; 13 We discussed the content.
14 MR. HICKEY: Q. But at least you would have
-(; 15 discussed the content?-
16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Af ter you terminated your employment with GAP ,
.' 18 in I think you said early July 1984, were you ever
, 19 re-employed by them?
.,-i 20 A. Yes.
, ; i, 21 Q. When was that?
'., 22 A. Wait a minute. You said 1985.
23 Q. No, I thought I said 19c4.
, . 24 A. 1984. ..') 25 Q. I meant to say '84. I thought I did. . ', $ 26 A. I was -- I went back to work for GAP in July, I *\ f 27 guess it was, of 1985.
lf0.. 4^ 28 Q. And how long did you remain employed by them?
,n
- (('j' -TOOKER & ANT 2- 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,:jt _ .___ . _ _ -_ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - - _ _ - - _ - _ - _ - - - .
,,,..f___.____.._--_-------------------------
* ??, 866 y
,',s.., 1 A. About six months.
,. .; () . .2 Q. So till the end of '85, approximately? l
- , 3 A. Thereabouts. Again, you know, what I would do j l' 4
( , ~- would be reference you to the depositions that were taken , Tr ., ' 5 by Mr. Richardson. We delved into that subject -in great 6 detail. ! i" l 7 Q. All right. I think you told me yesterday -- if i 1 8 I can shift time zones on you, I think you told me 4 , 9 yesterday when you were seeking an attorney to represent 10 you in 1983 when these events were taking place, that in 11 your phrase you let your fingers do the walking through 12 the Yellow Pages. You atteopted to find an attorney by 13 looking in the telephone book for the Harrisburg area and 14 called a number of attorneys that you just picked out of (j 15 the phone book. Is that right? 16 A. I think I said that, yes. 17 Q. And did you go see any of those attorneys that 18 you identified in the Yellcw Pages?
. 19 A. No.
>: 20 Q. Did one of them refer you to GAP 7 Is that your 21 test imony? !
22 A. No. ' 23 Q. No? How did you find out about GAP? How did
, 24 you g et to G AP?
25 A. If I remember correctly, I explored this in 26 great detail with Mr. Richardson, also. But I'll be more 27 than happy to reiterate everything for you.
.,c. \
28 Eventually after trying to figure out which
'W' TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- .n l
q.g.__,_____.__--------------------------
.f'/ 867
\ :,::6
' ' }; , :
- /. ,. 1 lawyer to talk to, that type of thing, and from not
.,g (},y 2 having any great success in getting through on the
, , 3 telephone to talk with any lawyers, I called up a friend
,-[ - ,
4 of mine who was the mother of a girl that babysit for me i 5 all the time who was a lifelong. resident of Middletown.
.~~ 6 And I asked here if she could recommend a lawyer to me,
,", 7 that there was some things going on the job site that, I' 8 you know, I wanted to speak to a lawyer. And so che said 9
I , well, I'll call around and I'll get back to you. 10 So to make a long story short, that lady ended 11 up calling the lawyer for PANE, People Against Nuclear
'8, 12 Energy, figured he'd be more than happy to talk to me.
13 But he wasn't. And instead, he ref erred her to have me 14 contact GAP.. And I didn't really know who GAP was, but I'
't
( 15 figured since they were lawyers, I may as well start 16 som ewher e. 17 And that's how I got on CAP. 18 Q. So you called GAP?
, 19 A. Y es.
,, 20 Q. And did you say that this matter was addressed
,c 21 in your deposition with Mr. Richardson?
22 A. I believe it was, yes. 23 Q. Okay. It may be. I'm not disputing it. I
,' , 24 just don't r ememb er.
1 25 When you spoke to the people at GAP, I assume 1 .' 26 you arranged to meet with them? 27 MS. ZURAS: Well, I'm a little concerned and I U I/ 28 realize we may have a disagreement as to what constitutes j
. 4 I
. : i
<? '
aq.},- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- h:n- . !
868 I E
,- I confidential communication. However, I'm sure Mr.13rks
]
i
,,. f,. 2 is prepared to tell you that after he had a telephone j L, 3 call he did meet with people f rom GAP. So --
. .' , 4 MR. JOHNSON: I'd also object that there is 5 not -- there's no conceivable relevance to any matter in I
J l
; '- 6 this proceeding and how -- I suppose the only limit to I 7 the possible justification to look at a man's credibility 8 is in an attorney's imagination. But my imagination 9 fails me on how this is going to help you prove anything
+
10 about Mr. Parks' credibility. It seems to be just an 11 attempt to probe into his personal life.
~
12 MR. HICKEY: Q. Can you answer, Mr. Parks? e 13 MS. ZURAS : Can you rephrase the question so 14 that you're not eliciting any communications that were
~( 15 had between --
16 MR. HICKEY: I just -- I don't think I can.
,- 17 Q. The question is did you arrange to meet with 18 GAP? Now, if that's a confidential privileged 19 communication, then I've really missed the boat somewhere
$ 20 along the line.
, 21 Did you arrange to meet with GAP 7 22 MS. ZURAS: Go ahead, answer.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 24 DR. HICXEY: Q. My goodness. And did you 25 arrange to mest with them in Washington or in Harrisburg,
.. , 26- Harrisburg area?
.a 27 MR. JOHNSON: I lodge the same objections.
1 (l
'., 28 MR. HICKEY: Q. I'm asking where the meeting 9
9 4
~;}[, m TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 h Q, _m h _ - - _ - _ _ - - - _ - -
. g ,. _ . _ . _ w - - - - -- - - '
869
}iil+. ,
- q. +
50.5/[ 1. was to take. place, not where you made the arrangement. 3.- i..,(:$, ..,. . 2 A. 1 met with them initially in Harrisburg. 3 Q. All right. And that was Miss. Garde that you
,)/ , ,
4 met with?
..ig .5 .A. ' Y es.
Jr . 6 Q. Billie ' Garde?
.h 7 'A. Y es.
8 Q. That was the first meeting you had with GAP 9 personnel? 10 A. Y es. 11 Q. Miss Garde was not an attorney at .the time you
- 12 met'with.her, was she?
13 A. I really couldn't tell you. I don't think she 14 was, but I really don't know.
, k. - 15 Q. Was there another person present'with Aliss 16 Garde, a young woman?
. 17 A. Y es.
~ ~
18 Q. Named Miss Young?
.- . 19 A. Y es.
20 Q. She was not an attorney, was she?
,. 21 A. Again, I really couldn't tell you if she was or 22 not.
.. .< 23 Q. Did you urge Mr. King to go to see GAP, also?
I'I 24 A. When I was first thinking about r.eeting with
',..." 25 GAP and --' well, I have to say af ter I had first talked l
4x 26 with GAP representatives over the phone, I talked with 1'[f. 27 Larry to see if Larry wanted to meet with them. And 1 9
' [J.t JW 28 Larry was reluctant to meet with them.
*. .U tyLj ....
TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 8* .wm.~.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - . _ . . _ _
870 1 Q. Meet with them. You mean in the role of a 2
, . - (T . witness or as a possible client?
- e. 3 A. In any role.
-1. , 4 Q. Well, were you suggesting to Larry that he talk
/ - 5 to GAP as a witness or for possible representation? 6 MR. JOHNSON: I object to these questions as
. 7 irrelevant, outside the scope of this proceeding.
Go ahead. 8 MS. ZURAS:
'.i 9 THE WITNESS: I was suggesting to Larry that !
- 10 initially, anyway, he meet with them to substantiate r' 11 anything that was going on with me. And since he wasn't 12 getting anywhere with his lawyer, vaybe he should be 13 looking for..other lawyers.
I 14 MR. HICKEY: Q. All right. But Mr. King was (., 15 not willing to meet with GAP to substantiate what was 16 going on with you, as you put it? 17 A. I don't think you characterized that correctly. 18 I said Larry King was reluctant. 19 Q. He was reluctant. Well, did he agree to? 20 A. He basically told me to, you know, go f eel them 21 out. 22 Q. Did he give you any reasons why he didn't want 23 to -- why he was reluctant to meet with GAP 7 24 A. Well, basically, if I recall this whole thing 25 correctly, the whole thing with Schivone Construction and
. 26 Secretary Donovan was going on at the time, okay? And I
..i.,
27 think Larry was -- if I can recall his exact expression, ' " ,,: kJ 28 he was afraid thet without us doing some exploring and i: e* k'f [ 4:L ___ ___ _- . ____ _ _ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
, . ..p - _ .__ . _ _ _ __ _ ___ ___ __ ___ _. _ .__ _ _ _ _ - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ ___ ___ _
r .y ' ' _ 871
.- I ser.fous looking, we might end up with some left wing
(. 2 commie pinko f ag group. Something to that effect.
'. 3 And so he sent me there to check it out.
- 4 Q. And referring to GAP was Mr. King?
.'.; 5 A. Anybody, you know. Larry was -- he was kind of
.' 6 paranoid. He didn't to -- he didn't want to paint a 7 false image or give anybody the impression that, you know, ;
8 we had -- you know, the saf ety concerns he had were, you
^ \
9 know, frivolous or anything like that. And so he didn't ' 10 want to get hooked up with some lef t wing group, in his
. . 11 terms, for fear that it would, you know, taint what he 12 was trying to say.
13 And, you know, he was saying go ahead and meet 14 with them if you want and let me know what you think.
..( 15 That type of thing.
16 And that 's my own characterizations of, you 17 know, any conversation that-I had with Larry King. Those
, 18 are -- that's my phraseology.
19 Q. You don't remember whether Mr. King ref erred to 20 GAP as a subversive or communist front? 21 A. No. He did not ref er to GAP as commie or lef t 22 wing or subversive. That was my interpretation of Larry 23 King's concern that he had to be careful who he dealt
. 24 with.
25 Q. Did you talk to any other people employed or 26 formerly employed at THI about meeting with CAP in
... 27 connection with your case, besides Mr. King?
" 28 MS. ZURAS: At what time frame are we talking
.[;% TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
9 ,. 7 - -._ ._- _. - - v . ;, '872
.w.
- 1. about?
)}N -
aq . {~3 2 MR. HICKEY: Q. Around March, mid March 1983.
' ,.' J' 3 A. I really couldn't tell you. I know that after r .;' ' 4 1 was suspended I asked a couple of people to talk to
- j. 5 th em . - 'But I don't think that answers your question. But-6 that's the only thing I can recall at this point.
7 -Q. You don't recall before you were suspended
~
"- . 8 asking anyone to meet with GAP?
9 A. I really don't recall if I did or not. 10 Q. How about Miss Wenger,. for example, Joyce 11 Wenge'r?.
f 12 A. I can recall telling Joyce she ought to meet .
, 13 with GAP, but that was af ter she was suspended.
14 Q. How.about Ed Gischel? (.. ( 15 A. No. i j 'g 16 Q. You don't recall talking to him about meeting j l 17 with GAP before you were suspended? l 4
- . 18 A. No, I do not.
f[ 19 Would it be possible for me to step out and get
..- 20 a cup of coffee while you're leafing through documents?
21 MR. HICKEY: Sure. 1 l J 22 (Brief pause.) (, 23 MR. HICKEY: Q. In an effort to help place 1
.. 24 these events I'm asking you about in your mind, Mr. Parks, let me just show you or represent to you here that your 25 26 calendar, which has previously been marked as an exhibit r .
. ey 27 in'this proceeding, Number 7, I believe, has an entry --
.i , (c.l..
{ i sa' 28 I think you've told us before this is your handwriting -- i
)
i 1 e 1
- 5. 'y._((
TOCKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i ss&----- '
. .,p. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,c .e
,T$ 873
.. e .
/ {- 1 on Saturday, March' 12. Where I'm showing you here, " Met 2 with Billie Garde - " I think that name is Marya Young --
*]s{ ( <
f' i 3 "at Host Inn." And it's entereo on Saturday, March 12th. e *: 4 You recall that that was approximately the date
~
.- 5- when you met with these ladies from GAP at the Host ' Inn?
- s. 6 A. I believe it was on or. about that date, yes.-
- l
-(' '
7 -Q. Okay. And did you make this entry on your l l
*. '8 calendar?
' i 9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -Was it contemporaneous or shortly af ter the
.- 11 12th of March that you made that entry?
12 A. I think, if I recall correctly, and as that's
.' 13 been identified to me previously in this proceeding or 14 the last proceeding I was in that the date is entered on V 15 the'very first page of that, the date I started keeping
, 16 it, and I believe the date is March 18th.
17 Q. You're right. March 18th. So you probably 18 enter.ed that date on March 18, you think? 19 A. On or about March 18. i
- . 20 Q. Okay. Now, when you 'were calling these 21 attorneys that you found in the Yellow Pages, am I
. 22 correct that you were asking them about the possibility
, 23 of representing you with regard to a Department of Labor
.. 24 proceeding?
- . 25 A. No. I was basically -- and I'm not trying to
', 26 exclude that, either. Okay. I was basically trying to j
. t v, 27 find a lawyer that would.not be afraid to represent me v ,
,,,,' 28 against GPU or Bechtel. And not .r eally clearly defining
.l VC,Q
.n TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.pbdR_.- --_ __ __ __ __ -- __
,,,y,. - -._ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
p'
- 874 u:y;
;pp.i 1 exactly everything that was involved. -
, . '.q { ; . 2 0 '. You said you didn't tell the attorneys that you c,*:f 3 were calling -- l
,s
.}~ / , 4 M S . , ZU RAS ' Okay. I think you just stepped l t #' 5 over the line. My understanding of your last question
~
was what was his intention when he was trying to contact
~
'. 6 w 7 th ese attorneys.
le , 8 MR. HICKEY: Y es:
- , 9 MS. EURAS: And I'm just going to instruct him 10 and caution him not to respond to any question that would
'll elicit what you told attorneys once you contacted them !
12 because my understanding, unless someone instructs me !
\
l 13 .dif ferently, is that even in the attempt to initiate an 14 attorney-client relationship, such communications are
.( 15 confid ential .
l 16 MR.'. HICKEY - Q. . What did you tell Miss Garde 17 you wanted- GAP to represent you on, Mr. Parks? 18 MS. ZURAS: And I'm going to object to that 19 question on the basis that it elicits communications
- ,. 20 which, until proven otherwise, are confidential and 21 protected by the attorney-client privilege.
/f 22 MR. HICKEY: Well, I think the documents that 23 counsel produced yesterday reflect the substance of the
,. 24 meeting that Mr. Parks had with Mr. Garde. With Miss
- h. 25 Gard e, excuse me.
26 MS. ZURAS: Well, I think our confidentiality
't- 27 agreement encompasses an understanding that we have that t
. p ,,
4 'w 28 if you' want to ref er to that document and discuss the
- ,, - i
.. S .I
i .
.. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 u.: = - - - -__ - __-
875 4
- u 1 context of that document, then in asking questions in 2 relationship to the information that's contained on that
'. ' ' ( "
l 3 document, we might be in a different. situation. t ~ lc ., 4 But until you're producing some document that j l . 5 you contend to us designates a waiver of that particular
? 6 communication, confidential contact, I am not going to 7 let him --
.. 8 MR. HICKEY: Well, it's a document you produced.
x .. 9 That's why I kind of assumed you were familiar with it. 10 The document is your document V or letter V that you 11 produced to us yesterday.
. 12 MS. ZURAS: Okay. So you're going to be asking
. 13 him about information that's contained on that document?
14 MR. HICKEY: Yes.
- (; 15 MS. ZURAS: Okay. Well, then, I'm going to 16 allow the witness, Mr. Parks, to look at that document so 17 that we can make sure that we stay within the subject 18 matter of that document.
19 MR. JOHNSON: What was the designation?
., 20 MR. LEWIS: V. ,
l 21 MR. JOHNSON: Of f the r ecord.
. 22 (Discussion off the record.) ;
.. 23 MR. HICKEY: On the record.
, 24 Before you show the witness the document, can I
..~
ri l 25 make a request. I'd like to know what the witness's l, , - 26 memory of these events is unaided by the document. If he
- *. 27 has any memory of the events. And as a result, I don't !
- L/ 28 know whether he has seen this document, Exhibit V, or
":.v ,M TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 s, -- --- _- -. - - - .-- .. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
y..;__._-.____-____.__-.r_--_.-_-------_-.----- Yhd; -- 876 n . (b ll what's been designated document V before or not.
, : {'. g 2 But since you have the document in front of you, E ' 3; , 3 Counsel, perhaps you can monitor or determine whether my e '. 4 question relates to the subject matter of the document
,$6 5 and' advise your client accordingly without showing the
. 6 document to him. It' is not a document he prepared, as I 7 understand it.- I don't know whether he's ever seen it or
' . /.,
7 ., , 8- not.
*T, 9 MS. ZURAS: -Okay. Just so we have a 10 clarification here. You're ref erring to conversations
<. 11 that he had with Ms. Garde --
.. 12 MR. HICKEY: Yes.
13 MS. EURAS: -- on March 12th? 14- MR. HICKEY: Yes. (, 15 MS. ZU RAS: Okay. Well, this document refers 16 to communications' that he had with Ms. Garde on the 13th,
. 17 so unless there's something -- ;
18 MR. HICKEY: That's not my understanding. 19 MS. EURAS: Well, this document is entitled a y 20 3-13-83. 21 MR. HICKEY: Y es. 22 MS. ZURAS : Billie Garde meeting. So unless -- 23 MR. HICKEY: It's described in your pleadings {'* : 24 as the notes of Tom Devine, I think. I'm sorry. As the
.c 25 notes of Billie Garde. But I believe they're the notes n' 26 of Tom Devine of his conversation with Miss Garde about
- h. , - 27 Miss Garde's meeting with Mr. Parks. '
' I') 28 That's my interpretation of the document, i i- 4 4
i
,' TOOKER & ANTZ , d.i' tvM- 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 I 4
M _ _______ ._ -- . - _ _ - - _ _ _ -___________ - --___- __ - -_- -_- -- - - - - -l
9, .,-.- - - - -.- - - - - - - - -
~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n. ', , 877 J. 1 anyway.
{ 2 MS. EU RAS a . You have some information that.this
. i.# 3 is. the' handwriting of Tom Devine?
, 4 MR. HICKEY Only my eyesight in comparison to 5 some other documents. And the context of it.
6 MS . - EU RAS : Well, needless to say -- I mean, 1
. 7 I'm approaching this very cautiously because .I'm :
concerned about the fact that when we turned over these 8 i 9 documents, it was our hope to. limit any disclosure to the 10 information that's centained in the document. And I am -- 11 MR. HICKEY: That's what my question relates 12 specifically to. Let me put it one more time and see if '
. 13 we can move.along. And for counsel's information, if 14 you'll lookJat about the second paragraph, it looks like,
' (: 15 on the second page that's headed "THI Issues," at the end 16 of the paragraph.
17 Q. Mr. Parks, my question to you is the following: 18 Did you tell Miss Garde when you met with her on Saturday the 12th of March' at the Host Inn that you wanted GAP to 19
.. 20 represent you to do a TMI investigation and you didn't 21 want them to represent you for a personal action?
22 MS. EURAS: Excuse me. Hold on a second. 23 I'm going to take a moment. N 24 (Brief recess.)
,'i 25 MS. EURAS: Okay. Based on upon Mr. Hickey's
.-l e 26 representation that this is a memo of Mr. Devine's notes
. cN ,
27 of a conversation that he had with Billie Garde on 3-13 !
'> 28 l([. that related to Billie Garde's conversation with Mr.
l l
\
- fAllj TOOKER & AF~L 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. v, ,,1 n "
J i>, h76 ! P :<'.
';L
=
J,'pi 1 Parks on 3-12 -- I
, v f(15 2 MR. HICKEY: That's my opinion, you understand.
1
., 3 MS. ZURAS: --
'83 --
es .. 4 MR. HICKEY: Mr. Devine hasn't told me that.
- "- 5 That's my inference from reading the document.
. 6 MS. ZURAS: Well, I just want it clear on the l
' U 7 record that I am relying on your opinion and
,' 8 representation as to what you think it is. And in order i
l j l',- , 9 to help this proceeding move along and to assure that Mr. 10 Parks does not have to submit to additional deposition 11 time beyond today, I will permit the question. )
, 12 MR. HICKEY: Q. Do you recall the quest 19n, 13 Mr. Parks? Probably not.
14 A. No. To be perf ectly honest with you, I don't. ( 15 Q. My question is whether you told Miss Garde on 16 Saturday, March 12, at the Host Inn that you wanted GAP 17 to represent you to do a TMI investigation but did not 18 want them to represent you for a personal action? 19 A. No. I don't -- I couldn't recall at this point 20 in time if I specifically stated that or not. 21 Q. Well, when you went to see Miss Garde, did you
.y 22 have it in mind that you wanted GAP to represent you to 23 file a Labor Department complaint?
? 24 A. No. When I first went to meet with Billie
'. 25 Garde and Marya Young, I went to f eel them out, find out
.< ) 26 more about them. They ,didn't -know who I was for hours.
27 Q. I understand that. But you wanted to f eel them
1 5" . 28 out and find out more about them. Was your purpose in hd TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- a. n _ _ _ _ _ - - .___. - _ __ - . _ - _ _ . _ _.
.,,,7--------
1
' " ;1 879
,,r -
, !l 7 -
i
?;; 1. doing that to see if you wanted them to represent you for-
[, . - 2 a Labor Department action? O .' ': 3 A. See if I -- I was trying to, you know, y-1 4 - basically f eel them out, see if I wanted them 'to - I don.'t like and I'm not
='
,- 5 r epresent me, period.
-. 6 comfortable with drawing a line with stating that'I only
. ,1 - '
.7 wanted them to them to represent' me for a DOL hearing or
, 8 anything else. I was exploring obtaining legal counsel
.* 9 and that's what I was meeting with them for.
10 Q. Okay. And your testimony is you don't rt 111 11 making a statement to Miss Garde stating that you wanted
. 12 GAP to represent you for a TMI investigation but not for 13 a personal. investigations is that right?
I
- 14 MS. EURAS: I think he testified he has no
( 15 recollection either way. 16 MR. HICKEY: Q. That's what I'm trying to find 17 out. I think you said you don't remember? 18 A. Righ t.
- 19 Q. Since the document is here and there seems to
, '. 20 be some question, can you tell us, Mr. Parks, whether
. 21 this document that is marked V is in Mr. Devine's
- i 22 handwriting? Do you know the handwriting just f rom the
- .
- 23 handwriting?
Sj- 24 A. It looks like it's Tom's handwriting mainly
;, 25 because I can't read it.
+
26 Q. Okay.- When you met with Miss Garde at the Host
.j ..
27 on the 12th, did you agree with Miss Garde that you would
., V, ' l' 28 take notes of future events that related to your claims?
,4.- . , ,
4.. S W TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 n _- - -
[3 .}a 880 ,-k
.v 1 A. You know, I might can save us all a lot of ,' ~ p.4 4 %
2 trouble.on this. I'm not trying to cvoid answering your !
;, 3 question.
s c. . - .4 When I met with Marya Young and Billie Garde, I first of all' was- very close mouthed about whio I .was, what
'".. 15 6 my role'was in life or anything else.
-l And I didn't let 7 them take notes. And I think what you're doing here is
. . .(
. 8 trying to interpret her recollection as relayed to Tom
.,- 9. Devine, if your representation is true that that's what
.- 10 this document is, and so I really couldn't tell you at
~
'll this point in time everything that we talked about.
12-7 But the upshot of it all is I ended up having
, 13- them be my legal counsel.
% 14 Q. Well, I understand that. But that's not the
,( 15 question I, asked you. My question is whether you agreed 1 16 with them that you would take notes about future events
.- 17 related to your claims?
l
], 18 A. Sure. I would imagine I did.
19 MS..EURAS: Excuse me.
?: 20 MR. HICKEY: Q. You either remember or don't
,- 21 r emer' .ier .
$ 22 A. You know, I'm not comfortable saying yes, I 5 23 distinctly remember saying this because I don't
-- 24 distinctly remember a whole lot. I remember the whole c.. 25 episode and what occurred out of it, but I couldn't W.- 26 relate to you verbatim what we talked about.
,: (-
27 O. How long did you meet with Miss Garde and Miss ! anb
. I i
28 Young on Saturday the 12th?
~c d
..l jj .- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 U.:a.,w------_----------
,g..
c.,.,- 881 l b-::;.. 1 A.- Oh, probably about f our to six hours, something
'" 2 like that.
t bH "
,',[ t 3 Q. And during the course of. the meeting, did they .> 4 agree, or GAP agree to represent you?
-*c',. d 5 A. If I recall events correctly, I would still 6 have had to have met with Tom Devine and they wanted to see if I could substantiate what'I was saying with 7 8 documents, that type of thing. They wanted to see if I
.'4 1, 9 could prove what I was saying of what my concerns'were.
, 10 I mean, I had'-- they 'had more or less had to prove 11 themselves to me, so I guess.1 can say that I had to
. 12 prove myself to them, too. That's what I'm'trying to say.
13 MS. EURAS: Mr. Parks, could you just answer 14 the question? (- 15 THE WITNESS: All right.
. 16 MR. HICKEY: By the way, while we're at this 17 intersection, let me just correct one thing on the record.
18 I think I described Mr. Parks's calendar by the terong i
- - 19- exhibit number. Because I think I see it is the Exhibit 20 11. But I think.I called it Exhibit 7. But I showed the e 21 witness the calendar. So he knows the date is right even 22 though the exhibit number was wrong.
,- 23 Q. Did you, when you completed your meeting with
* $ 24 Miss Garde and Miss Young on the 12th, make arrangements ej 25 to have a subsequent meeting with GAP representatives.at
-[ .
26 a particular. time? l I
.. 27 A. I believe I did, yes. l
,. j j -
28 Q. When were you to meet with them next? Or to !
+
6 e5
, ,6
*P 7 882
<-f
t
- 2e . 1 meet with GAP next?
'o.'a - (: . 2 A. One day the following week. Or the following 3 weekend. I really couldn't tell you for sure exactly.
-' 4 Q. Did you have a specific date set when you ended.
; 5 the meeting or was it something that was to be arranged
. ,. 6 later?
7 A. If we had a specific date set at the end of 6 8 that meeting, I could not tell you at this point in time
, 9 what that date was.
10 Q. Were you provided with their telephone number 11 for how to reach people at GAP 7 12 A. I believe I was. 13 Q. Did you have any contact the following day, 14 Sunday the 13th, with representatives of GAP? ( 15 A. I couldn't tell you at this point in time if I 16 did or not.~ 17 Q. We talked some yesterday about the events of 18 Monday, the 14 th, just to refresh your recollection. I E 19 That's the date that Mr. Kitler told you that Mr. . Wheeler
,' 20 and perhaps Mr. Hofmann were coming up to interview you 21 and then later that morning you saw Mr. Wheeler and Mr.
i 22 Hofmann on what you call Mahogany Row. 23 Did you contact GAP before you met with Mr. 24 Hofmann? And af ter -- the question isn't quite clear.
25 Af ter you finished meeting with Miss Young and Miss Garde
, 26 on Saturday, did you contact GAP or attempt to contact 27 GAP before you met with Mr. Hofmann Monday morning?
'.Y' '
28 Q. I couldn' t tell you if I contacted them before
*\
Jyy;'j .TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 s/ .m__ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
g__.__-______._._.____---_____.-----------__ --------
.. P 883-y..y c .;. ol or' af ter, but I do recall talking to them about the
- .#. 2' whole --
, s. *
,.,c, 3 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. .I would really e 4 encourage you to be very caref ul about discussing what it f,4 5 was that you discussed. He merely asked you if you had f e' --'[, '6. contact with them.
; 7 THE WITNESS: Okay.
8 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, let me put ,the question 9 this way: After you got the notice from Mr. Kitler that 10 you were to be .at a particular of fice at a particular i
;- 11 time because you were going to be interviewed about E ,. 12 Quiltec, did you try to contact GAP representatives?
13 A. Again, you know, I have to state I could not 14 tell you if_.I did it before or after the meeting with
. -. 15 Hofmann. .
.c 16 Q. Was it your idea to request of Mr. Hofmann that s 17 you be allowed to see a Bechtel vice-president or did
'. 18 that idea come from GAP, Mr. Parks?
19 MS. EURAS: Okay. I'm going to instruct the l 20 witness not to answer because you're asking for the 21 subject of communications that may have been between him 22 and anybody from the Government Accountability Project.
~ 23 And until I have an of f er of proof that we have
.' i 24 somehow or another waived the subject of that particular b 25 meeting with Mr. Hofmann, I'm going to be very cautious 26 and ask for that offer of proof before permitting him to
. 27 respond to that question.
/, 28 MR. HICKEY: Well, let me go on. Let me
.m r,,
fjW TOOKER'E ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- a. - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . -- _ - -
1 y,.,.;.. _ __.._-.__-.- - - - - - - - .- - - - - .
} p 884
- j. i vc n,
- J l' rephrase the question. Maybe I.can avoid counsel's .
.. , 2 _ problem.
{. (-
.3 Q. Was it your own. idea to request a meeting with -
4 a Bechtel vice-president of Mr. Hofmann, Mr. Parks? ; t ' ic.",.' 5 A. Y es. l I
"c -
6 Q. Af ter you met with Mr. Hofmann, did you take-
; 7 some action to clean out your desk?
.J*, 8 A. . Y es . i i 9 Q. What did you clean out of your desk? 10 A. Everything in my desk except what belonged to ,
~
11 GPU. Lik e, ' oh, such things as my desk secretary, that
. 12 type of thing. All my files, everything. !
e' .13 Q. What kind 'of files were they*t. Were they GPU I 1
.14 documents?,
(. 15 A. They were documents, some of .them, yes. A lot c 16 of them that I had written, memos I had written, that 17 type of thing. 18.. Q. Documents related to your employment at TMI? 19 A. Yes. r ,' 20 Q. What did you do with them? 21 A. I took those -- I think we talked about this 22- yesterday, if I remember correctly. I took those with me j 23 down to Gaithersburg.
; . 24 Q. Oh. I see what your ref erence is. I didn't f ..'I '
25 understand yesterday that' that was the incident you were I s ,l 26 talking about. Maybe it's the phrase " clean out your re 27 d esk. " That suggests to me kind of emptying it out, but
'..j. .
2'8 apparently you mean something different.
/N TOOKER .4 ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,au' :-l . _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - ._
i
yj- - 885
- ,- -r ,
2-l
.,. j. :. -1 'What was'in your desk? What-did you take out
-. $ j,.'g 2 and what did you leave there? Maybe that's the easiest !
way. _. ,' ! 3 t a.,;! - 4 A. Well, I think I've already given you an . example l
~
,5c 5 of what I lef t there and I've provided you an example of !
~6 what I took. .I.couldn't elaborate any more than that.
7 Q. You lef t of fice equipment, pen, pencils,
,' 8' paperclips, so on? - / 9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you took all the files that were in it? 11 A. Yes.
; 12 Q. That were in your desk?
13 A. Yes.
~14 Q. So except for of fice equipment, your desk was
([ ' 15 empty? s 16 A. By f ar and large, yes.
; 17 Q. What was your purpose in doing that?
18 A. .It was a multifold purpose. 19 Q. Well, what -- 20 A. Number one, I wanted some suf ficient
,. 21 documentation to complain to either the Bechtel
~
. 22 vice-president, or anybody else I had to explain it to, 23 what was going on and- problems as I perceived them.
24 And plus I wanted to make sure that once I i;l- 25 cleaned my desk out, I could have Bubba or somebody else
'M ;
26 look in it and make sure it was clean of any and all a n. 27 contraband. Such as contraband showed up later to be
/ ,:
"* 28 proved it wasn't mine.
,: - s ji,jl TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
'dj - -
]
; 886 4
1 1 1 1 Q. Was part of the reason you removed these
" , r' 2 documents was you wanted to make them available -to GAP?
, , . 3 A. Somewhere along in this time frame I had !
., 4 decided that since I f elt comfortable with legal counsel, that I would eventually be going to the Department of
, 5-
. , - 6 Labor, that I'd better be gathering sufficient 7 documentation to substantiate my safety-related concerns 8 to take to the Department of Labor. l 9 So the answer to your question directly is no, 10 it was not to take those documents to GAP.
.., 11 Q. Well, to take to GAP so that GAP could give
, 12 them to the Labor Department? I 13 A. I pref er to phrase it more appropriately, too, 14 I might add, that I was gathering information to provide
-(- 15 to the Department of Labor and/or top of ficials in NRC.
16 Q. And you mentioned -- 17 A. And to a Bechtel vice-president. 18 Q. Excuse me. .) 19 A. And to a Bechtel vice-president.
+
20 Q. I thought you had finished. Your last comment 21 was "and to a Bechtel vice-president"? i 22 A. Right. ! 23 Q. You had this other purpose you've described of ' 24 wanting to ensure -- let me r ephrase it. 25 You wanted someone, Mr. Marshall, you mentioned, i
., 26 to be a witness that there was no contraband in your desk
><.'. 27 so if it showed up later you'd have a witness that it
'* 28 wasn't there before; is that right?
~
( \ I WS . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
..e
',,.,,,,___.._.__Z.___I.__i___.___._._.___.__.__.__.__._____.-____.-]
'887
.;j . , ,
1 1 A. That's correct.. h}'h. l
,. f 4 .- 2 Q. Did you have Mr. Marshall do that?
,, 3 A. I couldn't really swear to it that it was Bubba j 9 4 I had to do it. It may have been one-of the other guys l q
*~ .
c< 5 in the of fice. j
' 1 6 :Q. Well, what did you tell the person, whoever it
,; 7. was, that you wanted them to do?
8- A. Well, to be perfectly honest with you, I
. 9 couldn't really tell-you my exact wording, but basically, 10- look at my desk and.make sure there's nothing in there 4
11 and I'll verify that it's clean, no drugs, no nothing, no 1
. 12 contraband, that type of thing.
13 Q. And did you tell the person why it was you were 14 .doing that? ( 15 A. I may have. I really couldn't tell you at this 16 point in time. 17 Q. Did you make any comment to whoever it was that 18 was witnessing your clean desk about your interview with 19 Mr. Hofmann? 20 A. I really couldn't tell you if I did or not.
. 21 Q. And what made you concerned or suspicious, Mr.
22 Parks, that contraband might be in your desk? 23 A. I believe I covered this once before in my 9 24- deposition with Mr. Richardson. But I'll be more than
.- 7 25 - happy to go into it for you again.
.- 26 At one point in time, along about this same 1
i O' 27 time f rame, my van was broken into at night. And I'd U- \' 28 called the police and they'd come and checked it out and
.y '.5E TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 e'* $ s eE ~
.g.,__ . -. ---.-~~--- ---"------a----
"' , 8 8 8
-f i,
- s. --
"'O 1- 'everything Lwas all, you' know, fine. I mean, they 2 4,fi ' ( . i 2 substantiated my. van had been broken into and the battery' !
- w.
7-] 3 had been stolen and all like that.. cc ,?! . 4 Fortunately for me, af ter the police lef t, I 1 5- noticed that the passenger side door was open, too. -And !
. 6 I got over. and looked to see what had been done on that '
L; 7 side and I found a bag of marijuana under my driver's If 8 s ea t. And since I don't smok e i the stuff, I knew it.
- 1) \ 9 wasn' t mine.
10 Q. Did you mean to say driver's seat? Because I --
. 11 A. I said passenger seat.
12 Q. And when was that that your van was broken into 13 and you f ound the marijuana? 14 A. Sometime in March. Maybe February. Something
'(, 15 like that. So I combined that with the f act th'ere was a 16 lot of rumors going around on the job site about drug e 17 dogs coming on to the site and everything else, you know, 18 typical scuttlebutt-type rumors.
4 19 And I -- in retrospect of everything else that d ' l 20 had happened to me, I decided to make sure I wasn't being 21 set up for a fall. I took a precautionary measure.
. 22 Q. Is that when you stopped driving, by the way?
23 A. Along in about that time, yeah.
# 24 Q. But this having your desk cleaned out, that d 25 happened on March 14th?
gh 26 A. I believe it was on March 14th.
;. 27 Q. And did your testimony a moment ago -- did you
,l . S 6' 28 mean to indicate that as of March 14, you were pretty 4k TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
889 e
' , ' :y 1 certain in your mind that you wanted GAP to represent --
{- 2 to file a Labor Department complaint for you?
.' 3 A. I had been thinking about it all weekend and at
, 4 this point in time, I could not say that I had beyond the 5 shadow of a doubt made that decision on March 14th, but I
~. 6 was right on the edge of it if I hadn't already made it.
7 Q. Okay. Yes. I didn't -- I meant to phrase it 8 in a way that was less than a final decision, but that
. 9 you were -- you've answered the question. l 10 To try to compress some of the chronology, 11 you've already told us that you later on the 14th went to
;. 12 Washington, met the GAP representatives and the next 13 morning met with Mr. Sanford and others at Bechtel's
~
14 of fices in. Gaithersburg. (. 15 When-you went in to meet with Mr. Sanford and 16 other gentlemen in Gaithersburg on Tuesday, the 15th, did l 17 you have it in mind that it was important or desirable 18 for you to be able to report to your lawyers what 19 happened in the meeting that you were about to have? 20 A. I think I'll have to get you to repeat that 21 question. 22 Q. Sure. l
. 23 A. Expand it just a little bit.
l l
.. 24 Q. Okay. What's confusing you? I'll try --
{ 25 A. The last part of the statement about having to 26 report to my lawyers, something like that.
';, 27 Q. My only question is what was your state of mind l
h5 28 as you walked into the meeting? Did you think that it i .
' . ,} TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l
~
890'
\
4' 1 was desirable or a good idea for you to pay attention to 1 ,: { t - 2 the meeting and recall it. so that you could report to l your lawyers af terward what happened in the meeting? c- 3 !
.e 4 A. Well, I don't think it was in my thoughts at- l 4
- b. 5 the. time to pay attention to everything that was going on
.. 6 in the meeting and make a report to.my lawyers af terwards.
.. 7 It was of paramount concern to me to know what was going 8 on in that meeting, if I'm answering your question.
., 9 Q. Well, I kind of aisumed that, yeah, that you 10 were interested in it for.your own self, too. But did
. 11 you also have in mind that you should - try to remember 12 items that occurred in the meeting so you could inform z 13 your lawyers about them? !
14 A. When I went into that meeting, I was of the
; (, 15' hopes that,all the problems that had been happening.on 16 the job site would be taken care of and that the Bechtel 17 vice-president would do the right thing and stop the 18 harassment and get the whole problem' straightened out.
i 19 Grab the bull by the horns, so to speak. 20 Within a little while in that meeting, I came 21 to a dif f erent opinion that that was not going to be the 22 outcome. So yes, sir, I think it would be fair to say, 23 you know, I tried to remember everything I possibly could.
< 3- 24 Q. And when you completed the meeting, did you 25 make a report to your attorneys about what had happened 26 in the meeting?
. 27 MS. ZU RAS: Excus e me. Again, I'm going to be l-28 cautious about this and ask for some kind of offer of l
l
)
l
.M.#
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 J.7
,A .
. 891 :
-. .L i
- I i
)
<- 1 proof that the subject matter of that particu'lar meeting f -(- -
2 is a subject that has been waived by the disclosure of
, 3 the documents that have been produced pursuant to the . . 4 confidentiality order.
l- 5 Now, if there's another way that you can get 6 the information that you're seeking, I would ask that you 7 attempt to phrase the question in some other way. 8 But I'm not in a position without some offer of !
^
9 proof to permit him to disclose what his communications 10 were with respect to the subject of the Sanford meeting. 11 MR. HICKEY: Well, I'm a'little puzzled. Are I 12 you saying, Counsel, that you haven't reviewed the
; 13 documents that were produced to us? ;
14 MS. ZURAS : No. I'm saying that I think it's (), 15 on your shoulders t'o prove to me that there has been some
\
16 waiver of the confidentiality of the subject matter s 17 concerning the meeting with Sanford. That's my only
, 18 proof.
19 MR. HICKEY: Well, do the documents address the 20 subject matter of the meeting with Sanford? 21 MS. ZU RAS : Mr. Hickey, I am not going to do
', 22 your work for you. If you are contending that a 23 privilege has been waived by a release of the documents, 24 then all I'm asking you for is an offer of proof. I'm c 25 not about to attempt to do your job for you.
26 MR. HICKEY: Q. Let me ask you another 27 question, Mr. Parks. Did you -- O L' 28 A. ,Now, can I interrupt for a second? i
'l
.' ?'j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
,,:)
892 y l' MS. ZURAS: Excuse me.
,]" ' 2 THE WITNESS: No. I've got a question about 3 . lu nch. I'm not-trying to interfere, but shortly after
', 4 this question do you think we could break for lunch?
5 Because once'again, my day starts about four, five hours
, 6 before yours do.
7 MR. HICKEY: I don't think that's accurate.
- . 8 But yes, we can m 9 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know --
N {m 10 MS. EURAS : Excuse me. Look -- 11 THE WITNESS: Would'it be possible? 4 12 MR. HICKEY: Sure. Sure. i 13 THE WITNESS: Okay.
,'.', 14 MR. HICKEY: Q. The question I was going to f(i ' 15 ask you was af ter you came out of the Sanford meeting, f 16' did you make any notes, you know, the next few hours or 17 that afternoon, about what had occurred in the Sanford 18 meeting?
, 19 A. I don't recall at this point in time if I made i
1 20 notes about that meeting or not.' l
, 21 MR. HICKEY: Counsel, if you'd like to look at 22 the document that's X, marked X that you previously 23 produced, I think you'll find that the subject matter of 24- the document is Mr. Parks's meeting -- one of the subject 25 matters of the document is Mr. Parks's meeting with Mr.
l 26 Sanford in Gaithersburg on the 15th. Y 27 MS. ZU RAS : What portion of the document are
* 28 you referring to?
4 ( i3l, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 j L> l a.:_. - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ - - 3
893
;- 1 MR. HICKEY: Page two, the second page.
2 MS. ZURAS : Would you read back the question, 3 pleas e? c 4 (Question read.)
. 5 MS. ZURAS: Okay. You may answer the question.
6 THE WITNESS: Let me see if I understood the
, 7 question correctly. Did I report to my attorneys? Is 8 that what you asked?
9 MR. HICKEY: O. Did you tell them what 10 happened in the meeting, in the Sanford meeting? 11 A. Basically, yes.
.". 12 Q. And you've already, I think, testified -- well, 13 let me withdraw that. I'm not certain. You decided with 14 your attorneys to write a letter which we looked at
( 15 yesterday that's dated the 16th that is attached to your 16 affidavit, did you not? 17 MS. ZU RAS : Asked and answered. 18 MR. HICKEY: Well, I wasn't certain. That's 19 why I thought it would be easier to clarify it.
. 20 Q. Is that correct Mr. Parks?
21 A. Y es. 22 Q. And did your attorneys advise you to deliver 23 the letter to Mr. Kanga? 24 A. I really couldn't tell you. 25 Q. , Did your attorneys discuss with you how you 26 should handle any interview with Mr. Kanga af ter you met 27 with them about the Sanford meeting and the letter? 28 MS. ZU RAS: Excuse me. In there some offer of VF. TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 w .' % _
. n- ._ _ :-- ~.~ e- e,- - - .n~ - e,, .-r. r . wn - ,.~ wm m -r--~m --~ m ~ .~ ."m ye
{ 894 ! I 1 proof that how to deal with Kanga was addressed in the I i 2 memo? I'm not trying to make your job dif ficult, Mr. (-~ 1
.- 3 Hickey, but I have to proceed cautiously because I have
.- 4 something valuable to protect here if we're going outside
. 5 the parameters of this disclosure of documents.
,' 6 And so I don't mean to harass you. I just want
, 7 to be careful about any communications that might be 8 outside the subject matter of the document that you're 9 referring to as what we've characterized as X.
. 10 MR. HICKEY: Well, the document, as I've 11 directed you to page two, has a ref erence to writing the
. 12 letter. It's about midway down on the lefthand margin.
13 And it seems to me that reasonably includes the question 14 of how he delivered the letter. That's why I asked the (. 15 question. 16 MS. ZURAS: Yes. And I permitted that. But 17 what I'm confused about is your last question. 18 MR. HICKEY: Well, the letter was going to be 19 delivered to Mr. Kanga. That's what Mr. Parks has 20 testified to. That led to an interview or discussion 21 with Mr. Kanga. I'm just asking if that was a subject 22 matter that he had discussed with his attorney before he 23 went up to deliver the letter. 24 MS. ZURAS: Well, I don't think the document 25 does nor could it have anticipated a meeting between Mr.
, 26 Parks and Mr. Kanga. And I don't see it in this document.
/ 27 So I --
( r N- 28 MR. HICK EY: Well, why don't we let Mr. Parks
.F-TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- uL-_________-_---___-______--___ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
, 'i ~
~
895 1 have lunch and we can reconvene in an hour.
* (' S 2 THE WITNESS: Excellent idea.
,' 3 (Luncheon recess.)
4 ---ooo--.
. 5 6
7 W 8 1 9
. 10 11 12 13 14 kt? 15 u
16 17 1 18 19 20 3- 21 ! 22 1 23 t 25
. ;. 26 27
. (. ' 28 O.j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- a - - __- -- - - - -
2 896-
..j: .
s 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 12:54 P.M. ['- 2 . EXAMINATION' BY MR. HICKEY (Resumed) a Jc. ' 3 MR. HICKEY: Okay. Why don't we recommence. L ll < 4 Q. Mr. Parks, I want to ask you a couple of 5' questions, just to wrap up, about this letter of March . l ' }+ lH-l - 6 16th that's attached to your affidavit. Do you have a
- - 7 copy of that there?
. 84 A. No. I don't think I do.
- 9 MR. HICKEY: If counsel will accommodate, that-10 will.ca appreciated.
. 11 1 MR. JOHNSONs . My pleasure.
12 MR. HICKEY: Q. Okay. You're looking at 13 Exhibit 1 to your af fidavit which is the March 16th,1983, 14 letter that you delivered on that date to Mr. Kanga and
. (j 15' then subsequently on the 17th you met with Mr. Kanga in
'16 relation to that letter in the morning. Isn't that right?
c 17 A. Y es. I did meet with Mr.-Kanga the morning.of 18 the 17th. I don't -- I don't recall the first half of 19 your question so -- 20 Q. You delivered the letter to Kanga's of fice on 3: 21 ,the 16th? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Okay. And I just want to understand a couple 24 of the statements that you made in the letter. Let me
;. 25 direct you to the paragraph that you numbered two.
26 "I would like to reconsider," it says, "the
.- 27- challenges to procedures in question. It is dif ficult to '- -** 28' ' reconsider, however, because I have yet to receive a full p.,
j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
=
897 1 analysis of why my concerns are mistaken," close quote. 2 When yoJ talked about a full analysis, what did 3 you have in mind? What were you contemplating or 4 desiring? 5 A. An answer to the questions that I had raised. 6 Q. In your comments on the polar crane load test? 7 A. Corr ec t. 8 Q. And did you mean by full analysis to indicate 9 some particular form or some nature of the response that 10 you were expecting? 11 A. Yes. A written response. 12 Q. Something in writing is what you -- 13 A. Right. 14 Q. -- really meant? Okay. At the time that you (;, 15 delivered this letter, you had received some written 16 materials relative to your comments on the polar crane 17 load test, had you not? 18 A. That's correct. I had received some written 19 response.
, 20 Q. What do you remember that you had received?
. 21 A. First time I believe I received a response from 22 the Dave Links group on the comment control form itself.
23 Q. Yes. 24 A. And I think that was really about it. 25 Q. Well, let me -- 26 A. There may have been another memo, but I can't 27 really recall if there was or not.
\~ 28 Q. Let me suggest a couple others and see if you i
?s c h TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ooAY
,L 898 i
a g ;, 1- r emember th em. 3 ,g., - 2 .You had.. rect).ved comments by the.QA
, ; 3 representatives that were distributed to all.the TWG j J
af.b~ 4 menbers on the load test procedure following the March 4 d ' 'J '. 5 TWG meeting, did you not?
;. 6 A. I:can't recall' if I did or -not. But if you- I q
.,f 7 have privy to some information -I'm unaware of at the
?
;; 8 moment, I'd tue happy to take a look at- it.
9 Q. . Well, I'm making that based in part on the minutes of the TWG meeting -- let me find them for you 10 11 here -- which I believe indicated that the QA comments
. 12 would be distributed on the Monday following the meeting.
13 A.: -I -- f rom my recollection of our looking at 4 14 that memo -- and I believe you're talking about -- I i,-j k 15 think we looked at it yesterday -- I think it stated that
- 16 they would be distributed to all the TWG members when it 17 .was written. I don't recall when the comments were .
18 i written or when they were distributed. 19 Q.- Okay. I'm ref erring here -- and I'll show you er
l 20 in a minute -- Exhibit 33, the minutes of the TUG meeting l 21 held on March 4 which shows you in attendance.
~
22 There's two statements that it makes with l
.J 1 23 regard to the load test procedure. First, " John 24 Fornicola state.: that QA had comments on the load test J 25 procedure. All but one of the comments were 26 administrative. Comments will be provided to group
.27 members when issued."
*/ ks 28 Is that --
l'
.i Jj ?p TOOKEk & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i l
t'JA L - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
899 f , ,
* /, e 1 A. I'm not, you know, taking point with that-J . yq}: 2- statement at all. What I said was I don't recall when QA
- , 1, $ . 3 distributed their comments relevant to the polar -- their 9, , . , 4 polar crane review to the test work group members.
That's1what~I said. 5 6' O. 'Okay. You remember getting them but you don't s P .j 7 remember when you got them? 8 A. I can't really state at this ' point in time if I ' got'them.
' , .[
,{ '
9 i 10 Q. Okay. There was also following that, you can l l
, 11 .see on.the exhibit in f ront of you, the statement "All
'12 TWG members were given a copy of the load test procedure 5 13 for final review. Comments are to be given to Mike 14 Radbill on Monday, March 7." i i'( 15 Was it the practice while you were serving on 16 TWG- that when comments were prepared like that they would 17 be distributed to all the TWG members? '
18 A. Whose comments? I don't guess I -- 19 Q. These are the comments of the TWG members, as I 20 understand it. 21 A. The comments generated by the TWG members' review were to be given to Mike Radbill on Monday, March 22 23 7.
. 24 Q. Righ t. It would be -- it would be shared among 1
. <! 25 all the TWG members, though, is the point I'm making.
26 A. Right. Each TWG member or his representative l
. - .27 would review that procedure.
-' '28 Q. And share his comm&ts with the other TWG l
I TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l d.kNk _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _
900
,e , , . ::f 1; members? l A
1';g -2 A.. Well, Mike Radbill would have to resolve the , 4
.; 3' comments. Put it that way.
s r. : f,- 4- Q. Yeah. ; 5 A. And there would be another meeting to discuss 4
..( 6 any comments that came up and assure that: their
, !, 7 resolutions were adequate.
. . , . .' 8 'Q. Let me try to put my question a little more j- '9 specifically.
10 There were several members who served on TWG. e 11 If member A had~ comments which he wrote up about the j, 12 polar crane load test procedure, would he not normally ; i
. 13- make copies. of his comments available to the other TWG
- o. 14 members?
15 MS. EURAS: See, I have a problem' with your 16 . hypothetical because it's -- you're asking him about 17 policy, but.then you're directing it -- or practice. But
, 18 then you're specifically directing it to a question of 7
19 the polar crane. And from what I understand -- and I
' 20 correct me if' I am wrong -- there's only 'one TWG meeting 21 here that you're ref erring to.
.,' 22 And I have a problem with the hypothetical. I 23 think it's assuming a lot of facts not in evidence or
;. 24 there isn't a foundation that he knows what happened.
25 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, did you get any comments j 26 f rom other TWG members about the load test procedure, Mr. 27 Parks?
's] 28 A. No.
J 4
'$ 1 M' 14 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 , g,;, -
y___._-.-----.-.~_-----.-------------- 901 l 33 1 Q. Written, I mean. l i 2 A. No. I
'-3' ( .? ~
'* 3 Q. Okay. You 're sure?
4 A. I'm fairly sure as I sit here this very minute. .j
., 5 Q. Okay. Did you receive any other material from f
6 the QA department relative to the polar crane load test
; 7 procedure? Prior to this letter. '
.j 8 A. Prior to the letter.
',, 9 Q. Right.
10 A. I don't believe I did. If I did, I don't 11 recall at the moment. 1
~
12 Q. I'm referring particularly, Mr. Parks -- and j> 13 you might want to look at page 53 of your af fidavit -- to 14 a memorandum dated March 10 that's described there from i
~
j (;, 15 Mr. Ballard of QA t'o Mr. Thiesing concerning polar crane 16 refurbishment review and problems that they found. 17 This affidavit reflects that you reviewed that I i 18 memorandum and it appears that you did that at least on l March 18. 19 At least that's what the af fidavit says, right? 20 A. The af fidavit reflects I reviewed that on or l 21 after March 18th. 22 Q. Had you had seen it before then?
*l -
23 A. No. I do not believe I had. 24 Q. When you talked to Mr. Kanga about your
,; 25 interest in -- about the letter and I assume that l
'i- 26 included your interest in getting this full analysic, !!r.
c 'l ,, ' 27 Kanga agreed to provide you some written responses from i h's. . ) 28 QA and licensing departments, did he not? I
)
pi,j. TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 L.211 - - - l
,y',,______-----------------------------
n
.,; , 902 3
~$
d ?f 1 A. That 's corr ec t. .
.,'F 'l, 2 Q. Did_you have any discussion with Mr. Kanga,
({ll
. . ).(; 3' that you can recall, about when those responses would be
- t- ,
4 prepared? Or provided? 5 A. I do not recall that he stated a definitive
.}
6 time frame that those responses would come to me in. 7 Q. Did you indicate to Mr. Kanga that you had a 8 need for a desire to have them by a particular date? Did
.y 9 you ask to have -- I'll just ask you one question at a 10 t ime.
'I 11 Did you indicate to Mr. Kanga that you wanted d 2
. ,; 12 to have the responses by a particular date?
c 13 A. Not that I can recall.
*l 14 Q. And you don't remember him giving any (p. 15 indication >about how long it might take for the responses
+
16 to be forthcoming? 17 MS. - EURAS: I'm going to object to your .. l 18 question, "a ny indica tion. " I mean, twitching of a nose? a 19 I mean, what -- 20 MR. HICKEY: Any indication that indicated to 3 21 the witness. I mean, if there was some signal that the i c 22 witness pick ed up, then that's what I'm asking. I
" 23 THE WITNESS: Well, since you put it in that
') 24 terms, the only indication that lef t any impression at
>: f 25 all that there might be a time frame involved was his l" 26 comments that the decision that was to be made whether to
- 'l ,,
27 fire me or not would be made within the next two weeks. t-l ' *; ' ' tMF 28 MR. HICKEY: Q. Righ t. i
.w byk i
TOOKER & ANTZ. 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 { &L---- __ _ \
\^^'g-____._------~~-------------------
.e
./ ,,
903 n
'>. l' A. So that would have arbitrarily established. a L ' 2 two-week time frame.
.' V r' c.. ... 3 Q. Well --
.:.: 4 A. If I was fired, I was fired.
.. 5 Q. And if you weren't?
, 'i 6 A.. Well, if I wasn't fired, I guess the man could i
,, 7 have -- '
, 8 MS. EU RAS: Excuse me. If you're guessing --
9 MIE WITNESS: The man did not give me a deadline 10 that he would give it to me. Give the comments to me. 11 MR. HICKEY: O. Do you remember receiving a
+
12 copy also of Mr. Fornicola's comments on the load test
. ; 13 procedure at some time before this letter?
14 A. I don't recall at this point'in time if I
.(* 15 received a copy of Fornicola's' comments or not.
16 Q. When you spoke with Mr. Kanga and this
.i 17 statement was made that these gesponses would be provided, 18 did you believe Mr. Kanga when be told you that he 19 intended to have those responses provided?
- a. ',
, 20 A. Hmmh. I couldn't really tell you at this point 21 in time if I believed him at that point in time or not.
._ 22 Q. You don't have any recollection one way or the 7.' 23 other?
24 A. I don't recall walking away from the meeting
" 25 .el- and thinking the man's gonna do it or the man's lying, no.
26 I did not -- I don't recall forming an opinion. 27 Q. That letter which is -- do you still have it
.:.vi. ,-
' ;[ k3! 28 there in front of you? It's the attachment to your i
h ,'!;; .
?
TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.. e )F d'i. m m ._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
w__-_---.--------------- --------- g ., . 904
" A "y
I.7 ;i , 1 affidavit. And the paragraph we were looking at, number
?
((; 2 two, has another sentence I wanted to ask you about. It i ': 3 reads, quote, "This is a serious issue with significant
; 4 potential saf ety consequences," close quote.
.. . 5 Read that paragraph or read. the whole letter,
,, 6 if it would help-you. See if you can tell me what you
, 7 are referring to when you say "this is a serious issue."
8 What does the "this" refer to?
. '9 A. The lack of an answer regarding the 5059 5 10 submittal challenge.
i 11 Q. And that was something you were expecting to i 12 receive from the licensing department? i
! 13 A. Well, it was something I was expecting to '.. 14 receive f rom someone.
o - (g . 15 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Kanga in a meeting on 16 .the morning of the 17th the claim you make in paragraph
. 17 three of the letter that you were being intimidated?
.- 18 MS. ZURAS: Could you read that question back, 19 please? ,
*, 20 (Question read.)
. . - 21 THE WITNESS: I'm of the belief at this moment 22 that we discussed that paragraph, yes.
~
23 MR. HICKEY: Q. What do you recall of the 24 discussion? cs 25 A. I really couldn't elaborate on the particulars
. . . , 26 of our discussion, but we discussed the whole letter and 27 I seem to recall spending about two or two and a half !
+.: . a ('. l 28 hours in his of fice.
\
.l k
} $.Q;. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 -Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 I d.ik _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _. _
7 _. _ _ - ___. _ _ _ _ .
--l
-; 905 j j
2 . 'y 1 Q. Well, are you able to recall that you j
..' ( ! 2 'specifically told him that you f elt intimidated, that you 3 were being intimidated?
. ;f. 4 A. I'm of the belief at this moment that I
. .. ' 5 distinctly told him that, yes.
- 5 Q. I guess I need to back you up one day now to 7 March 16th. I'm sorry.
8 We were talking about your meeting with Mr.
. 9 Kanga on the 17th, but let me take you back to the day 10 before, the 16th, the day you delivered the letter to Mr.
l 11 Kanga. J 12 You made a comment in one of your statements 13 that you had asked Joe Chwastyk on the 16th for 4 14 authorization to embark on a project of reviewing , 1 4 (- 15 documents about the time spent by site ops on the head i 16 lift project. Do you remember asking Mr. Chwestyk about a 17 that on the 16th? I 18 MS. ZURAS: Okay. Excuse me. I don't know 19 where your question is at this point. You made reference 20 in one of your statements that he made reference to that. 6 - 21 MR. HICKEY: The question is just whether he
- - 22 remembers making an inquiry to Mr. Chwastyk about 23 undertaking a project on the hours used in the head lif t
. . 24 process by the work force of the site operations
. 25 department.
- 26 THE WITNESS: Not at this point in time I don't, J. .
27 no.
-: (
% ).< 28 MR. HICKEY: Q. You don't remember anything y
'1 2df TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 '
n--___-_____. _ - __ __ _ _ __
lp _---- J-906 f 6
' )
i 1 I;-N 1 about' undertaking such-a project or seeking to-undertake d
-i
, I.[ . (,7 ,
. 2 such a project? !
wf,.i 3 A. 'Well, I don't recall being assigned such a -
'f- .. 4 project. But now whether or not' I approached Joe - . y. - 5 regarding such a project I can't recall at this point 'n !
6- time. " [. L7 Q. Let me see if I can help you out here. This is 8 Exhibit 39 which is your statement of July 25, 1983, to a 1
' 2 {-
9 the NRC Office of Investigations, page nine. Let me just
. e. 10 read it from your copy here and then you can look at your j , 11 ' copy.
1,
- 12 Quote, "I also would like to point out that on
.t-4;' 13 Monday morning, March 14th, I was cleaning out my_ desk at
) 14 work," et cetera et cetera, et cetera. " Earlier in the
;,. ( ./ 15 day I had asked Chwastyk if I could use the site 16 operations staff to go through work documents on the head
^ 17 lif t. " It's on page nine. 18 "And show the hours expended by site 19 op erations. I wanted to research how the conflicting 20 head lift and polar crane schedules affected the
- ;I 21 ef ficiency and ef festiveness of site operations work
.. 22 which I believe had suf f ered because of the conflicting 23 schedules. Chwastyk told me that a task force was going
. 24 to come up with a total integrated schedule and that the
; 25 work would not be needed," close quote.
26 Does that refresh your recollection, Hr. Parks, v, 27 about.you making such a proposal or request to Mr.
! (: , :1 ' / 28 Chwastyk earlier on the 14th?
u.
-i, CM TOCKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 W:;,.;lu i _ _ __ ____ _ - _ - - _ . . -
gf,, ,
..ce 907 ou ;,1.
..# 2 a . ,
y ,.. l.g 1 'A. No. But I-don't have anything at hand at this. 1
~
- i k ;;S
. t 2 this moment th'at would dispute this statement, either.
?.lv: 3 0.- By the way, I need to correct one thing.-'I a[- 4 .think I said the 16th, but I should have said the 14th.
5 Why would you have been interested in
" ._ .y 6 undertaking such a project on the 14th of March?
. 7 A. Well, for any reason I would have wanted to.
. 8 have done that would be speculation beyond what's. stated' 9 - right ther e.
- t 10 Q. . You don't remember anything about what was in 11 your mind as to why you wanted to do that?
12 A. Not at this point in. time, no.
- . q
,13 Q. Had' you ever done a project like that before ;
.i !
2: 14 where you had attempted to ' estimate hours expended by a: a
* .( 15 work force 4on'a particular task? At THI,.I mean.
'16 A. Only the steam generator drain. i l
17 -Q. At what time frame was that that you worked on 3
, . - 18 that project?
L 19 A. Oh, last part of '82, first part of '83. 20- Q. And did you do some study of departments to see
.. 21 how much time had been spent by some group on the steam 1 l
22 generator draining?
') 4 23 A. How much -- I seem to recall doing some review 24 to determine how many hours site operations had spent 5 25 preparing for the draining. We had a requirement to try Ic . - 26 to accurately predict when it would be at a certain level Ni :, -
27 as possible. So that is -- I mean, we were trying to 673 v# 28 really get it right down to the nitty gritty to fit a S dyd1 TOOKER,4 ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 TM
; aew == __- _ __ : __ _ _
l
_ , _ - - - _ , - _ - - - - . - - - - -3 yog ', Y
'is. :{
a
- d
.. i -
f". -1 sch edul e. . I j i h.o;j ['.?; ; 2 But that's the 'only time. I can recall doing je. .3 something like that.- 'y
'4 Q. If-I understood what you were just saying, you a
1 5 were calculating how much time had been spent so you ;
; 6- could' figure out when you'd be done with the project?-
. 2 7 Was that the purpose of it?
.; ^b
..; 8 A. No. More or less like trying to project m .
; 9 - forward how long it would take and' plus combine that with
.; 10' the number of hours it would take to drain the steam 11 generator, that type of thing. .j
;) 12 Q. I see. Was.this a task that was assignd to you 1 13 by one of your superiors or something you embarked on on 4 14 'your own? .
* . (7, 15 A. Well, .the task to drain the steam generator was j 16 assigned to the ops group.
17 Q. I mean the number of hours. . A 18 A .' . That was lef t. up to Bubba and me to do. 19 Q. But was that something that was assigned to you? 20 A. Yes. i
#.* 21 Q. By Mr. King?
~
~
; 22 A. King or Chwastyk. I'm pretty sure it was King.
And was this task that's described in your 23 Q.
; 24 statement here about the time spent on the head lif t a 4 25 similar project? Is that what you're saying?
26 A. No. I'm not saying 'it was a similar project. y9 27 You asked me if I'd ever undertaken such a project s <~ EN 28 similar to that. And I'm telling you the only time that ( }. l ,
.4.)
4di{ w TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 t Nv- _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _
-e , 909 fi 1 I can recall doing snything that would be remotely
, [' (' " -
2 considered to be similar to that, l
. 3 Maybe I confused you. I hope not.
.. 4 Q. No. I think I understand what you said.
. c.,I 5 Af ter you met with Mr. Kanga in the morning of
. 6 the events and discussed this letter with him for two or I. 7 two and a half hours, as you said, did you talk.to anyone f
. 8 later that day about your meeting with Mr. Kanga?
', 9 A. On the 17th?
10 Q. Yes. 11 A. If I did, I can't recall at the moment. 12 Q. Did you return to your work duties after you 13 met with Mr. Kanga? 14 A. I believe I did. ' (L 15 Q. Maybe I can give you one suggestion. At some 16 point that morning you met with Mr. Radbill. 17 A. Righ t. 18 Q. Because you -- 19 A. I do recall that. 20 Q. Because you referred to that I think in your
.. 21 affidavit. Does that help you recall whether af ter you s
. 22 met with Kanga you went back to your regular work duties 23 or went to meet with Radbill, or do you know?
24 A. I'm of the belief that I went back to my 25 regular duties.
26 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Chwastyk or Mr.
E 27 Marshall when you returned to your regular duty station
' d EJ' 28 the meeting you just had with Mr. Kanga?
d d;2j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.mam____________________. _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
910 J
,f 1 A. Again, I can't recall at this point in time if i
. (~ '. 2 I discussed it with Bubba or with Joe. I o 3 Q. Okay. Then you went at some point, and I think j
\
.,, 4 you've said it was in the morning, to meet -- to see Mr. l j
5 Radbill. And'do you recall going there -- well, do you i 6 recall going to see Mr. Radbill in the morning on the
.. 7 17th7 s i . 8 A. I don't believe that I have stated any time 9 during the last two days that I went to see Mr. Radbill.
10 I believe the only statement that has been attributed
, 11 along those lines was that I did meet with Mr. Radbill or, 12 you know, he made the comment to me about having a 13 personal vendetta.
14 But you phrased it such that I intentionally (, 15 set out to go have a meeting with him. I don't know if 16 that's the way it happened or not. 17 Q. Oh. Well, did you go on the 17th to seek some 18 documents from Radbill about the polar crane? 19 A. I can't really recall at this point in time if 20 I, you know, intentionally set out to go find Mike 21 Radbill and get documents from him or ask him a question 22 or if he come to my desk or if we passed each other in 23 the hall or what.
]
. 24 Q. You do remember seeing him at some point on the I
25 17th?
)
26 A. Y es.
' I 27 Q. But the specific point that your recollection l
', I 28 is failing you on relates to whether or not yora tried to
.1
.:x
/,] TOOKER & AUTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 j D2iL -_ _ __ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
,g,._,_ - _.- - _ _ - - - --- - - - - - -__- - - - - - - -~~ - -
.n 911 se q 1 get some documents from him?
. . .; ': M '2 A. Well, the reason that I can recall talking .with m' 3 Mike Radbill is because you and I discussed it yesterday, 4 I believe. And that's about the extent'of my 1* ? 5 recoll' action on' the matter.
.. 6 Q. Okay. Let me see if this refreshes your 7 recollections This is a portion of a statement. that's 8 previously been marked as Exhibit 37. Page 12 is where
.9 I'm referring to, the second paragraph from the top. It 10 begins:on page 52 and so on. The bottom part of.that l 11 paragraph. Why don't you read that.
. 12 A. Okay. I've read.it.
., 13 Q. Does it refresh your recollection.at all, Mr.
14 Parks, about whether you tried on the 17th to obtain some
'(' 15 ' documents on the polar crane from Radbill?
16 A. No. I have no additional recall beyond what's 17 stated right there. 18 Q. Do you.have any basis to deny what's stated
~ !
19 her e7 ' 20 A. No. 21 Q. Let me ask you one other question. Did you go
, 22 to get the documents to use them in assisting you in your
., 23 claims against the company with the Department of Labor?
24 A. I cannot state at this time that that was my 4 25- intent. Only thing I can refer you to, sir, is all the 1- 26 other depositions that I have had with Mr. Richardson and
- c. g 27 my previous affidavit. There may be information
. e I
h's - 28 contained within some of those documents that can provide a , TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.4& n _ ___ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
q,4.___.____-_------------------------
"U ) 912 -
.e gj ' 1 more insight into this incident that you're ~ questioning l .. ! w C,.f {','* 2 me on. {
.r. 3- But at the present time,. I can't really provide i
G' i 4 any amplification for anything that you're seeking. d
... 5 -Q. Because you don't remember ?
L ,6' 6 A. - That 's corr ec t, sir. 1 7 Q. I'll ask you one other question, Mr. Parks. .. e 8 Was the study that you attempted to embark on regarding
-c - 9 the hours expended by site operations on head lif t i k
,' 10 activities, was the purpose of that study to assist your
.~ 11 litigation efforts?
12 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. I'm conf used. Are you 13 ref erring to the paragraph, page 12 of this 13-page 14 affidavit that we're just looking at? (, 15 MR. HICKEY: No. , 16 MS. ZURAS: Or are you referring to the 17 previous -- 18 MR. HICKEY: Previous exhibit. The subject' i 19 matter that we discussed in the previour -exhibit. 20 MS. ZURAS: Yes. I guess my only problem with l 21 the question is that he stated that he has no 22 recollection beyond what's stated in the af fidavit. 23 MR. HICKEY: Well, that's why I made it more 24 specific, to see if it would jog his memory.
.3 - 25 MR. JOHNSON: When you say litigation efforts,
. 26 what does that mean?
+
. -r 27 MR. HICKEY: Q. Are you confused by the
.. c c ..;b). 28 question, Mr. Parks?
j U
- ~ ,
i i
'pi; TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ws -
....,y_--------_..------.---,-------------
n 913
..-- I 1 A. You'll have to excuse me for a moment.
I'm-if . (i y- 2 checking for something in my affidavit.
'i' 3 Q. Sure. Why don't you tell me when you're ready.
'y . 4 A. Now, could I get you to repeat your question?
- 5 Q. Sure. I was asking you whether with regard to
* .- 6 your attempted project to examine the hours expended by 7 site operations during head lift that we talked about a 8 moment ago that you asked Chwastyk about, whether the 9 purpose of that project that you tried to embark on was 10 to assist your litigation efforts. That means filing 5
11 your claim with the Labor Depar tment.
,, 2 12 A. Well, sir, all I can tell you at this point in 13 time is that page nine of that exhibit .that you're 14 questioning me on states that I wanted to research how
(- '15 the conflicting head lif ts and polar crane schedules 16 af f ected the ef ficiency and ef festiveness of site ops !
, 17 work. That's -- I can't really elaborate anything more 18 than that.
. 19 Q. Okay. Just so you're clear on the question,
, 20 I'm asking you why you wanted to examine that.
. 21 A. All I can tell you, sir, is this states here >
22 this was the reason I wanted to do it. And that's the 23 belief I have at this point in time that that's why I
', 24 wanted to do it.
, 25 Q. You've already testified in part, I think, 26 that -- well, 1et me withdraw that and start over.
y ,, 27 On page 52 of your affidavit, Hr. Parks, you
- U> 28 state that you had earlier on the 17th signed the polar r TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 L a _ _ _ - -- -- - -- ---- -
n..,;y._----.~.--.----------------------- J' 914 IQi' 1 1 f4!
., ( (. -
1 crane . load test procedure: with a' note that indicated it' "c1:'. (i4 - 2 was based on the technical content of the procedure only. i ( . 1,- 3 You see that at the bottom paragraph on page 527
',
- 3 4- A. I see it -- excuse me. I see a statement that
' :. S says that, yes.
,f. , 6 Q. And you state also " approval based on technical 7 content," in coats, is a generic term. What did you mean
' [- when you described it as a generic term?
8 j
=o 9 A.
1 By that expression, generic term, recalling 10 directly what it says, because the next sentence goes on
,, 11 to amplify what I meant by that.
12 Q. Well, was the phrase " generic term" one that i 13 you used normally at this time? l S 14 MS. EURAS: You mean was the word " generic" in- l
-Q 15 'his: vocabulary?
'16 MR. HICKEY: Yeah. Or the phrase." generic term."
't 17 THE WITNESS: I am of-the belief at this point 18 in time I knew what the word " generic" was and I had
't 19 opportunity to use it once or twice.
J 20 NR. HICKEY: Q. What did you understand it to V 21 mean? i i
, 22 A, Generic. Which definition -- or at least by my i 23 definition means not a certain manuf acturer's, not in o' i
. 24 compliance with certain specifications established by any i
~
25 manufacturer but meeting all the basic or bare minimum
;g 26 established by a governing body or ruling body. ,
s
.27 Q. And with that understanding, what did you mean l.i?[ 28 when you applied the word " generic" to your approval of l '1
[O# ! a. i
. d.?.;
Edh TOOKER & ANTz 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ; LNdi
- , ,p,.; - - - - . . -. - - . _ . - _ ._ - - _. - _ _ _ _ _ _,
. . ;x "
. ; 915
,q
, ". ;[ 1 the load test procedure? l
.; (~;
2 A. Y es. That's what it's talking about. > l , . . i'.. 3 Q. No. My question is what did you mean by the L. V.
- 4 term " generic" to apply to the load test procedure?
s.
- 5 A.- Just that, that I was basing my approval of c
LTi 6 that procedure on what was contained within that
<? 7 procedure and my signature was not to be construed that I 8 had approved of the 2-A requirements or the problematical 9 violations that had occurred to get us to that point. l P- 10 Q. Was it your belief that if you simply signed 11 the procedure then with your name and without this 1
12 note -- what did you think people would understand that 13 to mean? _ 1 .
.i 14 A. That I was in full agreement with everything
(. 15 that had been -- that had occurred relevant to the polar 16 crane up to-that point. I
- l. 17 Q. Whether it was discussed in the procedure or 18 not?
a 19 A. That's correct. .l l
}
, 20 Q. Where did you get that idea ? How did you -- <
21 A. Because -- I obtained that idea simply because
- 22 I had still not had a response f rom anyone regarding n 23 v' whether or not it was a 5059 submittal and whether or not 24 we were going to have to submit it through a different \
l -, - 25 review process to the NRC.
- h. 26 And as I state right here, I was sick of being
- ? 27 pushed and being accused of personal vendettas, that type
..- ,~ q I 7 kUl 28 of thing. I figured the only way I could get out of the
- ' l
( 8: .
'i' 1 O y. ?j . ! TOOKER & ANTE ) . .- 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ; $'Ab _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . i
..;,,v.,__.-,----------->.----------.--
- v.q. i '.
,g
'916:
- f. 1- hot seat was to sign it.
JU .2 CL I don't' think you understood the question I
.(.4 ;9): 3 meant to ask you. Let me try it again.
5;. . -4 . Where did you get the idea in March of 1983
'.y 5 that if you signed . the procedure simply with your name,
-;< without any- note about technical content only, that .that
~
6
'7 would be int'erpreted to mean that you approved - the whole
~
8- program beyond what was in the procedure?
'. 9 'MS. EURAS: I 'm 's or ry . Mr. Hick ey, he
..J' 10 responded to that question.
. 11 MR. ' HICKEY: No, he didn't.
'12 MS. EURAS: Why don't we have the question read 13 back. I mean the answer read back.
-I 14 MR. MICKEY: Read the question and the answer,
..( 15- would you, please?
16 (Record read.) ;
.i 17 MR. HICKEY: I think my question where did you l 18 get the idea was not.sufficiently clear to the witness.
, '19 And he answered a question based -- he answered a rather 1
*/' 20 vague question. So I made the question more specific. !
t
.; 21 But what I'm trying to elicit from him is not
)
22 where did you get the idea to put "for technical content -l
- . 23 only" on the form, which is what I understood you to have
..! 24 answer ed . I l
; ;i. 25 Q. My question to you is you apparently believed
~:c 26 then that if you just signed your name, people would 27 interpret that to mean that you approved something beyond 9- 28 the procedure, you approved the whole program. And I j
3 .. .': - Tj,5Q ; TOCKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
$y .
' ML-
) ,.,,3,.__._,m_-_---___, --~.--------------- -
1'
.I[.
y 917 2 1 want to know what made you think that? l.9 j (j 2 A. It was my only personal belief based on what I '"fi - 3 saw occurring and continuing to occur. For instance, on
-[' 4 several dif ferent occasions during the last two days of
'.. , 5 testimony, I told you I was waiting to see what the QA 6 results were. And, you know, to see what the results of 7 their review was.
8 But I never saw a time schedule change. The
. , 9 time schedule, as I understood it, to use that polar 10 crane and perform the load perform -- the load test, the 11 load performance test was going to occur before -- or could occur, anyway, if I remember correctly, before QA
~
12 13 could get back. 14 So there was only one person stopping them from ( 15 using that load test and that was my signature on that 16 because I was of the belief that NRC would go right ahead 17 and approve it and sign it. Because they had already 18 told me once they didn't have any probicms with it. 19 And I was afraid that that procedure, if I
.' 20 signed it, would -- the next, you know, the next day or
.; 21 in a very short fashion thereafter, the polar crane would 22 be put to use and they'd do the load test and I didn't
$ 23 think it was r eady. And I didn't think the questions and
. 24 the safety concerns I had were resolved.
25 So that's why I had that impression that if I 26 signed it, everybody was gonna interpret it hey, Parks 27 has no more problems with this, let's use it, and that's (- . 28 4
; what I did not want to have happen. I wanted my .g if6.
TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 I)
*e.' . _
, - ._r _ _- _- e-e. == ,arase - .===erom we.e w me.m T"wo-amme r**r", fe*
,9 918 s...
p,
.."- 1 questions answered and everybody involved to have a good, . '.(.,
2 long, serious look at what we'd done and if it was saf e
'-' 3 or not.
?' 4 And that's how I get that impr ession, Mr.
5 Hickey. I hope I've answered your question.
. 6 Q. Did other people in the review cycle sign the 7 load test procedure besides you?
8 A. Y es . Other people were required to sign other 9 than me. 1 J 10 Q. And did sign it? Mr. Warren, for example, did 11 he sign it? 12 A. I believe so. 13 Q. Mr. -- I'm talking about Ron Warren. He was a 14 member of the TWG, was he not? ( 15 A. Yes, sir, he was. 16 Q. And worked in the plant engineering deparment? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you know whether when he signed it he put 19 any asterisks and any note about technical content on it? 20 A. Sir, I am sure you are as aware as I am that I l 21 was the only one that did that. 22 Q. Did you understand from Mr. Warren's signature 23 that he was approving all aspects of the polar crane 24 program when he signed the procedure for a load test? 25 A. Sir, I believe I've already answered that
, 26 question relevant to what my concerns were. I do not 27 care to speculate what Ron Warren's concerns were, if he t', '
l jW' 28 had any.
^
s Ij TOOKER & ANTZ 231 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 of & m_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - - - _ - - - - ~ - -
.,g
~ - - _._ -_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
- J,7 .
919 1 N.1 . 1 Q. No, no. That wasn't my. question, Mr. Parks.
,.."j(- 2 My question to you was what you understood from Ron 95 3 Warren's signature.
[,' '4 A. What I understood from Ron Warren's signature
't , 5 was that he was blessing them to use that polar crane by 6 approving that procedure because that was the only 7 procedure that he had lef t, if I- recall correctly, to get 8 approved before they could perform the load test. Other
. 9 than mine and the NRC's, possibly PORC. And PORC had 10 already approved it once.
11 Q. How about Mr. Kitler's signature where it 12 says -- if you want to look at this, if it will help you, l 13 by the way, I'll be glad to show it to you. It's the 14 load test procedure with the signature pages. But you're
.(. 15 probably familiar with it. I will show it to you in a 16 minute.
17 It says "TWG Approval For Performance Test. " 18 It's got blocks for signatures. Startup and test 19 representative, Kitler signs that. Plant ops
,l >
20 representative, that's where you signed. Plant 21 engineering that's Ron Warren. Site engineering,
. 22 Gallagher; QA, Fornicolar PORC, Kunder. And everybody's 23 got their dates by it.
. 24 The signature block form is not strange to you, 25 is it?
. .' 26 A. No. l
' J i >f ' t 27 Q. You've seen that before? .- - [~ - "e -) 28 A. It's not strang e.
j
- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 d 7[b _._ _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ -- -- . - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - -- --_----- ----_ -------- _-------- ----- -
j ,;;.g _ _. _ . _ _ _ _ __._ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __. __ _ _ _. _ _ ___.. _
.a. '
. . r. . . 920 nru
,I. }
~
l.. ~, :. 9 f:M ;. 1 Q .- Yours is the only one that has the note on it,
,e4..-(sb 2 correct?
j,. ':- 3 A. That's, correct.
'. , ' , 'j 4 Q. And when you signed it, Kitler already had,
' '( [ 5 right?
.(- 6 A. I don't know, sir. I don't recall. Why don't-
,, 7 you let me see it.
t
- 8 Q. The date for Kitler is March loth and yours, of
, . 9 course, is the 17th.
l 10 A. Okay.
', 11 Q. Ron Warren's is the' 16th. He had signed it i
12 before you? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Did you say anything to Ron Warren when you saw
,( ,r 15 his signature on that procedure?
16 A. I- don't recall saying anything to Ron Warren.. 17 Q. What was your relationship with Ron Warren?
*[ 18 Were you friendly or colleagues or how would you describe 19 it?
- 20 A. We had a working relationship that I would
; -21 describe as f riendly.
r , 22 Q. Did you think well of Mr. Warren's professional 23 skills? 24 A. Y es.
)
1J' 25 Q. You don't recall raising any question with Mr. cI 26 Warren about how he could sign such a document?
+f 27 A. I don't recall if Ron Warren and I sit down and i i
'; 1:. l
- v,:) (# -
28 discussed why he signed it and why I wouldn't sign it or i
, l
.\'
d 8
.M,k TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l , r: -we#>oC_______________ *._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ___m____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
yg
,..._m- 'l
. ;r;,$ 921
'..1*
I 1., - ,
, // *. 1 not.
- ~,.
' t , ,z 2 Q. Okay. 1 i
3 A. Again, I wish to redirect your attention to why f,, 4 I explained to you that I was the one that raised the 5 question regarding the 5059 and I was the one that still : 1
- f. 6 didn't have the answer. Ron Warren's questions were
' t. ' 7 answered, mine weren't.
-' ; 8 Q. You can look on the form there if you want. Do
'd 9 you know whether the nuclear safety evaluation portion 10 had been filled out and signed before you signed or not?
11 A. At the point in time I couldn't tell you if it
. 12 had or not.
13 Q. Can you look there and see? 14 MR. JOHNSON: What are we looking for? If you (, 15 could clarify it. ! I 16 MR. HICKE7: I think Mr. Parks knows.
. 17 Q. This nuclear saf ety evaluation, or NSE, is the
, l
. 18 form that includes a certification about whether it's an 19 unreviewed safety question, is it not, Mr. Parks? You l
)
- 20 have it there in your hand.
21 A. Y es. It does contain that within the form. I - 22 Q. Okay. And it's got a block down at the bottom l - . 23 there -- I think you can see it better than I can -- for
'." 24 signatures by the chairman of PORC?
.<, 25 A. That's correct. j
.- 1 3' 26 Q. And the manager of licensing? !
' : i .' , ..
27 A. That's correct. l
. ..q -
28
.T T Q. And the manager of licensing is Mr. Byrne and 4
l ld. rd TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 i&k - ___ - - -- _.___. _ - . _
.g.,,,._ - - .__ _ ._ __._ ____- - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - [ igd . 922 / .: . ;'. . . W.1 , 1 he signed it when? 1, .* {. - 2 A. The 18th. 3 ., ' 3 MS. ZU RAS: Well, I'm going to object.
, '/ ( 4 MR. HICKEY: Q. I mean it's dated the 18th, -(h? 5 right?
3 6 MR. HICKEY: Is that the objection? 4 7 MS. EURAS: Yes. 8 MR. HICKEY: The document indicates it's
, Q.
;* 9 dated the 18th. And the other signature is whose?
. 10 A. George Kunder.
11 Q. And what's the date? 1
, 12 A. The 29th.
P 13 Q. Was it your understanding that Mr. Byrne had to
'. 14 sign this document before the load test could go forward?
( ;. , 15 A. Y es. And again, I wish to -- 16 Q. Excuse me just one minute, would you, please?
. 17 Okay. Were you about to say something to me?
. 18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Is it accurate that by placing this 20 asterisk and these comments beside your signature you
. 21 hoped to attract attention or flag this issue that you
, 22 were concerned about so that others would notice it to
. 23 look into it further?
24 A. I was hoping that comeone would finally --
** ? . 25 after it left my hands, ther e would be -- you know, it
. .j
. 26 would draw attention' to all the subsequent reviewers.
- C.j 27 Hopefully the NRC.
~ ;' .
~[i?, 'J' 28 Q. You knew that the document would go to the NRC7
- *l s..
b Od.$ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
~. 3
- we- ____ _- ._ - - - _ . - -
,,.,,p.__._._..__-___----.-------------~--------
.' ?'. ' 923 *
- l T,1 j
o.. . . Y s 1 A. I knew it would go to the NRC.
' 2
, Q. To the TMI program office?
' , '- 3 A. -I knew it would at least go there.
A .y '4, Q. And did you think it might go higher or to-
- / ' ' ,
5 other' places in the NRC?
, 6 A. That was unsure where all it would go within i +; ' ,
. 7 NRC.
,, 8 Q. And you said the NRC.was one group that you- t I
a - 9 hoped would notice the issue.
.. 10 A. That's true. )
. .- 11 Q. All right. You had not -- well, let me ask you
]
~~*
12 this: Why didn't you just sign it and send a memo to the 13 NRC, Mr. Parks, that explained your concerns? 14 A. Once again, you know, I can't speak r( 15 retroactively as to why I did one thing versus another. 16 I did what I thought was right and justifiable and 17 proper at the time. 18 Q. My question is, if you have a recollection, did
~ "
19 you have a choice why to do it on'e way or to do it 20 another? If.you remember.
', 21 A. I think my original affidavit really goes into
, 22 definitive detail about why I did what I did. I wanted
.> 23 of f a hot seat, I wanted the people off my back.
.. l 24 Q. That's not the question I'm asking. The
, f*' 25 question I'm asking -- the question is assuming you
. .. 26 wanted of f the hot seat and you wanted people of f your
. .. 27 back, so on, there's at least two ways you could do it.
' [~ ,,
28 You could sign it with a asterisk and this note about
*.t
. r.
MVd TOOKER & ANTE 131. Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 eR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _
]
['. 924 3
,.] 1 technical content only, and potentially you could sign it and send a memo or make a phone call.
.- 2
' (? .
3 And my question is why did you choose the one 4 instead of the other?
1 5 MR. JOHNSON: I object. I think it's without
]
6 foundation because you don't have a foundation that he i 7 actually considered the alternatives. ; 8 MS. ZURAS: I join the objection. 9 MR. HICKEY: He can certainly testify I didn't 10 do it because I never thought of it. If that's the
.. 11 answer.
'.- 12 THE WITNESS: I think I said previously I did 13 not want to try. I could not explain why I did one thing 14 versus another. I tried to do what was right and
,( 15 justifiable and proper at the time under the
, 16 circumstances.
17 MR. HICKEY: Q. I understand you to be saying 18 you don't have any recollection of why you didn't send a 19 memo to NRC. .~ 20 A. I don't think it's within the realm of whether 21 I gave it any consideration or whether I have any
', 22 recollection of giving it any consideration. I've 23 explained to you why I did what I did.
'[ 24 Q. Wait a minute. You're confusing me by your 25 answer.
26 A. Maybe you're confucing me. You know, I think 27 I'm answering your question. Without being argumentative.
./r r L'
. 28 Q. The question is --
d). ).,' ' . TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 hl--_-____-_--__-__----______---- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
N,i 925
, ,'d 4
i': N3 1 MR. JOHNSON: I think it's clear enough that
, ('?
2- he's trying to say to you basically that he did not s l jl
- 3 consider the choice that you tried to put into his mouth.
ffp 4 And I think you understand that, .too.
< . 5 MR. HICKEY: No. I don't think-that's what.he J 6 said. He has told me he doesn't remember. considering it.
7 Q. Right? You don't have any recollection -- let 9 7, 8 me put it to you this way, Mr. Parks, because it Je 9 shouldn't be this difficult. 10 On March 17th,1983, when you signed that as
, 11 best you remember now, did it occur to you, did you, think
~
12 about sending a memorandum to the NRC with your concerns?
~
13 A. From what I can recall at this moment -- 14 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Just to clarify-your (L 15 question, signing this without the clarification and 16 merely attaching the memo putting in his qualification as 17 to why he signed it? 18' MR. HICKEY: Sending a memo. I didn't indicate 19 attaching. Sending a memo. q
- , 20 MS. EURAS: But I want to make sure what you're 21 saying is having him send it without the qualification he 22 put next to his signature.
~
23 MR. HICKEY: Yes. Any way he thought about it.
- w. ;
24 THE WITNESS: As I can recall right now, on
'/. -
25 March 17th when I signed that procedure, put that proviso l 1
, 26 on it, I was responding to the only avenue out I f elt was J 27 open to me.
\ - 28 MR. HICKEY: Q. Did you call the NRC on the
's i .
'n A"5 TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ab N5-_-----_---__---- . _ - - - - - . . - - - - - .--
(._ ,
? 926 1 17th of March?
(~g 2 A. I do not recall that I did, no.
**.' 3 Q. As of March 17th, weren't your feelings toward 4 the NRC not very -- let me rephrase the question so I can 5 give you something specific.
,. 6 You were not satisfied on March 17th with the 7 NRC program of fice's activities to date on the polar 8 crane, were you?
9 A. That's correct. I was not. 10 Q. And what made you think that the NRC -- if you i - 11 did think, what made you think that the NRC would pick up
.. 12 on this asterisk and note?
13 A. I wasn't for sure that they would. I don't ) 14 think I stated that I was confident that they would. I L 15 think I stated that I was hoping somebody would inquire ! 16 into that proviso. i 17 Q. Af ter you signed the document and put the 18 astetisk on it, did you do anything else that day that 19 you can recall to attempt to flag this issue for anyone? 20 MS. EURAS: Whoa. Could you read back that 21 question? 22 (Question read.) 23 MR. JOHNSON: It's not really very clear. I 24 would object on the basis of vagueness. 25 MR. HICKEY : What is the vagueness that you see?
',' 26 The witness hasn't expressed any.
r 27 MR. JOHNSON: You're saying did you do anything
., l~ ~
C 28 that would flag this for anyone. To me that's kind of a e l
$f'.: TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
'! I
.-:.aL_--__-____-__-__-___. _ - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -_ --. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
; .y - _ _ _ . - ..__. _ __., - ___ - - - _._._ ._ _ - - _. _ _ - _._. - - _ l
; 927
\
' , - ,- 1 general or vague term. It doesn't say anything specific.
, ({ 2 It would be helpf ul if you could clarify it.
, 3 MR. HICKEY: Q. Can you answer it, Mr. Parks?
4 MS. ZURAS: Just so we're clear and I make sure 5 the witness understands, you're referring to that day 6 anything else.
, 7 MR. HICKEY: That's what the question says, 1 I
8 right? That day. March 17th. j 9 THE WITNESS: At this point in time I can't 10 recall that I did anything specific to flag that proviso f 11 I
, for anyone. I may have. I just really don't recall. l 12~ Dut now if you have some information that you're privy to l I
13 that would help enlighten me, I'll be more than happy to 14 review it. L- 15 MR. HICKEY: O. N o '. I'm trying to get your 16 memory, Mr. Parks. And your memory is you don't recall, 17 Okay. Later that day, Mr. Parks, on the 17th, 18 there's two events that have already been discussed and I 19 don't need to go over them in detail. You had a meeting 20 with Mr. Chwastyk around 1 00 o' clock, I think you've 21 testified other times, relating to your removal from the 22 TWG as the site ops primary representative for the polar 23 crane. 24 You know the meeting I'm ref erring to, don't 25 you? 26 A. I can recall the meeting, yes.
<.3 ,
27 Q. Okay. And I think we talked briefly yesterday W 28 about a comment that was made to the ef f ect that you t-h TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
l I.! ! '-' 928 N.
. 1 suggested -- let me put it this way: Did you suggest-to 2 Mr. Chwastyk in the meeting on the 17th that Bubba
' {,
3 Marshall could sign the load test procedure instead of
'v 4 you?
1 5 MR. JOHNSON: Just a s econd. The meeting? 6 What meeting? I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't follow, here, 7 all your question. But I don't know which meeting you're
. 8 ref erring to.
't 9 MR. HICKEY: The meeting with Chwastyk.
10 MR. JOHNSON: What meeting with Chwastyk? ; 11 MR. HICKEY: The meeting we just identified l
.- 12 with Chwastyk on March 17th. <
13 MR. JOHNSON: But specifically there could have. 14 been more than one meeting. (. 15 MR. HICKEY: Q. 1:00 o' clock I think was the 16 time you said? 17 A. As memory serves me, sir, you and I belabored l 18 that yesterday. But I'll be more than happy to go over 19 it again. 20 Q. Good. That's probably quicker. Thanks. 21 A. I believe I told you yesterday if I made that 22 comment to Joe Chwastyk, it was made in a facetious o 23 fashion.
*/ 24 Q. Do you have any recollection of Mr. Chwastyk 25 indicating that he understood it was a joke.
' 26 MS. ZURAS: Well, I'm going to object to the
,~
, 27 characterization as a joke.
k':u
. 28 MR. HICKEY: Facetious. I thought that's what 4 #
h@ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ __ _ I
- ~ _ ..~ _ - - _ - . _ - _ . - - - - - - -.
j-,.., 929
- ;t i.
( .. l
;j 1 'th e word meant.
2 THE WITNESS:
/t (.S ...
I can't recall at this point in
, ,' 3 time what Joe's exact response was. But I -- you know, I 4 made it apparent to Joe I wasn't gonna sign it.
'J.' 5 MR. HICKEY: Q. And do you deny reviewing in 6 Joe Chwastyk's presence the memo that he had prepared and making changes in the memo?
7 8 A. Y es , sir, I do. i
- - i 9 Q. After your meeting -- '
10 A. That was a compound question, sir. Do you want 11 a compound answer? , j
'. 12 Q. I'm assuming you're denying both parts of it.
13 Am I wrong? 14 A. Well, I did review the memo that Joe Chwastyk l (, 15 had written in Joe's pr esence. In Mr. Kanga's of fice or ; 16 outside Hr. Kanga's office. 17 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know if it was compound, 18 but it wasn't precise. Thank you for pointing it out. 19 I was ref erring to your meeting with Mr.
't 20 Chwastyk not in Kanga's of fice but in Chwastyk's of fice.
21 And I'm asking you whether you reviewed the memorandum in 22 Chwastyk's presence in Chwastyk's office. '
.- 23 A. I don't recall that I reviewed the memoranda in l 24 Joe's presence in Joe's office. And I distinctly do not
.- 25 remember making any changes to it. )
26 Q. Okay. Let me focus on the first part of that. ln' i 27 Do you have a recollection one way or the other whether I 28 you reviewed it in his office, in Chwastyk's office or l .. -
. .d, -[. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
l, ,y------------------~.-.--.-----------
' - i 930
?s.
4
': 1 not?
Q{?i 2 A. I don't have a recollection of reviewing it in l .] . 3 Joe's of fice, no. 1 4 Q. Af ter your meeting with Mr. Chwastyk in his j ' l'#! 5 office on the 17th, did you attempt to contact your
- 6 attorney ?
', 7 A. I really couldn't tell you at this point in 8 time if I did or not.
9 Q. Do you recall whether you -- af ter the meeting 10 with Mr. Chwastyk, and before you went over to Mr. 11 Kanga's of fice, did you jot down any notes or make any 12 notes about your meeting with Mr. Chwastyk? 13 A. I couldn't tell you at this point in time if I 14 did or not. j ( 15 Q. Did you talk to anyone before you went over to 16 Kanga's of fice about your meeting with Mr. Chwastyk? 17 A. I don't believe I did. I don't recall at this 18 point in time if I did. 19 Q. When you first read this memo in Chwastyk's 20 of fice, was Chwastyk there with you? t 21 A. I think you're stating a matter of fact that I 22 haven't agreed to.
.- 23 Q. Well, did you first read the memo in Chwastyk's 24 office?
c- 25 A. I don't believe I did. 26 Q. Where did you first read it? 1 27 A. I think the first time I laid eyes on it was l
- k. ' 28 when a secretary was typing it and this was af ter I had s .i b
'y{.j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 a u _ _ - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -_ --- - -- -- .- -- - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
931 g
,- 1 talked with Joe in his of fice and asked her to see what, t'.\b2 (~ 't 2 you know, what she was writing up.
.;. ; 3 Q. Where was she typing it?
',[ 4 A. At her desk.
-[f 5 Q. Where was her desk in relation to Joe's office?
L .
.. 6 A. ' Well, like if that thing was Joe's of fice, her l
, 7 desk would have been where he's sitting and my desk would
" 8 ' have been where I'm sitting and just about .the same l
9 amount of distance apart. 10 Q. So her desk was outside Joe Chwastyk's office
, 11 approximately -- or within 10 feet?
, 12 A. Within 10 f eet and definitely outside his 13 office.
14' Q. And when you saw it there being typed, did you ( 15 look at it :in Mr. Chwastyk's presence, read it in Mr. 16 Chwastyk's< presence? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Inside or outside of his office, I mean, at the
, 1 19 secretary's desk or in Chwastyk's office. !
.' 20 A. No. 1 1
. 21 Q. And did you at any point suggest to Mr. )
22 Chwastyk that he make any changes in that memorandum? 23 MR. JOHNSON: Asked and answered. 24 THE WITNESS: Once again, Mr. Hickey, I'm of the belief that Mr. Richardson and I belabored this point
-; 25 l
26 and I would choose to refer you to any responses I made 27 to his line of questioning during my several proceedings J [ 28 because I was more boned up on circumstances then than I Ca's TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. ': i s+#-
932 1.. . l < :
.h 1 am now.
2 But I do not recall reviewing that document in (C-3 Chwastyk+s presence before I went down to Mr. Kanga's
',/ 4 office. I do not recall making any changes in that 2f.' 5 document before I went down to Mr. Ranga's of fice. I e
6 don't recall making any changes in that document, period. 1 7 MR. JOHNSON: One second. Off -- i ". 8 THE WITNESS: Not at this point in time. 1 j. 9 MR. JOHNSON: Off the record.
.' 10 (Discussion of f the record.)
11 (Brief recess.)
.- 12 MR. HICKEY: Q. Mr. Parks, just a few more 13 questions on this 'af ternoon of the 17th and then I'll 14 move to another topic.
(- 15 Later on in the af ternoon you were called to ' 16 Mr. Kanga's office and I wanted to ask you about three 17 questions about that. When you went to Mr. Kanga's . 18 office -- this is after your meeting with Chwastyk and so 19 on -- you met Mr. Chwastyk outside Kanga's of fice, did
, 20 you not?
. 21 A. I believe that's correct.
22 Q. And did Mr. Chwastyk tell you what the purpose
* ~
23 of the meeting was? Let me put the question this way: [- 24 Did you have any discussion with Mr. Chwastyk? i 25 A. I seem to recall that we had a discussion. l
^ l 26 Exactly what all it was about I couldn't really tell you l 1
~
27 any more. l C. !
\.> 28 Q. By that point you had seen the memorandum, had i 1
1
's N,b! TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 , %* O*k? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___ -__
" c'- -
933 ',
-l~
i qj. 1 you not?
-)
^
- p ';
2 A. Y es. )
, ,s i
.' 3 0 Did you tell Mr. Chwastyk in that conversation
. 4 outside Mr. Kanga's of fice that you thought the 7s 5 memorandum was harassment or intimidation?
. j 6 A. I can't recall -- I don't think I did. l
\
~
- 4 7 You know, I might can save us a lot of time on 8 all this, Mr. Hickey. There has been an awful lot of
- - 9 water under the bridge and a lot of things I can't recall 1
10 any more. But if you have documents that you think might j l 11 shed some light on the situation and you'd like for me to l I
- ' 12 review them and answer your questions, I'd be more than I 13 happy to.
14 0 I'll be happy to shew you some documents when I h 15 have some. It's really just a question about what you 16 recall and whether you recall telling Mr. Chwastyk you 17 thought the memorandum constituted harassment or 18 intimidation?
~
19 A. I don't recall -- at this point in time, anyway, l 20 recall telling Joe that outside of Kanga's of fice, no. 21 0 You did think that, however, did you not? e 22 A. Yes, sir, I did. 23 0. Is there any reason you can think of why you I
.[ 24 wouldn't have told Mr. Chwantyk that when you saw him 25 outside Kanga's office, if that was your belief?
26 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. I guess -- and perhaps c I -C 27 the witness can recollect correctly, but I think you're
' l 28 misunderstanding his testimony.
[. . 1 e fd- TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 m ,. ___ --- -- -
p7. .;
,I. 934 9
d .
.;;.) 1 It was my understanding that he said he had no -
. ; {. , 2 recollection either way. If that's not the case, I stand
. l. l.2 3 corrected. If I am right, ther e's a foundation. If his
^'e .
4 recollection is negative either way, it may have been ! ^ ' ,4 'S that he did. ' So I guess I need clarification. 1 l . ,' , 6 THE WITNESS: I think we have to have all the 4 i
, 7 answers read back 'cause when both you all get to talking, I 8 it kind of gets me confused on what I said, what she's l
9 trying to say, what you're saying, and what I said before 10 and if I understood your question.
,' 11 MR. HICKEY: Q.. Well, let me just try to
, ' c' 12 rephrase the question. Maybe that will clarify. You 13 were the one that saw-Mr. Chwastyk outside Mr. Kanga's 14 office and we weren't there.
-( 15 A. That's correct.
' 1 16 Q. And I've got a question that tries to 17 incorporate whatever you can remember of that scene.
And 18 my question is, based on what you can remember about 19 where Chwastyk was and where you were and how it all 20 happened, can you think of any reason why you didn't tell 21 Mr. Chwastyk, if you didn't tell him, that this was harassment? 22 23 A. I'm of the belief that it would not have done 24 any good to have told Joe that it was harassment. It 25 seemed to me that that whole process that led up to my
, 2.6 removal was, for lack of better words, nothing else, it 27 was pre-ordained or mandated by powers beyond my control e
-',. Na 28 and beyond Joe's control.
.1
+
b45,I TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105
;.::? 415/392-0650 uw_ - - _- - - - _- _ -
. _ _ _ ~ _ - - - _ _ - _ - . ~ _ - . _.__.__._a.__._____.___.
'> 935-
., {;, v, U
dj ; < 1 Q. Are you saying- it was your' belief- in March of 2 1983 that someone directed Mr. Chwastyk to prepare.this ({- f a) 3 memo removing you from the TWG, so on?
, -/ 4 A. Are you dif ferentiating when.you say my belief 3 5' rather than do I have a foundation for that belief? Or I 6 don't guess I --
., 7 Q. The first question is do you have a belief and i
NI 8 then the next question- is going to be why did you have ! i . i 9 that belief if you had it. 10 A. Well, wanting give Joe the benefit of the doubt
,' 11 at the time, I believed it was coming from somebody else, i...
12 yes. I
- < ;- 13 Q. And did you have some particular basis for 14 thinking it was not Joe but someone else?
' (. 15 A. Well, it seemed to me that Joe had kind of 16 jumped the fence. You know, it hadn't been more than l
17 just a' couple' weeks before-that he had been standing 18 right there saying we're not going to approve this, we { 19 are in site ops, we're not going to approve this until
., 20 you clean up your acts and solve all the problems, answer
. 21 the man's question. I still don't have an answer to that 22 question regarding the 5059 submittal.
23 Now all of a sudden Joe was turning -- turning hi '? 24- colors, if you will. I mean, it stood out like a red-25 shirt, you know, total diff erence. 26 Q. What did he do that was turning colors? What J-7. 27 are you referring to? !
. . t(* 28 A. In wanting it signed off. I mean, he was
, , ,- s y,tji TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 5 0;. - -
w....,__.-_._------- D 936-4 1
' 3.'-
i
~
.. . 1 removing me -- I can't say he was wanting it signed' of f.
.;,,. f.?R 2 He was. removing me. from the test work group which I took-3 as removing my dissent and' aoving my -- my reluctance- to' acquiesce ont my position from the test work group and the 4
*/ 5 polar crane process.
./ 6 And so.I -- I interpreted. that at the time that
- 2 7 Joe was doing it under direction. I know your next 8 question is-going to.be what's my foundation forlthe 9 belief. That was just my belief.
10 Q. You can't point to anything particular that 11 made you believe that? 12' MS. EURAS: Other than he's testified? 13 MR. HICKEY: Yes. [ 14 MS. ZURAS: In other words, the change in Mr. (- 15 Chwastyk's-position? 16 MR. HICKEY: Y es. 17 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I can't. It was a
,- 18 belief. Like I said, at'the time I wanted to -- you know, 19 I didn't want to believe that Joe would have done it out .c ,
20 of his own volition, but I wasn't sure. And so I chose
', 21 ~ to believe at the time that Joe was taking orders.
22 MR. HICKEY: Q. Did you later change that view, 23 Mr. Parks? [ ' 24 A. I guess I can best summarize that by saying in 25 my opinion, Joe Chwastyk was a survivor and he would do 26 what he had to do. And I don't think I can answer your
'.~
M 27 question any better than that.
/ (U,. 28 Q. Well, see if you can try. That's really not 4
' I TOOKER &. ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1 e.
&u.__--__.___-- .
.. ,,g. ~ ~ - ~ . - - - ~ ~ - - - -~ - - - - - ~ - - - - - - --
.a ..
937
- 1 very responsive. Did- you change your view that Chwastyk S {i 2 had taken this action only at the direction of someone M 3 else?
y, 4 A. ~In the last four and a half years, I've never 5 been able to locate any proof that Joe did it of his own
..-7 6 nor have I been able to do -- locate any proof that he 7 -was taking orders. So until I get that proof, my 8 conviction remains as it is.- As it was.
9 Q. Okay. So you haven't changed. your view?
, ,. 10 A. I think.that's a fair assumption on your part.
11 Q. I'm just trying to understand what you said. I
- i 12 thought that's what you said.
13 A. I think you understand what I said, yes. 14 Q. Did you have a belief in March of 1983 as to
-( 15 who it was4that was directing Mr. Chwastyk to do this?
16 A. I"had suspicions, but I was unsure. 17 Q. Who did you suspect?
~
18 A. I don't really recall who all or if anyone 19 individual that I could name today. Upper management. 20 It would have only had to have been a couple three people. 21 Q. I beg your pardon?
'" 22 A. Management above Joe Chwastyk.
23 Q. In a particular department, you mean? [, 24 A. Well, yes. il] 25 Q. You know the chain of command better than I.
';l]'
. 26 What do you mean when you say management above Joe t >J ' 27 Chwastyk?
..qN 28 A.
, Well, there were only three people, if I recall 7.'s '. -
r, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 g h _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
7,
;.,._._---------.__.-.-----------~~-----.
.[ ] 938 4 f.)
l' correctly here, that wer e above Joe Chwastyk. p 2 Q. Who were'that he? Il ' ', 3 A. John Darton, Bahman Kanga and/or it could be
. 4 conceived Jim Thiesing. But again, I had no foundation.
5 I could not point a finger and say this was the man or -- 4 6 and I wouldn't want to today. 7 Q. Okay. After your meeting with Mr. Chwastyk and 8 Mr. Kanga in Mr. Kanga's office, which your affidavit 9 says took place about 3:30 or began about 3:30 -- i
. 10 A. Wait a minute, sir. I missed part of that
,+ 11 dissertation. .i 12 Q. Okay. Let me start over again. Your affidavit 13 says that you met with Mr. Chwastyk and Mr. Kanga in 14 Kanga's office about 3:30. All right? I want to direct
(' 15 your attention to af ter that meeting in Kanga's of fice. 16 All right. 17 And my question is af ter the meeting did you 18 call your attorney? t
, 19 A. I don't recall at this point in time if I did !
.- 20 or not.
21 Q. Did you write down any notes when you came out 1
.- 22 of the meeting with Kanga and Chwastyk?
23 A. I don't believe I did. If I did, I don't 24 recall at this time that I did.
<b - 25 Q. When you went into the meeting with Ranga and 26 Chwastyk, did you have in mind that it would be important t
,1 27 for you to be able to recall and relate what happened in
(. 28 the meeting? Md TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 Q[ L-m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - ^ - - - - - - -
ll
..u..___.~_m.___-~----------------
$ y j' ;J. . 939 g.d NQ:- 1- -A.' Well, you 'know, I knew when 'I; went into the
',;sC, <Tf.' . 2 meeting that when I came out of that meeting I was going v ; cp 4 .3 to have a lot less responsibility than I did when I went i 4 into it. And so.yes, sir,'I considered'it to be
,'{ ' 5 important that I had a f airly accurate repri- -- or
/ 6' futurely accurate recollection of what happened _ in the L. . 7 meeting.
/"
-8 Q. Can you estimate about how long the meeting
. 9 lasted?
10 A. Oh, I don't -- maybe 15, 20 minutes. I i 11 .couldn't really tell you any more.
' 1 12 MR. HICKEY: Let me ask your counsel to ref er - ] 13 briefly, ifishe-will, to the document marked Y which she 14 previouslyiproduced because I'm going to ask the witness (3 15 a couple of~ questions about it,_about the subject matter 16 of the document.
17 I'm referring, Ms. Zuras, to the material.that i 1, 18 starts at the bottom of the first page and goes down to 19 the end of the first paragraph on the second page. 20 MS. EURAS: How far did you want us to go? 21 MR. HICKEY: First paragraph on the second page. 22 MS. EURAS: Okay. What is the question? 23 MR. HICKEY: Q. Mr. Parks, when you came out 24 of the meeting or at about 4:00 o' clock, did you call Mr. 25 Devine and report to him about your statement to Mr.
,f 26 Kanga and Mr. Chwastyk in the meeting?
27 A. I don't recall that I did, no. I -- 7._
, j GJ ! ?,, 28 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me.
t id d' 'f TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 sa. _ _ _ _ _ - - -
. ., e _ _ - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l
@ 940
.4 N
. 1 THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
~"
// 2- MR. HICKEY: Q. Whether you called or not?
., t 3 A. No.
i
. '. 4 Q. Well, let me put it to you specifically. Did a~ 5 you call Mr. Devine abcut 4:00 o' clock and tell him that 6 when you were asked to agree that the memo did not
. 7 constitute intimidation, did you tell Devine that you !
8 said, quoth, "I believe your intent is well stated by the 4 9 memo"? i 10 A. I think that's -- again, it's a compound 11 question. Are you asking me did I state that or are you l 12 asking me did I call Tom Devine or are you asking me both? 13 Q. I'm acking you whether you called Devine and i' - 14 told him that.
- , ([
, 15 A. I believe I've already stated I do not recall !
16 if I called Tom Devine that day at 4:00 o' clock. 1
. 17 Q. Well, that's why I was trying to give you the ,
1
. 18 specific statement and see if it refreshed your
,,s' 19 recollection. You don't have any recollection of telling 20 Mr. Devine that en --
21 A. I don't have any recollection of telling Tom
.; 22 Devine that at 4:00 o' clock on that day, no.
23 Q. At some other time on that day?
., 24 A. I'd like to speak with Barbara for a moment.
g 25 (Brief pause.)
)
26 MS. ZURAS: I'm sorry. Was there a question 1'
. 27 pending?
>'a' O'.
I 28 MR. HICKEY: Yes. i 1
>M]d TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l
{ 'h k __ _ -- - ___ --- - - _ - - --- _
..-- ..- ---.-----.---~-..----.-----__-----. ---
.. . . -941 ,
s.% 4 l 1 A 5 1 MS. ZURAS:
,J/ ', Would you read it back, please.
l~ , (Question read.) 2
. ' (-
3 THE WITNESS: Meaning did I talk to Tom Devine . f'. 4 some other time? c- 5 HR. HICKEY: Q. Yes.
.J
,;$ 6 A. I believe I talked to Tom Devine that night.
Je 7
- Q. Do you know the approximate time?
t
; 8 A. No.
9 Q. Did it relate to your meeting with Mr. Chwastyk 10 and Mr. Kanga?
" ,f 11 A. I believe I related to Tom Devine every thing 12 that had occurred, yes.
13 Q. occurred in the meeting with Chwastyk and Kanga? 14 A. Yes. ' (.[ 15 Q. Specifically did you tell Mr. Devine that 16 evening that you told Kanga "I believe your intent is l 17 well stated by the memo"?
-' . 18 A. I believe my exact wording was more along tha
.. 19 line of your intent is well defined.
- 20 Q. What are you testifying to, Mr. Parks? That
.- 21 that's what you said to Mr. Devine that evening?
22 A. No. I think what I'm saying is although Tom 23 may not have recorded my exact words, he got the gist of i 24 it down.
.I 25 Q. You don't remember making the expression 'I
+
26 believe your intent is well stated by the memo' to Tom 27 Devine? rs
.'AS 28 A. No. What I can recall stating is what I put in
< .i
*\**
l W*
'A 7.ID TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 j'
,. E -
nm, _ _ _ __ )
-- m_ m ~_- -m m-
. ,4. p __ .
, 942
.g
; ,.. f. , 1 my affidavit.
('! * - 2 Q. Stating to Devine or stating to Kanga?
. 3 A. To both. That the intent was well defined.
. 4 Q. Is there some particular reason why you recall
'c ' 5 the conversation as taking place in the evening with Mr.
l [. - 6 Devine? 7 A. Well, I can recall being sensitive to not
- 8 opening myself up for any other trouble with the company, 9 including not using the company telephone for personal I
10 business. I-
'.,' 11 Q. And so you didn't call Mr. Devine from a work
. 12 phone. Is that what you're saying?
13 A. I am of the belief at this point in time that 14 when I would speak to Tom Devine relevant to matters that (; , 15 had happened during the day at work, I would use my home 16 phone. - 17 Q. Okay. So do you have a specific recollection 18 of talking to him in the evening or is it just that your
; 19 practice was not to call from work so it was probably 20 after that?
21 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. Are you referring to 22 this particular conversation? 23 MR. HICKEY: Yes. This particular day.
^ '
24 THE WITNESS: Well, that particular day I j 25 recall talking to Tom Devine. At least that's what I i'- 26 seem to recall at this point in time, anyway. 27 MR. HICKEY: Q. That afternoon of the 17th,
,~;
~,
V
.- s 28 you also talked to Dubba Marshall at the job site, did s
s
'i'fij TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 a&.
, ,:;..q.y w w a 6 m o u u u c.w m w - c - % - - u m - - - _.,--- - - - -
- <a ,
943 ( ,5 c'1
,}'I
' - 1 you not, Mr. Parks?
.[.[{g 2 A. Well, you know, Mr. Hick ey, it 's kind of an
.' 3 open rnd statement. I --
...'s 4 Q. After the meeting with Chwastyk and Kanga.
2.
~"*
5 A. It's not just necessarily that time frame that 6 I'm looking at.
- ' 7 Oh, sorry.
Q. li 8 A. I talked with Bubba all the time almost every 9 day. So if you're inquiring relevant to a certain item 10 of discussion, if you'll narrow it down, I'll answer it.
,,. 11 Q. Okay. Well, what was your normal quitting time?
12 5:00 o' clock ?
.- 13 A. Any more I really couldn't tell you.
14 Q. Okay. Well, in the time that remained in your ('/ 15 workday after this meeting with Kanga and Chwastyk, did 16 you have any discussion with Mr. Marshall, Bubba Marshall, 17 about the meeting with Kanga and Chwastyk? 18 A. I seem to recall having a discussion with Dubba 19 about that meeting and me being relieved from the TWC and 20 wishing him a lot of luck.
, 21 Q. Did you give Mr. Marshall any information about 22 any outstanding issues that you still thought needed
./ 23 attention on the polar crane?
<. 24 A. I couldn't really tell you at this point in RT ' 25 time if I -- if I set down at that point in time and
<^ 26 reiterated all my concerns with Dubba or not. Bubba was
^ 2C; ,
27 a pretty knowledgeable man. f,'n'. y5# 28 Q. Did fou tell him that you had signed the load M:
- J ;
N..,1 ,.. j TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
..,-n-_.w
. . -----w-------------------
"'O 944 l;
-O', . . I test procedure with the asterisk and 'for technical
[ .,,' \f .' 2 content only," or whatever your phrase was? m J .E 3 A. I may have, but I really couldn't tell you 4 right now if I did or not. I was a little bit -- I was more upset about I would -- I think I only expressed my
, 5
/ 6 displeasure with what had happened more than anything
(
..' 7 else.
1
,. 8 Q. Well, was Bubba -- as the primary site l l
, 9 operations representative on the TWG in place of you for l l
10 the polar crane, was he going to have a chance, did you 11 believe, to have an impact on what happened to the polar l 12 crane? l 13 MS. ZU RAS : You're asking him what his belief 14 was then? l 1 (- 15 MR. HICKEY: Sure. 16 THE WITNESS: After I signed that procedure or 17 what? I don't guess I understand what you're getting at.
. 10 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, you had just been 19 replaced by Bubba, right?
20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And I'm asking you whether you thought Bubba 22 was going to have any significant role to play with 23 regard to the polar crane as your replacement on the TWG7 i 24 A. I was more concerned about what would happen t 25 with Bubba, or happen to Bubba if he took the same 26 position I did. 27 Well, see if you could answer my question, Mr. Q.
': kliI 28 Parks, please.
. 4 '% TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
*^' '
~------_--_--_--_-:---__-_-_ - - _ _ _ - = - - - - - - - - - - - = = - = ~
,y._. a .m w - a m ~ ~ .- ~ - - - -- .- - - - - - - - ..s 945 1 A. I thought I was answering your question. \;(r : 2 Q. I don't think you did. The question was
- 0 3 whether you thought Mr. Marshall was going to have any
, 4 significant role to play with regard to the polar crane
-. 5 as your replacement.
~
6 A. I didn't know. 7 Q. Do you remember any other discussion you had
-l 8 with Dubba Marshall that af ternoon af ter the 9 Kanga-Chwastyk meeting besides the one you've just 10 described?
11 A. Not at the time moment I don't. 12 Q. Did you turn over to Bubba Marshall any 13 documents or materials that you had collected? Did you 14 turn over on the 17th af ter this meeting any documents or (;' 15 materials you collected that he might need relative to 16 the polar crane? j 17 A. On the 17th? , 18 Q. Yes. { s 19 A. If memory serves me correctly, shortly af ter 1 20 the meeting was over with, I lef t the job site. l 21 Q. So you didn't probably? Or you don't remember? l l 22 A. I don't remember if I did or not. i 23 Q. Did you have documents that Bubba needed to 24 have to be your replacement? ! 25
, A. Well, I can only refer you to what I address in I *
. 26 my original affidavit. And I believe that on the page
'i- 27 following the page where I discussed my removal from the
' i%-
28 test work group, which starts on page 53, I list several l'% e
',. ' }i TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1 :n& - -- - _ - - _ _ _ - _ ._ __.
m ,,,,.m._ . m._. _ - - - - _ - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,7, . 946 g
/ 1 documents that I reviewed in an attempt to help update-
;}g 2 Bubba.
I"r ' 3 But now beyond those items identified, no, I 4 can't really recall at the moment. 4 5 Q. Well, later than the 17th or the 18th, do you 6 remember giving Bubba documents that related to his 7 duties or that you had that related to his duties? MS. ZURAS: 8 I'm going to object to the question. l l 1
.' 9 Hold on a second. May I have the question read back, l.., .
10 please? '2 11 MR. HICKEY: It was not very clear. I can try l 12 again if you'd like. 1 13 MS. ZURAS: Please.
.- 14 MR. HICKEY: 'Q. I'm just trying to find out --
h 15 you don't remember giving Bubba any documents on the 17th. 16 Did you have a recollection of later on giving him 17 documents relating to the polar crane duties that he now i had? 18
*' 19
. A. I don't think that I really -- other than these
}
, 20 documents I talked about which are in the af fidavit, I 21 don't think I really gave any more documents to Bubba. I
'; 22 may have. I really don't recall.
23 Q. The documents yon're referring to that you said 24 you reviewed on March 18th in an attempt to help update i,, 25 Bubba Marshall -- that's page 53 and 54 of your
,', 26 af fidavit -- did you have those documents already on the 2.'.' 27 18th or did you go get them from somewhere?
?3 28 A. I am of the belief that they came into the site
,- ' y.'f
, TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l
&&/ ,
.m _ - w _
'i 947
-t-n.
, 1 ops department. I don't recall distinctly going out and C'[b p'* 2 getting them from somewhere nor did I recall pulling them i O 3 out of my desk or anything like that. I just --
4 Q. You're not saying you just received them on the 5 18th, are you?
- '. 6 A. I really couldn't provide any more amplifying
'.' 7 information than what's stated in my affidavit already.
- f.
- 8 Q. Well, it was your phrase about coming into the 9 department that made me ask the question.
10 A. I was trying to state that may have been how it 11 happened. I reelly couldn't tell you how they came into
. 12 my possession any more.
13 Q. Besides reviewing these documents listed on 14 pages 52 and 53 of your affidavit -- I mean 53 and 54 --
.- (' 15 did you give copies to Bubba or did you just talk about 16 them?
17 A. I .think we may have just talked about them. 18 Those things and other things. 19 Q. Other things related to the polar crane?
. 20 A. Related to the plant in general.
'. 21 Q. What do you remember?
3 22 A. Well, one thing, one discussion I can seem to
- 23 recall having was regarding the status of the load head j 24 saf ety injection pumps and the Radway's trancf er pump.
' ' ' -. 25 Q. Was that a project you were working on at the
; 26 time?
I;.-.j 27 A. Well, it was a project that had to be
'C '
28 accomplished because we had surveillance procedures that l ;, c )., 3
*Q ,R TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ...' d d _ _ _ __ _ _ __ --_- - --_ - - - - _ - - - - - - . -
,.,g:._a_--~_~------~----------- ---
'f 948
- . 7-l, '" l' were either outstanding or needed to be done or had not
.A.
(s . 2 been performed. And we were concerned about the removal. l'./ 3 And the capability to keep the core flooded. I can'
;?? 4 recall that conversation occurring shortly before I left
?. ? ', 5 the. job site. l : 6 Q. That was just some work that you or Bubba was 7 responsible for doing as part of your normal duties? 8 A. Well, it would have -- Bubba or I, one, would f' 9 have had, yes. But which one of us I really couldn't l%- 10 tell you.
. 11 Q. But specifically on the polar crane, do you
*'< .- 12 remember any other discussion with Bubba other than on 13 the 18th or-so about these three documents related to the i
- 14 polar crane?
(f 15 A. As I said before, sir, I really couldn't give 16 you any more amplifying information than what's already 17 contained in my affidavit. o 18 Q. Did Bubba indicate to you that he was aware i 19 that you had signed the load test procedure with the c';. : 20 asterisk and the " technical content only"? 21 A. I really couldn't tell you, not. at this point J 22 in time, if Bubba and I -- you know, if Bubba mentioned
,~' 23 that to me or not.
; 24 MS. IURAS : Is this on the 17th?
l ;
. 25 THE WITNESS: Or 18th.
. . .) 26 MR. HICKEY: Or 18th.
'~b'! 27 THE WITNESS: That's what I thought he said.
. , , (x . .
*,..s '"*' 28 MR. HICKEY: Q. Yes. The first document that l .* _' ','
i ," ..4 ' U",5.h, TOOKER 6 ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 llasat ._
. .,.__.m ._-.____1-----2-----------
, , , 949-
; .. n.,
'}r , 1 you say you reviewed to help update Bubba Marshall, which
' ';Id 6,'.., 2 is the letter of March 7,1983, was Bubba unaware of that s
,f*; 3 -letter before you brought it to his attention? l'.4.i '" A. l , 4 Again, sir, I really- couldn't provide any more 'Y.7 , 5 amplifying information than what's contained in here'. I 6 couldn't tell you if Bubba Qas aware of it or not. J 7 (Whereupon, Mr. Richardson enters the deposition
~'
8 at 2:22.)
. -l 9 THE WITNESS: When I say in here, I mean in my 10 original affidavit.
.,l . 11 MR. HICKEY: Q. Yes. I want to ask you a 12 couple questions about some entries in your calendar, Mr.
13 Parks, that are -- that document has been marked, I think 14 I.said Exhibit 11 to your deposition previously. Th ey ' r e l( 15 short. I'll just' read them, if I may, and show them to 16 you.
.- 17 The first one is on March 14, Monday, the entry 18 says, " Call from Ed. Want to talk about Quiltec." And l
, 19 it's got a line drawn looks like to me from 8:00 o' clock 20 I guess or -- I don't know whether it's 1:00 o' clock or 21 8:00 o' clock, but drawn down to here.
22 What does that refer to? Can you see it? {.
. 23 A. I would say it looks like it starts here at
, a !
- a 24 10:30 and goes to 2:30. But that's --
25 Q. Starts at 10:30 and goes to 2:30. This line up
* , - 26 here? Does this line, this ar~ row relate to the call f rom l'. .
27 Ed?
,,,.i
*%' 28 A. I'm unsure if it does or not. !!o, I don't
- i e,.
' # f.h TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 c.:k - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ]
,.g_w.----:-------------------- ^ -IDi,'
950 ;j . ;ri: .i . i
% e
%:: - l u
,1 -think it relates to-the call'from Ed.
.' , e.d I find it awful' l
?
, L. '2 hard to believe we talked for two and a half hours or so.
'j" 3 Q. Who is Ed?
,) 4 A. Ed Kitler.-
_ ;0) 5 Q. Okay. You had a call from Ed Kitler at 8:00
. t 6 o' clock. Monday, March 14th?
\' ? . ((1
~
7 A.. Righ t. I's.of the belief at this point in time ; f 8 that what I'm trying to signify by that is that meeting ] started like at 10:30 and went to 2:30. 9 10 MS. EURAS: When you say that,' you're referring
} 11 to the notation there "Hofmann, Wheeler, Kobi"? ;
', 12 THE WITNESS: Right.
13 .M R . HICKEY: Q. Okay. Then on the 15th, the 14 next day, too, you have written here "later that
, (ji 15 af ternoon I met with ' Henry Myers at conference"?
16 A. Right. 17 Q. Is that your first meeting with Mr. Myers?
- f. 18 A. I believe it was.
; -19 Q. About how long did you meet with Mr. Myers?
, , , 20 A. I really couldn't tell you. I noticed that n.y 21 calendar there doesn't give me any insight as to how long a 22 it was.
-' 23 Q. That was after your meeting with Mr. Sanford, 7
'd 24 right?
' ' - 25 A. Y es.
h; 26 Q. Who was present at the meeting with Mr. Myers?
/(j 27 A. Myself and Henry Myers and Tom Devine is what I
(...>
,p. w 28 can remember.
.t..
9
,Kif TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Trancisco 94105 415/392-0650 ,Id; AL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ _ _-- -_ - -
,-p . a--..a - - - - - - - - - - --- - -.- - - - - - - - - - -
[:./J., 551': l
' L,y, 1
- A & , 1 Q. Anynne else? ; 2' A.- There may have been others.
- Q5. -
1
. 3 Q. . 'Do you remember any others?
\i' 4 A. Not distinctly or not at this point in time, no.
I 5 Q. Where did you meet?
.,'9 .'l! 6 A. In his office.
f 7, Q.. Myers' office? 8 A. Right. ' f- ' 9 Q. What was the purpose of the meeting? A 10 A. He was interested in what was going on with the 7 11 cleanup.
... 12 Q. What did you tell Mr. Myers in the meeting?
, 13 A. I kind of outlined everything that had happened 1 t
14 and what had led up to the point. theti we were at with the b 15 polar crane. 16 Q. Did you talk. to Mr. Myers about Quiltec?
-
- 17 A. I think, if memory serves me correctly, I i
.'l 18 talked to him about Larry King and Larry King being
./ 19 suspended or fired or whatever it was, whatever his l_ 20 status was at the time. i 21 Q. Did you give Mr. Myers any documents?
22 A. I do not recall giving Mr. Myers any documents,
', 23 no.
,As 24 Q. Did you discuss the issue of the so-called l-i- 25 mystery man? i
, J.: 26 A. We discussed the accident, yes. ' [?
a ., 27 Q. Well, did you discuss turning off pumps during
,4 ;; D 28 the course of the accident?
f .. hI,d TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- 7. . '? . !
w wo_.___ _ _ _ _ _ _- . _ _ _ - - . _ _ - - - - - _ -
p3,_.-~.J.----------------------~~~~' e n. 952 4
}.f;' 1 MS. EURAS: Excuse me. Just so the transcript
^ i.# *; ., (T: 2 is clear, you're not saying he turned off the pumps. So
. 3 that somebody f rom the outside reading this transcript --
. l. t .
4 you're talking about the subject- of the pumps being I- 5 turned off during the. accident?
,.i
..g_ m. ,
- 6. .MR. HICKEY: Righ t.
;* 7 THE WITNESS: I don't recall at this point in 8 time that that came up during the discussion. It may 9 have. I don't know.
10 MR. . HICK EY: -Q. Did you make any comments 11 about George Kunder to Mr. Myers on this occasion?
. 12 A. .I'm of the belief that it would have come up f
3 13 during the conversation about PORC or safety review group. 14 approving. the procedures I f elt were wrong. ( 15 Q. So you would have made critical comments .about
~
16 Mr. Kunder, you mean? You did make critical comments about Mr. Kunder to Henry Myers on this occasion?
+.
17 18 A. Well, critical in the context that the 19 procedures shouldn't have been approved like they were.
-', 20 Q. You thought Kunder should not have done what he
,' 21 did?
,, 22 A. Right.
23 Q. Shouldn't have approved the procedure? 24 A. Right. 25 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Myers about any of the
. '5 i 26 technical or physical evidence relating to what happened j 27 during the accident, charts and graphs and readings, so J M2 28 on?
t,- ;
- i. ,
~,
i dt, TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.d
%v
, ...g---.---.--- - -------------------
J.* .- 953 m 4 1 A. Not that I can recall, no. M . ' (l *- 2 Q. Did you have a sequence of events available (.[d 3 relating to the accident? i..; '4. A. Meh 1". 5 Q. When you were meeting with Mr.' Myers, was 6' anybody else in the meeting.
~ '
7 A. Not that I can r ecall, no. 8 Q. Did you suggest to Mr. Myers any witnesses -that 9 you thought have information and Mr. Myers should. talk to? 10 A. Yes, I did.
~
11 Q. What names did you give him? l 12 A. The names that appeared on that letter that Mr. i 13 Udahl sent to-Bob Arnold. Who all they are now I really t 14 couldn't tell you.
;( 15 (Discussion off the record.)
16 MR. HICKEY: Q. I was looking to see if we had 17 marked that letter as an exhibit previously and I can't 18 locate it at the moment. 19 But you're recalling, are you not, Mr. Parks, a y 20 letter that you've previously seen from Congressman Udahl o i: 21 to Mr. Arnold indicating he wants to have access to named
. 22 individuals about the cleanup and accident?
. . 23 A. Did I understand you to say that I received it?
..".' 24 Q. No, no, no. No. I said you're recalling a
. 25 letter which you have seen.
26 A. Oh, okay. Yes. ha 27 Q. I just want to make sure we're talking about !
' . .' . ; C '
28 the same letter. 47,
'! l f/y$ TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
- wa ___ __ __ __ --_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ - - . -_- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
.- l
i
-l ,(
- 954
.~ ,
1 A. Yes. I think the letter -- if I recall what
, -E p: , 2 you just said correctly, you said about the accident.- I 3 think the letter stated he wanted to talk to people about
; 4 the TMI cleanup and the accident.
~,' 5 Q. And the accident, yes. That's my recollection, 1
- 6 too.
Why did you give Mr. Myers those particular 7 l 8 names, Mr. Parks? 9 A. Apparently I felt that they could substantiate j 10 what we've talked about.
, 11 Q. Well, let me see if I can get at it this ways
,j 12 The affidavit, your affidavit lists on page 36 in the 13 bottom paragraph -- you see the names at the bottom there?
14 A. In the bottom paragraph? (, 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Were those - , can you identify erm of those as 18 being names that you gave to Mr. Myers on this occasion 19 on the 15th of March? 20 A. I believe Bob Gummo was. 21 MR. JOHNSON: I don't know what the point of 22 this is because you have the meno. Is this a test of Mr. 23 Parks's memory ? 5 24 MR. HICKEY: I don't have the memo at hand is 25 the problem and I'm trying to ask Mr. Parks, who seems to 26 recall the memo, if he can remember the names. on it.
? 27 MR. JOHNSON:
It was an exhibit in the Stier
.s :
05 28 Report. I'm sure you have access to it. 4
.' i T'. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 l') .ed've--___-_-_-__-_-------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
...y_nn_c-.-.--..---------------------~~ ~
555 V'? -- V fi 1 MR. HICKEY:. Q. Let me go on, Mr. Parks, and i fi' u-2 I'll find the memo at the next break because I'm sure 6e' 3 there'll be one soon and that way I won't waste your time 4 'and mine.
*- . '5 Let' me put it to you this.way: The main l
j 6 subject'that the persons whose names you .gave.to Mr. q
'i g 7 Myers on that af ternoon of the 15th had knowledge about
-fj 8 was Mr. Kunder and the allegations that he was the 9 mystery ment isn't-that right?
~~ '
10 MS. EURAS : .Would you please read back the 11' ques tion. 12 (Question read.) 13 MS. EURAS: I'm going to object ';o the question 14 as vague, ambiguous. The main subject of which the-(; 15 persons had' knowledge of ? 16 MR. HICKEY: Q. Do you understand the question, 17 Mr. Parks?- 18 A. Well, I'd have to agree with my counsel. I 19 think you should --
, , i 20 Q. -okay. You can't recall now as you sit here why
. 21 you would have given Mr. Myers those names?
22 A. I-believe I've already answered that question. 23 Q. 'What was your answer? 24 A. I believe that if you would have the Court
-: 25 Reporter read it back, that I f elt the people whose names 26 that I recommended that Mr. Myers talk with would 27 substantiate some of the information that I had conveyed
%{ W 28 to Mr. Myers.
.[y{ TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.-t
,, ___-__-_--~~__------------ ------
956 7 .
,; ;.- 1 Q. But what information is what I'm trying to find P .J . 3 2 out.
.s '
'i 3 A. I believe I already answered that, too.
j[Y 4 MS. EURAS - You have. i.
.. 5 MR. HICKEY: Q. Did Mr. Myers give you any . ,. } 6 documents on this meeting, on this occasion?.
7 A. Not that I can recall. Not at this moment.
~
j . 2 8 Q. Do you remember getting any transcript from Mr. 1"J 9 Myers at any point in time prior to your suspension? 10 A. I can't say that at this point in time that
) 11 I've ever received any information from Henry Myers prior
, 12 to my suspension.
13 Q. Including transcripts? 14 A. I believe that f alls under the general category i( 15 of any information. I just sure can't recall at this
. 16 point in time, anyway.
; 17 Q. Did you agree with Mr. Myers that you would .
I 18 provide any further information af ter the meeting? Did s 19 you agree during the meeting to provide further
. 20 information subs equent?
21 A. Well, I'm kinda ambiguous on my recollection 22 because I can recall at one point in time agreeing with 23 Mr. Myers to testify to a Congressional hearing and to 24 talk with members of his staf f. But now whether that
}f?
.' 25 occurred that day or not I really couldn't tell you at I
; 26 this point in time.
if 27 Q. On Friday the 18th, according to your desk hS'
'.d 28 calendar, you have an entry written in at 10:00 o' clock.
9
. ,)c) TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 si,'c_______-._________._._
_ .t e
.,. 9%a:.,- --- - - --- - - - - --------
,T 957 4
.; f W ;.
-i 1 " Spoke with Wall Street Journal." And then there's a
' ,Y
( 2 gentleman's name, I gather. Enschweiller or maybe you Y] 3 can read'your' handwriting better than I. 4 A. I would say that's a halfway f air pronunciation. f li. , 5 I.couldn't pronounce it any better. J 6 Q '. Who was this gentleman? I
- s,- 4 7 A. I would say he was with the Wall Street Journal.
e ' t yi 8 Q. Did you call him?
"I '
9 A. No, I did not. 4' 10 Q. Did he call you? 11 A. I believe.he had called me, yes. 12 s Q. At work or at home? Or where were you when you
- 13. got the call?
14 -A.* I=can't remember if I was at work or at'home. ( ," 15 Q. What did he call you about? 16 A. At this point in time I had made a decision to 17 file a Department of Labor complaint. Actually, I had 18 made a decision prior to that relevant to whst had 19 occurred and transpired at TMI. That's what he wanted to 20 talk with me about.
,, 21 Q. How did Mr. Enschwe111er know that you had made
. 22 that decision?
23 A. I could only speculate how he found out. 24 Q. He didn't say anything to you about the source
.$/ 25 of his information? * ?> 26 A. If he did, I do not' recall at this moment. "j. , 27 Q. Were you keeping that information secret? 'i"t+, .
N' 28 A. Well -- 4 l 1
< r, ',h -TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
.a -
t 1958 e
+' ,. 1 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me. I'm goins to object on n
- .q,(.'! , . 2 the basis of vague and ambiguous. The information --
i.. 3 NR.. HICKEY: That ' he had made the decision to
. , +. 9 4 file a Labor Department complaint.
. 5 MS. EURAS: From the reporter who called?
,'rj ..
6 MR. HICKEY: From the world in general.
, 7 MS. EURAS: Well, if you understand.the t
8 question -- obviously, "the world in general' would 9 include your attorney and.any person who worked for your
,' , 10 attorney.
11 I guess,I'm having problems with the phrase 'in
,' ; 12 th e world' ' because --
, 13 MR. HICKEY: It's not that tough. I mean, I 14 can ask him: to describe who he told he made the decision..
,( 15 I suspect it would be longer. I thought it would be 16 easier the-other way.
17 Q. Why don't you answer it this way, Mr. Parks: 18 Who did you tell you had decided to file a Labor
. 19 Department complain as of the 18th of March? Who had you
} 20. told by then?
, 21 A. Probably only my girlfriend.
22 Q. Your attorney? 23 A. Well, that -- my attorneys were the people that 24 would be filing the complaint. 25 Q. So you had told them? 26 A. Yes, sir. I think that goes without saying. u ' 27 Q. How about Henry Myers? G, 28 A. I don't know if I had told Henry Myers or not.
' jl ; TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
. .vge
.r
.,,..;~-_--.------------.----------------
4, 959
- a i
*f
. 1 I don't recall' at this point:in time distinctly telling l' 2 the man that, but I can't say.
l ()N
. .. l 3 Q. Your girlf riend is Miss Krackenbush? Or was?
i - 1 r <
, 4- A. "Was" is a more appropriate word.
l,. '5 Q.- Did you tell Miss Krackenbush she should keep a- .i
- !t - 6 the information secret? ' '! 7 A. Well, I don't know if I told her to keep the i.' 8 information secret or not but --
L' 9 MS. EU RAS: That's -- t . 10 MR. HICKEY: Q. You don't know whether you.did 11 or not? r-( g, 12 A. No.
~ , 13 Q. Did you think Miss Krackenbush had told Mr.
14 Enschweiller of the Wall Street Journal about your
- (jf 15 -decision to' file a Labor Department complaint?
16 .A. I-don't believe Miss Krackenbush was the one 17 that told the Wall Street Journal, no. r 18 Q. Did you believe your attorney had? 19 A. You know -- l 20 MS. EU RAS: There's no foundation to this. He
~~
21 says he doesn't know. j 22 MR. HICKEY: I'm asking what his belief is. j 23 THE WITNESS: I believe I already told you when 24 you asked that that I did not know or was not aware of 25 who had told the man I was filing a Department of Labor
'26 complaint when he talked to me'.
, 27 MR. HICKEY: O. I'm trying to narrow the
,- - .:/ 28 possibilities. You only told your girlfriend and your
<i . . !
'5d '?J TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 J
\
_" 2 $'_ _. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - --_-____------_--------i
, g ,,. - - - - . - - - - _ .... _ - _ _ _
. g' ,,
960
,1
-, 1 attorneys and your girlf riend didn't tell Mr.
.(, 2 Enschweiller you don't think.
{j Is that what you just said?
*', il 3 MS. ZURAS: Asked and answered. Look, you're 4 asking him to speculate.
+. 5 MR. HICKEY: Q. That's all right, Mr. Parks.
6 I think it's clear enough. Did you authorize your attorneys to contact-Mr. 7
.- 8 Enschweiller of the Wall Street Journal and tell them 9 about your plan to file a complaint?
- l 10 A. I'm waiting to see if there's an objection 11 pending.
;- 12 Q. Righ t . I understand.
13 MS. EURAS: Unfortunately, my mind was
~'
14 someplace else. Could you please repeat the question? (. 15 Or would you, please. 16 (Question read.) 17 MS. ZURAS: Well, thank you, Mr. Parks. I 18 would object at this point and ask for an offer of proof. 19 That subject matter as to what, if any, media were
- 20 contacted or whether or not that subject was ever
..f 21 discussed between Mr. Devine and Mr. Parks remains 22 confidential unless there's an offer of proof that that 23 subject has been discussed in any of the documents that
. 24 we turned over.
~
. 25 MR. HICKEY: Well, I don't think I agree with i
i '? 26 your directing your counsel to go have a press conf erence
. 27 or to contact the press. It seems to me the implication
'i 28 is you don't intend it to be kept confidential. k That's
. . h.;. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 uu- -__ __ _ _
, g _ _ .- - - - - - - - - - - ~.-- - - - - - - ~ - - --
<[l .n: 961
')l.f 1 the whole purpose of the question.
,i _. .(, /l ~ 2 MS. ZURAS: I disagree if you're asking him
. .4
/>^
3 about conversations that he had with Mr. Devine.
.1 -
4 HR. HICKEY: That he intended to have Mr. C .; 5 Devine pass.on to a reporter, if he'did.- I mean, that's 6 what the question is.
.[ 7 Q. Did you tell Mr. Devine to tell Mr.
8 Enschweiller that you were filing a DOL complaint?
./, 9. MS. EURAS: I'm going to instruct him not to 10 answer. ."., 11 MR. HICKEY: .On the grounds that that's 12 intended to be confidential communications between Mr. .
13 Parks and Mr. Devine? 14 MR. JOHNSON: Sure.
; (j 15 MR. HICKEY: Someone told Mr. Enschweiller he. .
16 was going to file a complaint.
. 17 MR. JOHNSON: Well, on the other hand, the
, 18 subject --
+
19 MR. HICKEY: Can I finish my conversation with l 20 l
,t Miss Zuras and then handle your objection if it's
.]
21 different? i j 22 MS. EURAS: Yes. The focus I have is i
/ 23 conversation between Mr. Devine and Mr. Parks, whether 24 it's strategy or however you want to characterize it.
25 But the communication I'm focused on is the ' communication
.,- 26 between Mr. Devine and Mr. Par'ks not any, you know, any i
27 information that you have or speculation you're acting on .)
- C' 28 that Mr. Devine talked to the Wall Street Journal.
J .-['./j. TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 ( 7-d 0 C-. - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - ^ - - - - ' - - - ' - - - - - -
l,.,..,. _ _ . _ - - - .
- =-
962
.v g le - 1
, So again, until'there's an. offer.of proof, I'm-l j~
{3 2 going to proceed cautiouslyLin that that subject matter i
,~2^ 3 as far as the Wall Street Journal has not been divulged L< .
. 4 in any of the documents we . turned over.
l'.. 5 MR. HICKEY: You're not aware of it? Is that ! L fN: 6 what you're saying? 7 MS. EURAS: It's not'been' brought to my l 8 attention by an offer of proof. E , 9 MR. HICKEY: Q. What did you tell Mr. 3 10 Enschwe111er, Mr. Parks? g 11 A. Not very much. l- , 12 Q. Well, could you be a little more specific?
', 13 A. I remained totally ambiguous and did' not 14' provide a direct answer to any of his questions.
l (y 15 Q. I didn't hear what you said. Could you repeat
- 1: 16 it?
j_ 17 A. I remained ambiguous and didn't provide a 3 4 , 18 direct answer to any of his questions.
.:4 19 Q. What questions was he asking?
'd 20 A. I don't recall now, but at the time I wasn't U; 21 about to answer them.
22 Q. Did you expect to get the call from Mr.
'. . 23 Enschweiller or was it a surprise? I b 24 A. It kind of took me by surprise.
, .o 25 Q. I mean, did you have some advance notice that 1
'. . 26 Mr. Enschweiller was going to call you? '
' 'i 27 A. If I did, I don't recall it at the moment.
^
d 28 Did you have more than one phone conversation Q. l i
,4 iid;$ TOOKER & ANTE 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0550
- 5 a.rh*---_--_-----
s
. 963 1 with Mr. Enschweiller?
-.; G, 2 A. I couldn't tell you at this point in time how
', 3 many reporters I talked to how many times.
4 MS. EURAS' Excuse me. Please, would you just 5 answer his question. 6 THE WITNESS: Well, I guess the problem I have 7 is you can take the names of all the reporters I talked lB to in the last four and a half years and ask me how many
. 9 times I talked to them and I couldn't tell you. I
. 10 MR. HICKEY: Q. Well, as of March 18th, that ,
11 wasn't a very common experience, was it? 12 A. No. 13 Q. As of that date had you talked to reporters? 14 A. No. But I still can't tell you how many times
.(n 15 I talked to the man.
16 Q. Do you remember talking to Mr. Enschweiller 17 more than once? 18 A. I couldn't tell you if I did or not. 19 Q. When you spoke to him on this one occasion here 20 that's noted in your calendar, was anyone else present 21 with you? 22 A. I can't recall if there were or not. 23 Was anyone else on the telephone besides you
; Q.
24 and Mr. Enschweiller? 25 A. I couldn't tell you at this point in time if
. 26 there were or not.
3 27 Q. When did you decide that you were going to have 28
., a press conf er ence, Mr. Parks?
< O* TOOKER & ANTZ 131 Steuart Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
-e au i
,> 964
,a id; 1 A. Oh, I'd say probably the same day I decided to
.:, ' , ,' (. 2 _ file my Department of Labor complaint.
, [j 3 Q. And that was approximately the -- what date did
. Jg' f4 you say? -
. 5 A. Somewhere between the second and third week of
- '/
6 March. Maybe even the first week of March. I believe 7 I've told you previously today I'couldn't tell you
., 8 exactly what day I decided.
9 Q. Y ech. I think you said a.date earlier. I just 10 have forgotten what date you said.
?
11 A. .I don't think I did identify a date earlier 12 today. I'think I identified a time frame. 13 Q. But they were made kind of together, the i 14 decision to file a Labor Department complaint and the ., 1 (. 15 decision to have a press conference? Is that what you're 16 saying? 17 A. Y es , sir. 18 MS. ZURAS: We want to take a break just for a 1' 19 few moments to speak. u
...~ 20 (Brief recess.)
21 MR. HICKEY: Okay. If we can go back on the 22 record.
\
l 23 Q. I want to direct your attention, Mr. Parks, to I
; 24 -your calendar again which we've been looking at. There 25 is an entry I'd like your help in understanding on 26 Saturday, the 19th of March. It says GAP af fidavit." c 27 It's got a line going down the page.
kJ 28 Did you work on Saturday, the 19th of March, c g E
965 u. l' with GAP representatives in preparing your affidavit?
"! (' ' .
2 A. Yes.
-; 3 Q. About how long did you spend on it on that day? !
. 4 A. All day. '
5 Q. Were you working in Washington? l, 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Who were you working with? 8 A. Tom Devine. ! t 9 Q. Anybody else? l
. 10 A. There may have been others that -- you know, j
'.' 11 coming and going, but it was Tom Devine primarily.
12 Q. In the GAP offices? Or where were you? ' 13 A. Y es.}}