|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:L% | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| [? $2.Zl5 4s 0 0 L i i i' .'
| |
| U :wr August 11, 1987 87 AUG 13 P3 :52 UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA I NUCLEAR REGULATORYtCOMMISSION iw e Before the' Administrative Law' Judge In the Matter of -)
| |
| GPU. Nuclear. Corporation- ) Docket No. 50-320 -d/L/ bE
| |
| ) EA-84-137
| |
| ~(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
| |
| Station,zUnit No. 2) ) i GPUN'S RESPONSE OPPOSING PARKS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES. TECUM I. Introduction on July 28, 1987, a Subpoena Duces Tecum vas issued to Richard D. Parks for the production of 19 documents or groups of documents in Mr. Parks' possession, custody, or contrcl. On August 5, 1987, Parks through his counsel'(Barbara Zuras of the law firm Hoberg,. Finger,. Brown, Cox & Molligan, who represented Parks in his now-settled civil litigation against Bechtel) re-sponded.1/ Parks' Response states that documents 1, 2, 4, and 6 through 17 are in the possession of Thomas Devine, the Government i
| |
| 1/ Formal Response of Richard D. Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of GPU Nuclear. Corporation and/or, In the Alternative, Motion to
| |
| ]
| |
| Quash / Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Information (Aug. 5, 1987);(hereinafter " Parks' Response").
| |
| r gaWIF#MJ 9 8 o
| |
| 10 J
| |
| | |
| I' Accountability Project attorney who has represented Mr. Parks l
| |
| before the NRC and Department of Labor. Parks' Response states that Mr. Devine is asserting his work product privilege with respect to these documents, and that the documents are therefore not in Parks' control.2/ With respect to documents 3 and 5, which are also in Mr. Devine's possession, Parks raises attorney- i client privilege and moves to quash the subpoena duces tecum to protect these two documents.3/
| |
| GPUN submits that Parks' motion to quash the subpoena as it pertains to documents 3 and 5, and Parks' assertion that docu-ments 1, 2, 4 and 6 through 17 are not in his control are without 2/ Parks' Response states that "Mr. Devine has not received or been served with the subpoena from GPUN." It is not required or customary to serve a subpoena on all of the attorneys, agents, or other representatives of a person to whom a subpoena is directed.
| |
| GPUN, however, did provide Mr. Devine a copy of the subpoena on August 5. Further, in conversations with Ms. Zuras and Mr.
| |
| Devine on August 5, both Ms. Zuras and Mr. Devine indicated that they had spoken about the subpoena at the end of July, and Parks' Response raising Mr. Devine's work product claim reflects this communication and Mr. Devine's awareness of the subpoena. Under these circumstances, NRC precedent holds that a third party whose interests are affected by a discovery request should enter a spe-cial appearance before the Presiding Officer. Kansas Gas &
| |
| Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
| |
| ALAB-311, 3 N.R.C. 85 (1976). Counsel for GPUN informed Mr.
| |
| Devine on August 5 that it was GPUN's position that documents in Mr. Devine's possession were in the " control" of Parks for dis-covery purposes and therefore within the reach of the subpoena, and inquired whether Mr. Devine was going to make an appearance in this proceeding. Mr. Devine has evidently decided not to enter an appearance.
| |
| 3/ Parks' Response also addresses requests 18 and 19. These .
| |
| requests are not presently in dispute. !
| |
| l l
| |
| J f
| |
| | |
| L merit and should be rejected'by the Presiding Officer. As dis-cussed below, documents in the possession of Mr. Devine are in the " control" of Mr.-Parks for discovery purposes. With respect to documents _1 through 17, Parks and Devine have the burden of establishing the existence of privilege-and have failed to do so.
| |
| Further,,.GPUN subntits that it has a substantial need. for the re-quested. documents which overrides work product claims,.particu-larly where as here such claims relate to prior litigation which has been settled, and that in any event privilege has been waived. Accordingly, GPUN requests that the Presiding Officer
| |
| . issue ~an order denying the' motion to quash and ordering the pro-duction of. documents 1 through 17.
| |
| II. Argument A. Documents 1, 2, 4, and 6 Through 17 Are In Mr. Parks' Possession, Custody, or Control The claim that documents 1, 2, 4, and 6 through 17 are in Mr. Devine's possession and not in Parks' control is insupportable, both as a matter of law and a matter of fact.
| |
| First, the Parks' Response is inconsistent with past repre-sentations. Thomas Devine was deposed in the Bechtel civil liti-gation in-January, 1986. During that deposition, Mr. Devine in-dicated that in the summer of 1985, he had at Parks' request sent everything to Mr. Parks that was connected with his
| |
| | |
| representation. According to Mr. Devine, Mr. Parks in making the request stated that his lawyers (the Hoberg firm) wanted the documents. Deposition of T. Devine (Jan. 30, 1986) at 50, 116-124 (Exhibit A).
| |
| The documents subject to this request were identified but not produced by the Hoberg firm on March 3, 1986 in a response to a document request by Bechtel in the civil litigation (a document request which called for documents in Parks' possession, custody, or control). Exhibit B. In an October, 1986 deposition in the Bechtel civil litigation, Parks confirmed that GAP had forwarded to him all of the documents concerning TMI. Deposition of R. Parks (Oct. 8, 1986) at 70 (Exhibit C). At a deposition of Mr. Devine on March 20, 1987 in the Bechtel civil litigation, Ms.
| |
| Zuras had possession of documents prepared by Mr. Devine. Depo-sition of T. Devine (Mar. 20, 1987) at 5-6 (Exhibit D). In his recent deposition in this proceeding, Parks indicated that he did not have releva.nt documents in his " personal" possession and re-ferred GPUN to his counsel, Ms. Zuras. Deposition of R. Parks (June 27, 1987) at 52-53 (Exhibit E).
| |
| GPUN is now told that Mr. Devine has the documents. In a telephone conversation on August 7, 1987, Mr. Devine informed counsel for GPUN that Ms. Zuras sent him the documents at the end of the previous week (i.e. the last week in July, apparently after the subpoena issued).
| |
| _4
| |
| | |
| GPUN takes umbrage at this "shell game." Parks should not be permitted to avoid discovery and ignore a subpoena by trans-ferring relevant documents from one counsel to another.4/
| |
| GPUN's right to secure these documents, however,'does not depend on the documents being in Parks' direct possession. The subpoena calls for the production of documents in Parks' " posses-sion, custody or control," which is the customary reach of a document regyest. Documents, including work product material, that are in the possession of a person's attorney are in tiie con-trol of that person. Hanson v. Gartland Steamship Co., 34 F.R.D.
| |
| 493, 496 (N.D. Ohio 1964) (an attorney's statements of witness interviews held within the control of his client). Provided the documents are in an attorney's possession by reason of his repre-sentation, possession by the attorney is the possession by tha client. Poppino v. Jones Store Co., 1 F.R.D. 215, 219 (D. Md.
| |
| 1940). In Ruppert v. Repper, 309 F.2d 97 (6th Cir. 1962), the Court, enforcing a subpoena directed to a corporation, compelled the corporation's attorney to produce documents. The Court explained:
| |
| 4/ When GPUN first requested these documents in its notice of deposition for Mr. Parks on June 1, 1987, Parks' counsel re-sponded by letter objecting to the request as overbroad. That letter, dated June 18, 1987, made no mention of privileged docu-ments having been transferred back to Mr. Devine.
| |
| | |
| 1 LJ 3..
| |
| .9 ,
| |
| i l n.
| |
| It is a well settled' principle thst if the.
| |
| . client may be compelled to produce documents in his possession then<the: attorney may be
| |
| 'y . compelled to. produce the same documents when they are in his custody. . . . If this were i
| |
| not so, then the client could always evade l ,
| |
| his duty to produce.by placing the documents l ,
| |
| with his attorney. ,
| |
| Id. at'98. .See also Dennhardt v. Holman, 12 F.R.-D. 79 (D. Colo.
| |
| 1951). 'l These principles'are directly applicable. The documents that?GPUN! seeks'are documents that were obtained or produced by Mr. Devin'e as Parks' attorney. Irrespective of whether the docu-ments.are in Mr.'Devine's pos' session or Ms. Zuras' possession, the'decuments'are in the " control" of Parks. ,
| |
| That Parks does indeed have such control is readily evident from the facts recited above. When Mr. Parks requested the docu-ments from Mr. Devine in the Bechtel civil litigation, Mr. Devine promptly sent Parks all such documentu, which were then identi-fied and held by Ms. Zuras in response to Bechtel's document re-
| |
| -quests. Parks is thus readily able to obtain, and Devine'is u-willing to provide him with, the documents in question. There is-no reason why Parks should be permitted to make less effort to comply with an NRC subpoena than with a document request' in a civil; proceeding.
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ . _
| |
| | |
| i e
| |
| B. Privilege Claims Have Not Been Properly Asserted Parks' Response asserts the attorney-client privilege for documents 3 and 5, but provides no basis to support the asser-
| |
| ' tion. A bare assertion that a document is privileged does not suffice. See Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 N.R.C. 317, 323 (1980) (general objections to discovery will not prevail). A person claiming attorney-client privilege must make an affirma-tive showing that the privilege applies, including that the com-munication was made without the presence of strangers and that the privilege has not been waived.5/ This showing has not been j
| |
| made.
| |
| 1 5/ A person claiming attorney-client privilege must affirma-tively demonstrate that:
| |
| (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is a client;
| |
| {' (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communica-tion relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services of (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.
| |
| I-t Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project), Docket Nos.
| |
| 50-498 and 50-499, NRC Memorandum and Order (July 15, 1987).
| |
| | |
| t Nor should the_ existence of attorney-client privilege be as-sumed. For example, there is.no basis to suppose that the commu-nications were kept confidential, and in fact, the record re-flects_otherwise. Mr. Devine, in his January 30, 1986 deposition, stated that at various points in his meetings with
| |
| . Parks,'there were other individuals present. Id. at 42. Parks' desk calendar indicates that during two meetings with Mr. Devine i
| |
| prior to the publication of his affidavit, he talked with Dr. i Henry Myers, the Science Advisor of the House Committee on Inte- '
| |
| rior and Insular Affairs. The presence of third parties is fatal ;
| |
| to a claim of privilege. . l l
| |
| W Similarly, there has been no affirmative showing that docu- !
| |
| ments 1, 2, 4,'and 6 through 17 are protected by the work product
| |
| ' doctrine, nor can such protection be presupposed. The work prod-uct doctrine 6/ attaches only to documents prepared "in anticipa-tion of litigation."
| |
| The work-product rule does not extend to every written document generated by an attor-ney; it does not shield from disclosure ev-erything that a lawyer does. Its purpose is more narrow, its reach more modest . . . .
| |
| [T]he purpose of the privilege is to encour-age effective legal representation within the framework of the adversary system by removing 6/ .The work product' doctrine applies only to (1) a document or.
| |
| tangible thing (2) that was prepared in anticipation of litiga-tion, and (3) was prepared by or for a party, or by his represen-tative. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 561 F. Supp. 1.247, 1257 (E.D.N.Y. 1982).
| |
| _a_
| |
| L
| |
| _______m_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . - _ _ m _ _ _ - - _
| |
| | |
| \-
| |
| pa e
| |
| counsel's fears that his thoughts and in-formation will be invaded by his adversary.
| |
| In other words, the privilege focuses on the l
| |
| integrity of the adversary trial process itself. . . . This focus on the integrity of the trial process is reflected in the spe-cific limitation of the privilege to materi-als " prepared in anticipation of litigation or-for trial."
| |
| Coastal States Gas Corp. v. DOE, 617 F.2d 855, 865 (D.C. Cir.
| |
| 1980), quoting Jordan v. Dep't. of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 775 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
| |
| It appears that much of the information provided to i4r . Devine had little if anything to do with Parks' Department.of Labor action and thus was not provided in " anticipation of liti-gation." Rather, the information was furnished primarily to be made public in Parks' 56-page affidavit. Mr. Devine deposition testimony reflects these separate purposes. Mr. Devine testified in his January 1986 deposition that he had agreed to do two things on behalf of Parks: (1) file a complaint with the Depart-ment of Labor and (2) prepare a disclosure to the NRC. Deposi-tion of T. Devine (Jan. 30, 1986) at 66 (Exhibit F).7/ Documents recording information provided to Mr. Devine for the purpose of being presented to the NRC and made public at a press conference 7/ As Mr. Devine. explained, GAP would provide, in addition to its legal services, liaison with the press and local communities to "get the story out." Deposition of T. Devine (Jan. 30, 1986) at 31-33 (Exhibit G). In effect, GAP was providing public rela-tions services, and the information it acquired for this purpose is beyond the aegis of the attorney work product doctrine.
| |
| m ,
| |
| are_ clearly not' materials prepared in " anticipation of litiga-
| |
| . tion. Information on the mystery' man allegation and on many other topics discussed in Parks' affidavit had no bearing on Parks' original. Department of Labor complaint, and documents re-flecting such information are not protected. !
| |
| C. Even if Privilege Had Been Asserted, The Circumstances of This Case Necessitate Disclosure GPUN submits'that even if claims of privilege had been per-fected fn this proceeding -- and such claims have not -- the documents at issue should be produced. With respect to many if 'l
| |
| \
| |
| not;all of the' documents, privilege has been waived. In addi-tion, there is an overriding need for the documents ''or a fair I
| |
| and complete resolution of this case.
| |
| Several general principles are relevant to these determina-tions. First, both the attorney-client privilege and the work l
| |
| product doctrine are limited. In Permian Corp. v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the U.S. . Court of Appeals for the j D.C. Circuit explained:
| |
| i i
| |
| Because the attorney-client privilege inhib- !
| |
| its the truth-finding process, it has been l narrowly construed . . . and courts have been vigilant to prevent litigants from converting the privilege into a tool for selective dis-closure. . . . The client cannot be permit-ted to pick and choose among his opponents, waiving the privilege for soma'and resur- ;
| |
| recting the claim of confidentiality to ob- !
| |
| struct others, or to invoke the privilege as {
| |
| to communications whose confidentiality he i '
| |
| has already compromised for his own Lanefit.
| |
| I i
| |
| | |
| Id. at 1221. Similarly in United States v. 22.80 Acres of Land, 107 F.R.D. 20 (N.D. Cal. 1985), the court held:
| |
| The work product doctrine . . . is, like other privilege rules, to be narrowly con-strued because its application can derogate from the search for the truth. The party seeking to invoke the work product doctrine bears the burden of establishing all the ele-ments that trigger protection; doubts must be resolved against the party asserting the privilege. ,
| |
| Id. at 22.
| |
| In addition, the work product protection is not absolute.
| |
| Work product documents must be produced if the party seeking dis-covery.shows substantial need for the materials in preparation of hi case and that inability without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(a)(2). The specific justifications for producing the documents are discussed by category (with some overlap) below.
| |
| : 1. Documents 1, 2, and 10 Through 15 The NRC Staff has listed Parks as a witness in this proceed-ing, and Mr. Parks' credibility will be an issue. An important matter affecting Parks' credibility is whether he made assertions under oath in his 56-page affidavit that were knowingly or reck-lessly false. Whether Parks made false statements knowingly or
| |
| | |
| recklessly is also relevant to whether the publication of his 56-page affidavit was protected conduct. It is GPUN's position that because the affidavit contains falsehoods made with legal malice, its publication is not protected.
| |
| One such assertion was that George Kunder, a TMI-2 employee, had been identified by other employees (specifically Joseph Chwastyk and Bernard Smith) as the " mystery man" who shut off the high pressure injection pumps during the 1979 accident, and thus was " responsible for a great portion of the damage." Mr. Parks' affidavit (pp. 36-37) claimed that Messrs. Chwastyk and/or Smith had made these statements in the presence of at least ten other witnesses, and in Mr. Parks' presence.
| |
| Both Chwastyk and Smith have denied under oath that they ever stated that Mr. Kunder was the mystery man, and none of the witnesses to our knowledge support Mr. Parks' allegations. These denials, when taken with evidence (conceded by Parks) that he had threatened a physical assault on Kunder a few months before the effidavit was released and other evidence of Parks' animosity to-ward Kunder, have raised a question whether Parks' cle.im was knowingly or recklessly false.
| |
| Parks' affidavit contains many other inaccurate allegations which may have been made maliciously. For example, at page 5 of his affidavit, Parks states that the work request authorizing
| |
| | |
| polar crane refurbishment was deficient because it specified that the work was to be performed under a procedure "that has nothing to do with engineering functions or design QA engineering docu-mentation." In fact, the procedure that was referenced in the work request specified the technical approvals that were neces-sary, including the use of engineering change memoranda for plant modifications. Parks was involved in redrafting this procedure and must have known his allegation was false.
| |
| At page 6 of his affidavit, Parks states that at head liftg/
| |
| meetings "we (members'of the Site Operations Department] learned that ECMs were not consistently being issued to accomplish plant modifications." GPUN, having interviewed members of the Site Operations Department who attended the head lift meetings, is un-aware of this ever having been a topic of discussion or a concern identified at these meetings.
| |
| Parks states at page 12 of his affidavit that the head lift SER initially had been issued in December, but after " extremely critical comments" in the review cycle, a new SER " appeared" in late January which was substantially different from the original.
| |
| No such substitution occurred. ,
| |
| 1 g/ Head lift refers to removal of the reactor vessel head, which was in the planning stage at the time Parks and GAP made public Parks' 56-page affidavit. j i
| |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - _ ___________________a
| |
| | |
| At page 14 of his affidavit, Parks states that at a January !
| |
| 14, 1983 meeting, two suggestions (double-rigging the polar crane and storing missile shields on the A steam generator only) were rejected because they could delay the polar crane schedule. The minutes of this meeting, which Parks specifically cited in his affidavit, refute this allegation.
| |
| At page 43 of his affidavit, Mr. Parks states that he dis-cussed with a number of engineers (Jack Lawton, Lou Synder, Gordon Clements, and Peter Grandi) the use of welding cable as a j temporary power supply for the polar crane and the installation.
| |
| {
| |
| of dummy fuses in the polar crane disconnect. With regard to the use of welding cable, he alleged that "we all agreed we didn't like it because it was unsafe and poor engineering practice."
| |
| With regard to welding cable and the use of dummy fuses, he al- (
| |
| leged "we also agreed that taken in combination they could sig-nificantly increase the chances of an electric malfunction or failure." This ' allegation is apparently fabricated out of whole cloth. All but of these individuals 9/ have refuted Parks' alle-gations, stating that they did not view the modifications as a problem, and in fact the modifications improved safety.
| |
| i 9/ The one individual who was never interviewed was unavailable because of severe illness.
| |
| i l
| |
| __-___-_a
| |
| | |
| There are many other untrue allegations in Parks' affidavit.
| |
| The several referred to above are only a few examples. Taken in totality, the numerous inaccuracies and distortions in the affi-davit portrayed TMI-2 employees and management in a false light.
| |
| Again, Mr. Parks' knowledge and motive in making such alle-gations is a material issue in this proceeding, both because it affects his credibility and because it has bearing on whether the publication of his affidavit was protected conduct. Documents 1, 2, and 10 through 15 are notes of Parks' preliminary accounts of the events described in his affidavit and are evidence of the in-formation that Parks had in his possession or of which he was aware before this affidavit was published. These documents may show that statements made by Parks were knowingly untrue. They may show that Parks hed in his possession evidence contrary to his allegations. They may also show that Parks recklessly made allegations about matters of which he had no personal knowledge or evidence.
| |
| With respect to the notes of these accounts, the publication of Parks' 56-page affidavit was itself a waiver of any work prod-uct that might have existed. Where the substance of work product documents is subsequently presented as testimony, the work prod-uct is waived. United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 (1975)
| |
| (holding that where report of attorney's investigation was not produced, the investigator was properly precluded from
| |
| | |
| testifying). See also American Ladder & Scaffold Co. v. Eadie, 120 So. 2d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960) (waiver by using affida-vit of witness); Chubb Integrated Systems v. National Bank of Washington, 103 F.R.D. 52, 63 (D.D.C. 1984) (disclosure of the
| |
| " gist of documents" otherwise covered by the attorney-client and work product privileges is a waiver of the privileges).
| |
| In the case at bar, Parks presented his affidavit as evi-dence to the NRC and Department of Labor. His affidavit is cer-tain to be offered as evidence in this proceeding, and Mr. Parks will be a witness. Mr. Parks' statements in his affidavit are contrary to the testimony of GPUN's many witnesses. Since Mr.
| |
| Parks and his affidavit will be offered to challenge GPUN's wit-nesses, GPUN is entitled to the underlying material from which the affidavit was prepared. The " gist" of what is contained in the underlying documents has been publicly disclosed and is now the subject of testimonial presentation; under these circumstance-es, the underlying documents are not protected.
| |
| In addition, there is a substantial need for the production of these documents that would override work product protection even if it had not been waived. The documents underlying the preparation of Parks' affidavit are essential to a determination of Parks' knowledge and to determine whether Parks made untrue allegations knowingly and recklessly.
| |
| | |
| A number of cases have recognized the necessity for the pro-duction of work product documents where the documents are evi-dence of a person's knowledge or motive. In Kirkland v. Morton Salt Co., 46 F.R.D. 28 (N.D. Ga. 1968), the court held that in a
| |
| )
| |
| malicious prosecution suit, plaintiff was entitled to defendant's attorney's work product material to show defendant's knowledge
| |
| \
| |
| that the suit was groundless. In Shapiro v. Allstate Insurance Co., 44 F.R.D. 429 (E.D. Pa. 1968), an insurance suit for bad faith handling of a claim, the recommendation of counsel was or-dered produced to show whether defendant relied on a totally groundless evaluation. In Bird v. Penn Central Co., 61 F.R.D. 43 (E.D. Pa. 1973), a suit to rescind certain insurance policies, where a defendant interposed a defense of laches and plaintiff responded with a claim of advice of counsel, the court held that plaintiff's attorney's work product was discoverable. In Kearney
| |
| & Trecker Corp. v. Giddings & Lewis, Inc., 296 F. Supp. 979 (E.D.
| |
| Wis. 1969), the court held that in a suit in which one party challenged the opponent's motive and method in obtaining a patent was obtained an.d the challenge depended in large measure on the activities of the opponent's attorneys, the attorney's work prod-uct was discoverable. See also In re International Systems and Controls Corporation Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235, 1241 (5th Cir. 1982); Byers v. Burleson, 100 F.R.D. 436 (D.D.C. 1983).
| |
| | |
| 4 The documents are also necessary to refresh Parks' recollec-tion. Parks, in his deposition in the Bechtel civil litigation and in this proceeding, has repeatedly responded to pertinent questions by claiming an inability to recall. For example, regarding his mystery man allegation, Parks cannot recall whether either Chwastyk or Smith used the term " mystery man" in referring to Mr. Kunder or whether either of them said Kunder had turned off the "high pressure injection pumps." Deposition of R. Parks, Vol. II (June 23, 1987) at 123-124, 128, 146-147 (Exhibit H).
| |
| Relatedly, Parks testified that a handwritten document entitled "TMI-The Bechtel Connection" appears to be in his handwriting but states he does not recognize it. Id. at 66 (Exhibit I). This document shows that Parks, if he is indeed the author, intended to publicly attack Mr. Kunder long before Parks published his af-fidavit (and without any relation to Mr. Parks' comments on the polar crane load test procedure or other conduct asserted to be protected) and evidences Parks' personal animosity toward Mr.
| |
| Kunder Parks' lack of recollection extends to many other allega-tions that GPUN challenges as inaccurate. Regarding whether at-tendees at head lift meetings became aware that engineering J
| |
| change memoranda were not being used for plant modifications, Parks cannot recall any specifics. Id., Vol. I at 105-109 (Exhibit J). With regard to his allegation that a new head lift )
| |
| )
| |
| l 1
| |
| ----_________________J
| |
| | |
| SER was [ improperly] substituted for the original because of "ex-tremely critical comments," Parks now states he does not recall anybody raising safety issues about the head lift SER. Deposi-tion of R. Parks (Feb. 1, 1987) at 144-145 (Exhibit K). The list of things Mr. Parks cannot remember goes on and on. Where, as here, documents are necessary to refresh a witness' recollection, they should be produced. Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 64 F.R.D. 367, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (holding that where witnesses were unable to recall facts during deposition, attorney notes of prior interviews should be produced); Chaney v.
| |
| Slack, 99 F.R.D. 531, 534 (S.D. Ga. 1983).10/
| |
| : 2. Documents 15, 16, and 17 Mr. Parks has claimed on several occasions that he and/or Mr. Devine (his attorney at the time) verified the information in Mr. Parks' affidavit before it was made public on March 23, 1983.
| |
| At the time Parks' affidavit was published, Mr. Devine stated in a letter to Chairman Palladino that GAP's decision to rerresent Parks was based on Parks' affidavit "as well as verification in-terviews with additional witnesses who supported both his charges and personal credibility." Parks has testified that he reviewed the letter for accuracy before it was sent.
| |
| 10/ GPUN was unable to obtain a contemporaneous statement from Mr. Parks in 1983. After an abortive initial interview, Mr.
| |
| Parks refused to cooperate with GPUN's investigation. E. Stier, "TMI-2 Report -- Management and Safety Allegations" (Nov. 1983),
| |
| Vol. I at 6-7.
| |
| | |
| In his deposition in the Bechtel litigation, Mr. Parks testified that "To the best of my knowledge to this moment, inde-pendent verification was obtained prior to going public with (the mystery man] information" and " . . . that information was veri-fled by my lawyer." Deposition of R. Parks (Feb. 1, 1987) at 99-100 (Exhibit L). In Mr. Devine's deposition in the Bechtel litigation, Mr. Devine testified that he [and an assistant) con-tacted witnesses by telephone to corroborate Parks' allegations before the' affidavit was.made public. Deposition of T. Devine (Jan. 30, 1986) at 65-66 (Exhibit M).
| |
| Last month, during his deposition in this proceeding, Mr.
| |
| Parks identified only one' individual (John Auger) as a person with-whom' Parks'and Devine confirmed the accuracy of-the mystery man allegation before releasing the affidavit. Deposition of R.
| |
| Parks, Vol. III (June 23, 1987) at 151, 177 (Exhibit N). How-ever, Mr. Auger has sworn that he had never heard of the term
| |
| " mystery man" before reading Parks' affidavit and at no time was told that Mr. Kunder turned off the high pressure injection pumps.
| |
| l CPUN seeks documents 15., 16 and 17 because they appear to relate to GAP's verification, if such verification was indeed un-dertaken. Document 15 comprises notes dated March 18, 1983 relating in part to "Three Mile Island witnesses and employees."
| |
| Document.17 comprises undated notes of "what . . . witnesses
| |
| - _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ ~ - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ . - - - - .-_- -__ - __ - _ _ __._____-_ _ _ _ -
| |
| | |
| i know" and include eight individuals identified in the portion of Parxs' affidavit containing the mystery man allegation. Document 16 comprises notes dated March 23, 1983 (the day Parks released his affidavit) relating among other things to " pump shutdown."
| |
| The claims of Mr. Parks and Mr. Devine that the allegations in Parks' affidavit were corroborated by their investigation op-erates as a waiver of any privilege. It is hornbook law that waiver includes a partial disclosure that would make it unfair to insist on privilege thereafter. McCormick on Evidence, S 93 (3d.
| |
| ed. 1984). Parks' rel.4ance on Mr. Devine's efforts and communciations as evidence supposedly supporting Parks' good faith requires the disclosure of documents reflecting those ef-forts and communications. As a matter of fairness, Parks cannot be allowed to claim that he acted in good faith as evidenced by his attorney's attempts to verify the allegations and at the same time refuse to disclose the proof of such verification (or lack thereof).
| |
| The production of other documents prepared by Mr. Devine re-flecting other witness interviews, (Exhibits O tc 'J ) , which Mr.
| |
| Devine provided to the NRC's Office of Investigations (OI) on July 25, 1983, is a further indication of waiver. These docu-ments indicate that questions that were being asked by Mr.
| |
| Devine, and their public disclosure negates any possibility that Mr. Devine intended to keep confidential his efforts, the
| |
| | |
| i L, strategy of his questions, and their results. Again, Parks can-not selectively disclose certain work product documents to serve
| |
| - his own purposed while claiming privilege for similar documents that may be less favorable to him.11/
| |
| Finally, the exten; to which Parks' allegations were or were not verified prior to the release of Parks' evidence are direct evidence of whether Parks was reckless in making false allega-tions. GPUN has a substantial need to obtain these documents to ascertain Parks' knowledge and state of mind at the time he re-leased his affidavit. Parks himself cannot recall the details of the supposed verification, and GPUN has no other way of de-termining the facts. As discussed above, where attorney-work product documents are evidence of a persons knowledge and motive and such knowledge or motive is at issue in the proceeding, the documents should be produced. See cases cited at page 17 supra.12/
| |
| i 11/ The documents provided to OI on July 25, 1983 reflect wit-ness interviews conducted in June 1983 -- after Parks' affidavit was released. It is also possible that some of the notes con-tained in document 17 pertain to interviews after Parks' affida-vit was released and were not a prior verification ot Parks' al-legations. Nevertheless, the selective disclosure of the several witness interviews of July 25, 1983, justifies the release of all interview notes and memoranda.
| |
| 12/ In In re International Systems, supra, the Fifth Circuit ob-
| |
| / served that in deciding whether to allow discovery of work prod-s . uct which was evidence of motive, a court should first determine whether knowledge can be determined by other means, such as by (Continued Next Page)
| |
| | |
| I 3, Documents 7 and 8 i
| |
| Documents 7 and18 are notes of OI's-interviews of'Mr. Parks on May 2, 1983'and April 27, 1983. Production of these notes are necessary, since the NRC no longer has contemporaneous or com-plete accounts of the interviews.
| |
| With respect to the April 27, 1983 interview,.there is no complete NRC account of the interview. In his deposition in this proceeding, former OI investigator. Ronald Neeks testified that almost "'l of the NRC interview on April 27, which may have lasted ton to twelve hours, was conducted b'< investigators Beach .
| |
| and Walker. Meeks testified-that he may have been present for part of this-interview, but does not recall taking any notes.
| |
| .The interview statements that Meeks later prepared did not re-flect Beach's and Walker's questioning. Deposition of R. Meeks (June 6,. 1987) at 28-29, 32-33, 36 (Exhibit V). The NRC' Staff
| |
| 'has informed GPUN that Beach and Malker have no notes or I'
| |
| (Continued) deposition. In the recent deposition of Mr. Parks, GPUN inquired into~the efforts that were supposedly made by Parks and/or his attorney to verify allegations. Mr. Parks could not remember
| |
| 'who , other than John Auger, had been contacted, whether he was present when Auger was contacted, or what interviews, statements or notes he may have reviewed prior to the release.of his sffida-vit. Deposition of R. Parks (June 23, 1987) Vol. II at 151-52, 169-70, 177 (Exhibit N). When asked whether reviewing Mr.
| |
| Devine's documents sould refresh his recollection, Mr. Parks re-sponded that he was really not interested in reading them. Id.
| |
| at 165-66 (Exhibit N).
| |
| | |
| l documents reflecting this interview. Letter from G. Johnson to J. Patrick Hickey (Nos. 6, 1986). Parks in his recent deposition l
| |
| 1 recalls having been interviewed but has little recollection be-yond that. See Deposition of R. Parks, Vol. II (June 23, 1987).
| |
| at 49-61 (Exhibit W).
| |
| The May 2, 1983 interview was conducted by OI investigators Vorse and Meeks. Neither has retained notes of the interview.
| |
| Mr. Meeks has stated that the contents of his interview with Parks were reccrded on notes (no longer in existence) and repro-duced in "an initial draft statement." According to Meeks, the draft statement we.s then broken down into four statements, three of which were signed by Parks and included in the September 1, 1983 and May 8, 1984 OI reports, and the fourth of which (ad-dressing the mystery man allegation) was never finalized. Affi-davit of R. Meeks (March 3, 1907), V1 3-4, 6 (Exhibit X). In his recent deposition, Meeks testified that Parks participated in breaking the initial statement (which Meeks identified as the 13-page unsigned statement provided by the NRC to GPUN during discovery) into separate statements and had input into the prepa-ration of the statements, editing and amplifying them. Deposi-tion of R. Meeks (June 6, 1987) at 67-68, 82-83 (Exhibit Y). Ac-cording to Meeks, the " Draft for Mystery Man Affidavit' was the fourth statement, which Parks gave to Meeks. Id. at 150.
| |
| | |
| L
| |
| -4
| |
| -The'three signed statements contain many additions not.found in the' original 13 page statement. See GPUN's Memorandum Con-cerning-Pending Discovery Motions (April 6, 1987) at'37-39 and-exhibits'25-28 thereto (with' additions and deletions under-scored). There are also a number of deletions, including two paragraphs on.the mystery man allegation. Mr. Meeks could not recall.the reasons for additions or deletions, but believed the
| |
| ' initial 13-page statement reflected what Parks had originally stated. Parks, on the other hand, testified in his deposition that, "I'm not willing to state that I have ever seen this l
| |
| -[13-page statement] before." Deposition of R. Parks, Vol. II (June 23, 1983)-at 52 (Exhibit W).
| |
| It cannot be gainsaid the.t G?UN is entitled to know what
| |
| ~
| |
| prior statements Parks made to the NRC. Such statements are not only evidence of the facts, but also evidence of what Parks knew and whether he. acted. maliciously. The statements have consider-able impeachment value.
| |
| In light of the non-existence of contemporaneous NRC records of these statemento and Parks' refusal to acknowledge the 13-page draft as an account of his statement, the notes of the May 2 in-terview should be produced. These notes can confirm or deny the ace:.tracy of the initial 13-page statement, confirming the exis-
| |
| ' tence of admissions by Parks.
| |
| l 1
| |
| : 4. Documents 2 through 6 As discussed above, Richard Parks alleged that George Kunder was the mystery man who turned off the high prescare injection pumps, and GPUN contends that this allegation was knowingly falso. Mr. Parks has attributed his allegation to Joseph Chwastyk and Bernard Smith, wno have denied it. The mystery man allegation will be a central issue in this proceeding.
| |
| The 13-page initial statement of Parks' OI interview contains two paragraphs that address and attempt to justify the j mystery man allegation. Parks will not admit ever having seen this 13-page statement and does not recall making the statements An the two paragraphs on the n.ystery man allegation. Deposition of R. Parks, Vol. II (June 23, 1987) ac 52 (Exhibit W); id. at 130-131 (Exhibit I). The document entitled " Draft for Mystery Man Affidavit," which Ronald Meeks testified was given to him by '
| |
| l Parks, contnins another attempt to justify Parks' mystery man al- j legation, not entirely consistent with the 13-page initial state- ;
| |
| ment. Parks testifies that "I do not recall at this momemt, if I wrote that or not" and he stated, "It may have been written by someone else." Id. at 119-121, 129 (Exhibit H). Regarding the document entitled "TMI -- The Bechtel Connection," which is also evidence of whether or not Parks acted in good faith in making his mystery man aliegation, Parks again professes an inability to recall preparing the document (although he admits it "appea..s" to
| |
| | |
| be in his handwriting). Id. at 66 (Exhibit I). With respect to Chwastyk and Smith, Parks testifies he cannot recall whether they actually referred to Kunder as the " mystery man" or whether they ever ste.ted Kunder had turned off the high pressure injection pumps. Id. at 123, 128, 147 (Exhibit H). i These responses evidence a clear pattern of evasiveness on an important issue in this case. Documents 2 through 6 are all statements that appear to reflect the information that Parks had about the mystery man allegations. Since Parks will not acknowl-edge that prior statements are his and cannot or will not recall what Chwastyk and Smith told him, GPUN has no other recourse but to seek production of documents 2 through 6. Those documents, which were prepared when events were relatively fresh in Parks' mind, are necessary to determine what Parks really knew. The documents may also show that the " Draft for Mystery Man Affida-vit" and "TMI -- the Bechtel Connection" were indeed authored by Parks.
| |
| GPUN has a semstantial need for these documents and cannot obtain the information (of Parks' prior knowledge and motive) elsewhere. Accordingly, Documents 2 through 6 should be pro-duced.
| |
| l
| |
| _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ l
| |
| | |
| III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Parks' motion to quash should be denied and documents 1 through 17 as identified in the
| |
| ]
| |
| July 26, 1987 Subpoena Duces Tecum should be ordered produced.
| |
| Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
| |
| % A N David R. Lewis Counsel for GPUN Dated: August 11, 1987
| |
| | |
| Dm m H.giii r
| |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Gre c .
| |
| Bpfore the Administrative La" Judq@Chl ,
| |
| In the Matter of )
| |
| 1 GPU Nuclear Corporation ) Docket No. 50-320
| |
| ) License No. DPR-73
| |
| ) EA-84-137 (Three Mile Island Nuclear )
| |
| St,acion, Unit No. 2) )
| |
| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "GPUN'S RE-SPONSE OPPOSING PARKS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM" dated August 11, 1987, were served by deposit in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, or where indicated by an asterisk by hand delivery, or where indicated by two asterisks l by Federal Express, this llth day of August, 1987 to the follow-ing-persons:
| |
| *Ivan' Smith, Esquire Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel !
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20553 Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
| |
| * George E. Johnson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission )
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20555 i l
| |
| ** Barbara A. Zuras, Esq. l Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molligan 703 Market Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 l
| |
| J l
| |
| l i
| |
| i l
| |
| l 1
| |
| | |
| a
| |
| * Thomas Devine, Esq.
| |
| Government Accountability Project 25 E Street, N.W.--7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 C
| |
| David R. Lewis Counsel for GPUN i
| |
| | |
| +
| |
| e 4
| |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Ivan W. Smith Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of )
| |
| )
| |
| GPU Nuclear Corporation ) Docket No. 50-320
| |
| ) Eiw84-137 (Three Mile Island Nuclear )
| |
| Station, Unit No. 2) )
| |
| 1 t
| |
| EXHIBITS TO GPUN'S RESPONSE OPPOSING PARKS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM /
| |
| <o August 11, 1987 '
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| u __
| |
| EXHIBIT A 1
| |
| l 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 2
| |
| 3 RICHARD D. PARKS, :
| |
| 4 PLAINTIFF :
| |
| 5 VS : CASE NO.
| |
| : 805749 6 BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION; BECHTEL :
| |
| NORTH AMERICAN POWER CORPORATION; :
| |
| 7 S.D. BECHTEL, JR.; D.C. NERELL; .:
| |
| LARRY W. WOOD; DOES COMPANIES ONE :
| |
| 8 THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE, INCLUSIVE; :
| |
| AND DOES ONE THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE, :
| |
| 9 INCLUSIVE. :
| |
| 10 DEFENDANTS :
| |
| 6 11 12 10TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 1800 M STREET, N.W., SOUTH WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 13 THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1986 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 THOMAS M. DEVINE, ESQ.,
| |
| 16 A WITNESS HEREIN, CALLED FOR EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL 17 FOR DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO NOTICE, AT THE t
| |
| 18 LAW OFFICES OF SHAW,PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, 19 1800 M' STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., BEGINNING AT 20 FRIEDLI, WOLFF & PASTORE, INC.
| |
| 21 1735 EYE STREET, N.W., SUITE #920 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 g
| |
| 22 (202) 331-1981
| |
| -------------- m
| |
| | |
| , r 50 l
| |
| 1 A YES. YES.
| |
| 2' Q -AND DO YOU HAVE THAT NOTE?
| |
| A I DON'T THINK THAT I DO, PAT. I WENT THROUGH 3
| |
| J 4 MY FILES THIS LAST SUMMER TO SEND EVERYTHING TO MR.
| |
| 5 PARKS THAT WAS CONNECTED WITH MY REPRESENTATION OF HIM.
| |
| 6 AND I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT NOTE. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT 7 IT'S BEEN MIS-FILED OR IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE OFFICE.
| |
| 8 IT BECAME BASICALLY JUST A MATTER OF HISTORY 9 FAIRLY EARLY IN THE CASE.
| |
| 10 Q WHAT DO YOU HEAN BY THAT?
| |
| A WELL, IT WAS JUST A FORMALITY. I WAS u 11 12 OBVIOUSLY REPRESENTING HIM AND HAD FUNCTIONED IN THAT 13 CAPACITY QUITE VISIBLY. WE WERE WORKING VERY CLOSELY 14 TOGETHER.
| |
| 15 Q DID YOU KEEP COPIES OF MR. PARKS' NOTES OR .
| |
| 16 THE PARTICULAR NOTE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, OR NOTES FROM 17 SIMILAR CLIENTS, IN ONE CENTRAL FILE EX) THAT THERE WOULD 18 BE A RECORD OF ALL THE PERSONS WHO HAD SIGNED SUCH A 19 NOTE WITH STAFF?
| |
| 20 A I KEEP THEM IN INDIVIDUAL FOLDERS FOR THE 21 PARTICULAR CLIENTS. AND .T TRIED TO KEEP THEM ALL IN MY 22 OFFICE. SOMETIMES WE WOULD RUN OUT OF SPACE AND THEY h
| |
| l b
| |
| | |
| 116 1 YOU HAD OTHER MEETINGS --
| |
| 2 MR. TRISTER: I THINK WE BETTER CLARIFY HIS 3 ANSWER. I AM NOT SURE HE IS USING THE WORD COMMISSION 4 TO MEAN COMMISSIONERS.
| |
| 5 THE WITNESS: THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN. I AM 6 REFERRING TO THE NRC, NOT '/HE COMMISSIONERS AS 7 INDIVIDUALS.
| |
| 8 BY MR. HICAEY:
| |
| 9 Q SO IN JULY OF '05, YOU MET WITH NRC STAFF OR 10 EMPLOYEES?
| |
| 11 A THAT'S CORRECT.
| |
| 12 Q BUT SINCE THEN YOU HAVE NOT? THAT IS THE 13 LAST ONE YOU REMEMBER?
| |
| 14 A THAT IS THE LAST TIME WE HAVE HAD A FACE-TO-15 FACE MEETING. THERE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATIONS SINCE 16 THEN.
| |
| 17 Q YOU HAVE INDICATED, EARLIER IN THIS 18 DEPOSITION, AS HAS YOUR COUNSEL, THAT AT SOME POINT IN 19 AUGUST OF 1985 YOU SENT SOME DOCUMENTS TO MR. PARKS, IS 20 THAT RIGHT7 l
| |
| 21 A YES.
| |
| 22 O WAS THAT PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FROM MR. PARKS
| |
| {
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 117 1 OR HOW DID THAT ARISE?
| |
| 2 A THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS A REQUEST FROM MR.
| |
| 3 PARKS.
| |
| 4 Q DID HE SEND YOU A LETTER?
| |
| 5 A NO. IT WAS VERBAL.
| |
| 6 0 WAS MR. PARKS WORKING FOR GAP AT THE TIME? -
| |
| 7 A CAN I ANSWER THAT7 8 MR. TRISTER: YES.
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: YES, HE WAS.
| |
| 10 BY MR. HICKEY:
| |
| 11 Q WHERE WAS HE WORKING FOR GAP?
| |
| 12 A I DON'T BELIEVE I CAN ANSWER THAT.
| |
| 13 0 YOU MEAN YOU DON'T KNOW7 14 MR. TRISTER: LET'S GO OFF THE RECORD.
| |
| 15 (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.)
| |
| 16 BY MR. HICKEY:
| |
| 17 Q THE QUESTION I HAD ASKED YOU, MR. DTVINE, WAS 18 WHERE MR. PARKS WAS WORKING IN AUGUST OF 19857 19 A I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT WOULD 20 REQUIRE BREACHING A CONTRACT.
| |
| I 21 Q AND IT'S A CONTRACT -- WHAT IS THE CONTRACT 22 IT WOULD BREACH?
| |
| b
| |
| | |
| 118 6
| |
| - ~
| |
| 3 A AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN GAP AND AN EMPLOYER. >-
| |
| 8 , ,
| |
| 3 Q WHAT IS IT IN THE CONTRACT THAT +-
| |
| 6 PROHIBITS THE DISCLOSURE OF' WHERE MR. PARKS WAS WORKING? , ,
| |
| $. A THERE IS A PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCLOSURE OF ,
| |
| OUR WORK ON THE CONTRACT, DISCLOSING THE IDENTITY. "
| |
| 6 THE ,
| |
| 9 7 LOCATION OF THE WORK COULD QUITE POSSIBLY GIVE AWAY THE ,
| |
| 'o
| |
| @ NATURE OF THE CONTRACT. .
| |
| _ii
| |
| @ Q THERE IS A PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSING THE
| |
| @ WHAT7 THE NATURE OF THE WORK?
| |
| 1 A THERE IS A DISCLOSURE --
| |
| 2 Q PROHIBITION? ~
| |
| r 3 A THERE IS A PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSING ANY OF 6 OUR ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CONTRACT. AND
| |
| @ DISCLOSING THE LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITIES, IN MY
| |
| @- JUDGMENT AND THE JUDGMENT OF MY EMPLOYER ON THE 7 CONTRACT, WOULD VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION.
| |
| @ O WELL, LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. WITHOUT -
| |
| a
| |
| @ WAIVING MY RIGHT TO PRESS FOR THAT ANSWER TO THAT
| |
| @ QUESTION, CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER MR. PARKS WAS WORKING 8 IN WASHINGTON, D.C.? IN AUGUST OF 1985? ;
| |
| 8 A I DON'T PEEL THAT I COULD ANSWER THAT. s n
| |
| | |
| 119 1 MR. TRISTER: LET'S GO OFF THE RECORD.
| |
| 2 (CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE WITNESS AND HIS 3 COUNSEL.)
| |
| 4 MR. TRISTER: I THINK YOU SHOULD ANSWER IT.
| |
| 5 THE WIThESS: HE WAS NOT WASHINGTON-BASED.
| |
| 6 BY MR. HICKEY:
| |
| 7 0 WHAT WAS IT THAT MR. PARKS REQUESTED YOU TO 8 DELIVER TO HIM?
| |
| 9 A ALL OF THE -- HE REQUESTED THAT I SEND HIM 10 HIS FILE. THE FILE OF HIS CASE.
| |
| 11 Q WAS HE SPECIFIC ABOUT - ,ANY MORE SPECIFIC 12 THAN THAT ABOUT WHAT HE WANTED?
| |
| 13 A I THINK HE USED THE WORD EVERYTHING.
| |
| 14 0- DID HE GIVE YOU DIRECTIONS ON WHERE TO SEND 15 IT?
| |
| 16 A YES.
| |
| 17 Q WHERE DID YOU SEND IT?
| |
| 18 A TO HIS RESIDENCE.
| |
| 19 Q WHERE WAS THAT?
| |
| 20 A NO, ACTUALLY, HE GAVE ME DIRECTIONS WHERE TO 21 SEND IT. IT WOULDN'T -- IT WOULD BE WHERE HE WAS l
| |
| 22 LIVING. WHERE HE WAS STAYING. HE ASKED ME TO SEND IT I _ -.
| |
| A
| |
| | |
| 120 1 WHERE HE WAS STAYING.
| |
| 2 O WHERE DID YOU SEND IT?
| |
| 3 A LET'S GO OFF THE RECORD.
| |
| 4 (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.).
| |
| 5 MR. 'rxISTER : IT'S THE SAME OBJECTION.
| |
| 6 MR. HICKEY: BACK ON THE RECORD. MR. DEVINE 7 AND HIS COUNSEL INDICATE THAT MR. DEVINE WAS UNABLE TO 8 ANSWER THAT QUESTION, I JUST ASK THAT HE STATE THAT CH 9 THE RECORD.
| |
| 10 MR. TRISTER: OUR OBJECTION TO ANSWERING, 11 IDENTIFYING WHERE MR. PARKS' TEMPORARY RESIDENCE WAS AT 12 THE TIME HE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS, IS THE SAME AS OUR 13 OBJECTION TO DISCLOSING WHERE HE WAS WORKING, BECAUSE ,
| |
| 14 HIS TEMPORARY RESIDENCE WAS RELATED TO HIS WORK, AND WE 15 . FEEL OURSELF CONSTRAINED BY OUR -- BY THE CONDITTONS OF 16 OUR CONTRACT NOT TO DISCLOSE THAT INFORMATION.
| |
| 17 MR. HICKEY: ARE YOU PREPARED TO MAKE 18 AVAILABLE THE LANGUAGE IN THE CC:: TRACT -- NOT THE ENTIRE 19 CONTRACT BUT THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT THAT CAUSES l 20 YOU THESE CONCERNS?
| |
| l 21 MR. TRISTER: WELL, WE'LL CERTAINLY DISCUSS 22 THAT WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
| |
| s
| |
| | |
| 121 1 MR. HICKEY: BECAUSE I AM NOT AWARE OF AN 2 EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO RESIST 3 ANSWERING A QUESTION ON THE BASIS OF SOME CONTRACTUAL i 4 OBLIGATION. AND THAT IS WHY I AM INTERESTED TO KNOW IT.
| |
| 5 THE WITNESS: WE SHOULD CHECK TO SEE IF WE 6 CAN DISCLOSE THE LANGUAGE IF THE CONTRACT CONCERNING 7 CONFIDENTIALITY RESTRICTIONS?
| |
| 8 MR. HICKEY: YES. THAT IS THE BASIS FOR NOT 9 ANSWERING THE QUESTION, RIGHT?
| |
| 10 THE WITNESS: YES.
| |
| j 11 BY MR. HICKEY:
| |
| 1 12 0 MR. DEVINE, HOW DID YOU PROCEED TO HAVE THESE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED TO MR. PARKS? DID YOU REVIEW ALL 13 14 THE FILES?
| |
| 15 A THAT'S CORRECT.
| |
| 16 Q PERSONALLY?
| |
| 17 A YES.
| |
| 18 Q DID YOU GO THROUGH PAGE BY PAGE WHAT WAS IN 19 ALL OF THE FILES?
| |
| A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. I GOT TIRED 20 21 AT POINTS, MIGHT HAVE MISSED A FEW PAGES, BUT I STROVE 22 TO.
| |
| | |
| 122 1 Q DID YOU REMOVE ANYTHING FROM THE FILES BEFORE 2 TRANSMITTING THEM TO MR. PARKS?
| |
| 3 A PAT, I DID KEEP ONE COPY OF HIS AFFIDAVIT, 4 THE FIFTY-SIX PAGE AFFIDAVIT THAT WAS PUBLICLY FILED.
| |
| 5 Q MARCH, 1983?
| |
| 6 A YES. AND THERE WAS A SET OF NEWSPAPER 7 CLIPPINGS CONNECTED WITH HIS CASE AND I KEPT ONE SET OF 8 THOSE. WITH THOSE EXCEPTIONS, I SENT HIM THE ENTIRE 9 FILE.
| |
| 10 0 AND IF I UNDERSTAND YOU, HE ALSO GOT A COPY 11 OF HIS MARCH, 1983 AFFIDAVIT AND A COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER 12 CLIPPINGS?
| |
| 13 A THAT'S CORRECT. THEY WERE DUPLICATES.
| |
| 14 Q THEY WERE DUPLICATE COPIES. OKAY. DID THAT 15 INCLUDE ALL CORRESPONDENCE THAT YOU HAD SENT OR RECEIVED 16 ON HIS BEHALF?
| |
| 17 A THAT'S CORRECT.
| |
| 18 Q LIMITED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 19 PROCEEDING 7 OR ALL CORRESPONDENCE THAT YOU HAD SENT AND 20 RECEIVED?
| |
| 21 A ALL CORRESPONDENCE. TO THE BEST OF MY 22 KNOWLEDGE.
| |
| | |
| 123 1 Q DID YOU HAVE DOCUMENTS, MR. DEVINE, THAT 2 RELATED TO MR. PARKS' EMPLOYMENT WITH GAP, AS OPPOSED TO 3 DOCUMENTS -- AS DISTINGUISHED FROM DOCUMENTS RELATED TO 4 YOUR REPRESENTATION OF MR. PARKS?
| |
| 5 A YES, I DO.
| |
| 6 0 DID YOU SEND THOSE TO HIM?
| |
| 7 A NO.
| |
| 8 Q THAT WASN'T WHAT BE ASKED FOR, IS THAT RIGHT?
| |
| 9 A THAT'S CORRECT.
| |
| 10 Q AND DO YOU STILL HAVE THOSE?
| |
| 11 A YES, WE ARE STILL EMPLOYED BY THE EMPLOYER.
| |
| 12 Q DID MR. PARKS TELL YOU WHY UE WANTED THE l l
| |
| 13 DOCUMENTS THAT BE WAS REQUESTING YOU SEND HIM?
| |
| 14 A I THINK SO.
| |
| 15 Q WHAT DID BE SAY?
| |
| 16 MR. TRISTER: I THINK THAT IS PRIVILEGED 17 AGAIN AND I DON'T SEE HOW, IN ANY EVENT --
| |
| MR. HICKEY: WELL, IT HAS TO DO WITH WHERE 18 19 THE DOCUMENTS ARE AND WHAT -THE REASON WAS FOR REQUESTING 20 THEM.
| |
| 21 MR. TRISTER: THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER WE 22 HAVE THEM. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE REASON MATTERS ONE
| |
| | |
| 124 1 BIT.
| |
| 2 MR. HICKEY: WELL, I DON'T THINK IT'S 3 PRIVILEGED AS TO WHY HE WANTED THEM SENT, IF HE SAID 4 SOMETHING.
| |
| 5 MR. TRISTER: GO AHEAD AND ANSWER.
| |
| 6 THE WITNESS: HE SAID THAT HIS LAWYERS IN THE 7 CURREN" SUIT, THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST BECHTEL, 8 WANTED THE RECORDS.
| |
| 9 BY MR. HICKEY:
| |
| 10 Q AND DO I RECALL CORRECTLY THAT YOU SAID THERE 11 WAS APPROXIMATELY ONE FILE DRAWER OF FILES THAT YOU SENT 12 TO HIM7 13 A THAT'S RIGHT.
| |
| 14 Q DID YOU LOOK ELSEWHERE IN THE GAP RECORDS OR 15 STORAGE OR ANYWHERE FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PERTAINING 16 TO MR. PARKS?
| |
| 17 A I DID LOOK IN LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE MAIN 18 FILE DRAWER FOR HIS CASE.
| |
| 19 Q WHERE ELSE DID YOU LOOK?
| |
| 20 A I LOOKED THROUGH STACKS OF OLD NOTES.
| |
| 21 THROUGH THE FILES OF OTHER CLIENTS THAT WERE RELATED TO 22 MR. PARKS IN SIMILAR LOCATIONS.
| |
| J'
| |
| | |
| DGIBIT B HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN 1 CALENDAR STEPHEN T. COX 2 BARBARA A. ZURAS 703 Market Street, 18th Floor On3-/N4 San Francisco, CA 94103 "7 3 g 3
| |
| Telephone: (415) 543-9464 P r 64-/ ? wG 4
| |
| 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff _
| |
| g 7
| |
| 8 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9
| |
| FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 l l NO. 831 846 11 j RICHARD D. PARKS, Plainti.ff, RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR 12 i PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS l
| |
| '1 lvs.
| |
| 14 I BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION,
| |
| , et al.,
| |
| 15
| |
| ! Defendants.
| |
| /
| |
| 16 l 17 !
| |
| Plaintiff RICHARD D. PARKS hereby responds to defen-18 dants' Request for Production of Documents as follows:
| |
| 19 l To the extent that plaintiff is in possession of any 20 f fall within any of the descriptions c 21 privileged documents that 22 ! any of the defendants' 53 requests but withholds such document 23 !
| |
| based upon privileges or objections, plaintiff, at the conclusi of this response, has set forth a general description of the 24 +
| |
| 25 i privileged documents withheld.
| |
| i Plaintiff cssumes that the defendants in their 53 26 l documents consisting of this are not seeking 27 ' requests correspondence 28 - litigation's pleadings filed by any party, "5 IZJ7"
| |
| == ;!;
| |
| ..! ;.".".'.'d'l.7.',
| |
| | |
| 1 the discovery of admissible evidence and/or seeks irrelevant 2
| |
| information and on the grounds that this request is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Further, plaintiff objects to thi:
| |
| 3 4 request to the extent thet it seeks information concerning the 5 content of telephone calls between plaintiff and his attorneys and/or his attorneys' agents. Plaintiff incorporates by 6
| |
| 7 reference his objections to Request No. 9 and 42. Without 8 waiving said objections and consistent with said objections and 9
| |
| to the extent that plaintiff understands this request to pertair 10 to telephone calls plaintiff made or received since terminated b 11 the defendsnts through the date of the complaint in this action, 12 plaintiff will produce what, if any, unprivileged documents exis 13 which are in his possession which pertain to the subject matter 14 as described in this response if the defendants will offer prooi 15 as to the discoverability of such information.
| |
| 16 REOUEST NO. 53:
| |
| 17 Plaintiff incorporates by reference his objections to Request No. 1, 3 and 15. Further, plaintiff objects to this 18 l 19 l request to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous and unintel-l 20 ligible in that plaintiff is uncertain as to the meaning of the 21 phrase "former employers." Without waiving said objections anc 22 consistent with said objections and to the extent that plaintif 23 t'nderstands this request to refer to plaintiff's employers prio 24 to the time of plaintiff's claims against the defendants and/o:
| |
| l 25 other than the defendants, plaintiff is not in possession of an 26 i documents falling in the description set forth in this responst 27 li and/or does not believe that any such documents exist.
| |
| i l
| |
| 28 ///
| |
| l "l$ T'E0"l''
| |
| 19
| |
| .':C:*:.'..":".',
| |
| | |
| 1 The following is a list of privileged documents which 2 may or may not fall within any of the defendants' requests which 3
| |
| are being withheld on the grounds that euch documents are 4 protected by plaintiff's attorney-client privilege and/or 5 plaintiff's attorneys' work product privileges. The disclosure 6
| |
| of the below-listed material is made without waiving said 7 objections and consistent with said objections for the purpose of 8 avoiding a potential dispute in discovery. All references to 9 notes or memos of Thomas Devine are references of notes and notes 10 of his thoughts to the file, or memos to GAP file on Parks 11 representations:
| |
| 12 /ocument A - Thomas Devine's handwritten notes dated probable 13 July 11, 1983, seven pages, addressed to the file, re:
| |
| 14 legal consequences of Parks' /Bechtel settlement agreement as 15 l proposed / copy sent to client Parks.
| |
| i 16 l 17 i Document B - Diary written and maintained by plaintiff l
| |
| 18 i Rick Parks for Hoberg attorneys (Barbara Zuras) 19 handwritten chronology of events during plaintiff's 19 j pages, no copies, re:
| |
| l employment with Cataract, Inc., dated December 17, 1984 through 20 21 lMay16,1985, i
| |
| 22 1 one 23 ,
| |
| [ Document C - Handwritten notes by Thomas Devine, 3 age, no date, no copies, re: Devine's notes of conversation wit i
| |
| 24 :
| |
| 25 client Rick Parks re chronology events leading to suspension of 1
| |
| 26 employment at TMI.
| |
| i 27 !
| |
| Document D - Handwritten notes by Thomas Devine datec 28 l "ll. 0%8,, " 20
| |
| '::::::?::'
| |
| | |
| 4 1
| |
| May 3, 1984 re: conversations with client Rick Parks re upcoming 2
| |
| Parks interview with NRC investigator.
| |
| 3 4 Document E - Handwritten letter / memo from Rick Parks to 5 Hoberg attorneys (Barbara Zuras) dated July 12, 1984, four pages, 6 no copies, re: chronology of events at TMI/ Cool Water and 7 consequences to Rick Parks.
| |
| 8 Documents F - Handwritten notes by Rick Parks to 9
| |
| 10 attorney Thomas Devine dated June 26, 1985, three pages, no 11 copies, re: GAP's continuing legal representation of Parks / post 12 TMI requirements.
| |
| 13 14 Document G - Undated memo by Rick Parks to Tom Devine 15 re: historical overview of TMI events since March 23, 1983 16 disclosure, 12 pages, no copies.
| |
| I 17 j 18 Document H - The following are privileged excerpts 19 deleted from Rick Parks' 1983 diary:
| |
| 20 21 1. March 31, 1983 - Parks' notes of conversation with attorney Tom Devine re: DOL proceeding.
| |
| 22
| |
| : 2. April 4, 1983 - Parks' entry as to conversation 23 I with attorney Tom Devine re: witness Ed Gishel.
| |
| l 24 j 3. April 6, 1983 - Entry by Parks re conversation wit!
| |
| Tom Devine re: witness Larry King and supplemental affidavit.
| |
| 25 4 April 8, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation with 26 attorney Louis Clark re: DOL charges.
| |
| 27 5. April 11, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation FBI meeting, with l l Tom Devine re c.ngressional efforts on TMI, 28 additional witnesses.
| |
| "l0 CEd"/" o
| |
| ~1
| |
| . '' " ";" T."." '
| |
| | |
| ~~.---.---...
| |
| t j 6. April 13, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation with Tom Devine re meeting with Bechtel lawyers and news media.
| |
| 2
| |
| : 7. April 14, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation with 3
| |
| Tom Devine re: Jim Dej en.
| |
| 4
| |
| : 8. April 19, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation with Thomas Devine re: additional NRC submittals.
| |
| 3 . April 20, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation with 6 Tom Devine re: information needed for DOL for settlement possibilities.
| |
| : 10. May 6, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation with 7
| |
| 8 Tom Devine re: Kuhns and Spence.
| |
| -9
| |
| /11.May16, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation with Tom Devine re: Placier meeting over DOL complaint.
| |
| 10 May 20, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation with 12.
| |
| 11 Thomas Devine re: TMI accident scenario, 12 13. June 6, 1983 - Par'Ks ' entry re Conversation with Tom Devine re: strategy for employment in future.
| |
| /14. June 7, 1983 - Parks' entry re conversation with 13 14 Tom Devine re: DOL strategy.
| |
| 15 (Each of these privileged entries was no more than 11 16 lines of diary page, no copics , dated as specified) .
| |
| Document I - Thomas Devine's draft of allegations for i 17 18 Parks' affidavit reflecting Devine's conversations with Rick 19 Parks, no date, eight pages, no copies sent, re: George Kunder 20 and TMI pump shutdown.
| |
| I 21
| |
| ' Document J - Parks' me.mo to GAP attorneys re: Parks' 22 analysis of testimony of GPU/Bechtel employees dated March 31, 23 24 1983, 17 pages, no copies issued.
| |
| 25 Document K - Handwritten draft by Thomas Devine 26 27 re: allegations for Parks' affidavit reflecting conversation wit 28 Rick Parks, four pages, no date, re: pump shutdown at TMI, no
| |
| *?STUEd?" 22
| |
| *m::::::'
| |
| T.
| |
| . ;O.. .L., ..
| |
| T. ".71.
| |
| | |
| 7, 1
| |
| copies issued.
| |
| 2
| |
| .3 / Document L - Thomas Devine's handwritten notes and November 22, 1983 re: NRC continuing a thoughts to file, 5 investigation of GPU/Bechtel role in TMI pump shutdown, five 6 pages, no copies issued.
| |
| 7 8
| |
| Document M - Notes by Rick Parks to Tom Devine, nine 9 pages, re:-review of December 29, 1982. EDS nuclear report, no 10 date.
| |
| 11 ,
| |
| 12
| |
| ' Document N - Thomas Devine's 11 page handwritten memo 13 rer outline of arguments re technical problems of TMI pump 14 shutdown / George Kunder, no copies issued.
| |
| 15 16 # Document 0 - Thomas Devine's draft for a letter and/or 17 outline for a letter intended for NRC commission re: technical 18 aspects of TMI, harassment of employees, dated November 10, 1983, 19 eight pages, no copies issued.
| |
| 20 Document P - Thomas Devine's notes re: his analysis of 21 j 22 May 2, 1983 meeting with NRC re: Rick Parks' TMI allegations, 11 23 pages, no copies issued.
| |
| 24
| |
| /
| |
| ^
| |
| 25 Document Q - Thomas Devine's handwritten notes and analysis re: April 27, 1983 meeting with NRC re: Parks' 26 ,
| |
| of Parks, 27 allegations re technical aspects of TMI and harassment 28 24 pages, no copies issued.
| |
| ' "S .'IlM," 23 l
| |
| 7:.*:.'3:.
| |
| ""l.1"# :.::'a !
| |
| i
| |
| _ ___ _ ___ _ a
| |
| | |
| 'g .
| |
| . \
| |
| v Document R - Thomas Devine's handwritten notes to file 1
| |
| harassment at re March 24, 1983 conversation with Rick Parks re:
| |
| 2 3
| |
| THI, one page, no copies issued.
| |
| 4 v/~ Document S - Thomas _Devine's April 22, 1983 handwritten 5
| |
| 6 notes re: his thoughtc about next step in Rick Parks ' legal l
| |
| 7 representation, one page, no copies issued. l 1
| |
| 8 9 Document T - Thomas Devine's handwritten notes dated conversation with Rick Parks re ECM's data, 10 hpril 19, 1983 re:
| |
| 11 three pages , no c upies issued.
| |
| 12 13 Document U - Thomas Devine's outline for Rick Parks' based upon 14 affidavit - - points raised - evidence to support 15 discussions with Rick Parks, four pages, no copies issued.
| |
| 16 Document V - Memo by' Billy Gartner, paralegal of GAP 17 conversation with Rick Parks regardin; 18 doted March 13, 1983 re:
| |
| two pages,
| |
| )? legal representation concerning Bechtel harassment, 20 copies issued.
| |
| I 21
| |
| '' Document W- Notes of Thomas Devine dated March 14, 22 23 1983 re: conversation with Rick Parks re legal representation i I Rick Parks / Rick Parks' history at TMI, three pages, no copies
| |
| . 24 25 issued. l 26
| |
| / Document X - Notes of Thomas Devine, dated March 15 27 D 28 1983 re: conversations with Rick Parks re Parks' history at 24
| |
| *"cYi "loi:E0**
| |
| *"~.:::::'
| |
| .:: == l
| |
| | |
| 1 I
| |
| technical aspects of TMI, 11 pages, no copies issued.
| |
| f ;
| |
| i 2 )
| |
| Document Y - Thomas Devine's notes dated March 17, 1983 j 3
| |
| 4 re: continuation of. meeting with Rick Parks re history at Three 5 Mile Island /cechnical aspects of Three Mile Island, three pages, 6 no copies issued.
| |
| 7 8
| |
| Document'Z - Thomas Devine's notes dated March 18, 1983 conversation with Rick Parks re Three Mile Island witnesses .j 9 re:
| |
| J 10 and employees and upcoming press conference, one page, no copies 11 issued.
| |
| (
| |
| 12 13 Document AA - Thomas Devine's notes dated March 23, 14 1983 re: conversation with Rick Parks re role of certain Bechtel Polar Crane dispute / pump shutdown, NRC 1A employees re 16 investigation, three pages, no copies issued.
| |
| 17 i
| |
| 18
| |
| / Document BB - Thomas Devine's notes dated March 29, 19 1983 re: conversation with Rick Parks re status of DOL complaint, 20 one page, no copies issued.
| |
| I 21 22 Document CC - Thomas Devine's notes dated April 11, 23 1983 re: conversation with Rick Parks re potential witnesses 1'
| |
| l 24 among Bechtel personnel, one page, no copies issued.
| |
| 25 26 Document DD - Thomas Devine's notes dated April 11, 27 1983 re: confidential meeting with James Barber, Pennsylvania 28 House of Representatives, re TMI public health threats, one page
| |
| *Yli:EOl0**'' 2$
| |
| ::!!.7. '.l.l..'.',
| |
| W'.
| |
| | |
| 1 no copies issued.
| |
| 2 Document EE - Thomas Devine's notes- dated April 11,
| |
| ~3 4
| |
| 1983 re: meeting with Congressman Geikus, one page, no copies i.
| |
| , 5 issued. -
| |
| 1 6
| |
| 7 Document FF - Thomas Devine's notes dated April 11, 8
| |
| 1983 re: meeting with Mr. Johnston re: Quiltec _ " conflict of l 9
| |
| interest," one page, no copies issued.
| |
| 10 Document GG - Thomas Devine's notes, no date, re:
| |
| 11 12 documents of Larry King, one page, no copies issued.
| |
| 13 14 Document HH - Thomas Devine's notes of conversation:
| |
| 15
| |
| 'with Mr. Hoeff dated April 13, 1983 re: _ legal representation o 16 Rick Parks, one page, no copies issued.
| |
| 17 Document II - Thomas Devine's notes dated May 10, 19:
| |
| 13 19 re: meeting with GPU lawyers Stiers, Nulets, and Frick, nine 20 pages, no copies issued.
| |
| 21 22 Document JJ - Thomas Devine's notes to Rick Parks at 23 file dated May 10, 1983 re: instructions to Rick Parks re meet:
| |
| 24 ' with GPU lawyers.
| |
| 25 Document KK - GAP memo from Marya to Thomas Devine 26 I 27 message from Rick Parks for Thomas Devine re: Harrisburg, 28 Pennsylvania visit dated April 8, 1983, one page, no copies "lAT%.E.J*," 26 COG #Dhaf tQas 4a 4 4 4
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| i '
| |
| j iscusd.
| |
| I 2 l Document LL - GAP memo to Billie Gartner from Marya Y.
| |
| 3 4 dated April 8, 1983 re: potential Parks ' witness willing to .
| |
| 5 assist one page no copies issued.
| |
| 6 7 Document MM - Notes and memos of Thomas Devine's GAP 8 staff, no dates, re: Bechtel/GPU potential witnesses and what 9 those witnesses know regarding Parks' allegation against Bechtel 10 (Bonnie Sherwood, John Perry, Ron Warren, Mark Kobi, John Auger, 11 Joyce Wenger, Carl Hrbac, Jim Floyd, Ron Brinkley, 12 William Marshall, George Clements, Joe Chwastyk, Ed Kischel,
| |
| ' 13 George Kunder), no copies issued, 69 pages.
| |
| 14 15 Document NN - Memo from Mimi Yoon, law clerk of 16 Thomas Devine to Rick Parks' dated November 16, 1983 re:
| |
| 17 introducing herself and enclosing documents re transcript of 18 public hearings held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, concerning 19 Polar Crane at TMI - 2 (over 300 pages) memo, one page, no copies 20 issued.
| |
| 21 DATED: March 3, 1986 22 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN 23
| |
| ( A By N v ~
| |
| BARBARA A. ZURAS j 25 Attorneys for PlaintiffJ 26 27 28 E IEE***"a"' 27
| |
| *i:'::2":'
| |
| : ".S...'.1.'.'.
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| ; -~----
| |
| 4
| |
| /
| |
| l j PROOF OF SERVICE BY HAND DELIVERY 2
| |
| I, the undersigned, declare:
| |
| 3 I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of is 4 years, and not a party to the within cause. I am an employee og .I i
| |
| 5 Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molligan, and my business address is 6
| |
| 703 Market Street, 18th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94103.
| |
| 7 I caused the attached RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 8
| |
| DOCUMENTS to be served by hand delivery on March 3, 1986, by engaging a messenger service to deliver a true copy of it in an 9
| |
| 10 envelope addressed to:
| |
| 11
| |
| - 12 13 14 Steven L. Hock, Esq.
| |
| Daniel P. Westman, Esq.
| |
| 15 Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2200 16 San Francisco, CA 94111 17 18 19 20 ,
| |
| 21 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 24 true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on 25 March 3, 1986, in San Francisco, California, bi / 'I _
| |
| 27 Ann Doherty )
| |
| Yh i'OEs*l**
| |
| ':::*a:: w E'A:"...":9.',
| |
| --... . i
| |
| -----------m_-_.m __ _ _ - ' - ' - - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
| |
| | |
| ,E5i4EDY P. RICHARDSON, ESQ. EXHIBIT C l
| |
| 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2
| |
| IN ANC FOR THE COUNTY OF CO!CP.A COSTA i
| |
| 3! -__ooo __
| |
| l 5 .
| |
| I l RICHARD D. PARKS, ) !
| |
| 6 Plaintiff, )
| |
| 7 vs. ) No. 831-846 0
| |
| BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION, )
| |
| 9 i et al, a 10 i - YU N" ' -*
| |
| 11 l:
| |
| I 12 l
| |
| 13 l
| |
| 14 j 15 l D@_SITI_ON OF RICHARD D. PARKS ,
| |
| i 16 ,
| |
| Taken before WINIFRED E. ELLIOTT. Notary Public 17 In and f or the County of Alameca 18 State of California 19 October 8, 1986 20 ---oCo---
| |
| 21 '( VOLUME I - PAGES 1 THROUGH 108 22 ---ooo---
| |
| 23 24 25 26 27 l
| |
| 28 f
| |
| ANNEM ARIE OLDING, C.S.R. #3442 CERTIFIED SHORTH AND REPORTER e Lou A vista, sulTE 3 ORINDA. CALIFORMIA 94583 254 4795
| |
| | |
| 70
| |
| -l-1 attorney / client communication, and it's privileged 2 knowledge. I object to the question on that basis I I 3 and instruct him not to answer questions about Tom 4 Devine or other attorneys at GAP, relative to 5 transferring documents while they were representing 6 him.
| |
| 7 MR. RICHARDSON: So you're instructing him 8 not to answer that question?
| |
| 9 i MR. COX: Yes.
| |
| I 10 MR. RICHARDSON: Q. You mentioned that GAP 11 had four --
| |
| 12 MR. COX: Just as a point of clarification, i J 13 l there were no Coolwater documents sent to GAP.
| |
| I 14 l
| |
| MR. RICHARDSON: All right.
| |
| e i i 15 Q. Do you concur with what your attorney 16 l just said?
| |
| I 17 i A. Yes, sir, I do.
| |
| 18 Q. You mentioned a short while ago, Mr.
| |
| 19 Parks, that GAP forwarded documents to you. Do you 20 have thac testimony in mind?
| |
| 21 A. Yes, sir, I do.
| |
| 22 Q. Can you tell me whether GAP forwarded to 23 you all of the documents concerning TMI or the j 24 suspension of your employment at TMI, what you had 25 previously given to GAP?
| |
| i 26 A. Yes, sir, they did.
| |
| 27 Q. So, there are no documents which you gave 28 to GAP relating to TMI or the suspension of your
| |
| , ANNEMARIE OLDING, C.S.R. NO. 3442
| |
| ' 3
| |
| * i
| |
| _ ________.____.________o
| |
| | |
| 't DGIIBIT D l
| |
| i 1
| |
| 1
| |
| -l 1
| |
| TH E SU FERIGF. CCU RT OF THI. STATE OF CALIFORNIA I FOR TH E CITY AND COUNTY OF' S AN FRANCISCO
| |
| - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x R ICH ARD ' D. PARKS, :
| |
| Plaintiff, :
| |
| -vs- : No. 831-846 !
| |
| B ECH TEL POWER CORPORATION, i et al., :
| |
| Defendants. :
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -x
| |
| ' F:: day, tu r ch 20,1937
| |
| 'r :. sh i ng: on , D. C.
| |
| De posi tion c f .
| |
| j i .
| |
| TE OMAS DEV IN E a witness, called f or examination by counsel for the Def endant pur suant to notice of counsel, held at the of fices of Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, ?.300 N Str eet, Nor thw est , l Washington, D. C. , beginning at 2: 45 p. m. , before Nancy i Siegel-Deutsch, a Registered Prof essional Reporter and Notary Public in and f or the District of Columbia, when were present on behalf of the respective parties:
| |
| - Sherry Roe & Associates, Inc.
| |
| Shorthand Reporters
| |
| 'q 1825 K Street. N.W. (202) 429 4014 Suite 1209 (202) 429-0015 Wa.thington. D C. 20006
| |
| _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ -
| |
| | |
| 5 j l
| |
| 1 Q Okay. You were the attorney for Mr. Parks in an 1
| |
| 2 action in which he filed bef ore the United States Department c 3 . Labor back in March of 1983, is that correct?
| |
| I l
| |
| 4 f A That is correct.
| |
| 5 -Q For shorthand purposes, can I j ust ref er to that as 6
| |
| I the DOL action?
| |
| 7 A Yes, you say.
| |
| 8 Q And you and I will know what I am talking about? i 9 A Yes.
| |
| 10 MR. RICH ARDSON: N ow , perhaps right now I snoul l 11 ask Ms. Zuras whether there are any documents which you and/o:
| |
| 12 'Mr. Devine are prepared to produce at the deposition. You ser !
| |
| 13 lme a letter which indicated that you were going to carry back 14 to Washington, D. C. Various documents, af ter which the '
| |
| I 15
| |
| !plaintif f had previously claimed privilege, and that you were 16 , going to inquire to see whether Mr. Devine would consent to 17 .their production.
| |
| I 18 MR. KENN EDY : Ms. Euras, would you first state 19 for the record who you are and why you are here.
| |
| 20 MS. EURAS: Cer tainly . This is an action beins 21 taken pursuant to a proceeding in the Superior Court of San 22 Francisco entitled Parks versus Bechtel, and I as the
| |
| .b
| |
| . SE ERRY ROE & ASSOCIATES
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| _.__ ..._ . ... n .._ 1 . ..
| |
| 1 !plaintif f 's attorney in that proceeding in Calif o:nia. Mr.
| |
| .i
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 , Riciardson han j ust ref erred tc a' letter I sent to him, and i
| |
| 3 just to clarify the record, I enf ormed Mr. Richardson that.I 4 would be bringing certain documents with me because the nature 5 g of the privi1ege was such that it was Mr. Devine's work.produc 6 ! privilege, and I inf ormed Mr. Richardson that if Mr. Devine we-7 of the opinion that it was work product, but chose to waive hi i
| |
| 8 pr iv il ege , then there would be some production of documents at
| |
| '9 this point in time.
| |
| 10 However, Mr. Devine has decided, given the nature c 11 the document s, that he wishes to assert the privilege and the i
| |
| 12 documents wil1 continue to be withheld on the basis of the vor 13 jproduct privilege.
| |
| 14 f. MR. RICH ARDSON :- I gather we are ref erring to -
| |
| 15 (Thereupon, Patrick Bickey_ entered the roos.)
| |
| 16 MR. KENN EDY : Could I interrupt?
| |
| MS. EURAS: Yes. We need to interrupt this 17 18 before anything more substantive is discussed, because during ,
| |
| f '
| |
| 19 wy little statement there, a gent 1eman entered the room -- Mr.
| |
| 20 Rickey entered the room, and I think we need to c1arify the 21 record in what capacity Mr. Bickey is attending this depositit u and se. e th.t we have some , cob 1em with his atte. dance, unie l
| |
| m 1
| |
| SHERRY ROE & ASSOCIATES X
| |
| l j
| |
| | |
| [ i Exhibit E CERTIFIED COPY r
| |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
| |
| ~ NUCLEAR- REOULATOP.Y COMMISSION . _
| |
| I f.
| |
| : BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
| |
| \
| |
| IN THE MATTER OF GPU FUCLEAR CORPORATION, THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR gge Civil Penalty N . 0-320 STATION NO. 2 )LicenseNo. DPR-73 j
| |
| EA 84-137 l
| |
| e i
| |
| i DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS i June 22, 1987 VOLUME I i
| |
| l i
| |
| )
| |
| {
| |
| BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS !
| |
| 4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 5500 !
| |
| REPORTED BY: NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 l (714)752 1090 ROSFMARY SCHWARTZ, I CSR #4836 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE SUITE 570 FILE NO. 87-242 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90064 g (213)202 6666 -
| |
| 1 l
| |
| | |
| 1 s a y .-
| |
| 3 Q. What book or journal or log were these 1 l
| |
| : 3. pages taken from?
| |
| 4 A~. At the moment, I do not recall.
| |
| 0 5 Q. Did you keep a log in the 1983 time period 6 at TMI?
| |
| 7 A. I believe I may have. My memory does not
| |
| '8 serve to provide any better knowledge, not at the moment 9 anyway.
| |
| 10 Q. Well, you can see, from looking at the 11 exhibit, that it appears to be a small spiral pad with i
| |
| 12 handwritten notes in it.
| |
| 713 Do you have such a book today?
| |
| 14 A. No, sir, I do not have such a book today.
| |
| 15 Q. Did you -- do you know whether documents 16 that you provided to your counsel Ms. Zuras are still in l 17 the possession of Miss Zurns?
| |
| 18 A. Sir, I would say that you should ask 19 Miss Zuras, i
| |
| 20 Q. Well, we did ask her; but we thought you I
| |
| 21 could clear it up.
| |
| 22 A. Again, sir, contact Miss Zuras. She's in 23 your offi,e.
| |
| 24 Q. But your testimony is that you don't have 25 any documents in your personal possession?
| |
| 52 h
| |
| | |
| l f' i
| |
| A. My testimony is I don't have any documents 2
| |
| relative to this proceeding in my personal possession.
| |
| 1 1
| |
| 3 Q. And that would include Exhibits 9 and 10 or ]
| |
| 1 4 the books which they came?
| |
| 5 A. If I ever had possession of the documents 6 in question.
| |
| 7 Q. Okay. Now, look at --
| |
| look at Exhibit 9 8 for just a minute.
| |
| 9 Can you identify for me whether any portion 10 of that page ir not in your handwriting?
| |
| 11 A. I am uncertain at the moment, but I do not 12 believe the top half of the page is in my handwriting.
| |
| 13 Q. That's the material before the line under 14 "This could be a problem"?
| |
| 11 5 A. Yes, sir, I believe it to be.
| |
| 16 Q. Whose handwriting do you think that is?
| |
| 17 A. At the moment, sir, I cannot state with'any 18 certainty.
| |
| 19 Q. But the bottom half of the page, you j 20 believe is yours?
| |
| 21 A. It appears to be, yes.
| |
| 1 22 Q. How about the next page of that exhibit?
| |
| 23 A. It appears to be.
| |
| 24 Q. And look, then, at Exhibit 10, would you,
| |
| -25 please. ]
| |
| 1 53 l l
| |
| a !
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT F
| |
| -l 1
| |
| 1
| |
| /'
| |
| 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 2
| |
| 3 RICHARD D. PARKS, :
| |
| 4 PLAINTIFF :
| |
| 5 VS : CASE NO.
| |
| : 805749 6 BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION; bECHTEL :
| |
| NORTH AMERICAN POWER CORPORATION; :
| |
| 7 S.D. BECHTEL, JR.; D.C. NERELL; :
| |
| LARRY W. WOOD; DOES COMPANIES ONE :
| |
| 8 THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE, INCLUSIVE; :
| |
| AND DOES ONE THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE, e 9 INCLUSIVE. :
| |
| 10 DEFENDANTS :
| |
| 11 10TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 1800 M STREET, N.W., SOUTH 12 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 13 THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1986 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 THOMAS M. DEVINE, ESQ.,
| |
| 16 A WITNESS HEREIN, CALLED FOR EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL 17 FOR DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO NOTICE, AT THE 18 LAW OFFICES OF SHAW,PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, 19 1800 M STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., BEGINNING AT 20 FRIEDLI, WOLFF & PASTORE, INC.
| |
| 21 1735 EYE STREET, N.W., SUITE #920 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 22 (202) 331-1981
| |
| _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~
| |
| | |
| .)f 66 l
| |
| j 1 WAS HELPING ME. !
| |
| 2 O WHO WAS THAT? ,
| |
| 3 A HER NAME WAS MARYA YOUNG.
| |
| 4 Q MARIA YOUNG?
| |
| 5 A YES.
| |
| 6 Q M-A-R-I-A? ,
| |
| 7 A M- A- R- Y- A .
| |
| 8 Q BUT YOU DIDN'T LEAVE WASHINGTON OR YOUR 9
| |
| OFFICE TO GO DO THIS CORROBORATION, YOU WERE DOING IT 10 OVER THE TELEPHONE?
| |
| J A THAT'S CORRECT. DURING THOSE FEW DAYS.
| |
| 11 12 Q AND IT WAS AFTER YOU HAD SATISFIED YOURSELF 13' THAT MR. PARKS' FACTS WERE ACCURATE THAT YOU AGREED TO
| |
| -14 REPRESENT HIM?
| |
| 15 A THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WE AGREED TO FILE A 16 COMPLAINT ON HIS BEHALF.
| |
| 17 Q WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR?
| |
| j 18 A AND A DISCLOSURE TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 19 COMMISSION. THOSE WERE THE TWO THINGS WE AGREED TO DO.
| |
| 20 Q AND WAS THERE ANY WRITTEN RECORD OR AGREEMENT }
| |
| j 21 OF YOUR UNDERTAKING WITH MR. PARKS TO PROVIDE THESE TWO l 22 SERVICES?
| |
| l i
| |
| Jk i
| |
| _ -_________________a
| |
| | |
| EGIIBIT G ~l
| |
| )
| |
| l 1 I I
| |
| j 1
| |
| 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF.THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| |
| .IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 1 2
| |
| \
| |
| 3 RICHARD D. PARKS, :
| |
| l
| |
| : j 4- PLAINTIFF : :
| |
| s 5 VS : CASE.NO.
| |
| : 805749 6 BECHTEL POWER. CORPORATION; BECHTEL NORTH AMERICAN POWER CORPORATION; (
| |
| 7 S.D. BECHTEL, JR.; D. C+ NERELL; a l LARRY W. WOOD; DOES COMPANIES ONE :
| |
| 8 THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE, . INCLUSIVE; :
| |
| AND DOES'ONE THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE, :
| |
| 9 INCLUSIVE. :
| |
| 10 DEFENDANTS :
| |
| t 11 10TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 1800 M STREET, N.W., SOUTH
| |
| '12 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 13 THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1986 14 DEPOSITION OF 15 THOMAS M. DEVINE, ESQ.,
| |
| 16 A WITNESS HEREIN, CALLED FOR EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL 17 FOR DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO NOTICE, AT THE i
| |
| 18 LAW OFFICES OF SHAW,PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, 19 1800 M STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., BEGINNING AT 20
| |
| .FRIEDLI, WOLFF & PASTORE, INC.
| |
| 21 1735 EYE STREET, N.W., SUITE #920 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 22 s
| |
| (202) 331-1981
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| L l
| |
| l 31 ,
| |
| l l l 1 A WE HAVE ALWAYS, AS PART OF OUR LEGAL 4 i
| |
| l ! 2 REPRESENTATION.0F WHISTLE BLOWERS, TRIED TO WORK WITH
| |
| .' 3 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE j l
| |
| 4 SUBJECT OF THEIR DISSENT, OF THE EMPLOYEE'S DISSENT. '
| |
| 1 f
| |
| , 5 Q AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS PART OF YOUR LEGAL 6 REPRESENTATION OF WHOM, OF AN INDIVIDUAL CLIENT?
| |
| 7 A YES.
| |
| 8 Q AND DID YOU, IN ADDITION, PROVIDE ANY 9 SERVICES WITH REGARD TO THE PRESS, CONTACTS WITH THE 10 MEDIA, OR PRESS CONFERENCES, OR ARRANGE INTERVIEWS AND q 11 SO ON?
| |
| 12 A SURE. '
| |
| l 13 Q WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT REGARD, JUST 14 GENERALLY?
| |
| 15 A DESCRIBED THE FACTS OF THE PROBLEM, THE 16 ALLEGED PROBLEM. IF WE AGREED THAT THE WHISTLE BLOWER 17 HAD RAISED A SERIOUS POINT, WE WOULD GET THE STORY OUT. !
| |
| 18 Q IN 1983, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THAT 19 THERE WERE THEN THREE LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY GAP, MS.
| |
| 20 BERNABEI, MR. CLARK AND YOU?
| |
| 21 A THAT'S RIGHT.
| |
| 22 Q AND YOU ALSO MENTIONED MS. GARDE, A
| |
| ,l k
| |
| | |
| . W' ''
| |
| 32 1 NON-LAWYER. WERE THERE OTHER NON-LEGAL EMPLOYEES?
| |
| 2 A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO IN 1983. WE DID HAVE 3 TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE HELP AT THE TIME BUT I DON'T l 4 THINK WE HAD A FULL TIME, PAID ADMINISTRATOR.
| |
| 1 5 Q ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SECRETARIAL HELP WHEN' 6 YOU SAY ADMINISTRATIVE?
| |
| 7 A YES.
| |
| 1 8 Q WELL, WHAT WAS MS. GARDE'S POSITION? WHAT 9 WERE HER DUTIES IN 1983 7 10 A I THINK THAT BER TITLE AT THE TIME WAS q 11 DIRECTOR OF GAP'S CITIZENS' CLINIC. ;
| |
| 12 0 WHAT WAS THE CITIZENS' CLINIC?
| |
| 13 A IT WAS THE PROJECT TO PROVIDE LIAISON WITH i 14 COMMUNITY GROUPS AND THE MEDIA, BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL i 15 WHISTLE BLOWER AND THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. AT TIMES, I 4
| |
| 16 BELIEVE THAT SHE REPRESENTED CITIZENS' ORGANIZATIONS, j 17 GAP REPRESENTED CITIZENS' ORGANIZATIONS IN SOME CAPACITY i
| |
| l 18 AS WELL. WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN, MS. BERNABEI OR MYSELF i 19 OR MR. CLARK WOULD BE THE LAWYER AND MS. GARDE WOULD 20 CONTINUE TO PLAY THE ROLE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS LIAISON, 21 AS WELL AS INVESTIGATOR AT TIMES. AND SHE WOULD DO WORK 22 TO ASSIST THE LAWYERS.
| |
| Au
| |
| | |
| 1 33
| |
| ) 1 'O WERE YOU AN EMPLOYEE OR A MEMBER OF THE GAP 2 CITIZENS' CLINIC?.
| |
| 3' A PAT, TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, ALL OF 4, THE MEMBERS OF THE GAP WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE GAP 5 CITIZENS' CLINIC. MS. GARDE WAS.THE LEADER OF IT. SHE.
| |
| 6 BASICALLY WAS THE PERSON WHO SET THE PACE FOR THOSE l 7 TYPES OF PROJECTS. BUT THERE WASN'T -- WE ONLY HAD A 8 FEW OF US.
| |
| 9 Q- I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT SOUND MORE FORMAL 10 THAN, IN FACT, IT WAS.
| |
| 11 A YES, IT WAS VERY INFORMAL. !
| |
| 12 1
| |
| .Q~ WERE THERE OTHER PROJECTS BESIDES THE 13 CITIZENS CLINIC THAT GAP OPERATED IN 19837 14 A I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAD ANY OTHER TITLES 15 THAT WE APPLIED:TO OUR ORGANIZATION. THERE WAS WORK
| |
| '16' THAT WAS PERFORMED, THAT I GENERALLY PERFORMED AS THE
| |
| ' 17 LEGAL DIRECTOR, SUPERVISING LAW STUDENT 3 FOR CLINICAL 18 CREDIT. I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAD A TITLE FOR THAT .
| |
| 19 OPERATION OTHER THAN CALLING IT THE GAP CLINIC.
| |
| '20 0 WERE YOU PAID BY THE LAW SCHOOL FOR THAT 21 WORK?
| |
| i
| |
| -22 A NO, I WASN'T..
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT H CERTIFIED COPY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l
| |
| BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE I
| |
| \
| |
| IN THE MATTER OF i
| |
| GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, l THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR Cv Pe k.t S ON.NO. 2 ) Licer:se No.DPR-73 )
| |
| EA 34-137 i
| |
| l l
| |
| l DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS June 23, 1987 VOLUME II I
| |
| (
| |
| BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS j 4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 5500 l REPORTED BY: NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 l l (714)752 1090 !
| |
| l PENNY SANDER, l CSR #4769 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE. $UITE 570 FILE NO. 87-244 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90064 (213)202 6666 I
| |
| | |
| f g Q YOU REFER ON PAGE 36 "ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS i
| |
| 2 WHEN JOE CHWASTYK AND SHIFT SUPERVISOR BERNIE SMITH IDENTIFIED KUNDER AS THE MYSTERY MAN." CAN YOU TELL ME 3
| |
| 4 'ABOUT THE DATES OR TIMES 0F ANY OF THOSE OCCASIONS?
| |
| A NOT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I COULD NOT.
| |
| 6 YOU KNOW, AGAIN, SIR, IN LIEU OF THE FACT YOU 7
| |
| STILL HAVE A LOT OF GROUND TO COVER AND THE SHORT TIME TO 8 DO IT IN, I THINK MR. RICHARDSON AND I PRETTY WELL g BELABORED THIS POINT IN MY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.
| |
| 10 Q YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANYTHING TO REFRESH YOUR 11 RECOLLECTION FURTHER SINCE YOU DISCUSSED IT WITH 12 MR. RICHARDSON; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
| |
| 13 A NO, SIR. IN FACT SINCE MY --
| |
| SINCE I LAST 14 MET WITH MR. RICHARDSON, I HAVE TRIED TO PUT AS MUCH AS I 15 COULD REGARDING TMI AND MY ROLE AT TMI AS FAR.BEHIND ME AS 16 I COULD.
| |
| 17 MR. HICKEY: WOULD YOU MARK THIS, PLEASE.
| |
| I.
| |
| 18 (WHEREUPON RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 45 WAS MARKED 19 FOR IDENTIFICATION SY THE NOTARY PUBLIC, AND A COPY IS 20 ATTACHED HERETO.)
| |
| 21 Q BY MR. H I C K E Y :: MR. PARKS, THE REPORTER IS 22 SHOWING YOU EXHIBIT 45, A DOCUMENT OF SEVEN PAGES TYPED, 23 TITLED " DRAFT FOR MYSTERY MAN AFFIDAVIT." WILL YOU TAKE A 24 LOOK AT THAT, PLEASE.
| |
| 25 HAVE YOU SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE?
| |
| II-119 4L
| |
| | |
| ) I' I 1
| |
| A I CAN'T TELL YOU AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME IF I 2
| |
| HAVE OR HAVEN'T. 1 3 Q WELL, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE TIME AND READ IT l
| |
| 3 THEN SO YOU ARE --
| |
| l 5
| |
| A I CAN SAVE YOU SOME TIME. THE HANDWRITING ON 6 THIS THAT YOU SEE AT VARIOUS POINTS THROUGHOUT HERE IS NOT 7 MINE.
| |
| 8 Q YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LETTERS THAT ARE i
| |
| g CHANGED ON THE FIRST PAGE?
| |
| 10 A NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT POINTS WHERE WORDS ARE 11 ADDED.
| |
| 12 Q WELL, EVEN APART FROM THE HANDWRITING, 13 MR. PARKS, WHY DON'T YOU READ THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TYPED 14 MATERIAL THERE AND SEE IF THAT REFRESHES YOUR 15 RECOLLECTION, 16 (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
| |
| 17 THE WITNESS: OKAY. ! HAVE READ IT.
| |
| 18 Q HAVING READ THAT DOCUMENT, MR. PARKS, ARE YOU 19 ABLE TO RECALL WHETHER YOU HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE?
| |
| 20 A I MAY HAVE, BUT MY MEMORY, AT THIS POINT, 21 DOES NOT REASONABLY ASCERTAIN THAT ! HAVE.
| |
| 22 Q WELL, IS THE TEXT OF THE MATERIAL IN IT 23 FAMILIAR TO YOU?
| |
| 24 A ONLY RELEVANT TO THE REFERENCES TO THE EDS 25 REPORT.
| |
| II-120 A
| |
| | |
| } (;
| |
| L.
| |
| i 'Q DID;YOU WRITE-THIS DOCUMENT, MR. PARKS?
| |
| o 2 A LI' MAY HAVE HAD AN lNPUT INTO IT.
| |
| 3 -Q WHAT IS YO'UR-RECOLLECTION ABOUT THAT?
| |
| : 4. A JUST.THAT I DON'T' RECALL, AT THIS MOMENT, IF 5 I.DID OR'DIDN'T.
| |
| 6 Q. WHY DO YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE?
| |
| 7 .A WELL, BECAUSE WHOEVER~ WROTE IT HADt AN 8 . UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE MAKEUP SYSTEM WORKED AT-TMI-2.
| |
| 9- Q WELL, MR PARKS, IT STARTS OUT "ON PAGES t to '36-37 OF MY AFFIDAVIT I EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS AT GEORGE 11 KUNDER'S ROLE."
| |
| , 12 A THAT'S TRUE, BUT WHAT l'M SAYING IS, SIR, IT 13- COULD VERY WELL HAVE BEEN REWRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE, LIKE' 14 THE NRC, WHAT HAVE YOU. 1.WAS IN THE HABIT OF SIGNING 15' 'WHAT 11 WROTE, AND THIS IS UNSIGNED.
| |
| .16 .Q WELL, IF IT HELPS YOUR RECOLLECTION ANY, I 1
| |
| 17 WILL REPRESENT TO YOU THAT MR. MEEKS TESTIFIED THAT-.THAT 18 WAS SENT TO HIM BY YOU IN RESPONSE TO HIS REQUEST FOR A 19 STATEMENT ABOUT THE MYSTERY MAN.
| |
| 20 A WHETHER THAT BE TRUE THEN, SIR, I WOULD SAY 21 MR. MEEKS HAS A BETTER RECOLLECTION OF IT THAN I D0.
| |
| 22 Q WELL, LOOK DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST 23 PAGE THERE, MR. PARKS. YOU'VE READ THE ENTIRE FIRST PAGE, 24 HAVEN'T YOU?
| |
| 25 A YES. '
| |
| II-121 AW ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 3 Q AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU HAVE READ ALL OF THE-2 DOCUMENT?
| |
| i A YES, ! O!D NOT STUDY IT, BUT I DID READ IT.
| |
| 3 g Q ON THE FIRST PAGE THERE IS A CONCERN g EXPRESSED BY THE WRITER THAT THE PORTION OF THE PARKS 6 AFFIDAVIT, PAGE 36 AND 37, WAS EXTREMELY CONDENSED'AND IS 7 APPARENTLY ISSUING THIS STATEMENT THAT MORE FULLY l 8 DISCLOSES IT AND INDICATES THEY NEED TO BE CLARIFIED AND g PRESENTED IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT, WAS THAT A VIEW THAT i i
| |
| 10 YOU HELD ABOUT YOUR DISCUSSION OF THE MYSTERY MAN O.N PAGES l 11 36 AND 37 OF YOUR AFFIDAVIT?
| |
| 12 A I BELIEVE, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WHAT I --
| |
| 13 WHEN I WAS REQUESTED BY THE NRC REGARDING THAT ENTRY IN MY 14 AFFIDAVIT, THAT IT BECAME APPARENT I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO 15 EXPAND THE INTENT BEHIND THAT PARAGRAPH, YES.
| |
| 16 Q AND DID YOU BECOME AWARE THAT THERE WAS 17 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY GENERAL PUBLIC 18 UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION AGAIN ABOUT THE FINDINGS OF 19 THE STIER INVESTIGATION REGARDING YOUR MYSTERY MAN 20 ALLEGATION?
| |
| 21 A YES, SIR, IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, BOTH j 22 YOU AND I WERE AT THAT HEARING. -
| |
| 23 Q WHEN DO YOU THINK THE HEARING WAS?
| |
| 24 A APRIL 26TH, I BELIEVE, 1983. IT WAS SOMETIME 25 IN APRIL OF '83. !
| |
| Il-122 i
| |
| .J L
| |
| | |
| I j r . . _
| |
| Q IS THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY THAT'S 2
| |
| REFERENCED IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF EXHIBIT 45?
| |
| 4
| |
| , A PROBABLY.
| |
| 4 Q. THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON THE FIRST PAGE SAYS j THAT "BERNIE SMITH DISCUSSED KUNDER'S ACTIVITIES AT THE I
| |
| 6 ACCIDENT IN MUCH MORE GENERAL TERMS THAN JOE CHWASTYK, WHO l
| |
| IDENTIFIED THE SAFETY INJECTION PUMPS." WAS THAT YOUR 7
| |
| g VIEW OF MR. SMITH'S COMMENTS ABOUT KUNDER'S ACTIVITIES?
| |
| I g A ! SEEM TO RECALL, AT THIS MOMENT, THAT 10 JOE CHWASTYK WAS MORE DEFINITIVE IN HIS CONVERSATIONS THAN BERNIE SMITH WAS, RIGHT. I HAVE PUT THIS --
| |
| I HAVE NO 11 12 INFORMATION AT MY DISPOSAL AT PRESENT TO DISPUTE THAT 13 STATEMENT.
| |
| 14 Q WELL, MR. SMITH, ARE YOU SAYING, NEVER 15 REFERRED TO THE SAFETY INJECTION PUMPS?
| |
| 16 A ! CAN'T REALLY PROVIDE ANY MORE DETAILS, AT 17 THIS MOMENT, THAN WHAT THIS STATEMENT PROVIDES OR THAN 18 WHAT I HAVE PREVIOUSLY TEST!P!ED TO.
| |
| 19 Q WELL, YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER 20 MR. SMITH DID OR DID NOT REFER TO THE SAFETY INJECTION 21 PUMPS?
| |
| l 22 A NOT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I DO NOT.
| |
| 23 Q HOW ABOUT WHEN MR. SMITH USED THE WORDS 24 " MYSTERY MAN" IN REFERENCE TO MR. KUNDER?
| |
| 25 A 1 DON'T THINK ANYONE SPECIFICALLY SAID
| |
| !!-123
| |
| | |
| 3 f g " GEORGE KUNDER ls. A MYSTERY MAN." BUT THE,RE AGAIN,
| |
| .2 MR. HICKEY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ASKING ME TO RECALL EVENTS '
| |
| 3 SOME FOUR YEARS AGO. AND MY MEMORY, AT THIS POINT IN f
| |
| g TIME, 15 PROBABLY NOT AS DEFINITIVE AS IT WAS WHEN ALL g THESE DRAFTS AND AFFIDAV!TS AND EVERYTHING WERE WRITTEN.
| |
| 6 Q WELL, YOU UNDERSTAND THEN, MR. PARKS, WHY l'M 7
| |
| ASKING ABOUT IT. IT'S A FAIRLY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO SOME g PEOPLE. YOU KNOW THAT, DON'T YOU?
| |
| 9 A I HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE THAT SOME PEOPLE 10 CONSIDER IT A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
| |
| '11 Q DON'T YOU?
| |
| 12 A TO A DEGREE, YES. WOT AS MUCH AS ! USED TO 13 THINK IT WAS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.
| |
| 14 Q WHEN DID YOUR VIEW CHANGE?
| |
| 15 A AFTER THE NRC SUPPOSEDLY LOOKED INTO IT AND 16 WERE SATISFIED.
| |
| 17 Q WELL --
| |
| 18 MR. BERRY: SATISFIED THAT WHAT? -
| |
| l 19 THE WITNESS: THEY DIDN'T LOOK ANY FURTHER. 50 i
| |
| 20 APPARENTLY THE NRC LOOKED AT THE WHOLE ISSUE, AND THEY 21 DECIDED THEY WERE HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY FOUND OUT.
| |
| 22 MR. HICKEY: EXCUSE ME, ONE MOMENT.
| |
| l 23 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)
| |
| 24 (WHEREUPON THE NOTARY PUBLIC READ THE ANSWER 25 APPEARING ON PAGE 123, LINE 25 THROUGH PAGE 124, LINE 5, l I
| |
| l
| |
| !!-124
| |
| | |
| i g INCLUS!VE.)
| |
| T2 3 Q BY'MR. HICKEY: LOOK AT PAGE 36 OF YOUR AFFIDAV!T, AND l'M DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE s SENTENCE, THE BOTTOM PARAGRAPH, THAT SAYS, QUOTE, "ON 5 SEVERAL OCCASIONS JOE CHWASTYK AND SHIFT SUPERVISOR, 6 BERNIE SMITH, IDENTIFIED GEORGE KUNDER AS THE MYSTERY 7 MAN." THE ANSWER THE REPORTER JUST READ BACK, ARE YOU 8 CONTRADICTING THAT STATEMENT?
| |
| g A. NO, SIR, l'M NOT CONTRADICTING THAT 10 STATEMENT. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THIS 11 DRAFT EVER CAME INTO BEING HERE SIMPLY BECAUSE, LIKE THE 12 GPU, THE NRC INITIALLY JUMPED ON THAT DEFINITIVE TERM OF 13 JOE --
| |
| I MEAN " GEORGE KUNDER IS THE MYSTERY MAN." AND AS 14 1 STATED NOT MORE THAN A FEW SECONDS AGO AND THE COURT 15 REPORTER RdAD BACK, 1 00 NOT THINK GEORGE KUNDER IS THE 16 MYSTERY MAN. THE DISCUSSION REVOLVED AROUND THE ACTIONS 17 TAKEN BY MR. KUNDER, NOT A LITERAL DESCRIPTION OF HIM 18 BEING THELMYSTERY MAN. I 19 Q WELL, WHAT DID YOU MEAN TO COMMUNICATE IN 20 YOUR AFFIDAV!T WHEN YOU'SAY CHWASTYK AND SMITH IDENTIFIED 21 KUNDER AS THE MYSTERY MAN? WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THE WORD L
| |
| i 22 "!OENTIFIED" IN THAT SENTFNCE?
| |
| 23 A JUST THAT THEIR DISCUSSIONS IDENTIFIED HIM AS 24 BEING THE MYSTERY MAN, THE SAME AS IP ! COULD SAY 25 MR, HICKEY IS A LAWYER OR I COULD SAY MR. MICKEY IS Il-125
| |
| | |
| s P4-
| |
| ) f 1 COUNSEL FOR GPU. BOTH, CASES DESCRIBES YOU AS BE!NG A 2 LAWYER.
| |
| 3 I GUESS WHAT l'M TRYING TO SAY IS THEY DID 4 NOT SAY GEORGE KUNDER IS THE MYSTERY MAN EVERYBODY IS 5 LOOKING.FOR. THE DISCUSSION DEALT WITH THE ACTIONS THAT 6 GEORGE KUNDER HAD TAKEN DURING THE ACCIDENT. THOSE 7 ACTIONS WERE THE SAME ACTIONS BEING CHALLENGED BY THE B&W g LAWYER IN THE BSW --
| |
| IN THE GPU AS THE MAN WHO SHUT DOWN 9 THE SAFETY INJECTION PUMPS AND/OR DID NOT START THEM 10 AND/OR D!D NOT DO WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.
| |
| 11 Q YOUR TESTIMONY, WHEN YOU WROTE YOUR AFFIDAVIT 12 OM PAGE 36 AND-SAID Thn Y CHWASTYK AND BERNIE SMITH 13 IDENTIFIED KUNDER AS THE MYSTERY MAN, YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO 14 INDICATE THAT EITHER OF THOSE PEOPLE HAD USED'THE WORDS 15 " MYSTERY MAN" IN REFEP.CNCE TO KUNDER?
| |
| 16 A ! THINK THE STATEMENT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.
| |
| 17 Q WHICH STATEMENT? MY STATEMENT JUST NOW?
| |
| 18 A THE STATEMENT IN THE AFFIDAVIT.
| |
| J 19 Q WELL, I'M ASKING YOU A SPECIFIC QUESTION 20 ABOUT IT. WHEN YOU WROTE THE STATEMENT THAT WE'VE JUST 21 READ, IS IT YOUR TEST! MONY TODAY THAT YOU INTENDED TO 22 COMMUNICATE THAT --
| |
| THAT YOU -- LET ME REPHRASE THE I l
| |
| 23 QUESTION. j 24 WHEN YOU WROTE THE STATEMENT IN YOUR 25 AFFIDAVIT, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU DID NOT INTEND TO 11-126 ,
| |
| ~
| |
| l . . . _ _.
| |
| | |
| 4q f 1 INDICATE-THAT CHUASTYK AND SMITH CALLED KUNDER THE MYSTERY 2 MAN?
| |
| 3 A MY RECOLLECT!C , AT THIS MOMENT, 15 THAT WHEN 4 I WROTE THE AFFIDAVIT, ! DID NOT INVEND TO IMPLY THAT f 5 GEORGE -- OR SMITH AND CHWASTYK HAD SPECIFICALLY l USED THE TERMINOLOGY THAT HE 6 IDENTIFIED GEORGE KUNDER --
| |
| 7 IS THE MYSTERY MAN.
| |
| 8 Q DID YOU EVER HEAR ANYBODY, BEFORE YOU WROTE 9 YOUR AFFIDAVIT, USE THE WORDS " MYSTERY MAN" AND APPLY THEM 10 'TO GSORGE KUNDER?
| |
| 11 . A I THINK I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, SIR, THAT --
| |
| 12 / !.MEAN WE'VE ALREADY BELABORED THIS POINT. I TESTIFIED 13 PREVIOUSLY I --
| |
| IT WAS NOT A DISCUSSION THAT GEORGE KUNDER 14 IS THE MYSTERY MAN; THAT IT WAS GENERAL CONVERSATIONS
| |
| <15 REGARDING H15 ACTIONS.
| |
| 16 Q ! CAN HAVE THE QUESTION READ BACK OR l'LL 17 REPEAT IT, BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER IT BECAUSE I 18 THINK !T'S IMPORTANT.
| |
| 19 DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY PERSON, SEFORE YOU l
| |
| 20 WROTE YOUR AFFIDAVIT, USE THE WORDS " MYSTERY MAN" IN 21 REFERENCE TO GEORGE KUNDER? )
| |
| a 22 MR. JOHNSON: COULD YOU CLARIFY NOW --
| |
| I'M NOT TOO i
| |
| e 23 SURE, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO BECAUSE YOU'VE ,
| |
| 24 ASKED THE QUESTION AND HE'S ANSWERED IT. f i
| |
| 25 MR. HICKEY: NOT ABOUT ANY PERSON. I ASKED HIM
| |
| !!-127 l
| |
| 1 l
| |
| AN
| |
| | |
| f g ABOUT MR. SMITH AND MR. CHWASTVX.
| |
| 2 MR. JOHNSON: OKAY. WHAT l'M FOCUSING ON --
| |
| l'M y NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU MEAN BY " HEARD" BECAUSE HE ALSO g TEST!FIED ABOUT READING'AN ARTICLE AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH AT THE BSW TRIAL, 50 l'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASK!NG.
| |
| 6 MR. HlCKEY: WELL, I'LL MAKE IT CLEAR.
| |
| 7 Q BY MR. HICKEY: l'M TALKING ABOUT WHETHER
| |
| ! g YOUR EARS EVER HEARD ANY HUMAN BEING, BEFORE YOU WROTE THE f
| |
| 9 AFFIDAVIT, USE'THE WORDS " MYSTERY MAN" ABOUT GEORGE 10 KUNDER?
| |
| 11 A ARE YOU --
| |
| LET ME SEE !F ! UNDERSTAMD YOU 12 CORRECTLY. ARL YOU ASKING ME IF I EVER HEARD SOMEONE SAY 13 " GEORGE KUNDER IS THE MYSTERY MAN" BEFORE ! WENT PUBLIC?
| |
| 14 Q YES.
| |
| 15 A NO, NOT THAT I CAN RECALL AT THIS MOMENT.
| |
| 16 Q DID YOU EVER HEAR ANYONE SUGGEST THAT 17 GEORGE KUNDER WAS THE MYSTERY MAN BEFORE YOU WENT BACK AND l
| |
| (
| |
| 18 USED THE WORDS " MYSTERY MAN" ABOUT HIM?
| |
| 19 A NOT THAT I CAN RECALL AT THIS MOMENT.
| |
| 20 Q NOW YOU MAKE A DISTINCTION IN YOUR AFFIDAVIT,-
| |
| 21 MR. PARKS, ON PAGE 36, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT THERE, 22 AFTER YOU SAY THAT "CHWASTYK AND SMITH IDENTIFIED KUNDER 23 AS THE MYSTERY MAN, ONE OR THE OTHER HAS IDENTIFIED THEM 24 TO KING, JOE SMITH, JOHN PERRY, JOHN AUGER, JOYCE WENGER, 25 AND MYSELF." THEN YOU SAY THAT ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE 11-128 :
| |
| 1 JL l
| |
| | |
| ,q r __.
| |
| 1
| |
| : g. MAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CHWASTYK OR SMITH HAVE IDENTIFIED j l
| |
| 2 KUNDER AS THE MAN WHO SHUT DOWN SAFETY INJECTION PUMPS.
| |
| 3 WEREN'T YOU TRYING, ON PAGE 36 OF YOUR q AFFIDAVIT, TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO 1 5 IDENTIFIED KUNDER AS THE MYSTERY MAN AND PEOPLE WHO j l
| |
| 6 IDENTIFIED KUNDER AS THE MAN WHO SHUT DOWN SAFETY I
| |
| L 7 INJECTION PUMPS? j l
| |
| 8 A N O ., I DON'T THINK I WAS TRYING TO DRAW THAT l
| |
| I
| |
| _g DISTINCTION. ]
| |
| 10 Q YOU MADE A COMMENT A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU
| |
| ]
| |
| 11 THOUGHT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE DRAFT AFFIDAVIT WAS 12 WRITTEN WAS BECAUSE INITIALLY THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION OR I l
| |
| 13 MISPERCEPTION, THAT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT YOU MAY THINK YOU !
| |
| 14 WROTE THIS DRAFT AFFIDAVIT, MR. PARKS; IS THAT YOUR 15 BELIEF 7 16 A NO, ! HAVE NOT SEEN OR LEARNED ANYTHING IN 17 THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT MAKES ME CHANGE MY ORIGINAL 18 OPINION. I BELIEVE I STATED ! DO NOT RECALL, AT THi3
| |
| (
| |
| 19 MOMENT, IF ! WROTE THAT OR NOT. IT MAY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN 20 BY SOMEONE ELSE.
| |
| 1 21 Q WHO?
| |
| 22 A I COULON'T TELL YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
| |
| 23 AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY, I WAS IN THE HABIT OF SIGNING 24 ANYTHING I WROTE.
| |
| I 25 Q HOW ABOUT DRAFTS, DID YOU SIGN DRAFTS? !
| |
| l II-129 l dt-
| |
| | |
| \ f
| |
| ; A PROSABLY. I WOULD SAY I USUALLY DIO.
| |
| 2 Q IF YOU WILL TAKE A LOOK AT EXHIBIT 37 --
| |
| WAIT y A MINUTE, 37, YES, PLEASE. IT'S A 13-PAGE DOCUMENT, g UNSIGNED.
| |
| 5 A RIGHT.
| |
| 6 Q ^ND LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE --
| |
| 7 LET ME GET A PAGE FOR YOU. NINE. THERE'S TWO PARAGRAPHS, g THE TWO MIDDLE PARAGRAPHS, ON THAT PAGE, DISCUSS YOUR g MYSTERY MAN ALLEGATION. COULD YOU READ THOSE, PLEASE.
| |
| 10 A 00 YOU WANT ME TO READ THEM OUT f.OUD CR TO 11 MYSELF?
| |
| 12 Q NO. JUST READ THEM TO YOURSELF.
| |
| 13 (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
| |
| 14 THE WITNESS: OKAY.
| |
| 15 Q BY MR. H!CKEY: DO YOU RECALL MAKING 16 STATEMENTS IN SUBSTANCE LIKE THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS TO 17 MR. MEIKS AND VORSE OF THE NRC?
| |
| 18 A AT TMiS POINT IN TIME, SIR, I COULDN'T TELL 19 YOU IF I DID OR NOT.
| |
| 20 Q IF MR. MEEKS AND MR. VORSE WERE TO SWEAR 2 's UNDER OATH THAT THEY MADE NOTES OF AND RECORDED YOUR 32 STATEMENTS TO THEM AND THAT THIS IS AN ACCURATE RECORDING 23 OF THEIR -- OF YOUR STATEMENTS TO THEM, WOULD YOU 24 DISBELIEVE THEIR TESTIMONY?
| |
| 25 A WELL, YOU'RE ASKING ME TO ISSUE A
| |
| !!-130
| |
| \- .______--__w
| |
| | |
| . .] b g HYPOTHETICALEOPINION ON A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.
| |
| '2 .Q WELL, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY BASIS TO 3 _D I S S E L I E V E. 'I T ?
| |
| A 4 MY ONLY RESPONS'E TO THAT WAS THAT IF --
| |
| YOU
| |
| $ LKNOW, IF THEY WERE TO DO'SUCH AN ACTION, I WOULD ONLY ASK L 6 THEM HOW COME I WAS'NOT ALLOWED TO SIGN IT AND AGREE THAT1 7 .THAT WAS AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF WHAT WE: DISCUSSED.
| |
| g Q' AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY 'RECOLL ECTION 'OF BEING e
| |
| l( g GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN OR REVIEW OR MAKE CHANGES TO
| |
| [. .
| |
| : 10. THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH IS EXHIBIT 40 --
| |
| EXHIBIT 37?
| |
| 11 A ALL I CAN SAY, SIR, IS BASED ON MY OPINION 12 FROM LOOKING1AT THIS DOCUMENT IN MY HAND, IN MY HAND RIGHT 13 NOW, WHICH IS NOT SIGNED, WHICH IS EXHIBIT 37, AND IT'S 14 NOT SIGNED BY ME. 50 I DON'T KNOW IF ! ANSWERED YOUR
| |
| , 15 QUESTION OR NOT BECAUSE --
| |
| ! GUESS WHAT l'M TRYING TO SAY L.
| |
| 16 IS l' 00 ? HAVE ANYTHING PRESENT IN MIND, AT THE MOMENT, 17 THAT I wAN RECALL TO DISPUTE OR TO AGREE WITH THAT.
| |
| 18 MR. HICKEY: WHY DON'T WE BREAK FOR LUNCH.
| |
| 19 (LUNCH BREAK.)
| |
| 20 (MR. BERRY IS NOT PRESENT IN THE DEPOSITION
| |
| 'I {
| |
| l 21 PROCEEDINGS.).
| |
| 22 MR. JOHNSON:
| |
| YESTERDAY YOU ASKED MR. PARKS ABOUT 23 WHETHER HE HAD REVIEWED ANY DOCUMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR
| |
| .j 2 4 THE DEPOSITION, AND MR. PARKS GAVE HIS ANSWER, 25' JUST FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, ! WANTED l
| |
| $ !!-131 i
| |
| i b
| |
| | |
| 'q r g TO INDICATE THAT NOT DIRECTLY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS 2
| |
| DEPOSITION AND, I THINK, BEFORE THE NOTICE WAS TRANSMITTED 3
| |
| TO H I M, I TRANSMITTED TO MR. PARKS COP!ES OF THE g DEPOSITIONS THAT WERE TAKEN IN THIS CASE SO THAT HE HAD j I
| |
| j 5 THEM AT HIS DISPOSAL, THOSE DEPOSITIONS.
| |
| 6 MR. HICKEY: THE DEPOSITIONS OF ALL THE WITNESSES l
| |
| 7 THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP TO THIS TIME? j l
| |
| 8 MR. JOHNSON: ! BELIEVE IN OUR PROCEEDING.
| |
| l g MR. HICKEY: AT HIS REQUEST?
| |
| 10 MR. JOHNSON: ! DON'T THINK THAT'S RELEVANT, BUT I 11 DIO. f I
| |
| 12 MR. HICKEY: I'LL ASK HIM.
| |
| 13 MR. JOHNSON: SURE.
| |
| 14 Q BY MR. HICKEY: MR. PARKS, YOU HAVE HEARD 15 MR. JOHNSON'S STATEMENT. DID YOU ASK HIM TO SEND ALL OF 16 THOSE DEPOSITIONS TO YOU?
| |
| 17 A I CAN RECALL TALKING WITH MR. JOHNSON ON A 18 COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, BUT NOW WHETHER THE REQUEST 19 C AME FROM ME OR WHETHER IT WAS VOLUNTEERED BY HIM, I 20 REALLY COULDN'T TELL YOU.
| |
| 21 Q DID YOU READ THE DEPOSITIONS?
| |
| 22 A I READ SOME OF THEM.
| |
| l 23 Q WHOSE 010 YOU READ?
| |
| 24 A I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHICH ONES I READ.
| |
| 25 THE ONES THAT SEEMED TO HAVE MOST INTEREST TO ME. )
| |
| )
| |
| l II-132 j JL
| |
| | |
| 'N P' 4 l g Q DID VOU READ MR. GISCHEL'S?
| |
| l 2
| |
| A I 'HINK ED'S WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONES I '
| |
| 3 READ. )
| |
| g Q HOW ABOUT MR. KITLER'S?
| |
| A I THINK I MAY HAVE.
| |
| 6 Q HOW ABOUT MR. BUCHANAN AND MR. AUST!N, EITHER l
| |
| ONE?
| |
| 7 g A ! DON'T REALLY RECALL IF I READ THEIRS OR g NOT.
| |
| 10 Q HOW ABOUT TOM MORRIS' DEPOSITION, DID YOU 11 READ THAT?
| |
| 12 A YES, I DID.
| |
| 13 Q HOW ABOUT RON t' A R R E N ' S ?
| |
| 14 A PROBABLY. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, TO -- IN LIEU 15 OF THE TIME, RATHER THAN HAVE YOU SIT THERE AND ASK ME 16 EACH IND!VIDUAL PERSON'S THAT I READ, I DO NOT THINK I 17 READ ANY OF THEM IN THEIR ENTIRETY, BUT ONLY READ SELECTED 18 SECTIONS.
| |
| 19 Q WELL, I'M STILL INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT 20 YOU DID REVIEW. LET ME ASK YOU A FEW MORE.
| |
| 21 DID Y Ol' READ ALL OR PORTIONS OF THE 22 DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF MR. KANGA?
| |
| '23 A I PROBABLY READ PORTIONS OF IT.
| |
| 24 Q HOW ABOUT MR. SANFORD?
| |
| 25 A I THINK I PROBABLY READ HIS IN ITS :TIRETY.
| |
| Il-133 AL i
| |
| | |
| 11 F 1
| |
| THAT MOULD BE A GUESS. SEE, WHEN I RECEIVED THESE 2 DOCUMENTS I WAS.STILL IN THE MIDST OF TRYING TO REVIEW 3
| |
| OTHER DOCUMENTS. AND IT GETS KIND OF CONFUSING AT WHAT 4 POINT I REVIEWED WHOSE FOR WHAT REASON. THAT'S WHY l'M A 5
| |
| LITTLE BIT RELUCTANT TO SAY WITH CERTAINTY, AT THIS P O ! !J T 6' IN TIME, WHICH ONES I READ AND TO WHAT DEGREE.
| |
| 7 Q HOW ABOUT MR. GALLAGHER'S, DO YOU REMEMBER 8 READING HIS?
| |
| 9 A NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I DON'T.
| |
| 10 Q TAKE A MOMENT AND REFLECT ON IT, WOULD YOU 11 PLEA 3E. COULD YOU TELL ME WHETHER YOU THINK YOU DID?
| |
| 12 A I DON'T RECALL WHETHER I DID OR NOT.
| |
| 13 Q ANYONE ELSE'S THAT YOU CAN RECALL?
| |
| 14 A BUBBA'S.
| |
| 15 Q BUBBA MARSHALL. DID YOU READ ALL OF THAT?
| |
| 16 A I REALLY COULDN'T TELL YOU IF ! READ IT ALL 17 OR NOT.
| |
| 18 Q HOW ABOUT MR. THEISJNG'S?
| |
| L 19 A i 3EEM TO RECALL I READ AT LEAST PORTIONS OF 20 HIS.
| |
| 21 Q LET ME SEE IF ! CAN CLEAR UP ONE OTHER THING.
| |
| l 22 YOU EXPRESSED THIS MORNING, REFERRING TO 23 EXHIBIT 43, THE DOCUMENT CALLED "TMI, THE BECHTEL 24 CONNECTION," THAT YOU HAD A RECOLLECTION THAT YOU BELIEVED 23 YOU HAD BEEN SHOWN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF II-134 i
| |
| Ak
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ J
| |
| | |
| r.
| |
| N ('
| |
| ;. MR. RICHARDSON'S DEPOSITION OF YOU IN THE CIVIL LITIGATION 2
| |
| THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY HAD WITH BECHTEL.
| |
| 3 DURING THE LUNCHEON RECESS WE CAUSED A REVIEW q TO BE MADE OF THE TRANSCRIPT SO THAT WE COULD DETERMINE IF 5
| |
| THAT APPEARED TO BE THE CASE AND HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT 6 THAT DOCUMENT IS NOT MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT TO YOUR 7 DEPOSITION IN THE BECHTEL CASE. AND THERE'S NO INDICATION 8 ON THE RECORD THAT IT WAS SHOWN TO YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY g OTHER RECOLLECTION NOW OF WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN THIS 10 DOCUMENT, EXHIBIT 43, IF YOU O!D NOT SEE IT AT THE BECHTEL 11 DEPOSITION OF YOU?
| |
| 12 A NO I DO NOT, 13 MR. HICKEY: WOULD YOU MARK THAT, PLEASE.
| |
| '14 (WHEREUPON RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 46 WAS MARKED 15 FOR IDENTIFICATION E '' THE NOTARY PUBLIC, AND A COPY IS 16 ATTACHED HERETO.)
| |
| 17 Q BY MR. HICKEY: SO WE CAN TRY AND MAKE THE 18 RECORD AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE, MR. PARKS, l'M SHOWING YOU 19 WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT 46. IT'S A ONE-PAGE SHEET 20 WITH SOME HANDWRITING ON IT. IGNORE THE " EXHIBIT B" WHICH l 21 IS UP AT THE TOP IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER. THAT WAS i
| |
| 22 TYPED ON LATER. BUT I WILL REPRESENT TO YOU THAT THIS 23 SHEET WAS NEXT TO EXHIBIT 43, THE BECHTEL CONNECTION j 24 DOCUMENT, IN THE PILE OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM 25 THE NRC. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE HANDWRITING ON EXHIBIT 46?
| |
| l I
| |
| !!-135 1 i
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| A
| |
| | |
| $ f
| |
| ; A I THINk I DO.
| |
| 2 O WHOSE IS IT?
| |
| A ! BELIEVE IT TO BE TOM DEVINE'S, BUT I 3
| |
| q WOULDN'T SWEAR ON A STACK OF BIBLES.THAT IT WAS.
| |
| 5 I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO AT THIS TIME PAUSE WHILE 6 I REVIEW TWO OF MY PREVIOUS DEPOSITIONS FROM MY CIVIL CASE 7 BECAUSE I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT.I WAS NOT 8 SHOWN ANY DOCUMENT ALONG THE LINE -- OR WITH THIS TYPE OF g A HEADING IN MY CIVIL CASE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT 10 TIME TO REVIEW THOSE.
| |
| 11 Q ! THINK YOU MISUNDERS'TOOD ME. I'M NOT 12 REFERRING TO EXHIBIT 46 WHEN ! MADE THAT STATEMENT.
| |
| 13 A I REALIZE THAT. YOU WERE REFERRING TO .
| |
| 14 EXHIBIT 43. AND I SEEM TO RECALL SOMETHING ALONG THIS 15 LINE, SOMETHING ABOUT AN ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER AND SOME 16 SORT OF INFERENCE OR REFERENCE TO THI, THE BECHTEL 17 CONNECTION IN MY CIVIL CASE.
| |
| 18 Q LET ME MAKE A SUGGESTION, THAT WAS MY 19 REPRESENTATION, AND I DIDN'T 00 THE REVIEW MYSELF. 50 I'M 20 NOT CLAIMING THAT I HAVE CHECXED ALL THE' EXHIBITS.
| |
| 21 BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'M GOING TO GO 22 AHEAD AND ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO 23 REVIEW THAT DOCUMENT, THOSE COP!ES OF THE DEPOSITIONS THAT j 24 YOU HAVE, LET ME ASK YOU TO DO T Fl A T OVER THE COURSE OF THE i
| |
| 25 EVENING OR OVER 'HE COURSE OF THE MORNING HOLAS TOMORROW ]
| |
| { ,
| |
| !!-136 As
| |
| _-_-__-a
| |
| | |
| 1h 7 BEFORE~WEfCONVENE'BECAUSE"Il DON'T REALLY'NEED -- 'YOUR 2 POSITION.IS THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU WERE SHOWN THAT, AND
| |
| _3' THAT'S FINE. .YOUR STATEMENT IS ON-THE RECORD. AND THE' 4 fDEPOSITION' EXISTS. AND AT SOME POINT,'ANYSODY WHO WANTS 5 TO CAN CHECK IT, BUT.I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE 6 ~ DEPOSITION.
| |
| 7 A BEFORE WE DRIFT TOO MUCH FURTHER OFF, OVER 3 THE COURSE OF-LUNCH I HAD TIME TO REFLECT AND I'D LIKElTO.
| |
| 9 -TAKE THIS. OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO CORRECT THE RECORD
| |
| '10 SOMEWHAT BECAUSE WE SPENT AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME ON t-11 BOTH EXHIBIT 37 AND, I B E L I E V'E , EXHIBIT 45, BOTH OF-WHICH
| |
| : 12. ARE DOCUMENTS ~OF ONE TYPE OR.ANOTHER, STATEMENTS THAT WERE
| |
| [13 - UNSIGNED BY.ME. BUT WHAT.I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT I 14 THINK I MAY HAVE LEFT YOU WITH THE. WRONG IMPRESSION.
| |
| '15 I ' DON'T DISAGREE NECESSARILY WITH ANYTHING
| |
| '16 THAT'S CONTAINED IN THOSE DOCUMENTS, BASED ON MY LIMITED 17 REVIEW OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT ANY 18 AND ALL REFERENCES REGARDING ANY STATEMENTS THAT ARE 19 9 CONTAINED WITHIN THOSE TpAT TWO DOCUMENTS WERE LATER 20 EXECUTED BY ME AS PART OF A SWORN STATEMENT TO THE NRC.
| |
| 21 AND NOW THE ONE IN PARTICULAR YOU HAD A 22' QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT ! HAD PREPARED IT AND 23 SENT'IT TO RON.MEEKS, I DO NOT RECALL PREPARING AND L 24 SENDING THAT DOCUMENT TO RON MEEKS, BUT MY LAWYERS MAY 25 HAVE. l
| |
| !!-137 l
| |
| ^
| |
| | |
| .3 f 3 Q WELL, YOUR LAWYERS WOULDN'T HAVE PREPARED !T 2 WITHOUT YOUR PARTICIPATION, WOULO THEY?
| |
| A y WE MAY HAVE REVIEWED IT OVER THE PHONE.
| |
| q Q LET ME UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT YOU JUST g SAID. YOUR. TESTIMONY IS THAT THE INFORMATION THAT !$
| |
| 6 CONTAINEO IN EXHIBIT 37 AND IN EXHIBIT 45 --
| |
| LET'S ~ AXE 7 THEM ONE AT TIME.
| |
| 8 YOU DION'T SEE ANYTHING IN EXHIBIT 37 THAT g LOOKED TO Y0U LIKE IT WAS [N ERROR; IS THAT YOUR 10 TESTIMONY?
| |
| 11 A I GUESS WHAT l'M TRYING TO SAY IS AT ONE 12 POINT IN TIME I ENDEO UP EXECUTING A DOCUMENT OR A 13 STATEMENT THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE SAME TYPE OF LINES OR 14 INFORMATION PROVIDED BY EXHIBIT 37. IN FACT, ! ACTUALLY
| |
| , 15 ENDED UP OOING IT IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ONES.
| |
| 16 Q LET ME JUST STOP YOU SO WE CAN GET IT CLEAR. l 17 THAT'S WHY ! SHOWED YOU AND THAT'S WHY I RE-MARKED THE l 18 l THREE SWORN STATEMENTS THAT ARE THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.
| |
| 19 AND CHECK BACK ON IT FOR JUST A MINUTE, BUT THAT'S EXHIBIT 20 38, WHICH IS A SIX-PAGE STATEMENT YOU SWORE TO ON 6/6.
| |
| ~21 MR. -JOHNSON IS GOING TO GRACIOUSLY PUT IT IN FRONT OF YOU.
| |
| 22 MR. JOHNSON: GIVE ME A SECONO. THESE THINGS ARE 23 OUT OF ORDER. HERE'S 40, 38 AND 37. ARE THOSE THE THREE?
| |
| 24 MR. HICKEY: YES.
| |
| 25 BY MR. HICKEY:
| |
| Q 38 IS THE SIX-PAGE OF JUNE 6, Il-138 L
| |
| | |
| g AND 39 AND 40 ARE TWO STATEMENTS DATED JULY 25, '83?
| |
| 2 A RIGHT.
| |
| 3 Q NOW IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT IN ADDITION TO 4 THOSE THERE'S ANOTHER SWORN STATEMENT THAT YOU SIGNED?
| |
| 5 (MR. BERRY HAS RETURNED TO THE DEPOSITION
| |
| . 5 PROCEEDINGS.)
| |
| 7 THE WITNESS: I SEEM TO RECALL THAT THERE WAS g ANOTHER SWORN STATEMENT THAT I SIGNED, BUT I AM NOT 9 ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN ON IT. WHAT I AM STATING OR TRYING TO 10 GET MY MESSAGE ACROSS IS THAT THIS DRAFT -- AND THAT'S l
| |
| I 11 EXACTLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE --
| |
| 4 12 Q BY MR. HICKEY: 37?
| |
| 13 A --
| |
| WHICH IS EXHIBIT 37.
| |
| 14 1, AT SOME TIME, EXECUTED DOCUMENTS OR k
| |
| '15 STATEMENTS THAT CONTAINED BASICALLY THE SAME INFORMATION 16 AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 37.
| |
| 17 Q AND --
| |
| 18 A MY PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH WAS WHETHER OR NOT I
| |
| 19 YOU ASKED ME WHETHER OR NOT I HAD SEEN IT OR WHETHER OR l i
| |
| 1 20 NOT I HAD HELPED PREPARE IT, THAT TYPE OF THING. IT DID i
| |
| 21 NOT HAVE MY SIGNATURE. THAT WAS MY PROBLEM WITH IT. THE l i
| |
| 22 INFORMATION I DON'T DISAGREE WITH BECAUSE THE SAME (
| |
| 23 INFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THE LATER EXHIBITS THAT I DID 24 SIGN.
| |
| 25 AND REGARDING THE ONE ON THE MYSTERY MAN, II-139 l
| |
| 2w
| |
| | |
| .1 ('
| |
| .g WHICH IS EXHIBIT 45, IT BASICALLY FITS THE SAME CATEGORY.
| |
| 2 Q THAT IS --
| |
| A 3 I DON'T HAVE ANY-PROBLEM WITH THE INFORMATION g CONTAINED IN IT. AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN TRANSMITTED TO 5 RON MEEKS BY MY LAWYERS.
| |
| 6 Q WHY.DO YOU THINK THAT?
| |
| 7 A WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME, IF MEMORY SERVES ME 3 CORRECTLY, THAT AFTER I SETTLED MY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR g DISPUTE WITH BECHTEL ON JULY 25TH, 1983, THAT ONE OF THE 10 ISSUES THAT WAS STILL PENDING, IF YOU WILL, WAS THE 11 MYSTERY MAN ISSUE. AND I KNOW THAT LATER ON IN THE YEAR, 12 .IN 1983, THE NRC REQUESTED I COME BACK AND TALK WITH NRR 13 REGARDING THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THAT MYSTERY MAN 14 STATEMENT REGARDING THE ACTUATION OF THE HIGH PRESSURE 15 INJEC' ION BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK LEVELS.
| |
| 16 SO AT SOME POINT IN TIME, MY LAWYERS MAY VERY
| |
| '17 WELL.HAVE PREPARED THAT STATEMENT AND DISCUSSED IT WITH ME 18 OVER THE PHONE AND TRANSMITTED iT TO THE NRC WITHOUT ME 19 HAVING REVIEWED THE FINAL PRODUCT OR ME SIGNING THE FINAL 20 PRODUCT.
| |
| 21 Q WERE YOU EVER ASKED BY THE NRC TO SIGN A 22 STATEMENT ABOUT THE MYSTERY MAN, LIKE EXHIBIT 45?
| |
| 23 A AT THE MOMENT I DO NOT RECALL BEING ASKED BY 24 THE NRC TO SIGN SUCH A STATEMENT, NO.
| |
| 25 Q WHAT DID YOU EVER LEARN ABOUT THE RESULTS OF
| |
| !!-140 A
| |
| | |
| 3 b-1 THE NRC INVESTIGATION INTO THE MYSTERY MAN ALLEGATIONS?
| |
| A 2
| |
| WELL, I DON'T THINK I EVER READ A PUBLISHED 3 RESULT.
| |
| 4- Q WELL, WHETHER YOU READ IT OR NOT, WERE YOU 5 TOLO?
| |
| 6 A NOT THAT I CAN RECALL AT THE MOMENT. I 7
| |
| BELIEVE AT ONE POINT IN TIME I WAS TOLD THAT THEY HAD 8
| |
| LOOKED INTO THE SITUATION OF THE MYSTERY MAN,.THAT TYPE OF 9 THING, WERE SAT [SFIED WITH THEIR RESULTS. SUT l'M NOT SO 10 SURE I KNOW WHAT THOSE RESULTS WERE.
| |
| 11 Q DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE NRC CONCLUDED THAT 12 HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION ACTUATION HAD OCCURRED OR NOT?
| |
| 13 A NO, 1 DO NOT AT THE MOMENT.
| |
| 14 Q HOW ABOUT YOU? DID YOU EVER REACH A 15 CONCLUSION ABOUT THAT, MR. PARKS?
| |
| j 16 A I --
| |
| AT ONE POINT IN TIME, I REACHED A 17 CONCLUSION THAT I DISAGREED WITH THE EDS REPORT WHICH 18 STATED THAT HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION ACTUATION DID NOT q
| |
| 19 REALLY OCCUR AT THE TIME PERIOD IN QUESTION.
| |
| 20 Q
| |
| THAT VIEW OF YOURS IS EXPRESSED ON PAGES 5 21 THROUGH 8 OF EX,HIBIT 45, ISN'T IT?
| |
| 22 A I BELIEVE 50. I SEEM TO RECALL REVIEWING 23 THAT PREVIOUSLY, DISCUSSING IT IN DETAIL.
| |
| 24 Q
| |
| AND WAS THAT THE LAST VIEW THAT YOU HAD ON 25 THE MATTER OR DID YOU LATER FORM A DIFFERENT OPINION?
| |
| !!-141 Mk
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ -__ -_---------E
| |
| | |
| l 'T 3
| |
| A WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME, IF ! RECALL C O R R E C Tt. Y ,
| |
| 2 AT SOME POINT IN TIME EXTERNAL TO ALL THESE PROCEEDINGS 3
| |
| THAT GPU RETAINED BSW TO 00 AN ANALYSIS TO --
| |
| REGARDING 4 HIGH PRESSURE ACTUATION ON THE MORNING OF THE DAY OF THE 5
| |
| ACCIDENT, ! THINK, SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE I READ THEIR
| |
| . 6 RESULTS, TOO.
| |
| 7 Q WERE YOU PERSUADED BY THEM?
| |
| 8 A NO.
| |
| g Q 00 YOU REME!4BER WHAT THE RESULTS WERE?
| |
| 10 A NO. I JUST REMEMBERED THEY DIDN'T CHANGE MY ,
| |
| 11 OPIN!ON.
| |
| 12 Q THE LAST OPINION THAT YOU HELD WAS THE ONE 13 EXPRESSED ON THE LAST FOUR PAGES OF EXHIBIT 45, IN 14 SUBSTANCE THAT -- WELL, LET'S NOT CHARACTERIZE.
| |
| 15 WHAT WAS YOUR LAST VIEW OF THE MATTER?
| |
| 16 A MY LAST VIEW OF THE MATTER IS BASED ON THE 17 INFORMATION 1 HAVE HAD AVAILABLE TO ME OVER THE YEARS THAT 18 IF THE SAFETY INJECTION PUMP WAS NOT SHUT DOWN BY OVERT 19 ACTION, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STARTED BY OVERT ACTION BASED 20 ON THE INDICATIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CONTROL ROOM OPERATORS 21 DUR[NG THE ACCIDENT WHEN -- OR ABOUT THE TIME THE REACTOR 22 ' COOLANT PUMPS WERE SECURED.
| |
| 23 Q DID YOU CONCLUDE WHETHER THE HBI PUMPS HAD 24 BEEN SHUT DOWN?
| |
| l 25 A I DON'T THINK THAT WITHOUT -- I'LL GO ON.
| |
| 11-142 i JL
| |
| | |
| g Q ! DON'T THINK THAT QUESTION IS CLEAR. LET ME 2 REPHRASE IT FOR YOU.
| |
| 3 DIO YOU CONCLUDE THAT THE HIGH PRESSURE q _ INJECTION PUMPS WERE ON AND THEN WERE SHUT OFF AT OR ABOUT
| |
| $ 5:41?
| |
| '6 A AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ! DON'T REMEMBER 7 WHETHER THE PUMPS WERE ON AND SHUT OFF AND WHETHER THE 8 S E C OF40 ONE WAS ON. AND I DON'T RECALL THE ACTUAL g SEMANTICS OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.
| |
| 10 Q AND HOW ABOUT MR. KUNDER? D!D YOU REACH A 11 CONCLUSION ABOUT MR. KUNDER'S INVOLVEMENT WITH REGARD TO 12 THE PRESSURE?
| |
| 13 A WOULD YOU GIVE IT A TIME FRAME?
| |
| 14 Q ANY TIME.
| |
| 15 A I BELIEVE I STATED THAT OPINION REGARDING 16 MR. KUNDER'S ROLE DURING THE ACCIDENT DURING MY CIVIL 17 PROCEEDINGS, BUT I DON'T MIND REHASHING.
| |
| 18 GEORGE KUNDER WAS THE,0N-CALL DUTY 19 SUPERINTENDENT, I BELIEVE WOULD BE AN ACCURATE TITLE FOR 20 H!S ROLE DURING THE ACCIDENT. AS SUCH, HE WAS THE FIRST 21 PERSON CALLED IN AFTER THE INITIATION OF THE SEQUENCE OF
| |
| ! 22 EVENTS THAT LED UP TO CORE DAMAGE.
| |
| 23 GEORGE, IN HIS ROLE, WOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST 24 IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY TO THE OPERATORS AND ONE OF THE i l 25 SENIOR SRO'S IN THE CONTROL ROOM. I AM OF THE BELIEF THAT 11-143 I
| |
| s s-
| |
| | |
| 1 I g HE WAS THE ONE THAT ORDERED THE SHUTDOWN OF REACTOR i
| |
| 2 COOLANT PUMPS. l'M ALSO OF THE BELIEF THAT HE WAS THE ONE 3 THAT GAVE THE ORDERS REGARDING THE HEAT PRESSURE INJECTION a PUMPS.
| |
| 5 IN HIS CAPACITY IN THE ROLE THAT HE WAS 6 FULFILLING, IF HE DID NOT ORDER THE SHUTDOWN OF THE SECOND 7 SAFETY INJECTION PUMP OR IF HE O!D NOT --
| |
| OR ORDERED THE 8 FORBID'ING OF THE SECOND SAFETY INJECTION PUMP, THEN HE l 9 SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THE ROLE --
| |
| OR DID THE EVOLUTION OR 10 GIVE THE ORDERS THAT WERE GIVEN BECAUSE PLANT COND1710NS 11 REQUIRED THAT PUMP TO BE RUNNING.
| |
| 12 Q GIVE WHAT ORDERS THAT WEnE GIVEN?
| |
| 13 A WELL, SEE, I GUESS THAT'S THE PART I'M STILL 14 UNSURE OF. I DON'T REMEMBER ANYMORE !F THE TWO PUMPS WERE 15 RUNNING AND ONE WAS SHUT DOWN OR THE FIRST PUMP WAS 16 RUNNING AND THE SECOND PUMP IN ACTUATION AND IT WAS 17 BLOCKED BY MANUAL OPERATION OF THE OPERATORS.
| |
| l 18 Q ALL RIGHT. BUT -- '
| |
| i 19 A UNDER ORDERS. I l
| |
| 20 Q BUT YOUR OPINION IS THAT MR. KUNDER DIRECTED 21 THE SHUTDOWN OF AN OPERATING HIGH-PRESSURE INJECTION PUMP?
| |
| 22 A OR FORBADE.
| |
| 23 Q PRECLUDED --
| |
| 24 A RIGHT.
| |
| j j 25 Q --
| |
| THE STARTUP OF AN ALREADY SHUTDOWN l
| |
| !!-144 i l
| |
| l l AL
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| -) f.
| |
| HIGH-PRESSURE INJECTION PUMP?
| |
| g 2
| |
| A THE SECCND' SAFETY INJECTION PUMP, RIGHT. I'M ]
| |
| 3 OF THE OPINION THAT IF HE DID NOT OVERTLY ORDER OR CAUSE
| |
| )
| |
| 4 TO BE ORDERED, THEN HE SHOULD HAVE PERFORMED THE ACTION 5 THAT WOULD HAVE MITIGATED CORE DAMAGE.
| |
| 1 6 DID ! MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?
| |
| I 7 Q AND YOUR BASIS FOR THAT, BESIDES THE REVIEW i
| |
| 8 OF THE EDS ANALYSIS AND THE B&W ANALYSIS, 15 WHAT?
| |
| g A AFTER I WAS ESCORTED OFF THE JOB SITE, i 10 REVIEWED A LOT OF THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE NRC t
| |
| 11 INVESTIGATION INTO THE ACCIDENT AND UNDERSTANDING THE WAY 12 THE POWER PLANT WORKS AND THE HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY WITH 13 HIM BEING THE ON-CALL DUTY SUPERINTENDENT, IT WAS HIS 14 RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSURE THAT THOSE FUNCTIONS WERE 15 PERFORMED PROPERLY.
| |
| 16 Q HIS FUNCTION MORE THAN THE SHIFT SUPERVISOR 17 YOU MEAN?
| |
| 18 A WELL, IF HE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS ORDERING THE 19 SHUTDOWN OF THE REACTOR CCOLANT PUMPS, CHANCES ARE HE WAS l 20 THE ONE THAT GAVE THE ORDER REGARDING THE SAFETY INJECTION 21 PUMPS.
| |
| 22 Q WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTAN, DING THAT MR. KUNDER HAD 23 ORDERED THE SHUTDOWN OF THE REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS AS 24 DISTINGUISHED FROM SUGGESTING OP RECOMMENDING?
| |
| 25 A THAT IS MY IMPRESSION, YES, THAT 1 CAN RECALL l
| |
| !!-145 l
| |
| _ad t - 4
| |
| _____.___________J
| |
| | |
| I I-g AT THIS1 MOMENT.
| |
| 2 Q 00 YOU REMEMBER WHAT THAT IMPRESSION WAS 3 BASED ON?
| |
| q A JUST 8ASICALLY EVERYTHING 1 HAVE ALREADY TOLO 5 YOU.
| |
| 6 Q DID YOU EVER READ MR. KUNDER'S VERSION OF HIS 7 ACTIV! TIES'DURING THE ACCIDENT?
| |
| 8 A 'l MAY HAVE AT ONE PO!NT IN TIME.
| |
| g Q 00 YOU REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID?
| |
| 10 A NO, I DO NOT. THE OVERALL CONCLUSION THAT ! 3 l
| |
| 11' WAS LEFT WITH WAS, IN MY OPINION, SUFFICIENT INFORMATION 12 TO SUGGEST THAT THE NRC PERFORM A MORE IN-DEPTH REVIEW OF 13 THE WHOLE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS DURING THE ACCIDENT.
| |
| 14 Q AND ! GATHER IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU 15 NEVER WERE MADE AWARE !F IT IS THE FACT THAT THE NRC )
| |
| 16 O!DN'T FEEL THAT WAY?
| |
| 17 A I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME WAS OF 18 THE NRC OF THOSE REVIEWS OF THE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
| |
| 19 Q WELL, JUST SO I'M CLEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE 20 ADOPT!NG OR NOT DISAGREEING WITH, EXHIBIT 45, THE DRAFT 21 MYSTERY MAN AFFIDAVIT, YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY 15, TO THE l 22 BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ON PAGE 2 OF THAT DOCUMENT, THAT 23 GEORGE THAT JOE CHWASTYK IN MARCH SAID THAT KUNDER SHUT
| |
| ~
| |
| 24 OFF THE SAFETY INJECTION PUMPS; IS THAT RIGHT?
| |
| 25 A I HAVE NOTH!NG AVAILABLE AT MY DISPOSAL
| |
| !!-146 ed b
| |
| | |
| .g PRESENTLY TO DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT o NO.
| |
| 2 Q 00 YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN'YOUR RECOLLECTION y THAT TELLS YOU THAT YOU REMEMBER THAT HAPPENING?
| |
| g A I HAVE NOTHING IN MY RECOLLECTION AT THE l
| |
| I g PRESENT MOMENT THAT WILL ELABORATE ON THAT STATEMENT 6 EITHER. SO ! GUESS, TO ADOPT YOUR WORDS, YES, l'M ,
| |
| l 7, ADOPTING THAT STATEMENT.
| |
| 8 Q WELL, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT THE BASIS 9 IS FOR YOUR ADOPTING IT. DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION, AS j 10 YOU SIT HERE TODAY, OF HEARING MR. CHWASTYK SAY THAT 11 "KUNDEF. SHUT OFF THE SAFETY INJECTION PUMPS"?
| |
| It A I HAVE A RECOLLECTION TODAY THAT I WAS 13 REQUE5**ED TO EXPAND THAT STATEMENT IN MY ORIGINAL 14 AFFIDAVIT REGARDING GEORGE KUNDER, AND I AM OF THE BELIEF 15 THAT TFIS WAS THE EXPANDED STATEMENT. AND THAT'S ABOUT 16 THE MOST AMPLIFICATION I CAN GIVE YOU AT THE PRESENT TIME.
| |
| 17 Q WELL, THAT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE QUESTION. DO 10 YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, MR. PARKS, i 19 OF HEARING MR. CHWASTYK IN MARCH SAY THAT "KUNDER SHUT OFF 20 THE SAFETY INJECTION PUMP"?
| |
| 21 A NOT AT THE PRESENT MOMENT I DO NOT HAVE, BUT 22 I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING PRESENT IN MY MIND TO DISPUTE THAT 23 STATEMENT EITHER.
| |
| 24 Q WERE YOU TRYING ALSO IN EXHIBIT 45 --
| |
| I'M 25 REFERRING TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ON
| |
| !!-147 1
| |
| i l
| |
| 1 JL ]
| |
| | |
| '9q g PAGE 2 -- TO CLARIFY SOME QUESTION THAT HAD ARISEN ABOUT 2
| |
| YOUR MOTIVE REGARDING MR. KUNDER AND YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS y HIM?
| |
| g A WELL, IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, DURING' g THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON THIS MATTER, THAT SEEMED TO 6 BE --
| |
| THAT'S WHAT I INTERPRET AS AN OVERT ATTEMPT ON B.F.
| |
| 7 TO PAINT ME AS A MAN WITH A GRUDGE AGAINST GEORGE KUNDER, 8 BUT, IN FACT, I THOUGHT HE WASN'T DOING HIS JOB PROPERLY.
| |
| g IF ANYTHING, I TESTIFIED TO THAT REGARDING HIS ROLE IN THE 10 ACCIDENT.
| |
| 11 Q WELL, 1 DON'T WANT TO REHASH MATERIAL THAT 12 YOU HAVE ALREADY COVERED BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE ANXIOUS NOT 13 TO SPEND YOUR TIME THAT WAY.
| |
| 14 YOU DID TELL MR. RICHARDSON, OF COURSE, THAT 15 YOU HAD THREATENED TO RIP OFF MR. KUNDER'S FACE AROUND 16 CHRISTMAST!ME IN 1982?
| |
| 17 A YES, 1 00 RECALL TELLING HIM SOMETHING TO 18 THAT EFFECT. ! ALSO RECALL TELLING HIM THAT ! IMMEDIATELY 19 APOLOGIZED. AND THE APOLOGY WAS ACCEPTED.
| |
| 20 Q MR. RICHARDSON DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS WITH YOU, 21 BUT DO YOU REMEMBER EXPRESSING TO JOE CHWASTYK IN LATE '82 22 AND EARLY '83 PHYSICAL THREATS AGAINST GEORGE KUNDER ON 23 OTHER OCCASIONS?
| |
| L 24 A NO, I DO NOT.
| |
| 25 Q AND YOUR THREATS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO GO 11-148 UL
| |
| | |
| R 3 f g TO THE PRESS ABOUT GEORGE KUNDER, VOUR TEST! MONY iS THAT 2 THOSE WERE NOT MOTIVATED TO ANY DEGREE BY DISLIKE OF 3
| |
| MR. KUNDER; IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?
| |
| 4 A THAT'S CORRECT.
| |
| 5 MR. JOHNSON: THAT QUESTION PRESUMES EVIDENCE IN 6 THE RECORD THAT HE HAD MADE THREATS TO GO TO THE 7 NEWSPAPER.
| |
| 8 MR. HICKEY: ON MORE THAN ONE-OCCASION.
| |
| 9 MR. JOHNSON: CAN YOU ASK HIM THAT QUESTION? l 10 MR. HICKEY: ! THINK WE COVERED IT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT 11 AND I ASKED-HIM ABOUT IT THIS MORNING, ABOUT OTHER 12 OCCASIONS.
| |
| 13 THE WITNESS: ! GUESS ! CAN SUMMARIZE YOUR ENT!RE 14 LINE OF QUESTION!NG. I HAD NO PERSONAL MOTIVE AGAINST 15 GEORGE KUNDER.
| |
| 16 Q BY MR. HICKEY: ON THE DAY BEFORE YOU WERE 17 SUSPENDED, DID YOU MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT YOU 18 THOUGHT IT WAS A SHAME THAT MR. KING HAD BEEN SUSPENDED 19 FROM HIS DUTIES AT THAT TIME ON THE ISLAND AND ULTIMATELY 20 TERMINATED, AND MR. KUNDER WAS STILL THERE WORKING? 00 l 21 YOU REMEMBER THAT STATEMENT?
| |
| 22 A WHO WAS I SUPPOSED TO HAVE MADE THE STATEMENT l l
| |
| 23 TO?
| |
| 24 Q ! BELIEVE THE STATEMENT WAS MADE TO 25 MR. SMITH, BUT LET ME CHECK MY NOTES ON THE MATTER. YOU
| |
| !!-149 l 1
| |
| Au
| |
| | |
| f' g_ DON'T REMEMBER MAKING THE STATEMENT TO ANVONE, I TAKE IT?
| |
| g MR. JOHNSON: l'M SORRY, 15 THIS SOMETHING THAT y THERE'S A REFERENCE TO?
| |
| q MR. HICKEY: BEAR WITH ME A MINUTE AND LET ME ASK 9
| |
| THE WITNESS.
| |
| 6 Q BY MR. HICKEY: YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY 7 RECOLLECTION WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF MAKING g SUCH A STATEMENT?
| |
| l 9 A AT THE PRESENT MOMENT, I DO NOT RECALL HAVING l 10 MADE SUCH A STATEMENT.
| |
| 11 Q LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION SPECIFICALLY TO 12 THE FOLLOWING TIME AND PLACE. DO YOU REMEMBER ON THE DAY 13 BEFORE YOUR AFFIDAVIT WAS RELEASED HAVING A CONVERSATION 14 WITH MR. ROBERT GUMMO -- YOU DO KNOW MR. GUMMO, DON'T Y.O U ?
| |
| 15 A I REMEMBER A BOB GUMMO, RIGHT.
| |
| 16 Q --
| |
| IN WHICH YOU CRITICIZED GPU-N FOR HAVING 17 TERMINATED MR. KING WHILE KEEPING MR. KUNDER? DO YOU ,
| |
| l 18- REMEMBER MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT?
| |
| 19 A NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I DON'T.
| |
| l 20 Q ! DIDN'T GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC SITUATION, I l
| |
| l 21 DON'T THINK, THIS MORNING WHEN I ASKED YOU ASOUT THE 22 PAXTON HERALD. BUT DID YOU EVER ADVISE MR. BUBBA MARSHALL 23 THAT YOU WERE GOING TO TELL THE PAXTON HERALD THAT 24 GEORGE KUNDER TURNED OFF THE PUMPS DURING THE ACCIDENT?
| |
| 25 A WELL, I MAY HAVE. AT THE MOMENT I COULDN'T
| |
| !!-150 JL
| |
| | |
| COPY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .;
| |
| BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
| |
| \
| |
| IN THE MATTER OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION NO. 2 kCv Penait License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137 i l
| |
| .1 EXHIBITS TO THE DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS June 23, 1987-June 24, 1987-VOLUMES II & III l
| |
| l l
| |
| BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS 4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 5500 REPORTED BY: NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 (714)752 1090 CSR #4769 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE. SUITE 570 FILE No. 87-244 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90064 87-248 (213)202 6666
| |
| | |
| ,- EXHIBIT
| |
| ' ' FOR IDENTIFICATION . !
| |
| 1 wtTL E M #' # ~
| |
| p3ge I of 13 '
| |
| Place:
| |
| Date:
| |
| l 1, RICHARD D. PARKS, hereby make the following voluntary statement to Investigators J. Vorse and R. Meeks, who have identified themselves to me as !
| |
| Investigators with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I make this l l statement freely with no threats or promises of reward having been made to 1' pe. Investigator Meeks has typed this statement for me.
| |
| On page 8 of my affidavit, I state that Tom MORRIS told Richard SEIGLITZ that 4 I should be counseled for my negative attitude and that SEIGLITZ related this to a. group of Site Operation memben, including myself. Those in Site j L Opirations that were present when.SE2GLITZ related this were Larry KING, Joe CHWASTYX,'Bubba MARSHALL, John PERRY Joe. SMITH, Linda NAGLE, Joyce WENGER, Madan KARR and Swede HOLTMAN of Recovery Programs (RP). In fact, HOLTMAN stated
| |
| }'
| |
| in an ensuing conversation at the time that Site Operations was meeting schedule dates better than anybody else on site. HOLTMAN was the representative of RP on the Head Lift Task Force (HLTF). j t-Concerning the above ma.tter, I arr. not aware of the personnel procedure that should be used for counseling employees on negative attitudes at TMI-2, whether they be Bechtel or GPU-N employees. I did not receive any written memos on this matter from Bechtel or GPU. I do recall that on my last performance evaluation Ed KITLER had given me ratings ranging from excellent to outstanding. This performance evaluation was done around the January / February time period of 1983.
| |
| On page 18. I mention that Larry KING, on 2/11/83, informed the Site Operation staff about the contents of a meeting between XING, KANGA and ED GISCHEL on the Polar Crane SER. Those 50 staff members present at that meeting, to the best of my recollection, were Messrs. CHWASTYK, MARSHALL, PERRY, SMITH, KARR and Linda NAGLE and Joyce WENGER. In response to a questien by Mr. Meeks, I would describe BARTON's personality or character as it relates to his daily mode of doing !
| |
| business es that of a intimidator. BARTON shouts and is a brusk individual who of ten threatens to fire an employee if tnat employee does not follow through with BARTON's wishes or desires. Many times this is just an every day expression used ]
| |
| by BARTON. However, if necessary, in my opinion BARTON would follow up with his threat to fire an employee i'f he thought it was necessary.
| |
| 030287022 ;
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| e? f. r '
| |
| {'
| |
| page ? of 13- .
| |
| gARTON doesn't like to leave a paper trail. When'he disagrees with a 1 memo, he will write his comments on the original memo and return the memo to its authcr.-
| |
| L BARTON, in a Feoruary 23rd meeting, asked me if the Revocery Operations Test f tianual (AP1047) was the same as the pre-accident test manual. .I told BARTON f that generically. the two were the same. BARTON ha'd approved administrative procedures AP1043 and AF1047 for the TMI-2 Recovery Operations. In reference to his stand on the Polar Crane, BARTON turned his back on his previous experience at THI-2,' and.more specifically, on procedures that were followed on the 505.
| |
| BARTON was the, Start Up and Test Manager for Unit-2, and possibly at Unit-1, before his duties as Director and Deputy Director of Recovery Operations.
| |
| On page 19, I mention a meeting in Room 201,and 203 on 2/14/83 on the Polar '
| |
| Crane Load Test. I was not present at thad meeting and the primary source of my information was Larry KING.
| |
| 4 On,page 20 I mention my conversation with Ed KITLER on February 18th regarding KITLER's statement that he had been asked by Rich GALLAGHER to look into trans-ferring ma off site. Those in the Site Operations office who heard me comrrent
| |
| 'about the conversation with Ed KITLER, in addition to Larry KING and Joe I
| |
| I CHWASTYK, where Messrs. MARSHALL, PERRY, SMITH and Secretary, Joyce WENGER.
| |
| l
| |
| { When KITLER saw that I was taking his comments very seriously, he tried to down-play the issue in an attempt to cool down the matter. It was also KITLER's responsibility to originally bring us the issues that I had made concerning the i
| |
| Polar Crane Load Test and the application of procedures AP1043 and AP1047.
| |
| l i I
| |
| On page 23 I discuss the BLIZZARD phone calls to Larry KING, Gloria KING and Benjamin SLONE. BLIZZARD also made phone calls to Ronnie MUCHA in Iowa about the same matter. MVCH! at that time, was SLONE's fiance. In my conversations l I
| |
| to SLONE about the BLIZZARD phone calls, SLONE had rentioned to me that on or about February 23rd he talked to RIDER about BLIZZARD's offer. According to l
| |
| | |
| r .
| |
| l i
| |
| l l' Page 3 of 13 -
| |
| i SLONE, RIDER stated that Bechtel was interested iri having Quiltech consider-a consulting contract on an upcoming reorganization at TMI-2. j 1
| |
| On page 27 and 28, I discuss KING's suspension from THI-2 for his alleged ,
| |
| ccnflict of interest due to his association with Quiltech. Concerning Quiltech, )
| |
| in the. July / August 1982 time frame, Ed KITLER asked me if I would talk to Larry KING about lining up a job for KITLER with Qu11 tech at the PALATKA Coal Fire Plant in Florida. I called SLONE on. KITLER's request and SLONE handled the matter with KITLER from that point on. Also, during the July / August 1982 time frame, Larry KING asked me to line up a typist for some resumes for Quiltech.
| |
| I obtained the services of Rose LITTLE and she typed up various resumes that were generic in nature. I recall that some of the resumes were those of Larry KING, Bill AUSTIN, Kingsly ORAPER and possibly Ken LYON-ARENDS. Also during the July / August 1982 time frame, I recall Rich GALLAGHER asking me when KING was going to leave for Quiltech. I told GALLAdHER to ask KING.
| |
| Around the November / December 1982 time period, I remember Ben SLONE talking to me about Joe CHWASTYK's involvement with Larry KING and CHWASTYK's attempt to obtain. a position with Quiltech. I know that CHWASTYK attended a Quiltech meeting with KING, SLONE and Gloria KING at the KING's house during this time perio:f. It was also during this time frame that CHWASTYK went to Beaver Valley with John HOAG, a relative of KING's and also a member cf Quiltech. At Besver Valley, CHWASTYK contacted Don SKIDHORE of Duquense Light Company, the licensae at Beaver Valley, about a Quiltech proposal ano possible contract at Beaver Valley. CHWASTYK has since told me that when Beaver Valley comes through none of us will have to worry about the way Bechtel is trying to move the schedule ahead and take over things. The 50 staff was generally aware of CHWASTYK's and KING'S involvement with Quiltech. It was also during this time frame that KITLER made a comment to me that Larry KING should be careful because it was starting to get around about KING and Quiltech. I told KITLER that KING was not the most discreet individual in maintaining a low profile on the Quiltech matter.
| |
| Around February 1983, I recall that Jim THEISING and Bill AUSTIN went on a skiing trip. During the Congressional hearing on April 26th, it was stated that au
| |
| | |
| 7I .-
| |
| i 1
| |
| Page 4 of 13 1
| |
| . in February THEISING, while on a business trip, was told a second time about- KING's !
| |
| 1
| |
| ' involvement with Quiltech. Possibly this was the business trip tnat was refer- i enced in the congressional testimony.
| |
| Sometime during the latter part of 1982 or the first part of 1983, Dick JUBBA of Nine Mile Point, an employee of Bechtel, phoned Larry KING and asked him.
| |
| e some questions about Quiltech and KING's involvement with Quiltech. I recall, f
| |
| ' from conversations with Larry and Gloria KING, that there were two phone calls '
| |
| from JUBBA on this matter. I was present in KING's house when the second phone rail was received.
| |
| I feel that the Quiltech matter was definitely blown out of proportion. In the nuclear energy industry one is always mindful of the various opportunities avail-able for advancement and promotion at other, nuclear sites. In fact I was first hired by GPU to work at TMI-2 in a manner limilar to how Quiltech operates.
| |
| While I was working'for Energy Consultants, Inc., NUS sent a proposal that in-volved my resume to GPU. 'NUS is a job shopper sir:ilar to Quiltech. GPU did not condemn my hiring but has condemned KING and Quiltech.
| |
| * It was during the first part of February that Ed KITLER told me'that his transfer to Florida had been arranged. KITLER asked if I would take over his position as Start-up and Test Manager. I immediately talked to Dave BUCHANNON, who was head of Design Engineering for GPU, and told him that I would take KITLER's job only if it were transferred to Site Operations. BUCHANNON stated that he didn't know anything about the KITI,ER transfer and that he would look into it. KITLER )
| |
| did stay on site. However, he was absent from TMI-2 the week after KING's suspension )
| |
| KITLER returned on or about March 8th or 9th. After he returned I asked Dave BUCHANNON how he got KITLER to stay. BUCHANNON stated that he worked out a deal l with BARTON to get KITLER's per diem taking care of. Dwight WALKER headed up a Test Work Group meeting while KITLER was gone, l i
| |
| l 1
| |
| {
| |
| db
| |
| | |
| 3f :
| |
| Page 5 of 13 KANGA, in his testimony before Congress on April 26th, stated that he first--
| |
| heard of KING's involvement with Quiltech on February 24th and that he, KANGA, was on sick leave that day. KANGA stated that he received a phone call on the matter while he was at home. The phone call was from BARTON, and was made at approximately 6:00 p.m. I recall Larry XING telling me about a meeting that he had with KANGA, on site, on February 24th at 1:00 p.m. on the containment entry procedure, and that this meeting was cut off for a fire safety meeting. It was during this meeting that KING told KANGA that he was supposed to run the recovery operations at TMI-2 but that it was apparent that THEISING wanted to run the show.
| |
| l LARSON, who was head of Licensing, had earlier informed KING that he was in charge ,
| |
| of the recovery operations. At that meeting, KANGA told KING that he was the boss and this fact was to be put in writing. This was in reference to KING being made the alternate to KANGA and thus putting someone in upper site management on record who met the ANSI standards as site director, or alternate site director.
| |
| In reference to KANGA not being qualified by ANSI standards to be site director, I recall from conversations with Larry KING that both he and Joe CHWASTYK, on or about the middle of September of 1982, went to Lake Barrett of NRC and complained that the Safety Review Group was to report to KANGA but that KANGA, according to ANSI standards, was not qualified to receive an operator's license. Through the grapevine, I heard that BARRETT went to GPU and complained that the internal matters CHWASTYK and KING had brought up to BARRETT should go through the chain of command. It is my understanding that the NRC has never approved the reorgani-zation. I also recall that GPU in testimony to Congress on or about ,
| |
| stated that the reorganization had never been approved. J i
| |
| I At this point I would like to mention a meeting that was held in early January on the Sewerage Tank Test Procedures. That meeting which was with KING and !
| |
| THE! SING, concerned how to conceal in a quarterly re' port to NRC, the amounts of l cesium in the storage tanks. I know that Larry KING had objected to the way the
| |
| ( procedures were handled on the sewerage tank. KING did sign the procedure when t a GPU Enviornmental Inspector reversed his earlier standing and stated that the f procedure was legal. Ed GISCHEL, Ken HOFFSTETTER, Cary HORNER, Pam Stoner-COOPER and Carl HARBAC are familar with the sewerage tank matter.
| |
| )
| |
| )
| |
| l
| |
| --_-_-----_-- i
| |
| | |
| 1(
| |
| a page 6 of 13 1
| |
| On page 31. I make mention of the minutes kept by ' Ken PASTOR of a 2/28/83 meeting on the Readiness Review Committee.
| |
| There is no formalized procedure for l l
| |
| l taking minutes at TMI-2. The established practice is for the organization ]
| |
| calling the meeting and in charge of the meeting to keep the minutes.- The !
| |
| minutes are then typed by this organization and circulated to the attendees.
| |
| If there are any disagreements on the contents of the minutes then the person disagreeing writes a memo on his objections. I recall that KING had done this on occasion and BARTON took exception to KING documenting his objection to the minutes. !
| |
| l The minutes of the 2/28 meeting showed that NRC approval should go quickly since j NRC comments are already available and should be resolved by the time the Polar Crane Operating Procedure is submitted to the NRC. I can think of two instances where site management has used prior NRC approval in an attempt to obtain Site !
| |
| Operations approval on a specific procedurd. The first instance occurred when. {
| |
| Mike RADBILL handed me the Polar Crane Load Test Procedure and stated that it l was the hottest thing on the Island. RADBILL also explained that the PORC and the NRC had been involved with the test all along and that neither had any )
| |
| problems with what was in the Load Test Procedures. This happened toward the end of January 1983. ,
| |
| Also on March 3rd, during a second meeting on the Readiness Review Comittee ;
| |
| presentation, THEISING stated that to move structural steel with the Polar f Crane had been signed off by everybody and his brother, including NRC. At that point I stated that the procedure should be looked at by the Test Work Group. I have never seen NRC involvement on procedures used at other sites like it is at TMI-2. I have never seen this buy off procedure used in this way at other nuclear sites.
| |
| I also recall that I was given the procedures on the Reactor Vessel Internal Radiation Measurements and told that PORC had already approved the procedures and that I should go ahead and sign off. I noticed that the procedures had not gone through the proper review cycle and I, therefore, wrote a Site Operations
| |
| ~ i
| |
| | |
| page 7 Of 13 problem Report on this. I cannot recall the name 'of the person that gave me.
| |
| the procedures and asked that I sign off, but his name is listed in my coments on the problem report.
| |
| Concerning that meeting on'2/28 and the conference afterwards between myself, Jim THEISING and Ron WARREN, I received the distinct impression that THEISING was trying to convince us that this matter was going to be taken care in THEISING's own way. During that conference, THEISING wanted to know why Site Operation was trying to assume aatharity now when they had given it up on things such as the Quick Look. I told THEISING that Site Operations is the responsible group under the license. THEISING then explained that in an accident or deficiency involving matters handled by Engineering, that Engineer-ing would be the responsible party, and would have to assume blame.
| |
| By way of explanation on the Quick Look Prdcedures, I recall that Larry KING wrote a memo that Site Operations would cut back on non-vital areas in order to come up with the funds necessary to handle the Quick Look Operation. KING l stated in that memo that Site Operations was preparino tne methodology and software to handle the Quick Lock. BARTON replied that Site Operations was to l
| |
| stay out of the Quick Look, that it was Bechtel's and the Technical Advisory Group's responsibility.
| |
| Also in the 2/28 meeting, THEISING made a statement that he could understand why l
| |
| certain people were afraid of a transfer. That coment came about as a result of our discussion on NRC examining the Polar Crane Issue at that time and Ed KITLER being called in by NRC and interviewed by Joel WEIBE. We were also talk-ing about Larry KING's suspension in the same context. THEISING's transfer comment came about as a result of comments on these topics.
| |
| On page 32, I began a series of comments on memos that Joe CHWASTYK 'nd I wrote, basically concerning the application of AP1043 and AP1047 to the Polar Crane Load Test. CHWASTYK was in full philosophical agreement with those memos.
| |
| I feel that CHWASTYK believed that he was going to be Acting Director of 50
| |
| | |
| 7I Page 8 Of 13 for only two or three weeks. In fact, in a meeting with the 50 staff right after he assumed the acting position, he stated that the KING incident would be over ,
| |
| in two or three weeks and KING would be back on the job. However, after two l or three weeks had passed. I got the impression that CHWASTYK's opinion of the KING matter had changed. I also believe that CHWASTYK, as he attended the var-ious recovery meetings, realized that . KING was not going to return and that I was considered an obstacle the same as XING had been. CHWASTYK knew that my wife l was dead, as did most of the Site Operations staff. When CHWASTYK made that phone call to Gloria KING and stated that my wife was trying to dig up something on the child custody case, I feel it was CHWASTYK's indirect way of trying to l
| |
| ! tell me that I was targeted as KING had been.
| |
| I believe that CHWASTYK was replaced as Acting Director of Site Operations by l BARTON because the KING investigation by GPU had revealed CHWASTYK's involvement with Quiltech. I also understand that it das during this tirae period that Joe CHWASTYK was taken off a TV commercial that GPU was to put on the air.
| |
| On page 33, I mention that BARTON accused Joyce WENGER of xeroxing and taking to Larry KING a memorandum that had been missing on February 28, but that had reappeared on the morning of March 1st. The memo in question was the so-called
| |
| " Smoking Gun Pemo" that KING had wrote to KANGA ano BARTON on his concerns on the Head Lift Schedule and the way things were done. I think the memo no. was l around 069 but I am not sure of this. I recall that on Monday morning, February
| |
| , 28th, Joyce WENGER had made the consnent to the 50 staff in general, that the l
| |
| memo was missing from the file and that she was looking for it because KING wanted the memo. On Tuesday morning, the memo appeared back in the file.
| |
| On page 35 I discuss a meeting on March 3rd concerning the agenda for the Readiness Review Committee. It was in this meeting that Mr. THEISING stated that only a person of limited intelligence would think that the whole Polar Crane aparatus was important to safety. In response to a question by Investi-gator Meeks on my description of THEISING's personality and method of conducting his daily business, based on the meetings that I have attended with Jim THEISING, I believe he is a dynamic person and would remove all obstacles to get the job
| |
| | |
| D Y Page 9 Of 13 ,
| |
| I done.
| |
| In response to Investigator Meeks' question to describe KINGS persona.lity and methodology of operation, I would state that KING is also dynamic; he has a great deal of fortitude. KING also does whatever it takes ':0 get the job done.
| |
| However, KING is concerned in achieving his jcb objectives within clearly defined j boundaries and if necessary KING would changes those boundaries so that procedural adherance is maintained while still achieving the objectives of the program.
| |
| On Page 36 and 37. I discussed George KUNDER as being the mystery man who ordered the safety and injection pumps turned off during the March 1979 accident. Most of my information on KUNDER, as the mystery man, is based on the several conversations I had with Joe CHWASTYK on this, matter. It was CHWASTYK's impression that KUNDER was in charge of the operating room, or rather of the ad hoc in-charge committee, until about 7:00 a.m., when Gary MILLER arrived and assumed responsibility. CHWASTYK, himself, arrived around 10 or 11:00 that morning. CHWASTYK has tol'd me basically two stories about KUNDER's actions on the morning of the accident. One, that KUNDER shut down the reactor coolant pumps 'because of their vibration. Two, KUNDER shut down i the injection pumps due to the indicated high level in the pressurizer. Upon CHWASTYK's arrival in the control room he had to argue to get the ad hoc in-charge committee to restart the injection pumps. At least it was my impression that CHWASTYK was referring to the injection pumps. In addition, the Concerned Mothers of Middletown knew approximately six months ago about the possibilities of George KUNDER being the mystery man and that they relayed this information to Lake BARRETT of the TMI Program Office.
| |
| On page 37, I state that Larry KING, Joyce WENGER, Joe CHWASTYK and myself were all present when I made my threats to notify the local newspaper identifying KUNDER as the mystery man. I stated that only CHWASTYK has not suffered systematic repraisals as a result of this. Those systematic repraisals are the reprisals that I have outlined in my affidavit.
| |
| i On page 38 I make mention of another meeting on March 4th concerning the containment entry procedure dispute. It was my impression that Charlie HANSON
| |
| | |
| df Page 10 of 13 of Recovery Programs actually agraed with the sta6d of Site Operations but -
| |
| could not contradict the personal preferences of Mr. THEISING. Also in this meeting Bill KELLY mentioned that earlier KANGA had ordered to leave the issue of who is in charge of containment entry as written by Recovery Programs, i.e., ,
| |
| that Dave BLAKE was in charge of Containment. By way of information, before January 15th, all containment work was done by work packages. After January 15th, it was a shift foreman that signed off on UWIs.
| |
| On page 45, I explained that on March 10th I had a discussion with CARL HARBAC, Ed GISCHEL, and another member of the Plant Engineering concerning the fact
| |
| -that ARNOLD had asked Larry KING about my involvement with Quiltech. The other member of Plant Engineering was Jim HENDERSON.
| |
| On pace 46, I mention a 1:30 p.m. meeting that I had with Joe CHWASTYK on 3/10/83.
| |
| That meeting was held in CHWASTYK's office'and the only other person that heard part of the conversation was CHWASTYK's Secretary, Bonnie. CHWASTYK started this conversation as we were walking into his office and Bonnie was sitting right there and would have heard the first part of the conversation before CHWASTYK had closed the door to his office. I also recall that on the norning of March 10th CHWASTYK had a meeting with the Site Operations staff. In that meeting CHWASTYK stated that somebody had been communicating to NRC or a daily basis.
| |
| CHWASTYK reminded us that we should be mindful of the story of the boy who cried wolf.
| |
| 'On page 47, I make mention of Joe CHWASTYK's 3/10/83 phone call to Gloria KING and stated that to my wife trying to dig up some negative information for the child custody case. After I was put on leave of absence, I remember talking to CHWASTYK by phone and I told him that I considered this statement to Gloria KING was meant as a friendly warning to me. CHWASTYK did'not make any reply. CHWASTYK had originally called Gloria and asked her about leaks to the press. The press leaks were in reference to an article in the Washington pog, by Susan Stranahan, on the Polar Crane issue. The article appeared before the suspension of Larry KING.
| |
| On page 49. I discussed my darch 15th meeting with Messrs. SANFORD, WHEELER and HOFFMAN. I did not observe any notes being taken during that meeting. However, sw .
| |
| | |
| D[ .
| |
| Page 11 Of 13 Mr. HOFFMAN was sitting behind me and it was possible that he took notes during this meeting. When I arrived for the meeting that morning Mr. SANFORD asked me when had I arrived in Gaithersburg and what time I had left Middletown and whether it was the night before or that morning. I told SANFORD that I left that morning.
| |
| HOFFMAN then asked me what time I left and I told him about 5:30 a.m. I thought these questions were strange, especially in light of the fact that I had been meeting with representatives from the Government Accountability Project Office on the evening before the meeting. I would also like to point out that on Monday afternoon, March 16th, I was cleaning out my desk at work. Bubba MARSHALL, Jim FLOYO and Joe CHWASTYK, as well as Bonnie, the temporary secretary, were present at the time. I had asked CHWASTYK earlier in the day if I could use the Site Operations staff to go through work documents on the head lift and show the hours l expended by Site Operations. I wanted to show the ineffectiveness of Site Operations methodology of work because of the conflicting head lift and polar crane schedules. CHWASTYK told me that a fask force was going to come up with a total integrated schedule and that the work would not be needed.
| |
| Also, on or about the March 16th time frame, I attended a meeting on the Inte-grated Schedule with Joe SMITH of Site Operations, Mike SMITH of RD&D and Butch DAUBERT of Recovery Programs. This meeting was set up the day of Larry KING's suspension and after KING had made the headlift schedule a known issue. During i that meeting, Mike SMITH stated that in October of 1982 he had wanted to put out an integrated schedule but that Site management wanted to work off the head lift q schedule. Mike SMITH also stated that RD&D had not received any notification that the June 30th head lift schedule had been relaxed. DAUBERT stated that the relaxation of the June 30th date was not yet out but that it would be out )
| |
| that week. )
| |
| l
| |
| , 1 On page 50 I made mention of the break-in of my apartment. I left my j apartment locked up on Monday evening at 9:00 p.m. and I arrived back and found my apartment broken into on Wednesday morning at about 7:30 a.m. To this date, there has been no disposition on this burglary investigation by the Middletown Police.
| |
| m
| |
| | |
| i 7f Pa9e 12 of 13 i
| |
| 1 On page 51, I mention a March 17th morning meeting, with Mr. KANGA. During that meeting, KANGA told me that he would have licensing and QA respond to my con:ern on the polar crane.
| |
| On page 52, I make mention of a 1:00 p.m. meeting on March 17th with KANGA and i
| |
| CHWASTYK concerning my removal as the primary site operations member on the Test Work Group for the polar crane project. With respect to KANGA asking me twice to agree that my removal was not an act of intimidation, I will add that after the second time, KANGA gave the memo authorizing my removal to CHWASTYK and asked him to sign this statement. In regards to my signing the Load Test Procedure based on technical content of the procedure only, on the morning of 3/17/83, I had r6 quested from Mike RADBILL more documents on the polar crane '
| |
| matter. RADBILL, at that time, told me that my personal vendetta was holding everything up. It was at this point that I then decided to sign the procedure with the technical content proviso. /
| |
| On page 55, I stated that several~ sources had shared with me their understand-ing that prior to issuing formal NRC letters, Lake BARRETT would submits drafts of these letters to ARNOLD or KANGA for editing or comments.
| |
| My knowledge of this practice comes from conversations with Larry KING. KING has stated that the contents of proposed memos are massaged over the phone between BARRETT and ARNOLD or KANGA. KING was present on one occasion when BARRETT called ARNOLD and the conversation was put on the squawk box. The matter concerned GPU-N's response to a low rated item on the SALP Report.
| |
| According to KING, ARNOLD and BARRETT discussed the contents of the memo and ;
| |
| how it should be worded. It was also agreed that the GPU wouldn't publicly critize the NRC without first talking to NRC about the matter.
| |
| i j
| |
| On page 4 of my second affidavit, I stated that on March 22nd, I had a meeting I
| |
| with Mr. KANGA, Andy WHEELER and Bechtel Public Relations Officer, Doug BEDEL, wherein I was asked if I had a news conference scheduled for March 23rd. I do not know how Bechtel found out about my new conference on March 23rd. I know that Joel ROTH of had told me that he had received a copy of the l A J
| |
| | |
| I j
| |
| * i 4
| |
| i p3ge 13 of 13 I assume that ROTH probably got
| |
| ,ffidav it the day before the news conference. ~
| |
| copy of the affidavit from a Congressional source. Possibly, Bechtel i his found out about the news conference through that same or a related Congressional l
| |
| source.
| |
| Also on page 4 of the second affidavit, I state that Mr. KANGA, at a press conference, asserted that the Polar Crane had been originally load tested to 500 tons. Based on conversations that I have had with those associated with '
| |
| the pre-operations test and the fact that I could not find any documents on the pre-operation load test for the polar crane, I disagree with KANGA's assertion that the polar crane had orginally been load tested. In fact, when the Site Operations staff was doing research work on the taped drains, referred to in Mr.
| |
| GISCHEL's affidavit, we fodnd that many of the originals on the pre-operation test procedures for TMI-2 were missing. It is my understanding that these pro-cedures should be kept in fireproof vaults./ I am talking about approximately four years of procedures and test documents, etc., that could not be found.
| |
| Also missing was the master punch' list for open items on pre-operation tests.
| |
| It is my understanding that the master punch list is required by law to be kept on site for five years.
| |
| I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 13 typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct.
| |
| Signed on at .
| |
| SIGNATURE: ,
| |
| RICHARD D. PARKS day of 19__,
| |
| Subscribed and sworn to before me this !
| |
| l at INVESTIGATOR:
| |
| Name:
| |
| l WITNESS: '
| |
| Name:
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| l i
| |
| l j
| |
| 1 I
| |
| l 1
| |
| a6
| |
| | |
| c;: ,
| |
| J
| |
| * COPY ri UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
| |
| ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE' ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE I \
| |
| IN'THE MATTER OF
| |
| '.GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION,. .-
| |
| :THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR .C Pen STATION NO. 2 License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137 L
| |
| l EXHIBITS _TO THE-DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS June 23, 1987 I June 24, 1987 l VOLUMES II & III J
| |
| BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS 4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 5500 REPORTED BY: NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 (714)752 1090
| |
| ~ PENNY SANDER, CSR #4769 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE. SUITE 570 FILE NO. 87-244 f.OS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90064 87-248 (213)202 6666 l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| y p
| |
| =Ixi..a2. .'
| |
| DRAFT FOR MYSTERY MAN AFFIDAVIT on pages 36-37 of my affidavit I expressed reservations at George Kunder's role as Plant Operations Review Committee ( " PORC ")
| |
| I and Safety Review Group ("SRG") chairman, in light of the significant l .
| |
| nature of those jobs and Kunder's performance during the TMI accident.
| |
| I also disclosed that Kunder had been identified in discussions at Site Operations ("So") offices as the man whc shut off the High Pressure Injection ("HPI") pumps.
| |
| This portion of my affidavit was an extremely condensed i
| |
| introduction to iny concerns, both about Kunder's role in the cleanup and the events surrounding the damage to Unit II during the accident.
| |
| L Since investigators Meekiand Vors\ are investigating the issue this statement will fully disclose my concerns. I am available for further interviews with the NRC on the relevant underlying analysis.
| |
| Initially, certain statements from my affidavit must be clari-fied and presented in their proper context. General Public Utilities Nuclear ("GPUN") -- in congressional testimony su=marizing the pre-liminary findings of ths Stier investigation for which it contracted --
| |
| attempted to rebut my disclosure by dissecting the literal meaning of individual phrases examined in isolation. By expanding my dis-closure through this statement, this confusion should be eliminated.
| |
| I l For instance, Bernie Smith discussed Kunder's activities at the accident in much more general terms than Joe Chwastyk, who identified the safety injection pumps. Further, the discussions about Kunder and the pumps involved several different actions -- shutting down the Reactor Coolant Pumps ("RCP") and the HPI, or safoty injection pumps. (The HPI pumps are also known as the makeup pumps) .
| |
| WY -
| |
| FOR ICENTIFICAT1M 1
| |
| ,,; u. u w Jw
| |
| | |
| 1f The time frame that I recall Kunder being identified as the man who shut 'of f the safety injection pumps was during March 19 B3.
| |
| farlier conversations involved his actions turning off the RCP's.
| |
| To the best of my recollection, the specific language from ggWASTYK in March involved a statament that George " shut off the safety injection pumps." I am not sure whether he also used the .
| |
| l words " mystery man" in reference to Kunder. My affidavit should not be read as a quotation in this respect. I did intend to dis-cle'se the meaning of what I had heard, however. It meant that, if true, Kunder was the " mystery man" written about in the press 4C#=4I$
| |
| ok 2;. to the GPU - Babcock and Wilcox ("B&W") trial. The trial and news accounts naturally were dis cussed on site, and the term had come up dn ' discussions at the 50 office area.
| |
| In addition to clarifying the details, I wish to remove any ;
| |
| lack of clarity about my motives in raising the issue. I do not and did not harbor any dislike toward Mr. Kunder. We h ve had a l
| |
| professional working relationship since 1980 and only had hard feelings once. That occasion was around last Christmas and 2E' l
| |
| l apo*ogized to him within a few minutes. My grumbling at the time was soon forgotten.
| |
| While I do not wish Kunder ill, I felt that his unique position in the TMI cleanup raised a serious question about management competence and/or integrity. The PORC committee which Kunder led had the responsibility to review procedures, although final approval was through Larry King as 50 Directer. In this role Kunder and PORC still reported to the 50 Director and was one of the resources for the department in TMI's checks and balances. While I was sometimes irritated at delays, it was part of the job.
| |
| .J L
| |
| | |
| N(
| |
| When Kunder began to serve as SRG Chairman, however, his qual'ifications assumed increased importance. SRG would have more I
| |
| legitimacy than PORC, because the members #would work full time.
| |
| Mos t significant, in my opinion and detailed in another statement, SRG represented an illegal attempt to bypass 50 without Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval. The new committee would report to Mr. Kanga. It could now be a resource to rebut the 50 position, HA0 which simultaneously was stripped of the review base PORC4formerly represented. l This organizational switch to SRG occurred around the time I
| |
| pressure was building on So to approve the polar crane and headlif t procedures before our concerns and comments were properly addressed.
| |
| Due to' SRG's questionable legality and role motivation, the cleanup :
| |
| could be significantly comprYsed if the chairman were not sufficient: s objective and invulnerable to management pressure j in order to provide j an independent review. In these respects, Mr. Kunder's record, {
| |
| especially at the accident, made me doubt whether management had good faith motives to place him in charge of the SRG.
| |
| To illustrate, Mr. Kunder did not appear objective. He acepeted procedures from Recovery Programs ( " RP " ) with cursory l reviews but subjected the 50 efforts to unnecessary scrutiny on occasions, such as with procedures that I prepared and were eventual: ;
| |
| approved for draining the "A" Steam Generator. I felt that Kunder Is quick approvals of inadequate headlif t procedures could lead to safety hazards, while his meticulous reviews of other procedures created unnecessary burdens on well-controlled programs within the f cleanup.
| |
| l m
| |
| | |
| y( -
| |
| l 1
| |
| 1 i I questioned management appointing Kunder to this position in light of his record at the accident. My concerns about his 1
| |
| appointment go beyond whether Mr. Kunder das the "Mys tery Man. "
| |
| l At the accident he also followed procedures literally and shut off )
| |
| l the Reactor Coolant Pumps, although there were conflicting signals and indications that literal procedural compliance could be a -
| |
| nistake at the wrong time. In thort, I was concerned that during the accident Kunder did not see the forest through the trees, and I
| |
| now he would continue that approach as SRG Chairman. I sincerely believed that the role of SRG and the qualifications of its chairman ~
| |
| were issues about the cleanup that needed to be raised. -
| |
| I also questioned Kunder's independence from management pressure, due to the events during the accident.
| |
| 1 i
| |
| o \
| |
| I was concerned' that Kunder i
| |
| would not feel sufficiently independent to challenge the management pressure surrounding the headlif t. He is vulnerable if he indeed was responsibis, for significant damage. If Kunder is also the
| |
| " mystery man" he would be even more vulnerable.
| |
| My concer .s about Kunder's independence were not just hypo-peAC I thetical. I have disclosed specific questionable
| |
| * approval practices in my other statements.
| |
| 1 M l w
| |
| t u e
| |
| , 1y e _ a ,. :r - mammen - menemeannesmus=======-
| |
| )
| |
| i l
| |
| l i
| |
| l I
| |
| AL
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ l
| |
| | |
| )I l
| |
| 1 j
| |
| l l
| |
| m '
| |
| I knew t. hat at the trial an analysis from EDS Nuclear, Inc.
| |
| was introduced to conclude that the HPI pumps were not turned on .
| |
| t at 5: 41 A.M. (the approximate time at issue in my affidavit) . I knew that this analysis was introduced'just before operators Zews and Fredericks, who were among those repensible for the HPI pumps, switched their testimony in conformance with the EDS' galcula-Z KM TH*f' TM %,$M rke.Isencd tions.' Operator Faust did not, however. drhe EDS analysis had dew GA
| |
| [ 42004 unp roven, incomplete and inaccurate assumptions, which make it gg 7,.f7 1 of 7tte' especially questionable as a basis to effectively rewrite the jff gei /l Ad4.ytt[
| |
| * history or Sequence of Svents[50Aalready published by GPU and not yet amended, to my kriewledge. Finally, the trial was settled abruptly and unexpectedly shortly after the EDS report was introduced.
| |
| I knew of these developments and the mystery man, because as dis-cussed earlier the trial and its settlement was a common topic on site. All of these events convinced me that the "mys tery man" issue should be investigated thoroughly.
| |
| My own review of the EDS report suggests that its conclusions are premature. Access to the relevant supporting data is necessary for more definitive conclusions. My evaluation of the EDS report is based on the adequacy of its premise. The analysis basically rests on the premise that the level uf the makeup tank also deter-mined whether the second HPI pump, makeup pu=p ''C", was initiated .
| |
| at 5: 41. EDS analy ek and prepared graphs for the makeup tank ,
| |
| t l
| |
| l l A ,
| |
| l .
| |
| .i
| |
| | |
| I LE4t! ~
| |
| eerrees s trrounding two times that it concluded HPI pumps were initiate d, at 4: 0 2 and 7: 20, as well r.s for 5: 41. The graph for 5: 41 did not exhibit the same characteristics. Although the EDS analysis is reasonable, it's significance is limited due to the . . . ' selective use of data and unjustified assumptions, all biased in favor of the EDS premise. ,
| |
| There are a series of questionable f actors with respect to the EDS claim that turning on the HPI pumps at 4:02 accounts for the graph in its report. In some instances the facts as reported l are suspect. For example,1:DS asserts that an operator started MUP 1-A and opened MU-VIEb at the time of the reactor trip. But the Sequence of Events NHHH reports that the evolution did not
| |
| { cccur until 41 seconds af ter the reactor tripj or 4:01:31 A.M.
| |
| Similarly EDS offers no citation for its claim that the BWST suction valve, DH-VSA, opened at 4:02:13. This assumption also is not verified in the SOE.
| |
| In fact, the Emergency Core Colling System (ECCS) , which includes the HPI pumps, did not have to be turned on at all at 4:02 in order to produce the characteristics on the EDS graph. Altern te AuA y3E sources better explain the increase in pressure. EDS did not 'ye a whether the increase in pressure at 4:02 could have come from l l
| |
| oopning the MUT Level Control Valve (MU-V-9 ) to refill the tank from the Reactor Coolant Bleed Tanks (RCBT), .instead of from the HPI pumps. This explanation would be consistant with the require-ments in emergency procedure 2202-1.3 for operators. In other words, EDS failed to consider the possibility that the operators ,
| |
| I
| |
| ;L
| |
| | |
| followed d a procedures at 4:02. Similarly, EDS failed to consider 'whether at 4: 0 2 water was drawn automatically through the makeup level control valve,. again as an alternative to the HPI assumption.
| |
| These alternative explanations are even more persuasi";e when the EDS assumptions are compared with the capacity of the HPI -
| |
| )
| |
| pumps and the data provided by EDS. The EDS graph discloses a four inch rise (approximately 280 grams per minute) in the makeup tank during the 26 seconds from 4:02:13 - 4:02:39. That is a sub-stantially higher rise than is achievable ' solely from HPI pump recirculation flow.
| |
| Finally, even if EDS' assumptions and facts were accurate, the results' demonstrate that conditions were not analogous at i
| |
| 4:02 and 5:41. For instance, 41fferent pumps would have been involved. At 4:02 the A&B pumps would have been used. At 5:41 the Asc pumps would have been running. The C pump can only draw from the BWST. Even more revealing, the 4:02 incident would have involved ed switching 9 two pumps. The 5:41 event would only have involved switchingen on the C pump.
| |
| The EDS analysis of events at 5: 41 is no more definitive. To illustrate, in scua cases the analysis is incomplete. on page 12 of its report EDS states that upon ECCS actuation DH-VSA was opened.
| |
| On page 13 EDS states that the injection valves MU-V-16A and. B also opened. Unfortunately, the report f ailed to identify when 4
| |
| they were shut af ter 4:02 and plot the ef fectr onagraph.
| |
| 9
| |
| * O l
| |
| I l
| |
| sL j
| |
| | |
| 1 f. i l ..
| |
| l 8-The .EDS analysis concerning 5:41 concludes that the HPI f pumps could not have been turned on at 5:41, since the makeup tank level was only at 59.# However, EDS failed to analyse the special circumstances then in effect, such as increased letdown flow, lowered reactor coolant system pressure, and higher tempera-tures than normal.
| |
| Most persuasive, EDS' conclusions about 5:41 contradict other data in its report. On page 16 of the report EDS stated that a makeup tank pressure of 39 [Uf would have been necessary to achieve the 59" level. But figure 14 in the same report indicates that the 59" level was achievable with 31.5 6/8, Finally, the EDS analysis of conditions at 7:20 assumes - an initialmakeuptankpressureof27[/S , only nominally higher than normal. Thisassumptionfailstoanaly}ethesevereoffects of the accident; which between 5:30 and 7:20 had led to superheated steam and significant portions of the reactor coolant system in a stieam-void condition by 6:00 A.M., to two-thirds of the reactor core uncovered by around 6:20, to hydrogen generation and half the reactor coolant system free volume in a steam hydrogen mixture by around 7: 0 0 A.M. These conditions could well have led to abnormal overpressurization due to steam and/or hydrogen in the top of the makeup tank, a possibility not considared by EDS.
| |
| l I will cooperate fully with the NRC in answering specific questions in more detail about my assessment. I am confident 1
| |
| that my analysis can be expanded significantly if I can examine j the underlying data relied on by EDS.
| |
| i I
| |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT I
| |
| ~
| |
| 4
| |
| ' ~
| |
| CERTIFIED COPY
| |
| . . . i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE' ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE h
| |
| ,. IN THE MATTER OF GP NUCLEAR CORPORATION,
| |
| 'THREE. MILE' ISLAND NUCLEAR' ON NO. 2
| |
| -C e $t License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137 i
| |
| i DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS June 23, 1987 VOLUME II l
| |
| l h
| |
| 1 BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS 4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 5500 REPORTED SY: NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 (714)752 1090
| |
| ' PENNY SANDER,
| |
| -CSR #4769 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE 570
| |
| : FILE N O, 87-244 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064 (213)202-6666
| |
| | |
| 3[ --
| |
| g ATTACHED' HERETO.)
| |
| Q BY MR. HICKEY: HAVE YOU REv! EWE 0 EXHIBli 43, 2
| |
| y MR. PARKS?
| |
| g A l HAVE' LEAFED-THROUGH !T.
| |
| $ Q l'LL ALSO REPRESENT TO YOU THAT THIS DOCUMENT 6
| |
| ALSO WAS,1N THE PILE OF APPROXIMATELY 639.PAGES PROVIDED 7
| |
| TO US BY THE NRC AND REPRESENTED TO BE COPIES OF THE g MATERIALS PROVIDED BY YOU TO THE NRC.
| |
| g DO YOU RECOGNIZE EXHIBIT 43?
| |
| 10 A I REALLY --
| |
| 11 THE REPORTER: .I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
| |
| 12 THE WITNESS: NO, NOT AT THIS MOMENT, NO. IT t 13 APPEARS T(1 B E l N' MY HANDWRITING THOUGH, j 14 Q BY MR. HICKEY: I CIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR 15- ANSWER TO MY FIRST --
| |
| 16 A YOU ASKED ME IF I RECOGNIZE IT AND I.SAID 17 "NOT AT THIS MOMENT I DO NOT, NO." i DO NOT RECALL THIS 18 DOCUMENT.
| |
| 19 Q BUT IT'S IN YOUR HANDWRIT!NG, THE FIRST SIX 1
| |
| 20 PAGES, 1 MEAN?
| |
| 21 A SURE. IT DOES APPEAR TO BE.
| |
| 22 Q WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A MINUTE AND READ THROUGH 23 THE S!X PAGES THAT YOU WROTE.
| |
| 24 (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
| |
| 25 THE WITNESS: OKAY. I HAVE READ THE FIRST SIX
| |
| !!-66 a
| |
| | |
| PAGES.
| |
| Q BY MR. HICKEY: HAVING READ THE FIRST Six 7
| |
| PAGES, MR. PARKS, DO YOU NOW HAVE SOME BETTER RECOLLECTION 3
| |
| g OF WHAT THIS DOCUMENT 15?
| |
| A NO, 1 00 NOT. I WOULD SAY THAT ! BELIEVE I l l
| |
| 6 HAVE SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE. I BELIEVE I SAW A PORTIOt j 7 OF ONE OF THE PAGES OR POSSIBLY TWO OF THE PAGES IN MY g CIVIL PROCEEDING AS PRESENTED TO ME BY MR. RICHARDSON.
| |
| g Q WHICH PORTION OF IT DO YOU THINK YOU SAW?
| |
| 10 A I REALLY DON'T RECALL.
| |
| 11 Q DID IT INCLUDE THE TITLE PAGE THAT SAYS "TMI, 12 THE BECHTEL CONNECTION"?
| |
| ) 13 A THAT'S WHAT I SEEM TO RECALL, RIGHT.
| |
| 14 Q THAT 15 WHAT YOU SEEM TO RECALL?
| |
| 15 A RIGHT. JUST THAT, "TMI, THE BECHTEL 16 CONNECTION."
| |
| 17 Q BUT YOU DON'T RECALL HAVING SEEN THE REST OF 18 IT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR CIVIL LITIGATION?
| |
| 19 A NO, I 00 NOT. NOR DO ! RECALL HAVING SEEN 20 THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE TODAY OTHER THAN IN MY CIVIL 21 PROCEEDING.
| |
| 22 Q WELL, LOOK AT THE ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE 1 23 THROUGH 5. YOU IDENTIFY THEM ON PAGES 5 AND 6, BUT THEN 24 THEY'RE ATTACHED AFTER THAT. LOOK AT THOSE ATTACHMENTS 25 FOR ME, PLEASE, SPEC 181CALLY ATTACHMENT ONE. IT'S A 11-67 JL
| |
| | |
| Lllc COPY.
| |
| -UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY _ COMMISSION'
| |
| :BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
| |
| );
| |
| \
| |
| 'IN THE MATTER;OF
| |
| 'GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, THREE-MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR C enalt S ATION NO. 2 License No. DPR-73 ,
| |
| EA~84-137 l l
| |
| I EXHIBITS TO THE.
| |
| DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS June 23, 1987 June-24,.1987 VOLUMES II & III 1
| |
| l i
| |
| BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS 'i 4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 5500 REPORTED BY: NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 1 (7141752 1090 '
| |
| PENNY SANDER, CSR #4769 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE. SUITE 570 l FILE NO. B7-244 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90064 l 87-248 (213)202 6666 i
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| PLF'S DEFTS EXHIBli g:
| |
| [
| |
| "T*AJ f,
| |
| * 7ME 3tC.NTYrk CoMdGCT e 4 FOR IDENTIFICATION
| |
| ~
| |
| PENNY SANDE N.P.
| |
| /"A f ,19.
| |
| WIT: 1:Ko rr, 9n ppg .. g g, G/O t u ess e A M t A A1Tshf1 Tb "PitaWE Tlh %<
| |
| g u.4stD 6.T % +j h3sta CampeTkaT ugh To tisrecT g .aog a.4.7.vmts W T6A2. L , .nse,T m.tret AamTHea. es
| |
| ;; 4 an en ~s e ett. AM t 7,,ATie M3 . "T' ka 3 "R.amit.feA**L&ATea "EE5olftb i
| |
| 44 7f*Cr,ugaT # 3. k. KAu&A As n e 'Ditar. Tut. eS r1,. "T nis is STit\ 4 %%It#6 A4T. ieu ens -iSt. yT fg ist.Tg A., M b CanaN @d TuCM eML b pa,$ kip es' ceg c5 Theia. NecleAa YA*iTh. Tim A4 4 gts .a AmrMara, c p Aoy ? t'ka w ,eten. op u nir- 2. is .
| |
| l nD us +h tkt afummu F't.Aan t parL e t8. Caamond% ter m.gb q w canaa M*tch43f. C.!tauy ATiviTies ou T k a ".".".*.amb . ET i 46 % ktg q =.ol kts 1 1.4 7 Tka inervil,m1 caoll Mak.a becs ua,
| |
| %7 .
| |
| i e weo l A ea peda rbe clonaup Ar.T. .Smsa, a .oh L o.o11 dww.+13 i I w.s ike yn..(.T maae h ks MeTMga. M aug. Isa T wn i * *
| |
| * 8.
| |
| 3=Aa. twa. rbte R%h, c.kas.g es To GPU ms hT'(*)
| |
| im teht.h , +kut kd ga+ Fot. 41295c Oss Cm.6dat pt es unu (.C wiit = mm.s . rk.w rigom b. p 4e sxAcrip m44 w b A t F e ag A = v,h pvsate bg + kt h padrue d 2
| |
| Sce%3 (. = 4 h.c. m iub.3t.:h4 -Ais pid 446 4.c.
| |
| C hsh as u.agg w > .3.s wak hm To I
| |
| Wu ba pnesap3T %ts.), A= ha La e . Ag Tkt hur. Maa Def h% sa a.e.v u s z 5e AA* EarHTIK.s hie
| |
| % ou,r 2. Acn* Ties. I r ske M lo p.a4 A.lse +bd L*A E NuCw} % Og h g , "6 tru iTE.C S ItCIE uskS
| |
| '*u *~D
| |
| *ciminis wiag r.s % r Enc.wrst m Tn.uert.e.eig i
| |
| h a m L *wb \ qwg e h ,,. c,,#,ne. im .u, u.14 u .
| |
| | |
| 3 (' 5W 2-4 14s o.nnTeu i % Eats Metac '' As yke. F.vooinc steg +ke Dog, cp/TiMGEA3T cfu ~64C.ATEL 'Receivig de Moufy 3
| |
| , e. one.a. Tke Sec.witt car.Aust.nTr.4 usa Fitu1 p.s "' % e V 3 ranu d ar 44c.Theskif , GPO (a.ab Bet.A.fer) Macqtup4rrbecibeh ;
| |
| To TcTa11 1 ?.e Fut.111,se>64 .Tk E. .h.
| |
| tec4Tgo AT The Tap or*Tha .lAE Cf.AME (Tlies reo s,...) toe, ma na in L.ar Esc.MTELCa4/rkuunur wde$,] 7 g, -
| |
| M Aos TOTAL AoTb,h oute_ T k s 7w.3=+. I** %t psticus, The t
| |
| hA* AbD43 en t.
| |
| Mo bw.hTat e q bgess, Tb o m T 2., 2 3,. r sole RoutTiou n To r g ce=Taa,L "it,a^ch t. huilotn6 EAST 1t.p o.4 taart. k.
| |
| p>=4 penu s b la=6:e a Tks BuilDin6, "IT s61J bs A.1oTeb rk.T 1:srn pa.i.s. Te Aab Sier.s 7ke Acatbes3Y culj Tke is.T Naa.MA4 (.wiTA A55: 6Tanact F*.s,*
| |
| A 'hD Ce A:> 71K W^nceAa i , '9.equing3 To Epsn. visa Aun coaenet. L.cse.k. su Am.sAs t.cW.is.c Tkt. 1*be* Tea /cs4 Kame *T,ee lenfs Ae.e A.1dT
| |
| ~'
| |
| A,\,s.n %*a saasie,s c.Jrneu nasT. A pm.m campis en EFFicit.uT usta es Foubiam. Tkr A mes.k e s. T he. "P 1A e c.a.*= s a waca.m a.q ve new %e cam 'to da*uva. ike swa sules C L$st.a ~- m st*ss Ho Thae) To G Ai a m e.t a s a. A+4b
| |
| ...) 3 . escess or 7 0 "R.sre4ava Tks lanctort.
| |
| l VemEL MEAb.
| |
| "=L k'fbMA%"WNs#9Q esr 7-A-We =X2j 4 ' p_ *>
| |
| i Mu AAw, ~6esu sere.s w. sa.q dMarieos "Rainen re
| |
| * keyiwr 6i e, mames - Tuz.-7 nat come q t=Tn z
| |
| 1 Tke t. cert.k. pusotmtD e4 Nt> Ti% tuTE.Ames METuob es ur us. "1
| |
| * k
| |
| * hl *
| |
| * C" *"''' T** D* Tb** Pb 5 8""*" '
| |
| iguossa y % pear se They coa.) comply ter+4 +
| |
| m
| |
| | |
| l !
| |
| .5 gr k.2 ols. To "dsavt 'Os 7.aa.r.That Vess& L >44b (sisit sc.k.Julab r.ed. (,f n av m + Le h M A*J Asgs 9 s. F h m Aa.m.emesc Tia T L s ps.te T a.T k Se TaminTsoa f aut.15 m w\\ pa.ekalelg Ing. T b l ep vs3h 'its Ana.o Tbs As plaaaan) - Martkea. a=4.f e. '
| |
| e wgric d- h ( 14EaaT . . AattA$ig A. Gd.Amt grA44 pla,y ma 74s. e3.s os 7kt u:Ditle AT" Tht E K y E. eP- Cepisq A 14 t+L. l sa% es- 4ke. Gau ml Polole .
| |
| LTS tit.a eit. no TkwA. "Tk*T Rec.kW. he 5p6 3 meer' uuToIb
| |
| 'Do\\*ta "Tb GE PtMLhab l e A poets o p S Q oye GaII"36 Aa=D jet."
| |
| cAca.aff % Tks class ptose TkaT &T Thsy hwa 'an.we Aa.3 444 iARavbg D "be is g , t% de The uan.y Gpt>
| |
| sk.
| |
| * th$ *== hsp.es.t.te . . .sy Tomaq ouse. The. k2.p.
| |
| ib T@t. Ae ipsg A g cowe. seas meose 4.o "Birs 47ErL. tets, "ba,s ntsas . .
| |
| IT A mg ' Beam.s pasT, obTED (Ahab Tb daT. e Chaaaarr h siapasue Th*T 'Tkt 'lt.hActma. % dog Sug MA3 ceaa74 MJ E k Fuel.
| |
| To 5T "bECJfT& L N C8u'M.'.D Tta e pes,ao
| |
| }D C.tiTicAL .
| |
| M\ Fevt 1:een.s Tb The 't.tsana. %od*9 To M*k.* Tr e Asiet- '
| |
| Fo A Ai rcases, ''T ne:iit poemi+ *.) "Os Anoe Tkss its b*PPs > v.ns hhaummuk: d:tsr A,\\eu Te ph.k.s iT* m, pocabot.AL. 'ilit.5cpotst.E ME4T 76
| |
| 'iht. Symp 4c g c C.RtTIC.Arl un sO Ot.
| |
| beerts 09E:4, GP \.)
| |
| F.n eb Tkam y ust4 0 4.irt. "Peguest Ad A- ss a p s.kts t.e. e F ~n d. e_ -+,. b egen . Lsr Ob *pany tke.T Somp c.t:4 csLirf uever ecc.uch , F = t. T h e. Sh OF E.pr6TE4.A3 'PtoAJ541v4. p.
| |
| b u3 'CT** #a'M4Y'**]Fruc 4ke. tie.=4:4sg o F 4 4. ' W a E st.0 L R co m Segkt M35isa.t) HW +Ln g +Lein h + (aw,+ fih<J.A u.ri%.
| |
| u
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. .o
| |
| | |
| 4 1
| |
| tj ? C .. I T i.c A.s Mt. CoaTsa% - on. 1 % go -tk u +. f lis, M 4 e c.t.cs EED Oc. Stepri$ op 'Th< *2.ev.Tbst. Ceof* Alt b y s te t 4ke. ca:r.td44d o,.d Mus 5:q c.h l d ly ca. usa.o Men.s b Amgo re r b . c rt.e T hd 4 A*8y oden., sqh AcTieu T4k.aAs h AupoE re c.w]
| |
| Av. cave.s e en -dae Acc.idsM. A ga,iu Gro '
| |
| l "Ds.acosr*Tse Thtis. Cymblih M MAqt A Mot.lsA4 M
| |
| 'P1mT' do i 4 uncr eu.J a 47, 47,. ,
| |
| l
| |
| -As s iudivdo i u=2 l +ke. %q.v en. r4., s.5.eq levt<4 Gnay(o, gum s kidced hd 44 tespot.L.% op luq A ob A.ppstoyg A!! A,cTivmas AT. ' TAC 'Z. M*i Cou'd M J T '''* ' ^> d"'' 5* " *7 ** C* *f** *' ''* s
| |
| +le Ec. % Aab bikLT4 oF %e " Misc . IT 5611. be.
| |
| ::em4 d co+ - O n.4 O r tudivdod km, R.anewae.l 4d. entsv g
| |
| r \\ idi:nb 'D isc.955s.D #4 OLS A st:b c.I s , o F c a e n . s E Lt.Fcoub 4e (w.eWem in sAnne Sr4egi$ Ot.Ye.ac.kg CodM fp e Svi late.-* ikg ike EE hAs hjb taavesTijA]- M t. c % .
| |
| rr Tkt c.,ar.t.ts, dueuq de acc 14.d,4Lis a.s .l.s.e i he. del + ep tke. Couvan.k5 manh Rs.cd A%Mg Gaata.AL .
| |
| me,. 4.t AU:i O '
| |
| t cok.3 T.en. Serr w.me 4e pm Oc blame r \1 M 461 s md +kq SL,p 6W d 54e.4. leek S is 3 su A.*t.see Gm h A h MaaMemed c. 3eoop en
| |
| & tvcm.prew.3 i imeividu.as u:kd5 wi.~seaw At p..+ a*. ye==.s kv <
| |
| p m . o 4-k . +. Aw d,J4 ko.ve. ceme =ns min cl=.auo
| |
| %@ lHt.A.b e s;rt A. L.or*E *ThesATedry Meunes 1b b yh be4 Au. e913 c~ ~ n60 A weebaj +L<ie.ow a H*"t:
| |
| O% $t t.Q& rat A F P $ IIC. hMb 1NSUtIDf $ GC tN I~ l Y &
| |
| E i
| |
| | |
| Mf i
| |
| 6 t A pacq 7bfir.
| |
| 10 +lsen is sae Axe A o n. ,onu+ 4$uf
| |
| }naxs c{issass w , la Lors test g.);ae.y (ytee ?<sua W pac p i,< s cr o rt. o s 74 -t-) kwAmc & .DisefisAso t,ai/k
| |
| .+.4 g. c/~p Ackrh o A.ab GU n d sawI 4 400K&
| |
| sura 8scA rsl' . /~4cm AY f to Mt 7%e uns Mox.s 7mayeems Mecs 4'+M Ar** 4688)/ pe' 16lIs.r tw :Me 17 m e Aien m e or /?t/ is fa:ase. R Z s,m.a c s e s a Aar.
| |
| /Lef is Man s+rkne s/*w.
| |
| 1%e. y/</rm of +4rs fertenaf enen Slovl/ da'ise 10 J./nua ka.0 CEntnAD TSr* lfavacwt /f A Comirnw do wvedy de ~fle coa/csed Lepoxsrsac ta +1/a, Anh4c/c Af774' A// Aeu) G t/Al lse. e,1,*eede do be feelec U i p p.>e r e si ,eg p n. cur 1 la/<d feesuss Mi uwc[s A fnoff Anb V c) is ,lee bus,V te.)/td'u.nsSoxk be cwcnadao.
| |
| A7Txl m our
| |
| * I Lswoe wgipfwg bcGlAine Ads w Fwbw<
| |
| MrsL~rr*L ra<nuant plo.e sa m e.a y N p a.r k s.rpurea 2namn.., 4=/s we chp m sci.4/e wlied 4-Us,s,. es sam,'h,Ine. cas,ut 50 ens in com*leren An asnees 5***,s a du Sc L kle h hse heca w a e
| |
| * C P "3 NamA.\tsT Task. % + q Asum % er,5
| |
| ** *cL m 3
| |
| * 5 Law e. A4.yiac, so p can.cu.,3 cm us $,
| |
| 05W AttSulfom A W D-b4.cf ACf80*"T W NE
| |
| % us.eu m.49feseg tuue sm y ams A m '. =
| |
| * J * " Lem mm nu. Att.wiu$ Ait %,a h4.s % .ie i.
| |
| teots e,fu bW 9eT tecasu haf cLTicaL9
| |
| | |
| (, .
| |
| A v u.L e n a
| |
| * 5 Letten. peu.* 14,- . Gro M o-Lave L Mao $e%sJ 5%ptessq c.u caem wn. ;
| |
| Toba Ca.s.M h + W - dedy=) MAugau.
| |
| AA.ch b g wece coewcas. {
| |
| 1
| |
| \
| |
| (
| |
| O V
| |
| l
| |
| .u
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT J CERTIFIED COPY l
| |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
| |
| \
| |
| IN THE MATTER OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, 1 Docket No. 50-320 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR Civil Penalty STATION NO. 2 License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137 h
| |
| DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS June 22, 1987 VOLUME I BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS 4000 MC ARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 5500 REPORTED BY: NEWPORT BEACH. CAf.lFORNIA 92660 (714)752 1390 ROSF. MARY SCHWARTZ, CSR #4836 -
| |
| 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE. SUITE 570 FILE NO. 87-242 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90064 (213)202 6666
| |
| - - - - - ---_-_____m._ _ _ __ _ __
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| (
| |
| i diccuocod.
| |
| 2 Now, if you'll turn to page 6, you see that 3
| |
| we started near the top of that page with our second 4
| |
| initial concern; but I wanted you to see where that 5
| |
| comes in the context of your affidavit.
| |
| ~6 Okay. The concern, as you stated, is that 7 the plant, plant systems and componente have been 8 modified without proper review of the engineering 9 paperwork.
| |
| 10 And why don't you take a moment to just 11 read that page 6 to yourself so you've got it in mind 12 before I start to ask you questions to yourself.
| |
| 13 A. Okay.
| |
| 14 Q. Okay. On that page, you're talking about 15 this procedure that we've just had out a few moments 16 ago, 1043, governing modifications.
| |
| 17 And you state that it covers the process 18 for an engineering change modification, ECM.
| |
| l 19 By the way, it is proper to call that I
| |
| l 20 engineering change memorandum, is it not, in the 21 procedure?
| |
| 32 A. I believe so.
| |
| 23 Q. Rather than a modification?
| |
| 24 A. Right.
| |
| 25 Q. And "at the Head Lift meetings, we 105 JL
| |
| | |
| ) Il 1 lacrnsd," you ocy, "that ECM'c were not consistently 2' being issued to accomplish plant modifications."
| |
| 3 When did you learn that?
| |
| 4 A. I --
| |
| from what my.. memory serves and tells 5 me at this' moment, I learned it --
| |
| as I stated in this 6 affidavit -- I learned it during the course of the Head 7 Lift meetings.
| |
| 8 Q. And when did the Head Lift meetings begin?
| |
| 9 A. Sometimes towards the.end of the year, 10 1982, 11 Q. Did you routinely attend most of them?
| |
| 12 A. I routinely attended them after I was 13 assigned to the task force.
| |
| 14 Q. Who assigned you?
| |
| 15 A. Larry King.
| |
| 16 Q. When did he assign you?
| |
| 17 A. Sometime towards the and of 1982.
| |
| 18 Q. And did you learn about this on your own at 19 these meetings or did someone else tell you about it 20 from meetings that you did not attend?
| |
| 21 A. At the moment, I can't recall if I learned
| |
| (
| |
| i 22 it while present in the room or whether it was relayed 23 to me by Bubba Marshall or someone else. I can just 24 recall being made sware of it. ,
| |
| L 25 Q. When you didn't go, did Bubba Marshall 106 dI k
| |
| | |
| N f' g usually go on baholf of site operationn?
| |
| 2 A. We usually attended together.
| |
| 'Q. Were there other people there --
| |
| usually 3
| |
| i 4
| |
| there from site operations besides yourself and Bubba J l
| |
| 5 Marshall? !
| |
| 6 A. Yes.
| |
| 7 Q. Who? l 8 A. Dick Sieglitz was also assigned, and at 19 varying times either Joe Smith or possibly -- I don't 10 remember what the.other guy's name was.
| |
| John Jerry, was that the other name?
| |
| ~
| |
| Q. I
| |
| - 11 12 A. John Perry, I believe that was the other 13: guy.
| |
| 14 Q. Mr. Sieglitz --
| |
| in case we don't have his 15 name spelled right -- was the plant maintenance manager 16 at the time, right?
| |
| 17 A. I believe so,'yes.
| |
| 18 Q. And he and yourself and Mr. Marshall, 19 Mr. Smith and Mr. Perry all were in the broader site
| |
| - 20 operations department; isn't that right?
| |
| 21 A. That's correct.
| |
| 32 Q. Okay. So when you talk about the site 23 operations representatives, that would be the group you 24 were talking about?
| |
| 25 A. Right.
| |
| 107 5
| |
| | |
| I g- Q. All right. Now, what wcs the modification g that you learned about, however you learned it, at the 3
| |
| task force meeting that had been made without an i 4 engineering. change memorandum?
| |
| 5 .A. At the moment I do not recall a specific 1 6 modification that had been accomplished without use of 7 an ECM.
| |
| 8 Q. Was it simply announced at the Head Lift 9 Task Force that this had happened?
| |
| ?
| |
| 13 0 A. I don't really recall at the moment how 11 it --
| |
| you know, how that information was conveyed to the {
| |
| t i
| |
| 12 attendees, either individually or as a group. i 13 Q. As you understood the requirements of the l l
| |
| 14 applicable procedures at the time, did you think that l
| |
| 15 was a violation of procedure, to have modifications j 16 being made without ECM's?
| |
| i 17 A. I don't recall at this time what I thought 18 at that time.
| |
| l 19 Q. Well, you state in your affidavit, this I
| |
| 20 page we're looking at, page 6, "we learned that ECM's 21 were not consistently being issued to accomplish plant 22 modifications." l 23 I assume you were referring to plant I 24 modifications that require ECM's, were you not?
| |
| 25 A. That's correct, I would only have to make a
| |
| 4 i
| |
| 108 1
| |
| l dd k
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| -, /
| |
| 1 g that como cocumption. l 2- Q. So weren't you of the view that the failure 3 to use an ECM for a modification was a violation of the 4 procedure?
| |
| 5 A. I believe it to be a violation of
| |
| '6 procedure, yes.
| |
| 7 Q. And believed it then?
| |
| 8 A. Probably.
| |
| 9 Q. Is there some doubt in your mind about
| |
| ~10 that?
| |
| 11 A. Very little; but, again, you're asking me 12 to state categorically what was in my mind seven years 13 ago, and I'm telling you I don't recall at this time 14 what was in my mind seven years ago.
| |
| 15 Q. It's not quite seven, but I agree it is 16 several.
| |
| 17 A. You're right, it's four.
| |
| 18 Q. If you read what you swore to under oath, 19 it might help you refresh your recollection of the l 20 accuracy of what.you stated.
| |
| 21 The statement that you make here on page 6 22 indicates that an example was refurbishment of the 23 reactor building polar crane and that doing that by work 24 packages could totally circumvent the site modifications 25 control procedure AP-1043.
| |
| 109 JL
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT K l
| |
| f 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA l 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3
| |
| 4 RICHARD D. PARKS, )
| |
| )
| |
| 5 Plaintiff, )
| |
| )
| |
| 6 vs. ) No. 831-846
| |
| )
| |
| 7 BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION, )
| |
| et al., )
| |
| 8 ) Volume 16 Defendants. )
| |
| 9 )
| |
| 10 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD D. PARKS, Plaintiff, 15 taken on behalf of the Defendants at 333 16 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los 17 Angeles, California, commencing at 9:15 A.M.,
| |
| 18 Sunday, February 1, 1987, before Willie B.
| |
| 19 Brown, CSR No. 5996, a Notary Public.
| |
| 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAT SARKLEY COURT REPORTERS
| |
| | |
| -., f I'
| |
| 1 just asked me.
| |
| 2 May I speak with you?
| |
| 3 (Whereupon, at 3:49 P.M., the d witness.and Ms. Zuras leave the deposition L
| |
| 5 room and return at 3:56 P.M.)
| |
| 6 BY MR. RICHARDSON:
| |
| 7 G With regard to the mistake referred to at 8 the bottom of page 11, do you have any basis for believing 9 that such a mistake was made separate and apart from what-10 you are told by the engineer whom you mentioned a minute 11 or two ago?
| |
| 12 A Are you asking me to speculate?
| |
| 13 0 No. I am just trying to find out whether 14 your belief that a mistake was made was based on anything 15 in addition to anything that this engineer told you?
| |
| 16 A From what I can recall at the moment, I 17 had no reason then, nor do I now, to discredit what the 18 man informed me of.
| |
| 19 I am not asking you whethe'r you --
| |
| 4 20 A To answer your question, above and beyond 21 that, no, sir, I do not have any reason that comes to 22- mind immediately, to believe tha*. a mistake was made for 23 any other reason other than what I stated in my affidavit.
| |
| 24 0 On page 12, about two-thirds of the way
| |
| ; 25 down, I am referring to, of course, page 12 of your 16-144 PAT SARKLEY COURT REPORTERS
| |
| __ __ -_________________-____a
| |
| | |
| 1 56-page affidavit, you discussed the safety evaluation 2 report for the head lift and you make the statement:
| |
| 3 "The head lift SER initially 4 had been issued in December. The comments 5 received in the review cycle were extremely I
| |
| 6 critical."
| |
| 7 Who authored the critical comments concerning 8 the head lift SER?
| |
| '9 A At this moment, sir, I cannot recall.
| |
| 10 0 Did you ever personally complain about 11 deficiencies in the head lift SER7 12 A Sir, not everything that I wrote down in 13 my affidavit should be considered a complaint.
| |
| 14 In many. instances, information that was 15 included in this 56-page affidavit was to provide a historica.
| |
| 16 perspective for the reader to understand why the schedule 17 had been pushed ahead at the sake of safety.
| |
| 18 0 Did you personally raise any issues concerning 19 the head lift SER?
| |
| 20 A Not that I can recall at the moment, sir.
| |
| 21 Beginning at the bottom of page 12 of your 4
| |
| 22 56-page affidavit and continuing to page 13, ye- described 23 a problem concerning how to drain the B steam generator.
| |
| 24 MS. ZURAS: What line are you referring to, 25 Mr. Richardson?
| |
| 16-145 l
| |
| PAT sARKLEY coumf mapomTans l
| |
| l.
| |
| | |
| CGIBIT L 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3
| |
| 4 RICHARD D. PARKS, )
| |
| )
| |
| 5 Plaintiff, )
| |
| )
| |
| 6 vs. ) No. 831-8'.o
| |
| )
| |
| 7 BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION, )
| |
| et al., )
| |
| 8 ) Volume 16 Defendants. )
| |
| ! 9 )
| |
| 10 11 12 13 14 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD D. PARKS, Plaintiff, !
| |
| 1 15 taken on behalf of the Defendants at 333 16 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los 17 Angeles, California, commencing at 9:15 A.M.,
| |
| 18 Sunday, February 1, 1987, before Willie B. ;
| |
| 19 Brown, CSR No. 5996, a Notary Public.
| |
| 20 21 22 23 24 L 25 P
| |
| i
| |
| ... .. . m ..... . ...
| |
| l 4
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| 1 full paragraph, you describe Mr. Kunder's position as 2 chairman of PORC, that is, P-0-R-C, as being a key position.
| |
| 3 Why was that a key position?
| |
| 4 A Safety review group or PORC in itself was 5 a key panel of individuals that constituted one of the 6 forms of checks and balances within the operation of the 7 power plant.
| |
| 8 g so pORC played _ key role in insuring that 9 the plant was operated or cleaned up safely; is that correct?
| |
| 10 A- That would be a safe characterization on 11 your part.
| |
| 12 4 Beginning with the second paragraph on page 36, 1$ you say that on several occasions, Joe Chwastyk and shift 14 supervisor, Bernie Smith, identified Kunder as the mystery 15 man.
| |
| 16 Were there occasions when either Mr. Chwastyk 17 or Mr. Smith informed you that Kunder was the mystery 18 man?
| |
| 19 A Sir,'I stand by what I said on page 36 in ,
| |
| i 20 my affidavit when I wrote it. I believe it to be true.
| |
| 1 21 I believe it to be true now. I do not have any other l
| |
| 22 recall to make me dispute what I see there, not at the 1
| |
| 23 moment, if I understood your question correctly. )1 24 Well, are you saying in your affidavit that 0
| |
| 1 3 25 Chwactyk or Smith told you directly that Kunder was the 16-96 e.
| |
| PAT SARKLEY court REPORTERS
| |
| | |
| 1 mystery man?
| |
| 2 A From what I can recall im this moment, sir, 3 I derived that opinion or that belief based on their 4 conversations that I was a party to.
| |
| 5 0' okay. Well, let's take Joe Chwastyk.
| |
| 6 What did he tell you which led you to conclude 7 that Kunder was the mystery man?
| |
| 8 A I have no further recall at this moment
| |
| '9 .beyond what I have stated in my affidavit.
| |
| t 10 0 So I gather, you do not recall either the 11 words you used or the substance of what he told you?
| |
| 12 A I think the substance of what he stated 13 appears in my affidavit.
| |
| 14' Beyond that, no, sir, I cannot at this moment 15 recall with any distinction or clarity exactly what was
| |
| . 16 said.
| |
| 17 0 Well, if you understand your affidavit, 18 does it mean that Chwastyk told you that Kunder was the
| |
| ; 19 mystery man or that he said something which led you to 20 infer that Kunder was the mystery man?
| |
| 21 Again, sir, as I stated previously, at this A
| |
| i 22 moment, I have no additional recall that would allow me 23 to elaborate on what I stated there.
| |
| 24 Okay. And does that answer also apply with Q
| |
| at 25 regard to what Bernie Smith told you?
| |
| l l l 16-97
| |
| # par sansa.sv count neronisms i
| |
| _ ________.___ _.d
| |
| | |
| i 1 A -From what I can. recall at this moment, yes, 2 sir, it would have to apply.
| |
| 3 G What did Joe Smith (sic) tell you he had j i
| |
| l heard concerning whether Kunder was the. mystery man?
| |
| 4 5 A I think, sir, that you would. find that the 1 6 intent behind these individuals whose names appear in 7 that paragraph was to identify the other individuals.that q I
| |
| 8 were either involved in the conversation or in the immediate i 9 vicinity of the conversation and may have had reason or 10 recall of the conversation itself.
| |
| 11 At least, that is what I can recall at this 12' moment.
| |
| 13 0 So in the second sentence of that paragraph, 14 which reads, "One or the other have identified Kunder 15 to Larry King, Joe Smith of S.O. staff, Jahr Perry of 16 3 ,. O . staff, John Auger of Ted1 Compliance, Joyce Wender 17 - and myself."
| |
| 18 The meaning you were intending to convey
| |
| (
| |
| 19 was that those individuals were present at the same time 20 you were informed by Chwastyk or Smith about Kunder being 21 a mystery man; is that correct?
| |
| 22 A That is what I can recall at this moment.
| |
| 23 I was attempting to identify the individuals who I had 2'
| |
| cause to believe at the time that I wrote that affidavit 25 m ght have knowledge that could be pursued by the Nuclear 16-98
| |
| '* PAT sARKLEY court REPORTERE
| |
| | |
| : 1 Regulatory Commission or any other' body of the federal 2 government that wanted to look into the matter.
| |
| 3 3 'With regard to the other individuals which
| |
| '& 4 are listed in the bottom paragraph of page 36 as having 5 participated in the same-discussion that you attended 6 during which Chwastyk or Smith said that Kunder was the
| |
| : r. 7- mystery man, can I ask you whether you went to any of 8 those individuals at any time to ask'of them what they 9 remembered Chwastyk~or Smith having said on that subject?
| |
| n 10 ' THE WITNESS: May I talk-with you?
| |
| 11 '(Whereupon, at 1:57 P.M. .the 12 witness and Ms, Zuras left the room
| |
| , 13 momentarily and returned at 1:59 P.M.)-
| |
| 14 MS. ZURAS: Would you please repeat the question?
| |
| 15 MR. RICHARDSON: I will restate the question.
| |
| : 16 0 With regard to the individuals other than 17 yourself who are listed in the bottom paragraph of page 36
| |
| : 18. as having participated in the same discussions which you 19 attended during which Chwastyk or Smith identified Kunder 20 as the mystery man, could you tell me whether.at any time 21 you have ever asked any of those individuals about what 22 they rewsmbered Chwastyk or Smith having said on that 1
| |
| 23 subject?
| |
| 24 A To the best of my knowledge, to this moment,
| |
| ;g. 25 independent verification was obtained prior to going public j 16-99 g , PAT SAMELEY COURT REPORTERS
| |
| | |
| 1 with that'information.
| |
| 2 O Well, what independent verification?
| |
| 3 A From what I can recall at this moment, that 4
| |
| information was verified by my lawyer.
| |
| 5 0 Who is that?
| |
| 6 A Tom Devine.
| |
| : 7. O What did he do?
| |
| 8 MS. ZURAS: Excuse me.
| |
| 9 Mr. Parks, if the answer to'this question 10 is based upon information that you received from your 11 attorney and then I am going to instruct him, suggest 12 very strongly that you not answer the question based on 13 attorney-client privilege.
| |
| 14 If there is no other basis as to the information 15 that you have, then please give it.
| |
| 16 THE WITNESS: Based on the advice of my attorney, 17 I decline to answer the question.
| |
| 18 MR. RICEARDSON: Are you instructing him not to 19 answer?
| |
| 20 MS. ZURAS: Yes.
| |
| 21 MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. Ms. Zuras, I have got to 22 paint out that wheth r Mr. Devine is a licensed attorney 23 does not give him a blanket absolute privilese over what 24 he does with regard to anything he does.
| |
| 25 Clearly,'in this instance, Mr. Devine is 16-100 PAT SARKLEY court REPORTERS
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT ML i, CAL 1 l
| |
| b.,' -
| |
| 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN'AND FOR THE CITY:ANDLCOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 2
| |
| 3 : RICHARD D. PARKS, :
| |
| : i 4 PLAINTIFF :
| |
| 5 VS : CASE'NO.
| |
| : 805749 6 BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION; BECHTEL :
| |
| NORTH AMERICAN POWER CORPORATION; :
| |
| 7 S.D. BECHTEL, JR.; D. C. NERELL; :
| |
| LARRY W. WOOD; DOES COMPANIES ONE :
| |
| 8 THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE, INCLUSIVE; :
| |
| AND DOES ONE THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE, :
| |
| 9 INCLUSIVE. :
| |
| 10 DEFENDANTS :
| |
| 11 10TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 1800 M STREET, N.W., SOUTH 12 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 l
| |
| 13 THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1986 14' DEPOSITION OF. I 15 THOMAS M. DEVINE, ESQ.,
| |
| - 16 A WITNESS HEREIN, CALLED FOR EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL 17 FOR DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO NOTICE, AT THE 18 LAW OFFICES OF SHAW,PITTMAN,-POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, 19 1800 M STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., BEGINNING AT 20 FRIEDLI, WOLFF & PASTORE, INC.
| |
| ' 21 1735 EYE STREET, N.W., SUITE #920 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
| |
| /~~'% 22 (202) 331-1981 L
| |
| 5 q ,
| |
| | |
| 65 i
| |
| l 1 FIFTY-SIX PAGE AFFIDAVIT, SO IT WASN'T NON STOP.
| |
| 2 Q I SEE. WELL, DO I UNDERSTAND, DID YOU 4 3 INTERRUPT -- WHEN I SAY INTERRUPT -- DID YOU STOP AT
| |
| . 4 SOME POINT IN YOUR INITIAL INTERVIEW OF MR. PARKS AND ]
| |
| 1 l 5 ATTEMPT TO CORROBORATE HIS INFORMATION WITH WITNESSES?
| |
| l I
| |
| 6 A AT SOME POINT DURING THAT INITIAL PERIOD, I 7 JUST DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS A BREAK BETWEEN PAGES 8 THIRTY-FIVE AND THIRTY-SIX OR IF IT WAS WHILE THE
| |
| : 9. DOCUMENT WAS BEING TYPED AFTER WE HAD -- I HAD FINISHED 10 DRAFTING IT, OR WHAT. BUT THERE WAS, DURING THOSE 11 INITIAL DAYS, I MADE A NUMBER OF CALLS TO TRY AND 12 CORROBORATE HIS INFORMATION.
| |
| 13 Q THE WHOLE PROCESS OF PREPARING THIS 14 AFFIDAVIT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TOOK SEVERAL DAYS, IS 15 THAT CORRECT?
| |
| 16 A THAT'S CORRECT.
| |
| THREE, FOUR7 DO YOU KNOW? /
| |
| 17 Q LIKE WHAT?
| |
| 18 A I AM JUST NOT SURE. SOMEWHERE IN THAT A9 BALLPARK.
| |
| 20 Q DID YOU DIRECT ANYBODY ELSE TO MAKE EFFORTS 21 TO ATTEMPT TO CORROBORATE MR. PARKS' STATEMENTS TO YOU?
| |
| 22 A I BELIEVE SO, THAT I HAD A LAW STUDENT WHO l
| |
| L.
| |
| L l
| |
| _ 3
| |
| | |
| 66 t
| |
| L 1 WAS HELPING ME.
| |
| 2' Q WHO WAS THAT?
| |
| '3' A RER NAME WAS MARYA YOUNG.
| |
| 4 Q MARIA YOUNG 7 5 A YES.
| |
| 6 Q M-A-R-I-A7 7 A M-A-R-Y-A.
| |
| 8' Q BUT YOU DIDN'T LEAVE WASHINGTON OR YOUR l 9
| |
| OFFICE TO GO DO THIS CORROBORATION, YOU WERE DOING IT 10 OVER THE TELEPHONE 7 A THAT'S CORRECT. DURING THOSE FEW DAYS.
| |
| 11 12 O AND IT WAS AFTER YOU HAD SATISFIED YOURSELF 13 THAT MR. PARKS' FACTS WERE ACCURATE THAT YOU AGREED TO 14 REPRESENT HIM?
| |
| A THAT'S CORRECT. SBAT WE AGREED TO FILE A 15 16 COMPLAINT ON HIS BEHALF.
| |
| 17 Q WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR?
| |
| 18 A AND A DISCLOSURE TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
| |
| '19 COMMISSION. THOSE WERE THE TWO THINGS WE AGREED TO DO.
| |
| 20 Q AND WAS THERE ANY WRITTEN RECORD OR AGREEMENT 21 OF YOUR UNDERTAKING WITH MR. PARKS TO PROVIDE THESE TW 22 SERVICES?
| |
| w
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT N CERTIFIED COPY l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE k
| |
| IN THE MATTER OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION' l Docket No. 50-320 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR Civil Penalty STATION NO. 2 License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137 l
| |
| 1 i
| |
| DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS June 23, 1987 VOLUME II BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS 4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD. SulTE 5500 REPORTED BY: NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 (7141752 1090 PENNY SANDER, CSR #4769 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE 570 FILE NO. 87-244 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90064 (213)202-6666
| |
| | |
| g TELL YOU DEFINITIVELY !F I DID OR NOT. ]
| |
| 2 Q DID YOU MAKE A SIMILAR THREAT ON MORE THAN 3 ONE OCCASION TO JOE SMITH DURING THE LAST QUARTER OF 1982? i l
| |
| 4; A NOT THAT I CAN RECALL AT THIS MOMENT.
| |
| t 5 Q ARE YOU AWARE, MR. PARKS, THAT MR. ED STIER 6 INVESTIGATED YOUR ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE CONVERSATIONS YOU 7 REFERRED TO IN YOUR AFFIDAVIT ON PAGE 36 AND 37 REGARDING g THE MYSTERY MAN AND THAT NONE OF THE 13 WITNESSES YOU g REFERRED TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM IN THOSE PARAGRAPHS? DID 10 YOU KNOW THAT? )
| |
| 11 A YES, I KNEW THAT. I SUPPOSE THEN, TOO, SIR, j
| |
| 12 YOU'RE AWARE OF THE LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT I RESPONDED 13 TO MR. RICHARDSON DURING MY DEPOSITION FOR MY CIVIL CASE 14 WHERE I STATED TO HIM THAT PRIOP. TO ME GOING PUBLIC, MY )
| |
| l 15 COUNSEL CONFIRMED IT WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE WITNESSES THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE AS STATED IN MY AFFIDAVIT.
| |
| 16 17 Q WHO DID HE CONFIRM IT WITH?
| |
| 18 A I SUGGEST, SIR, YOU TAKE IT UP WITH MY LAWYER ]
| |
| 19 AT THE TIME.
| |
| 20 Q BUT DON'T YOU KNOW? .
| |
| 21 A IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I BELIEVE IT WAS 22 JOHN AUGER.
| |
| 23 Q AND THIS IS BEFORE YOUR AFFIDAVIT WAS 24 RELEASED?
| |
| l 25 A YES, S!R. l
| |
| !!-151 k
| |
| | |
| gg' f I
| |
| g Q WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN MR. AUGER CONF!RMED 2 THIS CONVERSATION?
| |
| 3 A I, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, CAN'T REMEMBER IF ! l l
| |
| 4 WAS PRESENT OR IF IT WAS RELAYED TO ME BY-MY LAWYER.
| |
| 5 Q YOUR LAWYER, MR. DEV!NE?
| |
| 6 A YES.
| |
| l 7 Q AND THIS WAS BEFORE YOU RELEASED YOUR l i
| |
| 8 AFFIDAVIT?
| |
| g A YES, SIR.
| |
| l 10 Q DID MR. DEVINE ATTEMPT TO CONFIRM YOUR 11 STATEMENTS WITH ANY OF THE OTHER 13 WITNESSES THAT ARE ON I 13 F> A G E 36 AND 37?
| |
| 13 A I REALLY COULDN'T TELL YOU AT THIS MOMENT, i
| |
| 14 SIR.
| |
| 15 Q DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT, BEFORE RELEASING 16 YOUR AFFIDAVIT, TO CHECK WITH ANY OF THESE 13 PEOPLE ABOUT i 17 THE ACCURACY OF YOUR STATEMENTS CONCERNING THEM?
| |
| 18 A NOT THAT I CAN RECALL AT.THE MOMENT.
| |
| 19 Q IF YOU DIDN'T CHECK, WOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS A 20 LITTLE CARELESS, MR. PARKS?
| |
| 21 A NO, SIR, I WOULD NOT.
| |
| 22 Q YOU DID VIEW IT AS A SERIOUS CHARGE YOU WERE 23 MAKING AGAINST MR. KUNDER, DIDN'T YOU?
| |
| 24 A YES, I DID.
| |
| 25 Q DID YOU ANTICIPATE, MR. PARKS --
| |
| YOU MUST II-152 l
| |
| 4u
| |
| | |
| I g
| |
| TRANSCRIPT OF?
| |
| 2 A WHERE?
| |
| 3 Q ! DIDN'T SEE THE TRANSCRIPT. YOU'RE THE ONE g WHO ANALYZED THE TRANSCRIPT. WHAT DOES THE TRANSCRIPT SAY 3 ABOUT WHAT IT'S TESTIMONY OF?
| |
| 4 6 A I DON'T SEE THAT IT SAYS IT'S A TRANSCRIPT.
| |
| 7 Q SAYS " ANALYSIS OF TESTIMONY." WHAT IS THE g TESTIMONY FROM?
| |
| g A AGAIN, SIR, I'LL HAVE TO CLAIM 10 ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
| |
| 11 Q HOW ABOUT K? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT 12 DOCUMENT, "A' HANDWRITTEN DRAFT BY MR. DEV!NE RE:
| |
| 13 ALLEGATIONS FOR PARKS' AFFIDAVIT R E F L E C T I N G. CONVERSATION 14 WITH RICK PARKS, FOUR PAGES, NO DATE, RE: PUMPS SHUTDOWN IS AT TMI, NO COPIES ISSUED." '
| |
| 16 A AGAIN, SIR, 1 IMAGINE THAT WOULD FALL UNDER 17 THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
| |
| 18 Q HAVE YOU SEEN Ti _ DOCUMENTS THAT ARE 19 !. D E N T ! F I E D AS 1, J, AND K? LET ME BREAK IT UP. HOW 20 ABOUT --
| |
| I AND K ARE MR. DEVINE'S DRAFTS. HAVE YOU EVER 21 SEEN DOCUMENT I AND DOCUMENT K?
| |
| 22 A AT THE MOMENT ! HAVE NO RECALL WHETHER I HAVE 23 OR NOT.
| |
| 24 Q DO YOU THINK IT MIGHT REFRESH YOUR i
| |
| l 25 RECOLLECTION ABOUT WHAT YOU KNEW AT THE TIME YOU FILED l
| |
| 11-165 i
| |
| .dd k I 1
| |
| | |
| 5}q P-g~ VOUR AFFIDAVIT REGARDING.MR. KUNDER AND PUMP SHUTDOWN IF g YOU REVIEWED NOTES OF WHAT YOU TOLD MR. DEV!NE?
| |
| 3' A I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT.
| |
| 4 Q WHY?
| |
| 5 A BECAUSE l'M NOT FULLY INTERESTED IN READING 6 IT.. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WHAT l'M REALLY TRYING TO SAY, 7 SIR, 15 1 DON'T KNOW WHETHER THOSE DOCUMENTS EVEN REALLY 8 EXISTED UNTIL I READ THIS.
| |
| 9 Q WELL, IF THIS STATEMENT BY YOUR ATTORNEY 15 10 ACCURATE, THEY DO EXIST.
| |
| 11 A APPAE. NTLY IT'S ACCURATE. I DON'T THINK THE 12 HOBERG LAW FIRM WOULD MAKE AN INACCURATE STATEMENT.
| |
| -13 Q ! DON'T EITHER IN THIS DOCUMENT.
| |
| 14 i BELIEVE'THE QUES'ilON IS WHETHER IT WOULD 15- REFRESH YOl!R RECOLLECTION. YOU HAVE ANSWERED THAT ONE, 50 16 l'M MOVING ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS DOCUMENT M. ,
| |
| 17 A ! GUESS THAT WAS PROBABLY A FLIPPANT REMARK 18 ON MY PART. IT MIGHT, BUT I DON'T KNOW AT THIS TIME ,
| |
| 19 WITHOUT HAVING REVIEWED THE DOCUMENT, IF IT WOULD REFRESH 20- ANYTHING AT ALL. I SEEMED TO HAVE A FAIRLY REASONABLE 21 REPRESENTATION OF-ANYTH]NG 1 HAD TO SAY REGARDING THOSE 22 INCIDENTS PRESENTED TO ME BY YOU TODAY.
| |
| 23 MR. JOHNSON: CAN WE TAKE A VERY SHORT BREAK. l'D 24 LIKE TO CONSULT WITH MR. PARKS. LET'S GO OUTSIDE.
| |
| 1 25 (WITNESS AND COUNSEL CONFERRING.)
| |
| 11-166 l l k I .
| |
| | |
| } ?
| |
| g IN THE LAST YEAR?
| |
| 2' A AT THE MOMENT I CANNOT RECALL IF I HAVE OR 3
| |
| NOT.
| |
| 4 Q DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THOSE NOTES WERE PROVIDED 5 TO ANYONE OTHER THAN TOM DEVINE?
| |
| j 6 A I AM NOT AWARE THAT'THOSE NOTES WERE PROVIDED 7 TO ANYONE OTHER THAN TOM DEVINE.
| |
| g Q FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF THE NOTES THERE, 15 g IT YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT IT WAS A -- WELL, I DON'T NEED 10 TO ASK THAT. NEVER MIND.
| |
| 11 LOOK AT PAGE 27 OF THAT EXHIBIT, WOULD YOU, 12 PLEASE, MR. PARKS. DOCUMENT MM IS DESCRIBED AS:
| |
| 13 " NOTES AND MEMOS OF THOMAS DEVINE'S GAP 14 STAFF, NO DATES, RE: BECHTEL/GPU POTENTIAL j 15 WITNESSES AND WHAT THOSE WITNESSES KNOW j 16 REGARD {NG PARKS' ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BECHTEL."
| |
| , 17 AND THEN IT LISTS APPARENTLY THE WITNESSES: ,
| |
| 1 18 BONNIE SHERWOOD, JOHN PERRY, RON WARREN, MARK KOBI, i 19 JOHN AUGER, JOYCE WENGER, CARL HRBAC, JIM FLOYD, ]
| |
| 20 RON BRINKLEY. SAYS BILL WILLIAM MARSHALL. DO YOU THINK 21 THAT MIGHT BE WALTER MARSHALL, MR. PARKS?
| |
| 22 A l'M SURE THAT'S WHO THEY INTENDED.
| |
| 23 Q WALTER MARSHALL IS BUBBA MARSHALL 7 24 A RIGHT.
| |
| 25 Q YOU DO NOT KNOW ANY WILLIAM MARSHALL, DO YOU?
| |
| !!-169 ML
| |
| | |
| '4l f ,
| |
| f 1s A NO, 1 DO NOT.
| |
| 2 Q GEORGE CLEMENTS, JOE CHWASTYK. SAYS 3 ED GISCHEL. DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS ED GISCHEL OR 4 ED KITLER MAYBE? YOU DON'T KNOW?
| |
| 5 A l'M NOT FOR SURE WHICH IT WOULD MEAN. IT 6 COULD BE EITHER ONE.
| |
| 7 Q AND GEORGE KUNDER. "NO COPIES ISSUED, 69 8 PAGES." HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THOSE PAGES?
| |
| 9 A AT THE MOMENT ! CAN'T RECALL IF I HAVE OR 10 NOT.
| |
| 4 11 Q BEFORE FILING YOUR AFFIDAVIT, DID YOU REVIEW 12 ANY STATEMENTS, WRITTEN STATEMENTS BY ANY OF THE WITNESSES 13 LISTED'IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT MM?
| |
| 14 A AT THE MOMENT I CANNOT RECALL HAVING REVIEWED 15 ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS BY ANYONE MENTIONED HERE.
| |
| 16 Q AFTER YOUR AFFIDAVIT WAS PREPARED, DID YOU 17 REVIEW ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THESE 18 COMDITIONS?
| |
| 19 A WOULDN'T THAT BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE?
| |
| 20 MR. JOHNSON: COULD WE JUST WAIT *A SECOND?
| |
| l 21 COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION PLEASE OR READ
| |
| ~22 !T BACK?
| |
| 23 MR. HICKEY: l'LL JUST REPEAT IT. ! ASKED THE 24 Wi"hfSS IF, AFTER HIS AFFIDAVIT WAS RELEASED ON MARCH 25 23RD, HE REVIEWED ANY STATEMENTS REGARDING THE TESTIMONY
| |
| !!-170 l
| |
| l md L.
| |
| | |
| g MR. JOHNSON: OKAY.
| |
| 2 MR.. HICKEY: l'M GOING:TO'ASK THE REPORTER TO MARK 3
| |
| AS EXHIBIT-48 THIS DOCUMENT WHICH IS OF A MARCH 23, 1983 4 ' LETTER SIGNED BY THCMAS DEVINE TO CHAIRMAN PALLADINO OF 5
| |
| THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STATING THE!R 6 REPRESENTATION OF MR.. PARKS AND SOME OTHER MATTERS.
| |
| .y. Q BY MR. HICKEY: MR. PARKS, l'D ASK YOU TO 4, TAKE. A LOOK AT THIS LETTER. AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YO t g ABOUTI17.
| |
| 10 A OKAY. ;
| |
| 11 Q THAT'S GOING TO BE MARKED AS EXHIBIT 48.
| |
| [t 12 I ASSUME YOU'VE SEEN THAT LETTER BEFORE, 13 MR. PARKS? YOU'VE SEEN THAT LETTER BEFORE? IT y ,
| |
| 14 ACCOMPANIED YOUR AFFIDAVIT WHEN.IT WAS RELEASED-IN MARCH 15 OF 1983.
| |
| I 16 A I THINK AT SOME TIME OR ANOTHER l'VE READ 17 fHAT, YES, 18 Q WELL, 1 ASSUME SINCE IT STATES THAT THE 19 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT IS REPRESENTING YOU THA 20 THE LETTER AND --
| |
| OR AT LEAST ITS CONTENTS WERE REVIEWED ;
| |
| 21 WITH YOU BEFORE IT WAS RELEASED?
| |
| 22 A I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS REVIEWED WITH ME 23 BEFORE IT WAS RELEASED.
| |
| l 24 Q WELL, YOUR COUNSEL MR. DEVINE TOLD CHAIRMAN 25 PALLADINO THAT HIS DECISION -- OR THE GAP DECISION TO 11-176 l
| |
| l sd u l
| |
| | |
| I 1
| |
| REPRESENT YOU WAS BASED NOT ONLV ON YOUR AFFIDAVIT, BUT 2: ALSO ON " VERIFICATION INTERVIEWS WITH ADDITIONAL WITNESS:
| |
| 3- WHO SUPPORTED BOTH HIS CHARGES AND PERSONAL CREDIBILITY.
| |
| 4 .00 YOU KNOW WHO THOSE WITNESSES ARE?
| |
| 5 A NOT OFF -- I STARTED-TO STAY NOT OFF THE TO f
| |
| 6 - -OF MY HEAD, BUT NOT AT THE MOMENT, NO.
| |
| 7 I THINK 1, YOU KNOW, TOLD YOU EARLIER TODAY 8 THAT I BELIEVE AT LEAST ONE OF THE PERSONS, YOU KNOW, TH 9
| |
| TOM DEVINE HAD CONTAC; WITH WAS JOHN AUGER, BUT I DON'T 1
| |
| 10 KNOW WHO THE OTHER PEOPLE WERE HE MAY HAVE CONTACTED.
| |
| 11 Q MR. PARKS, YOU CLAIM SEVERAL TIMES, INCLUDI i
| |
| 12 MOST RECENTLY HERE TODAY, THAT THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE 13 BASIS FOR GPU-N TO SUSPEND AND THEN TERMINATE MR. KING, 14 THAT THAT WAS A RETALIATORY HARASSING ACT. THAT'S RIGHT 15 ISN'T IT?
| |
| 16 A THAT'S MY OPINION, YES.
| |
| 17 Q AND YOU ALSO HAVE CLAIMED THAT BECHTEL HAD 18 BASIS TO INVESTIGATE YOU CONCERNING YOUR ACTIVITIES IN 19 CONNECTION WITH THE QUILTEC COMPANY, THAT THAT ALSO WAS 20 HARASSMENT; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
| |
| 21 A I CONSIDERED THE WAY THEY HANDLED THE l
| |
| 22 INVESTIGATION TO BE HARASSING, YES.
| |
| 23 Q WITH REGARD TO MR. KING, I BELIEVE THAT YOL 24 HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT MR. KING -- LET ME FIND THE 25 REFERENCE FOR Y C.I . IN YOUR STATEMENT OF JULY 23RD, 1985
| |
| !!-177 l
| |
| .md L
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT O
| |
| ~
| |
| /N7F4V/Ekd dmy' f)Igdec ok k Heb~e
| |
| /
| |
| j T
| |
| /
| |
| t m
| |
| 9 1^
| |
| j
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT P
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 introduction : NAME _ dvtM [Pk k J08. TITLE : C ustarr wJr (Jgo[g @ ADDRESS U- b et ,
| |
| DATE[ TIME START /,2T[
| |
| | |
| ==Purpose:==
| |
| /) ~ '
| |
| l i
| |
| i
| |
| : 1) To confirm any points raised in the af f adavit of Rick Parks where your name, appears.
| |
| : 2) What I am completing is not an affadavit and you will be asked to sign nothing. The purpose of our wanting to interview you in addition to the affadavit is to try and clarify and limit the issues that are likely to arise at the forthcoming heearing of Rick, j
| |
| Based on this do not hesitate to discuss anything that you feel you might wish to simply because it is hearsay. The Administrate Law Judge will ensure no evidence is used that isn't appropriate OVESTIONS
| |
| : 1. Who ,has interviewed you to date with regard to the Parks Affadavit ?
| |
| Department of Labour Yes/No
| |
| . /JO NRC /do FBI /$
| |
| g r y o ut f.
| |
| Bechtel's Lawyers 4 add GPU (N) Lawyers '
| |
| Yd Mr. Arnold rJO Mr. Barton Nd OTHER : (e.g. Udall Committee) tJo[N Mn HE NON* g ,, (g
| |
| +
| |
| l N ,
| |
| S%2/ [O \.,
| |
| e i
| |
| __._____-----._J
| |
| : 2. With regard to Rick Parks in personal terms :
| |
| (a) .How is Rick to work with, e.g. is he sociable, easy to get a3cng with or what. At1NAW W!YIW.
| |
| (b) Did Rick freely speak his mind if he disagreed with something in terms of work, (c) From Wat I understand the use of slarg swear words occurs frequently at 'DiI, i.e. the language is fairly stong. 04J M.
| |
| (d) Was Rick's language within the general range of how people talk -
| |
| at M. b?l ('S WA'''1 UNUSIN-- , y 4 yo Qc*j" (e) to you feel Rick has/had a personal grudge against George Kurx$erj or was there disagreement work related.
| |
| (f) Have you seen any evidence that Rick is a person who bears grudges. W o.
| |
| Amr (g) Would you describe Rick a fairly straight-forward person. Q j) 47' NfL/20 nMitt. 7 i
| |
| . O
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| g [lfhO
| |
| : 3. In respect of Rick in a professional capacity : Would you describe Rick as =
| |
| (a) A conpetent engineer.
| |
| (b) Professionalinhisapproachtoworkproblems.'j8:7 (c) A person who adopts reasonable professional standards.- ffd0d.
| |
| (d) A person who tried to work within the syste at 1MI prior to his going public over the Polar crane. s fef.
| |
| f 8
| |
| j l
| |
| I
| |
| : 4. In respect of PO.m and the Sm a
| |
| , (a) .As we understand it Site Operations is the final review authority for ''
| |
| signing off items as being in legal ecrrpliance with the various regulations.f(ph@T (b) It is also our understanding the PQ10 reports to the SO Director. LT.
| |
| (c) What work or activities are carried out by 2010. [h s - , . .
| |
| (d) What is PORC's responsibility with respect to this work. - #gghts p[
| |
| (e) hhat work or activities are carried out by Sm. - OON . ;
| |
| (f) What is.the SM's responsibility with respect to this work.
| |
| (g) Can th'e work or activies carried oct by PORC be circunnented if the 50 director wishes, by sigly signing off procedures etc.
| |
| (h) Can the work or activities carried out by the Sm be circunnented if the 50 director wishes, by sigly signing off precedures etc.
| |
| (1) hho is the head of PORC. bit /M reporting to d d.
| |
| (j) Who is the head of the Sm. reporting to (k) Based on what you said above, in what ways does the work of PORC sun-stantially differ from the work of the Sm. i (1) Do you see the SM as a substitute for PORC. l
| |
| (:3) Are you on either POIC or the Sm. If yes, which (n) hhen did you go en PORC the Sm j (o) Is !PC approval neccesary for the Sm structure. l (p) Has NRC permission been given. If yes,_when _
| |
| (q) Does PORC still operate ?
| |
| j' -/
| |
| p,c QN-W L Id%'/ ,f?0.
| |
| 3.p a ,c l!g y m er A M MEW 1
| |
| l l l
| |
| l l'
| |
| : 5. Rick discussed in his affidavit that several persons felt frustrated witn the of ten .sim progress of PORC and that this stemmed from e airman p George Kunder. W #
| |
| g
| |
| * i (a) Have you personally experienced any frustration in getting on with your jeb (if applicable) because of delays in respect of :
| |
| (i) PORC If yes'in what way...
| |
| t (ii) SM . If yes in what way...
| |
| (b) Have you ever felt PORC should have reviewed a particular thing nere thoroughly. If yes, what (c) Have you ever felt SM should have reviewed a particlar thing note thoroughly. If yes, what (d) Though we understand that POM was normally thorough, what were the circumstances when PCRC noved to hastily. '
| |
| (d) Though we understand that SM is fairly new, what were the circumstances when SM noved *o hastily.
| |
| l l
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| , ggo#11 N '
| |
| 6.- In respect of Ricks dirciosures management has said various things as to
| |
| , why they are displeased with Rick's public di= closures.
| |
| (a) In your view why is 1:anagement really displeased about Rick's chauenge to the Polar test project.
| |
| (b) 'Has management's severe attitude to the Parks affair made you feel
| |
| . nervous about our asking you to be interviewed.
| |
| (c) Were you at the meeting of March 23rd,1982 immediately af ter Rick went public. ( I believe that was the meeting of the directors and senior management )
| |
| With regard to the following could you ccnfirm whether the statements I make are as best as you remember; correct, or incorrect.
| |
| (d) The' meeting scheduled for 8:30 began about 9 AM (e) The meeting was attended by nearly au t@ and senior management.
| |
| (f) Mr. Arnold had a copy of Ricks press release.
| |
| (9) Mr. Arnold had a copy of Rick's affidavit.
| |
| (h) Mr. Arnold said this was just a flash in the pan and would quickly die 6:M (i) Mr. Arncid said the investigators would find nothing if they looked.
| |
| (j) Mr. Arnold said Rick would be back the next day at work.
| |
| (k) Mr. Barton said. that Rick should be fired. l (1) Mr. Barton said the son of a bitch should not be let back on the island. 1 (m) Pz. Kanga said that they could not do that as Rick had gone public and was protected by the Atorrde Energy Act.
| |
| (n) Mr. Ksnga said they could just transfer Rick or put him on leave of absence for a nonth and then get rid of him quietly.
| |
| (o) Mr. Arnold said that when Rick returns they are rot to give him and cbcuments.
| |
| (p) Mr. Arnold said that Rick should not be permitted in any restricted areas. I (q) Mr. Barton enphasised that we should ret speak to Rick.
| |
| (r) Mr. Barten repeated that Rick should rot be aucwed back on the island.
| |
| (s) Mr. Kanga said they had to be cautious.That caution was regaired as Rick had charged harrassment and was protected by law. 4 (t) Mr. Arnold said tbc Udan Ccamittee would review Rick's affidavit, but would not invite Rick to testify.
| |
| (u) Mr. Arnold said he was sure it would an be squashed.
| |
| (v) The meeting ended af ter about 1 hour at approximately 10 AM.
| |
| l i
| |
| l
| |
| -- _ ---_____.__-_-________-__D
| |
| | |
| uh) AT T $ (171 8 -
| |
| : 6. (continued)
| |
| With respect to the meetire called by Mr. Arnold on 28th March 1983 in regard to the NY Times article of that date on the subject of the recovery program.
| |
| (w) Mr. k nold said that anyone who had problems should raise them then and there. k' M (x) Mr. Arnold praised the new management structure as the solution to getting on with the recovery program. /ffC M -
| |
| (y) ne new management structure was that headed up by Mr. Barton as Site operations director, d RC ALL [74K'tfTJJ CMffd hW(d (r) Mr.. Arnold critised Lar as not be Lu en (wM im r.! King 4 / rem trHk'ng l
| |
| a team player,
| |
| * 4f /f7/4/ 3%
| |
| (a-) Mr. Arnold said that ucking out of contaminated sewage in violation of state law was a legal technicality, without safety significance. _ vapr .l Ltc.ML;^yof AJ ISSW. v(
| |
| (gg p p(9 pp gom77 c4)Y vvlMtJ3 AJ Y lh-(b+) te radio active sewage discussed was the cesium 137.
| |
| (c+) Mr. Kanga also stated the tru:kirg out of the sesage was a legal technicality without safety significance. 84WMl--
| |
| (d*) Mr. Arnold said the Polar crane would be adegaately tested before noving the 40 ton missle shields. M-
| |
| & c / f pf pa) POCEO.
| |
| | |
| . i
| |
| : 7. In respect of Rick's various duties, were ycm aware that he was (a) Renoved as alternate start up and test supervisor, without notice d scu,ygonr ,gt,g g y , g yS? ?#fnT W Yk J-h g f; fbtScd!Mltf(oA Htt, (b) were you aware that the first h knew of is was during a meeting on February 23, 19 83 when he started to discuss his job requirements.
| |
| (page 25 RP affidavit) (Note at the meeting were Chwastyk and Kanga)
| |
| (c) Do you know who ordered his renoval frm the position of alternate s start up- test engineer.Nif yes, who [7M'I/ #6 *C# MA4I 'O# ') 7#h (d) Were you aware that he was renoved frm the Test Work Group in respect of th ds.h.ReactorBuildYf.
| |
| AwD Jpnc ar. Crane he%@ Proh'ect.-
| |
| o r.
| |
| (e) Were you aware that his renoval from the 7WG for the Polar crane MEMO TNf W #@ E b project was done without conmen[or discussion with him and management and was presented at a meeting wherein where Mr.
| |
| ggy Kanga sought to get Rick to say that his renoval was not an g act of intimidation. (Note at the meeting were Chwastyk and Kanga)
| |
| (f) If you kncw, is it correct that management could have informally arranged that Bubba Marshall would sit in on the Polar crane p f,h.
| |
| meetings, rather than formally renoving Rick from the project. $br/, he/dO/M
| |
| $ V': 'D /d hY v1H.E$. AJYJAV, l i
| |
| ~
| |
| : t c: Mi frN O(& >
| |
| en an mer.
| |
| gylAccbeU.h */j!f.2-Jfll IturJD ChTHS n]A)/ G,7Ug' '
| |
| 4jkAI l
| |
| wa
| |
| /Y w iu pLp u gj ijA p . w i k J A .A f.
| |
| aa .
| |
| | |
| . \
| |
| B. Were you aware that Joyce Wenger was fired for allegedly giving ccrpany officials inconsistent statements.. and that she was subsequently reinstated at m1. 'ft$, ~jy gg g j94 [MEs kT HIllf hk 2 A 6
| |
| l
| |
| - - - - - - - ~ _ _ _ _
| |
| : 9) As you-will be . aware when the GPU/BW: case collapsed and a settlement was agreed the~US District Attorney reconvened
| |
| , 't,he Federal Grand Jury. ,
| |
| (a) Was'the=new grand jury discussed at TMI amongst the employees ?4 g ..
| |
| (b) Was there any discussion of the case ending so' abruptly 7 f Yd,/mrJ! ML etiMof (/ SW.
| |
| {
| |
| (c) Was it felt that the two sides perhaps neither wanted J ie through the t he whol tria1 e st JAd
| |
| ? -b TiJr1 o ryH1 t oCM4M be t old 14 i/fedMJ.
| |
| n pu bl i c'HN b bdLd! M Wl/6T AD' CRC 00T. Utd M A s*JeQve. A tyrnA st- norsu cwde,Jidtc er )
| |
| .(d) DidanyonediscussthefactthatMr.Zeweand'Mr.plcWoj##6 .a #/
| |
| Fredricks ' appeared to have changed their testimony between the time of the NRC investigation and the trial ? -i fs,.) wy esA@0 #7 4 (e) Did anyone discuss that apparently Mr. Faust still )
| |
| referred to Mr. Fredricks as the person who switched 6n i the pumps at 5:41. ( Testinony of Victor Stello at page 60 I line 5 ) '1 hat the " mystery man" discussion is who turned j of the punps, once they had been turned on. Qgg, i (f) During.what dates have you been ertployed at 'IMI I-t '!M Y Ib (g) During what dates have you been errployed at 'IMI IIS dfc0 rhe&
| |
| M ORTH WIItf. N'N 7]' bd Zl TIN w' fed !JT of Of.
| |
| GfV-dt.cf gjf'ftf y a ggg.
| |
| a 1
| |
| | |
| . 10.
| |
| In respect of your interview with Mr. Barton :- {. [EL5W (a) Did Mr. Barton ask for you to see him or did you volunteer the .
| |
| meeting. Aft 0 '70 Cn1( 4 Q.
| |
| (b)' Did you volunteer to give Mr. Barton a statenent, or did he instri.ct you to give one to him.
| |
| (c) W ere you given to urderstand that you did not have to say anything if you wished not to do so. N N#ld4 IlMI C4KI.
| |
| (d) Was you interview with Mr. Barton just between the N of you or was someone else there, and if so who. Y61 (e) Were you offered the right to have a witness if u wished to do so. MOj '
| |
| (f) How mucp notice of the inpending interview were you given.-dM / 7/t/r74M (g) WeYe hu"give copy of your statement.to Mr. Barton. Y N h f[y#'"
| |
| (h) Did Mr. Barton ask if you could still work with Rid sehen he comes k%
| |
| (1) gegergfgwas Mr. Barton's attitude towards Rick at the interview.9 (j) Why. did he feel the way he did, if he explained his attitude.
| |
| (k) What did Mr. Barton ask about, dvM hYl UM d''JT N'O' #,i (1) What did Mr. Barton say specifically about Rick. M AE 8.So 0 76:
| |
| (m) What did you say to Mr. .Barton (i) before he took your statement (ii) in your statement.
| |
| r % Jfu a f w ,w 's.La K 0
| |
| ?
| |
| h l
| |
| I-t su m.nemo lI//1 flO0 /$ $4/fI71
| |
| : 11. (a) In respect of the Stier's interviews, I believe you spoke to him with a court reporter present.?
| |
| (b) How many other times did you meet with Mr. Stiers or anyone else working with him ? 36. /a/7/Ac J747tO. h ,2 8411FG ,
| |
| (c) Where were the interviews held ? 7@/2f,gg' 47 g[,
| |
| -(d) When ? l (e) Were you shown a copy of your statement to Mr. Barton on arch 23,1982, or if not shown a copy was it discussed ? - Yld[pl.E. AII'0-1 (f) When was the last time you saw your statement given to Mr. Barton ?
| |
| .i (g) How long did you discuss the matters contained in your statement prior to going on the record at the Stie 's interview ? -I' D M M *' #
| |
| . ,~~u , il God P !<*4 G.>otW. . [FWAUDO 7t H/ W' D
| |
| * b Oar g;a.hy, dhou.(w ah i~i oh G)7tiflJrm pM Hm wl-pece (h) With whom did you' discuss the issues contained in the Stier's interviews -
| |
| prior to going on the record ?
| |
| l (i) As best you can remenber, did the interview concern met;ters other than those contained in the final written statement ?
| |
| l
| |
| , (j) Hcw long did the meeting with Mr. Stier last ? / b.
| |
| (k) Did it Stier use the Barton interview statment during your interview ?
| |
| :7 OdoN EC lttSW7 lbA fil .
| |
| (1) 'Ib the best of your knowledge, did they ask questions with a court reporter present, from all of the persons they interviewed, or just I some of the persons such as yourself ? 7 l-f. @^"O [ M # 0T 7 @ 7 O-(m) If just scme of the persons had to go on the record, who were those that did not ?
| |
| - (aTWttJ W& (Jhr,, tyj'5,y i[j g! $ f' 0 ( g ) pp Td c~d'1 '('& L17'$ rk y xn 3 g9
| |
| .~ --: a n_. ; ;
| |
| nr-hgrt,
| |
| - n an.&,)
| |
| <~ (c}r cQ7-StHrp .
| |
| Kk-T
| |
| : s. Of 4l t CDda . NO 'T AH
| |
| | |
| . - - ,_ ., , . , - , - - . - - , . - - _ . _ - - . . - - _ - - - . - - - - - - - - . _ _ - - - - - , _ -~_,
| |
| c' i, ' i Q
| |
| (
| |
| ftoe rHeY M /d(fc.M Gbr4 fat.ndif WOCT. )
| |
| 1 l
| |
| {
| |
| 1
| |
| .l l
| |
| l i
| |
| i l
| |
| . 1
| |
| (
| |
| I 1
| |
| I l
| |
| J 4
| |
| l.
| |
| l' _ _ . . . - - . - - _ . - - . - _ - - _ _ - - _ - _ . _ - - . - . - - _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| t '
| |
| I i
| |
| ~- . ,
| |
| l dOH,J fele'/ l
| |
| ~
| |
| w - -
| |
| ~ ~).n TH3F 6eec. j i
| |
| cavet.!Mbj
| |
| $ ^GEcAG d 7100US 70 1/Ar./ l'!1l5 O. -h0Af h . JMicM okd Y # f[,hkP0%WD Nd?)[1 cHet$7/"Ih dIr/NhNb MJY Thor kdf
| |
| *SC 4"E'
| |
| ,00/6C7ptD 4t~.
| |
| f.
| |
| AccW. occ/Med aHe,) kjM TJ4/td o}f THkT dt'ulcKW l 376W1 TMA.U cow ~ Obl ACCdA. \
| |
| rr&VHsvC.t.MMfr$T11W00sl.SI).v'Htcyut&, hor Tti(
| |
| .D 0t./2 lU ~ Ct/AISU14 } ARTY Tgf l g fA g e'd 7' Z 0, fMhY.freeyh5c.>:-f{I + jfc stW7 of fmAA O10 0C 0A 4)WE W f To 4ThLee Aec.otD? hECW WG wt %D dAh*L M>< O'fi f Wh4; d
| |
| , 4/C & A Urc+f%CSTfleAE-l' IW 65 AG J/hn
| |
| 'YtS- THAT UN 997 Al TIL.
| |
| H @,
| |
| +
| |
| Aum h&. fd2 .
| |
| l e
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT Q Introduction : NAME forJ W448 JOB TITLE : ADDRESS l
| |
| /d37 (W lv[cfVd. / / h4 @
| |
| REPORTS TO:-
| |
| "A 6 /J CHft. . DATE f
| |
| , TIME START U Z. -
| |
| | |
| ==Purpose:==
| |
| : 1) To confirm any points raised in the affadavit of Rick Parks ,
| |
| where your name , appears. ]
| |
| : 2) What I am completing is not an af f adavit and you will be asked to sign nothing. The purpose of our wanting to interview you in addition to the affadavit is to try and clarify and limit the issues that are likely to arise at the forthcoming heearing of Rick.
| |
| Based on this do not-hesitate to discuss anything that you feel you might wish_to simply because it is hearsay. The Administrate Law Judge will ensure no evidence is used that isn't appropriate QUESTIONS
| |
| : 1. _ Who .has interviewed you to date with regard to the Parks Affadavit ?
| |
| Yes/No Department of Labour ./J o , ;
| |
| NRC AJO
| |
| 'FB1
| |
| , 4 Yttf (t.k,,
| |
| Bec'htel's Lawyers N GFU (N) Lawyers '/ x W F Wrg f7/b4 Mr. Arnold Al0 Mr. Barton Y(d OTHER : (e.g. Udall Committee) /J&
| |
| Y Y cc) Rode-D f flc p m o k J c s tt n 1 MIID.
| |
| h ./[ /0/l e
| |
| ~
| |
| te l 1 03 ,A & r k L ,A c~ u $ . se a aam ,c wwhadM)JLO,% k: M%s6,e '
| |
| 1
| |
| /
| |
| | |
| HCr) CD,.lf MS & dgf 7/// hd&(,
| |
| : 2. 'Dl%%k ."-
| |
| With regard to Rick Parks in personal t :
| |
| , (a)' , Mcw is Rick to work with, e.g. is he sociable, easy to get along I with or what. 7 rJ d d [c O . [4NI.
| |
| (b) Did Rick freely speak his mind if he disagreed with something in terms of wark, -1tt/hil &V Old.
| |
| (c) From k at I understand the use of slang swear words occurs l frequently at IMI, i.e. the isnguage is fairly stong. - [ d (d) Was Rick's language within the general range of how people talk e at 'DG . Y W/0 SY (e)
| |
| Do you , feel Rick has/had a personal grud e against George Kunderj or li k'b7:$ f k" E 5 M J N $ f'h'd k #do / v nd/
| |
| (f) Have you seen any@ evidence }that Rick is a perso, .
| |
| (g) y Would you describe Rick as a fairly straight-forward,pegperson.-yg, d J s 5 M sic d J7Midl. 1 JACEl0.
| |
| /
| |
| 1 1
| |
| I f
| |
| 1 ;
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| . 3. In respect of Rick in a professional capacity : Would you describe Rick as = l (a) A conpetent ergineer. f N WI " I/lM d [M, (b)
| |
| Professional in his approach to wvrk problems,-p N7//d. A88v7H/J Jag g l (c) A person who adopts reasonable professional standards 4 /d, ;
| |
| (d) A person who tried to work within the system at THI prior' to his goingpublicoverthePolarcrane;yed, s
| |
| e 8
| |
| I 1
| |
| I l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| +
| |
| L t
| |
| i-
| |
| '4 .: 'In respect of POE and ' the SE :
| |
| ~
| |
| , (a) , As'we understand it Site Operations is the final review authority for ''
| |
| signing off items as being in legal canpliance with the various !
| |
| regulations.' 'Yd-(b) It is also our understanding the PORC reports to the SO Director. Y - l (c) What work or activities are carried out by KmC.
| |
| (d) What is PORC's responsibility with respect to this work.
| |
| (e) What work or activities are carried out by SE Y (f) What is the SE's responsibility with respect to this work.
| |
| (g) Can the work or activies carried out by PO5C be circumvented if f
| |
| the.S,O director wishes ing off procedures eto.JA (edc.B4 atm(AM 1,
| |
| Can W&- thepfw work or .rrtE MA, 91ce bv rHtt sinply (h) ac(ivities carri out'by the SM be circumvented if the 50 director wishes, by simply signing off procedures etc. !
| |
| (1) Who is the head of PORC. reporting to .
| |
| -(j) Who is the head of the SE. reporting to (k) Based on what you 'said above, in what ways does the work of PORC sub-stantially differ from the work of the Sm.
| |
| 4 (1) Do you see the SRG as a' substitute for' PCEC. g yf {
| |
| (c) Are you on either POIC or the SRG. If yes, which, [0IC'.' l (n) When did you go on PORC
| |
| . the SRG (o) Is NIC approval neccesary for the SM structure.
| |
| (p) . Has NRC permission been given. M /78/$ If yes,,when (q) Does PORC'still operate ? b*
| |
| 'S Yef.
| |
| i
| |
| \
| |
| t 4
| |
| | |
| _ _ _ _ - - - - - - ~
| |
| . 5. Rick discussed in his affidavitithat several persons felt frustrated with the of ten sloa prcgress of PORC and that this stemed frcen PORC chairman George Fdrx$er.
| |
| (a) Have you personally experienced any frustration in getting on with your ' (if applicable) because of delays' in respect of :
| |
| C0 hPORC (ii) SBG.
| |
| If yes in what way. . .
| |
| If yes in what way... C'J#r m
| |
| [ g i (b)
| |
| /6#46g fpppg ~
| |
| /
| |
| Have nere you ever thoroughly. feltwhat If yes, PORC should have reviewed a particu
| |
| -IWL/M (c) Have you ever felt SRG should have reviewed a particlar thing re thoroughly. If yes, what /
| |
| (d) Thouch we understand that POIC was normally thorough, what'were the circ.mstances when POPC noved to hastily. / !
| |
| (d) Though we understand that SRG is fairly new, what wer/ the circu:nstances when SPG noved to hastily. !
| |
| /
| |
| u djAd a \
| |
| depA ' .
| |
| lad J- / t#a GXAO:
| |
| /sr migo.
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l 1
| |
| )
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| L6.- =In respect.cf Ricks disclosures management has said various things as to why they are displeased with Rick's public disclosures. 1 (a) In your ' view why is management really displeased about Rick's allenge l MM W NMT b '
| |
| '?n.thePolarte Has r er 4 > s severe a titu2ie management'DE{f)'ect to the Parks affair made you (b) nervous about our asking you to be interviewed.
| |
| 1 (c) < Were you at the meeting of March 23rd,1982 imediately af ter Rick I went public. ( I believe that was the meeting of the directors and senior management ) !
| |
| With regard to the following could you confirm whether the statements I make are as best as you remember; correct,' or incorrect.
| |
| (d) Be! meeting scheduled for 8:30 began about 9 AM (e) The meeting was attended by.nearly all top'and senior managenent.
| |
| (f) Mr. Arnold had a copy of Ricks press release. 1 (g) Mr. Arnold had a copy of Rick's affidavit.
| |
| (h) Mr.' Arnold said this was just a flash in the pan and would quickly die cbw -
| |
| (1) . . Mr. Arnold said the investigators would find nothing if they looked.
| |
| (j) Mr. Arnold said Rick would be back the next day at work. l (k) Mr. Barton said that Rick should be fired.
| |
| (1) Mr. Barton said the son of a bitch should not be let back on the island.
| |
| ]
| |
| (m) Mr. Kanga said that they could not do.that as Rick had gone public and was protected by the Atm.ic Energy Act.
| |
| 1 (n) Mr. Kanga said they could just transfer Rick or put him on leave of absence for a nonth and then get rid of him quietly.
| |
| (o) Mr. Arnold said that when Rick' returns they are not to give him and cbcuments. l (p) Mr. Arnold said that Rick should not be permitted in any restricted areas.
| |
| (q) Mr. Barton enphasised that we should not speak to Rick.
| |
| (r) Mr. Barton repeated that Rick should not be allowed back on the island. ,
| |
| (s) Mr. Karga said they had to be cautious.That caution was required as Rick had charged harrassment and was protected by law.
| |
| (t) Mr. Arnold said the Udall Comittee would review Rick's affidavit, but would not invite Rick to testify.
| |
| (u) Mr. Arnold said he was sure it would all be sqaashed.
| |
| (v) 'Ihe meetire ended af ter about 1 hour at approximately 10 AM.
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - ~
| |
| i
| |
| : 6. . (continued)
| |
| With respect to the meeting called by Mr. Arnold on 28th March 3.983 in l
| |
| regard to the NY Times article of' that date on tha' subject of the recovery program.
| |
| (w) Mr. Arnold said that anyone who had problems should raise them then and there.
| |
| (x) Mr. Arnold praised the new management structure as the solution to getting on'with the recovery program.
| |
| (y) .B e new management structure was that headed up by Mr. Barton as.
| |
| ' Site operations director.
| |
| (z) Mr. Arnold critised Larry King as not being a team player.
| |
| (a-) Mr. Arnold said that the trucking out of contaminated sewage in '
| |
| violation of state law was a legal technicality, without safety significance.
| |
| (b+) 2e radio active sewage discussed was the cesium 137. 1 (c+) Mr. Kanga also stated the trucking out of the sewage was a legal !
| |
| technicality without safety significance.
| |
| (d+) Mr. Arnold said the Polar crane would'be adequately tested before noving the 40 ton missle shields.
| |
| /' hy G
| |
| (y ll Y gdyJVp/ N~ W Alc M n w ];6us + fCY i
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| i -
| |
| | |
| 9
| |
| . 7. In respect of Rick's various, duties, were ycu aware that he was
| |
| ; , (a) Renoved as alternate start up and test supervisor, without notice discussion or coment between management'Lnd hinself; /4/A@
| |
| (b) were you aware that the first he knew of this was during a meeting on February 23 , 19 83 when he started to discuss his job requirements.
| |
| l (page 25 RP affidavit) (Note at tht: meeting were Chwastyk and Kanga) ;
| |
| (c) Do you know who ordered his renoval from the position of alternate start up- test engineer. If yes, who ,
| |
| (d) Were you ware that he was removed frczn the Test Work Group in respect I of the Reactor Building Polar Crane Project. i (e) were you aware that his renoval from the 3G for the Polar crane project was done without cortmend oc discussion with him and management and _was presented at a meeting wherein where Mr.
| |
| Kanga sought to get Rick to say that his renoval was not an act of intimidation. (Note at the meeting were Chwastyk and Kanga)
| |
| (f) If you know, is it correct that management could have informally arranged that Bubba Marshall would sit in on the Polar crane ,
| |
| i meetings, rather than formally rertoving Rick from the project. i 0cch & %Tk '
| |
| I Q ,
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| .- . 8. .
| |
| Were you aware that Joyce Wenger was fired for allegedly giving conpany officials inconsistent statements.. and that she was subsequently l reinstated at TMI. '
| |
| l 1
| |
| )
| |
| I I
| |
| i i
| |
| '1 l
| |
| : 9) As you will be aware when the GPU/BW: case collapsed and
| |
| . a settlement was agreed tae US District Attorney reconvened the Federal Grand Jury.
| |
| (a) Was the new grand jury discussed at TMI amongst the employees ? -3 y (b). Was there any discussion of the case'ending so' a bru ptly Y
| |
| (c) Was it felt that the two sides perhaps neither wanted the whole story to be told in public, ie through the triai ? 11aWCMt<W SJoK 0d$rTF [W H'NOW' (d) Did anyone discuss the fact that Mr. Zewe and Mr.a :
| |
| Fredricks appeared to have changed their testimony '
| |
| between the time of the NRC investigation and the trial ? NO.
| |
| (e) Did anyone discuss that apparently Mr. Faust still referred t.o Mr. Fredricks as the person who switched on the pumps at 5:41. ( Testhony of Victor Stello at page 60 line 5 ) 7 hat the " mystery man" discussion is who turned of the pug s, once they had been turned on.
| |
| (f) During .what dates have you been egioyed at IMI. I (g) During what dates have you been egloyed at TMI II l
| |
| | |
| ..- 10. In respect of your interview with Mr. Barton :-
| |
| ii (a) Did Mr. Barton ask for you to see him or did you volunteer the meeting. Ye$, tf JcincM ltd tW #9 JCHtt + fJht9dE 140&C 7 (b) Did you volunteer to give Mr. Barton a statement, or did he instruct you to give one to him.
| |
| (c) Were you given to understand that you did not have to say anything If you wished not to do so. d 4 W W. O -
| |
| (d) was you' interview with Mr. Barton(fit h.
| |
| between the two of y or was romecae else there, ard if so who. _
| |
| (e) Were you offered the right to have a witness if you wished to do so. MS, .
| |
| (f) How much notice of the impending interview were you given. [
| |
| (g) Were you given a copy of your statement to Mr. Barton. [
| |
| (h) Did Mr. Barton ask if you could still work with Rick wheti he comes back.td
| |
| ") %iW&rhgwgPg.g*g.js attitude towards Rick at the interviro. ;9 (j). Why did he feel the way be did, if he explained his attitude.
| |
| (k) What did Pr. Barton ask about. 7* # @'** EE' I d'JCddM TN/<IM (1) What did Mr. Barton say specifically about Rick.
| |
| (m) What did you say to Pz. Barton (1) before he took your statement (ii) in your statement.
| |
| d i
| |
| d L . o - - - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ - -. - _ . - - - - - _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| : 11. (a) In respect of the Stier's interviews, I believe you spoke to him with a court reporter present.? CT 8% d J(C (
| |
| p .
| |
| (b) How many other. times did you meet with Mr. Sti s or anycne else f working with him ? OM V7&A f Jfutt IAGC& to'0f'EC Ncsd]f0 Ueer A. 7 {
| |
| (= JaBSit.J. tat 1L4kr//.A 1 C.fordri 4 hl W . Abb &J vrJonc pern , coa.cyg g ec (c) ere were the. interviews held ? p pfA/ [T77/g (d) When ? - A0'# / //7N CM.
| |
| (e) Were you shown a copy of your statement to Mr. Barton on March 23, 1982, or if not shown a copy was it discussed ? Wdtf. adCf X.
| |
| i (f) When was the last time you saw your statement given to Mr. Barton ?
| |
| ]
| |
| l (g) How long did you discuss the matters contained in your statement prior to going on the record at the Stier's interview ? [,ptJ6cdd0$h-46C/L (h) With whom did you discuss the issues contained in the Stier's interviews prior to going on the record ?
| |
| l J
| |
| (i) As best you can remember, did the interview corcern matters other than t%, se contained in the final written statement ? ;
| |
| l
| |
| , (j) How long did the meeting with Mr. Stier last ?
| |
| * I (k) Did Mr Stier use the Barton interview statment durirg your interview ? i l
| |
| 1 (1) Tb the best of your knowle6ge, did they ask questions with a court reporter precent, from all of the persons they interviewed, or just some of the persons such as yourself ? _
| |
| j (m) If just scrne of the persons had to go on the record, who were t.%se that did rot ?
| |
| l 1
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| ?. . .
| |
| I kod tJAAA _
| |
| m paa cea,s.
| |
| ETA VihMr Sk Notate coJrkWlgif 6/AA decd. 7P47-c m w sen.
| |
| 1 J
| |
| k/CCVlAtoACfkC[/G4l .
| |
| hy inaxA/&> 4eeceu cHeet,JG g 4cc.
| |
| 4 i)ncpk- J +J s ,
| |
| y .
| |
| i f, fd ,/pg
| |
| 'I#
| |
| 3 h) # .
| |
| U Mh l 1 i i
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT R Introduction : NAME wk%=4 17 (8038 Af 4JWG.
| |
| ~
| |
| JOB TITLE : ADDRESS O$?A M/0 A N G/N T:k REPORTS TO:
| |
| dv6 C/MM7Y /4d DATE8!/(M3 TIM E ST AR T J .'00/
| |
| i <
| |
| | |
| ==Purpose:==
| |
| : 1) To confirm any points raised in the af f adavit of Rick Parks where your name , appears.
| |
| : 2) What I am completing is not an affadavit and you will be asked to sign nothing. The purpose of our wanting to interview you in addition to the affadavit is to try and clarify and limit the issues that are likely to arise at the forthcoming heearing of Rick.
| |
| Based on this do not hesitate to discuss anything that you feel you might wish to simply because it is hearsay. The Administrate-Law Judge will ensure no evidence is used that isn't appropriate OUESTIONS
| |
| : 1. Who has interviewed you to date with regard to the Parks Affadavit ?
| |
| Yes/No Department o' Labour do NRC A/)
| |
| FBI g 40 Bechtel's Lawyers eld GPU (N) Lawyers _
| |
| V6'h@
| |
| Mr. Arnold 40.
| |
| Mr. Ba rt on YM OTHER : (e.g. Udall Committee) W 5thU JvlY rw b #lffY go l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 4J us TC Ger& ?" N'O 15 M1A J FCd Jl f JO A E r W T W It Clf Yd.
| |
| : 2. With regard to Rick Parks in personal terms : O DM ~ I *
| |
| (a) .How is Rick to work with, e.g. is he sociable, easy.to get along with or what. -Cot I 1 W&Jf. $deC(AYIW TWO' M @r M04, (b) Did Rick freely speak his mind if he disagreed with something in terms of work, - YN.
| |
| (c) From M at I understand the use of slang swear words occurs frequently at 'IMI, i.e. the language is fairly stong.p (d) Was Rick's language within the general range of how people talka' '
| |
| at '1M1. ' SW d20 T -[ b ~ WW"bh Y (e)
| |
| DoyoufeelRickhas/hadapersonalgrypeagainstGeorgeKunderf or was there-etsa:re***nt work related WINT.
| |
| (f) OW-(g) Have you seen any evidence that Rick is a person Hetr who(7bears grudge 1
| |
| Would you describe Rick as a fairly straight-forward'Wrson.
| |
| '9 Yes :
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| L ',
| |
| -3. .In respect of Rick in a professional capacity : Would you describe Rick as =
| |
| .(a) A conpetent ergineer.47Ed.
| |
| (b) Professional in his approach to work problems. 4 Y d.
| |
| (c) A person who a$ opts reascnable professional' standards $ yef.
| |
| (d) A person who tried to work within the system at MI prior to his going public over the Polar crane. i YdtI.
| |
| i l
| |
| l
| |
| : 4. In respect of PORC and the SM :
| |
| , (a) As we understand it Site Operations is the final review authority for '''
| |
| signing off items as beirg in leg 1 ccmpliance with the various regulations. Y '7'd h.D. d(OC-C775r (b) It is also our understanding the POE reports to the SO Director.-f&f (c) a4 wogk gr a gi 7 1p)Le gare g r g g t g gaC . D/NdM (d) What is PORC's responsibi'l ty with re/pect to this work. fp ptyJ[ffcc, (e)
| |
| Whab Lu Go work orNactif rv o%f f ties are carried out by Sm.Old/CAClY J'#484 N [O/Cl' '
| |
| (f) What is the SM's responsibility with respect to this work.
| |
| (g) Can the work or a:tivies carried out by PORC be circumvented if utml AN*~p -
| |
| ? $ tal VC t1 / E3 . 7H! 00tA d (h) Can the work or a:ti ties carried out by the SM be circumven the 50 director wishes, by sinply signing off procedures etc.
| |
| gg (i) Who is the head of PORC. reporting to (j) Who is the head of the SM. reporting to (k) Based on what pu said above, in what ways does the work of PORC sub-stantiany differ from the work of the SRG.
| |
| (1) Do you see the SM as a substitute for PORC. [d/ff T$al6, (ct) Are you on either POE or the SRG. If yes,' which (n) When did you go on PORC the S M (o) Is NRC approval neccesary for the SPG structur_e)107 7v /7y fdC.Jf.d@.
| |
| (p) Has NRC permission been given. ___ - If yes,_ when (q) Does PORC still operate ?
| |
| h-sh) Pf:M 009 L W NY S oyh
| |
| ('d)UJysi 4 .
| |
| i e. J ( w l t < M e) - 4 0 , m m , '
| |
| is ) cuaeoi cm.,s/p>vra rs wr msene
| |
| ~
| |
| kfl' Ric.JY,
| |
| $ M / Jn - jJQ /ub 4 C, u b w b J O' .
| |
| ' . a hacy k,)ha d
| |
| <r 3 -f
| |
| / Lell, Als
| |
| ~
| |
| c;' yLf /pj> CC. ~ '
| |
| ~
| |
| auA%M?
| |
| nua.
| |
| in u essos a SKr. (inime a VK h-vth
| |
| | |
| t i e
| |
| .5. Rick discussed in his affidavit that several persons felt frustrated with the often slow progress of PORC and that this stamed from PORC chairman George Kunder.
| |
| (a) Have you personally experienced any frustration in getting on with your. job (if applicable) because of del s in respect of :
| |
| (i) PORC yid If yes in what way... y ' E O/ lb' E
| |
| .(ii) S m .. V6d If yes in what way...- ?
| |
| 7/ v s (b) Have you ever felt PORC should have reviewed a art thin nere thoroughly. If yes, what
| |
| ' M'' g '
| |
| -(c) Have you ever felt SRG should have reviewed a particiar thing nere thoroughly. If yes, what l: (d) Though we understand that POPC was normally thorough, what were the l~ ' '
| |
| . circumstances when PORC noved to hastily.
| |
| (d' Though we understand that SRG is fairly new, what were the circumstances when SBG noved to hastily.
| |
| I A i
| |
| j Y ktYld W
| |
| * l l
| |
| l 1
| |
| l L.,.. i, irin- a,,, . - - - - - - - -. m..,,..,,m__ ......m ... , _ . . _ . . . . _ . . . . , . _ . , .
| |
| - - - . . . ....,.,.,a -
| |
| | |
| .4 6.- In respect of Ricks disclosures management has said various thirgs as to why they are displeased with Rick's public disclosures.
| |
| =(a) In your view why is management reany displeased about Rick's chauenge j to the Polar test project. j 1
| |
| (b) Has management's severe attitude to the Parks affair made you feel nervous about our asking you to be interviewed.
| |
| (e) . Were you at the meetir.g of March 23rd,1982 imediately after Rick
| |
| .went public. ( I believe that was the meeting of the directors and senior management )
| |
| With regard to the foncwing could you confirm whether the statements I make are as best as you. remember; correct,.dr incorrect.
| |
| gg7 Tgggf. j (d) te' meeting scheduled for 8:30 began about 9 AM.
| |
| (e) ne. meeting'was attended by nearly au top and senior management.
| |
| (f) .Mr. Arnold had a copy of Ricks press release.
| |
| (g) Mr. Arnold had a copy of Rick's affidavit.
| |
| (h) Mr. Arnold said this was just a flash in the pan and would quickly die dowr-(i) Mr. Arnold said the investigators would find nothirg if they looked.
| |
| (j) Mr. Arnold said ' Rick would be back the next day at work.
| |
| (k) Mr. Barton said that Rick should be fired. *
| |
| (1)
| |
| Mr. Barton said the son of a bitch should not be let back on the islar:5.
| |
| (m) Mr. Kanga said that they could not do that as Rick had gone public and was protected by the Atomic Energy Act.
| |
| (n) Mr. Kanga said they could just transfer Rick or put him 6n leave of absence for a month and then get rid of him quietly.
| |
| (o) Mr. Arnold said that when Rick returns they are not to give him and documents.
| |
| (p) Mr. Arnold said that Rick should not be permitted in any restricted areas.
| |
| (q) Mr. Barton anphasised thet we should not speak to Rick.
| |
| (r) .Mr. Barton repeated that Rick should not be allowed back on the island.
| |
| (s) Mr. Kanga said they had to be cautious.2at cautico was required as Rick had charged harrassment and was protected by law.
| |
| (t) . Mt. Arnold said the Udan Comittee would review Rick's affidavit, but would not invite Rick to testify.
| |
| (u) Mr. Arnold said he was sure it would au be squashed.
| |
| (v) me meeting . ended af ter about 1 hour at approximately 10 AM.
| |
| I l
| |
| l i-l )
| |
| : 6. (continued)
| |
| . With. respect to the meeting called by Mr. Arrold on 28th March 1983 in regard to the NY Times article of that date on the subject of the recovery program.
| |
| (w) Mr. Arnold said that anyone wro had problems should raise them then andthere.Ye$.
| |
| (x) Mr. Arnold praised the new nanagement structure as the solution to gettirg on with the recovery program.
| |
| (y) The new management structure was that headed up by Mr. Barton as Site operations director. 'M MADb (z) Mr. Arnold criti ed Larry King as not being a team player. '[N.
| |
| (a+) Mr. Arnold said that the trteking out of contaminated sewage in violation of state law was a legal technicality, without safety significance.' $$fC M (b+) The radio active sewage discussed was the cesium 137.
| |
| (c+) Mr. Kanga also stated the truckirg out of the sewage was a legal technicality without safety significance.
| |
| (d+) Mr. Arnold said the Polar crane would be adegaately tested before noving the 40 ton missle shields. '9M. 88W # 4'M 3 N/
| |
| I / ) .
| |
| ,q Ah ,
| |
| ,1h J cy,g ,e fr7 uf/ fof&7 7lACC&l).ddo/T?')>
| |
| k;J 70 h'joI pcke{yerirac du Y ,
| |
| coAD 7&dB kA
| |
| (/ ,
| |
| - . _ ~ - _.. _ - _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _
| |
| : 7. In respect of Rick's various duties, were you aware that he was (a) Renoved as alternate start up and test supervisar, without notice discussion or conment between management and himself; - h,$h[chff *
| |
| (b) Were you aware that the first he knew of this was during a meeting on February 23 , 19 83 when he started to discuss his job requirements.
| |
| (ge 2fy fgagQNog a e ting were Chwastyk and Kanga) M.
| |
| (c) Ib you blow Mo ordered his renoval frcrn the psition of alternate start up- test engineer. If yes, who (d) Were you aware that he was renoved frcrn the Test Work Group in respect og gacggilp Polar Crane Project. Yb 2'O d6 [ht/AO' JN (e) Were you aware that his renoval from the 7WG for the Polar-crane project was done without compend or dia:ussion with him and l management and was presented at a meeting wherein where Mr. '
| |
| Kanga sought to get Rick to say that his renoval was not an act of intimidation. (Note at the meeting were Chwastyk and Kanga)
| |
| (f) If you know, is it correct that management could have informally '
| |
| agranged that Bubba Marshall would sit in on the Polar crane f meetings, rather than formally renoving Rick from the project. 7,, g g p Vl(D 'M.
| |
| )00 L/to7f d? ns&. hcas/
| |
| ixYG/& ^ UYV M ^ hl(,.
| |
| f dous. VNGT.
| |
| ff JPY 7po caWj oA 7#T wMr cSf PY kn7 i
| |
| '7/IMH7 .Y 57tcc &&a7044T .tHs7tsey'.
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| i .
| |
| i.
| |
| . 8. Were you aware that Joyce Wenger was fired for allegedly giving ecmpany officials inconsistent statements.. and that she was subsequently reinstated at 'IMI. %,
| |
| u a
| |
| I 9
| |
| s i
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| (
| |
| : 9) As you will be aware when the GPU/BW case collapsed and j a settlement was agreed the US District. Attorney reconvened t.he Federal Grand Jury.
| |
| (a) Was the new grand jury discussed at TMI amongst the employees ? Y6f.
| |
| {
| |
| (b) Was there any discussion of the case ending so' abruptly 1 1 j
| |
| M. afdGCNL. .,
| |
| (c) Was it felt that the two sides perhaps neither wanted to be told in public, ie through the {
| |
| thewholestorbCE tria1 ? M4Eiiir' i
| |
| (d) Did anyone discuss the fact that Mr. Z e w e a n d M 'r . ..:
| |
| Fredricks appeared to have changed their testimony '}
| |
| between the time of the NRC investigation and the triai 7 ' A T T0 t1Y CdoJUN)GG- ]
| |
| }
| |
| (e) Did anyone discuss that apparently Mr. Faust still referred to Mr. Fredricks 'as the person who switched on I the pumps at 5:41. ( Testimony of Victor Stello at page 60 )
| |
| line 5 ) 'Ihat the " mystery man" discussion is who turned of the punps, once they had been turned on.
| |
| (f) Daring.what dates have you been employed at mI I (g) During what dates have you been enployed at mI II [//Cf g y, I
| |
| O i
| |
| 0 i
| |
| | |
| e i
| |
| i
| |
| . 101 In respect of your interview with Mr. Barton :- dv8T A IS U
| |
| -(a)' -Did 'Mr. Barton ask for u to see him or did you volunteer tha I
| |
| .meehina.dAget.c.
| |
| 'y .aMr H/MGD yqct 0 0 EA>$ETH}'Id' 76 7%S A0WT $N'AbEYM (b). Did you volunteer to give(Mr. .$arton a' statement, or did he instruct
| |
| (. you_ % give one to him.
| |
| ?(c) Were you given to understand that you did not have to say anything ;
| |
| If you wished not to do so. .fA x Act 4 EW G p cb 7 4 7 (d) :Was you interview with Mr. Bar or was two_.of jy someone else there, arti if so who.
| |
| (e) Were you offered the right to have a witness if you wished to do so. - M/F (f) -How much notice of the inpending interview were you given.*0#/M@,
| |
| .(g)- Were you given a copy of your statement to Mr. Barton. IP8v f #d8NU (h) Did Mr. Barton ask if you could still work with Rick when he cenes back.--
| |
| (1)- In general what wp Mr. Barton's attitude towards Rick at the interview.-t 9He47 10 m hid.
| |
| (j) Why did he feel the way he did, if he explained his attitude.
| |
| (k) What.did Mr. Barton ask about.
| |
| (1) What did Mr. Barton say specifically about Rick.
| |
| (m) What did you say to Mr. Barton (i) before he took your statement '
| |
| (ii) in your statement.
| |
| 1 l
| |
| )
| |
| 1 J
| |
| j l
| |
| : 11. (a) In ' respect of the Stier's interviews, I believe you spoke to him
| |
| , .with a court reporter present.? (l.
| |
| * W M W M -
| |
| (b) How many other times did you meet with Mr. Stiers or anyone else working with him ? ' Odf C7N d vtNM J7/64 cy, Ar[
| |
| FCh'J; hand fkceojtw2eIn'l64. 7 / fo/C, /8dM4(.
| |
| (c) Where were. the interviews held ?
| |
| (d) When ?
| |
| (e) Were you shown a copy of your statement to Mr. Barton on March 23, 1982 ,
| |
| or if not shown a ecpy was it discussed ? ((ccAcl/,det/es/c e.
| |
| (f) When was the last time you saw your statement given to Mr. Barton ?
| |
| (g) .Ibw long did you discuss the matters contained in your statement prior to going on the record at the Stier.'s intervi ? / Jr pJJ Aeg, F J, ik, MCMeo haJWJ. C($ pH e HAtt cu5Get* bA0 ~^r 6niJ . M/h?M o
| |
| (h) With whom did you discuss the issues contained in the Stier's interviews prior to going on the record ?
| |
| (i) As best you can ramenber, did the interview concern matters other than ;
| |
| those contained in the final written statement ? t/td7//g
| |
| , (j) How long did the meeting with Mr. Stier last ? / gg, (k) Did Mr Stier use the Barton interview statment during your interview ? Met (1) To the best of your knowledge, did they ask questions with a court reporter present, from all of the persons they interviewed, or just
| |
| (.
| |
| some of the persons such as yourself ? M/~,/pd *
| |
| '(m) If just sczne of the persons had to go on' the record, who were those that did not ?
| |
| :-g
| |
| .:- .e . * ...r.. - . ..... .. ..
| |
| P:.
| |
| Mhump T
| |
| . i flA6tlQ .. .. .. .
| |
| p f.9 wav ibirmed Wj(Ac I /nece,is%,a y(rgq ce.e4ypd Adam weggfjW ggM% +y'ex GL *r la ;
| |
| sp manu rs a h% aas puw?
| |
| 4lree ain war 8MVhmd oh 94. Wc? '
| |
| c, ryi.g ne OJceaez.i 4eueJa8 W/$/ NMfR
| |
| ) '
| |
| .s J ' \
| |
| c
| |
| #qirwhee7.Ow~k e f b @ (
| |
| i.
| |
| dC#.
| |
| 1 v/eato b.d$6 ;
| |
| h ibw, e ;J,
| |
| ,) '
| |
| A of y p @ vl fi
| |
| %s & we trages pug new wm yh/ &P's at.P nw
| |
| ;o,f o .cW./k] & wm&
| |
| i l
| |
| WM4 u; a . w ?
| |
| g w~HP } xakJ abb
| |
| | |
| Exhibit S 3ntreduction': NAME Jeg Cgy/f7/[
| |
| JOB T2TLE : ADDRESS iren/P.o.
| |
| . REPOR.TS.TO:
| |
| (/rW [.8t4dTC) 6/{V.3 DATE TIME ST ART /#M'5 I
| |
| , Purpose
| |
| : 1) To confirm any points raised in-_the affadavit of' Rick Parks where your name., appears.
| |
| L 2) What I: am completing is not an affadavit and you will be. asked to sign'nothing. The purpose of our wanting to interview you-in addition to the affadavit is to try and clarify and 1imit the issues that'are.likely to arise at'the forthcoming heearing'of Rick.
| |
| Based on this do not hesitate to discuss anything that you feel you'might wish to simply because it is hearsay. The Administrate Law Judge will ensure no evidence is used that isn't appropriate QUESTIONS
| |
| ' 1. Who has interviewed you to date with regard to the Parks Affidavit ?
| |
| Department of Labour Y e s/ No 44 ,;
| |
| NRC '
| |
| MO FBI A/O Bechtel'.s Lawyers Y.
| |
| GPU-(N) Lawyers Y Mr.-Arnold Y Mr. Barton Y OTHER : (e.g. Udall Committee)
| |
| M&2 i
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| ' 2. With regard to Rick Parks in personal terms : - (UDD
| |
| ' gh,Wh'ty J /Cr/?f /(fth$ ,Tk, (a) Hcw is Rick to work with, e.g. is he sociable, easy to get along with or what. 4df kr -
| |
| (b)
| |
| Did Rick freely speak his mird if he disagreed with something in terms of work, - Y6 [ ,
| |
| (c) From kat I urderstard the use of slang swear words occurs frequently'at 31I, i.e. the language is fairly stong. - Y g ,
| |
| (d). Was Rick''s language within the general range of how people talk. -
| |
| at D11. - A C(77L6 00tIIV$ ' ttxkOL CYAA ,
| |
| (e)
| |
| Do you feel Rick has/had a personal grudge against George Kunder, or wastheredisagreQG (f) Have you seen any evidence that Rick is rg r ge d ;
| |
| (g) Would you describe P k as a fairly straigh$-forward person';
| |
| ( yd
| |
| /gyffh
| |
| '''T 474K dWW Hew {4 4/
| |
| S l
| |
| j
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| i
| |
| : 3. In respect of Rick in a professional capacity : Would ycu describe Rick as = {
| |
| (a) -A conpetent ergineer. '/ES M Pd M/T/Ol !
| |
| (b) Professional in his approach to wrk problems. 7 8-(c) A person who adopts reascnable professional standards. 7M. (/#O CA.
| |
| (d) A person who tried to work within the system at 'IMI prior to his /
| |
| going public over the crane: Af 0 /.) 7thf gh (0, ffd,.
| |
| * ( Q A 0iyeHot 2 D h 1 / $ tt }$&TTsCe9tt7/Jg),$Jg9FMn) j tmi1 -
| |
| i
| |
| # GioJ A)f WH$h litep g ? ,Jcr do go fa we. l
| |
| (
| |
| l l l i
| |
| : 4. In respect of POBC and the SBG :
| |
| (a) . As we understand it Site Operations is the final review authority for '' -
| |
| signing off items as being in legal certpliarce with the vagious regulations. Yd' Vadd bkC. b [Tr/T&CI / AM (b) It is also our understanding the PORC reports to the Director. .
| |
| (c) What work or activities are carried out by PORC. W W- @hh, (d) Whggis g giligy yl g re g g, rk dI7 r # / ( Q //
| |
| 9 g e) What work or a: ivitiegagg out bgS p gAj T v f What is the SPG's responsibility with respect to this work. T/ Td y}7 AIN (g))
| |
| ( Can the work or activies carried oct by PORC be circumvented if I
| |
| thg ggg wp egbyggy signing off procedures etc. Y6. d474 h.) - (#'' g d (h) Canthg r activities carried out by the SRG be circumvented if f htr.)G the N director 'aishes, by sinply signing off precedures etc. N 3 n/ (i) Who is the head of PORC. NN reporting tc d.$. .
| |
| 0 J~ Wgj,) gV,is t;he
| |
| #4 uf4head W Hof H fe&k e d ~6 '
| |
| 644fo k M fA 7 (k) Based (on what e, os c . n . c. t WK J sal wnat ways s wer PCRC sub-rM7d fMN stantially differ from the work of the SRG.
| |
| (1) Do you see the SRG as a substitute for PORC.p Mht/FUO'.
| |
| qf[ h
| |
| %" ' M (Ct) Are you on either POE or the SRG. If yes, which /7.
| |
| 6(C 01- (n) When did you go on PORC the SRG dF (o) Is NBC approval neccesary for the SPG s g t g . .
| |
| 'N[ (p) Has NRC permission been given. de If yes,_when (q) Does POPC still operate ? - [, I 1
| |
| l l
| |
| j i
| |
| i I
| |
| i
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| :. Rick discussed in his affidavit + that several persons felt frustrated with the of ten sicw progress of-POK and that this stemned from POE chairman George Kurder.
| |
| (a) Have you personally experienced any frustration in getting on with your job (if applicable) because of del s in rS. t of :t$d Jo U J T1 GW th, (i) Po r $A If yes in what way... I) ,p y,y ggyy, ; fo gc gg(, ,,,
| |
| (it) Sm. A. Bic If es in what wayU b. ($ AGCV - J aHY TW tA-Ctl/uMy cd rCJ<JC el t)FMr blu& W (b) Have pu ever felt should have reviewed a particular th0g Hit (rdt nere thoroughly. If yes, what Odb -
| |
| (c) Have you ever felt SRG should have reviewed a particlar thing nore thoroughly. If yes, what (d) mough we urderstand that POE was normally thorough, what were the i circumstances when Por noved to hastily. !
| |
| (d) bough we understand that SRG is fairly new, what were the I circumstances when SPG noved to hastily.
| |
| 1 I
| |
| I 1
| |
| : 6. In respect of Ricks disclosures management has said various thirgs as to why they are displeased with Rick's public disclosures. 8/Mld Tl b NA (a) In your view why is management really displeased about Rick's challerge l
| |
| to the Polar test project.
| |
| (b) Has management's severe attitude to the Parks affair made you feel nervous about our asking you to be interviewed.
| |
| (c) Were you at the meeting of March 23rd,1982 immediately after Rick went public. ( I believe that was the ting of the directors and senior management ) d W A W # f/N With regard to the following could you confirm whether the statements I make are as best as you remember; correct, or incorrect.
| |
| ~
| |
| (d) The! meeting scheduled for 8:30 began about 9 AM (e) The meeting was attended by nearly all top aM senior management.
| |
| (f) Mr. Arnold had a copy of Ricks press release.
| |
| (g) Mr. Mnold had a copy of Rick's affidavit.
| |
| (h) Mr. Arnold said this was just a flash in the pan and would quickly die cbwr.
| |
| (i) Mr. Arnold said the investigators would find nothirg if they looked.
| |
| (j) Mr. Arnold said Rick would be back the next day at work.
| |
| (k) Mr. Barton said that Rickgld be fired.-T(8. ,7 gg p,y gff, (1) Mr. ggagg e seg ggbitch should not be let back on the Island.
| |
| (m) Mr. Kanga said that they could not do that as Rick had gone public aM was protected by the Atomic Energy Act. M [./h M f [
| |
| (n) Mr. Kanga said they could just transfer Rick or put him on leave of j absence for a nonth and then get rid of him quietly. 9 NW T Y l (o) Mr. Arnold said that when Rick gretarns they are not to give him and ck:cuments. -M U O'T %N M'M A l (p) Mr. Arnold said that Rick shou not be permitted in any restricted areas.'
| |
| (q) Mr. Barton enphasised that we should rot speak to Rick.Wh:pu.
| |
| p (r) Mr. Barton repeated that Rick should not be allcwed back on the island. '
| |
| (s) Mr. Karga said they had to be cautious.That caution was regaired as Rick had charged harrassment and was protected by law.
| |
| (t) Mr. Arnold said the Udall Conmittee would review Rick's affidavit, but would not invite Rick to testify.- [DML.
| |
| (u)
| |
| Mr. Arnold said he was sure it would all be squashed.- fIUw T//e l (v) The meeting ended af ter about 1 tour at approximately 10 AM.
| |
| ~ SE#C
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| : 6. (continued)
| |
| ~
| |
| With' respect to the meeting called by Mr. Arnold on 28th March 1983 in regard to the hY Times article of that date on the subject of the recovery program.
| |
| (w) Mr. Arnold said that anyone who had problems should raise them then and there. - EE(.AL W6M.Y lb AJUN MM M [/A6(Hy8, (x) Mr. Arnold praised the new management stru::ture as the solution to getting on with the recovery program. i (y) te new tranagement structure was that headed up by Mr. Barton as Site 6perations director. -f M-(z) Mr. Arnold critised Larry King as not being a team player. ' fc,B ofc :
| |
| gg gr f (a+) Mr. Arnold said that the trucking out of contaminated sewage in violation of state law was a legal technicality, without s ety significance.-7(d-80tf(0/dCNN10/.(f3v4I/ 'T WAI 4 (b-) ne radio active sewage discussed was the cesium 137.
| |
| (c+) Mr. Kanga also stated the trucking out of the sewage was a legal technicality without safety significance.
| |
| (d+) Mr. Arnold said the Polar crane would be adequately tested before noving the 40 ton missle shields. - H rC N,4 8/GTII/C [f47FJ6V7,
| |
| ?UCed. bACK W& af&p/& Vh Uk h.D'^~ C@b'Wrd, 1 mvr Mtw 4 pxuor cme rer.
| |
| ~'' ?OKsonof or a asmE & Mt trwmM. GM M7'r.
| |
| Tyc rvett'oc J# lima, & rim od.
| |
| l l l l :
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| f.h. A
| |
| : 7. In respect of Rick's various duties, were you aw (a) Renoved as alternate start up and test sh pthewas r w t notice T%
| |
| discussion or conment between management and himself;
| |
| , , gp (b) Were you aware that the first he knew of this was during a meeting TAf yar on February 23, 1983 when he started to discuss his job requirements.
| |
| (page 25 RP affidavit) (Note at the meeting were Chwastyk and Kanga) .I c
| |
| (c) Do you know who ordered his renoval frm the position of alter t {
| |
| start up . test engineer. If yes, who M
| |
| - kW O '
| |
| (d) Were you aware that.he was reroved frm the ' Inst Work Group in respect
| |
| '/J$ Etke*,?. kFW WJ3% t the -ici1NNx for the P.MTWpk
| |
| / (e) Were you aware that is renoval from-WW'IWG olar crane j project was done without conmend or discussion with him and management and was presented at a meeting wherein where Mr. I Kanga sought to get Rick to say that his renoval was not an act of intimidation. (Note at the meeting were Chwastyk and Kanga)
| |
| (f) If you know, is it correct that management could have informally acranged that Bubba Marshall would sit in on the Polar crane i meetings, rather than formally renoving Rick from the project.1,2Wrh i@Y dw jJ/c Ans 'D Jrict # purg 70 g.f.
| |
| De kerrvG Muir 17 p l Se,, wl07WFt'dr I htJ2A /GW.
| |
| t'd CuCW cW rtMC Rf wtd MC, dP exh&M F vlDrJ T/ JS. !% ctM Jr odedkB HAf feb$MS& du,w # cNieD Oo f ea f oc w kh# M hmey maee. @M. nnc Def I 81ceo
| |
| & M os HM JS g. d f6 +f)T , fam vat b mj -
| |
| s tud k M
| |
| > s, g .
| |
| IG -fair'ftcriaG & iMmf aeer
| |
| @C ADNt1 J . TYPf. '56ery cocaJ" 6 ~s A afgg n ,i ceur-
| |
| ? u% ro Jehry /M - A Gwer wper rc Adnuc.
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| . - ~ _ _ _ . - - -- - . _ - _
| |
| l
| |
| : 8. .-Were you aware that Joyce Wenger was fired for allegedly giving conpany officials inconsistent statements.. and that she was subsequently ~ -
| |
| l reinstatedat2MI.-fd.
| |
| l l
| |
| I l
| |
| 4 l
| |
| l
| |
| : 9) As you will be aware when the GPU/BW: case colla.psed and
| |
| * a settlement was agreed the US District Attorney reconvened t he Fe d e ra l G r a nd Ju ry. - [f46 ON $A7d.
| |
| (a) Was the new grand jury- disqussed at TMI amon '
| |
| t he empioyees 1-ZyRE, Mf.f{ECM Sf& h tCS.gst ;
| |
| (b)
| |
| Wasther4anydisc3ssi,opofthe-caseendinbl 30AE 'TP&c kleN . HHY CO TO CT k s ''tG abruptly JETNf (c) Was it felt that the two sides perhaps neither wanted the whole stor ie th 1-SGE to be told finrerpf
| |
| $d&tML public}
| |
| ct , pg7mfgehough theSyp(4 cgjo, f trfaipiodJef THE ^- '
| |
| (d) Did anyone discuss the fact that Mr. Zewe and'Mr..a Fredricks appeared to have changed their testimony between the time of the NRC investigation and the trial ?-gO.
| |
| (e) Did anyone discuss that apparently Mr. Faust still referred t,o Mr. Fredricks as the person who switched on the pumps at 5:41. ( Testinony of Victor Stello at page 60 line 5 ). That the " mystery man" discussion is who turned of the pug s, once they had been turned on. /D.
| |
| (f) During.what dates h ve you been enployed at 2MI I ;iP Al/Av'[ C9-70 '
| |
| 79(ut1JT To Ll f (g) During what dates have you been enployed at 2MI II q 9
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| 1
| |
| : 10. In respect of your interview with Mr. Barton :- i (a) Did Mr. Barton ask for you to see him or did you volunteer the coJYW
| |
| #N
| |
| , j
| |
| ,,,t$ng, oa M. M's H (D 1@.1 Serr A cdy'. nino Sou rgA (b) Did you volunteer to give Mr. Barton a statement, or did e instruct (
| |
| you to give one to him.-# f Y N M If6 /J.
| |
| (c) Were you given to urderstand that you did not have to say anything if you wished not to do so. -
| |
| E N'YJ M "I M gf[ AJY7806
| |
| /
| |
| (d) Was you interview with Mr. Barton just between the two of you or was .,
| |
| someone else there, ard if so who. V#T ), !
| |
| i (e) Were you offered the right to have a witness if you wished to do sor- ((tf THu THMHT T CD).
| |
| (f) Hgmppticeg e l
| |
| t f
| |
| (g) Were you given )a copy of your statement 'to Mr. Barton. -7 <
| |
| (h)
| |
| Did Mr. Barton ask if you could still work with Rick when he ccrnes backg/,
| |
| (i) s '
| |
| rr InceAerda AatwLMr.Bar5on'a.attitudetowardsRickattheinterview.
| |
| - 1- it .
| |
| (j) Why did he feel the way he did, if he explained his attitude.
| |
| (k) What did Mr. Barton ask about.@ [dv6- [Clt v /1yf, lytr/,
| |
| (1) What did Mr. Barton say specifically about Rick.
| |
| (m) What did you .say to Mr. Barton (i) before he tcck your statement ,
| |
| (ii) in your statement. '
| |
| 1 i
| |
| i
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| ,19.
| |
| : 11. (a) In respect of the Stier's interviews, I believe you spoke to him with a court reporter present.? ' 7CT- d h T M r yh bfotE Tf/rgt (b) How many other times did you meet with Mr. Stiers or anyone else working eith him ? ~p A NELI Ob 140 AUCC. A $ Of T/NG$. AT (&&
| |
| .Di$. ko.10C: of (~.2 HAE TC M HO, (c) Where were the interviews held ? - p p rph/ cop 47 yf7[ ggy (d) When ? -9 UP Til U S A G O. /*J C A]I hWTH.
| |
| .J0.
| |
| (e) Were you shown a copy of your' statement to Mr. Barton on March 23, 1982, i
| |
| or if not shown a copy was it discussed ? ~ & M MAtTAct /T IfrCIb/C (f) When was the last time you saw your statement given to Mr.. Barton ?
| |
| (g) How long did you discuss the matters contained in your statement prior to going on the record at thq Stier.!s interview ? i Ol''C#EEN /8#'#8[ #
| |
| Gud7IN.i flUT (UCHARitC) &W Wy Q / etch]),
| |
| (h) With whom did you discuss the issues contained in the Stier's interviews prior to going on the record ? WM A Ca. /e9 d/S V MTt42 8tCCEO g (i) As best you can remernber, did the interview concern matters other than those contained in the final written statement ? -7Nf,K JD.
| |
| f (j) How long did the meeting with Mr. Stier last ?
| |
| (k) Did Mr Stier use the Barton interview statment dur.ing your interview ? p 4
| |
| [4 !
| |
| (1) 'To the best of your knowledge, did they ask questions with a court j reporter present, from all of the persons they interviewed, or just I some of the persons such as yourself ? TH/lK W L . CT. McA 76U d .
| |
| (m) If just scme of the persons had to go on the record, who were th that did not ?
| |
| l I
| |
| | |
| ll / hab ACP't M.
| |
| ~
| |
| e ? ( 9,'7pD -Te-wbOh l.ff> p.6(( l '
| |
| ,,/ 2
| |
| .h wyf W? kP & hi)tWfl[ N b & & MRat,7vo.WWW@d NL l
| |
| ) )
| |
| Y
| |
| $[ .
| |
| vc & f)n f (#IE*h 1 I]lp 9 TM Tc d u 4 T F k os k mf" TH'A CJ A AJMok THC< fd5pnh Ae i p b (/Mc{fA D?
| |
| N- (
| |
| GX fewDt4 -') htfor d(t leMWs Mtu W 2; 4hJAAY op Cf frecJnt MtWA.
| |
| g ')V h h J h p]b'b #
| |
| %!5 m e -
| |
| - ca -
| |
| 7, ,,,, gyc N b ^ N 7I' * * 't g $j '
| |
| gorgM sN T. MontL.
| |
| aco 7%!W THE rdi hittd n w~ s en fgocd)
| |
| M icc-efles? wh Ttisivoo$
| |
| ACA'S 4 h% c1 T/h nUW a gg,y v S ut hr urt THaC ,
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| D0ilBIT T
| |
| 't
| |
| 'g .
| |
| 'l 3 E,s; ; ...h'
| |
| )
| |
| .D
| |
| , , t
| |
| .e-... .. . . .. .
| |
| 6 3o9 A<D Gr naos wir . . ., ~~~ s,.
| |
| y,4, gy- - '
| |
| : i. ,
| |
| .; .;AaTEA . - . . . . . . . . . . _ . .
| |
| ! I
| |
| :. . / [ ,
| |
| 'e"yy wh sQ --
| |
| chJ/j' I dub-ndf a wa w
| |
| $K50 (0 9,5 h J& ?a d & l/ kbd O ML 4 , bWB /. .. _
| |
| m a 9+
| |
| pho ses
| |
| * Wilscygeq% V Gre Y woogf.
| |
| % %.n diW- towl er a s. a w siiin w a , sue.e e m e l^ : )/ / l0 '
| |
| dd)b14;AC)Uf97d.dV4g.4
| |
| - a i ! /
| |
| L o
| |
| | |
| , $ 3 2 ;z t : n
| |
| ^
| |
| [y e rp a m M~W w
| |
| ,pJa 2
| |
| = p 4 _.
| |
| #d & ./
| |
| n fx:+=~ yy. s- .
| |
| A-a a ren a e..
| |
| 'M Y p---
| |
| 7
| |
| .g Grai f =44- = f4 y r.
| |
| g !
| |
| M@ m- g g--
| |
| - E . s : a _r e
| |
| \ b] ?ZMe; n-67 A a ~P4~r&y:,
| |
| a/A su ' M7
| |
| ~
| |
| y .
| |
| ^ ^^
| |
| af'- . W u + g.4 W
| |
| sz t-~s 1
| |
| ______.____ _ _ a
| |
| | |
| v k,
| |
| : Y WYN W'
| |
| %-2 _ g A 4 -4, _
| |
| )I &n , 1 7s cA6 q W W-
| |
| %g TJd v47A t 72 -
| |
| ns~
| |
| 1
| |
| %sh ( % a(\ g ## / e .5 e
| |
| . 4 MWhf NN f,M s-A r ~ #~ ~
| |
| f n = =c.- j s 1/~
| |
| %r!
| |
| V/gg,A M24- Wf hI
| |
| %k
| |
| * M ~, .
| |
| sht 4 su ay 0;\b a a pv e '
| |
| l htqA.ea ~g. e; ee %.
| |
| .p' 3a 3.:'.>; ..Q;4 ., // /3g//{ j x y~ p, / /, en-c 1 1 .
| |
| 1'
| |
| | |
| m-- , , , - - - , - - -----,,-,,-
| |
| y..
| |
| f
| |
| ' ' ^-
| |
| w g ' f_ '
| |
| , Y . c. ,. k.,YW ^^ ^ ^ !
| |
| e d - + n , = n -.
| |
| O
| |
| ^ & u d74 ff &
| |
| f ~--/y -
| |
| w #A~<
| |
| s--- - w -, ,
| |
| os.c. M ?=
| |
| c;.w a . .- , -13
| |
| %- + '2J4 GJ I= /. L. l R o A = u a # 4es k i
| |
| - 37 7# Z'E q < e, le$ r oc re, .
| |
| f4 Et m _
| |
| ge= = 5 / 'd;;' f- !! =*- - 4 & n 'r a v '
| |
| l &n n RL L,, .
| |
| i
| |
| ,M= - - f &ZR) fly =}
| |
| ca u A- ~
| |
| y -M 94es- cm, = e -
| |
| fc-K & -f'&
| |
| r pMi
| |
| . /4,-
| |
| 1 on,n a- Don, e<p, A.
| |
| ~
| |
| = ^ '--< h&': p W k-hb~ad&&ffu*,
| |
| ~~
| |
| .y- - . . . . . . .
| |
| | |
| ..M d d -. i , A i
| |
| q f g Q ~A ) 9 " )' " "4 1 4 NQ e-jj- "
| |
| M 4 J
| |
| a., _ ,
| |
| O A V e cwm'l M' W- 24 4 <" A&4 e
| |
| &cH%; ~
| |
| n y b-&-. 4 - g.s.p %' g4m9 V )& O W W
| |
| e v ~&
| |
| ^
| |
| .~ .
| |
| R (j~ _ . .
| |
| N& A/ g / 1 d[O J .i / N l
| |
| /
| |
| n,= ~ dn, ~
| |
| @ v - -- _
| |
| c1>- M A= w M//QQ,o
| |
| /w -
| |
| ~2 ss n
| |
| ~,
| |
| c n
| |
| h ': L 2 - dw 4 C, - JQw-ss- MN N4 8 .74-<d 4 A'
| |
| *~// A /s
| |
| . r - -r- c3 4
| |
| ,J...,s --s A 4 cad % / W, ~~
| |
| s a?%s p - , h# n -
| |
| </~ d r/-
| |
| s'ssn)- m -eL),,k /e e An-s /~
| |
| * w 9 d-
| |
| .S;aa..
| |
| ~p - .-
| |
| 0 Swx _. Ww W \
| |
| sJ2C 6 <'
| |
| .___..___..__________________b
| |
| | |
| w -N g' E4-f g f. p . j p-g *& .**L* '''*1 LJ rd /* net C M cl bse ss }lc .
| |
| . fk
| |
| .- s?~ ~ u dY;s. , .-/ , 4 .*. s.,
| |
| <>tc C
| |
| . psan _
| |
| wp - uffa. n,i a.<. G a s,c . u t. ,<.
| |
| Pi.u..--, Ji
| |
| . e p-a/
| |
| f
| |
| [
| |
| '. , <,'- ; ej , ,
| |
| /
| |
| 6f )-
| |
| v.mf- fdG, fa... L , ...<. ,, ..
| |
| A w.a n - -
| |
| I </ ,,
| |
| - ik&,, M w y .s.; y g w a r
| |
| ,w......~ t -
| |
| ,,. . - {As ";' ' ' ' r2 W c.S grg - <r.~ s i -
| |
| a n. i .
| |
| / q,..:,.
| |
| 89 w,/ x <- a h &,..- - t-; 1 .
| |
| (, c
| |
| ~ ( d . J,.. o a
| |
| I
| |
| -- eumsp 94penum pe l
| |
| 1
| |
| : c. . . ~ ... - . .,..., . . . . . 1 M
| |
| I''C' lrst, d'sle, /c'.e u }/ hsMr3r-eg-w4^ ' -
| |
| $*7.f~ 3. c2 V o is w 6 / & :
| |
| l ,, ,. r-t ,- -
| |
| p <<e~. t ,
| |
| l' l b ff' -
| |
| ( ) - M /h 5
| |
| (.f ~ _
| |
| ( /i.d.y(c.-_ ? 1 n e ar,<.s
| |
| / -
| |
| v ~
| |
| M f.'5 - (pud Gro V u :+ 5.1ei.
| |
| /. ~
| |
| 1L u,' +e/ 4, . n -
| |
| g b .mrc G' v. .so
| |
| , /EA) e,, . , e(,f-MJuc,~i , jay,AQ.l
| |
| #, w as 4 l
| |
| /w (Oj...' \
| |
| w . ,a -- . Stc .<c7 s,9v:oc f/. c . . . ::q e
| |
| l l
| |
| " - a
| |
| , / .: - . l. V$
| |
| fg ./ p . . '
| |
| ..,a p ,, d 4 /c)k &
| |
| =7
| |
| _ f.s t' ; 4 Sn t h:a u b- { *(-
| |
| [e/ ,.,,
| |
| [ c [<7 ([.6 . ./
| |
| L.=+ ma. , .. e, m, wwy \
| |
| e.. ..? y. . . :. -- g, u w s e A i.v :,. u I
| |
| a.:
| |
| [ itfr.<\lt. o.[ (* c c . /', . - f-
| |
| _3 f, ' _ . 7. < ,. ./ -
| |
| [, _
| |
| t ,,, - . . qi 1 <. <,.... . . . . -
| |
| ** I '' ~~~ r $s: / f. a. ('t . . us., Q, ,0. ; f' 3. . l 'I.
| |
| l - 4 81,, i /,/ / e t . .$ .'l a<,l.i 5/> f~ '~
| |
| ;,, ~ ' 1 i. [., s 1, {f;, L.. ,
| |
| ~5 - , $ U., I l.. : . f- 9 y , . - -
| |
| l 1
| |
| i- .
| |
| Ln ] t sue,-,j; Q.Dato .
| |
| {> sJ 4 -4s -y,: l 1
| |
| -.co w. ,.
| |
| i .i a -. /.
| |
| 4.,,,/ $ ' l
| |
| $$$$b?$?$$$$$$. h. -%
| |
| : y. ..
| |
| | |
| ,_.---r----"'- -- -
| |
| 1
| |
| ^
| |
| . 49'/dwdJ;~' k w ,=o gjIg
| |
| .<xe +.-. k.- \
| |
| arp
| |
| *' q e
| |
| GAV 62=6
| |
| ~n, M '*\
| |
| /
| |
| , & 5.<
| |
| 1 -d )
| |
| +
| |
| A {
| |
| g m
| |
| /I/d A -
| |
| e sg wr=P:~l s MJ a / .-tP F . {
| |
| fy ?- /& .
| |
| tj -
| |
| y h-Mi p/G f j ,QYs2W~
| |
| L e 4 e -cw n Y n)H
| |
| &c / /s,J-
| |
| ' m c~-e--tp.L,,n=4 1 f brg/s/ /--e-krs / l# S e.<.4 \
| |
| <>,ny en /syap e/se--A;7 fW'
| |
| , a s.
| |
| p;,AG.-, \
| |
| : w. m o%
| |
| </ mea
| |
| .v c -
| |
| n.e y.&4y '
| |
| .<'s/dc. e-dr~. .cu
| |
| /csm s // /sdes s- \
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| EXHIBIT V J TR ~ SCRIPT .
| |
| I C'F PRF CEEDINGS ;
| |
| l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , l
| |
| }
| |
| l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE i
| |
| . . _ . _ _ _ _ .______..x In the Matter of: : i GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION : Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile 161and Nuclear : EA-84-137 Station, Unit No. 2) :
| |
| -----------------x DEPOSITION OF RONALD MEEKS Washington, D. .C . f ll Tuesday, June 6, 1987 ''
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| Stenotype Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001
| |
| ~
| |
| (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1
| |
| ~
| |
| _ _ _ - . - - - - . _ ____.-------J
| |
| | |
| , a 31361.O. 28 !
| |
| , BMS-1 TMI-2, 2 0 UhatL was Mr . Vorse 's area ,'. if : you were f ocusing i i
| |
| .3 primarily on the affidavit?
| |
| l
| |
| ~
| |
| i 4 A 'I don't recall. 1
| |
| +
| |
| l 5' O About how long did the interview with Mr. Parks l
| |
| 6 last on April 27?
| |
| 7 A On April-27, what I remember is it was;just -- l 8 it wasn't very long.. It was.just a few hours. We -real'ized 9 that there was much more to cover, so we made plans to !
| |
| 10 conduct follow-up interviews.- ,
| |
| 11 0 To your knowledge, Mr. Meeks, had~anyone else in I
| |
| t 12 the Office.of Investigations spoken to Mr. Parks'before you 13 'and Mr. Vorse met with him on April 277 14 A Not' to my knowledge. i t
| |
| I 15 0 Do you remember when on April 27 it was that you !
| |
| 16 . met with I;r. Parks? I 17- A He was-interviewed that day by the inspectors.
| |
| 18 Then, after they finished, we interviewed -
| |
| "we" meaning 19 Mr. Vorse and I -- interviewed him. . We interviewed him 20 later on that day.
| |
| L 21 0 Uhen you say the " inspectors," who are you l
| |
| '22 referring to?
| |
| l E
| |
| l :
| |
| l L
| |
| g ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
| |
| | |
| -i 31361.0 29
| |
| ,BMS. i 1 JL Roger Walker.and Bill. Beech.
| |
| 2 0 .You;were not present for that?
| |
| 3 A To the best of my recollection, I might have 4 been present just for part of it. But I don't recall 5 taking any notes or being a. participant; in other words, 6' asking questions.and recording the answers.
| |
| 7 0 What was the subject matter of Mr. Walker's and l 8 Beech's interview of Mr. . Parks?
| |
| . 9 A It was technical concerns. . When I say i 10 " technical," about'the procedures and guidelines and the ;
| |
| J 11 functioning of the TMI-2 cleanup program.
| |
| 12 .Q~ Did Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech take notes during 13 their' interview with Mr. Parks when you were there?
| |
| .14 A I don't recall.
| |
| 15 Q Had you and 'Mr. Vorse agreed with the inspectors 16 in advance that they would cover cortain areas and you and 17 Mr. Vorse would cover certain other areas?
| |
| 18 A That's my general impression, yes.
| |
| l 19 Q What was the' division?
| |
| 20 A Right now, I don't recall exactly what the 21 definite divisions were.
| |
| l- 22 O Can you tell me generally? You stated that l
| |
| /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| \ _ es -n ~ ~ - ~ - --- \
| |
| | |
| .3136100 30 BMS i
| |
| 1- Mr. Walker-and Mr. Beech were talking to him about 2 technical matters, procedures and guidelines and so on.
| |
| 3 A No, I can't.
| |
| 4 0 Did Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech'have questions 5 written out in advance of their interview with Mr. Parks 6 that they were planning to propound to him?
| |
| 7 A I don't know.
| |
| 8 MR. HIC KE Y: I ask the reporter to mark as 9 Exhibit 1 to the Meeks Deposition this document identified 10 by the NRC Number 030287007.
| |
| i 11 (Meeks Exhibit 1 identified.)
| |
| 12 MR.. HICKEY: This is Exhibit 2 to the deposition, 13 this document marked 030287009.
| |
| 14 (Meeks Exhibit 2 identified.)
| |
| 15 BY MR. HIC KE Y: ,
| |
| 16 0 Mr. Meeks, looking at Exhibit 1, the handwritten i 17 document in front of you, do you recognize that document?
| |
| 18 A No, I don't.
| |
| 19 0 It appears to be questions for Mr. Parks. It 20 was produced by the NRC from Of fice of Investigations' 21 files regarding this investigation. Do you recognize the 2" handwriting or have an idea as to whose it is?
| |
| 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l
| |
| | |
| ^
| |
| s31361.0 31
| |
| 'BMS' 1 A No, I don't.
| |
| 2 'O Uould you look at Exhibit 2. The first two 3 pages of that.are typed. Then, the remaining pages are 4 handwritten.. Would you take.a look.at that document. ~:
| |
| 5 wanted-to ask you if you recognize it.
| |
| 6 A No, I don't.
| |
| 7 0 You have reviewed Exhibit 2, Mr. Meeks ; do you-8 recognize that document?
| |
| 9 A No.
| |
| '10 0 Do you have any recognition of the handwritten 11 portion, which is the back portion of theLdocument?'
| |
| 12' A No, I don't.
| |
| 13 0 Do you -- you may have answered th'is. Do you 14' know whether Mr. Beech and Mr.' Walker had questions 15 prepared in advance of their interview with Mr. ' Parks on 16 April 27?
| |
| 17 MR. JOHNSON: I think he did answer that already.
| |
| 18 BY MR. HIC KEY:
| |
| 19 0 What is your answer?
| |
| L 20 A I don't know.
| |
| 21 0 Did you have questions prepared prior to your
| |
| :22 interview with Mr. Parks?
| |
| I 14CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1
| |
| --- m____ __- 1
| |
| | |
| 131361.0 32' BMS-1 A I don't recall. He wanted to expound on the 2 information he . gave in his affidavit, which he released to 3 the public. Whether I just had notes on the affidavit or 4 had some questions, or whether Mr. Vorse had questions, I l 5 don't recall what format it took. But it was based on the 6 information that he presented in the affidavit that he 7 released to the public in clarifying and expanding on 8 points.
| |
| 9 0 You indicated earlier that-you were not present 10 during the. entirety of Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech's interview 11 with Mr. Parks ; is that right?
| |
| 12 A. i indicated I was only there~for a brief period, 13 was my. recollection.
| |
| 14 0 Do you know about how long that interview lasted 15 between Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech and Mr. Parks?
| |
| 16 A It w'as several hours, if not -- I don't recall 17 whether it started in the morning and lasted all day or 18 started in the afternoon and lasted all afternoon.
| |
| 19 0 But you saw Mr. Parks after that. So when they 20 stopped, then you and Mr. Vorse interviewed Mr. Parks?
| |
| 21 A That's what I do recall, that it was getting 22 late at night and we were just getting going and the i
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| l 131361.-0L 33 l' BMS p
| |
| 1 majority of the interview had to be conducted still'. My 2 recollection is we only interviewed him for a few hours 1
| |
| 3- that night. It had just.gotten started.
| |
| 4 Q What arrangements did.you make to obtain the
| |
| : 5. information that Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech got from l
| |
| 6 Mr. Parks?
| |
| 7 A I wasn't involved in that.
| |
| 8 O Did you talk.to Mr. Walker and Mr. Beech about 9 what they learned from Mr. Parks?
| |
| 10 MR. JOHNSON: Could you be more specific about.
| |
| 11 what time frame you are referring to?
| |
| 12 BY MR. HICKE Y:
| |
| 13 0 Shortly after the April 27 interview.
| |
| 14 .A I don't recall. It is not my recollection that 15 I talked specifically to him about that information.
| |
| 16 .0 Do you know whether Mr. Vorse did?
| |
| 17 A It is my impression that he most likely, yes, 18 would have talked to him about exactly what was -- not 19 exactly. But what was discussed and the general contents 20 of the information, yes.
| |
| 21 0 Did Mr. Walker or Mr. Beech prepare any' 22 memoranda as a result of their April 27 interview?
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| l s31361.'0 , 3 4'-
| |
| 3BMS 1 A. It don't recall.
| |
| 2 'O Had'you and the other members of your 3 ..
| |
| investigative' team worked out some procedure ~for ensuring 4 transmission of information within the team members from 5 all'the information you were gathering?
| |
| 6 A There was: organization, but what the specifics 7 .were, I don't recall right now.,
| |
| 8 0 If.your memory on the specifics is not as sharp 9 as you might like, tell me.about the general procedures 10 that.you had. established. How were you going to keep each 11 other-informed'of the information you were gathering?
| |
| '12 A I don't know.
| |
| j 13 0 You don't..have.any recollection'of any 14 arrangements to transmit information from' one member of the 15 investigative' team to the other?
| |
| 16 A. No. Mainly, that wasn't my responsibility to 17 handle that aspect.
| |
| 18 0 As e mernber of the investigative team, you were 19 interested in receiving information from the other 20 investigators as to what they learned?
| |
| 21 A Yes, but I don't recall the specifics of the 22 transmission, how it was set up, the transmission of 1 l
| |
| 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347-3700' Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 1 1
| |
| '3136100 35 BMS i
| |
| 1 information back and forth. j 1
| |
| -l 2 0 Do you have any recollection of instances in j
| |
| )
| |
| 3 which you' received information from other investigative 1 4 team members, meaning Mr. Vorse and Mr. Walker and 1 i
| |
| 5 Mr. Beech, of wha,t they were learning in their 6 investigation? s 7 _A No, I don't.
| |
| i 8 0 Uho was to prepare the statement for Mr. Parks 9 to sign following his April 27 interview?
| |
| 10 A I was.
| |
| 11 0 Did you know that when you went into the 12 interview with Mr. Parks?
| |
| 13 A To the best of my recollection, yes, I think --
| |
| 14 you know, I don't know. On the April 27 -- after we 15 finished' interviewing him the other time or times, however 16 many it was, there I recall that I had the assignment to 17 draw up the statement. At what point in time that I was i
| |
| 18 designated to do that, I don't recall. Whether it was 19 before Parks ' interview, during or after, it was sometime 20 during that time period.
| |
| 21 0 Do you know whether Mr. Beech or Mr. Walker were i l
| |
| 22 to prepare a statement following their interview with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| f 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| M
| |
| , g 31361.0: , 36
| |
| :BMS i
| |
| 1 Mr. Parks?
| |
| 2 .A No, I don't.
| |
| 3 'Q- Was your statement.of Mr. Parks' interview that.
| |
| 4 you were to prepare limited simply to the matters you ;
| |
| 5 coveredLin the course of your discussion.with him,
| |
| -6 excluding material that'was discussed'by Mr. Walker and' l 7 Beech is what I meant.
| |
| 8 A Could you repeat that question.
| |
| .9 'O You said you were going to prepare a statement 10 'b'ased on Mr. Parks interview. I want o know if the
| |
| . 11 statement you were going to prepare was to be limited to 12- what you learned from interviewing.Mr. Parks as to opposed 13 to distinguishing from what Mr.' Beech'and Ualker learned?
| |
| 14 A Yes.
| |
| 15 0 Did Mr. Devine take notes' during your interview 16 of Mr. Parks?
| |
| : 17. A I don't recall specifically. It is my 18 impression that, yes, he did take notes.
| |
| 19 Q Do you recall the approximate quantity of the 20 notes that you took during the several hours that you )
| |
| 21- -
| |
| interviewed Mr. Parks on April 27?
| |
| 22 A No.
| |
| ? 24CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
| |
| l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| ; . , EXHIBIT W- i CERTIFIED COPY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
| |
| NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' {
| |
| j
| |
| '~
| |
| BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ;
| |
| \
| |
| IN THE MATTER OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION' l Docket No. 50-320 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION NO. 2 Civil Penalty License No. DPR-73 l EA 84-137
| |
| ]
| |
| DEPOSITION OF RICHARD '? ALE PARKS
| |
| ' June 23, 1987 VOLUME II i
| |
| i i
| |
| BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS 4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 5500 REPORTED BY: NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 (7141752 1090 I
| |
| . PENNY SANDER, CSR #4769 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE. SUITE 570 FILE NO. .87-244 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90064 (213)202 6666 i
| |
| l k l l
| |
| -_--_----_---_a
| |
| | |
| 3I .
| |
| )
| |
| 'l SENT IT BEFORE THE NEWS CONFERENCE.
| |
| I 2 Q OKAY, AND YOU AGREED -- YOUR COUNSEL I
| |
| 3 EXPRESSED YOUR WILLINGNESS TO MEET WITH THE NCR AND l
| |
| 4 DISCUSS THE EVENT YOU WERE PUBLICIZING IN YOUR AFFIDAVIT? )
| |
| J
| |
| (
| |
| 5 A I BELIEVE MY COUNSEL MAY HAVE MADE THAT j I
| |
| 6 STATEMENT, YES. I KNOW I WAS PERSONALLY WILLING TO MEET 7 WITH THE NRC.
| |
| 8 Q DID YOU SET ANY CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH YOU .
| |
| 9 WOULD MEET WITH THE NRC?
| |
| 10 A AT THE MOMENT, 1 DON'T RECALL IF ! DID OR 11 NOT.
| |
| 12 Q OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD INDICATES THAT 13 YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY NRC REPRESENTATIVES ON APRIL 27Tn I 14 IN BETHESDA, MARYLAND, AND THEN AGAIN ON MAY 2ND AND 3RD 15 IN THE HARRISBURG AREA. THESE DATES ARE ALL 1983. DO YOU 16 HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF BEING INTERVIEWED IN BETHESDA AT 17 THE NRC OFFICES BY NRC INVESTIGATORS? '
| |
| 18 A MR. HICVEY, I HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF BEING 19 INTERVIEWED A LOT BY THE NRC, YOU KNOW, FREQUENTLY, AT f
| |
| 20 DIFFERENT TIMES, DIFFERENT PLACES. YOU MAY HAVE MORE 1
| |
| 21 ACCURATE INFORMATION REGARDING THE DATES AND THE TIMES l
| |
| (
| |
| 22 THAN I DO. )
| |
| i 23 Q WELL, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY.
| |
| I 24 DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THE FIRST TIM:
| |
| 25 YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE NRC?
| |
| 11-49
| |
| | |
| =- -
| |
| 1 A l HAVE.A RECOLLECTION OF IT HAVING OCCURRED, I ~
| |
| 2 BUT WHERE AND-WHO WAS~ THERE AND WHEN, I.REALLY-COULD NOT 3 . ANSWER YOU AT THIS TIME. t 4
| |
| MR. JOHNSON: COULD YOU --
| |
| ! WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR 5
| |
| ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THAT LAST QUESTION. DIO YOU MEAN AFTER i 6 HE -- i AFTER MARCH 23RD OR-BEFORE?
| |
| 7' MR. HICKEY: NO, AFTER MARCH 23RD.
| |
| 8 THE WITNESS:
| |
| SERIOUSLY I HAVE A DISTINCT MEMORY OF 9
| |
| MEETING WITH THE NRC ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, YOU KNOW, 10 DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS FROM THE NRC. BUT WHEN AND WHERE 11 AND HOW'IT ALL CAME ABOUT, I REALLY DON'T HAVE A GOOD 12 ENOUGH MEMORY AT THIS TIME TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ANY 13 MORE DIFFERENTLY.
| |
| 14 QL BY MR. HICKEY: OKAY. WHEN YOU MET WITH THE
| |
| -15 NRC, WAS YOUR COUNSEL, MR. DEVINE, NORMALLY PRESENT WITH 16 YOU?
| |
| l
| |
| .17 MR. JOHNSON: AGAIN --
| |
| 18 Q BY MR. HICKEY: THE QUESTIONS l'M ADDRESSING, 19 MR. PARKS, ARE AFTER YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE.
| |
| f 20 A l
| |
| IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY AT THIS TIME, I 21 BELIEVE THAT MR. DEVINE WAS PRESENT.
| |
| 22 Q DID YOU NORMALLY TAKE NOTES WHEN YOU WERE ;
| |
| 23 INTERVIEWED BY THE NRC?
| |
| 24 A NO.
| |
| i 25 Q DID MR. DEVINE?
| |
| !!-50 s hs
| |
| | |
| 1 -A I REALLV DON'T REMEMBER IF HE DID OR NOT. AT 2 LEAST MY MEMORY 'A T THIS TIME, DOES NOT SERVE TO PROVIDE 3 ANY RECALL.
| |
| 4' Q DID YOU EVER. TAPE RECORD ANY OF YOUR 5- INTERVIEWS.WITH THE NRC?
| |
| .6 'A I DON'T BELIEVE I DID, NO. AT LEAST I DON'T 7 RECALL AT THIS MOMENT IF I DID OR NOT.
| |
| : 8. Q WHEN YOU MET.WITH THE NRC INVESTIGATORS, DID 9 THEY INFORM YOU THAT THEY WANTED TO PREPARE A STATEMENT 10 FOR YOU TO SIGN THAT WOULD INCORPORATE YOUR INFORMATION?
| |
| 11 A ARE YOU -- LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND YOU
| |
| <12 CORRECTLY.
| |
| ARE YOU ASKING ME !F ! WAS MADE AWARE OR IF 13 THE NRC OVERTLY STATED'THEY WISHED TO PREPARE A STATEMENT 14 FOR MY SIGNATURE?
| |
| 15 Q EITHER WAY.
| |
| 16 A' AT SOME POINT DURING THE MEETINGS, WHEN THE 17 PROCESS GOT STARTED, I WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT 18 EVENTUALLY THERE WOULD BE STATEMENTS THAT KIND OF 19 CONDENSED THEIR ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE CONCEkNS WERE, THAT 20 TYPE OF THING.
| |
| 21 Q WHEN YOU SAY " STATEMENTS," YOU MEAN WRITTEN 22 STATEMENTS?
| |
| ~23 A RIGHT.
| |
| 34 Q AND DID YOU LATER RECEIVE FROM THE NRC
| |
| -35 WRITTEN STATEMENTS FOR YOUR REVIEW?
| |
| 11-51 1
| |
| | |
| I' l
| |
| 1 A I --
| |
| LET ME SEE.
| |
| I BELIEVE AT SOME POINT IN 3
| |
| TIME I WAS SHOWN SOME STATEMENTS WRITTEN BY THE NRC, ASK 3
| |
| TO COMMENT ON.THEM, TO SEE THEM, THAT TYPE OF THING. BUT 4
| |
| i REALLY DON'T RECALL RIGHT NOW.
| |
| I 5
| |
| MR. HICKEY: MARK THIS, PLEASE.
| |
| 6 (WHEREUPON RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 37 WAS M 7
| |
| FOR IDENT!FICATION BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC, AND A COPY 15 8
| |
| ATTACHED HERETO.)
| |
| 9 Q BY MR. HICKEY: MR. PARKS, I'VE HAD THE 10 REPORTER HAND YOU A DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS 11 EXHIBIT 37. IT'S A 13-PAGE UNSIGNED, TYPEWRITTEN 12 STATEMENT DESCRIBED IN THE BODY AS BEING A STATEMENT OF 13 YOURS.
| |
| WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT DOCUMENT, PLEASE.
| |
| 14 A OKAY.
| |
| 15 MR. JOHNSON:
| |
| ARE YOU ASKING HIM TO READ THE WHOLE 16 THING?
| |
| 17 MR. HICKEY: NO, NOT AT MOMENT. I'M GOING TO ASK 18 HIM A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
| |
| 19 THE WITNESS: WELL, I MIGHT SAVE YOU SOME TIME.
| |
| 20 SINCE I DIDN'T SIGN I T, l'M NOT WILLING TO STATE THAT I 1
| |
| 21 HAVE EVER SEEN THIS BEFORE.
| |
| 22 Q BY MR. HICKEY: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO ASK 23 YOU BEFORE, IS WHETHER YOU HAVE EVER SEEN IT BEFORE. !
| |
| 24 A AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MY MEMORY WOULD NOT 25 SERVE TO OlSTINCTLY IDENTIFY THIS STATEMENT AS EVER HAVIN l
| |
| ' 11-52 1 i 1
| |
| a b '
| |
| L__-------- ---
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| g- JBEEN' REVIEWED OR AUTHORED OR/ SIGNED BY ME SINCE MY 2 SIGNATURE DOES NOT APPEAR ON IT. ;
| |
| i WELL, 00 YOU RECALL.MR. MEEKS, OF THE NRC .
| |
| J 3 .- Q-
| |
| -l-u t
| |
| OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, TELLING YOU IN THE COURSE OF j 5
| |
| YOUR INTERVIEWS WITH HIM IN APRIL AND MAY THAT HE WOULD 6
| |
| WRITE UP A STATEMENT BASED ON WHAT YOU HAD TOLD HIM'AND I
| |
| 7 SEND IT TO'YOU?
| |
| 8 A NO, SIR, 1 00 NOT RECALL, AT THIS MOMENT,
| |
| .g. EVER HAVING BEEN TOLD THAT THE NRC WOULD FORWARD A 10 . STATEMENT TO ME.
| |
| 11 Q BUT YOU DID LEARN THAT SOMEHOW? YOU 12 TEST!FIED TO IT A FEW MOMENTS AGO, DID YOU NOT?
| |
| 13 A I BELIEVE MY PREVIOUS TESTIMONY WAS I WAS 14 MADE AWARE THAT I WOULD BE PRESENTED WITH SUCH A TYPE OF 15 WRITTEN DOCUMENT.
| |
| 16 Q HOW WERE YOU MADE AWARE OF THAT?
| |
| 17 A APPARENTLY DURING CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM. I 18 REALLY DON'T RECALL, AT THIS MOMENT, HOW I BECAME AWARE OF 19 IT.
| |
| 20 1 DO DISTINCTLY REMEMBER HAVING SEEN 21 STATEMENTS PREPARED BY THE NRC, AND THOSE STATEMENTS THAT 22 WERE MORE OR LESS THERE WERE WRITTEN UP, IF YOU WILL. IF 23 THOSE STATEMENTS --
| |
| WHEN I WAS SHOWN THOSE BY THE NRC 24 PEOPLE INVOLVED, AFTER ! REVIEWED THEM, MADE ANY CHANGES 25 TO THEM, THAT TYPE OF THING, I SIGNED THEM. AND I SIGNED 1
| |
| !!-53
| |
| | |
| EVERY PAGE.
| |
| g THAT'S ABOUT THE EXTENT OF MY MEMORY C .: *
| |
| -E 2 WHOLE PROCESS A T- THIS MOMENT..
| |
| 3 Q. WELL, MR. MEEKS HAS JUST RECENTLY G!VEN US q SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. LET ME SEE IF !T WILL nEta 5- YOUR MEMORY.
| |
| I 6 MR. MEEKS HAS TEST!FIED THAT HE SENT TO rou 7 AN ORIGINAL STATEMENT, LIKE THE EXHIBIT THAT [ HAVE UUST 8 PUT IN FRONT OF YOU, EXHIBIT 37, AND THAT THERE WAS AN g
| |
| AGREEMENT WITH YOU TO BREAK DOWN THAT STATEMENT INTO A 10 SERIES OF SEPARATE STATEMENTS. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT, 11 MR. PARKS?
| |
| 12 A NOT AT THE MOMENT I DO NOT, NO.
| |
| 13 Q DID YOU SIGN MORE THAN ONE SEPARATE 14 STATEMENT?
| |
| '15 A I BELIEVE I MAY HAVE, BUT AT THE MOMENT I 16 CAN'T RECALL HOW MANY ! SIGNED.
| |
| 17 Q WELL, DO YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS MORE THAN ONE?
| |
| 18 A- I BELIEVE IT WAS MORE THAN ONE.
| |
| 19 Q IN THE COURSE.0F YOUR MEETINGS WITH THE NRC, 20 DID YOU NOT MEET WITH THEM TO REVIEW YOUR STATEMENT?
| |
| 21 A I BEL! EVE THAT ANY TIME A STATEMENT WAS 22 GENERATED THAT I HAD TO SIGN, I MET WITH THEM AT ONE POINT 23 OR ANOTHER AND SIGNED THE STATEMENT. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT l 24 MY MEMORY SERVES ME TO RECALL AT THE MOMENT.
| |
| ! 1 25 Q WOULO YOU LOOK, MR. PARKS, AT EXHIBIT 11,
| |
| !!-54 1
| |
| sk )
| |
| -_______-___-______;_ b
| |
| | |
| lf VOUR' CALENDAR, THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED EARLIER, FOR THE DATE 2
| |
| OF.MAY 19, 1983.
| |
| 3 A 19TH?
| |
| g Q YES.
| |
| 5 A OKAY.
| |
| 6 Q IF YOU WOULD READ THAT PAGE THERE TO' 7 YOURSELF, PLEASE.
| |
| 8 (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
| |
| 9 Q BY MR. HICKEY: PARTICULARLY THE TOP HALF 10 THAT l'M DIRECTING YOU TO.
| |
| 11 -A OKAY. I HAVE READ IT.
| |
| 12 Q DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT AT A 13 MEETING WITH THE NRC ON MAY 19TH, YOU WERE INFORMED THAT 14 THE NRC REPORT WAS TO BE ISSUED IN PARTS AND THAT YOU 15 D!SCUSSED WITH THEM A REHASH, AS YOU PUT IT, OF YOUR 16 STATEMENi?
| |
| 17 A THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS HERE. THAT MAY OR MAY 18 NOT NECESSARILY BE --
| |
| IT MAY OR MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE 19 MEANING THAT TYPE OF A STATEMENT. MAY MEAN NRC REPORTS 20 WERE TO BE GENERATED FOR PUBLIC ISSUE.
| |
| 21 Q WELL, DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION WHEN YOU l 22 TALKED ABOUT " REHASHING MY STATEMENT" WHETHER OR NOT YOU l 23 p TALKED TO THEM ON THE SAME DATE ABOUT SEPARATING YOUR 24 STATEMENT INTO SEVERAL STATEMENTS?
| |
| 25 A I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL RECALL OTHER THAN WHAT'S II-55 au
| |
| | |
| :I f,
| |
| . READ HERE, AND MY NOTES DURING THIS TIME WERE VERY BRIEF IN NATURE. AND THAT STATEMENT RIGHT THERE DOES NOT y REFRESH MY MEMORY, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHICH TYPE OF' g . REPORT BREAKUP WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I KNOW AT SOME POINT (N TIME I WAS MADE AWARE BY THE NRC THAT THEY WOULD ISSUE 6 A REPORT TO THE COMMISSION, AND THOSE REPORTS TO THE 7
| |
| COMMISSION WOULD BE COVERING SPECIFIC ITEMS OR AREAS OF MY g AFFIDAVIT. THAT MAY BE 'WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.THERE.
| |
| g Q OKAY, 10 A I REALLY CAN'T RECALL AT THE MOMENT.
| |
| 11 Q BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF 12 AGREEING TO ISSUE SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENTS --
| |
| YOU 13 S!GNING SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENTS?
| |
| 14 A NO, NOT AT THE MOMENT, I DON'T. I BELIEVE I 15 DID SIGN MORE THAN ONE STATEMENT, BUT NOW THAT DOES NOT --
| |
| 16 THAT SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE CONSTRUED THAT I AGREED TO 17' BREAK MY CONCERNS INTO SEPARATE STATEMENTS BECAUSE I DON'T 18 HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT' RECOLLECTION OF THAT AT THE MOMENT.
| |
| 19 MR. HICKEY: l'M GOING TO ASK THE REPORTER TO MARK 20 AS EXHIBIT 38 A SIX-PAGE TYPED STATEMENT SIGNED APPARENTLY 21 BY MR. PARKS DATED JUNE 6, 1983.
| |
| 22 (WHEREUPON RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 38, 39 AND 40 23 WERE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC, AND 24 COPIES ARE ATTACHED HERETO.)
| |
| 25 THE WITNESS: 15 THERE A QUESTION PENDING?
| |
| II-56 f su
| |
| | |
| 3 Q- BY MR. H.I C K E Y : HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO
| |
| '2 '9EVIEW'THE EXHIBIT?
| |
| A 3 I HAVE NOT REVIEWED iT IN ITS ENTIRETY.
| |
| 4 Q WHAT IS THE DOCUMENT?
| |
| A
| |
| .5 APPEARS TO BE THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE 6 NRC AND SIGNCD BY ME. I 7 Q WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT?
| |
| g A , JUNE 6TH, 1983.
| |
| 9 Q WHEN YOU SIGNED IT, DID YOU MEET WITH THE NRC 10 TO DISCUSS IT BEFORE SIGNING IT?
| |
| 11 A I COULD NOT TELL YOU, AT THIS MOMENT, IF I.
| |
| 12 MET WITH THEM BEFORE I SIGNED IT OR IF 1 MET WITH THEM
| |
| : 13. WHEN I SIGNED IT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
| |
| )
| |
| 14 Q WELL, MR. MEEKS, WHO'S LISTED THERE AS THE
| |
| '.1 5 INVESTIGATOR, NE WAS PRESENT WHEN YOU SIGNED THE OCCUMENT, i ,
| |
| 16 WAS HE NC T ? -
| |
| 17 A I BELIEVE HE WAS, YES. -
| |
| 18 Q DID YOU TELL MR. MEEKS THAT THE MATERIAL IN M
| |
| 19 i
| |
| %}L THIS STATEMENT WAS TRUE AND CORRECT? -1 20 A ! BELIEVE, SIR, THAT ON THE VERY BACK PAGE I 1
| |
| 21 THERE'S A STATEMENT THAT SAYS "I SWEAR THE FOREGOING 22 STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY 23 KNOWLEDGE."
| |
| 24 Q IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON THE
| |
| , 25 FIRST PAGE, YOU STATED THAT AT THE REQUEST OF MR. VORSE k !!-57 g .
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| 1 b
| |
| AND'MR. MEEK 5 ,THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS.ONE OF FOUR
| |
| / 1
| |
| / h 1' J r' SEPARATE STATEMENTS THAT YOU WOULD BE SUBMITTING ON
| |
| .lLt '
| |
| 2
| |
| .'3
| |
| 'TMI-5;IS THAT CORRECT?
| |
| .s , 3 - *
| |
| .s.
| |
| id, n
| |
| 4 A THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS, YES.;
| |
| s.
| |
| 4 k Q DO YOU REMEMBER TELLING THESE GENTLEMEN THAT?
| |
| t A .I DO NOT HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION AT 6
| |
| i '*s e
| |
| 4,
| |
| ...~ THE MOMENT, NO. BUT, YOU KNOW, f 'ri E DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR 8 ITSELF.
| |
| , y 9 Q- LET ME ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK, MR. PARKS, AT
| |
| .1-10 EXHIBIT. 39 .
| |
| 2 31 a A OKAY.
| |
| 12 1 ,Q CAN YOU IDENTIFY THAT DOCUMENT?
| |
| 13 ,A [T APPE ARS 10 BE ANOTHER STATEMENT PREPARED y(
| |
| ),c ' ''
| |
| 14- B Y.;.T H E h lR C .
| |
| s x
| |
| 15 Q AND DID YOU REVIEW THE STATEMENT?
| |
| t
| |
| : 16. -A I CAN ONLY STATE, AT THIS !!ME, APPARENTLY !
| |
| 17 DID BECAUSE I NOTICE CHANGES MADE TO IT AND MY INITIALS DO i' 18 APPEAR O N , l T' AND I D 1,0 SIGN IT.
| |
| .L.e ,[ 19 s / '
| |
| WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT?
| |
| .p
| |
| - 20 A ACCORDING'TO THE DOCUMENT,?IT'S THE 25TH DAY H\ 's s
| |
| (/ ' M f ' OF JULY, 1985. '
| |
| . 22 Q OKAY. AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER GENTLEMEN'S k
| |
| Us 23 .
| |
| NAMES ON THE SIGNATURE PAGE, MR. MEEKS AND MR. BEACH.
| |
| % ., Q '
| |
| 24 A ^ RIGHT.
| |
| 25 Q WERE.THEY PRESENT WHEN YOU SIGNED THE l
| |
| l 3 11-58 Ch 2 -
| |
| l R - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ d
| |
| | |
| ~ --
| |
| 3 f'
| |
| 'OOCUMENT?
| |
| 3 A I BELIEVE THEY WERE.
| |
| 2 3
| |
| MR. JOHNSON: COULD YOU CLARIFY? THE VERSION TMAT g
| |
| YOU.GAVE HIM HAS SOME EXTRANEOUS THINGS ON IT.
| |
| 5 Q BY MR. HICKEY: YES. THE DOCUMENT, 6 EXHIDIT 39. THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, MR. PARKS, 7 HAS, AT.THE-UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE g TYPED IN " EXHIBIT 27." I THINK ALL COUNSEL AGREE TnAT WAS g NOT ON THE DOCUMENT WHEN YOU SIGNED IT. THERE ARE --
| |
| ALSO 10 IS UNDERMINING IN PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT, AND THE 11 ORIGINAL VERSION SIGNED BY YOU DID NOT HAVE UNDERLINES IN q 12 [T'EITHER.
| |
| 13 A RIGHT. I GUESS. I DON'T REALLY RECALL !F [T 14 HAD UNDERLINING OR NOT.
| |
| 15 Q OKAY. WOULD YOU LOOK NOW AT EXHIBIT 40, 16 PLEASE, MR.~ PARKS.
| |
| 17 A OKAY.
| |
| 18 Q ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU IDENTIFY THAT?
| |
| 19 A I T, TOO,~ APPEARS TO BE A STATEMENT PREPARED 20 SY THE NRC AND SIGNED BY ME, ALSO ON THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 21 OF 1983.
| |
| 22 Q DID YOU REVIEW THAT STATEMENT BEFORE SIGNING 23 IT?
| |
| 24 A I CAN ONLY BELIEVE THAT I DID IN THAT THERE 25 ARE CORRECTIONS MADE IN THE BODY OF THE STATEMENT AND
| |
| !!-59
| |
| .su
| |
| | |
| y -- :
| |
| INITIALED BY ME.
| |
| Q WHEN YOU WERE SIGN!NG AND SWEARING TO THESE STATEMENTS THAT.ARE EXHIBITS 38, 39, AND 40, WHAT DID YOU 3
| |
| g DO, IF ANYTHING, TO ENSURE THAT-THE STATEMENT, THE TYPED DOCUMENT, ACCURATELY REFLECTED WHAT YOU HAD TOLD THE NRC? ;
| |
| 5 6
| |
| A I REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS; AND IF THE DOCUMENT 7
| |
| AGREED WITH'WHAT MY MEMORY WAS OF THE FACTS, AS I BELIEVE g THEM TO BE TRUE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THEN I MADE g ANY CHANGES THAT WAS NECESSARY OR SIGNED THEM, WHATEVER j 10 THE CASE MAY HAVE BEEN.
| |
| 11 Q DID YOU REVIEW, IN THE COURSE OF DECIDING i 12 WHETHER TO SIGN THESE STATEMENTS, ANY NOTES THAT HAD BEEN 13 TAKEN DURING THE INTERVIEWS WITH THE NRC?
| |
| 14 A I BELIEVE, SIR, THAT I TEST!FIED PREVIOUSLY I i
| |
| 15 DIDN'T TAKE NOTES.
| |
| 16 Q ! WAS NOT ASKING ABOUT NOTES THAT YOU TOOK.
| |
| 17 DID YOU REVIEW ANYBODY'S NOTES THAT WERE TAKEN DURING THE 18 INTERVIEWS WITH THE NRC?
| |
| 19 A I DO NOT RECALL EVER SEEING ANY NOTES THAT r
| |
| MY CONVERSATIONS WITH 20 WERE TAKEN BY ANYONE DURING THE --
| |
| 71 THE NRC; NOT AT THIS MOMENT, I DON'T.
| |
| 22 Q OKAY. WELL, BOTH MR. MEEKS AND, 1 THINK, 23 MR. DEVINE HAVE TESTIFIED THAT THEY TOOK NOTES DURING YOUR '
| |
| 24 INTERVIEWS. DO YOU HAV~ ANY RECOLLECTION OF REVIEWING 25 THOSE NOTES BEFORE SIGNING THESE STATEMENTS?
| |
| !!-60 d_ '
| |
| | |
| A NOT AT THE MOMENT, ! 00 NOT HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF DOING THAT. IF MR. MEEKS TOOK NUTES y DURING THE COURSE OF HIS INTERVIEW, THOSE NOTES DEFINITELY g WOULD NOT HAVE DEEN SHARED WITH ME. l 5 Q WHY DO YOU SAY THAT?
| |
| A 6 ! THINK THAT NRC POLICY WOULD PREVENT THAT.
| |
| 7, BUT l'M --
| |
| THAT'S A GUE3S ON MY PART. I g Q WELL, YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF MR. MEEKS g GOING OVER HIS NOTES WITH YOU SO THAT YOU COULD ENSURE gg THAT WHAT WAS IN HIS NOTES WAS CORRECT?
| |
| 11 A THAT'S TRUE, ! DO NOT HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT 12 RECOLLECTION OF THAT EVER HAVING OCCURRED.
| |
| 13 Q WERE YOU ASKED BY THE NRC TO PROVIDE ANY 14 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR NOTES OR SUPPORTING MATERIALS THAT 15 YOU COULD GIVE TO THEM IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR 16 INVESTIGATION?
| |
| * 17 A ! BELIEVE, IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, 18' THE LAST PART OF THE YEAR IN 1983 THE NRC REQUESTED THAT !
| |
| 19 RETURN TO THE WASHINGTON D.C. AREA AND MEET WITH THE NRC 20 CIVISION REGARDING THE ACCIDENT AT TMI.
| |
| 21 Q l'M NOT SURE YOU HEARD MY QUESTION, 22 MR. PARKS. WHAT ! WAS REALLY ASKING WAS SOMETHING ELSE.
| |
| 23 WERE YOU ASKED BY THE NRC TO PROVIDE 24 DOCUMENTS TO THEM, NOTES, DOCUMENTS OR RECORDS, IN 25 CONNECTION WITH THEIR INVESTIGATION OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS AT I l !!-61 f
| |
| Ia - - - - - --
| |
| | |
| { ,
| |
| CDr:
| |
| L*NITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE I
| |
| IN THE MATTER OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR Cv STATION NO. 2 f.LicenseNo. Pena DPR-73
| |
| $.ty EA 84-137
| |
| \
| |
| 'f EXHIBITS TO THE DEPOSITION OF RICHARD DALE PARKS, June 23, 1987 June 24, 1987 VOLUMES II & III BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS 4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULE'ARD SUITE 5500 REPORTED SY: NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 (714)752 1090 PENNY SANDER, CSR #4769 2566 OVERLAND AVENUE. SUITE 570
| |
| . FILE NO. 87-244 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90064 87-248 t213) 202 6666 i
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| 1 PLFS EXHislT 27
| |
| * OEFTS FOR 10ENTlFICAT10N l PENNYh $$ DER.gP.,19.g7 Page 1 of 13 Place: sT: #M j Date: __
| |
| 1 I, RICHARD D. PARKS, hereby make the following voluntary statement to Investigators J. Vorse and R. Meeks, who have identified themselves to me as l Investigators with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I make this I statement freely with no threats or promises of reward having been made to l
| |
| : g. Investigator Meeks has typed this statement for me.
| |
| On page 8 of my affidavit, I state that Tom MORRIS told Richard SEIGLITZ that I should be counseled for my negative attitude and that SEIGLITZ related this to a group of Site Operation members, including myself. Those in Site Operations that were present when SEIGLITZ related this were Larry KING, Joe CHWASTYK, Bubba MARSHALL, John PERRY, Joe SMITH, Linda NAGLE, Joyce WENGER, Madan KARR and Swede HOLTMAN of Recovery Programs (RP). In fact, HOLTMAN stated in an ensuing conversation at the time that Site Operations was meeting schedule dates better than anybody else on site. HOLTMAN was the representative of RP on the Head Lift Task Force (HLTF). j Concerning the above matter, I am not aware of the personnel procedure that should be used for counseling employees on negative attitudes at TMI-2, whether they be Bechtel or GPU-N employees. I did not receive any written memos on this matter from Bechtel or GPU. I do recall that on my last performance tvaluation Ed KITLER had given me ratings ranging from excellent to outstanding. This performance evaluation was done around the January / February time period of 1983.
| |
| 1 On page 18, I mention that Larry XING, on 2/11/83, informed the Site Operation staff about the contents of a meeting between XING, KANGA and ED GISCHEL on the l
| |
| Polar Crane SER. Those 50 staff members present at that meeting, to the best of j my recollection, were Messrs. CHWASTYK, MARSHALL, PERRY, SMITH, KARR and Linda NAGLE and Joyce WENGER. In response to a question by Mr. Meeks, I would describe J BARTON's personality or character as it relates to his daily mode of doing business as that of a intimidator. BARTON shouts and is a brusk individual who ,
| |
| often threatens to fire an employee if that employee does not follow through with BARTON's wishes or desires. Many times this is just an every day expression used l by BARTON. However, if necessary, in my opinion BARTON would follow up with his ,
| |
| threat to fire an employee if he thought it was necessary. I 030287022
| |
| .N
| |
| | |
| 1 Page 2 of 13
| |
| \
| |
| BARTON doesn't_like to leave a paper trail. When'he disagrees with a -
| |
| l memo, he' will~ write his coments on the original memo and return the memo to its author.-
| |
| gARTON, in a February 23rd meeting, asked me if the Revocery Operations Test Manual (AP1047) was the same as the pre-accident test manual. . I told BARTON th'at generically the two were the.same. BARTON had approved administrative
| |
| . procedures' AP1043 and AP1047 for the TMI-2 Recovery Operations. In reference to his stand on the Polar Crane, BARTON turned his back on his previous experience at TMI-2, and more specifically, on procedures that were followed on the 505.
| |
| BARTON was the Start Up and Test Manager for Unit-2, and possibly at Unit-1, before his duties as Director and. Deputy Director of. Recovery Operations.
| |
| On page 19,-I- mention a meeting in Room 201,and 203 on 2/14/83 on the Polar Crane Load Test. I was not present at thal meeting and the primary source of my information was Larry KING.
| |
| On page 20, I mention my conversation with Ed KITLER on February 18th regarding KITLER's~ statement that he had been asked by Rich GALLAGHER to look into trans-ferring me off site. Those in the Site Operations office who heard me comment about the conversation with Ed KITLER, in addition to Larry KING and Joe CHWASTYK, where Messrs. MARSHALL, PERRY, SMITH and Secretary, Joyce WENGER.
| |
| When KITLER saw that I was taking his coments very seriously, he tried to down-play the issue in an attempt to cool down the matter. It was also KITLER's responsibility to originally bring us the issues that I had made concerning the Polar Crane Load Test and the application of procedures AP1043 and AP1047.
| |
| On page 23 I discuss the BLIZZARD phone calls to Larry KING, Gloria KING and i Benjamin SLONE. BLIZZARD also made phone calls to Ronnie MUCHA in Iowa about the same matter. MUCHA, at that time, was SLONE's fiance. In my conversations to SLONE about the BLIZZARD phone calls, SLONE had mentioned to me that on or about February 23rd he talked to RIDER about BLIZZARD's offer. According to 4
| |
| | |
| l 1 F ,
| |
| 1
| |
| )
| |
| Page 3 of 13 SLONE, RIDER stated that Bechtel was interested iri having Quiltech consider-e consulting contract on an upcoming reorganization at TMI-2.
| |
| l l On page 27 and 28, I discuss KING's suspension from THI 2 ' for his alleged
| |
| {
| |
| conflict of interest due to his association with Quiltech. Concerning Quiltech, I in the July / August 1982 time frame, Ed KITLER asked me if I would talk to Larry KING about lining up a job for KITLER with Quiltech at the PALATKA Coal Fire j Plant in Florida. I called SLONE on KITLER's request and SLONE handled the !
| |
| matter with KITLER from that point on. Also, during the July / August 1982 time f
| |
| frame, Larry KING asked me to line up a typist for some resumes for Quiltech. i l
| |
| I obtained the services of Rose LITTLE and she typed up various resumes that were generic in nature. I recall that some of the resumes were those of Larry z
| |
| KING, Bill AUSTIN, Kingsly DRAPER and possibly Ken LYON-ARENDS. Also during the {
| |
| July / August 1982 time frame, I recall Rich GALLAGHER asking me when KING was going to leave for Quiltech. I told GALLAdHER to ask XING.
| |
| Around the November / December 1982 time period, I remember Ben SLONE talking to me about Joe CHWASTYK's involvement with Larry KING and CHWASTYK's attempt to obtain a position with Quiltech. I know that CHWASTYK attended a Quiltech meeting with XING, SLONE and Gloria KING at the KING's house during this time period. It was also during this time frame that CHWASTYK went to Beaver Valley with John HOAG, a relative of KING's and also i member of Quiltech. At Beaver Valley, CHWASTYK contacted Don SKIDMORE of Duquense Light Company, the licensee at Beaver Valley, about a Quiltech proposal and possible contract at Beaver Valley. CHWASTYX has since told me that when Beaver Valley comes through none of us will have to worry about the way Bechtel is trying to move the schedule ahead and take over things. The 50 staff was generally aware of CHWASTYK's and KING'S involvement with Quiltech. It was also during this time frame that KITLER r:de a comment to me that Larry KING should be careful because it was starting to get around about KIhG and Quiltech. I told KITLER that KING was not the most discreet individual in maintaining a low profile on the Quiltech natter.
| |
| Around February 1983, I recall that Jim THEISING and Bill AUSTIN went on a '
| |
| skiing trip. During the Congressional hearing on April 26th, it was stated that 4
| |
| I a 1
| |
| | |
| t ,
| |
| 4 Page 4 of 13 in February THEISING, while on a business trip, was told a second time about KING's involvement with Quiltech. Possibly this was the business trip that was refer-enced in the congressional testimony.
| |
| Sometime during the latter part of 1982 or the first part of 1983, Dick JUBBA of Nine Mile Point, an employee of Bechtel, phoned Larry KING and asked him some questions about Quiltech and KING's involvement with Quiltech. I recall, frem conversations with Larry and Gloria KING, that there were two phone calls from JUBBA on this matter. I was present in KING's house when the second phone call was received.
| |
| I feel that the Quiltech matter was definitely blown out of proportion. In the nuclear energy industry one is always mindful of the various opportunities avail-able for advancement and promotion at other, nuclear sites. In fact I was first hired by GPU to work at TMI-2 in a manner limilar to how Quiltech operates.
| |
| While I was working for Energy Consultants, Inc., NUS sent a proposal that in-volved my resume to GPU. NUS is a job shopper similar to Quiltech. GPU did not condemn my hiring but has condemned KING and Quiltech. -
| |
| It was during the first part of February that Ed KITLER told me that his transfer to Florida had been arranged. KITLER asked if I would take over his position as Start-up and Test Manager. I immediately talked to Dave BUCHANNON, who was head of Design Engineering for GPU, and told him that I would take KITLER's job only if it were transferred to Site Operations. BUCHANNON stated that he didn't know anything about the KITLER transfer and that he would look into it. KITLER did stay on site. However, he was absent from TMI-2 the week after KING's suspensic KITLER returned on or about March 8th or 9th. After he returned I asked Dave BUCHANNON how he got KITLER to stay. BUCHANNON stated that he worked out a deal with BARTON to get KITLE?.'s per diem taking care of. Dwight WALKER headed up a Test Work Group meeting while KITLER was gone.
| |
| | |
| Page 5 of 13 KANGA, in his testimony before Congress on April 26th, stated that he first heard of KING's' involvement with Quiltech on February 24th and that he, KANGA, was on sick leave that day. KANGA stated that he received a phone call on the matter while he was at home. The phone call was from BARTON, and was made at approximately 6:00 p.m. I recall Larry KING telling me about a meeting that he had wito KANGA, on site, on February 24th at 1:00 p.m. on the containment entry procedure, and that this meeting was cut off for a fire safety meeting. It was during this meeting that KING told KANGA that he was supposed to run the recovery operations at TMI-2 but that it was apparent that THEISING wanted to run the show.
| |
| LARSON, who was head of Licensing, had earlier informed KING that he was in charge of the recovery operatice. At that meeting, KANGA told KING that M was the boss and this fact was to be put in writing. This was in reference to XING being made the alternate to KANGA and thus putting someone in upper site management on record who met the ANSI standards as site director, or alternate site director.
| |
| In reference to KANGA not being qualified by ANSI standards to be site director, I recall from conversations with Larry KING that both he and Joe CHWASTYK, on or about the middle of September of 1982, went to Lake Barrett of NRC and complained that the Safety Review Group was to report to KANGA but that KMGA, according to ANSI standards, was not qualified to receive an operator's license. Through l the grapevine, I heard that BARRETT went to GPU and complained that tre internal l
| |
| matters CHWASTYK and KING had brought up to BARRETT should go through the chain of command. It is my understanding that the NRC has never approved the reorgani-zation. I also recall that GPU in testimony to Congress on or about ,
| |
| stated that the reorganization had never been approved.
| |
| At this point I would like to mention a meeting that was held in early January on the Sewerage Tank Test Procedures. That meeting which was with KING and THEISING, concerned how to conceal in a quarterly report to NRC, the amounts of cesium in the. storage tanks. I know that Larry KING had objected to the way the procedures were handled on the sewerage tank. KING did sign the procedure when a GpU Envio' rnmental Inspector reversed his earlier standing and stated that the procedure was legal. Ed GISCHEL, Ken HOFFSTETTER, Cary HORNER, Pam Stoner-COOPER and Carl HARBAC are familar with the sewerage tank matter.
| |
| | |
| i Page 6 of 13 On page 31. I make mention of the minutes kept by ' Ken PASTOR of a 2/28/83 mseting on the Readiness Review Committee. There is no formalized procedure for taking minutes at TMI-2. The established practice is for the organization calling the meeting and in charge of the meeting to keep the minutes. The minutes are then typed by this organization and circulated to the attendees.
| |
| If there are any disagreements on the contents of the minutes then the person disagreeing writes a memo on his objections. I recall that KING had done l
| |
| this on .;ccasion ar.d BARTON took exception to KING documenting his objection l to the minutes. I l
| |
| The minutes of the 2/28 meeting showed that NRC approval should go quickly since NRC comments are already available and should be resolved by the time the Polar Crane Operating Procedure is submitted to the NRC. I can think of two instances where site management has used prior NRC approval in an attempt to obtain Site Operations approval on a specific procedurd. The first instance occurred when Mike RADBILL handed me the Polar Crane Load Test Procedure and stated that it 4 was the hottest thing on the Island. RADBILL also explained that the PORC and the NRC had been involved with the test all along and that neither had any problems with what was in the Load Test Procedures. This happened toward the end of January 1983.
| |
| Also on March 3rd, during a second meeting on the Readiness Review Committee presentation, THEISING stated that to move structural steel with the Polar Crane had been signed off by everybody and his brother, including NRC. At that point I stated that the procedure should be looked at by the Test Work Group. I have never seen NRC involvement on procedures used at other sites like it is at TMI-2. I have never seen this buy off procedure used in this way at other nuclear sites.
| |
| I also recall that I was given the procedures on the Reactor Vessel Internal Radiation Measurements and told that PORC had already approved the procedures and that I should go ahead and sign off. I noticed that the procedures had not gone through the proper review cycle and I, therefore, wrote a Site Operations
| |
| | |
| Page 7 Of 13-Problem Report on this. I canno* recall the name 'of the person that gave me.
| |
| the procedures and asked that I sign off, but his name is listed in my coments on the problem report.
| |
| Concerning that meeting on 2/28 and the conference afterwards between myself, Jim THEISING and Ron WARREN, I received the distinct impression that THEISING was trying to convince us that this matter was going to be taken care in THEISING's own way. During that conference, THEISING wanted to know why Site Operation was trying to assume authority now when they had given it up on i things such as the Quick Look. I told THEISING that Site Operations is the responsible group under the license. THEISING then explained that in an accident or deficiency involving matters handled by Engineering, that Engineer-ing would be the responsible party, and would have to assume blame.
| |
| By way of explanation on the Quick Look Prdcedures, I recall that Larry XING wrote a memo that Site Operations would cut back on non-vital areas in order to come up with the funds necessary to handle the Quick Look Operation. KING stated in that memo that Site Operations was preparing the methodology and software to handle the Quick Look. BARTON replied that Site Operations was to stay out of the Quick Look, that it was Bechtel's and the Technical Advisory Group's responsibility.
| |
| Alto in the 2/28 meeting, THEISING made a statement that he could understand why certain people were afraid of a transfer. That coninent came about as a result of our discussion on IntC examining the Polar Crane Issue at that time and Ed KITLER being called in by NRC and interviewed by Joel WEIBE. We were also talk-ing about Larry KING's suspension in the same context. THEISING's transfer comment came about as a result of consnents on these topics.
| |
| On page 32, I began a series of comments on memos that Joe CHWASTYK and I wrote, basically concerning the application of AP1043 and AP1047 to the Polar Crane Load Test. CHWASTYK was in full philosophical agreement with those memos.
| |
| I feel that CHWASTYK believed that he was going to be Acting Director of 50 h
| |
| 4 I
| |
| | |
| Page 8 of 13 for only two or three weeks. In fact, in a meeting with the 50 staff right after he assumed the acting position, he stated that the KING incident would be over in two or three weeks and KING would be back on the job. However, af ter two or three weeks had passed I got the impression that CHWASTYK's opinion of the 5 XING matter had changed. I also believe that CHWASTYK, as he attended the var-ious recovery meetings, realized that KING was not going to return and that I was considered an obstacle the same as KING had been. CHWASTYK knew that my wife was dead, as did most of the Site Operations staff. When CHWASTYK made that phone call to Gloria KING and stated that my wife was trying to dig up something on the child custody case, I feel it was CHWASTYK's indirect way of trying to tell me that I was targeted as KING had been.
| |
| I believe that CHWASTYK was replaced as Acting Director of Site Operations by BARTON because the KING investigation by GPU had revealed CHWASTYK's involvement with Quiltech. I also understand that it Was during this time period that Joe CHWASTYK was taken off a TV commercial that GPU was to put on the air.
| |
| On page 33, I mention that BARTON accused Joyce WENGER of xeroxing and taking to Larry KING a memorandum that had been missing on February 28, but that had reappeared on the morning of March 1st. The memo in question was the so-called
| |
| " Smoking Gun Memo" that KING had wrote to KANGA and BARTON on his concerns on the Head Lift Schedule and the way things were done. I think the memo no. was around 069 but I am not sure of this. I recall that on Monday morning, February 28th, Joyce WENGER had made the comment to the 50 staff in general, that the memo was missing from the file and that she was looking for it because KING wanted the memo. On Tuesday morning, the memo appeared back in the file.
| |
| On page 35 I discuss a meeting on March 3rd concerning the agenda for the Readiness Review Committee. It was in this meeting that Mr. THEISING stated 7
| |
| that only a person of limited intelligence would think that the whole Polar Crane aparatus was important to safety. In response to a question by Investi-gator Meeks on my description of THEISING's personality and method of conducting his daily business, based on the meetings that I have attended with Jim THEISING, I believe he is a dynamic person and would remove all obstacles to get the job
| |
| | |
| 3 P Page 9 Of 13 done, In response to Investigator Meeks' question to describe KINGS personality and methodology of operation, I would state that KING is also dynamic; he has a great deal of fortitude. KING also does whatever it takes to get the job done.
| |
| However, KING is concerned in achieving his job objectives within clearly defined boundaries and if necessary KING would changes those boundaries so that procedural adherance is maintained while still achieving the objectives of the program.
| |
| On Page 36 and 37, I discussed George KUNDER as being the mystery man who ordered the safety and injection pumps turned off during the March 1979 accident. Most of my information on KUNDER, as the mystery man, is based on the several conversations I had with Joe CHWASTYK on this matter. It was CHWASTYK's impression that KUNDER was in charge of the operating room, or rather of the ad hoc in-charge committee, until about 7:00 a.m., when Gary MILLER arrived and assumed responsibility. CHWASTYK, himself, arrived around 10 or 11:00 that morning. CHWASTYK has to7d me basically two stories about KUNDER's actions on the morning of the accident. One, that KUNDER shut down the reactor coolant pumps because of their vibration. Two, KUNDER shut down the injection pumps due to the indicated high level in the pressurizer. Upon CHWASTYK's arrival in the control room he had to argue to get the ad hoc in-charge committee to restart the injection pumps. At least it was my impression that CHWASTYK was referring to the injection pumps. In addition, the Concerned Mothers of Middletown knew approximately six months ago about the possibilities of George KUNDER being the mystery man and that they relayed this information to Lake BARRETT of the TMI Program Office.
| |
| On page 37, I state that Larry KING, Joyce WENGER, Joe CHWASTYK and myself were all present when I made my threats to notify the local newspaper identifying KUNDER as the mystery man. I stated that only CHWASTYK has not suffered systematic repraisals as a result of this. Those systematic repraisals are the reprisals that I have outlined in my affidavit.
| |
| On page 38, I make mention of another meeting on March 4th concerning the containment entry procedure dispute. It was my impression that Charlie HANSON A
| |
| | |
| page 10 of 13 of Recovery Programs actually agreed with the stand of Site Operations but -
| |
| could not contradict the personal preferences of Mr. THEISING. Also in this' i meeting Bill KELLY mentioned that earlier KANGA had ordered to leave the issue of who is in charge of containtrent entry as written by Recovery Programs, i.e.,
| |
| that Dave BLAKE was in charge of Containment. By way of information, before January 15th, all: containment work was done by work packages. After January 15th, it was a shift foreman that signed off on UWIs.
| |
| On page 45, I explained that on March 10th I had a discussion with CARL HARBAC, Ed GISCHEL, and another member of the Plant Engineering concerning the fact that ARNOLD had asked Larry KING about my involvement with Quiltech. The other member of Plant Engineering was Jim HENDERSON.
| |
| On page 46 I mention a 1:30 p.m. meeting that I had with Joe CHWASTYK on 3/10/83.
| |
| That meeting was held in CHWASTYK's office'and the only other person that heard part of the conversation was CHWASTYK's Secretary, Bonnie. CHWASTYK started this conversation as we were walking into his office and Bonnie was sitting right i there and would have heard the first part of the conversation before CHWASTYK. !
| |
| had closed the door to his office. I also recall that on'the morning of March 1 10th CHWASTYK had a meeting with the Site Operations staff. In that meeting CHWASTYK stated that somebody had been communicating to NRC on a daily basis.
| |
| CHWASTYK reminded us that we should be mindful of the story of the boy who cried wolf.
| |
| On page 47, I make mention of Joe CHWASTYK's 3/10/83 phone call to Gloria XING and stated that to my wife trying to dig up some negative information for the child custody case. After I was put on leave of absence, I remember talking to CHWASTYK by phone and I told him that I considered this statement to Glcria KING was meant as a friendly warning to me. CHWASTYK did'not make any reply. CHWASTYK had originally called Gloria and asked her about leaks to the press. The press leaks were in reference to an article in the Washington Post, by Susan Stranahan, on the Polar Crane issue. The article appeared before the suspension of Larry KING.
| |
| On page 49. I discussed my March 15th meeting with Messrs. SANFORD, WHEELER and HOFFMAN. I did not observe any notes being taken during that meeting.. However, ;
| |
| | |
| 1P Page 11 Of 13 Mr. H0FFMAN was sitting behind me and it was possible that he took notes during this meeting. When I arrived for the meeting that morning Mr. SANFORD asked me when had I arrived in Gaithersburg and what time I had left Middletown and whether l it was the night before or that morning. I told SANFORD that I left that morning.
| |
| HOFFMAN then asked me what time I left and I told him about 6:30 a.m. I thought these questions were strange, especially in light of the fact that I had been ;
| |
| meeting with representatives from the Government Accountability project Office on the evening before the meeting. I would also like to point out that on Monday f afternoon, March 16th, I was cleaning out my desk at work. Bubba MARSHALL, Jim I FLOYO and Joe CHWASTYK, as well as Bonnie, the temporary secretary, were present at the time. I had asked CHWASTYK earlier in the day if I could use the Site Operations staff to go through work documents on the head lift and show the hours expended by Site Operations. I wanted to show the ineffectiveness of Site l
| |
| Operations methodology of work because of the conflicting head lift and polar crane schedules. CHWASTYK told me that a task force was going to come up with 1 a total integrated schedule and that the work would not be needed.
| |
| )
| |
| l I
| |
| Also, on or about the March 16th time frame, I attended a meeting on the Inte-f grated Schedule with Joe SMITH of Site Operations, Mike SMITH of RD&D and Butch
| |
| {
| |
| DAUBERT of Recovery Programs. This meeting was set up the day of Larry KING's suspension and after KING had made the headlift schedule a known issue. During that meeting, Mike SMITH stated that in October of 1982 he had wanted to put out an integrated schedule but that Site management wanted to work off the head lift I schedule. Mike SMITH also stated that RD&D had not received any notification that the June 30th head lift schedule had been relaxed. DAUBERT stated that the relaxation of the June 30th date was not yet out but that it would be out that week. 1 l
| |
| On page 50, I made mention of the break-in of my apartment. I left my apartment locked up on Monday evening at 9:00 p.m. and I arrived back and found my apartment broken into on Wednesday morning at about 7:30 a.m. To this date, there has been no disposition on this burglary investigation by the Middletown Police.
| |
| db
| |
| | |
| 1P
| |
| .- i 1
| |
| page 12 of 13 On page 51 I mention a March 17th morning meeting, with Mr. KANGA. During that meeting, KANGA told me that he would have licensing and QA respond to my concern on the polar crane.
| |
| On page 52, I make mention of a 1:00 p.m. meeting on March 17th with KANGA and CHWASTYK concerning my removal as the primary site operations member on the fest Work Group for the polar crane pro {ect. With respect to KANGA asking me j twice to agree that my removal was not an act of intimidation, I will add that '
| |
| af ter the second time, KANGA gave the memo authorizing my removal to CHWASTYK and asked him to sign this statement. In regards to my signing the Lead Test Procedure based on technical content of the procedure only, on the morning of 3/17/83, I had requested from Mike RADBILL more documents on the polar crane matter. RADBILL, at that time, told me that my personal vendetta was holding everything up. It was at this point that I then decided to sign the procedure with the technical content proviso. /
| |
| On page 55 I stated that several sources had shared with me their understarc-ing that prior to issuing formal NRC letters, Lake BARRETT would submits drafts of these letters to ARNOLD or KANGA for editing or comments.
| |
| My knowledge of this practice comes from conversations with Larry KING. KING has stated that the contents of proposed memos are massaged over the phone between BARRETT and ARNOLD or KANGA. KING was present on one occasion when BARRETT called ARNOLD and the conversation was put on the squawk box. The matter concerned GPU-N's response to a low rated item on the SALP Report.
| |
| According to KING, ARNOLD and BARRETT discussed the contents of the memo and how it should be worded. It was also agreed that the GPU wouldn't publicly critize the NRC without first talking to NRC about the matter.
| |
| On page 4 of my second affidavit, I stated that on March 22nd, I had a meeting with Mr. KANGA, Andy WHEELER and Bechtel public Relations Officer, Doug BEDEL, wherein I was asked if I had a news conference scheduled for March 23rd. I do not know how Bechtel found out about my new conference on March 23rd. I knew that Joel ROTH of had told me that he had received a copy of the
| |
| | |
| 3 f .
| |
| Page 13 of 13
| |
| ,ffidavit the day before the news conference. I assume that ROTH probably got~
| |
| llllll[{
| |
| his copy of the affidavit from a Congressional source. Possibly, Bechtel found out about the news conference through that same or a related Congressional source.
| |
| Also on page 4 of the second affidavit, I state that Mr. KANGA, at a press conference, asserted that the Polar Crane had been originally load tested to 500 tons. Based on conversations that I have had with those associated with the pre-operations test and the fact that I could not find any documents on the pre-operation load test for the polar crane, I disagree with KANGA's assertion that the polar crane had orginally been load tested. In fact, when the Site Operations staff was doing research work on the taped drains, referred to in Mr.
| |
| GISCHEL's affidavit, we found that many of the originals on the pre-operation test procedures for THI-2 were missing. It is my understanding that these pro-cedures should be kept in fireproof vaults./ I am talking about approximately four years of procedures and test documents, etc., that could not be found.
| |
| Also missing was the master punch' list for open items on pre-operation tests.
| |
| It is my understanding that the master punch list is required by law to be kept on site for five years.
| |
| I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 13 typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct.
| |
| Signed on at .
| |
| SIGNATURE:
| |
| RICHARD D. PARKS Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19__,
| |
| at .
| |
| INVESTIGATOR:
| |
| Name:
| |
| WITNESS:
| |
| Name:
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| 9
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CON 4ISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUCCE In the Matter of 1 l Docket No. 50-320
| |
| ,- GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION hl i(Civil Penalty)
| |
| License No. DPR-73 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, 9 EA 84-137 Unit No. 2) h AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD A. MEEKS I, Ronald A. Meeks, being duly sworn, affirm as follows:
| |
| : 1. I am an investigator with the Office of Investigations (01), U.S.
| |
| Nuclear Regulatory coenission (NRC), currently assigned to Region V, in Walnut Creek, CA. Prior to April 1984, I was an investigator with OI, assigned to Headquarters, in Bethesda, M), and was in that position throughout 1983,
| |
| : 2. At the request of the Coenission, in March 1983, O! opened an investigation into allegations made by Messrs. Parks, King and Gischel arising out of events at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 (Case No. H-83-002).
| |
| The first phase of this investigation concerned the safety concerns of the allegers. This phase of the investigation was conducted mainly in the spring of 1983 and a Report of Investigation (ROI) was issued on September 1,1983. The second phase of the investigation concerned an allegation that detectable amounts of cesium 137 in a TNI-2 sewage tank were concealed in a report to the NRC and was addressed in a separate ROI, dated December 21, 1983. The third phase of the investigation concerned allegations of harassment and intimidation, and resulted in issuance of an ROI dated May 18, 1984 This report addressed allegations made by Messrs. King, Gischel and Parks. However, 01 did not conduct its own investigation into allegations of discrimination made by
| |
| , ATTACHMENT 4 E00 000 04 s loIU3tf OWHsn sT860 484040
| |
| | |
| _2 Mr. Parks, other than taking a sworn statement from Mr. Parks. Rather, it forwarded a report by the Department of Labor to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (OIE) for its regulatory consideration, and 01 made no findings concerning the allegations of discrimination made by Mr. Parks. The fourth phase pertained to Mr. Parks' allegation in his March 21, 1983 affidavit that George Kunder was the so-called " mystery man" during the TMI-2 accident.
| |
| : 3. James Vorse and I interviewed Mr. Parks on April 27 and May 2 and 3,1983 Based on these interviews three separate sworn statements were prepared by Mr. Vorse and me for Mr. Parks' signature. These statements were contained in the September 1,1983 and May 8,1984 ROIs, respectively. Further infonnation is contained in wty answers to interrogatories served September 23, 1986
| |
| : 4. A fourth statement concerning Mr. Parks' " mystery man" allegation also resulted from the interviews conducted on April 27 and May 2 and 3,1983. The fourth statement was submitted to Mr. Parks, who added to it and returned it to me in draf t fonn. Mr. Parks never signed this draft statement. The " mystery man" issue was referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for follow-up. NRR never referred the matter back to 01 for further investigation and I had no further involvement in this issue. 01 conducted no further activities on Mr. Parks' "etystery man" allegatinn.
| |
| : 5. As documented in notes and other materials produced in discovery on October 29, 1986, I had conversations with Mr. Parks relating to his employment at the Coo 1 water Coal Gasification Project in Daggett, California, in late 1983 and in 1984 He raised complaints concerning his treatment at that facility by Bechtel and I conducted an interview with him before a court reporter on June 12, 1984.
| |
| COO 000'ON G NnI93H ogsn 91:60 484040 L_____________
| |
| | |
| . 6. All information furnished by Mr. Parks in his interviews with me concerning Case No. H-83-002 were recorded by me in sqy interview notes. That information was reproduced in an initial draft statement of the Parks interview.
| |
| To the best of my recollection, when that draft statement was broken down to the four statements referred to above, all the infonnation from the initial draf t statement was transferred to the four individual statements.
| |
| : 7. Since contents of my investigation notes of the Parks interviews in Case H-83 002 were included in the Parks statements in that case, my notes were discarded. The discarding of these notes was at my discretion. Under OI policy then in effect, as well as NRC policy generally, retention of Investigator's notes was at the discretion of the investigator. Subsequent to this investigation, 01 policy on the retention of investigator notes has been changed to require the investigator to place his or her rsotes in the case file.
| |
| Information furnished to me by Mr. Parks in interviews in the related case, QS-84-024, concerning events in Daggett, California, was recorded in the notes and transcript previously provided.
| |
| : 8. In conjunction with responding to interrogatories and document requests from GPU Nuclear Operations, I searched 01: Region V files. The material located in these files related tes 01:RY case 05-84-024 and was furnished to staff counsel for identification and production as appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, all information relating to Mr. Parks involving that case has been made available to GPU Nuclear.
| |
| : 9. In addition, on November 11, 1986, I made a search of O! Headquarters files to complete the document search concerning the GPU Nuclear interrogatories and document requests. Documents identified as responsive were fonvarded to staff counsel for identification and production, es appropriate.
| |
| P90 M 'ON G NOID3tf Otteirl / T :6A 48/CB/E0
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| .4
| |
| : 10. On February 24, 1984, another search of OI:HQ Case H-83-002 files was made by me to identf,fy documents containing. identifies of confidential sources, private personal information and predecisional material. This was done so that the remainder of the material in 01:HQ files under Case H-83-002 relating to Parks - King - Gischel issues could be made available for review by counsel for GPU Nuclear.
| |
| : 11. All notes, draf t statements, and other materials relating to Mr. Parks' allegations in OI files have been identified in the searches described herein.
| |
| Tha February 24, 1987 search resulted in identification of the original draft of Mr. Parks' statement made during the interviews of April 27 and May 2 and 3, 1983, as. well as two tuvised draft statements of Mr'. Parks. These documents were located during my November 11, 1987 search but they were not furnished at that time because I recognized the documents to be duplicates of the Parks' statements already in the possession of GPU Nuclear. The contents of thsse drafts are fully reflected in the Pa rks ' statements previously made ,
| |
| available. As a result, all notes, draft statements, and other materials in O!
| |
| files relating to Mr. Parks have been found and have been or are being made available to GPU Nuclear.
| |
| ~ ~::, ~ti m i k u.
| |
| ^
| |
| snot l f^
| |
| } _ _
| |
| ON" Rorald A. Meeks Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of March, 7
| |
| -act/ A Notary Public My conmission expires: 5/28/88 l
| |
| t e
| |
| l _____ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - -
| |
| | |
| E.'GIIBIT Y TIMN~SCFJPT OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
| |
| NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE L4W JUDGE
| |
| _ _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter oft :
| |
| GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION : Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear : EA-84-137 Station, Unit No. 2) :
| |
| _______________n DEPOSITION OF RONALD MEEKS Washington, D. C.
| |
| Tuesday, June 6, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| Stenotype Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| il d
| |
| D 31361.0 6 '.
| |
| BMS 1 A Ue probably met and went over it, or we had 2< decided in conjunction with going -- to the best of my il 3 !! recollection, I think we did sit down, the four of us , and 4 go over that statement. It was either before, during er 5
| |
| after that that the decision was made to break that 6 statement down into smaller statements. Covering areas 7
| |
| that were -- each statement would pertain to a specific 8 area or subject matter.
| |
| 9 0 Who idea was that?
| |
| 10 A I don't recall. It might have been my idea. It 11 , might have been Jim Vorse's. Who brought it up, I don't 12 recall. But there was a consensus between Vorse and I that 13 we would do that.
| |
| 14 MR. HIC KE Y: I will ask the reporter to mark as 15 Exhibit 7 to Mr. Meeks' deposition a document previously 16 produced by the staff and bearing the number 030287022. It 17 is 13 typed pages.
| |
| 18 (Meeks Exhibit 7 identified.)
| |
| 19 BY MR. HIC KE Y:
| |
| 20 0 If you would look at that document, I have a 21 question to ask about it.
| |
| 22 A Okay.
| |
| ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - wm M -- M"""~~------------**""-'"
| |
| | |
| 31361.0 62 BMS 1 0 First of all, can you identify that document, 2 Exhibit 77 3
| |
| i A Yes. I think this is the initial statement that 4lI was prepared, based on the interviews with Parks.
| |
| 5 0 And prepared by you; right?
| |
| 6 A Yes.
| |
| 7 0 Where did you and Mr. Parks and Mr. Devine and 8 Mr. Vorse meet to discuss this statement?
| |
| 9 A I don't recall.
| |
| 10 0 Was anyone else present?
| |
| 11 l A Other than --
| |
| 12 0 Other than the four of you.
| |
| 13 A No. As I have stated, no, no other people were 14 present other than Mr. Vorse and myself and Mr. Devine and 15 Mr. Pa r ks .
| |
| 16 0 Did Mr. Parks have any corrections to make to 17 Exhibit 7 which you presented to him? -
| |
| 18 A My recollection is yes, he did have some 19 corrections to make in the form of either clarifying or 20 adding to. But I don't recall specifically what they were.
| |
| 21 The fact that he wanted to either add something to it or 22 clarify a point in there, he did want to do that.
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700_ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| 31361.0 63 BMS 1 Q During the course of your meeting with Parks and 2
| |
| Devine on this statement, did you go through all.of it a [.d tl 3J have him indicate his desire to add or correct paragraph y 4 paragraph?
| |
| I 5l A Yes. I think that is pretty fair representation 6 of what we did.
| |
| 7 O How did you record the changes that Mr. Parks 8 wanted to make?
| |
| 9 A I don't recall. I think I wrote right on the 10 statement. But I could have also written in my notes to 11 add or delete or to clarify or whatever, the substance was i
| |
| 12 of the change.
| |
| 13 0 When you had this meeting to discuss the 14 statement, did you have with you your notes of your 15 i original interviews of Mr. Parks?
| |
| 16 A Yes, I did.
| |
| 17 0 During the course of the meeting with Parks and 18 Devine, did you have occasion to refer to your notes to 19 confirm what Mr. Parks had said during prior interviews 20 that you conducted?
| |
| 21 MR. JOHNSON: Did you say during the course of 22 that meeting?
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
| |
| | |
| i 31361.0 64 BMS 1 MR. HIC KE Y: Yes.
| |
| 2 BY MR. H IC KE Y:
| |
| 3 0 During the meeting with Parks and Devine when 4 you reviewed this statement --
| |
| 5 A I don't recall specifically whether I referred 6 to my notes or not. It would have been a natural sequence 7 to do that, especially if Parks was clarifying a certain 8 aspect of it or adding to it.
| |
| 9 0 Do you recall whether Mr. Parks felt there were 10 errors in the statement that you had prepared?
| |
| 11 g MR. JOHNSON: Could you clarify what do you mean l
| |
| : 1. by errors.
| |
| 13 BY MR. HIC KEY:
| |
| 14 0 Incorrect statements you had written down on 15 this draft?
| |
| 16 A No, that's not my recollection. Any changes 17 were just to further clarify or amplify a point they were 18 making. I don't have any recollection that there were 19 errors or that what I produced in this statement was in 20 error, in any way, shape or form.
| |
| 21 0 So your statement was accurate, but Mr. Parks 22 had a desire to add facts to it; that's what the nature of ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| F u
| |
| 31361.0 65 BMS 1 the changes were?
| |
| 2 A I don't know if it was just exclusively to add 3
| |
| facts, or to maybe change the grammar or the wording to 4 further clarify it, or to change a sentence or sentences to 5
| |
| better reflect what he wanted reflected.
| |
| 6 0 As a result of your meeting with Mr. Parks, did 7 you delete any significant f actual information from your 8 statement; assume I'm saying significant factual because I 9 am excluding changing from past tense to present tense, did 10 you take any facts of out of your statement because Mr.
| |
| 11 Parks didn't agree with them?
| |
| 12 A No.
| |
| 13 0 But he indicated a desire to add some additional 14 facts?
| |
| 15 A As I said before, I don't recall if it was -- if 16 he added facts. More what I remember is he just -- we 17 changed the wording to further clarify something. I might 18 have gotten something wrong as it came out in the final 19 statement that he corrected. But if it were, it certainly 20 wasn't significant.
| |
| 21 O How did you leave it at the conclusion of the 22 meeting with Mr. Parks and Mr. Devine about preparation of ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| | |
| g --
| |
| ., n,.p;, .
| |
| ga- ,
| |
| A
| |
| -31361.0 66 BMS w'
| |
| 1 the corrected version of the statement? !
| |
| [4 2 A As I stated before, I don't recall if as a 3 result of that meeting or during that meeting or right 4 after, we had decided to break this statement down into 5 other statements. I don't recall. But at some point in 6 time, the decision was made, so that this statement was
| |
| ; 7. never finalized. Instead, it ended up into four other
| |
| ' i 8 statements. H 1
| |
| 9 O Did you send or give to Mr. Parks, during the 10 . course of this meeting we have just been discussing, or 11 shortly after, a copy of this statement with the 12 handwritten corrections on it that-you all had talked abcut 13 during the meeting? l 14 A I don't know. That could have very likely have j l'
| |
| 15 happened at some point in time, whether it was at that a
| |
| f 16 meeting or whenever, we got a chance to Xerox it for him to 17 give it to him. I don't recall the mechanics. It is my 18 recollection that he did get a copy of this statement.
| |
| 19 Q Before you met with him, had you provided him a 1
| |
| 20 copy of your draft in advance? j l
| |
| 21 A I don't think so. It is not my recollection. I l i
| |
| 22 think it was either during or subsequent to the time we ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 % 6646
| |
| | |
| 31361.0 l 67 BMS 1 Went over the statement.
| |
| 2 0 After the decision was reached that instead of 3 having one statement it would be split up into several 4 statements, what resolution did'you make as to how that was 5 going to happen, who was going to prepare the various 6 statements?
| |
| 7 A I don't recall how the mechanics of that were i 8 handled. Specifically, my general impression is it was a 1
| |
| l l
| |
| 9 joint effort. I think Parks identified the subject matters, 10 the various paragraphs, or we agreed together the vari'us o 11 paragraphs that would go into statement A or statement B or l 12 statement C. Then they were drawn out and -- whether Parks )
| |
| 13 took those and finalized those and added to them and that ~j ii 14 was it, or he gave it to me with his additions and I had 15 them typed up, I don't recall.
| |
| 16 But he did have input as to what paragraphs 17 would go into what statements and how th,ey would. He also j 18 had input as to the wording and phrasing of that. I do
| |
| '1
| |
| {
| |
| l 19 recall that we typed the statements up and he -- like I 20 said, I don't recall the mechanics. I am trying to do the
| |
| {
| |
| i 21 best I can from memory of how that occurred. I don't ;;
| |
| 1 22 recall specifics. It was input from him and input from me. l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
| |
| | |
| i 31361.0 68 BMS 1 We did type up the statements.
| |
| 2 Q The purpose of dividing them up was to have
| |
| : 3. several statements, each of which would address in broad 4 terms a specific subject matter, meaning one statement 5
| |
| relating to technical concerns and one statement relating 6 to mystery man concerns. Was that the point of having such 7 statements?
| |
| I 8 A Yes, mainly because we were not going to conduct 9 the investigation of all of his concerns and report it at 10 one time.
| |
| 11 Q You were contemplating they would be separate 12 reports, so you thought it.would be useful to have separate j 13 statements relating to the separate reports?
| |
| 14 A .Th'ere would be sep4 rate phases of the l 15 investigation. '
| |
| 16 Q The phases the statementa were to address what?
| |
| 17 You said separate phases for the investigation. What were 18 the subject areas?
| |
| 19 A The subject area of the statements, and I'm not 20 saying they corresponded with the investigations 21 necessarily, if you understood me to say that.
| |
| 22 O I kind of did.
| |
| 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
| |
| | |
| I 31361.0 82 BMS 1
| |
| 1 . statement that we have talked about earlier, that was 2 prepared from his interviews. That information was drawn 3 from that and.put in here. l 4 MR. JOHNSON: I think Mr. Meeks already i,
| |
| 5 testified that the paragraphs were taken out and I think he !
| |
| k' 6 didn't recall precisely how that was accomplished.
| |
| l 7 BY MR. HICKEY:
| |
| 8 0 'Will you show the Witness his copy of Exhibit 7, 9 which is the 13-page draft. Let me see if looking at 10 Exhibit 7 will help me understand the statement you just 11 made. Is it your testimony that the Office of 12 Investigations' secretarial employee prepared Exhibit 10 by 13 simply retyping portions of the material that is in Exhibit 14 77 15 A No, that wasn't my testimony. I I
| |
| 16 0 Tell me, how was Exhibit 10 prepared.
| |
| l 17 A To the best of my recollection, like I said, I )
| |
| l 18 don't recall the mechanics of how, what segments of this I l'9 information of this statement Exhibit 7 -- information in 20 Exhibit 7, was drawn out and ended up -- that related to l! 1 21 Exhibit 10. Certainly, Richard Parks had input to that.
| |
| 22 He took the information and amplified on it. Then after we j
| |
| . 4 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33'6 6646 I
| |
| | |
| i 31361.0- 83 1 BMS i J
| |
| l received that, that is when it was typed up by the 2 secretary.
| |
| 3 Q Then resubmitted to Mr. Parks for his signature?
| |
| 4 A Yes.
| |
| 5 0 Exhibit 11, the signed, two-page document that-6 is.in front of you, that is the version that Mr. Parks 7 signed by you and swore to the accuracy of on July 257 8 A Yes.
| |
| 9 Q Did you review Exhibit 11 with Mr. Parks before 10 he signed it? Did you read through it with him?
| |
| 11 A Yes, we did.
| |
| 12 O The confusion in your mind, or lack of 13 recollection, a better way to state it is you remember that 14 Mr. Parks and you discussed which portions of Exhibit 7 L 15 should go into Exhibit 10 and that you and he both had l
| |
| 16 discussions about that. But you just don't remember how l
| |
| I 1
| |
| l 17 specifically the portions selected were taken from Exhibit j 1
| |
| 18 7 and put into Exhibit 10. Is that what your memory fails 19 you on?
| |
| 20 A Like' I said, he identified, or together we ;
| |
| l 21 identified, which paragraphs would go into what statements. l 22 Then he -- what happened after that, that's what I don' t l
| |
| I l
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-M46
| |
| | |
| ;l 1
| |
| .i
| |
| ' ; 3' 13 61. 0' '84 l BMS ;
| |
| 1 recall. But certainly, he must have taken the statement I 2 and at some point'in time added to it or amplified on the. i 3 information or editorialized to some extent. And then I 4 took that and assured that it was typed-up, and then we 1 l
| |
| 5 went'over it and finalized it.
| |
| 6 0 I think I understand what you have said. Le t me 7 _show you one additional document we will mark as Exhibit 12 8 to the Meeks deposition.
| |
| 9 (Meeks Exhibit 12 identified.)
| |
| 10 MR. HICKEY: This is a 10-page document with the 11 signature of Mr. Parks and Mr. Meeks at the end of it, 12 subscribed to and sworn on July 25.
| |
| 13 (Witness examined document.)
| |
| 14 bY MR. HIC KEY:
| |
| 15 Q Mr. Meeks, do you rec'ognize Exh'ibit 127 16 A Yes.
| |
| 17 Q What is it?
| |
| 18 A It is a statement of Richard Parks dated July 25, 19 1983. It is a 10-page statement.
| |
| 1
| |
| . '2 0 0 When you reviewed on -- did you review this 21 statement, Exhibit 12, with Mr. Parks on July 25 before he 22 signed it?
| |
| /4CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| l i
| |
| 31361.0 '
| |
| 149 l BMS 1 BY MR. HIC KE Y:
| |
| 2 O The entire document.
| |
| 3 A Repeat the question. 1 i,
| |
| I 4 O Just wanted you to be aware there was an 5 attachment to the document dated February 17.
| |
| 6 A I see.
| |
| 7 0 I am directing you specifically to the last page 8 which is a memorandum dated February 17, 1983. My question 9 to you is, did anyone tell you, that you can recall, when 10 Exhibit 18, which is the whole document, was prepared?
| |
| 11 A No, not to my recollection.
| |
| l 12 MR. HICKEY: I will ask the reporter to mark as 1
| |
| L 13 Exhibit 19 a document typed, eight pages, entitled at the ,
| |
| I $
| |
| l 14 top, " Draft for mystery man after affidavit." {
| |
| i 15 (Meeks Exhibit 19 identified.) ]
| |
| i 1
| |
| l 16 BY MR. HIC KEY:
| |
| 1 17 Q Exhibit A, which is typed at the top of the
| |
| {
| |
| 18 document, was not on the document. That is something we 19 added in another context. You can ignore the Exhibit A at 20 the top. .
| |
| 21 A I understand.
| |
| 22 O Do you recognize that document?
| |
| I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
| |
| _____-____________a
| |
| | |
| l 31361.0 h 150 BMS i
| |
| 1 A Yes, I do.
| |
| )
| |
| 2 O What is that?' - !
| |
| 3 A This is the draft statement that Parks gave to 4 me on the mystery man. I think we could also refer to'it 5 as the fourth of the four' statements that he prepared based 6 on the original statement we had.
| |
| 7 O This, too, was produced by the NRC in the 8 collection of 639 pages that were accompanied by the 9 receipt --
| |
| 10 MR. JOHNSON: I don't think that is correct. We 4
| |
| 11 separately provided it to you in discovery.
| |
| 12 BY MR. HIC KE Y:
| |
| 13 0 When do you think that you got this from 14 Mr. Parks?
| |
| 15 A There is a memo that was written transferring 16 information from this draf t statement to NRR for review on 17 information that Parks presented on the EDS analysis. It 18 would have been sometime relevant or before -- not too long 19 before that memo was issued, within weeks, I would say.
| |
| 20 0 Let's see if we can identify the memorandum you 21 are talking about. Before I mark it, let's just see if 22 this i.s the one. I will show you this document. If this j J
| |
| ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversse 804 336 6646
| |
| ----------___________________J
| |
| )}}
| |
