ML20100G635
| ML20100G635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1985 |
| From: | Phyllis Clark GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0680, RTR-NUREG-680 NUDOCS 8504080327 | |
| Download: ML20100G635 (71) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
bL- Acha - W b$ , NES GPU NuclearCorporation U ME #
100 interpace Parkway Rb Parsippany, New Jersey 07054-1149 (201)263-6500 Awp TELEX 136-482 Writer's Direct Dial Number: {
h 1 March 29,1985 l l
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director '
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-289 NUREG 0680 SUPPLEMENT 5 My letter of March 12 forwarded information provided by Bechtel relative to the portion of Supplement No 5 dealing with alleged harassment of Mr. Parks and requested that it be reviewed and considered by the Staff.
Shortly thereafter I requested Mr. Stier to ' review that subject and identify for me any additional information on this matter on the public record which had not been cited in Supplement 5 and thus might also have not been considered.
Mr. Stier's memo to me of March 29 is enclosed for your consideration and by copy of this letter for consideration by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement review.
Very truly yours, e
P. R. Cl ark President l mak I Attachment cc: Mr. James M. Taylor, Director NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement Kennedy P. Richardson, Esquire Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges
!!r.H.W.Wahl Bechtel Power Corporation E.L.Blake, Esquire Shaw, ?ittman Potts and Trowbridge 8504080327 850329 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P PDR k GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation L--
TE 1 i
, 1 TO: ' Philip R. Clark l
~FROM: Edwin H..Stier.
DATE: March 29, 1985
SUBJECT:
NUREG-0680 Supplement 5 BACKGROUND At your request I have reviewed the portions of NUREG-0680 Supplement 5 (Supplement 5) that deal with the alleged harassment of Richard D. Parks. I will describe in this memorandum the evidence that is not cited in Supplement 5, but ,
is relevant to those issues. The portions of Supplement 5 dealing with harassment of Parks are Sections 10.2.1 entitled, "R. D. Parks Investigation Results" and 10.3.1 entitled, "R. D.
Parks Staff Findings."
Section 10.2.1 discusses four specific allegations made by Parks and cites two sources of evidence: the Parks affidavit dated March 21, 1983 and the report of a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) investigation of Parks' allegations. Section 10.3.1
of Supplement 5 concurs in the findings of the DOL report that Parks was subjected to harassment by " management officials of ,
Bechtel with the knowledge of GPUN." In addition to resolving each of the four allegations of harassment in favor of Parks, Supplement 5 finds that three further actions by TMI-2 management were improper.
This memorandum does not address whether the factual citations in Supplement 5 are correct or whether its-conclusions are consistent with the evidence. Its sole purpose is to identify any evidence known to me and on the public record that I believe is relevant to the findings in Supplement 5 and that was not cited in that document.
In discussing Parks' harassment allegations, Supplement 5 does not cite the evidence contained in our report of November 16, 1983 entitled "TMI-2 Report / Management and Safety Allegations." Supplement 5 states in reference to the report:
" Parks' -allegations of harassment were not investigated by the licensee and are not addressed in the Stier Report (November 16, 1983, Vol.III, Harassment Allegations)." (Supplement 5, p.
10-19); and "The Stier Report (May 18, 1984, OI Report Ex.102),
although it does review two of Parks complaints in Volume 4, is incomplete in its review of Park's allegation of harassment."
(supplement 5, p. 13-10) o
k e
These statements are essentially correct. We did not
' investigate' Parks' harassment allegations as such. However, several of Parks'. allegations were investigated not as harassment' issues but rather as issues relevant to TMI-2
. management's attitude toward procedural compliance. Sworn
-testimony was taken that bears d irectly upon w et h er h Parks was subjected to harassment, even though that evidence was not'
. categorized as harassment evidence for purposes of analysis in our report. This evidence was not cited in Supplement 5 and thus was apparently not~ considered by the NRC staff.
It should.be noted that in other portions of Supplement 5 dealing with the harassment allegations made by King and Gischel, our evidence was cited and relied upon. This is because~our. evidence was incorporated into the OI report dated May 18, 1984. That OI report was used as the primary source of evidence to resolve all of the harassment allegations considered in Supplement 5. However, the OI report did not contain its own analysis of the facts relating to Parks' harassment claims. Instead, OI accepted the report prepared by the DOL and incorporated the DOL report in its own report.
Supplement 5 does not indicate that the NRC staff went beyond the-contents of the OI report in gathering evidence. Therefore it appears that they restricted themselves to the evidence contained in the DOL report which was issued before the publication of our report.
Staff Findings in Supplement 5 The following is a list of the findings.in Supplement 5 relating to Parks' harassment allegations. Each is followed by a summary of relevant' evidence that I believe was not considered by the NRC Staff.l
- 1) "The Removal by Thiesing of Parks as Alternate Startup and Test Supervisor at TMI-2 on February 23, 1983, was inappropriate." (emphasis added) (Supplement 5, p. 10-17)
This issue was dealt with in our report as a part of an analysis of Parks' allegations concerning the approval of the Polar Crane Load Test procedure. That report contains the following discussion of this issue:
Replacement of Parks as Alternate Startup and~ Test ,
Supervisor Another of Parks' allegations is that at the February 23, 1983 meeting held to discuss his comments on the Load Test procedure, Thiesing 1 Bechtel prepared a report concerning Parks' harassment allegations dated' October 1984. Since their analysis and supporting evidence is clearly presented in that document, I will not incorporate it in this memorandum.
2 TMI-2 Report / Management and Safety Allegations, Vol.IV, Polar Crane Allegations, pp. 79-81
5'-
informed him that he had issued a memorandum replacing Parks as alternate Startup and Test Supervisor. . The implication is that Parks' removal was an act of reprisal for issuing his comments on the Load Test procedure. Parks also alleges that his replacement was unqualified to act as alternate Startup and Test Supervisor.484 J.
! A. review of the relevant documentation and I testimony indicates that Parks' allegation cannot be L supported. AP 1047 establishes the Startup and Test
! group and designates the Startup and Test Manager or his. alternate as the chairman of TWG.435 Ap 1947, Section 2.1, defines an " alternate" as someone having I. the same " responsibility" and " authority" as the permanent member of TWG. Therefore, since the chairman was from the Site Engineering Department, his alternate should also be from that department.486 According to Kitler, who served as Startup and Test Supervisor and Chairman of the TWG prior to-January 1, 1983, there was no one within the TMI-2 organization other than Parks who was qualified to act as his alternate.487 He testified:
I needed an alternate, mainly to review and approve return to service forms, during my absence.
Rick Parks, who was assigned to l Site Operations,' was qualified and had acted in that position on occasion when he worked for NUS Corp. at the Island. I requested and received approval from my supervisor Dave Buchanan and Rick's supervisor Larry King, to appoint Rick as my alternate on December 6, 1982.488 As a result, Kitler initially designated Parks as his alternate out of necessity even though Parks was not from the Site Engineering Department as required by AP 1047.489 Kitler testified that in February, Parks insisted on verbatim compliance with AP 1047. At that time, the way TWG membership was constructed, Site Operations would have had the majority vote, g
during Kitler's absence. In order to correct this imbalance and to maintain a system of checks and balances and ensure Site Engineering had a voting member, Kitler decided to update the TWG membership to conform to the requirements of AP 1047.490 Dwight Walker, Startup and Test Engineer, had commenced employment at TMI-2 in January 1983.491 Kitler believed Walker was qualified to be his alternate. He has been a Startup and Test engineer since 1976. Prior to that, he was a design engineer. Furthermore, Walker was from within the same organization as Kitler, Site Engineering.
Therefore, Walker was more appropriately qualified to be the Startup and Test Supervisor's alternate.492 Accordingly, on February 18, 1983, Kitler issued two memoranda designating Walker as the alternate Startup and Test Supervisor and alternate TWG Chairman.493 Kitler stated that-the decision-to designate a new alternate chairman was his alone.494 This is confirmed by Buchanan and Thiesing.495 Kitler cleared the decision to name Walker as his alternate with his supervisor, Buchanan, head of Site Engineering, and a GPUN employee. But the initiative was Kitler's.496 Parks has also alleged that Walker admitted to him at a TWG meeting that Walker had little or no knowledge either of the Testing Manual or the Modifications Control Program.497 Walker denies ever making such-a statement but indicates that, prior to a TWG meeting, he once told Parks that he had never attended a TWG meeting and asked Parks how the meetings were conducted.498 Thus, according to Walker, Parks has completely mischaracterized the incident and conversations referred to in the affidavit. (Footnotes, excerpts from transcripts, and documents are attached hereto as Attachment A).
d 2). "Although there may have been, initially, a valid reason for Bechtel to investigate allegations that Parks might have been involved with Quiltec, because of his friendship and close working relationship with King, the March 14, 1983, _ interrogation of Parks by Wheeler, his administrative supervisor, and Hoffman, Bechtel internal affairs, was improper and constituted intimidation of Parks.
(Supplement 5, p. 10-17).
Our report did not specifically cover the March 14, 1983 meeting between Parks, Hoffman, and Wheeler because the meeting involved only Bechtel personnel and was therefore outside of the scope of our investigation. However, our report did contain evidence that may be helpful in understanding how that meeting came about.
On February 24, 1983 Lawrence King was suspended by GPUN because of his involvement with a corporation known as Quiltec. King was a major shareholder and the company's chief executive officer. His association with Quiltec constituted a conflict of interest because of Quiltec's efforts to recruit employees at Three Mile Island. Immediately after King's suspension, Robert Arnold, then President of GPUN, began an investigation of Quiltec's activities at Three Mile Island.
Arnold requested that King answer 21 questions concerning Quiltec and he interviewed several individuals who had knowledge of Quiltec activities. Arnold also received a memorandum dated March 4, 1983 from Larry G. Santee describing an interview with a secretary at TMI. In essence, the
[~
L secretary st ' ed that she had been employed by Parks to prepare a number of ,esumes for Quiltec. Many of those resumes were of GPUN employo"u. The secretary could not remember all the names a on the resumes, nor did she know what connection that appeare Parks had wi ' 8' Quiltec or its recruitment efforts.
Arnold o"estioned King about the preparation of the resumes and came awa with the feeling that King was giving him a "very
. noncommittal, non8Pecific response." He had requested that into the conduct of that company's employees with Bechtel look respect to 0"iltec. It appears that Arnold's request for information lud to the interview of Parks on March 14, 1983.
On the folle"ing day, the results of the interview were reported to ntnold by Bahman Kanga, director of TMI-2. Arnold used that it*'.,rmation in deciding upon the action to be taken concerning Fing. (Relevant excerpts from testimony and documents at .. attached hereto as Attachment B.)
- 3) "The removal by Kanga (Director, TMI-2) of Parks on March 17, 1983 as the primary SO Department representative on the TWG ror the reactor building polar crane project was impropet (emPh asis added) (Supplement 5, p. 10-18) is covered in the section of our report dealing This is9"o with the Lon.: Test procedure.3 In that report we describe 3 TMI-2 F,.. art / Management and Safety Allegations, VOl. IV, Polar C,.ne Allegations, pp. 81-84
the circumstances surrounding Parks' removal as the SO representative on the TWG as follows:
Parks' Removal as Primary TWG Member Parks asserts he was being pressured into signing and approving the Load Test procedure as late as March 17, 1983.499 He implies that at that time, Kanga removed him as a primary TWG member as a-result of his concerns with the Polar Crane Load Test procedure.500 Parks introduces the issue by stating, "Around 1:00 p.m. that day, I informed Joe Chwastyk that I could not approve the polar crane load test, because of the serious violations that permeated the program."501 "Around 3:30 p.m. that afternoon, I was called back to B. Kanga's office for a meeting with him and Chwastyk."502 The subject of the meeting, according to Parks, was a letter of March 17, 1983, removing Parks as primary TWG member for the polar crane review.503 Parks emphasizes he was removed as primary TWG [ representative] for polar crane "only."504 He does not describe what, if anything, happened immediately prior to the meeting or whether he had any prior notice of Chwastyk's letter.505 Parks does state, however, that Kanga.
asked him twice to agree that his removal was not an act of intimidation.506 According to Parks, "I responded, 'In my opinion, the intent is well-defined.'"507 Beyond that cryptic remark, Parks does not explain the nature or substance of the conversation with Kanga during the course of this meeting.508 According to Chwastyk, Parks approached him and
" suggested that he [ Parks] may be so close to this project that he is no longer [able to distinguish real from perceived problems."509 ]Chwastyk spoke with Parks and suggested that he consider resigning as primary TWG representative for the polar crane.
According to Chwastyk:
!!e thought it was a good idea, so I told him, Okay, I'll draft up the' letter and we'll go over it and make sure you agree with it and I'll put it out.510 s . . .
Chawastyk then drafted the letter replacing Parks with another Site Operations member, Marshall.
The: letter reads in relevant part:
This action is considered appro-priste for the present situation and is not considered a negative
-reflection of Mr. Parks' ability, conduct or performance.
The designation of Mr. Marshall should not adversely effect the Polar Crane Refurbishment Schedule.511 Parks and Chwastyk reviewed it together and Chwastyk claims Parks was satisfied with its content. Chwastyk also indicates Parks may have even edited the 10tter.512 subsequent to writing the letter, Chwastyk telephoned Kanga to explain Parks' desire to be removed as primary TWG [representa-tive]. 513 Kanga substantially confirms Chwastyk.514 According to Kanga, Chwastyk telephoned him and explained that Parks was under pressure and exoressed a desire to be relieved of his duties on TWG.515 Kanga and Chwastyk met with Parks in Kanga's office.
Both also agree that Parks approved of his removal.516 Kanga in describing his telephone call from Chwastyk testified:
Parks was quite nervous that day and that he felt that it would be helpful to Parks if Parks was replaced as primary member for TWG the Polar Crane project only which would reduce pressure on Parks.517 Chwastyk then went to Kanga's office where they reviewed.the letter. Kar.ga testified:
I asked him [Chwastyk] if ... Parks had indicated any objection to the memo.
Chwastyk told me that he had not, that Parks518 in effect welcomed that memo ...
__ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ = ___-___-___ - ___-______-____________-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Following this discussion,'Kanga asked Parks to '
come to his office. According to Kanga:
Mr.-Parks basically affirmed ...
that he understood what the memo said and that it was not being interpreted by Mr. Parks as being intimidation or a reflection on his work.519 Kanga and Chwastyk both state the Chwastyk signed the letter removing Parks as primary TWG
[ representative] for the polar crane following these discussions.520 Neither Kanga nor Chwastyk recall whether Parks in fact used the words: "the intent is well defined" in response to Kanga's question.521 Both Kanga and Chwastyk agree that Parks left the clear impression that he willingly accepted the letter and his removal from TWG.522 Parks implies that his removal was motivated by his refusal to approve the Load' Test procedure. He presents a description of these events without describing his' previous knowledge of Chwastyk's letter and without detailing his conversations during the meeting with Kanga. Kanga and Chwastyk described what occurred consistent with Parks' affidavit except that Kanga and Chwastyk have added details left out by Parks. Parks was not improperly removed from TWG. (Relevant footnotes, excerpts from transcripts, and documents are attached hereto as Attachment C.)
- 4) "The action by Wheeler on March 24, 1983, placing Parks on leave of absence with pay and prohibiting his entry to the job site without permission from Bechtel was improper."
(Supplement 5, p. 10-18)
We did not investigate this issue, nor do I have specific evidence to call to your attention.
i
- 5) "The comments by Barton-(GPUN), during a GPUN and Bechtel management meeting, threatening to fire or suspend Parks for having publicly aired his allegations were improper."
(Supplement 5, p. 10-18)
This matter was separately investigated at your request and is covered in our report entitled "TMI-2 Staff Meeting of March 23, 1983," dated November 1, 1984. Our conclusion was that Barton had made statements " calling for the firing or suspension of Parks. Barton stated that Parks should not be allowed back on the Island. These comments were spontaneous
-personal reactions and were not treated as recommendations to .
be. decided upon at the meeting." I understand the November 1, ,
+
1984 report was furnished to NRC and therefor ~e it has not been attached as an exhibit to this report.
-c,
- 6) "The comments to Parks by Kanga, threatening him not to publicly state his concerns about the polar crane and telling him that another. employee who had tried to publicly state his safety concerns had been humiliated, clearly represented harassment." (Supplement 5, p. 10-18) 1
- 7) "Kanga told Parks that he had put Bechtel in a bad light with a client (presumably by raising safety concerns about the crane)'and stood a good chance of being fired. This, in the staff's view, was a clear threat of retaliation."
(Supplement 5,:p. 10-18)
Both of the above. comments allegedly were made by Kanga to Parks at a meeting on the morning of March 17, 1983. We did not investigate that meeting.
Since the morning meeting was attended only by Parks and
~
s y
e Kanga, it is not possible to find independent, direct evidence i of what took place. Kanga, in his statement to DOL
- investigators, has denied making threatening remarks to Parks.
~
+. L_ .,
E
~
Two categories oficircumstant'ial evidence might be helpful in resolving this dispute. First, the evidence described above dealing with Kanga's meeting with Parks and Chwastyk in the afternoon of' March 17, 1983 indicates that Kanga's attitude was
. protective of Parks rather than threatening. Second, our
' report of November.16, 1983 contains a great deal of evidence a
reflecting upon Parks' credibility. Anyone attempting to decide whether to accept Parks' uncorroborated statements should review our heport and compare his sworn allegations with the documentary and testimonial evidence we gathered. In addition, the Bechtel report dated October 1984 deals extensively with Parks' credibility and should be considered.
U
/
, i -
? 7 4
4 d
,', L
^ '
p.
l i
i r
y 5
t i
ATTACHMENT A m
l i
l i
5 4
I i
I Parks. Affidavit. p 25. #83.00, Tab 24.
434
- 12.00, ABS Procedum 1047, Rev. O. Startup and Test. Section 3.2.1.2.
Tao 75.
I 486 Ibid. Section 2.1. #12.00, Tab 75.
! 487 Kitler. 7/27/83. pp 19, 20. i I
48 8 Ibid. p 19.
'89 laid. pp 19-20.
I 490 Iold. pp 19-20.
b.
I 1
Thiesirg. pp 55, 56.
l d
4: l
~ %
pp 19, 20.
491 Kitler. 7/27/83.
Walker. p 3.
492 Kitler. 7/27/83. p 21.
Walker. pp 14-15.
IOM 434%83-0002 to Buchanan et al. Designation of D. Walker
~693 Kitler. 2/18/83. #48.02, Tab 308.
as alternate Startup and Test Supervisor.
IOM 434%83-0003 to Buchanan et al. Designation of D. Walker Kitler. 2/18/83. #48.03, Tab 309.
as alternate TWG Chairman.
494 Kitler. 7/27/83. p 20, 495 Buchanan. pp 3-5.
Tniesing. pp 55-56.
496 Kitler. 7/27/83. p 20.
Buchanan. pp 3, 4, 5.
497 Parks. Affidavit, p 25. #83.00, Tab 24.
)
498 Walker. p 15.
)
t t
PARKS AFFIDAVI"'
T i I was still current role as alternate startup and test superv sori responsible to identify potential QA audit deficienc es.
Jim Theising interjected to inform me that I no longer had to He had issued a memorandum that day or the day worry about that. The new before appointing a new alternate, thereby relieving me.
than six months and man, Dwight Walker, had been on the Island less h di-had little or no knowledge either of the testing manual or t e mo fications control program. He later admitted this to me at a Test
$f meeting. Further, Ed Kitler had Work Group (TWG) have a good only been startup supervisor since September and did not working knowledge of the test manual.
Returning to the February 23 meeting, I suggested that the issue was whether the polar crane load test procedure was a func-A functional test procedure demon-tional test procedure or not.
strates the total, integrated capacity of a system or itcomponent to for unlimited operationally perform as designed, before releasing if it were a functional test, it use. Under AP-104 3 and AP-1047, d through site ope-f l
would have to go through the turnover process an rations prior to thd test.
I suggested that the polar Management was visibly upset. which could be classified as a construction test, l
crane load test Freemerman asked if we would could be performed prior to turnover. isfy the still have to perform another test after turnover to sat I said either we'd have to perform functional test require _-ent.
or else have the Test Work Group review another functional test, TWG could evaluate and approve the procedure prior to turnover.
functional test.
the load test procedure as the equivalent to a d as a management i
T h,.
Tv, officially is a review group util ze
W . - ~ ~ _ - . .
t l
TAB 75
=
FUM USE IN UNIf II ONLY 1047 Revision 0 2.0 TEST WORKING GROUP (TWG) m 2.1 Members - TWG shall consist of one (1) member and at least one (1) al, ternate from the following organizations:
. NOTE:
Alternates shall be deemed to have the same responsibility and authority as the permanent members.
- a. *Startup and Test (Chaiman),
- b.
- Plant Operations Dept.
- c. Plant Engineering Dept.
- d.
- Recovery Engineering
- e. ** Site Quali surance Mod /Op.
- Voting member 9
I
- Voting Member for i to safety test n on .
2.2 Princi esponsibilities l
l a. Admi ter the Test i licies and re irements through use of detailed +
uctions (TI's) ied in Appendix A of ual,
- b. Approve TI' _ntified in Append' f his manual.
- c. Review a ve test proce - r r to performance (See TI-
- d. Review .d approve completed test procedure results (See TI-1).
- e. Establish and approve the scope of the Test Program as contained in the Test Index ( See TI -2 ) .
f.
Approve milestone event prerequisite lists (See TI-9).
2.3 TWG Function 2.3.1 The Test Working Group will conduct its business through i
meetings with the Startup and Test Representative as 4.0 FOF; I JSF IN llM'T l' m" "
FOR USE IN UNIT 11 ONLY 1047 Revision 0 l
l j
Control Center in accordance with TI 4 or AP 1043 as applicable.
SU and T is responsible for identifying, documenting and
. 3.1.4 obtaining resolution of problems encountered during test performance (See TI-7).
oup.
3.2 Responsibilities of Individuals Within Startup and 3.2.1 Startup and Test Manager.
. gram. The 3.2.1.1 Has overall responsibility for the T o Plant Engineering Startup and Test Manager report
- )
Manag .
T Manager or his b . nate is the Chairman of 3.2.1.2 T h T .
orts of 50 and T Engineers in 3.2.1 s responsible for t formance of tes rogram documents he preparatio itment docu. nts s as the Unit 2 Review appl' le 3.2.1.4 1 , Regulatory G s, .. to assure that Recover t procedures.
test tments are include i of problems arising during 3.2.1.5 3 nd obtain res ction testing thro se of Field Questionnaire n
1043) and Startup Proble Reports (See TI-7).
(
3.2.2 Startup Test Engineers 3.2.2.1 Prepare Generic test packages and individual test L
procedures.
Inform the Shift Supervisor / Shift Foreman of testing to 3.2.2.2 y Obtain his agreement with the test to be be performed.
y performed.
F 9.0
u-l l
EDWARD KITLER STATEMENT l
l l
i l
I I
l I
f'
\
L
i l
E KITLER 13 misunderstanding. The March 23th meeting was to go ahead and 1
2 document the resolution and have everyone agree to them at 3 one time. The March 28th TWG meeting did not result in any 4 changes to the load test procedure.
5 BY MR. FRECH:
6 Can I ask you did Mr. Parks indicate any reason for Q
B 7 his refusal to sign the TWG minutes of February 25, 1983?
8 A I believe his comments were concerning some of the I'm not really too sure.
9 prior testing done to the load test.
10 Q Prior testing done to the load test? h 11 A Well, some of the testing done prior to the load test.
12 I think be believed the no load test procedure was a functional 13 test, also.
14 O Did he ever send you a written memorandum objecting 15 to the TWG miuutes?
g 16 A No.
17 Q As they are?
he never sent me a written memorandt$m to the 18 A Well, TWG meeting minutes because these meeting minutes were never I
19 20 issued. Shortly af ter my discussion with Rick Parks, I left 21 for a vacation. And when I returned, there was no need to 22 distribute the minutes since the whole program had been changed. l 23 Q Also on page 25 of Parks' affidavit, Mr. Parks 24 indicated that Mr. Thiesing had issued a memorandum appointing a new alternate, and I believe where he says alternate, he's 25 I i 1000 M ARKET ST.. H8G P A 17808 HgG 234 2109 PA 1800 22FGLR5 -
- GEIGER 4 LopiA REPQRTING TERY1CE. INC .
KITLER 19 )
r supervisor?
i referring to alternate start up and test A Right.
2 0 Is that a correct statement?
3 issued a 4 A No , th at is not a correct statement, I 1983, designating Dwight Walker to 5
memorandum on February 18, Supervisor during periods 6 act in my behalf as Startup and Test 7 of my absence.
dI Q Is our document number 48.02 that memorandum to w 9 you are referring?
A Yes, that is it.
It !
Parks O
What was the reason for the replacement of Mr.
11 C as alternate start up and test supervisor?
In December of 1982, there was no one, other than A
13l .j myself, assigned to Site Engineering that was qualified t 14 i
I needed an alternate, mainly 15 as Startup and Test Supervisor.
forms, during my 16 ; to review and approve return to service i
Rick Parks, who was assigned to Site Operations, was 17 l absence.
position on occasion when he B i qualified and had acted in that I requested and received B worked for NUS Corp. at the Island.
3D approval from my supervisor Dave Buchannan and Rick 's 21 supervisor Larry King, to appoint Rick as my alternate on in that you U Decemoer 6, 1982. This was an unusual situation 23 have the Startup and Test Supervisor assigned to Site Engineering Really , both these 24 and his alternate out of Site Operations.
j In Janua ry of 1983 3 people should be in the same department.
17101 MSG 234 2t09 PA 1 SCO 22PGLRS -
- CEICER & LORIA REPORDNG SERVICE. INC .
f
M t
KITLER 20 t
1 Dwight Walker , who was qualified as a test engineer, was 2 assigned to Site Engineering at TMI. In February Mr. Parks 3 started insisting on verbatim compliance with AP-1047. At 4 that time, the way the TWG membership was designated, Site 5 Operations would have had the majority vote, during my absence.
6 In order to correct the aforementioned misalignment and to maint ainE 7 a system of checks and balances and ensure Site Engineering had 8 a voting member , I decided to update the TWG membership and g 9 designate Dwight Walker as my alternate.
10 Q Is there any document or procedure which sets forth h
)
11 the requirements for membership to TNG?
12 A Yes, AP-1047.
l And I believe th at document indicates that TWG members t
13 Q 14 shall be f rom a number of dif ferent departments on the Island?
15 A Right.
16 Q Is Section 2.1 of 1047 the section to which you are 17 referring?
B A Yes, it is.
E 19 Q Did anyone direct you to replace Mr. Parks as alternate for yourself or was this your own decision? E 20 g.
21 A This was my own decision. I checked with my 22 supervisor, Dave Buchanan, and ne agreed. h 23 Q Mr. Parks intimates at page 25 that Mr. Dwight 24 Walker had been on the Island less than six months and had 25 little or no knowledge of the testing modifications, testing E
- CEIGE R 4 LORI A REPOR TING SE8FVICE. INC . 1000 M ARKET ST.. H8G PA 37101 MSG 234-2 009 PA I 8 s
l JAMES THIESING STATEMENT
's
m . . . . _ .
THIESING 56
- g.
been resolved, most of them in his favor, I comments that have not t 2 though they were issues of form and format more than substance. w 3 Q Mr. Parks has also alleged that at a February 23rd, 4 1983 meeting, you removed him as alternate Start-up and Test supervisor and replaced him with a less experienced person; is h 5
6 that true? I At that meeting (and I T A That allegation is incorrect.
8 can't confirm the date) I informed him that he had been replaced.
for 9 ,That replacement was done by the manager of Start-up and Test 10 TMI-2, Ed Kitler, in a memo which Mr. Kitler issued. I was not k 11 aware of his intention to do that prior to his issuing the B
D i memo . I became aware that it had happened after he issued 13 the meno. That was a move to correct an organizational 14 ' deficiency which existed in that the Start-up and Test function is a responsibility of Site Engineering. l 15 16 Mr. Parks was assigned to Site Operations organization 17 which is not the organization that's given responsibility for 15 start-up and test, ergo the alternate Start-up and Test manager 19 should be a representative of the Site Engineering organization.
20 ,It's not at all clear to me that the gentleman'who was manager is in fact less 21 , appointed alternate Start-up and Test 22 experienced at start-up and test than Mr. Parks is.
3 O At another meeting on March 3rd as alleged by Mr.
24 Parks, the Polar Crane was the topic of discussion, and Mr.
25 Parks alleges that he suggested that the Polar Crane cable was ,
1000 M ARKET ST.. HBG PA 17501 HBG 234 2809 P4 f.800 222 GLR 5 >
- GEIGER & LORI A REPORTihG $ERVICE. INC .
l' s
DWIGHT WALKER STATEMENT
=
WALKER 14 2
1 AP-1013 was used.
2 O AP-1013 being the electrical jumper and the lifted 3 lead procedure?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Mr . Wa lke r , to your knowledge, has the TNG reviewed 6 the load test procedure?
7 A I believe so but I wasn't involved in it as a TWG 8 me mbe r .
9 Q Mr. Walker, moving to a different area of questioning 10 at the moment, your appointment as a startup and test alternate.
11 I believe, who is it that determines that you would be f,.
12 appointed as startup and test alternate?
13 A Ed Kitler.
14 Q Did Mr. Kitler give you any reason why he was 15 appointing you?
16 A Not at the time, I don't think he did.
17 Q Has he ever explained to you why he appointed you? f 18 A We've had some discussions about it, yes, since then.
19 Q And what has he related to you concerning that? I 20 A That the startup and test position is a Site 21 Engineering position and now th at I am at TMI in Site s 22 Engineering and have the necessary qualifications, I would be .
the logical one to be Ed Kitler's alternate.
3 Had you had cny prior c::pcrience ac c start .:p and i
H Q 25 test engineer?
.m,e,.....~,,-
.,~m - --,~.e..,,..
l P
l
WALKER 15 N
1 A Yes.
2 Q And where would that have been?
A I have essentially been a startup and test engineer 3
4 since 1976.
For three years prior to that I was a design 5 engineer. Before that I attended Penn State where I received in Nuclear Engineering.
6 a B.S. Degree Q Did Mr. Parks discuss with you your appointement as 7
5 startup and test a lte rn ate ?
9 l- A No.
10 Q Did you ever make the statement to Mr. Parks that you lacked knowledge of the startup and test manual?
A Not directly.
U.t i
13 Q Indirectly?
14 A No. The conversation I had with Rick Parks was 15 i concerning chairing the TWG meeting, that it was my first TWG l
16 ' meeting I had been to and I had felt uncomfortable about it.
talked about, 1; [ That's essentially all that we i
Q Just to clarify that and correct me if I'm wrong, 15 j 19 was the nature of the conversation then your unfamiliarity with startup and test x ! T.:G meetings as opposed to the duties of the l
21 ; engineer?
l 22 A That was all the discussion was about, yes.
23 Q Going back for a moment to the TWG meeting and your aeeting of March 4th, M responsibility to keep the minutes of that to what criteria you should follow in 25 did anyone instruct you as 1000 M ARKEf ST .H8G PA 17101 HOG 214 2109 PA I 800 222 G
- GEIGER & LORI A REPORTING SERVICE. INC .
e
M w-_ . .,
1 TAB 308
\
l l
l t
t l
l
Inter-Office Memorandum m.
4345-83-0002
,e,ruar,48. '
Startup and Test F u, j Nuclear Personnel Coverage Locaro" Administration Building TC D. R. Buchanan J. J. Chwastyk J. C. Fornicola L. P. King G. A. Kunder E. E. Mu. ert F. . P. Warren
. ring periods of my absence D. Walker will act in my behalf as Startup and Test Supervisor of Unit 2.
E. J. Kitler Startup & Test Supervisor Unit 2 Site Engineering EJX/jaa cc: J. W. Thiesing
- p. D. Wal ker i
g
TAB 309 1
1 i
i e -
i i Inter Office Memorandum 4345-83-0003
,eh,ua,,le. lee >
Procedure AP1047 ri ] Nuclear
+;-
Startup & Test Manual TWG Membership
.0:3 - Administration Building
- 0. R'. Buchanan 310 J. J. Chwastyk J. C. Fornicola L. P. V.ing
- 5. A. Kunder E. E. Mam ert R. D. Warren 31
- n accordance with paragraph 2.1 of -he subject procedure. Startup and Test membership on TWG will be:
E. J. Kitler (we -ber) '
D. D. Walker ( Al terna te)
E. J. Kitler Startup & Test Supervisor 8 Unit 2 Site Engineering Sfi EJK/jaa cc: J. W. Thiesing D. D. Walker a::v ,4
DAVID BUCHANAN STATEMENT m - __
1 Buchanan 3.
~
l 1 Please.
Buchanan, B-u-c-h-a-n-a-n.
A My name is David R.
2 Mr. Buchanan, by whom are you employed?
I 3 Q t
A G.P.U. Nuclear Corporation.
4 Nuclear" Q
And how long have you been employed by G.P.U.
5 6 A Slightly over three years.
Q What is your current capacity with G.P.U.?
7 A The Manager of Site Engineering.
8 g Q And how long have you held that position?
A Since the date of organization which is September 1, 10 11 1982.
Mr. Buchanan, are you f amiliar with the start-up and 12 Q 13 Test Department?
A Yes, I am .
14 caithersburg; Start-up Q And do you know a member of the 15 16 and Test Department, Dwight Walker?
A Yes, I do.
17 O Do you know how Dwight Walker became an alternate on IS B the Start-up and Test Department?
A Dwight Walker came to work in Site Engineering sometirae 3) 21 during the f all of '82 as the Supervisor cf my Facility and Liaison Group.
Sometime I think afct.r the first of the year, 22 h
23 although I'm not sure of the date, Ed Kitler approached me wit 24 the general topic that he was the Chairman of the Test Working 25 Group, and his alternate was Rick Parks, and he wanted to know 1000 M ARKrf ST..H8G PA 17tOf NBG 2 302109 PA 1.gDO 22?CL*5 -
L cricr= a LearA erronnus stavi.Cf. INC .
-=
Buchanan 4 %
1 if I had any concerns with Rick Parks being the alternate 2 because Rick is in another department, and his availability 3
would also depend upon his workload from his own supervisor, 4 and did I think it would make better sense to have Dwight -
5 Walker be the alternate since he is qualified, and since he _
6 works for me I control his time, s 7
And I said it sounds like a good idea, why don't we -
8 do that. That way I have better management control. So then, 9 as I recall it, I got into a discussion concerning who gets to-10 make that decision, who has that responsibility. Ed felt since 11 he was the chairman he had the responsibility, and I said fine, u you have my agreement, let's go do it. I saw no reason to 13 bother Thiesing with it, the subject is something Thiesing did ,
14 not need to get involved with, and it seemed like a pretty S
15 minor thing to be doing.
16 Q Would it be accurate then to state the decision was ~
17 made between you and Mr. Ki tle r? _
B A That's correct. S S 'O Did Mr. Kitler discuss Mr. Walker's qualifications -
~
20 for the position?
~
21 A Yes, he did. I questioned Ed as to what were his 22 qualifications and what are the requirements. He had gotten 23 from Dwight, in anticipation of my question, his resume, 34' and Ed and I sat down and looked it over and compared it _
25 with the rules, and I was satisfied that he had ,
3
- GEICER 4 LORIA REPORrlNG SERVICE. 6NC 1000 M ARKET ST..HSG PA 17801 MSG 234 210s PA g.000 22?GLRS -
Buchanan 5 1 the prerequisites.
Q Did this replacement of Mr. Parks by Mr. Walker in any 2
3 w ay reflect upon Mr. Parks' performance?
A No. It was just wanting to be in a better position 4
5 of controlling the man's time.
Q Did Mr. Parks ever complain to you about he being 6
7 replaced by Dwight Walker?
8 A Rick Parks never talked to me about it.
g Q Are you aware of Mr. Parks' allegation in his 10 af fidavit that Mr. Thiesing was responsible for it?
11 A I remember reading that.
O To the best of your knowledge, is that an inaccurate 12 13 statement by Mr. Parks?
14 A It is inaccurate.
O Mr. Buchanan, are you familiar with the Modifications 15 16 Control Group?
A Yes, I am.
17 Q
What is the Modifications Control Group?
13 19 A It's a group within Site operations that is respon-m sible for handling the paperwork associated with Plant 21 modifications. They receive ECM's from the engineering group, 22 get them approved, get them issued to the Construction or a Maintenance Department. Then upon completion of the job, they 24 take care of the sof tware associated with getting the modifica-25 tion turned over to operations.
t 1000 88 ARKET ST.. MBG. P A 17 801 H5G 234 !!O9 PA t.400 232.Gllt$
- GOGER 4 LOf!A REPORDMG SERVtCE. INC..
p.....,_.-. . . . - , . . .
4 5
s V
~
f 4
s o i.
/
w 3
4 , I
\
r 4 9
% 9 I
I
'3 s
h - %
m*,
O
( >
ATTI.CHMENT B ,
1 $
- V s, 1
\
\ ,
,, .'s . . - 'm
\ E a .
- 6. %
}
.s a .4 t
9 I
r a .,
i e
,A'
'.. i s i i l r i
S I
t I
- m
! a f
A '
4f
/*
g i i
5
> -s 5 k .
I
'y i
. .x 1 T s i b
y P 'I e
4 T
4 9
I .
i a< p
- (
___ ._a- _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
--.___.r.___-,.-- .- - - - , , . - , _ , , - - - ,
f
-+ 4%.
A f
w
' t.
1 w
e
-y "
- n l'
-"I, a J e
4 I
t
. ' \, _. -
('
I' g a
Y TAB 22
+
/ u N
p* ,
/
4 .
' t y !
I' F
t.
s 5
f p f, 2
'l i
e t
4 w
-' '4
[. F i ~
f A
Y'
.+. s N
I
. f Bechtel North American Power Corporation Engineers - Constructors 15740 Shady Grove Fload Gaithersburg, Maryland 208771454 301 - 258-3000 CONFIDENTIAL March 4, 1983 Mr. Robert C. Arnold, President GPU Nuc1 car Corporation Post Office Box 480 Route 441 South 17057 Middletown, Pennsylvania ill
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Kanga's instructions, enclosed you wsets of note In accordance with Mr. (2) One set of notes find signed copies of two1983, with Rose Rittle. is mine.
terview on March 3,is from James Troebliger hand t the other setMr.
The tone of the interview was set her byshe with was not regard to being L. investigated and t a P. King's l
to Ms.
we were Rittle that details from soliciting d
possible conflict of interest.
Rittle was open and cooperative with us.
lil, Ms. ith you at your I am available to discuss tha,e notes w
( convenience.
Yours.truly, I
Larry G. Santee Manager, Program Controls g
4 LGS:ms Enclosures (2)
F B. K. Kanga (w/ encl.)
' #I cc:
(w/ encl.)
J. Trnebliger
~
. ~
C U 14 2 1 L) c. tv a 1 an L. .
Inter OGIco L1cmoraidum J l
2 Date March 3, 1983 Subj1cl INVESTIGATION REGARDING L. P. KING [
INTERVIEW WITH ROSE RITTLE L 83/053 Location TMI - Human Resources <
TO Memorandum for Record
~
On this date, Larry Santee of Bechtel and myself interviewed Rose Rittle, a Bechtel employee who was involved in the typing of resumes under the _
direction of Rich Parks. During the su==er of 1982, Ms. Rittle was requested by Mr. Parks to type resumes of a number of individuals on the stationary of Quiltec. Ms. Rittle was instructed to type these resumes during non- ~
working hours and to keep everything she was doing very confidential. -
Ms. Rittle remembers typing at least 25 resumes, most of which were resumes -
of GPU employees. She specifically remembers typing the resumes of Larry King, Ben Slone, Mike Herlihly, Ted Rekart, Bill Austin, William Henry, III ,
and Ken Lionarons. Ms. Rittle was paid $75 for typing the resumes. She believes it took her 15 to 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> and that she did it using company equipment.
Ms. Rittle stated that she did not view this as unusual at that particular She said that time because she had been asked in the past to type resumes.
she had notified no one of this assignment until yesterday, March 2, 1983 when she asked Bill Austin what was happening with the Larry King situation. _
Bill stated that it involved Larry's ef forts with an outside consulting firm, ,
Quiltec, that may corproutise his ef fectiveness with GPU. Ms. Rittle stated -
to Bill that she had remembered typing resumes on Quiltec stationary and that Bill's resure was one of the many that she typed. Rose stated that Bill '
Austin was quite surprised and stated to her that during 1982 Ben Slone had re:iuested a copy of Bill's resume but Bill was uncertain of the disposition ,
of it.
Both Larry Santee and I recorded a written transcript of Ms. Rittle's answers to our questions and had her sign both written transcripts at the end of our interview. We also requested that if Ms. Rittle had any resumes of the individuals rentioned or had any stationary belonging to Quiltec, if she would please provide that information to Larry Santee.
.s
In vestigation Regarding L. F. King .
Interview with Rose Rittle I t.
Page 2 in judgement w1.en It is the writer's opinion that Ms. Rittle made an errorlly her utilization of company lf, Mr.
she was asked to type the resumes, specificaBefore Ms. Rittle was property.
Kanga gave Ms. Rittle a brief overviewtion. of the I believe it was quite clear to her that we were seeking her coopera but solely seeking her cooperatiion that we were not investigating Ms. Rittle, l ation relative to Mr.
on information relative to a fair and conclusive eva u .
King.
n J. oeblige Ar na Manager - Human Resources ree Mile Island JT/pir l
L
- 1 I
F l i
1
G k
ROBERT ARNOLD STATEMENT 9/12/83
1 32 ARNOLD Arnold Q
Did you take any further steps to deter.: ire 3
the motives or the specific finding of Thiesinr,'s 2
investigction of r.ing's association witits Quiltec?
3 '
/. I did not at that time pursue directly Dr.
4
- I did agree sometine at (ay -
5 Thiesin.'s notive or tir.in.t.
6 probably the ucch of Tebruary 28th uith Chcrles Sanford, S-a-n-f-o-r-d, vice president at Bechtel's 7
Gathersburg of fice, to have an interncl auditor cone, a
of Bechtel cono to the site and intervieu pecule on 9
Bechtel's pcyroll Uho night have been involved trith it, 10 t I'u not quite sure in ny cind ri.qht nou to t:hct l 33
! extent that uns set up in the first half of IIarch 12
.! and to what entent it transpired subsequent to '.~ arch 13
[ 23 when li. Parks cade his al.lesctions , but ny ::crch 21 j g4 i
cm indicates that prior to ::crch 15th the auditor 15 16 was at the site.
I did encourcr.c :3. Sanford for Bechtel to pursue 17 Dr . Thiesin ,'s role in developin7, this infornation and 33 the appropriateness of hou he hcadled that.
39 Itin-f.;.cin , I felt t'aat the involvenent of
'.3.
20 d i
21 t ith Quiltec had to be dealt trich on its nar ts cn while I cight disagree uith hou Dr. Thiesing hcadled 22 it the inf rnati n he had had relating to that issue, l 23 didn't chane;e the accountability that : r. ::ing had for i 24 tihatever his conduct had been.
25
r~
~
ARNCLD 33 u Arnold Q Did you ever get any feedbach from the y
auditor's investiFation concerninq I;ing's association 2
- uith Quiltec?
3 .
A T! ell, as I indiccted in ny '4 arch 21, '03 neno, 4
O' 3 1 vas cote on ::erch 15th ore 117 87 ::r. uanse that the '
6 internal auditor was told by IIr. T.ichard Parks , I'-a-r-h- s, 7
that Parks had arranr,cd for about a dozen resones to g 8 be typed at the request of &. King.
I don' t recall receiving any other infor;.:ction 9
about I;ing's involve.:ent with Quiltec as a result of 10 a
l 33 the cuditor's efforts.
Q Lid you nahe any independent chech of the 12 i.
13 tining or circu:istances under which the GPU I!uclear e:ployees 1cft GPU :!uclear to go to norh for n,uiltec?
14 A Yes. I had .Ir. 'ilson and the Hunan F.cscurces k 15 e
! 16 People develop the chronology of, the tinin, of the E chronology of the last feu vechs of erplo;. ment c2 ccc'.i 17 of several former GP:..: enployees that uent to r.cr!: h gg 19 uith Quiltec.
I B
Tact information , along uith information that 20 received froa Pollcck, led me to conclude that at lecst g l
21
- '.r . F.ehart and !!r. Iicrlihy , H-e-r-1-1-hy , hcd been 22 B recruited fron GPU:: b" Bechtel.
23
'fhe recruitnent of then had involved findin- or g
24 plcat 60taining caploy.:cnt for the:1 at LILCO's Shorche 25 l
l l
V l
l
49 ARNOLD Arnold y
individuals of organizations trith trhich tie typically do g business or individuals uithin other utility companies.
2
- ~
e instructed our recruiting agencies and B
,3 . .
4 conducted the advertising carr.paigns that we did g O' s direcc17 to =ahe knoun :;eneratty 1richin the induserx 6
of the needs that we had, of the interests that we had, 7
and anyonc that approached us , ue trould generally talh 8 trich then.
9 Zouever, if they fell uithin the categor; of current eaployr.ent that you describe in your question, to it uas ny policy to ,c,ain their permission to let their l gg tr I canagenent hnou that ue vere discussing uith then the E 12 possible offer of enployaent before proceeding. and
$. 13 D j y uching such an offer.
15 0-Did you co:rtunicate that policy by k
! 16 ten randun? h,i 17 A '.:y recollection is that in '00 or early 'G1 18 ue did put out such instructions in trcitinq. l Q At a necting that you had ' trich I*in- cou 19 R 20 inquired about Parks ' activities in behalf of Ouiltec 21 t have sone recumes prepared. f' Do you recall thct inquiry?
22 B A '? c s , sir.
23 Q
!Taat uas your purpose in inquirin.c about g
,s earks. acu iues2 r
~
~
50 ARNOI.D Arnold g
A Ey purpose uas to probe the completeness and strair,htfoarardness of the response I had.gotten from 2 y 3
Eng on Urrch 9. 4 Q Can you e::plcin that?
4 p
i)
A In the letter that I cot fron ?Ir. I~in , dated v ~5 6
licrch 9th, tiaich is attachment C to the :* arch 21 ceno 1G to file, ::r. ".~.inr, states in response to question No.
7 s
as to thcc cana-enent employees of GP'd or Bechtel were 9
auare of his involvenent uith Quiltec , that onl:' t- o Bechtel employees hcd such knouledr.c, c .:r. Jubin, 10 3
gi J-u-b-i-n , and :Ir . 1;itler , 1;-i- e-r .
- s. As indicated in my !! arch 21 cero , on ~~
2 rch 15 12 i
I was told about the activities on the part of :.i.
I 13 Parhs in having resuaes typed. I was surprised et the j 34 lech of identification of *.'r . Parks in :Ir. I;inr,'s
- 15
! me lo and ny recollection is no;. , not is that I talked 16 to 'r . I~,in ; chout that in our usetinr of h.r c'.t f 17 of ne gg because I thought I hcd his response in front th-t titte .
19 and tras readin . it and asked tae cuestion at 20 That vould not be consistent with the :Icrch 21 until i arch 15th, cnd ceno that I didn't hnou chout e
21 L
absent perhaps being able to ;;o back and look further 22 I can't at uhen so.;e information uas available to rae, 23 be sure that my recollection is correct rather than the 24 i
25 cc o of :'. arch 21's cecount of it.
1
c.
E 51 AP30LD
/rnold I
But I did reme:ioer querying :1. Itin~ as to h
~
Nr. Parks ' involvenent with him and uhether ,
Parks also !
kneu about his , "ing's , involvenent with Quiltec.
3 .
I cerecinly recen-cr eclhing with hin chout it g
4 for the purpose of seeing whether I should be confident h5 that ::r.1~.ing had been completely straie.htforuard uith 6
CC-7 I think the explanation say be that I kneu 8
about I!r. Perhs ' involvement in developin; the resu..as l 9 l as a result of the inforcation I got on attachuent g 10 33 12 ep ny acno of '.:crch 21, and as I think about it bach e I think that the sequence was that :Is. Piddle had 12 k
! identified on :' arch 3 that she had prepared the resumes p
$ 13 at the rcqu2st o_~
- r. Parks , had been pcid the 075 j 34 k p
i i
for doing it, but thct I didn'r. have any infornation f 15
! 16 on ::r. Parks ' account of that incident or of thct g7 activity on 7.iddle's part, but that I .as c"cre to :: arch 4 of the preparation by ::s. 2ic:dle h sub sequent 18 the request of :.'r.
39 of the resur.:es and that had been at Parks and that ::s. T.iddle had been pcid for it. I 20 g I think that formed the bcsis for my questionin; g 21 of ::r. ;ing as to what I:r. Parks ' involvenent or 22 t
" N" "
23 during our neeting of .: arch 9. f 24 I thinh that subsequent to that and after hr. vin 7 I 25
L l 52 ARNOLD Arnsld
~ received tfact tres really a very unsatisfactory answer g
fron !!r. Einr., on :: arch 9, I got the informationY as to 2
people "nad been the 3 .
t/nat Pcrks told the mechtel clearer,more active da 4
CirCU".-~. stances cnd %[niCh indicate ld
_ involvenent by 1*.in; in arrangin; or havin~, knott e ge d 5 s of the crecnging of the preparation of the resu-.c 6
he had achnouledged to cc on 1: arch 9th and than 7
h I had nade the tended to strengthen ny conclusion t at 8
right decision in deciding to tc ninnte hin.
9 there is c brief descriptic n Q I realize that 10
- of t hat :lind said to you on Iarch 9th about his l 11
! cssociation trich the preparation of those resunes ,
12 ld
!. but could you describe, as best you can, trant he to 13 you in response to your question?
14
! 'cll, let ne say that as I discuss the response s
A .
- 15 ion thct, I~ to cuestion 10, I generally had the icpress 5 16 ifically scyin:: that t cll,let ne scy ::~. Kin; vas s?cc htt 17 ,
he wasn't really sure t/no knee and trao didn't hnou t; 18 ,
by nc c, cnd he nas very reluctant to identify cny'oody 19 l dge of the issue.
thct he didr. ; positively knou hard know e 20 Tae c .ase t'act I got fron the converaction tras pv 21 the thct he thought there trere others within 22 very uell nicht have known and 23 organizction that ne proba'oly did hnor, but that he was reluctant to na 24 the: -
25 l
0
53 ARNOLD Arnold j
.hile I don't recall his specific trords , ny sensc. g in cshing about Parks tras that he scid Parks mi.7.ht have 2
- e tracn' t really sure. :-:e was v'ery noncorr.ittc1 I3* #"
3 .
none, about t tihen I initially brought up Mr. Parks '
4 O' s =nc taen 1 cold hi= about : r. rc=he hevins a==eused 1:it:-
.iddle to do the t r ping and to have the resunes preparec:
6 and then he ackno.. led;;cd that that had tahen place and 7
8 that he recily didn't hnou, or let ce say it a little dil2erently, thac he ackno .-ledged thct he had pcid "ar'.x 9
soac noney for having so:.e resunes prepared, but thett ha to
- had done that basically ct Slocne's inctructions and he g gg y,
didn't really knou the circunstances or the specifics. 3 12 a
i
- c t:cs just s.cco:rtodatin3 ::r. Sloane in providin: B I
13 j g4 Quiltec chec'c. to Parks . g also said, cs I recall, that he didn't reclic e g
- -:2 15
- it 17 s a Bechtel secretary that had done the typin .
16 t
- '.c had th u;ht it uas friend of Pcrhs uho had done 17 18 the typing, a friend not associated trith either of our f co nanies that had done the typint,.
39 r.O G CenerC117, C Very nonCorr. ital, nonspecific respo 20 I N Ui"*
f e 21 22 0 In hi responses to you Kint; indicceed 1
that he served as an advisor to Quiltec and inplied 23 the company.
that he had no active role in runnin 24 e.ssuuin - thct that vere true, vould the: Scvc 25
ATTACHMENT C I
l
- 83.00, Tab 24.
499 Parks.
Affidavit. pp 51, 52.
50 0 Ibid. pp 51, 52. #83.00, Tab 24.
i Ioid. p 52.
- 83.00, Tab 24.
501 I
Chwastyk. pp 156-159.
- 83.00, Teb 24.
502 Parks. Affidavit. p 52.
Ibid. p 52. #83.00, Tab 24.
503 504 10id. p 52. #83.00, Tab 24.
i 50 5 Ibid. p 52. #83.00, Tab 24.
506 laid, p 52. #83.00, Tab 24.
I P
l, 507 Ibid. p 52. #83.00, Tab 24.
j l
H
- 83.00, Tab 24.
6- Ibid. p 52.
Chrastyk. 8/4/83. p 156.
e39
')
-)l0 Ioid, p 156.
511 Cnwastyk. p 156.
Replacernent of Parks on TWG (for Cnwastyk. 3/17/83. #48.00, Tab 112.
IOM 4200-83-147 to Kitler.
polar crane project) by Marshall.
512 Chwastyk. 8/4/83. pp 156, 157.
513 tote, p 157, 514 Karga. 7/25/83. pp 73, 74.
515 Ibid. pp 73-74. .
516 lbid. pp 73-74.
Chwastyk. 8/4/83. p 157. .
)
~
dEmim,-
i s I*
517 Karga.
7/25/83. p 73.
518 Ibid. p ' 73.
3/17/83. #48.00, Tab 112.
Cnwastyk. IOM to Kitler.
519 Karga. 7/25/83. p 74.
Cnwastyk. 8/4/83. p 157.
p 1. #48.00, Tab 112.
IOM to Kitler. 3/17/83.
Cnwastyk.
520 Karga . 7/25/83. p 74.
Cnwastyk. 8/4/83. p 157.
p 1. #48.00, Tab 112.-
IOM to Kitler. 3/17/83.
Chwastyk.
521 Karga . 7/25/83. p 74.
Chwastyk. 8/4/83. p 157.
i 522 Karga. 7/25/83. p 74.
Chwastyk. 8/4/83, p 157.
j I
L
PARKS AFFIDAVIT
w..--________ _
y
>. on Thursday, March 17, at 8:00 a.m. , Mr. Kanga had me in for o two-and-a-half-hour meeting about the letter I had delivered the l
day before. I informed him that to date I still had not received a l
catisf actory response to my concerns on the polar crane; that I and that I was being pressured otill had serious problems with it; to approve the load test.
Kanga said his door was always open if I felt intimidated or threatened, but that any further reassurances would be up to Mr. San-ford.
Nevertheless, he warned me not to go public with my concerns.
He said that once before things had gotten much worse for an employee
+
He said it could be as long who had tried that and was " humiliated."
1 as two weeks before any decision was reached on me about Quiltec.
Be volunteered that it was unfortunate, but other individuals like I
He said myself had come to Bechtel without any indoctrination.
that was a problem he would have to resolve. He said that he had to send a report to Bob Arnold describing how the issue with me had been handled; that I personally had put Bechtel in a bad light with l a client; and that as a result I stood a good chance of getting fired.
Kanga did, however, pro:sise that the Licensing and QA depart-ments would submit written responses to sa::isfy my concerns on the I told him that failure to ensure reviews required k polar crane.
by the OA Manual and applicable standards, procedures and regulations constituted an unreviewed safety question.
I said this was especi-ally true, since we worked at TMI Unit II and had told the world Mr. Kanga that public health and saf ety were our top priority.
We finished the meeting.
was be::cnning openly nervous and agitated.
, ,... t k that I i
Around 1: 00 p.m. that day, I infermed Joe Chwas y d test, because of the serious could not approve the polar crane loa I added that I did not find violationsthat permeated the program. c dure was written for anything technically wrong with how the pro e (
But it did not address the major issues raised in what it covered.
We had just been going through the motions.'
the review cycle. B.
Around 3:30 p.m. that afternoon, I was called back to The subject k
Kanga's of fice for a meeting with him and Chwasty .
4200-83-147, dated that day from J. Chwastyk, of the meeting was IOM ld replace me It stated that effective immediately Mr. Marshall wou Reactor Building h
as the primary so mer.ber on the TWG only for t e The memorandum continued, Polar Crane Project.
This action is considered appropriate for the i present situation and is not considered a negat ve reflection of Mr. Park's ability, conduct or per-formance. l The designation of Mr. Marshall should not adverse y af fect the Polar Crane Refurbishment Schedule.
hat my removal was At the meeting Kanga asked me twice to agree t the I responded, "In my opinion, not an act of intimidation. -
l intent is well-defined."
~
As I left tM room I told Mr. Kanga that They were too late.
I had reconsidered after speak-I had already signed the procedure. i " based on ing with Chwestyk earlier and signed with thethis I took prov stepsobecause of the procedure only."
technical content '
t the program, and I did not want to pursue a personal vendetta abou was consistent with the substance of my the approval in this form is a
" Approval based on technical content" earlier position.
imply either that all required topics generic term. It does not or that GA requirements have been followed.
have been covered,
9 JOSF'H CHWASTYK STATEMENT l
1 CHWASTYK 156 B
) Q I'll show you another document, our document number 1
339, the second page which purports to be a letter from you to 2i t
The subject matter is TWG Member- l 3 Mr. Kitler dated 3/17/83 4 ship.
i l 5
I'll as you to take a.look at it, please. ,
6 A I remember the letter. ;I
- Q What is the letter? Would you identify it, please, e A The letter is the TWG membership and it basically {
9 removes Mr. Parks as the primary Site Ops. Department Repre- ,
sentative to the TWG for the Polar Crane Proj ect. lh 10 Would you tell us how that letter came to be docu-11 Q
'I I
u mer.t 339?
A Well, Mr. Parks came to me with some concerns he thought g t; '
We he had in relation to the reactor 'uilding c Polar Crar.e.
14 33 discussed those concerns and I was able to put them to rest. 'l Mr. Parks then suggested that he may be so close to ts 8, 1;
this project that he is no longer to distinguish real from perceived problems. I suggested then a possible means of ta He t getting out of that was removing him from that project. 6 19 thought it was a good idea, so I told him, Okay, I'll draf t 'l
- 3) I 21 up the letter and we'll go over it and make sure you agree ,I I
' I y with it and I'll put it out. i I did that, drafted up a letter. He reviewed it and i g
I don't T.ay even have made some comments or changes to it, 3 /
ret. ember, but this was as a result of that.
33 !
1000 M ARKET STREET. H ARRt08URG P4 17101 PHONE 4 7 6 7p 234.g gq9..
- G(sGER & LORin REPORflNG SERVICE INC
CHWASTYK 157 Q
"That being document 339?
1 Yes.
Now, during this time because of Mr. Parks' 2 A ht 3
involvement at that time directly with Mr. Kanga I thoug I did that, and 4 .
to call Mr. Kanga and inform him of this. h Mr. Kanga asked me to come down and he wanted to review t e J
l 5:I 6 letter first.
I did that, and he decided he wanted to talk to Mr.
- the letter ,
e Parks, so he called Mr. Parks down and we went over d Mr.
That's when I signed the document with both Mr. Parks an 9: this is the meeting As a matter of fact, to ' Kanga right there. left he'made the k
11 that I referred to earlier that as Mr. Par s t t only.
comment about signing something for technical con en 12 Q
Did you sign letter number 339 in the presence of i I:
u Mr. Kanga and Mr. Parks?
A Yes, I did.
i; Q
Did Mr. Kanga question Mr. Parks concerning this In 1
letter?
A Yes, he did.
13 I Q Do you recall what Mr. Kanga's questions of Mr.
19 m Parks were? and He asked Mr. Parks if Mr. Parks agreed with it, af A He implied to me, a l Mr. Parks made some off the wall comment.
f and I think Mr. Kanga took it the same way, that he agreed.
23 24 He also discussed the letter with Mr. Parks and it was not any I I as tried to make sure that Mr. Parks knew thct
.- ........m.- _ ._ .. ,,,,, _ .,,,,m._ ,_
L _ ,..<e...... _ _ . f
l CHWASTYK 158
)
I kind of a reprimand of any sort of any kind of discriminatory 2 action. Mr. Parks, like I said, was very quiet throughout 3 the meeting. When Mr. Kanga asked him directly if he agreed 4 and does he understand, Mr. Parks said something I thought 5 at the time was strange, but again my impression was that he 6 did agree with it. That's when I signed it.
- Q Was Mr. Kanga informed either oy you or by Mr. Parks' 8
as to what triggered this letter?
9 A Yes, I talked to Mr. Kanga prior to Mr. Parks gettir.g to i there and we discussed that. !
11 ' O Mr. Kanga was informed as to Mr. Parks' concerns? r 12 i A Yes. ,
1.1 0 I'll ask you to turn to page 52 of document 83, !'
l
) , r please. The first paragraph begins, "Around 1:00 p.m. that ti l ..
n; day I informed Joe Chwastyk that I could not approve the Polar h 16 Crane load test because of the serious violations that perme-1; ated the program."
l 18 By "that day", he was referring to March 17th. Do 19 ! you recall Mr. Parks making such a staternent, to you on March 3i the 17th' (
- t A I think that's the subject of which I related to 22 earlier about he had some problems and we sat down and went zi
- i through each problem individually.
I don't know what the last .
i a I two sentences mean. l Q Again, you' re not aware of wha t he - "ne" meaning -
2,5 l i
i fkh lk t
Cl4 WAST YK
- 159 t t
- means by approved based on technical con en 1 Mr. Parks 2 only?
3 A No.
'Q I'm going to show you two documents, number 8 and 4 tion 5
number 9, each of which purports to be a Unit Work Instruc I would ask you 6j dealing with the Underhead Characterization.
i 7I
! to look at those documents, please.
I A (Witness complies.)
6r Q
Having looked at documents 8 and 9, do you recall 9 ?
f whether you saw documents 8 and 9 in the past to ' Yes, I vaguely recall both, A
I vaguely recall 8.
11 j e,
i and I signed both, Q
Document number 8, is that the document you indi-t; 11 ;
cated you recall?
r A Yes.
ti Q
Document number 8 was signed by SRG on 2/16/83 and 16 l t- ,
signed by CC on 2/2h/83, is that correct?
18 l A That's correct.
Q Is that your signature on document 8?
19 A Yes, it is, ml i 0 Is there any date by your signature?
21 !
22l! A Na, there.isn't. ,
Q Mr. Parks makes the allegation that this document, b l
21 J document 8, was reviewed by PORC SRG prior to it being su l a
mitted to site Operations or the other review groups.
zs 7 i1:05 PHONE (71 Tt 214 2109 L GEICER 6 Lomia mEPORflNG SERVICE. fuc . 3000 M ARKET STRTET, H ARR
~
BAHMAN KANGA STATEMENT
V KABGA 73 0
1 if I could. And that is an allege. tion raised by Mr. Parks that he was 2 r eplaced as a primary TWG mccher for the Polar Crane and the sequence of So what I would ask you is first of all', was 3 events that occurred there.
4 Mr. Parks replaced as primary TWG meser?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. And how did that.come about?
7 A. Okay, look at the uuro that was written by Mr. Owastyk and Also,there 8 also there is a men written or a letter written by Mr. Parks.
See 9 is a Parks' letter or mmo, I believe it is to Sanford, sane date:
10 Exhibits A and B hereto, which are copies of a letter frm Mr. Parks to and a mmorandan frm Mr. Owastyk, to Mr.
11 Mr. Sandford dated March 16, 1983 I had a telephone call frm Joe Owastyk, and 12 Kitler dated March 17, 1983.
13 he mentioned to me that he felt that P_ arks was quite nervous that day and 14 that he felt that it would be helpful to Parks if Parks was replaced as 10 primary nsber fce TWG for the Polar Crane project only, which would reduce 16 pressure on Parks.
17 I asked him if he had discussed the mmo or that action with 18 Parks and he told me that he had, ard I asked him to bring the nrro and Joe Owastyk came to my office and I 19 discuss it with me in some detail.
I asked him 1f in 20 looked over the mmo that.be had written but not signed. ,
21 his discussion with Parks, Parks had indicated any objection to d
i
'- ;the memo. 'Or astyk told me that he had not, that Parks in effect unlectre his was 23 that men, and I asked Owastyk if he had avle clear to Parks that t 24 not in any way a reflection on his performance, and that we were not in any
' .". way dor ngrading Mr. Parks.
,6
' And Owastyk told me that yes, Mr. Parks understood PHONE (7178 234 2109.-
GE8GER a LCR;A RgpcRTING st1tylCE. INC.. 1000184R1rf STREET. MARRt$30RG. PA. 37809 R
' KANGA r.
1 that. The reason why I was concerned about Mr. Chwastyk's 2 action was that that very morning, Mr. Parks had reviewed with 3 me a letter that he had written to Mr. Sandford dated March 16, 4 and which he had brought to my secretary on March 16 and 5 requested me not to send it to Mr. Sandford until Mr. Parks had 6 a chance to talk to me. So I had a discussion that very 7 morning with Mr. Parks regarding his concerns on how he was 8 being treated and regarding his concerns on intimidation. ,
9 I did not want the memo from Mr. Chwastyk to be 10 interpreted as an act of intimidation. After discuusing this 11 with Mr. Chwastyk, I asked Mr. Parks to come to my office and I 12 went over the same items as I described to you earlier to make g 13 sure that Mr. Parks understood that this was not a reflection 14 on his performance, that it was not a step down for him and h 15 that it was, I wanted to be a hundred percent sure, that it was Mr. Parks basically 16 not interpreted as an act of intimidation.
17 affirmed my understanding that he understood what the memo said 18 and that it was not being interpreted by Mr. Parks as being 19 intimidation or a reflection on his work.
20 After that, Mr. Chwastyk signed that memo in the g
21 presence of Mr. Parks.
22 Q.
What was Mr . Parks' response to you as to whether he 23 was in agreement with his removal as primary member on TWG on M the Polar Crane?
does is 25 A. Firstly, he's not removed from TWG, all this 26 PHON [ (717) 234 2100 -
sticta e Loain arronnus stavic[_ me. icoo meanxer sTwErf. MARal5 SURG PA.17801 I
^- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
KANCA b 75 tic 11g a secondary 1
to replace him from o primary member to essenit is just for that This is not removing him from TWG, 2 me n.be r .
In the discussions that we had, Mr. Parks 3 Polor Crane project.
he memo and he never O gave me to understond that he understood t ever indicated indicated to me ong concern regarding the memo, n 5 ld consider that as 6
to me in that porticular meeting that he wouf intimidotion by 7
o reflection on his performance or on cet o either Mr.
Chwostyk or sigself.
B I'd like to ask you o question Q. Moving from that areo, 9 I could, and in 10 concerning the underhead chorocteri=otion if Devine and/or Mr. ,
porticular whether or not Mr. Devine, Jack 81 Mr. Devine's preliminorg 12 Thiesing discussed with you their, f radiction thot the 13 ;ossumptions concerning the chorocter oDevine issued indicating i
14 ! reactor vessel had and o seemo that Mr.
15 t that the preliminary results indicate 30 times more rodiction than the initial ossumptions?
16 17 A. Yes, they did.
I
- 0. Did they discuss with you, either Mr. Devine or Mr.
18 l i
both, that they would continue with Guick Scon to 19 fThiesingor dditional 20 verify these preliminorg ossumptions and do a 21 onolysis?
In fact, they had written a sier o to 22 A. Yes, they did.
Thiesing, Mr. Devine and .
23 I me which was discussed among Mr.
endation to 24 n,gself, and essentially I approved their recomm ,
os the removal of the head was 25 continue the work as for evoluotion' 26 concerned on the original premise but to perform on PA.17808 PHONE (7171234 2109s CEICEm a tontA REPORnMG St# vlcc. IMC 1000 N ARitET 57REET. MARR15 surg.
I l
N TAB 112
1
~
Intor-Offlee Momorcndum 5to: 3/17/83 l
rw m g ebject:
TVG Membership 4200-63-147 E. Kitler, Supervisor of Start L'? 1.ocatio : TM1/U-2 Site Operations 3:
an est Bldg. 222 Effective immediately, please c >nsider V. :*arshall as the Primary Site Operations Departnent representative to the L'C.
Mr. Marshall vill replace !!r. 7.. Parks as the primary rne :cer only f or the Reactor Buildin;; Polar Crane prcject.
This action is considered a prt riate for the present situation and is not considered a negati.e reflectio: of Mr. Park's ability, conduct or performance.
Tne designation of Mr. Marshall should not adcersely affect the Polar Crane Refurbishment Schedule.
( /. ,6 i '/ ' i, ' A
' l' s Chiastyk /
_ite 0-e stirnt l' 6c:t :,
(Acting)
.f- ,e JJC/bjs cc: W. Marshall R. Parks J. Barton B. Kanga File
.