ML20094B410

Notice of Svc of Eh Stier 841101 Rept Re TMI-2 Staff 830323 Meeting.Served on 841106.Related Correspondence

ML20094B410
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	11/06/1984
From:	Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:
References
CON-#484-003, CON-#484-3 SP, NUDOCS 8411070211
Download: ML20094B410 (55)

Text

...

3\

-o EEL -

gy "7:DENC{ November 6, g84 Uhih0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d4 [gy ,7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A9 l28 t; -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

-In the Matter of. )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 SP

) (Restart-Management Remand)

(Three Mile Island-Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )-

NOTICE TO COMMISSION, APPEAL BOARD LICENSING BOARD AND PARTIES Enclosed for information of Commission, Appeal Board, Li-censing Board and parties is copy of a report in the form of a memorandum of November 1, 1984, with attachments from Edwin H.

Stier to Philip R. Clark concerning.a TMI-2 Staff Meeting of March ~23, 1983. The memorandum report discusses Mr.'Stier's findings on the purpose of the meeting and statements made at the meeting regarding Mr. Richard Parks' coincident public re-lease of various allegations related to operations at TMI-2.

NRC staff findings regarding this meeting are discussed in NUREG-0680, Supp. 5 at pages 10-5 and 10-18.

Respectfully submitted, Lu. m ad.

Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.

Counsel for Licensee November 6, 1984 Enclosure cc: Service List 8411070211 841106 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G PDR

' ll g:,

. _ ~ >

~

=,,

l?{.- ' 1 - 7 +

y .;. y F

~

TO: -: PHILIP R. CLARK

,FROM: -EDWIN H. STIER

-DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1984 , . .

RE: TMI-2. STAFF MEETING OF MARCH 23,f1983 4

INTRODUCTION.

.At you'r request', we'have conducted an inquiry concerning R a staff. meeting that.was held oa March 23, 1933, in anticipactan of the public release of various allegations by Richard Parks concerning operations at.TMI-2. During our inquiry, we reviewed the' NRC staff. report entitled "TMI-1 Restart" (NUREG 0630, Sup .

plement N o '. 5) and.its exhibits; and written statements b:.

Edwin H..Gischet pertaining to the March 23' meeting. 'a'e then interviewed ten persons.who attended the meeting, i n : '.u l t i g

, Gtschel.I' In the "TMI-1 Restart" report, the NRC staff found, "The

. comments,by~(John] Barton, (Deputy Dtrector. TMI-2] (GPUN),

1 -durtn3 a GPUN and Bechtel mansgement meeting, threatentn; ': o fire or suspend Parks for having publicly stred allegations.

y

were impr3per." That report also states that t h e d o : t .i t u :o

's': spend Parks with pay was made durtn3 the meettng.

Prior to our intervle. of Cischel, his desertpcion af tA

' March 23, 1933, meettng was contained in two sworn statements:

_.___.__.m_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _

). . ,

i 2-his affidavit dated April 2, 1983, and a statement to the NRC signed on May 10, 1983. The Gischel statements contain the following descriptions of occurrences at the March 23 meetin3:

Bahman Kanga, Director of TMI-2, advised the attendees that Richard Parks was about to make public allegations about unsafe conditions at TMI-2. Robert Arnold, President of GPUN, dis-cussed the issues raised by Parks. Arnold said investigators would not find anything, the Udall Committee would not speak with witnesses, Parks would be returning to work the next day, and that TMI-2 personnel should be " cool and calm."

In response, Barton said that Parks should be fired and no:

allowed back on the Island. Prior to Barton calling for the firing of Parks, Arnold had told everyone to be cooperative and that Parks should be given any correspondence and memos that he requested. However, after Barton's statement, Giacnel con: ends Arnold stated that Parks should not be extendid coo; era:Lan, should not be given any documents and should be restricted from protected areas.

The Gischel statements describe Kanga's response to Bartan's call for Parks to be fired as follo.s: "'Je couldn't do L: lika that because Parks had game to the NRC an! .as p rs : e c t e.' o .. : .e Atomic Energy Act. That mean we, h a ' :o be c a r a f >: '. . " Cts;,s'.

alJo cl31ms that X a r. g a sati, "%s ).l! J.i' :Ptr3fer "'" 2r ;.

him on a leave of absence for 3 r.onth an! then ge: rid of 4tm quietly."

. - r -

" a.

A 'f- ,. :l' lf: r ~p -

e,' ~-

p s ThetNRClTMI-1.Resta'rtireport found that the statements

, _ .at' tribute'dito Barton "bearEon" GPUN. management integrity. Our

'/ , .

linquiry;foc'used,not~only on: ene Barton statements.nbut' also on

'simila'r:statementsfattributedJto others that might be construed

. . :ss evidence ofLharassment of Parks. -We. attempted-to determine

,' whatestatements were,made at..thelMarch 23 meeting and to under-

, stand'the contextLin'which the discussion'took. place, including; thefpurposes forwhich;the_ meeting was convened.

'% ~

lDuring our; inquiry, we-interv'aved key management personnel

whoiattended ~the. March.23-meeting. Those interviews are sum-

< marized in memoranda attached as exhibits to this rep' ort. We e-found that-most 1of thoseLinterviesed could' remember very few

_, details of what occurred.at the meettn3 In our view, further interviews would be unlikely to yield additionallinformation.

.However, trom what witnesses have been able to recall, we are able to reach a number of conclusions about the March 23'meettag.

CONCLUSION 5 l'. Tha. purpose of the' March.23 meeting was to advise TMI-2 management personnel that Parks was about to publicly release damagta; allegations. The meeting was not. intended to decide what action, if any, would

.be taken against Parks.

i 1 2.- Barton,.as well as others, made comments calling for 7

theLfiringlor'suspenston ot Parks. Barton stated that b

I

__.-._____.-._..__.___.__m.___.______.m______._________._____________.m . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ .

-u '

• A

~ ~.

y .4  ;';'-

j o

'Phrks-should.not be allowed back on the Island. *

-These; comments 1were1 spontaneous personal reactions Land 'were not treated as recommendations to be -

O~ Ldecided upon at the meeting.

3. Arnold stated at thee meeting.that Parks-had legal

~

rights that had-to be protected; Parks would be

. returning.to the' Island;;and the company'was study-ing Parks' allegations. He also instructed those:

present to cooperate-with any-investigation ~ that-

.might result.

~

4.. As al result of'a discussion at the meeting, Arnold advised'those in. attendance that itywas company policy.

not:to permit'the recoval;of: company' documents from

-the Island. Therefore,' Parks should be given only

. 'those. documents he required"to perform:his duties.

7 s 5. Kanga stated at th,e meeting that Parks' employmen:

I status would be determined at a later time by.Bechtel-

. Corporation. Le canno.t determine whether anything.

'Kanga said at the meeting- might have been construed

'as indicating that Parks might be put on'a leave of-absente and gotten "ridLof. quietly." However, tt is clear that Kangs emphastzed that~ Parks had legal rights

.that.hal to be protected.

=,

- y

_s w .

~~ - ,.

~

. 5-s

b-

~

Our. findings are based ~on a consensus of the statements

'obtained_from the witnesses.

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

'On the afternoon of March 22, 1983, Douglas Bedell ,

(Manager'--Communication Services, TMI) was advisedLby UPI'

-that an organization known-as Government _ Accountability Project had~ issued'a press rel' ease containing1 allegations by Richard Parks relating ~to safety 11ssues at TMI-2. He was also advised that a press conferencez.for Parks had been scheduled to take place on

~

the f o llowin g _ -da y . Shortly thereafter,' Parks confirmed this information in a meeting with Kanga and Bedell. Arnold was advised of these developments.by,Kanga. Arnold felt.it was necessary co hold a meeting to' advise his senior staff at T'4*-2 of what'was about'to take. place. -He felt this was necessar:. so thatJthe staff _did-not'first hear-of the. allegations in the ?.eIta.

He~also wanted to maintain good morale and to control the dei. slap-

-- O mentjof rumors. :He,* therefore . asked Kanga to' schedule the meettag.

for1the1following mornin3-

, The; meeting began at approxicately 9:00 a.m. on March 23.

Arnold'and Kanga began _the meeting by advtsing the ~ attendees of-IParks' allegations and of the press conference that was to occur later tn~the day. Although Arnold and Kanga had recetvel a c>p, of Parks' affidavit shortly before the meettng, their informa:Lon was based primarily on Bedell's briefing the previaus day.IU i

y .,

.~ ..

n ~

gg .

Af ter -hearingjf rom Arnol'd' and .Kanga, some of those present

-expressed, anger.1 suggested that. Parks not be-allowed back-on the

.$ Islandian'd tha.t he belsuspended.or fired.II Other than Barton, -

-t -

we'have?not been.able:to identify those who made such comments.

i Two witnesses' recall sepcifically that TBarton suggested'that

' Parks'be fired and not allowed'back on the Island.-12 Barton Lbelieves he.might have suggested..that Parks not be allowed to return to the: Island since he felt it would be. difficult for Parks to work with people after " going public" with nis allega-i tions. IHe does'not recall. stating ~ that Parks should be fired, although he freely 1 admitted that making such a statement would

-not have'been uncharacteristic of:him.

Arnola_and~Kanga responded to such comments by stating that

?- Parks had certain' legal. rights that had to be protected'and that 1:

.! . Parks' allegations had to be studied before a dectsion could be i

' made about a-response. Arnold spectftcally advised the group a . ..

'that-Parks would.be returning to the stte and should be treated properly.I' Id addttion, everyone was advtsed to cooperate with 0

any. investigation that'mtght result from Parks' allegations.

-At the meeting, Arnold was asked whether Parks should be allowed access to-company /.ocuments if he asked for them because of.the possibility that documents might be removed frn One a -

Island'. Arnold recalls stating that it was company paitc) not r.o allow employees to remova company documents from the Island.

He also believes that he may have given instructLots that Parks

g i giq ('i: + ,:

r

.' &' 'y ..

- 't f.

y ,

4

- ^

5

was 'not:f to Lbe provided with a'ny' company documents." - Geher

~

P-witnesses . recall.i Arnold : stating ..that Parks should,be provided Lonip'with? document's heineeded to' perform his-duties.IO

~

3 Most'.ofithose' interviewed recall.that, in response.to

s. icomments froa.the group,1Kanga' stated that Parks had legal rights

.which1ha'd'to be protected. No one other than Gischel.can" recall -

t ' Kangaistating? that' Parks would be put on a' lease of absence and

?":

- go t ten: " rid o f ;quie tly."

However,'two witnesses, Henry Hukill

~~and James Larson,'have some recollection that Kanga at some point

1. ~ discussed'che possibility.of a transfer of Parks.- They are un-

/

certain whether; Kanga mentioned a transf er at the meeting or at '.,

r La later time.. .Neither., recalls,the Kanga statement as Gischel

. 1 described it.20-

. :y.

' M anga doesinot recall making a statement st.tl.ar to the one

'-  : attributed.to.htm'in.Gischel's affidavit. Moreover, he believes that-since.'he did'not have the authority to dectte what action to take concerning Parks, it is. highly unlikely he would have

. 4 .,

-made such's.stauement.'1 c 3 Except 'for G1schel'.. everyone who recalle attending the

, meeting stated that-they believed the purpose of the meeting vas

.co al~tde-(Jnit,2 staff of Parks' allegations art thst t h e :, eere going co be side public.27

• They did not bellete tie.pur;ose of the; meetin g 'was ' to Aiscuss wh:st to do with Parks. They site

., y not advised at the meetin3 of any decistoa as to Parks' employment

.. t status. Gischel. concedes that Kanga stated Parks' status was

~being tooked into and that'further discussion re;2rding Parks was t

I 'h*

7; "

)

it i

( ,

dll}.I '

,e y ,;,

--8--

'" tabled."25 Despite the fact that no decision regarding Parks b Nr E Lwas announced at the meeting, Gischel, nevertheless, was left g,i

'with theLimpression that a decision to fire Parks had been made.26 .

Arnold stated that he made the decision to prohibit Parks' f,

'~ gy g eturn to work at.Three Mile Island after consulting with Bechtel

- (management in Washington D. C. later-in the day on March 23, 1983.

on-

~

Arnold-did not believe that it would be possible for Parks to come y,

back.co'ene Island and work' productively with the'same people he had criticized in'hisLaffidavit.27 p

i h

1 1 f 2,

y-

't'+

I y

M c

Y

• 1

- (r)

'* 7, u

,s.

. *f

fi-1,. M ,

Lo ,p '

-r i NOTES.

4

'l f ~ Gischel wasiinterviewed~by.two members of my staff on.

S e p't embe r E11, 1984.: That' interview was. arranged by me sincal. telephone: conversation with Gischel. After the -

< 1 . interview, we-forwarded a copy.of our' memorandum of-the

%'" " ~

2 interview?to'Gischel-for his review and comments. In s 'Lresponse, we received a' letter from Gischel stating the 1followingy 1JU -

When(Ed Scie'r called me and, asked that I

review.with.you my1recollecti'ons of the 3/23/83

- TMI-2 meeting c'alled to discuss' the Parks' -situ-Jation,.myffirst reaction:was.co say,no. However-,

10r. Stierfeventually persuaded me~to, review the

..,  ;  : meeting with,you on the-basissthat you only needed-O;S[ additional background information. Furthermore, it 7

was; understood-that.I was not going to make any-kind to "of: formal statement, nor was.I toibe quoted. The O _ discussion-was simply' supposed to be for you to q determine.what.you had already obtained-from others.

e

< =ggh

' .U(so -

Your;1etter of: September'28, 1984,Lcontaining a statesentithat you draft'ed after our conversation

< -is in' direct violation ~of'our agreement. Further -

yg7 .

%f" .On .more, there-are.severalLsignificant inaccuracies'in

~

2 your characterizati'on.of the' contents'of our dis-

-cussion.

~

-lApparently ILmust remind you.in writing that [

.do no t 'wa it 'you to' include any' statements purported r .toibeifrum:me as a'part of your investigative report.

Gischel?is inaccurate in stating.that we had an understanding

.that no record would>be made of his interview. .In my~ telephone

'19?? -conversation.with h,im, he stated that he did not wish to swear sg'g; 'to or sign any statements. I told him that we would respect

' " hisidesires, but.that we wished'to interview him in orderito

[.I I' (complete' our-understanding of his allegations and consider s ihis.. views intour. analysis. At no time did I agree that an

. .t fintervie'w.sould~be "off the. record" in any sense. Me for-warded our memorandum -to Gischel only to assure that he had

+ an opportunity'to contribute to its accuracy. 'de d id not-ask-.him to-sign it or swear to its accuracy.

41 JD Ourimecocanduc of Cischel's, interview has been reviewei 53 i

'the members Lo fimy. staff who conduc ted the interview and am they care ' sat'isfied tha f it accurately describes what occurred.

jf(@h. . ..

SinceLGischel'will not'specify any inaccuracies he believes J~geb; .it ~ contains, we,are unable-'to make any editorial changes MF...  ; which . sigh t - sa k.is f y

him .

g?g n , n -

,m n O 7g5'.

y ._ -l k -

h-s 4

7

, 4 m .=

---

_-w -

aa

y,

{-

C ,

s. -

o.

t 2

.U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report, TMI-1 Restart

NUREG-0680,_Supp. No. 5), July 1984, p. 10-18.

3 '

.p. 10-5.

' Ibid.,

4 Gische1xaffidavit ( A p r il . 2 ', - 19 8 3 ) , pp. 15- 16 Gischel affidavit (May 10, 1983), pp. 6-7 5

Ibid., .p.'15.

6 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report, TMI-1 Restart NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5), July 1984, p. 10-18.

.-Bedell Interview Report,.p. 1.

0 s . Arnold Interview. Report, p. 1.

9 Ibid...pp.-1-2.

Barton Interview Report, p. Hukill Intervie'w Report,;p. I-Kanga Interview Report, p.'1 Larson Interview Report, p. I

' Pastor.-Interview Report, p. 1 5-L10

.ArnoldfInterview Report, p. I c ~ Barton. Interview R e p o r t ,.- p . I LBedell' Interview Report, p.

~

1-Kanga: Interview Report', p.

1 U II

.i'rnold Interview. Report, p. 2 Ballard Intervi'ev Report,- p. I c-

.Bede11' Interview Rep 6ct, p. 2

'Hukill. Interview Report /.p. 1 Larsun:Intervie'i Report,,p. l' Pastor. Interview Report...p. 1-u.f to-Gischel. Interview Report, p. 1 Larson Interview' Report, p. 1 r%

ih

.. 4 i

'4 'E l

[,._ _

13 'Barton' Interview Report, p. 1 z

M I

Arnold Interview Report p. 2-

' Ballard Interview Report. p. 1 ,

s. Hukill Interview Report, p. 1 Kanga' Interview Report, p. 1

-Larson Int'erview' Report, p. L' 115- Larson~. Interview Report, p. 1

. Pastor Interview' Report, p. 1

-16= BedellLInterview Report, p. 2-

-Larson Interviev' Report, p.

1 i

17 ' Arnold-Interview Report, p. 2

'IS Pastor Interview Report,;p. 1 19' ArnoldIInterview Report,

~

.p. 2-Ballard-Interview Report, p. 1 Hukill Interview Report, p. 1 Kanga. Interview Report, .p . 1 Larson Interview' Report, p. 1

(

20 ._ HEk il l .:Interviev Report 1 p. 2 Larsen Interview ~ Report, pp. 1-2

21. Kanga Interview Report,.p. '2

• m-- .

Arnold; Interview Repert, p. 1 3allard Interview. Report, p . 'l

,y 4 Barton Interview Report, p.'1 Bedell(Interview Report, p. 1

=  :-[ ~

Hukill Interview Report, p. 1

-Kanga I'nterview Report, p.'1 _

Larson Interview Report, p. 1 Pastor Interview Report, p.

~

1 I

t- . -R, k-

, se'_9 r

23 Arnold Interview Report, p. 1 Bedell. Interview Report, p. 2

-Hukill1 Interview Report, p. 2 Kanga' Interview Report, p. I

~

-Larson Interview' Report,1p. 2 Pastor Interview Report, p.

1 24 'Ballard Interview Report, p. I

' Pastor Interview Report. p. 1 25 LGischel Interview Report, p.-2 96

~

Ibid., p. 2 27 -Arnold Interview. Report, p. 3 4

9 t

l

^

)-+

!I -

?

e r

.g -- :=-. - -

I e'

4-y , ,

~

Exhibits are arranged in the following way:

Exhibit-1 - Excerpts -f rom NRC NUREG--0680, Supp. 5 July,a1984 Ex h i b i t' .,2 - Excerpts.from Gischel affiday'it, April 2, 1983

. Excerpts from Gischel.' affidavit, May 10, 1983 Exhibit 3~ -

Exhibit 4 ,

> Interview Reports arranged alphabetically (N.

l .

.e .

9

}, ,

i ? }.,  ?

t t

t 2

r -e

f..

II EXHIBIT 1 S

O t

e

~*

The 00L . investigator took note af the fact that before the beginning of the polar crane controversy and Parks' involvement therein, Parks had received a performance evaluation on' August 27, 1982, indicating he met or exceeded all job requirements. ~ Among the " exceeds" categories were job knowledge, flexibility, cooperation, client relations, initiative, and problem analysis.

Overall _ he was rated ." Exceeds Requirements." Id. at 1.

The _00L investigation found (1) the four claimed discriminatory actions "

occurred over a 4-week period _between February 23 and March 24, 1983, and

- (2).the four actions were progressive in nature: .

[L]osing his voice 'and input as alternate startup and test supervisor for the entire Unit (2]; being subjected to an examination involving the West Coast main office internal audit staff over a seemingly minor infraction of a work conflict rule he had not been made aware of; being dropped as the Site Operations lead man on tha Test Working Group for the very project he was most concerned abcut; and finally being sus;erdad from his job, albeit with pay, the day following his filing of his whistlebicwer cceplaint and his press conference on the event. Id, at 11.

00L found that there existed "such a concentra: ion of c:mplain:s to authori:y and of claimed discriminatory actions', of such immediacy of occurrence, and of such cumulativeness of impact that in reality most of the aspects of the

.cceplaint were relatad to mos t of.the aspects of discrimination. The nec-essary causal connections are of a network .na ture." II.

Fur:her, CGL found :nat the timin; of- Parks' sus:ension, a _ cay af ter his

. :ublic filing of the ccmplaint about One polar crane ard related safe:y issdes, was a-clear instance :f causal cc rectica. "Mr. Gis:he? 's des ri;-

ice of the lar;e.s:sff meeting ) decida :n a reacti:n :: Parks' ccm ?ain:,

raaging fr:m firing t0 sus;e'si:c, 3Mc-s ::a: tre 'a:: N!! tie ccn:?!!-;

was filed is 3: 1 east a fac::e in :re :as:ensi:e 'r: Ou y :na: was an cun:ed

. hat day." id.at13.

• scut March 23, !?23, af ee Parks nad 'iled his COL c: 'lin and :uci':! /

sta ed his 'c:ncerns abcu: the polar crane, Arnold (?resice". , GF'sh) called a meeting attended oy Vangi (9f rectcr TMI-2, 3echte!), 2 ar::n (GPLN), othe--

3echtel_ people, and tne en; ire senior staff of the integrated GP' N/3echtel maragemert team--about 23 :c 30 :e:p;e. Curing tnis teet'ng, Sar :n :ecame angry and rec:mmended firing Fark:. A discussi:n w4: '?!d act t restric fri Paris' a::ivities; trey decidad, : urin; :Me eatini, :: sus:en: :!P'3 wi-5

ay. :d. 50.9; If. -.t.-3-2 at 5.

An :ce as's ' i:s T,es:!;1:i: , 7. -e :u re :a : ~~1- S I-?s :e T 1^:+:

.s. '. <. a. s. . .

o....,.

..n. ..

.,.s.,..-s.=. .

2

..-in.e -. .:;.

. . .: . - , . :,.*.-s.

1. F.efrainia; fr:m a<f ; acy ac icr. wnica ;re.e-Mr. Parks fr:m engaging in activities pr0tec:ec by-One law.

y :: .942^  :*a

(

(3)i:The removal by Kanga (Director, TMI-2) of Parks on Merch 17, 1983, as the primary 50 Department' representative on the TWG for the reactor building polar crane project was improper.

(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 withcut - .

permission from Sechte.1 was improper.

00L was primarily concerned with correcting the harm that had befallen Parks,

- so their . investigation went. only as far as they felt was necessary to determine that Park's employer, Bechtel, had improperly discriminated against him for having raised concerns about the safety of the polar crane project.

Once they- reached that determination, they directed remedial action satisfac-

' tory- to Parks. There was no COL judgment issued and 8echtel did not apceal D . the Ccmpliance Officer's findings or directed remedial action. Parks and 8echtel reached a mutually amicable agreement to return Parks to. full-time

-c work with the company on' August _4, 1984. As a result, Parks subsequently withdrew his cceplaint before the Department of Labor.' NRC's review of this matter has led to additional findings which extend beyond these cf CCL and

~

bear on the integrity of GPUN management:

(1) The c : ents by Barton (GPUN), during a GPUN and 3echtel managemen:

meeting, threatening to fire or suspend Parks for having publicly aired his allegations were icproper.

(2) The ccmments to Parks by Xanga, enreatening him not :to cblicly state -2 his concerns accut the polar crane ard telling him that ano:ner empicyae-who had tried to publicly state his safety concerns had tee.- humilia:ed, clearly represented harassment.

..(3) Kar;1-::1d' Parks thtt he had put Sechtei in a bad ligh wi:n a clien:

(presurac!y y raising safety ccccernsit: cut the crire) and s::cd i g:::

cnance of being fire'd. This, in the siaff's view, was a clear :nrei: c' reta!!a:ico.

'?ursuant -to 10 CFR 50.54(f), the licensee was for ally recuested er fune la, 1934, to_ p. ovide inf:rmation concerning, among other taings, its :wn investiga:icn of Parks' allega:ians of harassmen:. The licen:ea's res;cesew-in a le: ar cated June 25, 1984, advised that Secntal -as perf:rri ; its incuiry and ' hat Stier (tre licensee's investiga:Or of c:ner 2s:e::s of

~?2rks' allegations), :herefore, did nct inves:igate 03'3 '3: ar. ' r. a le: e-

~da ed Ju:y 5, 1984, fec: .<. ?. Richeresan (c:unsei f:r Secn:e! cc : e 3:rcs pa::er) to R. C. C e?:ung (NRC), severa! unsuc:ce:ed cia',s we-a ice f Ri:hartscc ::ncern' ; nis de ee 1 cation :na ?ir<s' ai;ega!': s cf irls:Te'-

nere wi-Mca: erit. No c:curentatica ce evitance, tey: : tid: 11 e2d/ 23ris' tvailable :o tne s:aff, was :rovidec by Ricce-:scn (i.e., c .cie' 7:e let:ar of Au;ust 4, 1983, to the Honoracle Jchn Earran, Adminis tetti /e L2w Judge, OCL, with similar letters to Congressman Udall and NRC Chairman Palladino). If such dccurenta:icn or evidence exists, i: has n:: teen

.provided; tnerefore, ne s:aff is unable to eval;2:e nese ursu::or:ed clai7s of 3ech el'3 CCunsel.

m -1*r e w w -e w , -

.-w--+mq+r 6

+9,, m- y

sy - n -u- . a un... - es c- -. a -. -

k t

Y t

e s , t

(,

's h.,

EXHIBIT 2' a

O f

7-.

9 7

1

(

W; .s.. . , _ . . . _ . . , . , . . . . - . _ , - . . - - - . . - . . , . - . _ . . . . . , , . --- - . . ...,_ .. _ . - - . , , , ,. ... . - -- .. , -. -..- - -, -.

J' % _j e- ,

e

%' J 15 -

( .

L -

4 J .,. e

• -~~ **

Q=*

• ey "

% E =.

e

• $ g Jg""ZeebaJ d * " * ' - t= , A

..m

• • . g a.

.. ..,5

.- -J ..:. . .. a .

' S * ". O .9 }.

8 .=.,. $J.* s E- -- Q g y4b e .=y  %.. g. =*

.,y g

• Q -* -* -s. d e. 4. g .2 = =o-.*= - = p

= * ~

g. g, .,f .s..= 4 .s = 2. .. = 3 -J s .

.g . c &1 - * .

J g - ao c . e.s. 5. %.. ',.,%, ggg. ~. J.a. ,. A , . ..u.,,. yo g

. s _. ,,,,2 ,

, , . . , , . ...,.,g

.., m m .; - .. ..

g .J u g <

C .. , -., , 6 _.. , a. .. _4 _. ,.,.  ; =. %. . a ..

, *'b...s....

asJ .U = . "J .s. ".Q 3 8

.I =f fy= g - a- .U. .s =. =n k. i

..7 p -1*, .0 .*2 d .J. .J .!.J 1%.J = . . l 1

a

3. J--- J J J fEa 2* =- -b. g a

. a -#. . g. *,-*T- == C -~ 4 a. -= $ w .#

b m' g.

• b s .*. *. I 11 g e-***-* ** - z-eV - .b. o-CJ . . . . - - .. --- . ., . . .

. e

~~,..1*, C'. . #".~. W.'**# -~ .".

~

".*."..E .De .**.*a ** .* * .' .<. *~..~*.^='~;.=.

.*, e. J..a .~

g

. ._4 3. ... J. ... . ,...e;

.%3a .y J. .,x* e s c.. . ..,.

..g, . g e -..f. b. sa.- .4 o .J. 4. -

. d.~ a. ,

=

...<; ..a ..a 5.  ::.. 5 C E., :. S .'.. . . . ..la e u.,,.,- a. t.J.

.. u. :. a. ,... .. .J .a...-,., .

.. ... b.. .% : a - - . . . - - . .

T * . = =

.s. y y . 2...

• J b d == , b.a *. s. *.* m- .== , .J  %...e..

. . . J. .

, .

• gi e .#..*.*.*.."".""sI- e.* .=. ,S7a. . .s . ~..*/ .' - . . .

. .'a. - a - = ..' .*. . .

,.b.ai.a.a,.,*..**.=.'."8

.* w **

• 3 .s. .<

• b. e

-- .E. w*. e. . . . . .s. =

-s .J.--- J J J ., . . J. . , . %. .. . 4. - 3

• • ".'; .e. =.* e

• i, ?. 3,. . .~e 3J b. 4a. . .. .a a-u

=4

. .V. 3 - .b. _., ..b. a. J _s;. . 1J

.# bEa s a. . 4. 3 .b. o.J ., .T. a.d .J.=.== C . ** Y9 .. 4. a.JJ

.-- 5 =* e 3 .a = b 3 .-=; s aa .

.. - ". .b. a..

.- .. 3. ;4... .. . .- . . ..

d.....d .

v.. .

e. 2 ,

.. A g w

• s.. . - .;

a-. ..J.

. ,,.2..

. . . ..- .. g a. . S . ... .... .:,.. .- . g . .- .b s a- .J. _..;..

, - =1 -J

, .. g . .: 3 .. .J.J .,ga ,.. .,. .,.. . .

J.,. . . -.., ; .. .* . .. . J. . . . ..

3-

-- ..b..-.3...- .- . . .

j

.* -. .. ..

• J. p' .**.-.;- .=- --.n.--... a=. % a .7

b. .,.J

• J- .--- e. , 4

• s. J .J . J. . . g ----  ; .=. b.... ..

./. 3 e. a. ..J.

. .. 3.a g .=.J.

=..a- *.

y s,.. =7 . s.

3. = 4 ..a. * =. .* ".". *.c =.e..g w -.b e = . e. = .s. . ... aJ . .b.a..

f ..=..a..3-3=.a..==.* 7 . l

.V.. . O. s. . 4 2 ' - 2 - 2. 3

- * -a

,e. a . a. -- t =- .3 2 3 .c ..*4 . %. .-.b.- o J

.a. .. .J .J. .J. .s. ... . J . . . 2. . J -

.a J J- . .. L. . .s a. ..

3 3 . , .. . .

.. ..b. 3 tJ  : .....b. . , ..,.2-.

.g ., s.,

s. - - .b... . b. o -aJ.J. .t _J ,..< _* . .j E a. . .b . .- ..J- b. a 3

.e.- n- -m.. . - -

2

• 'n '. . . *

• I 3 Cys 34 . -J .- 8.=..b. .a. .. .e...~....-a...m....

.g . g  ; . g m. -- ... J 4 en,J. . ..

b. 3 .  %., . ,n .*.. . .U ..  ;

. m- . =. . -. 4. =. .w. r a . .. -. -;. m.. . bJ, -.b..s.

s..;>. W .. *--=*2

.-o.-- a-m =. =- ***a.-

== + .* ~a b.1 . . ;. ;

.i.. k.

• 2. m w. -J . b.

. 6 .

..s. a - . 3-b

.J *- .3 .e . . J-. . . a. - f .3..

g..

a ,g 3.J

-.. . d.J. .J . b. s.

a ... s a.

e a

,. .b... . . . . a.

. . - 3. a .;. .a i . .

• , 4 , - . .a. L  %..,. --%. s s-.:

a- ,...---.-.s 2 ... - *- J-.. ' . .

,.J .-

...-.J. J .:a.

. . .J .. .. g n: . - -.. Q .s.., . -..

J. .:. .-J -

...-w:

3J.. .,,.%..,- af

. .3 ? --~9 w. . .. .,.-  : *22 .,,r,... - -*J.. . ' - .- : - - . 3.*<% 4 . b. .b.=- . .e . - .. ..

g. r , % *X a. . - . . *A b

-- o . . 3 -. e.< . . - . . . . . E. . J-

. . . . .? J aE4J .w3. .=.t. . . . , , ... =w --

.., .-., 5 a. a a. . .u . .

• n* -

.. . g .u.n. .. . . '. .J , ,'.9 .

& m. e-- s

....J.

.. .. , . f.

J -%3. . =J

. ., . *,. 5 .b..* J bas .41. - a d . --*J s 2 JJa-

-- .J . .b. s a

.v.--

o . . .. S . 3. - . a- --

1 9*

• e.*s J. .V- = . -1 .

... . =. . s- .=o. -

..  %.a

• S . .%..

- S %. . . . . ' .J .. . %e .a. - - . ..'S. .3 . ,., aX . ..

=. %.

. s .. -

. , .g * ..

f - , - - - - . - -- ., e,-~ . , , , , . , - - - , . - - - - - - . ,-- w- -- - - , . . m .-

I

.,s ..

. ', g,,, ,

/ J .

. .. e- J

.S. . .\...

g ,. u. .a.a. g . . . e .,

. ~

?

f- : - 9 f, R a- .%.

. . - - , ge ..

u -- 3 2 r .. .

A . p. . u.. , . ye n 1A -. e~.

g.:c ,- c e., . ,..

b J

• 1. 'v '* ha n'*--~ .O. _ ",. " " *- - 3".# n'"-.. *

.".'s. = a. .m .a. . we ..a-s.a h.y. a..> ..g

= 3 .

2.* . *.* c - - -

... ~

aa -na M.~ ..

A -- ..--.-

.... pg.qg g fi sn? z. z .y g $g

,a.

.;g g h. 3. j.. $..

. c u e g.,. . e- --.

s  % s c- g --

~..--

% . .J. .- . .- d.g.1 n,<. - .4. ;-- n

-- a' % : . c.: ~ .Ty... .

.. 2 .- -

. A . ., , .,. .; 2 - c - , g g . - , - - -

4  %.. S% ..,.,.t .t. ,.a . . . .

5 1*. .A

. .=..b.4 , . 2 M.. a .

u. .. c._ . . 1.

.. J. .

.. .. .3 . . ,

~

. . Os.- 2,  ? a. ,E5.

g .J g.%.eN =.e-a -, - .5 . 2

• U. - 2- ~

s.; a..., C' C' C* a,s$,. ..

. . ~

.r

= ,....--

4 .. e s-y.

, . . . .. , . . . k.. , g J--- 2A 4 L. . - yG 3.C .Ja.*- v.

• k -

3w m b: -...3 .. . % .t a , .

_ v.- - .

. . -7

. .. '...=..,

> -. .. 2.'..'.

b 1 ,,, 6

.% . LE tg h.. ..%.. - S .?. ..

Su.. ... . . t J. .. ,. 5 ; e ,,,_.X .O

.  %. : -a

. ,..%~w- . . . t .J ;. .. . .

. . t; . *'.

-8*7*.".'_'*,,.'".'.'.. *'%**-_J.

4 ** ** * ** ..A 5 *** * -- *

• ='

• t ** d" *v* ' ****'

.'.as .;..-C

u. . . .. - .

• l* s & 3d J * * .. *

• sa a b * --; a.d b. -.= - , S a- .. a.. . . -.J-b=J .

g .S..= s # . * *-j . . , , bA .**--- h k,.a*O .s. ==$.,.e -

b.sye :.m. ba. b .s.a..J - 9 s.d W . . ., ,. L(u. .*.' ' .

7"

, ..' * ; .. .I ,  : >.

.b...- . o. -s .. a. .. aa

• s -- 3....e -

%..J m .' . . . . .

.6 *

.e=.~. : ==ea .,.._J

= - . . .e a.. i. a.9*

%. . , e . a. % e -....J.,.*.*.

$ =. ., a.J y.

. ..*J.

, . . . _ . =. %.

. a . .

r

a. s3 .

_r ,. J  %,. 4.3

,_e a.s. .a .t s 3... .-

4. w...

.y... J

-  % N.1 . f"3 a . ... ...

.e 5 . - .

.. s. ..a * '.p.. s .

.e. J ad L #*.-r a .= g,.= -- .-- . .= 4 b.e n I a .=

-b* .e. .b. - .T.*;*

.m . ~

s 1

%a. g; .- . . , S %. ,. A . .--

. .. .. ., ,-.e.-. . - . . ,

'. '. 4. . .-- J 1.-

5*.., w ,. -

..~.

...w , . .

.,h

v. - , .., ,

py,,

.s..=.

• . *. ..*.*J * '* .

• a.

"," .. 4 a b. .m .e . .J. ,, .m,

. .* 4. e.=e. M . k.e ,,. .V. o .e. g . . _,

J. .a. ;

• * ;,, a .E a. ..c

.e . m e

• J. . ,

.h .a'= . %. 4 c.

. . (.s

.-).W.a.

.. a E --

.g a .n.=.-

.- .. .e. .z..X s.

. =.==..a..

. , . . .a

• • =.a., 3* ..~..=.c.e'. _

. m a. . .. a 4.-

. .s 3. ,,; f a .

2--

..r*...

a.,. s.=

.  %.. e

(*

.. b 'e. .I

=

• ..a.. ,- -.

• • J -

b. a.. **.s .M 2 ..2...**.

.f .

1. - .= * . =

.% .=. -a J. a.==

w *

b. " . * .* ,

a. 4. . b. . s .** .-- .V .. . .

. =- *J

7. ,

- 6... e =. .= . . a.. ac a..,..a a

• • • • J *

=  % s .# =. . .m. .

J.

- .V = . ".s..==.=..=.

C..;..

-..;  %.. s -4 %3.=.. .3.. b. a... J.. .

• m.J 3 .

s .= . **e  ;. . X' ,

• • • =="o= m.J .-- [ b.*

. ',s .*a .

S,=,. . b. s e3 n s.~.T

• c* *. . .'. ..E.m..7..s=.=.

3 .-

a = = =

. Ea, ,e . .=

. %.. a ./ a

., r* $ .

_u ,. ~,. 2. ,, .u. a ; .. . . , J .

. : a > . . , , . .a.

.. . ,/* S _,

.. . s.

a.

J: . . .~ u., S S .t. ..~ .-- . ..

-* .s. a.., . . .., g

4. . .3.: _4

. 3- -. -. .e. . ,.. , . ,-...;  ?  : . . .

s. .

s...,.. 2. -;,,,.g,.A..,.._,. ...,,. .

~4

. +.. , . r . '.'

...Js

. . , S - :. ,.: .,,.. .

= .. = . .-b.'. *-J -= b d =. = ~b - a-

.J.=.=.

. * . 4 % ,.4

• . . . . .a.-*,a .

-..J. u4 3%,,

• ,=

c. ..J. .

e.

• , -= .. ,,

• • .l,,a

• " e. =

. %.~. a. =. - s

.. * , $' h. 6%.. 3 .o. " ..=- - ,=.=*^-.~3..e.--g

= g. y 7 J ./ -. . ..

~= m.. .-J -- . . ..., . ? 4 J. . ...,

-.2=m a; .. ... ..

..=

s

• • 4-3..a.g a . -

4. .% . .

• 4 %. . , .... . k a =-n 4. , 7 .i. .;. -.- . . .%. o

, J s. 4 ...

. . . . a

- J w a . ..S'a. - g ;" .~

b..=...

== . . - M .. .

.j .

J s..-

' . w - ,s .s.. s. . - .

. . . . .  %. 3 - -- ~

. .r ./ 5 .. ., 2***. ,_ ..

.e .

• ,;. . . _*.i ... .

.J.  %. ....

-.. -.a.: a. ,..... . . . . . .

- - - s. --. - r -

- e.. --

• ..J ~, J S . .

-s  %* .-,-

- -----.- - a .. g.. .s.

J4 ,_

. .e 4

s. .:. 5" "V

.* a .S. .

. .s -

S.-

. er y,,, .

.,....n 4 . . C,;. . - .

~ , . * , , , p

ynn.-

2 I' .c.

.s.

EXHIBIT 3' r

- w=  ;--

.l .*

.s. 'Q

%n

,.'gw

~..7 4

p ;;. .

3 t- . f .

'l 3 _. .

2 -

?'

(

. ... . . _ . . . . .. ...4.....g ....

. . . . . . . . .,s... . .. 5 ,., .. g 3 . . ... 4..m..g.4.

- . .r.-.

....:...*.8r.".*.*.

. , ==.~ w.1y.

n . : wg g s.y. . ..s... .. .

.g. .>.$ .

y-....(.,.g

s. -. . . s. g .a.... ... , . g a y. o.r.

.,y ,.4...

...g.g a , ... ..:..g.

,x.g.,4..........

. ... . g g ......j ..... . . . g , o t. , n o. . . . . . .,4. , o. 5 4 ,, . . . . . .... . . . . . . .

~. . .

!... ggE g*1i

. h... . < =.....5. ..g. .e ..,j.ng. ...d. .:.

w a .a....

k. . g. g. . .g;gp...s...h.y . . . . . . ..{.. , .. s. .. o .a .

E <

.x ... .. l .., g.e . . . e. . .p.. ..; , . . P. 4  : .4. 5 -. .., . .g. 4 .j.,$.5,

. .. . 5....,...4

. . . . . . . 4 g ,. .. ... .., ..,. ,. , C. .14. s. ..

t .. . ~..e.. . . .g. .. . i. g -. .. . .g . . ,. .

. . 4.g $..,..~.

.. ... . .].. ,y 4 4. ... . w _,2. y... . , . ... . . .

6,2...

. .... a . , . s. e. .. ... .s ...' ... .'. .a.s. ... . . a.2.  :: .1. . .. 5 ...

3.~

3..

. . .. . . . . .. 1 w ...

.d.ee.*.. . . a. a.. m i

.2..

' n_

e* t..-

4

= "

9. - . . .

r2........ .. . . . .e....

...,.,4..

a... .. ......... .. ....... .. ,

..,s .

.$a - .- .

....a.......,.. .......

.. .. ........... .g. .....

. .. . . . ...r.. . ..". 3 - 2. . s.. *. . s. e. .s.

2... . ..$.e. .r....s *.. .a . i..*-..

t

-dg -.s.

..- ~~..gs

. . ..m.~.s.......

. . . . . . a.. ..

.. s. . s. .'2..-. . j /."".*. .s .

.. *i...s..

. . . . .  ;. M. .

e '

.}s

. M) . *.

..\. .4 ..., .. .t.

e..... .. ..... . 2 3.. ... .. :. ,. .. ...a

... 3..

• 4;.a. . . '. . .. . ...s .a .s: .. *: ..#

=.v

.g- ,

.\-' ..-s..

... . t 5 3. ...

- :g ' . J J 4 ... s ; 4 .-..

.1...... . . . , . . ... . . . ..;:<. ..

.. 3. ., .3 .. . . . 1 , , , . . . . ... s.......4

-j

. " . >.. ,. . s=-. ...e2.... ..../....., . . , . . . .....

~

b, . .s.. .. ._ ..s.. . m. a.. .. . . ,s. .

3

. .s .e. e .t. . .... . . . .. . . .

r _

,, . ........e,. .... . . . . . ...... , .

...,.s....

... .... . ..... .... . . . ... . ... a. .*

1. ~'\

..- (.

A t

v 2...i. 3.,. . .

4 .'.. .., . . . .

a4..-?.,,i.. .. .. .

4

.[.

N;-- C : ("J. .c - 3 . .jd1 .: -J ""~~

.%~  ; M ,,. Q., ~. . L.N' v

xr A ._.... .-,.s..a..,.-

. .-: . y . .. . . . . . .

.. .. . I. . . . .

...o. _ , , , ,._ . . ,. .., ... . &. . .

..:..4.......,.e.., 1._ . . ..,_:., m..  ;; .:- -

..... .. ... .. . . .......s..,

..... ......e. . 3. ~. - . .s. .,.:.....

s..........:...

.... . . , a. e. ...,.. - . , . .' z.  : n.. .., ........

.. . .. s.. a..s... . .. a. . .. . . : . .. e. . 2...... .

. 2... .,

... . ,s... .. . .. ; ; - - .. ., .......

.. . a . .. : ;: n. ... .. ....

p

.... .2

4. . .......- . .. .

_3., .. . .

3. . .

2 si .;. i. . . . . _ , . ., . . . . . .. . .... ..' . .., ,-.....,a

. .. . . . . .:. - : : ~. . -. .

.... ... .: /' ~$

sp .

.,.o* s. ,*

....,.s....

. :..G 1

> . . . . . . - . . 2. ... .. .. . . .

.... . . . . . ...2.--.:..

.',.'.,.., .:. 5

- ...e...,_...~.s..,.. ... ..

-1... .a.2 ..., ...,$.a

. ...s.

. . . ,.. . ::.... . . s..

O O -

.e.M.. N. D O e,-

s

__.._.._.m.___m_ - . . _ - _ . . _ _ . . _ _

T .:'

ju- .

e

1. 4 '

r .

.s s

{ .

. o .

i

s. ' =s. . s. a y . g =. a. i s. m - .. .g .=~.. e. a. c. e.

e. . n . g e. . a. d. *. .* . *..*. s. .* .- -. . .=.. i , a. . .s e.' . . . - g . ... a. J. a. . .=.. ..

• * - a. ...a. . . . a. a .

...s

.......&..w.. .. . .

. .e.

e . .v . .- . 4. . . *6 . ...

.. .i..r... t.. ..... ..&...,.....C  %. 1 . ._. 15e.

.n ...sp.g .

.g. . . 3 .s .. **g

... ..S *G1. .e m. .,g a.* . ..: j . L* .h. ..a d gj.. ... .u.e.. g gg . w* . '..!!. .: 3 - J. . e. .**nT. , - w s . 4. ,. .

~

esas g .. . .,g. g J. J. { 4..s y4. .. .' ** '

g .- . . e. .... 2 4. .

.E. g :..g n . j ...g s. w.,. .g. ti .. .. .: =..= ..s. s.- s #. *=..s*. ..* a. s. =. #.

s. -. ,..e . t. 3.s. .. .. .. ,..-,$se

-- . p. .. . s. ..

.... , $ ~. s. . . g .. . g . ... .a.v -.egoe s - ,.. . - . .n e. ~..n - s. e.... { .* *; .

• g

..,...,2.... . .. .

-3. g . . . .-:1. .:p .a y 4 . .

.. ..gt

.........v., -

.4*

v.. -

,4;- c. . 3... .

. ..a.: .-.. ..... . . . .,..

....r .

.s..-.. vs... ...:se-

. . sj - . . . . .....a..-.

. ... . .s .. .. 2.2 ..,y e---.2s 1

"N ..s..' .sa..

.... a. . .... *

. . . e....e.

... .. 5...s. .... --

.s.v .-. . . .

-d . . .s - . . . a. . a. <

.s:

-.g 4 . .

- - *.y

. . ... . .a.-.-.s'..-... .

s. . : .a . - s. *. .- a. s .s -.*

g. a. - s. a. . . **=

- . s. e ., - e .* a. - . 17 :'.' . .s - .-

k'}

. ~~~ ** *:*- .-. ***  :: S$ ****-

~

..e ..V.F..'

s. *. * . .s 5 2 '. . .* .".  ; "'- .. . ..'2..'5**~.~.~a o \

\: . s. n-zs. r..... -

.s . . a..y . - * - s. .m e m

e - - '=e ..:--s; --.....  :.- -.

' ' --..<.g s.-- -- ....s... ... . .. .s,.. ..- - - - ~ ~ ^ ~y s -' ^ -' ~ ~ ~

, t - '---- * - - ' *~ .

' 1 /* d

• • = -' * - ' ' - '

,.}^ ==*:::

J .... .s

.' u . .

..a.. 4..... ..a .s i .s *. f;. s.- e , .s .a a. . .. -- .-... .. -- . "

s. - ~ .s * .*

s

~4\ h. ' . . J '..* !.1 *.' . .7; * $

• a.. - s. e.s.

d, e i -. s. I m. v 1"e.'., ..s.=. l.i."....'..

g . ...s.a. ..g

• • . , , . - - .4. a .4a - - - s. e. *... a. "--.s.... .**sa...

• • • =

. . . . s. a. . - .* . *..s. * ..* * . ~;*'* *

• s. ' i s. .

j t

.. ,s

.t..s..s .. 4 ..

.as .. - s. ". s. . ?g " d - s. e.

1 * . *a.. ~-s*.. - e. s. *. - *: .4*m .. '*

• • .. #.** ***?..**

.. : - .*, , , ;.; . ; + ;* .. - . - 4....

.e

..  ?. .s"...,;.....

.. .. . s . . . .

. . . s. g . .s .. .. s. . ., .z. e. ., ..

"2.ge .. 5. -.

.2

. i *. a. ( *. .- s. s. . e. c . e. .e . .s . 4 2  ; ; ". .- .*.

. #. 4 s..e.-.

.-4 4

, - -=3. e. 2-........

..s. ., ..... .

..4a.

e.. . .. . ...., -

.f. .9 r.= ....

.. ... 5,..

f..;

.w . .,, a $ .s ,y .

, ..,g.

s.....

., . . . s. . s. e. . , .:

.. .....s .. ... .. 2. . 3. .

23r...

.s...-*.=, 23

. . . - . f. , . ?. ..s .

3._,. ...

r..... ...

.~. .. ,y..2...f.

3 .- *...;.. . ;.  : ....

4 4 3.',, . .....?*w 4... *a=. . * * . * . ... ". .z r . . . . ' . " * . . *+ .ta. .-*

. .v t. . .s #. # .. s. ..-.s.. *

.a.5. . e. s.

p. ;

.g :e....

.-g

.*.... g .; -.t.33 . ;. ..,..#

. . . ..s.t... 4 .. . . . -

.. e. . c. " s. -

- 1- -

a.*.*.a..**.

s

> i L

,,k' I

.s j

4 y ..

k>

g-4 r

p F

f EXHIBIT 4 i

hm._ -- m .- .,,_. ._ _ _ ..__ ___ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ ,___ . _ _ _

4'

'9 e

Interview of ROBERT C. ARNOLD

't

-.- Interview of Robert Arnold on 8/22/84 s

' Robert' Arnold. indicated-that he had.little specific recollection of the-March 23rd 1983,-meeting. In order to refresh his recollection he was provided with. copies of the portions of the affidavits of Edwin H.

.Gischel that' pertain to the meeting in question. After reviewing the affidavits, Arnold stated that, although his recollection was still somewhat vague, he believes'that sometime during the evening of March 22nd,.1983, he was advised that Douglas Bedell had obtained a copy of-a press release.which was to be issued by Richard Parks at a press conference'on March 23rd. Arnold was not sure whether he was provided

'with a ccpy o'f Farks'. affidavit at-that time. He believes he was not.

He is.certain'that he did not read the' affidavit, if in fact, he was provided-with it prior to.the meeting.

In any event, Arnold decided that it would be wise to schedule a meeti.1g to advise senior staff at Unit 2 of Parks' allegations to the extent the ccapany knew about them, before they learned of them in the 1=edia. Because of the nature of the allegations, he felt that such a mee ting was necessary .to maintain morale during the cleanup and recovery

~

project and to control the development of rumors. He stated emphatically that1he did not schedule the-recting to. decide Parks' empicyment status since: that type of decision would not be appropriate for a general staff meeting. He instructed Bahman Kanga to notify the senior staff a Unit 2 to be present at a =eeting on the morning of March 23rd.

Arnold recalls that Bah =an Kanga called the mee ting to order and explained its purpose. Arnold then su=marized the contents of the press o

s 4

Arnold - page 2 release. After: learning of the Parks' allegations, some of those present

~

beganito ' express their views and to;ask questions of Arnold and Kanga. .

LAlthough Arnold could'not' recall precisely what was said and by whom, it

.was his-impression that-the initial reaction to the allegations-was a sense ofJoutrage~by some of those in attendance. He believes that some Unit 2 staff members expressed the opinion that Parks should be dismissed and notiallowed back on the-Island. He could not recall any particular individualJwho made such comments. When asked directly whether John Barton stated that Padks should'be fired, Arnold said that while such a 1

statement by Barton was entirely possible, he did not specifically recall him having made it.

~

It.is Arnold's recollection that both he'and Kanga responded to the group's comments and questions by indicating that they were studying the Parks allegations'and the-appropriate response to them. Arnold stated that he recalls that the group was advised by both he and Kanga that there were laws that had to be taken into consideration before a decision could'be made regarding the company's response to Parks' conduct.

He pointed-out that Barton was not; conducting the meeting although lue 'was seated with Kanga and himself.

Arnoic nad no recollection of-any comment of the nature of the

_ comme nt

a t t r ibu t ed to Kangs by Gischel that Parks would be gotten rid of quietly. He does not recall advising anyone not to cooperste or speak to Parks when he returned to the Island. He does recall, however, advising

'these-present that-it was company policy not to allow employees to remove company 1decuments from the Island, and that it is possible he could have advised those present not-to provide Parks with any documents. Arnold L u

p- -

I i

y 1

Arnold.--page 3 does_ recall advising'the_ group about the Udall Committee's request to

-interview company' employees. It was his belief at the time that the ,

Udall-request pertained to the mystery man allegation and that after the

Committee staff looked into it, they would conclude that there was no merit to the allegation. As a result, he did not believe that-anyone

.would have to c) to. Washington and testify at heari gs. Arnold believes he was not-aware at that time that the Udall Committee would conduct an inquiry _into the Parks allegations set forth in his affidavit.

Arnold is absolutely certain that no decision was made at that

. meeting as.to Parks' employ =ent status or his return to the Island.

Arnold was supplied with a copy of a letter dated March 24th, 1983, which was written by-Mr. Richard A. Wheeler to Parks. The letter informed Parks that he was being placed on an indefinite leave of absence with pay, . effective -im=ediately. Arnold stated that the decision to not have Parks return to work lat Three Mile Island was made by him after consulting with 3echtel management people in Washington, D.C. later in the day on March 23rd, 1983. He stated that on the flight down to

~

Washington he nad an cpportunity to read the affidavit. Based on what occurred at the meeting and the contents of that affidavit, he did not think it possible for' Parks to come back to the Island and work prcductively with the same people whom Parks had criticized in his affidavit. It was his opinion that the return of Parks to the site would be detrimental to the project and in light of the potential animosity between himself and coworkers.

Interview of BLAINE BALLARD, Sr.

C3~ , -

w a' -

, -Statement of. Blaine Ballard, Sr.

dated 8/30/84 Ballard recalls attending'the-meeting _on March 23,~1983. RHe remembersDthat the_ meeting- was conducted' by Kanga.: He does not remember

' Arnold _being present and-he did not get the impression that Barton was

conducting'the. meeting. It was his understanding that the purpose of the

-meeting.was'to-provide information about the press conference Parks was going to hold later-in the day. .According to him, after the group was

' advised of Parks' allegations, .several individuals expressed the view that he should be fired or suspended. Although he does not specifically

' recall any comments, he believes Kanga responded to this by stating _ chat

Parks had certain rights and that Bechtel was meeting with Parks to work out his. concerns, and that they should not overact to Parks' allegations._ He also. believes there was some discussion as to whether

. Parks-should be allowed on the Island and afforded access to company Edocumends. He believes that the response to these comments was that most likely Parks would still be on site-and people-would have to deal with him. Ballard. stated-lve did not leave;the meeting with a sense of knowing

~y .. .

how Parks was going to be dealt with. hM.en asked specifically about comments attributed to Arnold, Barton and Kanga in the Gischel affidavit, lue stated that he.does not recall any comments by Arncid since he does i not. recall him being present. In respect to the comment 'al'sged to have _

'E been made by Barton.as to firing Parks, Ballard said he does not remember

-Barton making such a concent, although he could have said it. He does

'not recall any. comment by Kanga indicating that Parks be gotten rid of cquietly. He does recall Kanga advising the group that Parks had been to the'NRC'with his allegations and therefore had certain legal rights.

, a

}.

i 1-, , .- - - - - :---- ..--n .

,-a.,, ,,,a, ,,w,- , ,., ,- ,,.,.,a,y , - , - - - -

.dr .

\

e Interview of JOHN BARTON

(

I

r y= -

3

-,v

.r 4

s Statement'-~of John Barton~ i' t

-Dated 8/30/84

-Barton;was.interviewedcinLhis office. His attorney, Michael'Maupin, n .

to'ok'part in :the interview"via a conference call.

E^ ~

Barton recalled attending the' meeting on_ March 23rd, 1983. He b'elieves that Arnold conducted the-meeting and advised th'ose present about.the contents of' Parks' affidavit, which was to-be-made public by

- Parksiat'a press conference later that day. Barton' believes'that just l prior to the meeting he saw a copy of the Parks affadivit although he did not;have an opportunity to read it in its entirety . He recalls Arnold

- further advising- those_ present that the complete contents of the

' affidavit would'have.to'be studied and, therefore, would not be specifically discussed at the meeting.

Barton was provided a copy of Gischel's affidavits and asked whether

-he recalled making the statements attributed:to him. He did not recall stating.that Parks should be fired, but he thinks he did say that he should-not be-allowed back on the Island. .He indicated that he felt this

.way because-he thought that it would be' difficult for Parks to work with

-people afterfgoing public with his allegations. He was concerned tha:

~

the project ~might suffer and he-was also concerned about Parks' safety.

When asked whether it'was possible that he ccalc have said Parks should be fired, Barton' replied 'I'have beer. known to say things like that, but s

I' don't remember su'ch a statement being made at the aceting. Barton was jasked-whether or not he recalled the statements attributed to Arnold and Kanga in the Gischel affidavit. He does not recall any specific P

e m ~

• g' -w.- -p - ~ p. ee,~-r,w., - m 4 en - 4 gny g- e .rm s~., ,,ve m-eq -.sm------sw2m.,,nw r sm y. -- w --- . -

k

.- + - -_,

t Barton - page 2 statements by-either individual.. He was asked whether he recalled Arnold or Kangalstating Parks had certain rights. Again he indicated he did not Trecall any specific. statements made by either individual. When asked

~

whether-or not he remembered-any comments by Arnold about the Udall Cammittee, Barton'said he seemed.to recall some discussion about-the Udall Committee and Henry _Myers;:however, he did not recall any 1 specifics. Barton-was. asked whether there was a decision made at the meeting as-to'what Parks' status would be with the company. 'He did not recall any specific discussion about Parks' status. It is his belief

.that'any discussion about Parks concerned making sure he was not

-harrassed when-he returned to the-Island bacause of what he said in his raffidavit.

3

)

'*. t 6

i :ssmW~, "

g?' -

h k

i -

11 p

i -. 4

?

[,

W-r

• }

IGCerview of p

DOUGLAS H. BEDELL I

L h' .

p.

N -ir<'ve' *6 . e.%,_.._ _ , _ . _ _ , . _ -

-~~- - - . _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~E-" ,,w ,q-,,

e, --

s - ,

i s_ ,

s

t. +-

r Statement of Douglas H. Bedell

, - 8/29/84 4

=

'AboutI3:301P.M. on March'22,_1983, Bedell, received a call'from Robert-St. , George of UPI . advising -him that- he had a copy of ' a press release by 2

' GAP 1which referred to allegations. contained-in'an affidavit.of Richard Parks and that?a press conference was scheduled for March 23rd with respect to the contents of the affidavit.. St. George orally advised Bedell of.the= nature of the allegations. Bedellistated he then went'to Bahman Kanga.and informed!him of what he had learned. At that point,

.Kangascalled Parks to his office, whereupon Bedell asked' Parks whether.or cnotnin fact.he hadia. press conference sc'heduled for the next day. Parks ,

stated 1that he did. No further questions were asked of Parks and he left.

-Kanga' asked Bedell:if he could get a copy of Parks' affidavit before 7the' scheduled press conference by Parks. At 11 p.m. that night, Bedell-jobtainedaa. copy;of.the affidavit fro a confidential l source. He was

advised'the next. day tol attend a-staff meeting in the morning. Just prio'r to this staff meeting he provided a' copy of the affidsvit to L Kar.3a andigerhapsuto.Gifford-and Arnold. That-is the

first time he provided

~

anyone with alcopyfof the affidavit he hadJobt'ained.

His recollection is L ShatEKanga, Arnold,cand Barton were in the front of the' room at the beginning of;the =eeting. He do'es.not recall the statements of any

particular indivi' dual ~, but the p,urpose of the meeting seemed to be to "iadvise-Unity 25 staff-personnel of the anticipated press conference and to

~

tryytolkeep their spiri:s up during the cleanup and recovery project.

v .

~.

%: 1 c-g~ r c/

' Jp

?V ,

y - q . -

r: .

b , ,,

r

,y 4 ;

^ '

- Bedell - page 2-

~V l, With respectLto-the allegation ~that Kanga.said Parks would be taken R}

g care ;of quietly,1 Bedell' does not recall any -discussion as to strategy to ,

p I

be--follow'ed' by the: companyT in' regards to- Parks ;

^

He. believes'there was:some grousing andLspontaneous remarks made by-membersiof the> group in reference to. Parks conduct, but'Bedell does not

-- recallithat.any? specific proposals or deci'sions regarding-Parks were made 4

_ at the -meeting. Bedell stated he did not leave the meeting with the yimpression that a decision-had'been made regarding_the employment status cof Parks'. Specifically,'hefdid'not have the_ impression that Parks was

' going to-be fired.

_ When Bhdell was asked-whether.he: recalled' Bob Arnold commenting.that t

this' problem was just'a1 flash in-the pan, he. indicated he'did not remember

~

y. :s'uch a comment. He believes'thereiwere general _ statements that the matter was-going to be investigated and that everyone should coop'erate. Bedell

' as - shown a . copy of Gischel's af fidavit of April 4, 1983.- He did not

. recallithe statements. attributed to Barton in that affidavit. He believes

. (that an-upcoming hearing of the Udall Committee was mentioned as one of s

the forums-in whick the! investigation was likely to occur. But he does 7 ~

not' recall the refe'rence-to thefUdall Committee being_in the context of

'the,GLschel affidavit -- that Robert Arnold suggested that Parks would not

be} invited to testify or'said thar. "he felt sure i': would all bs. e quashed."

~ .

1 y

/

6' N W e ry m

3. .

i k

i 5

4 Interview of JOHN C. DE VINE, Jr.

k I

>;^

e' 3

r 1#

t'

(?

..4 ,

v,ge, s  ;;;

-3

~

9.. ,

.f/ ' s

j. g

-o >>

, ._ h { > <. J ' c" ,n ,

.1

. Statement by: John .C. DeVine, Jr..

~ . dated 8/30/84

Devine has.no-specific recollection of attending the meeting on March rt 123, 1983'. When shown a copy of!the Gischel affidavit, whereby Gischel

?

s ' Y.

-indicates he'was pre ~sent atithe meeting, DeVine~ stated:that he may have

' b st attended:the meeting,,but again has no specific recollection of what ochurred'. . He.indicatedythat on that' day he was scheduled ~to take a

~

2

-flight.to San Francisco at 11 o' clock in the morning, and;that;perhaps he

. was. distracted.. However, he'does recall reading a copy of Parks?'

~

~

affidavit ^on the flight'to the' West Coast. It is his belief that'either he was p2Avided a copy of that affidavittbefore leaving,'or obtained it lat;the March 23rd meeting. .In any case,s he does not' recall anything

.+

- f ur ther . . y

~

6-

,h J.

[ {l,1l- e

-o, i ,

, ,;' :t , :3- _ ,

' 5 J

QD_

r ,

jk n ).

~

I 1

. . '.4 ab. ,

l. h v._._.. , , _. . . _ _ . . , , . . _ . _ , _ . , . , _ , _ _ __ . . _ _ . , . . . _ _ , . - _

1,~;

e t

Interview of EDWIN H. GISCHEL f

6 l

y  : . .

- g.

h;> ;. . '

@ ,* ~lStatementfof Edwin H. Gischel

e

' dated 9/11/84

.;Mr. Gischel/ rec 511s attending the meeting on. March 23rd, 1983. Prior 141 - . .

G- ' "toHattending-the. meeting, he advised-that-~he was aware-that Parks had s

a: ibeen preparing an affidavit; outlining his safety concerns 1 relating to the

.cleanupJandL recovery project. In addition, he-also had some brief

,discussionsLwith Parks concerning-the'Udall Committee's. desire to talk'to-

~

gi iParks.n Just: prior to the start of the meeting he believes it is possible-

-that!he.was:either advised by his secretary or by others in attendance

~

4that the. meeting.wo~ld u pertain to Parks' allegations and what would txt

~

.. . done with1 Parks as a result of his going public with these allegations.

~

'Gischel1 stated;that he thinks that Arnold, Kanga and Barton came into the meetingLtogether. He believes-that Kanga opened-the meeting and'that most of the statements were,made by these three individuals. Although

~

2

, Gischel i doesinot-recall specificfremarks concernit.g the purpose of the ,

,  ; meeting,Eit was his impressionLthat they were there to discuss what

?should be done about Parks'as a result of his actions. Mcw people should c

react:to Parks.whenLand if.he returned to the Island was also discussed.

li i -There was:some-discussion of morale and continuing work on the cleanup-

~

= project but-Gischel~cannot recall any specifics. He is not certain that Lthere~wasLanyfdiscussion about ensuring,that Parks was not harrassed when

~

2+E -

/he' returned to the Island. Gischel was shown a copy of his-affidavits

'and: asked whether'or'not it was'still his recollection that the cen=ents that'hel attributed to Arnold, Kanga and Barton were made at thst T- =eeting~. _ Af ter reviewing his af fidavits, Cische'l stated that he believes

e =- ; -

4-1 LGischeli- page 2

that'the' comments.were made by.those~ individuals as he previously

. reported.c!When asked to-discuss the specific statements that he could ,

recall, he' stated that his present recollection was.somewhat vague, .but-

' 1he-remembered'the discussion;that:related primarily to Barton's statement ithat; Parks'should be; fired. .It is at this point he believes Kanga made'

'the(comment about transferring Parks and'getting rid of him quietly.

- G'ischel . believes . that ~ af ter' Barton ^ made the statement, Kanga advised that they.had tolbe' careful.how they talked and that Parks could not just be

. fired Llike - that. Gischel stated that Barton replied that Parks should

-notibeJallowed'back on site. He recalls Arnold making a statement that Parksishould'be provided'with documents if.he requested them. -He

. believes that at that point Barton objected and said that nothing should i

~ ~

be provided to him. It is Gischel's' belief that Arncid then changed.his

=positionfand advised the group not to provide any documents to-Parks.

Gischel also-seems to remember Kanga stating that Parks' status had'-to be

' looked into and that;further discussion regarding Parks was thereafter-

" tabled."

Gischel states that, although no decision was made as to Parks'

~

statusiat the meeting, he left with'the impression that Arnold,.Kanga and

.Barton intended to fire Parks.

p ,

s

r-e-

Interview of HENRY HUKILL-

_.e- _

1 s

1.- '

Statement'of Henry Hukill

? y- taken 9/30/84 Mukill'statedsthat at'some time the morning of March 23, 1983, he was t-asked to' attend a meeting of'primarily Unit 2 personnel. The meeting, as .

he recalls-it,:was conducted by-Ecb Arnold and Bahman Kanga. Both individuals madel statements advising those present that Parks was about

- to go--pub'lic with charges relating to safety ' issues at Unit 2,

- among his; complaints would be safety allegations against GPU and Bechtel personnel with respect to the conduct of the polar crane project.

It.was Mukill's impression, based on the comments by Arnold and Kanga,;that-they were attempting to keep the meeting as positive as possible in an' effort 1to keep morale up and continue the project. It was Hukill's belief th'at some people were upset with Parks' allegations and a

.few of them may have expressed their anger during _the course of the meeting. He believes-Arnold advised the group that.the issues raised by Parks would be investigated but that the project must keep going. There was some-discussion as:to how Parks should be treated when he came back onMthe Island. Hukill believes Bahman Kanga advised the group that Parks

'had legalfrights that had to be protected.

Hukill cannot recall specifically any remarks made about Parks. He has no recollection.of statements made by John Barton. He does not

--recall any discussion about allowing Parks access to company documents.

-HeEvaguely recalls some' mention of the Udall Committee but re esbers no specifics. Mukill= explained his lack of recollection as to specific Lu .

r .c 1 m g_

'n' Hukill --page 2'

.._ comments-by stating-that.thefmeeting primarily involved Unit 2, and that he was not responsib'le for'any'of the individuals mentioned in Parks'

-affidavit.,

He;did recall, possibly, of' hearing at some time from Kanga that LParks would be transferrediwithout loss of pay. He may have heard this at;the. March 23rd meeting or at some later point. He is certain,

.however, that he did not get.the impression that the purpose of this meeting'was to discuss what would be done with Parks.

e R

-w.>-

. w 1942 nr ,w- - - -

^

e.

1-e:

l:l l .

\

F .'

I Interview of I

c BAHMAN KANCA

{

e U

1 g

[t 4

n,, w r, - an - , , , - ,.r-. , . . - - . - . . . . , . . _ .

re ,

+

p-

s. _

l IC Interview of Bahman Kanga-on 8/ 22/84 and 9/12/84 '

n

.Mr.:Kanga was. interviewed on the' dates above over the telephone. He

expressed'little specific recollection of what' occurred at ths March 23, '

.o '

L 1983 meeting. ..Kanga does generally recall, however, that Arnold asked

~ him toischedule a meeting with all.the Unit 2 department managers and

- their--immediate subordinates-for the-morning of March 23rd so that he could.brisf them onta press conference which was to be held by Parks

? ,

later-that. day.

" ' - Kanga .does not' recall who opened the meeting, but he believes that he'and Arnold ~ spoke about what Parks was going to say at the press conference. He a'so I believes that Arnold may have read:a summary of the

press. release'to the group. Kanga is not sure whether the affidavit was even'available at that time. In any event,.it is his belief that neither he nor Arnold had an opportunity to review in detail the affidavit of Parks prior to the meeting.

~

.Kangr is certain that it was.not the purpose of the meeting to maxe a decision:regarding disciplinary action against Parks. In responding to

. questions and statements from the people attending the meeting, it is

.Kanga's recollection that-both he and Arnold advised them that Parks had to be treated' properly and that he had certain rights. He vaguely recalls-that there was some discussion about restricting Parks to certain

, , specific areas on site when he returned. He does not recall a discussion about allowi.ng Parks access to company documents. It is his recomlection D

1 ps .:!

v:. - -

1 q-

~

.Kanga - page 2

.y that the' discussion regarding Parks focussed on.how he was to be treated m

when- he returned to the Island and not how he was to be disciplined.

Kanga believes it.is highly.unlikely that he or Arnold would have discussed that type of matter in a meeting with over twenty people, i

Kanga was. read the contents of the Gischel effidavit pertaining to the_ March 23,11983 meeting. When asked specifically whether or not he

. recalls any~of'the conversations mentioned in the Gischel affidavit, Kanga indicated he 'had no specific recollection of any of the specific

_ remarks attributed to him or any_of the other individuals mentioned in the: affidavit. When asked specifically whether he could have said Parks

.w ould be gotten rid 1of quietly after being put on a leave of absence, he did.not!~ recall saying that, and strongly doubts he would have made such a statement. In addition, Kanga pointed out that apart from matters of job-site deployment, as Director of Three Mile-Island Unit 2, ha did not have the authority to decide'what action to take in respect _to Parks' conduct and that the decision would have to be made by Bechtel officials in Gaithersburg. As a result, he believes it highly unlikely that he would have'cade such a comment. Kanga was also asked whether he recalls-Robert Y

.. Arnold originally taking a position that Parks should be extended

' cooperation and then later changing that position when objections were

~ raised by John Barton. Kanga stated that he does not recall that ard

~

doubts if Robert Arnold would have changed his position because of Barton's objections.

. l

m

.a .

s.

Kanga --page 3 It was Kanga's recollection'that the discussion regarding Parks 3

focussed on1 affording him proper treatment if and when Parks returned to .

the-Island. wit was not until later that a decision was made by Bechtel

- to put Parks on a. leave of absence. It is'his recollection that the basis of this' decision'was that Parks had made a number of inflammatory a Jand,' disparaging allegations which would prevent him from effectively working with other employees at the TMI-2 site and that his presence on site-would disrupt ~the.workrof other employees.- Kanga did not recall any

~

" discussion of the Udall Committee at the March 23, 1983 meeting referred tofby Mr. Gischel.

~. y xp - my v.

,'._i-'

.m.. .

g.

t ,

e 7'

lt s.

k

-n .

Interview - of g _.

JAMES LARSON t

p 1

Wl m nnnm_,.n n . ., , n-- -_n-.,n .-,--n. - -----,--e,_,,-,-.. --- :,- - - - ~ - - - - , - - - -

. , y -- -

3.

u:

}.

4 Interview of James Larson

. dated 8/30/84-LArson recalls attending-the meeting on March 23rd, 1983. He believes;that the purpose of the meeting was to inform Unit 2 supervisory -

staff that' Parks was going to attend.a press conference during'which he

~

would make.public certain1 safety concerns.that he had regarding the conduct of the Unit,2 cleanup and recovery. project. He recalls that

~ ~

1 Arnold informed the group of the Parks' allegations and-instructed them LtoLeocperate with any investigations that resulted frcm the allegations.

! :Larson believes Arnold also instructed the group to be careful as to what they sa'id so that nothing could be misinterpreted. Larson was provided

~with'.~a copy of Gischel's af fidavit. After reading it, he was asked

'whether or not'he recalled the statement attributed to John Barton in that affidavit. Larson indicated that the' statement attributed to Barton

.was.a fair characterization of what-he had said. He believes,others may.

have made1sim'ilar statements, but cannot recall anyone specifically.

Larson: stated that it is his recollection that Arnold and Kanga responded

'to-Barton's comment by stating he (Parks) had legal rights which had to

.befrespected and that in all likelihood he would be returning to the Island. -He~ believes that they further stated that there was to be no

_ physical or mental abuse to Parks when in fact he did return.

Larson was asked whether'or not he recalled that Kangs had stated that Parks would be taken care of quietly, as reported in the Gischel

-affidavit. He does not recall Xanga saying that. He is not certain, but he believas'Kanga may have mentioned that Parks possibly could be i

p' m

gy..z-Larson - page 2

transferred. Larson added that he could not swear to this since he was

' uncertain as to whether Kanga, in fact, said that at the meeting or at some'other time. -Larson'does'not recall any discussion about allowing It.is his impression the overall-Parks access to company documents.

content of the meeting. concerned advising the group as to Parks'

' allegations and that everyone should remain cooperative. In addition, he feels that there was a general instruction to be careful that their remarks-were not taken out of context. Larson also believes that there

',  : was a clear indication to those attending-the meeting that there was to

- be no retaliation against Parks.

4

4 I-- .

y g

I-l-

f i

[

I I

} Interview of l

f KENNETH PASTOR l

e i

t i

,I f

A _ = _

r r i

3" Statement'of Kenneth Pastor -

dated 8/29/84 Pastor _ recalls _ attending the meeting of March.23rd, 1983. He believes that after the meeting was called together by-Bahman Kanga, Robert-Arnold advised those in attendance that' Parks was going to hold a press conference-regarding concerns.he had about safety problems at the TMI-2' site; He' believes Arnold also-stated that Parks would be coming back.on site and ths.t he was to be treated properly and not harassed. He understood this-to be a direction.from Arnold to the group.

It is his recollection that a number of those-attending the meeting

-expressed displeasure with what Parks.had done and that some may have said that Parks should not be allowed back on the Island. Pastor recalls '

thatL Arnold said something to the ef fect that Parks was not to be

-provided with co.mpany documents but was to be supplied with.anything he needed to perform his duties. When specifically asked whether he recalled Kanga stating that Parks would be taken care of quietly after he creturned, Pastor said he does not recall-such a statement. He also did not recall Barton stating that Parks should be fired. He'did not recall any statement by Arnold whereas Arnold classified the problem as a " flash

in'the pan." He does believe some reference to the Udall Committee was made but can provide no specifics.

It is Pastor's belief that there was no decision at that meeting as to how the company would deal with Parks as a result of his going public withithe allegations. The problem of how Parks should be dealt with was viewed as a personnel matter that should be resolved by Bechtel and not by GPU.

.-