ML20135H516

Responds to 850220 Request for Rept Re Dept of Labor Investigation Concerning Rd Parks Complaint Against Bechtel North American Power Corp.Sanitized Rept Encl

ML20135H516
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/27/1985
From:	Craven J LABOR, DEPT. OF
To:	Axelrad J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20135H513	List: ML20135H516
References
NUDOCS 8509230717
Download: ML20135H516 (12)

Text

V

% c ,,

U.S. Department of Labor Emetoyment Stancaras Acministration . . - ,

Wage and Hour Civision .

• • ,g m umei sir.e, -

Philadelphia, PA 19104

., j l i

l l

February 27, 1985 Reply to the Attention of.

Ms. Jane A. Axelrad 0! rector Enforcement Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washinton DC 20555

Dear Ms. Axelrad:

This letter is in reference to your February 20. 1985 request of the compliance officer's narrative report concerning an investigation conducted by this agency pursuant to a complaint filed by Mr. Richard D. Parks against Sechtel North American Power Corporation at Three Mlle Island.

A copy of the sanitized report is attached. Appropriate Information has been deleted as you have noted that it may be necessary to publicly release the in- ,

formation.

if I may be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me.

Sin erely, n , r ptslstantRegionalAdministrator for Wage and Hour ,

e 8509230717 850920 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G PM *

- -- ~ - - . . - , ---- - ,. -- - - , , , - --

g i

. l 4

l Richard D. Parts' idhistleblower Canelaf nt (ERA) Against tecnts' North american we Corocration at Three alle Island '

This report ccacerns the constltation effort and the investigation conducted pursuant to CFR 29. Part 24 in the come14 tat of Richard D. Parts, dated ,

3/23/83, and his supplemental comp 14 tnt. dated 4/22/83.

Beckersund

! Nr. Parts Startup as Senter was hired tagineer. by techtel Grade North American Power Corporation (Sechtel)

Department at the Three Nile Island (TMI) jobsite.en 5/24/82, in the Startup Eng responsibtifties includin He was given var 14vs damaged Unit !! reacter. g Alternate Startup and Test Supervisor for the His beginning salary was monthly. Sechtet acts (GPUN). as aa licensee contracter er nuclear of the subcontracter Regulatory forCammissten General Pubitc (NAC)1 Utilities and S was brought in to defuel the reacter, la g/82 there was a management reorgantaatton site owner. GPUN. for cleanup activities. of an integrated program with the putting Sechtel in charge as operations engineer in the Site Operations Department (50), hea its Director. Lawrence P. Etng, who later appointed Parts primary 50 Polar Crane Project. representative en the Test Werting Group (TW) for the I

meetfication and new systems, and interfacing with task g compliance with standards, operettonal capetilities, and MAC rules. Under GPUN's condition NRC duringIfconse. the recover 50 is directly responsible for the safe shut-down of his employer. Sechtel's. y program. Thus. Parts' jot involved review paperwork to east strictures and requirements.

Parts' selection by King for this work involved. King states. Parks' .

I From 11/82. $0 participated in the Head Lift Task Force Interdepartmenta

toads up to 170 tons were to be lif ted by the reactor' which reacteroperated butiding. high on traversatte supports running fully around the The crane moved latere11y on a trolley crossing the df aatter of the building, thus providing complete posttional access belo .

j on need for conformity with precedure manuals o plant systems (AP-1043 , and Unit !! testing AP4047). Further progress became unsettled follow)ing a 1/6/83 technical (memor radf ation under the reactor vessel head than previously estimated. The polar crane probles.

this radiation readiness50date was advanced to permit its use disputed this advance.

in examin A question arose 1

- whether the polar crane, having been turned over to Bechtel to fin. was a project given them. and requiring 50's approval af ter the crane's return to GPUN, and not requiring $0's overview in the process of repate .

The polar cranetgain became an issue in 2/83 when approval was sought for a Safety Evaluation Report (SER)

Parks, with $0. had objections to claimed program tencies and refused to approve the SER. tah. C-3)

NRC disapproval on several polar crane asp (ects (Enh. C-4).There w discriminatory actions taken against Parts arise fromThe hisclaimed reactions to Ms '

alTeged safety related issues. perceived pressures to yield, and his un on 8/27/82, indicating he met or onceeded all requirements.He Among the had rece "esceeds" relations, initiative, categories and pretten were jetanalysis. knowledge, flentbility, cooperation, clien "taceeds Requir Overall he was ested ements". (See tah. 0-1).

>a --,-,e------- .-n, - - - - , , a w--. -. - - - - . - - - - .av,-------------,----,--.,----,,-.,-,,------c. ,---,---~w.,n- -,-_-n-

2 Comelaints' Parts, through his attorney Theres Devine, of the Government Accountability Project, filed a complaint with the Secretary of 1.4eer by letter dated 3/2J/83 and further suppleented by letter dated 4/22/83. Parks' com-plaints claimed he was discriminated against in the tones, conditions and privileges of his employment as follows:

1.

On 2/23/83 he was informed he had been reiteved of his duties as Altorneto 5tartup and Test Superviser at TMI Unit !!.

2. On 3/14/83 he was interrogated by a techtel esecutive and an Internal auditor as part of an investigetton inte violettons of alleged employee conflict ef interest standards.  ;

3. i On 3/17/83 he was replaced as the primary 50 Department repres-entative on the TWS for the Reacter Sulletag Polar Crane Project.

4. On 3/24/83 he was placed on leave of absence with pay and prohib-tted entry to the jo6 site without permission from Sechtel. .

Concillation Effort I Parts and his attorney. Thomas Devine wished to conciliate Parks' return to his job from the indefinite leave of absence with pay status he was in.

The Compilance Officer (CO) met at TM1 on 4/27/83 with Mr. Kennedy P.

Richardson. Attorney for tochtel and Mr. Ronald Freemereen. Sechtel's Recovery Program 01 rector, fo11owing6ffort for an earlier mutually satts-factory meeting date. Neither Mr. Parts nor his attorney were present.

Mr. Parts' 4/2i/83 "make whole" position (Eah. A-3) was presented by the CO. Sechtel, through its representatives rejected the position. Attorney Richardson stated that the whole matter involving Parts was under internal

- study by techtel, and acessingly he rejected these proposals that l'ad been submitted.

Mr. Richardson furtner stated that Sechtet would not engage in any blacklisting of Parks. He provided the CO a letter dated 4/27/83 responding to the complaint issues, and describing 8echtel's views of the actions of Mr. Parts. (See tah. A-4)

Investiestion:

1. On 2/23/83 Alternate Parksand Startup wasTest informed Supervisor he had been relieved at TMI-Unit II. of his duties as i Parks' complaint relates a series of events he believes led to the above, as follows. Parks states in his complaint that on 2/17/83 he was asked

-l by 50 Otrector King to review the polar crane load test procedure. W1th i King's concurrence he issued his connents to Mike Radhill. Polar Crane

'{ Task Force leader centering on lack of conformity with the procedures as provided for by AP.1043 and A'-1047. Parks relates management rejected these comments, and that on 2/18. Ed Kitler. Supervisor of startup and test. '

questioned what Parts was doingand indicated upper management's dittatts-faction to the point that he (Kitler) had been asked what has to be done to get Parts transferred off the site. Parts states Ettler repeated the threat before two other persons. Including King, and Kitler attributed tt to Rick Gallagher. Aaststant Of rector of Site Engineering.

he felt throetened, and that morning asked an on stte NRC official howParks says to report a reprisal threat. Per advice received. Parts states he spoke to Joel Wethe of MAC Inspection and (nforcement, who empressed A *dte view

• of transfer and the possibility of I 4 E investigation.

Parks states that on 2/22 he was called to a meetin Manager of Recovery Programs, and Sehnen K. Kanga. g with Jim Thetsing.

to discuss Parts' polar crane comments.. The following Otroctor of Unit II.

day, another meeting, widely attended, was held to discuss AP.1043 and AP.1047 1 4

-_ _.-,_.,_y. _ . . , - . __._._g.-___,,,,__,,_,___.__,_...r., _____m. .,_ ,-r- , _ . , _ , , . . , _ .

4 .

3

,i 1 applicability for the entire polar crane refurbishment and test program.

t Parks states Freenemen argued the AP's did not apply and distributed l coptes of a g/82 Construction Dest. Project Instruction for all to sign promptly saying all departments had previously agreed this document i governed all techtel work. Including the polar crane. tut. Parts comments, he and others had not seen the instruction before ner had signed it.

It would have overriden the entire GPult system of Quality Assurance (QA) centrols, and vtelated AP's 1043 and 1047. and circumvented the entire

! revien and approval cycles. Parts argued the apelIcattIity of the two

AP's. and the need to comply with the QA manuals. He says he pointed '

out a legal evaluate themeans precedure. to approve the polar crane test via use of a Tist to 1

Parks states that during the meeting he had said that in his current role as alternate startup and test superviser he was stt11 ressensible to i

! identify potential QA audit deficienciest that Thetstag interjected to i infore him he no longer had to worry atest theti a manerendum had just been issued appointing a new alternate, thus relieving Parts (Esh. A-1) when interviewed, stated Parts always spoke his mind at meetings. and had thu attitude that if you did your jet correctly and persevered in the truth atest It, all would work out all right. He described Parks' coepetence and knowledgestility. He said that he had cautioned Parts that since he worked for Sechtet, who were pressing for shortcuts he was resisting, his employer would make trouble for him.

}

verifted that en 2/18, in office.

to Parks. that management's vetted the threat be done to get Parts transferred off site. had asked what could 3

the disagreement Parts had with techtel on the polar cra oad t j j,]j. He states Parks was 06jecting to the administrative aspects e

l 14ckt fNc a ty Se htel was seeking to use author 124 tion documents 1 -

Sechtel's attorney Richardson, in his complaint response dentes any causal connection between Parks' rettef as alternate startup and test supervisor, and any empression by Parts of his previously empressed views. Richard.

i Son states that Parts was assigned to the 50 Department performing the

. duties of an operettens engineer, repotting daily to the Manager of Plant Operations.

} At the same time he was assigned to the Recovery Programs i

' Department under the supervision of Edward Ettler. Startup and Testing Supervisor, nate and in this capacity Kitler had designated Parks as his alter.

during absences.

And that in January or early February. Ettler's 4

Site Engineering superiors advised him that Parts' designation as alternate l

}

made ne sense from an orgentaattonal vieupoint. and should be corrected by sehstitettag asether engineer. Owight Idalker, as alternate supervisor.  !

On 2/18 Kttler made the change.

that the NAC Interviewed techtel witnesses about a possible tran an employee off TMI. but the employee was not identified.

'I Chemical Engineer, states that Parks' working as an oper.

{ attens engineer in 50 did not in any way confilet organtaationally or i

otherwise with his assignment as alternate startup and test supervisor,

! The two assignments were fully compatible, since Parts had intimate know.

j ledge ofhim bothwere testsupplemental.

and seeintstrattve procedures, se the two responsibt, lities for cites his own assignments on j another project both as lead project engineer and concenttantly a Clas s 2 j

i

. 5tartue total job.and Test Engineer, the dual responsiblitties facilitating the

{ authority in approving the work aspects because of his objec procedural and testing plans.

4 i

supervisor had the purpose of elletnating a source ofstates that Pa being made. Rrecedural objections

I - ,

i I

- . - , .- ,--. . n _ . - - - _ _ _ _ . . , _ - . _ - _ _ _ . _ ~ . - . - - . , _ - , , . - -

.. ~. .- - - . - . _ _ - - . -- -. . _ -

. 4 .

j .

• Parks' further esp 14Iatio3 of this chang) is that alth: ugh technically he did have both sides to represent, he was sougnt out by Kitler at the end of 1982 to be his alternate. Kttice eventually planning to leave. and wanting someone to take over as supervisor. Also. a year earlier. Parks was Startup and Test Supervisor for the Unit Il submerged Destneralization i System, and thus was emportenced. Parks states many others have dual duties-strikingly the management official John Barton, who is now Deputy Director of Untt !!. and thus in charge of all wort done here, and also has duties in directing 50, which has charge of approving the same work. Parts mentions aise slutlerly dual confrontational jobs held bf and l Parks states his relief as alternate startup and test superviser came without any prior indication and that no other such reshuffilag has been done.

i

2. On 3/14/43 Parts was interrogated by a dochtel executive and an internal  !

i auditor as part of an investigation into violation of unidentified employee conflict-of-interest standards.

This complaint relates to the aftsmeth of the dismissal from GPUM employ.

ment on 2/24/83 of 5tte Operations Director I.awrence P. King. King had 1

been Parts' boss in this oversight group, and both had consistently opposed l what they perceived as a steady derogation of concern for procedural and

{ technical principles including safety in the Unit !! ciecnup, i

! Parks states that on 2/24/83. the day following his removal as alternate 1

{ Startup and Test Supervisor for Unit !!. King appointed him the primary l

Site Operations representative on the TWG for the polar crane project.

, He states that at quitting time that day. John Barton asked King if he

! was President of Quiltech Company, and being so advised. Barton suspended  ;

King. Qut1 tech is a " jot shop

• for the nuclear power industry, akin to agencies that furnish later to employers. GPUN. Parks states.saw this activity as a conflict of interest. {

)

Parks, as 50 representative, states he continued to voice his safety I concerns at meetings that followed and on 2/28 sought to include a i

! variety of issues on the agenda of a blue ribbon Readiness Review Committee for the polar crane. Further, on 3/1. he and King's replacement. Joseph i

Chwestyk. rejected the findings of the startup and test supervisor that the polar crane lead test procedure was esasst from the adeinistrative manuals. Parks states they issued a memorandum indicating the concurrence of the head of QA in this, and offering several suggestions for procedural l

solution to the problem. In a 3/3 meeting to discuss the agenda for a I polar crane presentation dry run for the Readiness Review Committee that t was to meet. Mr. Theising stated the presentation should emplain why the i structural nature of the crane and its hook are covered byQA and Q control j rules, but that the crane's cable that lifts the hook is not. Parks states he questioned this, emplaining why the whole apparatus was important to safety; and Mr. Theising replied only the Crane's structure was, and only a person of limited inte111gence would think otherwise. Parks'

belief is that the exclusion of the cable was because it was too late to L fully inspect it without removing it completely from the drum. On 3/4 I at the first polar crane TWS meeting the QA people explained various defic.

1 fencies found in their review. Parts states he identified various open items in the crane's no-load test

! raised numerous additional concerns. including procedure.

theand usealong of

• dummy with others fuses

• l ,instead of operational fuses.

I Parks states that on 3/g. l.awrence King called him, following a discussion wtth Robert Arnold. President of GPUN. King said he thought Mr. Arnold was attempting te implicate Parts with well. King said Arnold had asked about those at TMI Quiltech. in order to fire him as with prior knowledge i

of Qu11 tech. That reportedly. Arnold asked. *what about Parksf* and continued to duell 64 that aspect. King's response, reportedly was that he was unaware whether Parts knew of Quilteca.

Parts states he

• then advised King that he should have included him on the Itst because a

year age hours.

job after he had helped King find a typist on site who would do some typing Parts states he never received any financial gain I

r

,' - $ o from Quiltech, nor had any business involvement with it. Two friends, including King, own the company. Parts stated he was upset that GPUN and Bechtet would try to extend such a "pretextual, shabby smear

• to destroy his career, when he was not even a part of Quiltech.

On 3/11/83, Parks went to the MAC to discuss the Arnold-King conversation.  !

He stated it was another management act to intimidate him or remove him t frc.a the island. He requested a special investigation.

Parks states that Mr. Joseph Weibe of NAC gave t.he Department of Laber's adddress and telephone number to him, and stated N#C could not get involved as this is an employer-employee matter, and he should go to the 00L.

On 3/10. Parks states, his new $0 boss, Chwestyk, reported a meeting just l held with John Barton, who asked what Chwestyk's involvement with Qut1 tech t was, and what Parks was delng going to the MAC; and further, that Chwestyk asked Parks about the NRC and sold management knew he had gone and "would get* him. Parks states Chwestyk also recessended that he see one of the company's lawyers, and that at the beginning of this conversation Chwestyk said that if it was repeated he would deny it.

- Parks further states that King's wife, Gloria, phoned his in the evening l to advise that Chwestyk called to say he was worried about Parks because his "wtfe was trying to get sont dirt on (htm) that could be used to take away custody of (his) children" Parks' wife had died three years previously, and he says he took this call as a company threat affecting ,

his two sons. He states that until then he had been struggling within the i l

system, but would now seek counsel from the Government Accountability Project.. It is noted that Parks states that af ter a subsequent break tn to his apartment and rifling of his papers he sent his sons to Itve with a distantly located relative.

Parks reports that on 3/14/83, his superice from Bechtel's regional headquarters in Gatthersburg, MO, Andy Wheeler, and Lee Hoffman, of Bechtel Internal Affairs, from the San Francisco main office, were on site to interview him. Parks wanted an impartial witness, rejected the suggestions made to have Mr. Kange or the head of the Gatthersburg office there. He was finally allowed to bring Mark Kobi of Bechtel RD & 0, who had previously counseled Parks that he was tespected and needed. On 3/14 Parks was interrogated, with Kobi as a witness. He relates the main topic was his alleged invcivement with Cu11 tech.

but had had a peripheral contact via friendship with an owner.He He explateed explained this contact involved his finding an on-site typist for King to do some after-hours typing, for which he received no financial gain. Parks relates Kobi's later remark that what he had jost seen was "not the Bechtel way",

and that he, too felt Jrks was being " set up".

It is noted that on 5/4, the C0 sought an interview with Kobi, who advised he had been approached for interviews with various parties, and to be fair to all he wanted to clear the C0's request with his employer, Bechtel. There was no response to later calls to Kobt. Hcwever, the CO was provided by Attorney of Parks. Devine with a copy of Mark Kobi's notes of Bechtel's interrogation I

l l

i Parks' complaint states that on balance he believes the interrogation was a further attempt to retaliate and intimidate him and to force him to back off of Als safety concerns about the polar crane.

e

- 6 -

industry fromadvises that thereto one contractor is another.

a constant movemnt of eaoloyees in this He believes there were other persons besides King who acted at times as joo shoppers to accomodate these movements.

He stated his belief that the full-scale investigation of Parks for his alleged ation against Parks. connection with Quiltech was an act of intimid.

Lawrence King, in his 4/26/83 statement before the Hoase Interior and Insular Affairs Comittee (Esh. F 1). stated he never made any secret of Quiltech's entstence during the previous 1.5 years the company was in business while he was at TMI. Like Parks. he states, he received no trafning or counseling at TMI on confilets of interest. and that none of his work with Quiltech violated GPun's written idelines, which prohibit relationship with companies that 40 business with 4. He relates that the day before his dismissal a lechtet esployee made several calls to offer Qut1 tech a job at TMI. which he distained to respond to. He also empressed the feeling of intimidation about his safety concerns.

Parks wrote two letters to Bechtel about the Quiltech interrogation -

on 3/16/83 (Exh.1 appended to Exh. A-1) and on 3/21/83 (Exh.1 appended to Exh. A-2). In the fomer letter he sought recoactitation with Bechtel.

stating he appreciated their sonsttivity to conflicts-of interest, declared he has not and will not seek gain from this source, and requested a copy of the conflict-of interest standard.

challenges to procedure, but that until responded toHe also offered to reconsider to he finds it difficult in do his so, or to respond to pressures without explanation of the flaws analysis.

In the second letter to Mr. Kanga. he refers to Kanga's open door tnyttation to report continued acts of harrassment and lists the "pretextual investigation" of his supposed involvement with Quiltech.

Exh. 2 appended to A-2. is an " Agreement and Acknowledgement of Oblig-atton" form that serves as Sechtel's confilet-of-interest document and that Parks claims had not been presented until after the Cut 1 tech examination.

Mr. Kanga stated it is Bechtel's policy to look into conflict.

of-f aterest problems via the special internal group based in San Francisco, and are not originated in the Gaithersburg office he reports to. He said Parks had asked him why such a big deal is being made of this issue.

Kanga states he is not doing this - he seeks understanding and to be ensured Bechtel employees do nothing to embarass clients.

Attorney Richardson's coments (Exh. A-3) explain that in the course of investigating King's " flagrant confilet of interest" it was learned that Parks, a close friend, may have had some involvement. and it was detemined his role should be investigsted to see if any Bechtel poltetes had been violated. Further. In accordance with standard procedures. Bechtel who may have had invo'vement. management asked the Internal Audit gro Richardson relates Parks' being advised of his right to decline to cooperate without retaliation or reprisal and and that Parks was questioned in a non-threatening and professional manner.

The Internal Auditor found Parks may have violated Bechtel's policy, but there were mitigating circumstances and no disciplinary action should be taken.

Richardson states Parks cannot support his inference that his participation to interview him.in protected conduct was the motivating factor in the decision He said there is no evidence connecting the later-rogation of him with any retallation for having gone to the NRC,. Also, that the events after the 3/14 meeting are devoid of any 8echtal harrassment or retallation against Parks for engaging in protected conduct - he was given prompt access to senior Bechtel management, and responsible personnel were made available to review and esplain his concerns.

Parks.

claims that the investigation was a form of harrassment. An isolated, innocent incident was seized upon four days after he had complained to NRC about Robert Arnold's persistent questioning about Parks' knowledge of Quiltechs activities, i

l

-F-3.

On 3/17/33 Parks was replaced as the primary site coerations Oeoartment representative Crane Project. on the Test Wors Group for tne Reactor Butiding Polar 1

Three days after his interrogation by techtel representatives about any involvement in the Qu11 tech matter Parts lost his remaining major responsibility in the Unit !! reactor cleanuo.

The 3/17 discussion with l Mr. Kanga, reported abeve. concerning the alleged conflict of-interest matter occurred in early morning. Parts' complaint reports a further

'; discussion at that meeting in which Kanga spoke of his available open door if Parts should feel threatened or intimidated. Also Parks reports that Mr. Kanga warned his not to ge public with his concerns. and that once before things had gotten much worse for en employee who had tried that and was

• humiliated *. Mr. Range, denied having made this warning and declaration about huell.

1ation of another employee who went public. but he relates he did say Parks' action in having a secretary type resumec put tochtel in a bad position Polar Crane Task Force leader, accused him of a " p the test procedures on the polar crane. Parts' complaint states that he later discussed with Joseph Chuestyt, the new acting 50 head, the defic-tencies in the procedure's test cycle.

he was called back to Mr. Kanga's office Parts Chuestyt.

states that for a meeting in latewith together af ternoon He was there given an interoffice mese from Chuestyk stating that Mr. Subba Marshall would replace him as the primary 50 member on the Tide only for the polar crane pesject. and that this action is appropriate for the present situation and is not a negative reflection on Parts. At that meeting. Parts writes. Kanga asked him twice to 3 was not an act of intimidation, and Parks responded., agree In my that his removal opinion the intent is well-defined." Parts had already, before this meeting signed the disputed procedure " based on technical content of the procedure only",

thus not implying *.ompliance with topical coverage or quality analysis.

expresses his belief this remo of Parks had the purpose of stifitng his objections to polar crane proc val edure, this based on his own observation that for a month matters were getting set the pretty heated tone for this, about not Parks. the polar crane, and that the employer had Attorney Richardson's reply to this complaint (Exh. A-3) expands the explanation of events leading to Parts' demotion.

3/17/83. Parts came to see Chwestyt. Acting 50 Director, He states that on to discuss the polar crane matter. and it became apparent to Chwestyk that this Chuastyt feared that Parks might quit and leave TMI. program Chwestyk then.

reportedly, suggested to Parks dropping him as 50 representative on that TidG, but only with Parts' consent, and in a menner not to reflect solution. on Parts, who after a while agreed this was a meritorious adversely And then

on which Parks made some staer changes.Chwestyk wrote a draf t anno l his signing. Chwestyk reviewed the matter with Mr. Kanga. assurinThen of the mutuality of approval, and then Oiwastyk signed the mome.But g him on 3/22. Parks gave Kanga his 3/21 letter claiming harrassment cr intie-Idation both as to the 3/17 action and the Qu11 tech investigation.

, Richardson continues. Kanga asked Parks why he had not previously indic-ated feeling threatened, and Parts replied he "had time to think about it".

! Richardson observes that what did happen was that Parks had sutattted affidavit on which this investigation is based.to the attorneys for is unable to connect the TidG change with the protected conduct.Atchards He stated to the CD that what happened was not even a personnel action, such less an act of discrimination.

l

. 8 o Relative to Chwestyk's claim of Parks' showing of " severe emotional stratn* in discusstng the project, we have the general caservation of that

• Site Operations ts a small group with little resources, and the others can muster a large force - it is necessary for us including Parks to sound off to overcome this imbalance.* Also, the observation of that " Parts and Chwestyk and Barton all had the tendency to empress themselves loudly, and somewhat profanely and colorfully. when they wanted to express dtsagreement about the wort....This behavior was not uncommon at meetings on the island...

I noticed the situation that Parts, however, maintained his composure more and more as got nastier."

It is of interest that a multi-business elsewhere. degreed engineer, has now resigned his TMt job to enter a f a medhouse to get anything done.His statement relates. "It was getting to be lik Plant Engineering and Site Operations".8echtet seemed to went to neuter Richard Parts' version of the 3/17/83 events, in his 5 vendetta" he went to Chwestyk to explain why he could not sign the polar crane procedure, and Chwestyk said he would try to figure out a solution.

i Parks sign thesays procedure. he suggested that perhaps his alternate. Subba Marshall, would care of it. Chwestyk said he would write up something to take

.1 it, and bring it to Kan9a's office.Then he wrote a memorandum, te asked the secretary to let his read it, which he did.Then Chwestyk left the roo Parks continues, he was called to Kanga's the remo would take care of the problem. office, but was met outside by Chwestyk who said Kanga then rsed the meno to Parks and question. asked if he agreed he was not being harrassed, and repeat how to reply. Parts states he had just filed the 00L complaint and was unsure his complaint, nor to abandon the complaint.He neither wished to alle job.

He said he realized that Chwestyt He did want to keep his

~'

he would not sign off on the polar crane. who three weeks beGro had agreed procedure, was now abandoning him.

This Mr. was Devine. a conolicating event v and he had no innediate access .

to t

to Kanga's question."The intent is clear".Thus, he said, he ga*e the t l

that day and it was decided to include this demotion in the complaintHe .

phrase 11ke. "The intent is well defined", but he r words have asked did not for aimply betterintimidation, explanation. for if he had understood this he would Kanga said no and that Parks used words that could not be turned around. ambiguity was expressed, 4.

On 3/24/83 Parts was placed on an indefinite leave of absence with pay and forbidden entry to the jobsite without permission from 8echtet.  ;

This action was taken a week after the prior complaint incident. Parks' I

complaint addendum of 4/22/83 (Exh. A-2) relates that on 3/22. after he had given events occurred. Mr. Kanga his written cassents on the 3/17 meeting, a m Gaithersburg office representatives visited to report '

hisheexoneration as wished. on the Quiltech matter, and he could remain at T l Further they assured Parts no "further reprisals" would occur, and asked for a ifst of his safety concerns.

i and that he agreed this would be appropriate.they asked if he  !

Parks states that Mr. Arnold had previously confirmed to him that his name was on a list for Cong )

inquiry, about which a meeting was scheduled for later that . Parks day j relates the dismissal. feeling at the meeting that the inquiry concerned t.arry .

Parts states that just afterward Mr. Kanga asked him to report to his office, where Wheeler and a pubite relations officer. Bedell , were present next day. - that Sedell asked if Parks had a news conference scheduled the complaint. Parks states he confirmed this, and that he was filing a 00L This was his first disclosure of that fact.

On affidavit 3/23'/83.

of that date. Parks held a press conference. releasing his whis On 3/24/83 he was sent a letter from Richard A.

Wheeler. Chief Startup Engineer (Exh. 3 appended to Exh. A-2

4 - 9 .

being informed of Parts' 00L comolaint about marrassment and intimidation.

and denying its occurrence. It s tates. *In order to insulate you from even the appearance of such conduct. and to assure the continued ef fective.

l ness of all personnel et the site, we are placing you on an indefinite leave of absence with pay. effective ispediately. untti we have had the opportunity to review this matter further.' A letter dated 3/25/83 from Gerald Charnoff. Esq.. Washington. 0.C. wrote similarly about Parks to 00L Secretary Raymond Donovan.

. reistes that when Parks filed his complaint.

mil. Arnold. GPUN President. called a meeting attended by Kanga. Barton.

Bechtel people. and the entire senior staff, totalling 25 to 30 persons.

He said Mr. Arnold and Mr. Kanga explained what was happening; that Mr.

Barton became angry and recommended firing Parts. They spoke of restricting Parts' activities, and later decided to suspend him with pay.

The justification for suspending Parks with pay is urged by Attorney Richardson

' in his 4/27/83 letter (Exh. A-3) on the basis that " Parts made grave accus-attons concerning the professional competence and integrity of several of his coworkers and colleagues at TM!.* He states these accusations to pubite news media enjoy no statutory protection, and have caused severe harm to the individuals involved. He concludes Parks has lost his ability to function as a mester of a professional organization on this project.

These views are also empressed by Mr. Richardson's comments about Parks' accusations focus on his casusents on pages 34 and 37 of his 3/23/83 complaint, concerning Mr. George.Kunder, whose claimed weakness as chairman of the PORC/ Safety Review Group in not objecting to violations was attributed by Parks to Kunder's avoidance of involvement. Parks further identifies Kunder as the rumored " mystery man" who ordered the safety injection pumps turned off during the 1979 accident at Unit !!. and who was resoonsible for the stoppage of coolant that caused a great portion of the damage. Richardson states a law firm is investigating Parks' claims and.has as yet found no supporting evidence against Kunder; and he points to Larry King's statement before the House Committee.(Enh. F-1) on page 24. *! cannot identify who the ' mystery man' was who shut off the pumps.*

In King's statement to the CO. he describes his opinion of Kunder's weakness and vacillation, and King states his belief that Kunder may have been the " mystery men *. King stated he believes Parks' elaboration of his feelings about Kunderfeere made to portray the obstacles and diffic-ulties he was encountering in having his legitimate objections to TMI procedures that were contrary. to administrative and technical needs.

Mr. Devine has furnished (Exh. F-2) excerpts from the House Comuntttee.

in which Mr. Kanga, when asked why Mr. Parks was suspended stated."Mr.

Parts was suspended because it became rather difficult for him to operate at Three Mile Islandafter he went public with GAP". Sechtel's Mr. Sanford is also shown on this exhibit to have stated then. *There were numerous professional people that he associates with and works with on the Island.  ;

and there were allegations made that have created an atmosphere up there  ;

that would be very difficult for us to conduct ourselves 'in an effective manner, if he was among that group.*

i 4 It is noted that tamediately following conclusion of the conciliation i effort on 4/27/83. the CD initiated the investigation, and indicated to Mr. Richardson the need for employee interviews in private on TM! premises.

, Mr. Richardson soon after advised that Bechtel insists that he be present at such interviews. The C0 stated this arran ively possible, and pointed out CFR 24.4 (b),(gement is not c) provisions attinistrat.

concerning interviews. The C0 advised that if. when privately inter' viewed and a state-

. ment taken, the employee requets a copy it would be given. Mr. Richardson asked if the CD would give advance notice of who will be interviewed on the promises, so that the employer can have discussion with the employee i

l

~

9 prior to the interview.

The C0 stated this would not be conducive to objective interviews and advised that if off-plant interviews Decame necessary because of employer conditions on site interviews, they would have to be limited in view of the statutory strictures on duration of 00t. action. On-site interviewing was planned for. to begin on 5/3/83 Mr. Richardson needing to return to his principal office. On 5/3 he met theinsisted is still C0 at the TM1 gate to advise his presence during plant interviews upon.

in the remaining time to represent its viewpoints through employ without setting precedent, by its selection of two ranking employees for joint interview with the CD and Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richar agreed and selected Mr. Sahmen K. Kanga, and Mr. Ron Freemerman.dson l

)

l l

l e

w,, - -- ,,,_,. , , . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _

. 9

. 11 .

Conclusions and Recomendations:

G e

p*e s e

O 4

0

-