ML20235Y827

Requests 17 Documents Described in 860303 Response to Request for Production of Documents in Bechtel Litigation & Other Not Previously Produced Re R Parks Allegations.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20235Y827
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/17/1987
From:	Jim Hickey GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Zuras B HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN
References
CON-#387-4075 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8707270070
Download: ML20235Y827 (7)

Text

_

e, f

gango conRESPONDVia 4

COMETEn SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWSRIDGE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDsNG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS

=20o ~ .1.ccr. ~. w.

m .,cA.s. .A.~i~OrO~. O. c. aoos, 87 JUL 20 A10 :59 ....,N,AO,,,c,

. SD4693 (sMAwLAw wsM) isor FARM CarDIT Dntvt TELE ONE' . IIf (70 )790 7900 (aoa) ees.eios lg ,

(202) a 37eo -37ee s.p*Taie m ency,p.c.

July 17, 1987 (eCa'f,' ?33.h FEDERAL EXPRESS Barbara A. Zuras, Esquire Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molligan Central Tower 703 Market Street San. Francisco, CA 94103 In the Matter of GPU Nuclear Corporation (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)

Docket No. 50-320 ; EA 84-137 - 0.Ml P6

Dear Ms. Zuras:

I am writing with regard to GPUN's earlier request (in its June 1, 1987 Notice of Deposition of Richard D. Parks) that Mr.

Parks produce at his deposition any documents not previously pro-duced in his civil case against Bechtel Power Corporation which relate to Mr. Parks' allegations. By letter dated June 18, 1987, you objected on behalf of Mr. Parks because the request included documents protected by the attorney-client and work product priv-ileges, and no documents were produced. Since Mr. Parks' deposi-tion was not completed, and will be resumed in August, we ask that Mr. Parks reconsider his continued withholding of certain specified documents, in light of the settlement of his civil case against Bechtel and in light of the potential significance of these particular documents in the NRC enforcement proceeding. In addition, we think the record reveals a waiver of any privileges which may have existed.

The NRC staff has listed Mr. Parks as a witness in this pro-ceeding, and Mr. Parks' credibility will be an issue. An impor-tant matter affecting his credibility is whether he made asser-tions under oath in his March 21, 1983 affidavit that were knowingly or recklessly false. One such assertion was that George Kunder, a TMI-2 employee, had been identified by other i employees (specifically Joseph Chwastyk and Bernard Smith) as the l

" mystery man" who shut off the high pressure injection pumps dur-ing the 3979 accident, and thus was " responsible for a great 8707270070 870717 PDR Q

ADOCK 05000320 PDR ) W'

t~

C

>i SHAW, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 5 Letter to Barbara A. Zuras, Esq. .

July 17, 1987 I Page 2 -

1

-portion of the damage." Mr. Parks' affidavit (pp. 36-37) claimed that Messrs. Chwastyk and/or Smith had made these statements in the presence of at least ten other witnasses, and in Mr. Parks' presence.

Both Chwastyk and Smith have denied under oath that they ever stated that Mr. Kunder was the mystery man, and none of the witnesses to our knowledge support Mr. Parks' allegations. These denials, when taken with evidence (conceded by Parks) that he had threatened a physical assault on Kunder a few months before the affidavit was released and other evidence of Parks' animosity to-ward Kunder,. have raised a question whether Parks' claim was knowingly or recklessly false.

Mr. Parks has claimed on several occasions that he and/or Mr. Devine (his attorney at the time) verified the information in Mr. Parks' affidavit before it was made public on March 23, 1983.

At the time Parks' affidavit was published, Mr. Devine stated in a letter to Chairman Palladino that GAP's decision to represent Parks was based on Parks' affidavit "as well as verification in-terviews with additional witnesses who supported both his charges and personal credibility." Parks has testified that he reviewed the letter for accuracy before it was sent.

In his deposition in the Bechtel litigation, Mr. Parks testified that "To the best of my knowledge to this moment, inde-pendent verification was obtained prior to going public with [the mystery man) information" and " . . . that information was veri-fied by my lawyer."

Last month, during his deposition in this proceeding, Mr.

Parks identified only one individual (John Auger) as a person with whom Parks and Devine confirmed the accuracy of the mystery man allegation before releasing the affidavit (Tr. at II-151, II-177). However, Mr. Auger has sworn that he had never heard of the term " mystery man" before reading Parks' affidavit and at no time was told that Mr. Kunder turned off the high pressure injec-tion pumps.

Thus, there is presently no support of which we are aware either for Mr. Parks' claims that Mr. Kunder had been identified as the mystery man, or for Mr. Parks' and Mr. Devine's claims of verification of this and other disputed allegations in Parks' af-fidavit. However, some of the forty documents identified by you, but withheld as privileged during the now-resolved civil action with Bechtel, seem very likely to confirm or rebut these claims. ,

These documents as described by you include Mr. Devine's drafts of and notes for Mr. Parks' affidavit, based on his conversations with Parks, and his " outline" of " evidence to support based on

t

- SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNER $ HIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS '

Letter to Barbara A. Zuras, Esq.

July 17,=1987-L Page 3 .

discussions with Rick Parks." In addition, the documents include 69 pages of notes and memos.by Mr. Devine's " GAP staff" regarding l the knowledge of various witnesses (including some of the wit-

= nesses on the " mystery man" listed in Parks' affidavit).

We believe that Mr. Parks' and Mr. Devine's claims thatLthe allegations were corroborated by.their investigation operates as a waiver of any privilege. It is hornbook law that waiver in-cludes a partial disclosure that would make it unfair for the client to insist on the privilege thereafter. McCormick on Evi-dence, 5 93 (3d ed. 1984). Parks' reliance on Mr. Devine's ef-forts and communications as evidence supposedly supporting Parks'-

good faith requires,the disclosure of documents reflecting those' efforts and communications.

But we would' hope that Mr. Parks, in the interest of sup-

. porting his claims and dispelling any appearance of impropriety, as well as to avoid further litigation of the matter, would choose voluntarily to produce these documents. Since his civil claims have been settled, we can perceive no personal interest he could have in the outcome of this proceeding which would be advanced by continuing to withhold these significant documents.

Making these. documents available would assist in insuring that all,the relevant facts come to light.

Accordingly, we request that you make available to us the following seventeen documents described by you.in your March 3, 1986 Response to Request For Production of Documents in the Bechtel litigation, and any others not previously produced which reflect, relate, or refer to efforts by Mr. Devine and/or Mr.

Parks to confirm the allegations made by Parks in his March 23 affidavit:

1. Handwritten notes by Thomas Devine, one page, no date, re: Devine's notes of conversation with Rick Parks re chronol-ogy events leading to suspension of employment at TMI (" Document C");

2.. Thomas Devine's-draft of allegations for Parks' affidavit reflecting Devine's conversations with Rick Parks, no date, eight pages, re George Kunder and TMI pump shutdown (" Document I");

3. Parks' memo to GAP attorneys re: Parks' analysis of testimony of GPU/Bechtel employees dated March 31, 1983, 17 pages

(" Document J");

I

4 SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Letter to Barbara A. Zuras, Esq.

July 17, 1987 Page 4 _

4. Handwritten draft by Thomas Devine re allegations for Parks' affidavit re-flecting conversation with Rick Parks, four pages, no date, re: pump shutdown at TMI (" Document K");

5. Notes by Rick Parks to Tom Devine, nine i l

pages, re: review of December 29, 1982, EDS nuclear report, no date (" Document M");

/

6. Thomas Devine's 11 page handwritten memo re: outline of arguments re technical problems of TMI pump shutdown / George l Kunder (" Document N");

7. Thomas Devine's notes re: his analysis ,

of May 2, 1983 meeting with NRC re: Rick j Parks' TMI allegations, 11 pages ("Docu- j ment P"); i

8. Thomas Devine's handwritten notes and analysis re: April 27, 1983 meeting with NRC re: Parks' allegations re technical aspects of TMI and harassment of Parks, 24 pages (" Document Q");

9. Thomas Devine's handwritten notes to file re: March 24, 1983 conversation with Rick Parks re: harassment at TMI, one page (" Document R");

10. Thomas Devine's outline for Rick Parks' affidavit -- points raised -- evidence to support based on discussions with Rick Parks, four pages (" Document U");

11. Memo by Billy Gartner, paralegal of GAP dated March 13, 1983 re: conversation i with Rick Parks regarding legal repre-sentation concerning Bechtel harassment, two pages (" Document V");

12. Notes of Thomas Devine dated March 14, 1983 re: conversation with Rick Parks re legal representation of Rick Parks / Rick Parks' history at TMI, three pages

(" Document W");

L _ ___w

d 1 1 ~SHA7, PnrTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE

. A ' ARTNERSHIP (NCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Letter to Barbara A..Zuras, Esq.

July .17,: 1967

.Page 5 _

13.- Notes of Thomas Devine, dated March 15, 1983 ret conversations.with Rick ParP.s re Parks' history at.TMI, technical as-pects of TMI, 11 pages,.no copies issued

(" Document-X");

14. Thomas Devine's notes dated March 17, 1983 re: continuation of meeting with Rick Parks re history.at Three Mile Is-land / technical aspects of Three Mile Is-land, three pages (" Document Y");

L 15. Thomas-Devine's notes dated March 18, 1983 re: conversation with Rick Parks re

-Three Mile Island witnesses and l employees and upcoming press conference, one page (" Document Z"); ,

16. Thomas Devine's notes dated March 23, 1983 re: conversation with Rick Parks re i role of certain bechtel employees re  !

Polar Crane dispute / pump shutdown, NRC '

investigation, three pages (" Document AA");

17. Notes and memos of Thomas Devine's GAP staff, no dates, re: Bechtel/GPU poten -

tial witnesses and what those witnesses know regarding Parks' allegation against Bechtel (Bonnie Sherwood, John Perry, Ron Warren, Mark Kobi, John Auger, Joyce Wenger, Carl Hrbac, Jim Floyd, Ron i

Brinkley, William Marshall, George Clem-ents, Joe Chwastyk, Ed Gischel, George Kunder) 69 pages (" Document MM").

l I Two of the documents listed (items 7 and 8) consist of Mr.

Devine's notes of Mr. Parks' interviews by NRC investigators on April 27 and May 2, 1983. These 35 pages of notes, while not protected by an attorney-client privilege, may have been withheld on the grounds of the work product privilege. The NRC investiga-tors have indicated that the " mystery man" topic was discussed in these interviews, as were other allegations made by Mr. Parks.

No statement signed by Parks which elaborates on the mystery man allegation has been discovered. A document produced by the NRC in discovery titled " Draft for Mystery Man Affidavit" was identi-fied by Mr. Meeks of the NRC Office of Investigations as having been submitted to him by Mr. Parks, but Parks at his deposition j expressed uncertainty concerning the document's origin. Since j

b a'

SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUD1NG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Letter to Barbara A. Zuras, Esq.

July 17, 1987 Page 6 ,

the NRC has destroyed the notes they took of Parks' interviews, Mr..Devine's lengthy notes of these interviews are apparently the only contemporaneous record of these discussions, and may reason-ably be expected to shed further light on.these allegations, and on the circumstances of the preparation of the " Draft for Mystery Man Affidavit."

We hope Mr. Parks will agree to make these documents avail-able promptly, and we will be glad to pay-any duplicating expens-es. Because of the importance of these documents to the proceed-ing and to Mr. Parks' deposition, we ask that you inform us of Mr. Parks' decision by July 31, so that we may, if necessary, seek a subpoena for their production.

Sincerel Ei'u O Patrick Hickey unsel for GPUN JPH:pr cc: Richard D. Parks, c/o George E. Johnson Service List l

s r

SERVICE LIST Ivan Smith, Esquire Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

' Docketing and Service Branch Office of.the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 George E. Johnson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel 9604 MNBB U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l.

l l

i l ..