I am requesting reconsideration of my termination according to the provisions set forth in Section 5.2.4 of the UNS Code. This letter will offer both specific and general rebuttals to statements written in my 1985 Evaluation.

The general rebuttals will be in response to certain evaluation statements that conflict with my recollection of the facts. This unfortunate situation of one's word against another's could possibly be avoided by granting me the right to call certain witnesses. Without this right the best I can do is to neutralize some of the evaluation arguments. I would prefer that the reconsideration be made on the most specific information possible.

I have arranged the following discussion according to my partitions (by item) shown in the attached evaluation (Attachment 1). This will make my references to the document easier to follow. However, before discussing each item I would like to perpend on the quality of the overall evaluation.

First, I would like to note one statement given in the 30 May 1985 memorandum from Dr. Thomas Hoffer to Dr. Joseph Warburton, Evaluation of Ric Capirci:

Second, it is my belief that Dr. Hoffer did not write the evaluation. This is clear from the tone of the document (anger as opposed to objective), the above arguments concerning interviews, and statements made by the secretaries involved with the evaluation typing. The evaluation, in fact, was written by Dr. John Watson shortly after our most recent encounter over the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection contract. As the document tone reveals, there is a considerable personality conflict between Dr. Watson and myself. I hope that my specific rebuttals will show that the termination was due to these conflicts rather than my performance.

Third, there seems to have been several conflicting statements made during private discussions concerning my termination. Dr. Hoffer, in our 28 May 1985 meeting, informed me of the impending termination, and stated that my conflicts with Dr. Watson were the major factor. Mr. Egami, in a conversation with one of my peers, stated that he thought my work was good and my conflicts with Dr. Hoffer were the only factor. Dr. Bowen, in a conversation with me (@ 24 May 1985) stated that "... when someone doesn't fit into a group you find a way to get rid of him.. .". Dr. Watson throughout the written evaluation blames the termination on my alleged conflicts with nearly the entire ARL staff, including Dr. Bowen, Mr. Egami and the secretaries.

Fourth, the evaluation makes several references to my "supervisors". Since my arrival at DRI I have only answered to the ARL Director. There has never been a written or verbal statement to alter this structure. This is particularly important in the discussion of Item 1 of the evaluation as the confidentiality of my 1984 evaluation was broken when Dr. Watson allowed Mr. Egami to read that document as well as my "Response to Professional/Personnel Evaluation Report", 1983/84, without my consent. I view this action as a lack of respect due DRI staff.

Fifth, after responsible management had an opportunity to review my 1984 evaluation and response, these 1984 documents should have been a sufficient signal that problems between two professional staff members were increasing. The need for intervention by upper management should have been obvious at this point. In lieu of such intervention, after several months of reflection I discussed my situation (conflicts with Dr. Watson) with several DRI employees. All of these people agreed that due to 'politics' the present management probably would not be an ideal place to seek amelioration. Despite this advice I requested a meeting with Dr. Warburton in mid-April, 1985 (around the 17th as I recall), and another with Dr. Hoffer toward the end of April; neither responded. Dr. Fred Rogers expressed some suggestions similar to the UNS Code, Section 5.8, and 6.12. On 9 May 1985 he recommended that I seek an individual to act as a neutral mediator during discussions between Dr. Watson and myself. This process was halted (before starting) by the announcement of my termination and the expected selection of a neutral review committee.

This concludes the general comments concerning the 1985 evaluation and some background statements leading to the present situation. The following paragraphs detail my perception of each point discussed in the evaluation.

The review meeting mentioned in this item did not take place. The three of us did meet after I had written the response to my 1984 evaluation; again I challenge Mr. Egami's inclusion in this confidential process. It is my belief that this meeting was actually instigated by my response. Had my performance been as deficient as the 1985 evaluation indicates, the deficiencies and goals should have been documented in the 1984 evaluation. Since I went to the extent of writing a four-page response to the 1984 evaluation I certainly would have required that the professional goals be formally presented.

These goals were never mentioned at the meeting that did take place. We did discuss my response and the background to each point that I had addressed. As seems to be normal for such meetings it didn't matter how many specifics I used to back the arguments of my 1984 response; I was still the 'problem'. I do not believe my actions are "the problem" but rather the symptoms of the actual problems: lack of responsible management; lack of open communications between the professional staff, and (subsequently), uneven personnel decisions.

Some of the "goals" listed in Item 1 of the 1985 evaluation were discussed at different times within the last two years. There is, however, no indication from the 1985 evaluation regarding the status of each goal other than "unsatisfactory".

Goal 1:   Although written procedures have not been developed, for the last few years forms which accomplish the stated tasks do exist through my efforts. Unfortunately, my experience at DRI has resulted in concluding that written procedure rarely gets read, and when written procedures are used they tend to be regarded as gospel rather than guidelines, causing the individual performing a task to disregard any observations not noted in the procedures (see Sierra Pacific Power Company, 1982 Valmy Audit). This mechanical method of conducting audits has been clearly shown to be inferior during our initial work with SPPC and one audit for the R.R. Donnelley project. For example, two separate auditors were able to quantify the deviations observed at the SPPC Valmy Monitoring sites according to their procedures. DRI was requested to perform the same audit. I was not only able to quantify analyzer deviations but also pinpoint their origins, both mechanical/electrical and procedural (improper mathematical assumptions). This extra effort has re-opened opportunities for funding that were closed several years ago. A similar situation occurred during one Donnelley audit at which Dr. Watson was present and declared my work to be fastidious and unnecessary in remarks to a subordinate. Although the data was acceptable there were some erratic indications. My investigations revealed a faulty solenoid valve in the sample train.

Development of a systems audit was discussed during the early stages of preparing a proposal to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (DEP). We decided that the project would be a good opportunity to develop a formal systems audit. This accomplishment has been documented in the DEP Project Initial Statue Report, June 1985.

Goal 2:   A system, although crude, has been developed and used to produce the traceability paths presented in Attachment 2.

Goal 3:   Standard audit data forms have been used for at least one and-a-half-years (i.e., before the 1984 evaluation and "review" meeting). These forms are presented in Attachment 3. A standard report form was attempted, but was unsuccessful. Since then I have done some initial investigations concerning CPT mathematical capabilities as well as IBM-PC capabilities. Extra effort was put into the DEP Initial Status Report to produce an upgraded version of the normal audit report. The only portion of this report that could be, and was, standardized is the "Audit Protocol".

Goals 4 and 6 (combined because of their similarity):   Due to the quantity of tedious work involved with the Standards Laboratory I have not been able to devote enough time to this effort which has traditionally been a function of DRI/ASC management. My energies have been aimed at: the U.S. EPA for instrument development, the Measurement Standards Institute for instrument development, the ASC cloud chamber for a Quality Assurance (QA) program, Washoe County and the DEP for QA development, and Clark County for resource sharing.

There appear to be several instances of contradiction between this goal and past management actions. First, concerning visibility, has been Dr. Hoffer's lack of support given to the Standards Laboratory. Before he was given the Visibility Laboratory Directorship one of his major areas of development was the Standards Laboratory. The second action concerned acid deposition and management's failure to communicate the Mohave study to me, much less getting me involved. Both of these examples occurred in the summer of 1984 or earlier; nearly coincident with the alleged stating of this goal.

The actions of Dr. Watson are in contradiction with his final statement in my 1984 evaluation; "During the coming six months I plan to spend much more time with Ric, working with him to develop his abilities in this area" (Attachment 5 (pages 1 and 2)and Attachment 5 (pages 3 to 5)). However, since the 1984 "review" meeting and before our 8 May 1985 DEP confrontation, we conversed only one or two times. Dr. Watson has never approached me with an attitude of assistance and his actions have been quite negative. His actions toward me have included the following: (a) ignoring the mass analysis program developed by myself at his request during the 1984 "Intercomparison", and starting over with different personnel; (b) leaving me out of the SCENES (visibility) project, stating ". ..I don't like you, I don't like working with you..." (8 May 1985); (c) when I queried Dr. Watson's statement: '...your performance is terrible", he responded "... you'll get them (specifics) in your evaluation..."; and (d) apparently discussing attempts in the summer of 1984 to get me terminated, with at least two ASC staff members.

Goal 5:   I have stated several times, to all of my past and present supervisors, that my goal as an employee of the DRI has been to learn how to identify, secure funding, organize, perform and write about some original scientific subjects. This professional goal is documented in my 1984 evaluation response, and as management recognition in my 1982 evaluation (Attachment 4) by Mr. David Miller (interim Director of the ARL).

As with some of the other five goals listed in the 1985 evaluation, Goal 5 had been discussed as suggested topics for professional papers. The flow controller was discussed in the spring of 1984 while the ozone generator was talked about in the fall of 1984.

At the time of the aerosol samplers' "Intercomparison" I had not been involved with the flow controller development for at least 1-1/2 years. My attempts were to devise a method for mass flow control not volumetric.

The ozone generator, in my opinion, was not innovative enough to deserve paper status. This device was a step toward developing an ozone transfer standard. If successful at creating a simple means of generating accurate concentrations of ozone in a variety of conditions, then a technical paper would be well deserved.

The second paragraph of Item 1 also deserves a very specific response. The "research and development money" referenced here was dedicated (according to Attachment 6) for purchasing instrumentation for the Standards Laboratory. The $49,000 was utilized in the following manner: (a) analyzers at $25,000; (b) clean room at $10,000; (c) balance adapter at $2,500; (d) National Bureau of Standards, Standards Reference Materials at $2,500; (e) flow metering devices and indicator at $2,500; (f) electronic equipment (mainly for meteorological auditing) at $3,000; and (g) laboratory benches at $3,000. These purchases are completely "tangible".

The tone and focus of Item 2 are disturbing. Several facts seem to be misrepresented or overlooked, and the tone is contradictory to goals 4 and 6 of Item 1. The proportion of the Evaluation devoted to this subject also seems to be greater than any other item. The historical evidence not only refutes the main point of the Evaluation (who is the P.I.?) but serves as an example of a major complaint, backroom decisions, voiced by 'junior' staff.

Here is a chronological explanation. Attachment 7a (Mr. Egami's brief project outline); past attempts in trying to prepare documents for Mr. Egami have often been insufficient for a variety of reasons -- too long, too short, too detailed or too general. To alleviate a lack of communication in determining what information was needed I requested Mr. Egami to write a short outline which would highlight the major topics to be discussed and to give me an idea of the required detail. Mr. Egami's response proved to be very helpful in producing my own outline which served as my guide for writing the proposal (Attachment 7b). Attachment7c (my handwritten draft of the DEP proposal) was submitted for typing. Attachment 7d (the DEP proposal) closely resembles my hand-written draft; also my name is identified on pages 1 and 5 as the principle investigator. However, the original title page identified Mr. Egami as the P.I. After discussion with Dr. Watson I was listed as P.I. Arguments that convinced Dr. Watson to make this change were:  (1) I wrote the proposal; (2) the work concerns various aspects of Quality Assurance (my expertise); (3) the project would better establish the necessary independence of the ARL Quality Assurance Program from other monitoring project P.I.'s, and (4) the project would be an opportunity to advance my professional skills. Mr. Egami never voiced an objection over this change to me.

Attachment 7e (5 December 1984 memorandum from Mr. Joe Neumann to Ms. Barbara Craig, Contractual Document Transmittal Form). In both I am listed as the contact or project director of this contract. Attachment 7f) (5 December 1984, Current ASC Account Numbers), also identifies me as the P.I. However, Attachment 7g (ARL project list, 4 March 1985) lists Mr. Egami as the Project P.I. Believing this to be in error, I spoke with Mr. Egami and received his assurances, without argument, that the project would again be associated with me. During our discussion there was never any mention of reasons opposing my view. Later, ( Attachment 7h: 1 May 1985, Current ASC Account Numbers) Dr. Watson is listed as P.I. on the DEP project.

I attempted to find why this project seemed to be arbitrarily assigned to different managers. I was told by Mr. Neumann that Mr. Egami made this decision. A short discussion with Mr. Egami (3 May 1984) suggested that Dr. Watson and he made the decision, stating no reasons, but an assignment back to me was possible if Dr. Watson agreed. Before pursuing the subject with Dr. Watson I posed two questions to Mr. Egami:   (1) "For my own education, what is the process that determines who shall be the P.I. of a project", and (2) "What are the underlying meanings of all this?". Neither question was answered.

After leaving Mr. Egami'a office I presented the 1 May 1985 list to Dr. Watson. He stated that Mr. Egami made the decision and "... this is final, that's an order...". My objections were countered by the statement, "...do what you want, do your worst...". Again no logic of marketing strategies was mentioned.

On 8 May 1985 Dr. Watson, Mr. Egami and I met to discuss the DEP project. Within the context of this meeting the marketing strategy concept was briefly mentioned. A solution to this strategy conflict was presented by Hr. Egami which allowed for a position above the P.I. for interactions with upper-DEP and EPA management. I agreed to this structure and it has been satisfactorily employed. Mr. Egami, in this position, has overseen the long-range aspirations at two meetings between DEP, EPA and DRI. To date I have not heard any complaint from Dr. Watson or Mr. Egami concerning the project organization.

The arguments that encompassed most of the 8 May 1985 meeting centered around my lack of communication skills. For approximately 45 minutes I sufficiently countered these arguments by specifically noting my reports, memorandums and telecons (phone call documentation) addressed to Mr. Egami. I also pointed out at least five occasions within the past few months that Mr. Egami had failed to communicate conversations with EPA, DEP or Washoe County to me. These instances were particularly frustrating when I would inadvertently contradict promises or statements made during the undocumented conversations. Such circumstances became quite aggravating for at least one funding source causing a delay in obtaining available Quality Assurance work.

With regard to the use of the term "violently objected" my address will be from two directions. First, I did not get violent (assumed to be in reference to either the 3 May or 8 May 1985 confrontations); this is a fact that can be substantiated by ARL personnel who were well within hearing range. Second, I have worked hard this last year in developing personal methods that would allow me to deal with negative situations in a calm, straightforward manner, and I am satisfied with my progress in this area.

In addition, in reference to the evaluation's 'definition' of a P.I., I would like to offer the thought that there are several instances within DRI of personnel who either did not identify a funding source, write the proposal and/or perform the necessary work, yet enjoy the P.I. status.

My final response to Item 2 is in regard to the statement: "The mission of the QA lab is expanding to incorporate audits and performance checks on visibility measurements and toxic substances. Mr. Capirci is not versed in these topics." Upon my arrival at DRI I was not versed on the subjects of gaseous analyzer or meteorological instrumentation Quality Assurance. However, my auditing performance during the past several years has created an excellent reputation, with clients, both personally and for DRI.

The development of procedures to provide QA services for gaseous analyzers and meteorological instrumentation can be applied to other areas, e.g., visibility measurements and toxic substances. I eagerly await the opportunity to expand my knowledge into these areas.

Item 3 is a potpourri of complaints, which, as in Item 2, contains some misunderstandings and misrepresentations. I have organized my discussion of Item 3 into four topics:   (1) dissatisfaction with my reports; (2) lack of courtesy and respect; (3) communication with supervisor (sic) and peers including conspiracy; and (4) the analogy of Nazis and Jews.

In regards to the "dissatisfaction" with my written reports, I can only present the history of events documented by memorandums and personnel involvement. Attachment 8 is a memorandum written in an attempt to get some response to the work and reports that were being produced for Mr. Egami and Dr. Bowen. The attachment shows, handwritten at the bottom, that Dr. Bowen responded verbally. Mr. Egami never replied. Dr. Bowen's criticisms were that the audits were too extensive and the reports too long.

If Mr. Egami has criticized my reports, without directing these criticisms to me, it would be ironic. In early 1985 I quit writing reports concerning the Reid-Gardner network and shifted to meeting with Mr. Egami directly following the audit, in order to discuss measurement deficiencies, the steps necessary to correct them, and their priorities.

The topic of "courtesy and respect" is a mutual issue. Since no specifics were mentioned I cannot respond adequately; however, I am confident that if at any time a disrespectful statement was made to either Dr. Bowen, Mr. Egami (or Dr. Watson), it was preceded by a 'similar remark' or action from that person. The most negative aspect to this argument is that in the past, I did allow others to define my actions according to theirs.

In this same vein follows a discussion on the "Nazis and Jews" analogy. My statement containing these words was made to Ms. Nanette Ralph, 4 March 1985, in the context of what she termed my "defensive behavior" with regard to other P.I.'s setting a higher priority on their work over mine. Justification for my defensive attitude is detailed in the discussion of Item 4. Ms. Ralph's statements to me attempted to place the blame on my attitude without regard for historical considerations. In response I made an effort to present a preposterous, but analogous, situation to suggest a possible cause-and-effect relation. In whatever mode this statement was brought to Dr. Watson's attention, conversation with Ms. Ralph, or his overhearing the original conversation, as presented in the evaluation, the context of my remark was lost.

The last topic of Item 3 identifies what has been a major complaint regarding ASC management. The amount of communications from management to staff, and in the case of the ARL, staff-to-staff, is neither open nor complete enough to produce an enlightened work atmosphere. This allegation is not just mine, but has been raised by several staff members, especially those in a "junior" rank (Attachment 9). The examples presented here are those I have personally experienced.

First, I would like to address the question of management's role in recognizing and correcting this type of problem. Referenced in Attachment 5 (Response to 1984 Evaluation) under "Limitation 2" are several paragraphs discussing this same subject. Shouldn't there have been an attempt, at any ASC management level, to alleviate this complaint?

The following list is composed of incidences that support my views concerning the communication problem and feelings of isolation.

• Legislature allocation of approximately $350,000 to DRI for air pollution studies within specified areas of Nevada:   the first time I heard of this was via a radio newscast.
  
  
• Determination that Mr. Egami (prior to ASC split) was to administer all Nevada field contracts:   Why wasn't I, as the QA person intimately involved with ARL field programs, consulted about this change?
  
  
• Changes of the P.I. for the DEP Project:   Never in the instances discussed did Dr. Watson or Mr. Egami inform or consult me about the change. This secretive attitude is not consistent with the reason, "marketing decision ", openly stated as the reason in Item 2 of my 1985 Evaluation.
  
  
• Clark County quality Assurance Work:   Mr. Egami decided, without consulting me, not to respond to this work request. My understanding was that decisions in the Quality Assurance area would be made by me.
  
  
• Remaining work on Intercomparison Program to compute mass concentrations:   Although I had written and tested a program for this purpose, Dr. Watson ignored it and, without consulting me, had other ASC personnel start from scratch.
  
  
• Reid-Gardner and Mohave Projects:   At various times during the past four or five years I have approached Dr. Watson, Dr. Bowen and Mr. Egami with the request to be included in contract continuation proposal development for these projects. I would feel more a part of the ARL group and could learn the process of proposal writing to these particular sources in the event that I may be able to approach them for instrument development funds. Unfortunately, they have never asked me to join in the process.
  
  
• Memorandums to the ASC Director requesting funds (Attachment 10, cover pages only):   In both of the documents listed, instrumentation for the Quality Assurance Laboratory and auditing are the main focus (much of the support needs were assembled by me), yet my name was not included as an author.
  
  

  ---

  
  
  Dr. J. Warburton
  19 July 1985
  Page Twelve
  
  
• Secretarial Matters:   Each time the process starts for hiring an ARL secretary I have to argue, with those charged with the responsibility, to include me in the interviewing schedule. In every case the process has started before I was informed of the event, creating an isolated feeling. In addition to these instances I found out that one of the ARL secretaries was going to be released by talking to a person who didn't even work at DRI.
  
  
• ASC Split:   During an ARL staff meeting on 24 April 1985 Dr. Bowen interrupted a discussion between Dr. Fred Rogers and Mr. Egami by stating that their arguments were mute since "things would be changing". Again, secrecy about a major event. Why are only a few (of my peers) privileged with this type of information? This is especially true when the object of these meetings is to inform all ARL staff who do not have the time or contacts to discuss such events during their normal work day.
  
  
• Faculty Senate:   I have never had a representative from ASC come to me for an opinion on Senate matters. This point is a good example of the closed factions that exist.
  
  
• SCENES SOP'S:   These procedures, in part for calibrations and Quality Assurance, were written in the Fall of 1984 without a request for input from me. This necessitated the secretary coming to me for information in order to complete some of the SOP'S.
  
  
• Mohave Dry Deposition Study:   I was overlooked in helping with this work, although my involvement with instrument performance is considerably more extensive than other ASC staff.
  
  
• 1984 Mohave Network Annual Report:   The Quality Assurance section of this report is traditionally updated each year by me; the original author of the section. In the 1984 report Dr. Bowen decided to complete this section rather than pass the responsibility to me. Although I was not asked to review the section I did so in order to check technical descriptions for accuracy and to maintain familiarity with procedural or equipment changes (not mentioned to me during the year). The copy I reviewed had already been sent to the client.
  
  

  ---

  
  
  Dr. J. Warburton
  19 July 1985
  Page Thirteen
  
  During my review several errors were found including paragraphs that were discontinuous and misplaced within the text by several pages. In addition, by writing on the report's margins, I directed to Dr. Bowen several questions, and asked for information on data presented and further explanation of some methodology. Although executed in May, I have not yet received any response from Dr. Bowen.
  
  
• EPA-Sanctioned Industrial Audit Class:   Mr. Egami attended this class, (1985 APCA Convention) without consulting me on where it would fit with our overall Quality Assurance or whether I should attend. Further, Mr. Egami would not answer my question as to which class he had attended. Only after direct written memorandum (Attachment 11) did he indicate which class he had participated in. To this date he has not responded to the particulars of my memo.

In response to making 'minimal efforts at communicating my activities' I will reference the reports that were produced after each audit. Under normal circumstances a response from each P.I. should have followed the respective reports. Only once did I receive a verbal response from Dr. Bowen. Mr. Egami has never responded until I replaced the reports, of work performed for him, with meetings instead. A gesture has been made to Dr. Watson, Dr. Bowen and Mr. Egami in hopes that they would accompany me on an audit to observe how complete a job is being performed. Only Dr. Watson agreed and did attend a partial audit. Dr. Watson did not recognize, after complaining that I was overly fastidious, two incidences; (1) the difficulty in minimizing magnetic biases on the SAGE Building roof, caused by unexposed iron wall supports, while determining a known azimuth for the wind direction audit; and (2) a slightly erratic response, acceptable to most audit standards, in a Dasibi ozone analyzer that, when examined further, proved to be a faulty solenoid switching valve.

In conclusion to this topic and Item 3, I would like to point out that if I am providing 'minimal communication', there is a surprising lack of effort on the parts of Dr. Watson, Dr. Bowen and Mr. Egami to seek me out in order to understand more about my activities. I understand the need for better mutual communication, but a frustrating contradiction is that if I want to know what is happening with the rest of the ARL group, I must find the right person and ask the right questions, and when the rest of the ARL group wants to know my activities, again I must find those persons and inform them. This is a situation which does not appear to apply to all ARL staff members.

Item 4 can be broken down into two topics; (1) form completing; and (2) problems with the secretarial staff, including interactions, conspiracies and work performance.

In the past several years I can only remember one instance when I failed to complete a request for typing form. The secretary promptly notified me of this oversight and I immediately corrected the omission. In accordance with the informal rules, established prior to 1985, short letters and memoranda did not require a form unless special attention was needed; however, I still attached a note to the draft as to whether the document should be 'done soon' or 'within a week'. I have noted to Ms. Ralph that often times the completed form (attached to my hand-written drafts) does not make it through to the final product, often resulting in my receiving the wrong number of copies, in the wrong binding.

This problem has been corrected with the more formal typing requirements handled by Ms. Linda Piehl. I have had only one major report prepared in the new system and found no problems with the forms or work performed. Two exceptions to this involves both Dr. Watson and Mr. Egami circumventing the established process to get Ms. Piehl to immediately work on separate letters that were needed within an hour. These distractions from working on the final draft of my 'priority' report delayed the product to the point of having only enough time to bind one copy and still meet the Stead Post Office deadline for express mail delivery.

The second topic of Item 4 can be answered directly with documented communications. My complaint about typing has never been directed at the secretaries but rather the other ARL P.I.'s. Attachment 12 consists of an itemized list of subjects that I requested Dr. Watson to address during the 22 January 1985 ARL staff meeting (presented to Dr. Watson prior to that meeting), and a memorandum to Dr. Watson from me (30 April 1985). One item of the 22 January 1985 meeting list was directed to the subject of typing priorities.

"Setting priorities in getting reports, etc., typed; several times in the last two years my material has been given a lower priority without the person deciding that his material is more important than mine, ever contacting me for my view. This has delayed one report for two months, and I did catch Hell from the client. Please discuss a fair method of determining priorities."

My memorandum (30 April 1985) to Dr. Watson entitled, "Clarification of your 4/8/85 memo: Air Resources Laboratory Report, Proposal, and Research Paper Preparation" was written in response to Dr. Watson's 8 April 1985 memorandum (also included as part of Attachment 12). Dr. Watson's 8 April 1985 memorandum set guidelines to facilitate document preparation; to my knowledge the first time such guidelines were established. At the end he stated, "I would appreciate any further suggestions you have regarding document preparation". My memorandum under point #3 suggested additional communications between the secretarial staff and document author which required the author to be informed of any changes in work priorities. This system would keep the author aware of his report's status without continual interruptions. I found out very quickly that frequent (twice per day) interruptions were not appreciated by the secretarial staff.

In response to Item 5, itself somewhat incomprehensible, I will offer both my views and some facts.

Although my style and expression of written communications may not be the best at DRI, is it "incomprehensible"? In terms of proposals and/or reports, do all staff members turn out a "final" product for first-time typing? When my reports, or other technical documents, have been reviewed by Dr. Watson and/or Mr. Egami the process has usually occurred directly after my hand-written draft has been typed and before I've had the first chance to alter and improve the product.

Dr. Watson is a critical reviewer, even with his own material, and he subjects my reports and technical documents to the same tests. When returning a document to me he has often stated that his review comments are guidelines and to be used at my prerogative. Dr. Watson's comments were honored except when it involved a change in style without adding to clarity and when the technical reasoning had been altered beyond the original intent. My concern for the second circumstance was documented in Attachment 12; my memorandum to Dr. Watson (30 April 1985) entitled, Clarification of your 4/8/85 memo: Air Resources Laboratory Report, Proposal, and Research Paper Preparation. I do not believe my statement, "Also any edits of an author's prose, made by a reviewer, should be read by the author to ensure that technical correctness and intent are preserved" shows "strong objection", or a belief that reviews are a "tampering with (my) mode of expression" and/or "an infringement on (my) scientific perogatives". To my knowledge few if any other conversations ever addressed this topic.

As additional support to this item I will reference the Initial Status Report to the SLAMS Network Technical Assistance Project, and secondly my correspondence during the termination process. The report shows a comparison between my second draft efforts and comments from Mr. Egami, DEP personnel and EPA personnel. The second reference (including this document) presents a set of logical arguments pursuing my rights through the termination process and in defense of my professional integrity. I have examples of hand-written drafts through final versions to show that minimal external editing was necessary to make each document 'comprehensible'.

Only two comments will be made with respect to Item 6:(1) drawing "conclusions" based on the "evaluation" does not appear justified due to the lack of a factual base, and I ask that you please consider this document as my support in response to this point; and (2) my obligations to the ASC team have been met with completeness and courtesy.

In performing tasks not associated with my normal ARL duties I have tried to accommodate the needs of those personnel requesting the services. Below is a list of references from colleagues within ASC and from ARL clients, as well as incidence that indicate my willingness to work with others.

• Writing the site visitation procedures for the Donnelley ozone study, usually the responsibility of the P.I. (lauded by Dr. Watson for quickness of development and detail).
  
  
• Lone Mountain calibration for the Sierra Pacific Power Company: I replaced another ARL staff member, on two days notice, when he was unable to make the trip.
  
  
• Professional Written Reference from Mr. Rick Purcell (Attachment 13) for advice and aid in solving various component and flow problems.
  
  
• Professional Written Reference from Mr. David Miller (Attachment 14) in regards to our relations during his interim duties as ARL Director, and my assistance with troubleshooting and calibrating Air Chemistry Laboratory gaseous monitors.
  
  
• Professional Written Reference from Mr. Robert E. Smith (Attachment 15), for uncontracted work (performed on Saturdays) at the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection sites.
  
  
• Professional Verbal References from Mr. Aaron Mann and Mr. Hobie Rash, Sierra Pacific Power Company, for my auditing methods which solved some long-term accuracy problems at their Valmy network, and for my patient technician training. I have not included written statements from Messrs. Mann or Rash in order to maintain good professional relations between SPPC and DRI.
  
  
• Professional Verbal Reference from Mr. John Kennedy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for work performed beyond the extent called for in the DEP Technical Assistance Contract. I have not included a written statement from Mr. Kennedy in order to maintain good professional relations between EPA and DRI.

In conclusion, I would like to list some of my contributions to DRI. Some may not be considered major, yet, they were instrumental in opening funding sources to DRI which have been 'closed' for personal or professional reasons.

• SCE Mohave Network Accuracy:   When I arrived in July, 1979 the results of external performance audits conducted on the air quality monitors revealed large (30% to 60%) deviation. After several visits to the sites, and standardizing the procedures and standards used for site instrument calibrations, the deviations dropped to below 10%. Even better comparisons and more consistent results were obtained by incorporating data from the DRI-designed and built Autocal. The increase in confidence of the ambient data collected coincided with the build-up of a Quality Assurance Program. Examples of performance audits conducted by Environmental Research and Technology are too extensive to include in this letter, but, are on file in the Standards Laboratory.
  
  
• ARL Quality Assurance and Audit Program:   Dr. Hoffer initiated efforts to establish Quality Control and Assurance programs prior to my arrival at DRI. I continued this endeavor, at first through labor intensive means since the Laboratory had little equipment, and expanded both the internal QA program as well as providing audit services to outside (DRI) government agencies and industry. Through the Fleischmann Fund and industrial contracts the Standards Laboratory acquired equipment and materials permitting DRI to offer NBS traceable audit and calibration services in:
  
  
  • sulfur dioxide monitoring
  • oxides of nitrogen monitoring
  • ozone monitoring
  • carbon monoxide monitoring
  • particulate sampling (TSP and fractional)
  • low voltage (dc) measurements
  • standard voltage cells
  • frequency measurements
  • pico-ampere source and measurement
  • wind speed measurement
  • wind direction measurement
  • ambient temperature measurement
  • dew point temperature measurement
  • differential temperature measurement
  • flow rate measurements (3 sccm to 2.5 scmm)

The audit style that I have developed well exceeds the minimum protocol suggested by EPA; setting the DRI audit product above the competitors. I attempt to rely on excellent performance in the field as a means of selling the DRI audit product. Please note Dr. Watson's recognition of this fact in the following, which is taken from my 1983 evaluation:

Beyond these services I also conduct onsite training for technicians and peers when requested. I feel that my versatility in the field is a personnel feature not offered by most other organizations -- my attention can be settled into observing indications of several analyzers, simultaneously, for 8 to 10 hours during an audit, or climbing a 100m tower to perform in-situ audit checks of the meteorological instruments.

• SCE Mohave Network Data Adjustment Plan:   In 1978 through 1980 DRI was manufacturing and deploying automatic calibration systems to air quality monitoring sites in the Mohave network. I devised a system that utilized data from these "Autocals" to adjust ambient data. The system proved to be efficient and to produce a consistent stable data base. Prior to the development of this procedure a technician, based in Reno, traveled to the network in the Bullheed City, Arizona vicinity for three to five days every week. This was done to keep the analyzers within 5% agreement of the Autocal unit by instrument adjustment.
  
  Because of post-adjustment drift and technician biases this method produced erratic data. By allowing the analyzer to drift without intervention, as in the new method, greater stability was observed. It was then easier to adjust the ambient data by computer means to the desired accuracy. The second advantage to the newer method was to save on labor for a full-time technician, his weekly travel (air and ground), room and board. At present, the Reno-based technician spends less than two weeks in the network and approximately two months repairing instrumentation sent to the Reno laboratory.
  
  
  

  ---

  
  Dr. J. Warburton
  19 July 1985
  Page Twenty
  
  
• Sierra Pacific Power Company, June 1982 Valmy Audit:   The history of this project involves some animosities between upper SPPC and DRI management which had kept a local funding source from being available until Mr. Egami opened communications with the SPPC Environmental Engineering Group. Mr. Egami had agreed to use DRI as a third attempt at solving the accuracy problems noted by two separate auditing teams. Within a one-month period, two independent companies had conducted performance audits on the sulfur dioxide analyzers with conflicting results (30% to 50% differences between the auditors). Neither was able to identify the cause of such large deviations because their procedures called for only the minimum action necessary.
  
  During my audit in the presence of three client representatives, a 16% deviation was observed. While initiating my troubleshooting procedures I questioned the SPPC personnel about their calibration system and methodology. We were led back to a point in one of their permeation system calculations which revealed a double correction for density (one instrumental, the second mathematical) introducing a 17% error. The calculated deviation counterpoised the observed deviation leaving a 1% net difference. The client was delighted with the finding, but especially impressed that someone at DRI (a contractor) had taken a little more time to resolve the problem.
  
  
• Portable Calibration System:   Mr. Egami received a contract to develop a portable (small suitcase-size) microprocessor controlled gas monitor calibration system. Because of other commitments I worked on this project during my own time, accumulating over 300 personal hours in several months, including part of my vacation. The multi-functional unit sensed flow rates, computed test concentration and displayed one of eleven parameters according to the chosen position of the mode switch. The package also indicated flow control problems and other minor self-diagnostics. In addition the configuration could be changed slightly, from the top panel which allowed the unit to perform flow rate calibrations on external metering devices.
  
  The purchaser of the calibration system was very impressed with its operation (portability, simplicity in use, stability and accuracy). These people are available for references to my performance, however, since they are still clients relying on DRI integrity I would suggest contacting them as a last resort. I will supply the names and phone numbers at your request.
  
  

  ---

  
  Dr. J. Warburton
  19 July 1985
  Page Twenty-One
  
  
• Stable/Precision Ozone Generator:   In response to requests from outside concerns for a NO/NOX monitor calibration system, with gas phase titration capabilities, we developed a small stable and repeatable ozone generator to retrofit the above-mentioned calibration unit. With slight modifications this generator can (and is) being used as a site calibration unit for routine dynamic checks of DRI and Clark County ozone analyzers.

Finally, I will discuss my history at DRI, including past evaluations, and what I have always expected from DRI in exchange for my services in the Quality Assurance role.

Before accepting employment at DRI I investigated the potential for learning proper research techniques. During six years of trying to prove my abilities, certain potentials for professional growth have not been forthcoming. However, this situation has worsened in the last two years, and as a result I feel little incentive. This is very frustrating, and is s basis for supervisor and peer confrontations. My concern has been voiced frequently during my invested time at DRI. Echoes of my desire can be found in evaluation written by Mr. Roger Steele, ARL Director (1980, Attachment 16):

My verbal and written comments (see my 1984 Evaluation Response) to Dr. Watson appear to have gone unnoticed. Therefore, whether Dr. Watson's term of "conspiracy" is true or whether ARL staff have individually chosen to overlook my accomplishments (and excellent 1980 through 1983 evaluations) is of concern. My present situation is that I am inundated with tedious, albeit necessary, work without prospects for scientific advancement. The result of this discouraging predicament is low morale. My references, from both ASC staff and DRI/ARL clients, illustrate a capability to interact professionally. I am confused as to why I am able to get along with others (professional references), yet according to my 1985 evaluation, I am incapable of interacting with ARL staff.

I seek reinstatement. Should reinstatement be granted I request that management actively support a process directed at solving the conflicts between Dr. Watson, Dr. Bowen, Mr. Egami and myself. As my actions in May show, I am willing to participate, with the intent of altering any disrespectful attitudes, whether in a formal or informal plan.

I would be pleased to discuss alternatives. My hopes are to continue scientific endeavors by realizing the potential available at DRI. The six years I have invested toward this goal have directly benefited DRI, and is indication of my sincerity.

INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS

1. Evaluation of Performance for Ric Capirci, 1985.
   
   
2. NBS Traceability Paths from the DEP Initial Status Report.
   
   
3. a. Performance Audit Data Forms.
   b. Supplemental Systems Audit Forms.
   
   
4. Professional Personnel Evaluation Report, 1982.
   
   
5. a. Professional Personnel Evaluation Report 1984.
   b. Response to Professional Personnel Evaluation Report, 1984.
   
   
6. Memorandum to Mr. Warren Kocmond from Dr. John Watson, 2 March 1983,
     Laboratory Development Funds.
   
   
7. a. DEP project, brief proposal outline by Mr. Egami.
   b. DEP project, proposal outline by Ric Capirci.
   c. DEP project, hand-written draft of proposal by Ric Capirci.
   d. DEP project, Final Letter Proposal, signed by Mr. Egami.
   e. DEP project, Memorandum to Ms. Barbara Craig from Mr. Joe Neumann,
      "New Account, State of Nevada, Dept. of Environmental Protection",
      5 December 1984, and attached Contractual Document Transmittal Form.
   f. Current ASC Account Numbers, 5 December 1984.
   g. Air Resources Laboratory Project List, 14 March 1985.
   h. Current ASC Account Numbers (page 2), 1 May 1985.
   
   
8. Memorandum to John Bowen and Dick Egami from Ric Capirci, "DRI Audits of SCE and NPC Sites, 23 February 1985.
   
   
9. Letter to Dr. George Hidy from ASC "Junior" Staff, 10 May 1985.
   
   
10. a. Memorandum (first page) to Mr. Warren Kocmond from Mr. Richard Egami and
       Dr. John Bowen, "Air Resources Laboratory Facilities", 31 March 1982.
    b. Memorandum (first page) to Mr. Warren Kocmond from Dr. John Watson,
       "Laboratory Development Funds", 2 March 1983.
    
    
11. Memorandum to Dick Egami from Ric Capirci, "Developing an Industrial Auditing Capability within DRI", 26 June 1985.
    
    
    

    ---

    
    
    
12. a. Memorandum to ARL Staff from John Watson, "Monthly Air Resources Laboratory
       Meeting", l8 January 1985, and Ric Capirci hand-written questions of topics
       to discuss at 22 January 1985 ARL staff meeting, presented to Dr. Watson on
       22 January 1985 (prior to meeting).
    b. Memorandum to John Watson from Ric Capirci, "Clarification of your 4/8/85 memo:
       Air Resources Laboratory Report, Proposal, and Research Paper Preparation",
       30 April 1985, and a Memorandum to ARL staff from John Watson, 'Air Resources
       Laboratory Report, Proposal and Research Paper Preparation, 8 April 1985.
    
    
13. Letter of Reference to "To Whom It May Concern" from Mr. Rick Purcell, 18 July 1985.
    
    
14. Letter of Reference to "To Whom It May Concern" from Mr. David Miller, 19 July 1985.
    
    
15. Letter of Reference to Dr. George Hidy from Mr. Robert E. Smith (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 29 June 1985.
    
    
16. Professional Personnel Evaluation Report, 1980.

Last year John Watson and Dick Egami met with Ric Capirci to review his performance. At that time they pointed out to him several deficiencies in his professional conduct and achievements that had to be corrected if he were to remain on the staff. These centered on five specific areas of his assigned work that were, in the opinion of his supervisors, not being performed satisfactorily. Following last year's review, Mr. Egami and Dr. Watson set goals for the coming year. They added to the original list a professional publication goal. These included: 1) developing written procedures for gas monitor audits, flow rate audits, standards lab calibrations, and systems audits; 2) setting up a quality assurance library which would allow the traceability of any measurement appearing in our data bases to primary standards; 3) generating a standard audit report and data forms which would minimize the report preparation effort; 4) developing ideas regarding new markets and a strategy to approach them; 5) writing two scientific papers, one regarding a stable ozone generator developed at DRI and another concerning a volumetric flow controller developed at DR1 and; 6) performing an assessment of other quality assurance areas into which DRI should be projecting itself (e. g., visibility, acid deposition, toxic substances).

In the opinion of his supervisors, Mr. Capirci's progress towards attaining these objectives is unsatisfactory, despite the substantial amounts of internal research and development money given to him. He has received more than anyone else in the Air Resources Lab, and still the results are intangible.

Currently, Mr. Capirci's primary assignment is the development of quality assurance and instrument repair procedures for the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection. The history of this assignment is as follows: He was requested by Mr. Egami to prepare a proposal to the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, under sponsorship of EPA Region IX, to help them develop QA procedures and instruments. Mr. Egami laid all the groundwork. He dealt with Dick Serdoz of DEP and John Kennedy of EPA and obtained the funding. After waiting for a month, Mr. Egami and Dr. Watson wrote the proposal together. Dr. Watson insisted that Mr. Capirci be named as principal investigator, despite Mr. Egami's objections that it was unwarranted. Mr. Egami subsequently convinced Dr. Watson that it would be a better marketing strategy to list Dr. Watson as principal investigator owing to his previous publications in the area of measurement accuracy, precision, and validity. Mr. Capirci has violently objected to this marketing decision which was intended to improve our position in the quality assurance marketplace, even though his role in the project would be the same for all practical purposes. The mission of the QA lab is expanding to incorporate audits and performance checks on visibility measurements, and toxic substances. Mr. Capirci is not versed in these topics.

In no way can it be construed that Mr. Capirci deserves the title of principal investigator on this contract. A principal investigator is defined as the individual who A) identified the need for the service or research, B) identified and made contact with the funding agency, and C) prepared the proposal. After receiving the contract, he is responsible for carrying out the research or performing the required service outlined in the work statement.

The following paragraphs leave the topic of professional responsibilities and discuss his personal interactions with his peers, subordinates and supervisors.

Both Dr. Bowen and Mr. Egami, program managers of the monitoring networks in which Mr. Capirci does the majority of his work, have expressed dissatisfaction with not only the written reports which he produces, but also with the lack of courtesy and respect with which he treats them. He continually finds excuses for being the last one to be informed about laboratory and project activities, his most common excuse is that there is an active conspiracy on the parts of his supervisors, and the project managers to deprive him of knowledge regarding what is going on in the Air Resources Laboratory. Conversely, he makes minimal effort to communicate his activities to his supervisor and peers. He has likened all of us, but John Watson in particular, to the Nazis and himself to the Jews during World War II. This is preposterous and insulting.

Ric also has difficulty interacting with the secretarial staff. So many demands were made on the secretarial staff to produce proposals and reports that a priority system had to be instituted. The priority system treats proposals first, short letters second,. and reports third. Certain reports are given a higher priority depending on how essential they are to future DRI business. Through memoranda this system has been communicated to all ARL staff. Mr. Capirci rarely fills out the forms to provide the staff with sufficient notice of his deadlines. He is not willing to work with the staff to make certain that the job gets done. His supervisors have been forced to delay their own work on several occasions, perhaps rightfully so, in order to facilitate the typing of his material. Nevertheless he still accuses the secretarial staff of a conspiracy to place his reports in last place.

Ric's reports require heavy editing before they are acceptable, yet he objects strongly to this, believing that any tampering with his mode of expression, which his supervisors find incomprehensible, is an infringement on his scientific perogatives.

The above evaluation leads to the conclusion that Mr. Capirci's professional performance is unsatisfactory and that he has been apprised of that fact prior to this evaluation. In addition, he is not functioning as a member of the ASC team. Therefore, I am recommending to Vice President Gold that Mr. Capirci's contract not be renewed for fiscal year 1985-86. His current contract will be extended to cover the notice period, June 3, 1985 through October 11, 1985, provided for in the UNS Code Section 5.8.