ML20092C544
| ML20092C544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1992 |
| From: | Van Cleave V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092C478 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-95-80 2.206, NUDOCS 9509130039 | |
| Download: ML20092C544 (2) | |
Text
- - -
\\
(
\\
v REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH TERRY J. MILLSAP MILLSAP was interviewsd on July 29, 1992, by Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) Investigator Virginia Van Cleave at Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P),
I I
South Texas Project (STP). Also present during the interview was William E.
BAER, Attorney with Newman and Holtzinger, representing HL&P and MILLSAP.
MILLSAP stated that she has been employed by HL&P as a senior quality assurance specialist since December 1988. Prior to that time, she worked as a contract investigator for the Speakout program beginning in March 1986.
MILLSAP stated that her supervisor, Thomas J. JORDAN ~ told her he wanted someone from outside the Nuclear Security Department (NSD) to perfom an assessment of the access authorization program. JORDAN selected MILLSAP and Robert CARTER, Access Program Supervisor with Gulf States Utilities Company, to perfom this assessment. According to MILLSAP, on June 1, 1992, JORDAN presented her with the management objectives for this project and requested that she develop an assessment plan, which she subsequently provided to him on June 15, 1992. The assessment of the program was perfomed from June 15 - 19, 1992 MILLSAP stated that JORDAN told her he wanted this assessment due to HL&P's receipt of a 2.206 petition. She stated he did not mention the 2.206 petitioner by name. MILLSAP said the first she had heard of Thomas J.
SAPORITO was during the performance of the assessment when Watt HINSON mentioned the name [SAPORIT0] to CARTER. MILLSAP stated she did not recall i
what HINSON told CARTER about SAPORITO. She said she also could not recall if JORDAN mentioned an NRC investigation involving the access authorization
- program, j
MILLSAP stated that she reviewed the Investigation's Tracking System open j
items log and decided to categorize the NSD adjudications by the following categories:
fitness-for-duty; subsequent arrests requiring 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> notification; credit history; repetitive criminal issues; failure to disclose; l
random; and revoked / denied. MILLSAP stated that neither JORDAN nor anyone else specifically told her to look at the failure to disclose issues. The L
review encompassed the beginning of 1989 until mid-June 1992.
She stated that i
she and CARTER reviewed approximately 200 files that were adjudicated under the old criteria and approximately 25 that were investigated using the new criteria instituted in May 1992. MILLSAP stated that she reviewed subsequent arrests, fitness-for-duty, and repetitive criminal issues and assigned CARTER I
to review the failure to disclose issue. She stated that her review indicated i
that no one had ever been denied or revoked access to STP solely as a result 1 -
of credit history issues. She stated that she also detemined that access was i
denied only in two cases solely as a result of failure to report a subsequent arrest within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, and each of these two cases involved a second offense.
MILLSAP also determined that access was granted even though there was a record of substance abuse if the fitness-for-duty failure was initially disclosed; more than 3 years had elapsed since the failure; and the employee provided l
objective evidence of substance abuse rehabilitation, j
MILLSAP stated that CARTER reviewed all the failure to disclose issues, and MILLSAP requested that he matrix his results into categories and l
subcategories. However, he never provided her with this infomation,
/
rac. Nn. 4 02 nn1 1
Exhibit g 91 g 9 950001
[/'
vC Page f o I
SAPOR (TO95-80 P DR.
J Consequently, she reviewed his " failure to disclose" notes and categorized the results. This review resulted in two categories:
one for criminal issues, and one for other reasons such as education, employment, etc. MILLSAP explained that she did not count cases in her total of revocations or denials if she could not determine the reason for the decision. She stated that of the 200 files reviewed, 57 were adjudicated for failure to disclose information. According to MILLSAP, STP usually granted or continued access to individuals who failed to disclose criminal history, but revoked or denied access to individuals who failed to disclose information other than criminal issues.
She stated that she determined that nine individuals failed to disclose information other than criminal history and eight of these were denied access to STP. MILLSAP said it appeared that a judgement call was made to detennine if the failure to disclose information was a willful omission, and frequently, the basis for granting or denying access was not documented in the files. MILLSAP stated that there appeared to be some inconsistencies in granting or revoking / denying access as a result of failure to diselose issues prior to the revision of the access denial criteria in May 1992.
She stated that the review of 25 files, processed after this revision, indicated the criteria were consistently applied and decisions were free from bias and discrimination.
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: The investigator and MILLSAP reviewed all of MILLSAP's handwritten notes and analyses of the data. She provided the investigator with a copy of her notes and explained each subheading.
This report prepared on August 3, 1992, from investigator's notes.
S mb VirgWa van cleave, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, RIV Exhibith Case No. 4-92-003 2
Page b f, y'