ML20092C574
| ML20092C574 | |
| 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 NUDOCS 9509130050 | |
| Download: ML20092C574 (2) | |
Text
__
_._ _ _. _ ~
_ _ _ __._ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ m i\\
i lv-REPORT OF INTERVIEW I
WITH ANDREW W. WOODS WOODS was interviewed on July 29, 1992, by Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC)
Investigator Virginia Van Cleave by telephone from Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P), Houston, Texas. Also present during this interview was William E.
BAER, Attorney with Newman and Holtzinger, representing HL&P and WOODS.
l WOODS stated that he has been employed at the South Texas Project (STP) since February 13, 1976. On March 7,1983, he began working for HL&P in
}
their Nuclear Security Department (NSD). Since the end of 1988, he has been j
a senior coordinator in access screening in the NSD.
WOODS explained that two employment application type forms were completed by contractor employees. These were the data fom, which was completed prior to i
arrival on site and given by the contractors to their supervisor upon arrival i
at STP; and the screening affidavit, which was provided to the contractors l
when they reported to the central processing facility at STP. WOODS stated l
that contractors did not receive the screening affidavit prior to reporting for duty at STP. According to WOODS, the contractor completed the screening l
affidavit and either WOODS or the administrative clerk, Ophelia LARA, reviewed the screening affidavit fom with the individual. WOODS stated that he explained to the employees that they must identify any potentially derogatory I
infomation and any omissions or false information could lead to denial or i
revocation of site access. WOODS stated that he reviewed anything i
questionable on the form with the amployee and provided them an opportunity to i
ask questions regarding their background investigation. WOODS said the j
screening affidavit was then forwarded to the backgrounds section, which is located at STP, and if any potentially derogatory infomation was revealed j
during the review of the screening affidavit fom, he forwarded the fom to the NSD for their review and possible adjudication of the employee.
WOODS recalled that he did not review the screening affidavit form with j
Thomas J. SAPORITO, adding that duty was handled by LARA; but he signed the form verifying ever with SAPORITO, he [ything on it. WOODS stated that following LARA's review i
i WOODS. reviewed SAPORITO's nuclear file and requested that NSD adjudicate it for credit, employment, and criminal history. He stated that they did so, and access was granted to SAPORITO. WOODS stated that he had nothing to do with SAPORITO's second adjudication and had no knowledge i
about SAPORIT0's access revocation.
He stated that when an access was revoked i
for cause, he usually received the badge transaction request fom and asked i
for an adjudication to see if the individual should be placed on STP's access denial list. WOODS said he did not believe such an adjudication was performed l
in SAPORIT0's case because he did not recall receiving SAPORITO's badge transaction form.
1 WOODS stated that he was contacted in March 1992, by Troy CONNER, an l
investigator for the Nuclear Support Services. Hershey, Pennsylvania, who i
requested infomation about SAPORITO. WOODS stated that any releases for criminal history requests from other utilities were sent to him for his completion. WOODS recalled that Betty BROWN, STP Manager of Personnel Relations, telephoned him and told him not'to release any information on j
SAPORITO because there was an ongoing access investigation on him. According Case No. 4-92-003 1
Exhib j
950913o050 950811 Pag SNOR 5-90 PDR
I 5 1.
i-to WOODS, she told him to notify his management if he got any requests for information about SAPORITO. WOODS stated that when BROWN telephoned him, he had already spoken with CONNER, but had not received SAPORITO's release i
from him. WOODS stated that he told BROWN about his conversation with CONNER, J
and she reiterated that he should not release any information without his management's approval; WOODS stated at that time, Richard BALCOM and Rex MOORE were his supervisors. WOODS stated that he notified both of these individuals of CONNER's request. WOODS said he believed he provided MOORE 1
with a copy of the facsimile he had received from CONNER. WOODS stated he did
{
not respond to this facsimile and did not know if BALCOM or MOORE had responded. According to WOODS, MOORE and BALCOM instructed him to notify them imediately if he received any other requests from anyone for information on t
SAPORITO. WOODS stated that he never received any further requests from anyone regarding SAPORITO.
He stated that he had no subsequent discussions 1
with BALCOM or MOORE regarding SAPORITO.
WOODS explained that HL&P's usual procedure was to complete a security letter on a former employee providing personnel information, criminal history, and t
i dates of employment. He said HL&P provided this information solely to other utilities and usually did not release any information regarding former i
employees to any company other than a utility.
However, WOODS explained that this was the access program coordinator's decision, j
WOODS stated that in late April or early May 1992, he attended a briefing by BAER, who told him that there was an ongoing investigation regarding SAPORITO l
and to cooperate with the NRC if he was asked questions regarding this matter.
WOODS stated that he had attended no other meetings or briefings during which SAPORITO was discussed.
This report prepared on August 3, 1992, from investigator's notes.
5 A
AJkJ Virgifria Van cleave, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, RIV i
4 4