ML20092C621
| ML20092C621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1992 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092C478 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-95-80 NUDOCS 9509130065 | |
| Download: ML20092C621 (171) | |
Text
__
o 1
i 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
2 NUCIE.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5
X 6
In the Matter of:
4 7
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW 8
Jay Watt Hinson
- Docket Nos. 50-498 9
50-499 10 (CLOSED) 11
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 4
]
12 13 Nuclear Support Center i
14 South Texas Project 15 Room 1103 1
16 Bay City, Texas 17 1
18 Tuesday, July 28, 1992 i
19 20 21 The above-entitled matter commenced at 10:50 22 o' clock a.m., when were present:
23
......,. - u e - - c d r - P 'Od
, n..ra 25 h-
~,, 33M ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
[M
~
Court Reporters I
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300, fd
-}
& 003 Wachington, D. C. 20006 J
p@$91$8?Is950811 (202) 293-3950 4 j-SAPORITO95-80 PDR
^
l 2
m 1
2 VIRGINIA J. VAN CLEAVE, 3
Investigator 4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5
Region IV 6
611 Ryan Plaza Drive 7
Suite 1000 8
Arlington, Texas 76011 i
9 4
10 ON BEHALF OF THE WITNESS:
11 12 WILLIAM E.
BAER, JR, ESQUIRE 13 Newman & Holtzinger 14 1615 L Street, Northwest 15 Washington, D.C.
20036 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
24 25 ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 4
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
3 i
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
(10:50 a.m.)
3 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
For the record, this is an 4
interview of Jay Watt Hinson, that's H-I-N-S-O-N, S 5
Date of birth, p
6 He employed by Houston
{
7 Lighting and Power, South Texas Project.
The date is July 8
the 28th, 1992, and the time is 10:50 a.m.
t l
9 Present at this interview are myself, Virginia van 10 Cleave, Investigator for the NRC Office of Investigations, 11 and William Baer, Attorney with Newman & Holtzinger.
i 12 This interview is being tape recorded by Court l
13 Reporter, Tom Whiteside.
l 14 Whereupon, 15 JAY WATT HINSoN, l
16 a witness, was called for examination and, having been first J
17 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
l 18 EXAMINATION 19 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
l.
)
20 Q
I have a couple of questions initially regarding 21 Mr. Baer's presence here.
l 22 Does your employer require you to have an attorney i
23 present when you talk to the NRC?
l 24 A
No.
They don't require it.
j 25 Q
Do they encourage it?
I
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Og(
Court Reporters Do 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
4 1
A There's a policy that says that we're entitled to 2
have legal representation when we testify to the NRC.
j 3
Q Is Mr. Baer acting as your personal 4
representative?
5 A
Yes, he is.
4 6
Q Did you select him personally or did your company f
7 select him for you?
8 A
I selected him personally.
9 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Mr. Baer, who is your employer?
10 MR. BAER:
Newman & Holtzinger.
11 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Are you acting as Mr. Hinson's i
12 personal representative?
l 13 MR. BAER:
Yes, I am.
1 14 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Does your firm represent any 15 other party associated with the South Texas Project?
16 MR. BAER:
Yes.
17 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Do you personally represent any 18 other parties at the South Texas Project?
19 MR. BAER:
Yes.
i l
20 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
And who are those parties?
21 MR. BAER:
Houston Lighting and Power Company.
95i8 22 And the other individua being interviewed in connection 23 with this investigation.
24 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Do you personally represent 25 Houston Lighting and Power with respect to this interview?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters O
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Q%
4 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
=.
1 5
1 MR. BAER:
Yes, I do.
I 2
MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Do you believe a potential
]
3 conflict of interest could arise during the course of this
)
4 interview?
5 MR. BAER:
It is always possible that a conflict 6
of interest may arise.
However, at this time, I do not 7
foresee that.
8 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
If a potential conflict of 9
interest arise, what will you do?
10 MR. BAER:
I will stop the interview, discuss the 11 situation with Mr. Hinson, and we will decide how to proceed 12 at that point.
l 13 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
I 14 Q
Mr. Hinson, do you understand that Mr. Baer l
15 represents other parties associated with the South Texas i
16 Project?
I 17 A
Yes.
18 Q
What is your understanding of who is paying Mr.
19 Baer's fee?
20 A
Houston Lighting and Power is paying Mr. Baer's 21 fee.
22 Q
Do you, with that understanding, still wish Mr.
1 23 Baer to be your representative?
i 24 A
Absolutely.
1 25 Q
What is your position here at South Texas Project?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Og Washington, D. C. 20006 n
(202) 293-3950
6 1
A My current position is Division Manager of the 2
Access Authorization Division of.the Nuclear Licensing f
3 Department.
i i
4 Q
What does that mean?
What do you do?
l 5
A I manage the Access Authorization Program.
i j
6 Q
Is that your sole function now?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
How long have you had that position?
j
]
9 A
Since approximately mid-March 1992.
10 Q
What was your position prior to that time?
i 11 A
Prior to that, I was the Administrator of the 12 Investigations and compliance Division of the Nuclear l
13 Security Department.
i 14 Q
How long did you have that position?
j 15 A
I was promoted to the Administrator's position 16 approximately a year, maybe a year and a half prior to that Til l
17
-- to mid-March of this/YEBA
.I l
18 Q
So, around what -- till the end of 1990?
f 19 A
Somewhere in that neighborhood.
I would have to 20 go to my personnel file to get you an exact date.
21 Q
How long have you worked here at the site?
22 A
I was employed at the project February the 15th of 23 1988.
6 That's easy to remember.
24 Q
25 A
Best day of my life.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Og Washington, D. C. 20006
') l (202) 293-3950 i
7 1
Q Have you worked for Houston Lighting and Power l
prior to that time?
2 3
A I had not been an employee of Houston Lighting and 4
Power, no.
5 Q
Had you been a contractor in any way?
{
i 6
A I had -- I worked for a firm in Houston that 7
provided Houston Lighting and Power with polygraph testing 8
services.
We did that for them.
9 Q
When you started working here onsite, did you 10 start working in Nuclear Security as soon as you --
11 A
Yes.
I was employed as the Lead Investigator for 12 the Investigations Section of the Nuclear Security 13 Department.
14 Q
So, you worked in Investigations here about four 15 years?
16 A
Uh-huh.
17 Q
Who is your supervisor now?
18 A
My supervisor now is Mr. Will Jump.
19 Q
Are you no longer associated with the Nuclear 20 security Department?
21 A
I have no connection with Nuclear Security at all 22 now.
23 Q
Who was your supervisor during February 1992?
24 A
Mr. Richard -- I believe his middle initial is L.
25 Balcom.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 8
i
~
1 Q
As you know, I'm here to look into the l
l 2
circumstances surrounding the revocation of access of Mr.
l 3
Thomas Saporito.
4 When did you first become aware of Mr. Saporito?
5 A
Can I refer to the file?
6 Q
Sure.
When you say the file, what file do you 7
mean?
8 A
I have two files here.
One file is the file that 9
was put together, at the time -- was put together by the 10 Human Resources Department.
And it is Mr. Saporito's 11 nuclear file.
The other file I have is a file that was put 12 together by the Investigations Section of the Security 13 Department, and it is Mr. Saporito's investigation file.
14 There will be documents in each file that I'll 15 refer to as you ask me questions about the events 16 surrounding Mr. Saporito, if that's okay.
17 Q
That's fine.
18 A
Now, your question was?
19 Q
My question was when did you first become aware of 20 Mr. Saporito?
21 A
The first time I became aware of Mr. Saporito was 1
22 approximately February the 3rd of 1992.
23 Q
And how did it come to your attention?
24 A
I received a memo that was authored by Andrew 25 Woods, requesting an adjudication investigation on Mr.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
9 1
Sapocito.
l 2
Q What does the phrase adjudication and 3
investigation mean?
4 A
Within the access authorization program if, during 5
the process of granting unescorted access, derogatory 6
information is developed that may impact the decision to 7
grant access, that information was forwarded to the i
f 8
Investigations Section for adjudication.
We would perform 9
an investigation, present the results to the access program 10 director so that he could factor that into his decision as 11 to whether or not to grant access.
12 Q
And the access program director at that time was 13 Mr. Balcom?
14 A
In February it was Mr. Balcom, yes.
15 Q
So, Mr. Woods forwarded a memo to you.
Did he 16 forward some sort of information?
You mentioned derogatory 17 information?
18 A
The memo said attached please find the nuclear 19 file /
on the following 20 individuals, and one of which was Thomas J. Saporito.
Mr.
21 Woods' request was that we look at the credit report within 22 his nuclear file, and his employment.
23 Q
Did you do that yourself or did one of -- did you 24 have a staff?
I suppose I should clarify that.
Did you 25 have investigators working for you at that time?
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court 19eporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
'Jp Washington, D. C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
d 10 1
A At the time, I had two investigators working for 1
2 me, Carlos Ottino, and Gary Pomeroy.
1 3
Q Did you usually perform this type of review or 4
adjudication processes yourself, or did you usually assign 5
it to one of them to do?
l 6
A Usually I would assign it to one of them to do.
7 Q
And what did you do in this case?
8 A
well, I'm not real sure.
The derogatory i
9 information, or the information that Mr. Woods was asking us 10 to look at involved a credit report, which had already been 11 run electronically, and was contained within the nuclear 12 file.
13 and a 14 reference to one of his prior employers, which Mr. Saporito 15 had listed on his data form for unescorted access -- since 4
16 all of those documents were already present in the nuclear 17 file, it's entirely possible that I just put it all together f
18 and took it into Balcom for his review.
We didn't -- I l
19 don't specifically remember assigning it to an investigator 20 for any follow-up action.
And there's no indication in the i
21 file that that's what I did.
i 22 Q
Do you keep any kind of log of your -- did you 23 keep any kind of log of files like this -- you know, who has j
24 them and who is assigned to them and what they're supposed i
25 to do with them?
l 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i i
11 1
A Each investigation that was referred to the l
2 section was assigned a unique sequential case number, a 3
five-digit number.
The first two digits would have l
4 represented the year.
In Mr. Saporito's case, the case j
l 5
number was 92-1271.
We kept a PC, a personal computer 3
6 database that sequentially tracked those numbers.
Our 7
general practice was that the investigator that was assigned j
8 to an individual case would be reflected on that database 9
tracking system.
But it was in no way meant to
-10 be an accurate representation of who worked the case.
You 11 went to the individual file itself for the facts in the 12 case, you did not rely on the tracking system.
13 Q
And why did you have the tracking system?
14 A
It was a management tool for me.
15 Q
What did the case reflect on 92-1271 at that time?
l 16 A
I don't have any idea.
I'd have to go get a i
l 17 printout to do that.
i 18 Q
Would it show whether or not it was assigned to 19 someone else, or do you know?
20 A
Without looking at it, I would hesitate to answer, 21 Virginia.
22 Q
Does it still have a record?
I mean, has it been 23 erased or is that still --
24 A
No.
It's still in existence.
1 25 Q
It's still in existence?
We might want to do ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders
}k 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 12 1
that.
I'd like to --
2 A
Yes.
Sure.
I'd be happy to provide it.
3 Q
Okay.
l 4
A I honestly don't remember what it says to be 5
honest with you.
\\
6 Q
Does this case number stay with the individual, no 7
matter how many -- if they should be adjudicated again or 8
anything?
j 4
j 9
A It stays with this investigation.
10 Q
Okay.
And you don't recall whether or not you did 11 this yourself or if you assigned this to Mr. Ottino or Mr.
12 Pomeroy; is that correct?
13 A
My best recollection is I just took it into 4
l 14 Balcom, but I don't recall.
l 3
15 Q
Do you recall taking it in to Balcon at all?
16 A
Yes.
i 17 Q
You do recall that?
18 A
Uh-huh.
19 Q
And what did you tell him, do you recall?
20 A
I remember taki the nuclear file and a -- what we called an adjudicat k documentation form which was in 21 22 the investigation file that had a summary of the facts in I
23 the case, and presented it to him.
l 1
24 Q
Who did the summary?
l 25 A
Probably my secretary.
She would have summarized 1
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
i Court Reporters i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
\\
13 1
the information -- it appears to be her handwriting.
2 Q
Where did she get the information?
l l
3 A
From the memo that she received from Mr. Woods
(
4 with the nuclear file attached to it.
5 Q
So, she -- is that standard practice?
l 6
A Uh-huh.
Yes.
7 Q
She writes down the facts?
8 A
She would summarize the information that Mr. Woods 9
wanted us to look at, present it to me.
If, in my opinion, lo it required a follow-up investigation of some form or l
11 fashion, I would typically assign it to an investigator.
If 12 it was something that seemed pretty clear on the surface, 13 didn't require any follow-up, I would just take it into Mr.
I 14 Balcom myself.
i 15 Q
Did you also conduct investigations yourself?
i 16 A
Sure.
i 17 Q
In this case you did, at some point, take it into 18 Mr. Balcom?
)
19 A
Uh-huh.
20 Q
What did you discuss with Mr. Balcom at that time?
21 A
The fact that his 22
, that Mr. Saporito's 6 -- well, t
'23 actually, his data form and the affidavit that he had 24 submitted for unescorted access, indicated that Q 25 1
!~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
~
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Og Washington, D. C. 20006
')
(202) 293-3950
14 1
And that, on his employment, on the data form, he indicated he was terminated from Florida 2
4 3
Power and Light as a result of participation in an NRC 4
4 investigation.
5 Q
You took the information to Mr. Balcon and you 6
explained this to him.
Did you, as a standard practice, j
7 offer any opinions or recommendations as to what you thought
)
8 should be done?
I 9
A Yes.
10 Q
and did you in this case?
11 A
Yes.
I 12 Q
What was your recommendation?
shdo yd 13 A
I felt we er.euldr. t grant Mr. Saporito access.
14 Q
And what did you base that recommendation on?
i 15 A
I didn't see anything within this information that 16 would indicate he would pose a threat to the plant.
17 Q
Did you attempt to verify any of that information?
i j
18 A
No.
i
~
19 Q
Did you contact Florida Power and Light?
20 A
No.
But, I guess I need to say, Wackenhut had 21 already contacted Florida Power and Light.
22 Q
Wackenhut is the contractor that performs 23 background investigations for --
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
-- Houston Lighting and Power, South Texas 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Wg Washington, D. C. 20006 5
(202) 293-3950
.=
15 t
l 1
Project; is that correct?
l 2
A That's correct.
I said that, but I may be wrong.
]
3 Let me look through this again.
No, I couldn't find it.
And included in Mr. Saporito's file is a report
{
4 Q
5 from Wackenhut?
6 A
Yes.
Wackenhut submitted, by fax, his 7
investigation report, dated January the 30th of '92.
- And, 8
within that report, they had contacted Florida Power and 9
Light and verified that he was employed with Florida Power 10 and Light.
11 Q
Did they obtain any other information that is on 12 that background investigation report?
13 A
Which information?
i, 14 Q
From Florida Power and Light?
15 A
You said did they obtain --
16 Q
Did they get anything else other than the dates of f
i 17 employment, the fact that he did work for them?
Is there 18 any other information there that suggests a reason for 1
19 termination?
l 20 A
No.
That's not here.
They said -- on January the 1
21 16th, Elizabeth crosante advised that the subject was l
22 employed, reflected by the above-verified dates as an 23 instrument and control specialist.
Stated company does have 24 a fitness for duty program.
Refused to answer questions 25 concerning subject's participation.
Verified his social L
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOC &TES,ud.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
z 16
^
i 1
security. number and date of birth.
And no further 2
information was available due to company policy.
l 3
Q Did you attempt to contact Florida Power and Light I
4 to verify the circumstances surrounding his termination?
F 5
A No.
I 6
Q Why not?
7 A
Why should I?
]
f 8
Q Well, you mentioned that as one of the three d
9 reasons that Mr. Woods had referred it to Nuclear Security.
1 10 A
Mr. Saporito had indicated he was terminated from
)
11 Florida Power and Light.
I 12 Q
And you didn't feel any need to verify that?
i 13 A
No.
i 14 Q
You just accepted that?
j 15 A
Absolutely.
16 Q
You gave Mr. Balcom your recommendation.
Did you l
17 have any further discussion with Mr. Balcom?
Did he ask you i
j 18 for any additional information or additional investigative 19 activity at that time?
j l
20 A
No.
i 21 Q
And what was Mr. Balcon's decision?
i j
22 A
To grant Mr. Saporito access.
23 Q
And was Mr. Saporito then granted unescorted j
24 access?
25 A
Yes.
I is j
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
n Court Reporters K
l~
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
J i
)
17 1
Q On what date 2
A He was authorized access February the lith, 1992.
3 Q
And at the conclusion of this action, what was the j
4 standard procedure?
What do you do with these files in your J
5
-~
6 A
Close the file.
7 Q
So you closed out 92-1271?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And do you maintain what you called an 10 investigative file over at Nuclear Security, or was it kept 11 somewhere else?
12 A
It would probably have been in the filing cabinet gc4 13 in the Nuclear Securit ee Offices.
14 Q
And what happens to the nuclear file?
)
15 A
It would have gone back to the Central Processing i
16 Facility.
I 17 Q
And is this standard practice?
18 A
- Yes, 19 Q
Okay.
How long did you keep these security files?
j i
20 A
I don't think we've ever thrown any of them away 21 so far.
That's a good question.
I'm not sure of the answer 22 to that.
How long we should keep them -- we keep them 23 forever I guess.
We haven't thrown any away that I know of.
24 Q
Okay.
When was the next time you heard Mr.
25 Saporito's name?
I
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters O
i 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 g
l Washington, D. C. 200Cu I
(202) 293-3950 l
18 l
1 A
On February the 20th, 1992.
l 2
Q And under what circumstances?
P 3
A I was contacted that morning by Mr. Jump, the man 4
who was the manager of the Nuclear Licensing Department.
He 5
asked me to come to his offices and meet with him regarding I
6 a task that he wanted me to do, and I said sure.
I went f
7 down there and he presented me with a copy of an j
8 administrative law judge decision, and asked me to review it i
9 for -- against Mr. Saporito's nuclear file and to determine 10 if there was any information within the decision order that 1
11 was different than what was in the nuclear file and report 1
h4 v4 l
12 back to him the results 1kt my review.
I 13 Q
Well, was this unusual that Mr. Jump would make a 14 request like that?
1 15 A
I don't know.
I never thought of it that way.
16 It's not unusual for managers to ask the head of the
)
17 investigation section to do tasks for them.
It is a little 18
-- it was certainly unusual to have an administrative law 19 judge order reviewed against a nuclear file.
I've never 20 done that before.
21 Q
Did Mr. Jump contact you often, or did he usually 22 go thro gh Mr. Balcom or Mr. Balcom's predecessor, Mr.
Rgno \\st v UA 23 Rei.1;tth, when he needed something done?
24 A
I cannot -- I know that I have performed 25 investigations for managers, at their request, without going
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
4 i
19 t -
)
i through the manager of the Security Department.
- But, 2
typically, I think they would go through the manager of the 3
Security Department.
I'm not sure I'm answering your I
4 question.
5 Q
No.
That's fine.
j 6
Did --
l 7
A I'm not sure I really understand the question.
8 Q
Did Mr. Jump tell you whether or not he had i
j 9
contacted Mr. Balcom?
)
11 0 A
oh.
He said he had not talked to Balcon, that he 1
11 had called me direct.
12 Q
Did you find that unusual?
13 A
At the time, no.
No, I don't think it's unusual i
14 at all.
1 15 Q
Did he ask that you specifically perform this 16 review or comparison?
17 A
I took it to mean that he as asking for my section 18
-- my function to perform this review, not me personally.
19 But I did the review myself.
1 l
i j
20 Q
Did he tell you where he got this dol decision?
i
)
i 21 A
No, he did not.
I 22 Q
Did you ask him?
l 23 A
No.
It appeared to be just a Court document.
24 Q
Well, you'd said that you'd never done this i
25 before.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
ri Court Reporters g4/g 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 5
Washington, D. C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
20 1
A I've seen Court documents before as an 2
investigator.
So, it didn't strike me as something unusual.
3 Q
Did he tell you whether or not he believed that l
4 there was any specific information in his DOL decision that 5
might not be in Mr. Saporito's file?
l 6
A I believe he indicated that he had seen the j
7 nuclear file of Mr. Saporito, and that he felt there were 8
differences between what was in the document, what was in 9
the nuclear file.
In saying that to me, he asked me to 10 carefully review both documents and report the results to 11 me.
12 Q
Did he tell you what he thought might be 13 different?
14 A
He -- not specifically, no.
He asked me to pay 15 particular attention to the issues of employment and 16 litigation.
17 Q
Did he tell you when he got this document?
18 A
No.
19 Q
Was anybody else present at that meeting with Mr.
20 Jump?
i 21 A
No.
22 Q
Did he make any other suggestions or give you any 23 other --
d 24 A
Yes.
He told me to follow whatever my procedure j
25 require that I do.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
~
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
21 1
Q What procedure?
2 A
I took it to mean the access procedure --
3 interdepartmental procedure 7.02Q, which is the -- at the 4
time, was the plant access authorization program.
It 5
indicates that derogatory information developed in regards i
6 to unescorted access will be investigated by the 7
Investigations Section of the Nuclear Security Department.
8 So, when he told me to follow whatever procedure I was to 9
follow, I took it to mean that procedure -- to do whatever 10 that procedure required me to do.
11 Q
He wouldn't know the procedure by specific number?
12 A
I doubt if he knows the number of it today.
I 13 Managers don't -- you know, I mean they know the program 14 names, but I don't think they know the details of 15 procedures.
We certainly didn't discuss it.
4 16 Q
Did he give you any information about Mr.
17 Saporito?
18 A
No.
19 Q
He didn't tell you anything regarding Mr.
i 20 Saporito's past activities or any activities onsite --
21 A
No.
22 Q
-- at the South Texas Project?
23 A
No.
24 Q
Did he tell you anything else during that meeting?
25 A
Tell me anything else?
He asked me to report back ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
L 22 1
to him by close of business -- well, I take that back.
He 2
asked me to get back to him as soon as possible.
I told hia 3
that it would take me some time to do this and that I would i
l 4
get back to him by close of business.
And I believe he 5
asked me to get back to him sooner than that, and I told his 6
it would be 3:00 o' clock that afternoon.
7 Q
Before you could get back to him?
Did he accept
)
8 that?
I 9
A Yes.
l 10 Q
I mean, did he ask you to try to, you know, put -
11 12 A
He didn't say drop everything you're doing, go do 13 this and come back in the next 15 minutes.
You know, he did i
}
14 not give me that impression, or he did not give me -- he 15 didn't give me instructions to that effect.
He asked me to 16 get through with it as quickly as I could and report back to i
17 him.
18 Q
That sounds like he wanted you to put some j
19 priority on this?
20 A
Oh, yes.
I took it as tt -- as something that j
21 needed to be done that day.
22 Q
And you've already said that you did this q
23 personally?
j 24 A
Yes.
25 Q
You did the review?
i ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
[j 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 g
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 1
1 23
, -~
1 A
Yes, I did.
l 2
Q And did you, in fact, drop everything else and do 3
this review?
4 A
well, not immediately.
I went back to my office 5
and took care of a couple of things that I had been working 6
on.
I think I talked to a couple of the investigators about 7
some things they were doing, and then went over to the 8
Central Processing Facility and obtained Mr. Saporito's 9
nuclear file.
10 I got back to my office -- and it would have been 11 I would say around 11:00, maybe a little after 11:00 o' clock 12 that morning, sat down and did the review.
13 Q
Why did you decide to review it yourself?
i 14 A
curiosity.
I 15 Q
Did you notify Mr. Balcom?
1 16 A
Yes, I believe I did.
17 I'm pretty sure I did.
Hold on a minute.
Let me 4
j 18 check.
19 Yes.
I told Mr. Balcom what Jump had asked me to j
l 20 do.
21 Q
And you're referring to an affidavit that you 22 prepared --
23 A
Uh-huh.
24 Q
-- earlier?
What's the date on that affidavit?
25 What date was that prepared?
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 k
(202) 293-3950
24 1
A April 2nd, 1992.
i 2
Q And is that an accurate representation of the
)
3 events that it discusses?
j 4
A Yes.
IsitstandardpracticethenforyoutonotihyMr.
5 Q
6 Balcon if you get a request such as this from someone in f
l 7
management?
d 8
A Yes.
i i
9 Q
Did he have any input --
j 10 A
Mo.
l 11 Q
-- on this at that time?
12 A
No.
i l
13 Q
You then compared, if I understand you, dol 14 decision with Mr. Saporito's employment application forms?
i i
15 A
Yes, I did.
l 16 Q
And what did you determine?
l 17 A
From reviewing his data form, he indicated that he i
18 was employed by Florida Power and Light from March of '82 to 19 January of
'89.
The Court document indicates from March of I
20
'82 to December of '88.
21 He also, from the Court document, indicates that Siam %4 l
22 he was employed by a form called ATI from December of '89 to i
l 23 May of 1990 as a part-time instructor.
And that firm is not l
24 listed on the nuclear file in the data form.
25 In the data form he didn't list that he was l
l
~
i ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 f
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1
i l
25 1
involved in any litigation with ATI, but yet the document t
2 indicates that he was involved with litigation.
j 3
Q What about litigation with Florida Power and 4
Light?
Did he mention --
5 A
Yes.
Well, the document indicates he was involved i
6 in litigation with Florida Power and Light, and the nuclear 7
file doesn't list that.
l 8
Q Did Mr. Jump provide you anything else other than 9
that dol decision?
10 A
No, ma'am.
11 Q
When you got the dol decision from Mr. Jump, did 12 you recognize Mr. Saporito's name?
13 A
Yes.
i 14 Q
Did you ask Mr. Jump for any additional 15 information on Mr. Saporito?
l 16 A
No.
i 17 Q
Did you ask Mr. Jump why he was interested in Mr.
18 Saporito?
l i
19 A
No.
i) 20 Q
You didn't ask for anything else from --
I 21 A
No.
I had no reason to.
)
22 Q
When you notified Mr. Balcon, did he seem to i
23 already be aware of this?
I mean, did you know whether or i
24 not Jump had notified him earlier?
I think you stated Mr.
25 Jump told you he had not --
l~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters j
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i
4f 26
^
1 A
No, I don't think I stated that Jump said he l
2 hadn't notified Balcon.
If I did, that's a mistake.
My recollection is is Balcon wasn't aware of this -- this 3
1
{
4 review.
He didn't indicate in any way that he was aware of 5
this review.
And I don't remember Mr. Jump saying that he 6
had notified Mr. Balcon about it.
I 7
Q And when you talked to Mr. Balcon, he didn't say 8
yes, I've already spoken with Will or anything like that?
2 9
A No.
Not to my recollection.
f 10 Q
Now, the employment application that Mr. Saporito 11 completed, indicated that he worked for Florida Power and 12 Light; is that correct?
You were aware of that?
13 A
It indicated that he was employed by Florida Power 14 and Light from March of '82 to January of '89 as an 15 instrument and control technician and that his employment 16 was terminated.
That he listed in the employment section.
17 In the general information section he indicate that he had 1
1 18 been discharged or asked to resign by a previous employer.
j 19 He indicated yes, he was and that the employer was Florida 1
4 20 Power and Light, December the 22nd of '88.
Terminated 1
21 because of my participation in an NRC investigation at j
22 Turkey Point.
i 23 Q
When did you first become aware that Mr. Saporito 24 had filed a DOL complaint against Florida Power and Light?
25 A
When -- a DOL complaint against Florida Power and i~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 j
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
27 1
Light?
When I reviewed the Court document.
i 2
Q So, you had no knowledge of that prior to the 3
review of the DOL decision?
4 A
No.
5 Q
Were you aware, at the time that you reviewed the 6
DOL decision against Mr. Saporito's file that Mr. Saporito
?
had filed a 2.206 petition here at the South Texas Project?
8 A
No.
l 9
Q Mr. Jump didn't mention that to you?
j 10 A
No.
Or anybody else.
Didn't know.
11 Q
You did not know?
12 A
Did not know.
s 13 Q
Did you know there was a 2.206 petition?
i 14 A
No.
15 Q
You didn't even know that there was a 2.206 l
16 petition filed by anybody?
17 A
Didn't know what a 2.206 petition was.
l 18 Q
okay.
Even though --
l 19 A
I'm not really sure now what it is.
1 20 Q
Even though --
21 A
Except that it's the subject of some controversy.
l 22 Q
Okay.
Several of Mr. Saporito's concern that he 23 noted on the 2.206 petition related to security.
And you 24 were in Security?
25 A
Yes.
Yes, I was in Security.
l~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem n
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 y-l~
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 28 1
Q But you still did not know that a 2.206 petition 2
had been filed?
l 3
A Had absolutely no idea.
4 Q
All right.
i 5
Now, you stated that you went to Central 6
Processing and obtained Mr. Saporito's nuclear file?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Therefore, Mr. Jump would not have it; is that 9
correct?
10 A
That's true.
Yes, that's correct.
11 Q
And you've already stated that you did previously 12 review his file and his employment application on
(
13 approximately February the 3rd, 1992, in connection with the I
14 l
15 A
The previous adjudication.
16 Q
-- previous adjudication?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Had you reviewed Mr. Saporito's nuclear file, his 19 employment application, his security file anytime between i
20 February the 3rd and February the 20th?
4 21 A
No.
22 Q
To your knowledge, had anyone from Security, this i
23 would include yourself, asked Mr. Saporito for any 24 additional background information prior to February 20th, 25 1992?
l~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 4/
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I i
29
\\
1 A
You mean between the first adjudication and the 2
second?
3 Q
or prior to the first adjudication?
l 4
A Mr. Saporito signed his data form on January the 5
8th of 1992.
Now, subsequent to that, on January the 13th 6
of 1992, he was interviewed on what we call a screening 7
It's like an interview for unescorted access.
1 8
It's just a check-off list that the interviewer can use.
l l
9 Q
Why don't you -- let me interrupt you here.
Why j
10 don't you tell me about these two particular forms, in f
11 general?
12 A
In general?
13 Q
Uh-huh.
14 A
The data form, if you looked at it, it's quite 15 similar to an employment application.
I actually believe i
j 16 when they first set up the program back in '87 probably, I
17 they just used an employment application and they just i
j 18 plagiarized it a little bit.
This --
19 Q
Did everyone fill out that data form?
l 2
20 A
In order to obtain unescorted access, each l
21 individual has to complete the data form.
i l
22 Q
Contractor, employee, or HL&P employee?
Are they j
23 the same?
24 A
No.
Typically, a contractor fills out the data j
25 form.
And we use the HL&P employment application on the
)
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
1 Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 30 1
HL&P applicants.
Since we had their employment application 2
and we don't have the contractors, we have the contractor I
3 submit a data form, we just xerox a copy of the HL&P 4
application.
When it's received at the Central Processing 5
Facility, along with the other -- the releases and the other 6
documents for unescorted access, typically, Mr. Andrew Woods 7
would receive the file and an interview would be scheduled 8
with the individual when he comes on site to be processed 9
for unescorted access.
10 Q
And Mr. Andrew Woods is who?
11 A
He was in the Security Department.
He now works 12 for me.
But he was in the Security Department at the time, 13 and he was assigned to the plans, screening and safeguards i
14 section, reporting to Dave Sheesly.
15 Q
Well, was he the supervisor?
16 A
Who?
17 Q
Mr. Woods?
18 A
No.
He was not --
19 Q
He was not the supervisor?
4 20 A
No.
21 Q
All right.
22 A
He would then take the individual and his nuclear 23 file and a screening affidavit and conduct the interview 24 with him.. His signature is on the back of the form, dated 25 January the 13th.
So, on the 13th, Mr. Saporito was
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
(
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 qg Washington, D. C. 20006
'i (202) 293-3950
31 i
l-l 1
certainly interviewed by a member of the security f
2 Department.
i l
3 Q
What type of interview do they conduct?
Do they l
4 just read the questions from the screening affidavit?
Is 5
that --
6 A
I'm not real sure, Virginia.
I hate to say one 7
way or the other how he, as an individual, does these.
j j
8 Q
Okay.
9 But the form is reviewed with the employee; is i
10 that correct?
t j
11 A
Oh, yes.
Mr. --
J l
12 Q
The form is not just filled out by Mr. Saporito or 13 the employee and the contractor employee?
j i
i 14 A
Mr. Saporito signed his particular form on January 1
l 15 13th.
And, under this statement, I understand that any l
16 misstatement, misrepresentation or omission on any l
17 documentation used to process unescorted access will j
i
~
18 constitute cause for denial of access at anytime.
Mr. Woods 19 then countersigned that, as a security representative, on 20 January the 13th.
And he -- under his signature -- or above 21 his signature is the phrase:
" Inform the applicant to l
1 22 report all arrests by law enforcement agencies, including I
23 DWI offenses under the non-injury traffic or parking to the 24 Nuclear Security Department within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of the arrest."
25 And the purpose of that -- that's a procedural I
\\
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
1 Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
32 1
requirement in the access program that we want to make sure 2
that we communicate to all the individuals.
So, Saporito j
3 signed it on the 13th and Woods signed it on the 13th.
4 Q
And'the form is reviewed with each employee -- the 5
screening affidavit?
1 6
A It would require a screening affidavit for each 7
individual that we're granting unescorted access to.
At the i
8 time we did.
Now, the program has changed some since then.
9 But, at the time, we had one on every individual.
10 Q
Contractor or HL&P employer?
11 A
Contractor or HL&P.
12 Q
And what happens to that form -- the screening 13 affidavi. form?
14 A
It's part of the nuclear file.
i 15 Q
If they reveal additional information on the 16 screening affidavit form, is that another -- a cause that 17 would cause it to come over to Nuclear Security for i
18 adjudication?
l 19 A
And that is part of exactly what happened to Mr.
20 Saporito on his affidavit, if I can find it here.
21 On his data form, on the conviction record he said 22 he had never been convicted of a criminal offense.
On the j
23 affidavit there's a question, have you ever been arrested?
24 Q
That's a little bit different than have you ever 1
25 been convicted.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Og Washington, C. C. 20006 n
(202) 293-3950 l
l
i l
33 1
A Right.
It's a broader-scope question.
2 And, in response to that, Mr. Saporito indicated 3
that i
66 4
l 5
is the way I'd l
6 interpret that.
And that's part of what caused it to come i
7 to the Investigation section for adjudication.
i 8
THE WITNESS:
I'd like to get a Coke.
Can we do 9
that?
Can we take a quick break?
j i
]
10 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
We can take a break.
11 THE WITNESS:
I was just going to walk out there i
12 and get one and ran back in here, if it's okay?
I 13 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Okay.
Let's go off the record 14 for just a couple of minutes.
It's 11:33 a.m.
I i
j 15 (Brief recess.]
i 16 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Okay.
We're back on the record.
l 17 It's approximately 11:40 a.m.
We just took a short break i
l 18 for something to drink.
1 j
19 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
20 Q
I think we just finished -- I think you just 21 finished explaining the screening affidavit form -
i j
22 A
Right.
j 23 Q
-- and the data form to me.
And you said that, on 24 January the 13th someone from security had spoken with Mr.
1 25 Saporito and asked for additional background information i
i-ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 9
j (202) 293-3950
4 34 1
from him?
i 2
A That's correct.
f 3
Q Is there anything in the record, or do you have 4
any knowledge of anyone from Security asking Mr. Saporito 5
for additional background information between that data, j
j 6
which was January the 13th, 1992 and February the 20th, i
7 1w92?
f 8
A well, we didn't talk to Saporito at the first 4
9 adjudication, so it would be from between the 13th to the 10 20th?
i 11 Q
Right.
12 I think you said his access was granted February -
i 4
13
- was it February the 6th?
l 14 A
February lith was when the actual access was 15 authorized.
We did the first adjudication on February the l
16 6th, but we didn't talk to Saporito.
I just wanted to make 17 sure there's not some other form in here that's signed by 18 someone in Security that has another date on it.
I'm sorry.
l l
l 19 Let me flip through real quick.
f 20 There's a form on the file, in his nuclear file, that's a facsimile from Wackenhut's investigations people, 21 22 where they apparently contacted him on January the 20th for 23 some references -- some people they could get references 24 from.
I don't know if you'd call that security.
They're 25 not part of Security -- not HL&P Security anyway.
i l me ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters l
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
35 1
Q Additional references, other than those he had 2
listed?
I 3
A Yes.
And it says:
" Subject needs to call and 4
give me another reference -- one who can verify 5
self-employment and provide another developed reference."
6 So that -- apparently Wackenhut was having 7
problems getting references on him.
So, they must have 8
contacted him some time around the 20th asking for 9
additional references.
other than that, there's nothing in lo here that would indicate to me that anybody within HL&P 11 Security talked to him between January 13th and February 12 20th.
l l
13 Q
Did you note anything else unusual in Mr.
14 Saporito's file when you were doing your review -- your 15 comparison of the DOL decision and Mr. Saporito's employment 16 application?
17 A
What Jump had asked me to do?
Did I notice 18 anything else?
19 Q
Anything else?
20 A
No, not -- no.
21 Q
When you completed this review what did you do 22 then?
23 A
When I completed the review, obviously I did have 24 information in the Court document that was different than i
1 25 what was in his data form and his affidavit.
So, the i
1
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
(
Washington, D. C. 20006 I
(202) 293-3950 j
i
h 36
=
1 procedure,'KP7.2Q says that derogatory information such as 2
that will be dispositioned by the access program director.
mtve mtwo%
3 So, I r t- ;t:f to contact Mr. Balcon and brief him on the 4
results of the review prior to briefing Mr. Jump.
5 I wasn't able to do that because Mr. Balcon was in 6
a series of staff meetings, one-on-one staff meetings with 7
members of the Security Department.
And those were fairly 8
important meetings, and I didn't -- I knew he didn't want to 9
be interrupted.
10 Q
So, you were unsuccessful, at that point, in 11 reaching Mr. Balcon.
Then did you decide to go ahead and 12 contact Mr. Jump?
13 A
Yes.
Mt's see.
That was I'll say mid-afternoon 14 on the 20th.
As a guess, I would say around 2:00 o' clock l
15 when I went back to Mr. Jump's office and briefed him on the l
16 results of the review.
17 Q
Did you give him a verbal briefing, or did you 18 give him anything in writing?
19 A
Well, I gave him the DOL document back to him.
20 And I had the nuclear file with me, and I just verbally 21 briefed him on the differences in the two.
22 Q
I think you were referring to a handwritten note?
23 A
I had made some -- I had made some handwritten 24 notes, as I was going through the documents, and I had it T o q%
25 with me.
Later on, on the 21st, I prepared a memo document ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
)
b
I Mb 1
hq the review to file.
2 Q
But on the 20th did you provide Mr. Jump --
3 A
With a copy of this?
4 Q
-- with a copy of that handwritten review?
5 A
I don't believe I did.
6 Q
But you returned the DOL decision that he had 7
given you to him; correct?
8 A
I went back to his office to do the briefing.
At 9
his office I would have had Mr. Saporito's nuclear file, the 10 DOL document, probably would have had Mr. Saporito's 11 investigation file from the previous adjudication and my 12 handwritten notes of the review.
13 I am not sure if I gave him any of the documents.
14 I think I probably came away from that meeting with the same 15 documents that I took in the room.
16 Q
Okay.
You're not sure if you did give him back 17 the DOL decision?
18 A
Well, when you say provided, I took that to mean 19 that I have them with me in his office.
Yes.
I had these 20 documents with me.
Did I give him a copy of any of the 21 documents that I had with me?
I don't think I did, no.
I 22 don't remember doing that.
23 Q
And you told him the results of your review, which 24 we've already discussed --
25 A
Yes.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 i
L 38 1
Q
-- that there were a couple of discrepancies or I
2 possible discrepancies between the documents?
Was anyone 3
else present during this briefing?
4 A
No.
Not initially, no.
5 Q
Did anyone come to Mr. Jump's office while you i
6 were there?
7 A
Mr. Jump asked me if I had briefed Mr. Balcon.
I 8
told him I had not had a chance to brief Mr. Balcom because i
9 of the meetings that Mr. Balcon was in.
And I don't l
10 remember exactly how it happened, but I believe one of the 1
11 two of us called -- I think Mr. Jump called and talked to 12 Mr. Balcom's secretary, and Mr. Balcom then came down to Mr.
I 13 Jump's office.
14 Q
Do you remember what Mr. Jump told Mr. Balcom?
l 15 A
You mean on the phone?
16 Q
Yes.
You said he was involved in all these 17 employee meetings, one-on-one meetings that were pretty l
18 important.
Did Mr. Jump ask him to break free specifically 19 to come to his office?
i 20 A
I don't recall.
21 MR. BAER:
Do you know if Mr. Jump knew what Mr.
I 22 Balcom was doing at the time?
23 THE WITNESS:
Well, I am sure he would have 24 because I would have told him I think.
I would have told 25 him why I had not briefed Mr. Balcom.
But I don't
~
i ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
{
(202) 293-3950
i 39 1
specifically remember whether or not Jump talked to Balcom 2
on the telephone or he talked to his secretary.
Somehow or 1
3 other Balcon wound up in Jump's office.
4 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
5 Q
so, you don't recall if Mr. Jump conveyed any f
6 sense of urgency that he needed to see Mr. Balcom right 4
I 7
away?
8 A
Sense of urgency?
I don't know, you'd have to ask 9
Balcon if he felt like Jump was in a hurry.
i 4
10 Q
Well, I thought -- if you had presently called him 11 on the phone, if -- you know -- you, if he said you've got l
12 to break loose, I've got to see you or, you know, something l
13 like that?
j 14 A
I hate to sit here and say how I think Mr. Balcom 1
15 felt when Balcom was on the other and of the phone and I l
16 wasn't talking to him.
17 Q
I don't think I asked you that.
I said, did he l
18 seem to impart a sense of urgency, if you heard Mr. Jump's i
l 19 and of the conversation.
I don't think I asked you if j
20 Balcom felt that.
l j
21 A
A sense of urgency?
i 22 Q
I mean, if someone calls someone else on the 23 phone, and you're sitting in their office and they tell this i
24 third party I need you to break loose, I need you to come 25 down here right away, I mean, that's a sense of urgency.
Do i
I l-ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
(%
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 q
(
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 40
~
1 you recall anything like that?
Because you have stated that i
2 Mr. Balcon was in meetings that you considered to be 3
important, you know, with other employees.
4 A
The reason I'm hesitating to answer is because I 5
don't remember what Jump said over the phone.
Certainly, in 6
my mind, there was a difference between what was on the data 7
form and what was on a court document.
And I think that was 8
an important thing, you know, item that needed to be S
resolved.
10 This individual had access to a nuclear plant.
11 And that is an important issue, and needs to be addressed in 12 a timely manner, or otherwise we would be remiss in
.13 fulfilling our function.
But I don't specifically remember 14 what Mr. Jump would have said to Mr. Balcom over the 15 telephone, so I can't -- I hesitate to say that there was a 16 sense of urgency there, okay?
I mean, that's why I'm 17 hesitating.
18 Q
But Mr. Balcom did, in fact, come to Mr. Jump's 19 office?
20 A
Now, whether or not he canceled a meeting, walked 21 out in the middle of a meeting, I just don't know.
I don't 22 know.
23 Q
Do you recall how long you were in Mr. Jump's 24 office at that time?
25 A
Maybe 15 minutes, 20 minutes.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 k
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 41 1
Q And had you completed your briefing with Mr. Jump 2
before Mr. Balcom came in?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Did you then get to reiterate your previous 5
statements?
6 A
Yes.
Then I got to brief Balcon.
7 Q
Okay.
8 So, the three of you were present.
Was anybody 9
else there?
10 A
No.
11 Q
After you completed your briefing with Mr. Jump, 12 did he give you any instructions as to what he thought 13 should be your next step?
14 A
He didn't give me any instructions.
He asked me 15 if this constituted a falsification of the data form.
16 Q
And what did you say?
17 A
I told him that I wasn't sure, in my own mind, 18 that we had a falsification.
19 Q
Why not?
20 A
Well, not knowing why Mr. Saporito hadn't listed 21 ATI, you know, it's kind of hard for me to jump to 22 falsification at that point.
Also, I wasn't particularly 23 impressed with a part-time non-nuclear employer.
The ha V 4 24 litigation question -- again, not knowing why'1 hadn't g
25 listed it, I'm not -- I wasn't really sure, in my mind, that ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem O
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 4
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I l
42 l-l 1
we had falsification.
2 Q
So, at that point in time, are you saying that you 3
didn't know if there was falsification or if there was a 4
misunderstanding of.one terminology?
Maybe Mr. Saporito 5
didn't know what lit!.gation meant or -- is that --
6 A
Uh-huh?
7 Q
-- was that kind of --
8 A
Sure.
9 Q
-- what you were thinking at that time?
10 A
Not knowing what was in the mind of the individual 11 that filled out the data form, it would be difficult for me 12 to jump to saying we had somebody deliberately falsifying 13 documents.
14 Q
Did Mr. Jump ask you what would be the standard 1
15 practice in a case like this?
Did he ask you what you would 16 do next usually?
17 A
Yes.
Well, yes.
What I said is I need to brief 18 the access program director and give him the results of this 19 review, and we need to decide where to go from there.
20 Q
Is that when Mr. Jump contacted Mr. Balcom or Mr.
21 Balcom's secretary?
22 A
Right.
23 Q
And Mr. Balcom -- do you recall how long it took 24 Mr. Balcom to get to Mr. Jump's office after that telephone 25 call?
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
43 1
A Just a few minutes.
It's on the opposite and of 2
the building, just enough time for him to walk down there I 3
would think.
4 Q
So, Mr. Balcom came to Mr. Jump's office, and then 5
you briefed him?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Did he provide you with any direction?
8 A
Yes.
He --
9 MR. RAER:
Who's he?
10 THE WITNESS:
Mr. Balcom.
~
11 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
12 Q
Balcom.
13 A
Instructed me to immediately locate Mr. Saporito 14 and arrange for an interview to resolve why the 15 discrepancies existed.
16 Q
Did Mr. Balcom consult you before he asked you to 17 do that?
Did he -- did you have any discussions about what 18 would be the usual practice?
19 A
Uh-huh.
Yes, we talked about the differences, you 20 know, showed him the document and showed him the nuclear 21 file.
Some discussion occurred, and I don't recall exactly 22 what was said, but I feel fairly certain I would have said 23 it's -- you know, we should probably get the guy in and 24 interview him.
And he said do it, and I said okay.
25 Q
And you said he told you to do that -- I can't
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem O
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 OJk Washington, D. C. 20006
)
- (202) 293-3950
)
l 44 l
1 remember your exact words, but quickly or immediately --
2 A
Uh-huh.
3 Q
-- or as soon as possible --
4 A
Yes.
l 5
Q
-- or something --
6 A
-- yes.
Again --
7 Q
-- to that effect?
8 A
-- and in cases where we have potentially an j
9 access issue with an employee, we are obligated to act in a 10 timely fashion.
j 11 Q
What's timely?
12 A
I take that to mean immediately.
I think the NRC 13 would question us severely if we hesitated.
14 Q
Did Mr. Jump provide any input into the decision 15 to interview Mr. Saporito?
16 A
I don't recall any, no.
17 Q
Did he ask you for any other information about Mr.
18 Saporito?
j 19 A
You mean outside of the nuclear file or the prior 20 investigation?
No.
i 21 Q
I mean, what -- did you discuss the prior 22 adjudication with him?
23 A
I believe we did.
24 Q
So, did you discuss more than just the differences 25 between the DOL decision?
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters j
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l i
45 1
A Well when I say that, I think, in reviewing the 2
nuclear file, Mr. Saporito's indication that he had been 3
terminated from Florida Power and Light because of his participation in an investigation, and I think -- I believe 4
5 I showed Mr. Jump where we had had a prior adjudication for l
6 that info, and that the September of '90 arrest and -- so, I 7
sean, the fact that he was terminated from Florida Power and 8
Light was in the Court document too.
So, I didn't consider 9
that to be something that he has misrepresented or falsified 10 or was any different really than what was on his data form.
i 11 We had all those documents there at the time.
12 Q
Did you review the entire file with Mr. Jump at 13 that time?
14 A
I don't know that we went through it page, by 15 page, by page.
I think it was more just a description, on 16 my part, of what was in the two files.
i 17 Q
Including the prior adjudication?
18 A
I believe we did.
4 i
19 Q
And did Mr. Jump ask you what options were 20 available on a case like this?
I 21 A
I don't think he asked me -- he didn't ask me a 22 question what are the options here -- what are you options 23 as to how you're going to handle it.
But, we discussed I
24 whether or not the difference between the document -- Court 25 document and the data form was a falsification.
And I said
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
46 1
-- I wasn't clear in my mind 11 it was, because (a) we i
2 hadn't interviewed the employee, we didn't know what -- what j
3 his thought process was at the time.
1 1
4 Q
Right.
We had talked about that already -- about
]
5 whether or not it was a falsification.
But did he -- did l
6 you have any discussion with him about what the next steps i
7 would be, other than you said you said he would contact Mr.
8 Balcom?
Did he ask you about are you going to interview hin 9
now, or are you going to -- does this usually result in l
10 revocation of access, or do you usually terminate people for 11 this kind of action?
i 12 Did you have any discussion about what --
l 13 A
We didn't have any detailed discussion like that.
i 14 It was more of a -- you know, what's -- he's asking me 1
15 what's the proper course to take, and I'm saying we need to j
16 get to Balcom, I need to brief him on this.
Typically, we l
17 would conduct an interview.
18 Q
And you diu -- he contacted Balcom.
Mr. Balcom 19 came to his office.
You discussed it with Mr. Balcom, and i
20 i
21 A
Uh-huh.
I l
22 Q
-- if I understood you correctly, with input from I
23 you, Mr. Balcom said we need to interview Mr. Saporito?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
And we need to do it quickly; is that correct?
l l
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters l
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 y
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i
i 47 1
A I'm not sure he used the word quickly, but he l
2 meant that evening before quitting time.
l 3
Q Did Mr. Jump have any additional comments or input l
4 at that time?
5 A
Not that I recall.
6 Q
Did he ask that he be briefed of the results of 7
your interview with Mr. Saporito?
8 A
I don't recall him specifically asking that, but I 9
would have -- I mean, I'm sitting in an office with these 10 two managers.
I would have gone off, done the interview and 11 given both of them the results of the interview.
He didn't 12 specifically ask me to brief him.
13 Q
Because he did specifically ask you to brief him 14 on the results of your review?
At least you have said that 15 he did.
l 16 A
Uh-huh.
17 Q
But he didn't specifically ask you to brief hin on
)
18 the results of the interview; is that correct?
19 A
Not that I recall.
20 Q
And you then -- then what did you do?
l 21 A
I left Mr. Jump's office and went to my office and 22 contacted Rich DeLong.
He was the IEC Maintenance Manger.
23 Mr. Saporito's nuclear file indicated he was an IEC 24 technician.
So, that would be the way of locating'him.
j l
25 I talked to Mr. DeLong on the telephone, told him ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i 48 1
that I needed to conduct an interview with Mr. Saporito.
2 It was getting close to quitting time, it was like 4:15.
I 3
asked him if he could quickly locate Mr. Saporito before he 4
left the project, and asked him to come to my office for an 5
interview, and he said sure, we'll do that.
i 6
Q And Mr. Saporito did come to your office that 7
afternoon?
i 8
A Yes.
9 Q
About what time?
J i
10 A
It was like quitting time, 4:15, when he showed
)
11 up.
12 Q
Is that standard practice?
Do you usually l
13 interview people after hours like that?
II 14 A
Sure, yes.
15 Q
You can?
I mean, you do --
16 A
I'm salaried.
I can interview 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, 17 seven days a week, Virginia.
I'm not on hours and I'm not 18
-- I am not part of the bargaining unit.
No.
l 19 MR. BAER:
May we go off the record.
20 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Yes.
It's approximately 12:00 1
21 o' clock p.m.
22 (Discussion held off record.)
23 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Okay.
We're back on the record.
24 It's about 12:04 p.m.
We've all been informed by Mr.
25 Whiteside to be very careful about talking over one another
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
~
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
49 1
-- that the transcriber may not be able to record that 2
properly.
So we will attempt not to do that.
3 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
4 Q
okay.
We were talking about interviewing Mr.
5 Saporito after hours.
And you stated that that is not i
6 unusual?
7 A
No, it is not unusual at all.
8 Q
Did Mr. Saporito have anyone with him when he came 9
to your office that afternoon?
10 A
well, I didn't know it at the time, but -- I 11 didn't know Mr. Saporito personally -- had never seen him 12 before.
The person that arrived at my office was Rick Cink, 13 who is an investigator with Speak-out.
And he had someone 14 with him who he then introduced to me as Mr. Saporito.
So, 15 I guess he had Cink with him, although I didn't know it at 3
16 the time.
i 17 Q
okay.
Is that unusual?
18 A
I never really thought about it.
I wouldn't 19 characterize it as unusual.
The Speak-out offices are just 20 down the hallway from the Security offices and they're j
21 closer to the elevator than the Security offices are.
So, n
22 my impression was that the guy was wtnderi g round the j
23 building looking for me and ran into Cink.
And Cink knows 24 who I am and where I'm located, so he just escorted him down 4
25 to where I was, introduced him to me.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 g
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
4 50 l
1 Q
And than what did you do?
2 A
Well, I introduced myself to Mr. Saporito and 3
explained to him that I needed to do an interview involving d
4 his unescorted access.
And I asked him to come into our 5
interview room -- it's a conference room that we use to 6
conduct interviews in -- and have a seat while I got my 7
files together and all that and came in there to interview 8
him.
j 9
He acted a little unusual at that point, in that
- N 10 he wanted Mr. Cink to accompany him into the interview and
)
11 to be a witness, and that was a little unusual because I I
12 thought Cink was just showing him where my office was.
I 13 didn't realize Saporito wanted me to interview the witness.
14 Q
So Mr. Saporito asked or told you that he wanted 4
j 15 Mr. Cink present; is that correct?
l 16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Did you agree to that?
i 18 A
Well, I didn't have a problem with Mr. Cink coming l
19 in and sitting down at the conference table while I went to l
20 get my files and then we could discuss, you know -- what I 21 was going to tell at that point Mr. Saporito what I was 22 going to do and why he was going to be interviewed, and we I
23 could handle the issue of whether or not Cink needed to be t
24 present at that time.
25 Q
okay.
And you got all your files.
You came back ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 i.
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i
51 l
]
1 into the interview room, Mr. Saporito and Mr. Cink were 2
present.
And then what did you do?
j 3
A The first thing I did was, again, I introduced 4
myself to him, and I attempted to explain to him that I 5
would be doing an interview regarding his paperwork for 6
unescorted access.
But, in trying to do that, Mr. Saporito l
7 began to ask me a series of questions -- wanting to know who 8
I was, what my position was, what the procedyre number was, ht 30%
i 9
the title of the procedure that was driving'h44 process.
10 I,
as a standard practice, videotape a lot of my 11 interviews.
The video camera is mounted on the wall at one 12 and of the room.
The purpose of it is to be able to provide 13 management, the NRC, or counsel a method of obtaining the i
14 actual facts -- the actual environment under which the i
15 interview -- an interview is conducted.
It gives us a f
16 permanent record of the interview.
And I, as a matter of i
17 practice, tell an individual that he's going to be 18 videotaped and why he is going to be videotaped.
i 19 Well, before I had a chance to do that, Mr.
l' 20 saporito had seen the video camera, asked me if it was 21 recording what was going on, and I told him it was.
And he 22 then, before I had a chance to explain to him why it was j
23 there, he asked me if I would turn it off, and I said sure.
24 So, I got up and left the rcom.
All of this occurred within 25 like a couple of minutes, and went in and turned the video
(
~
ANN RILEY & ' ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i
52 1
camera off.
2 During that period of time, Mr. Saporito and Mr.
3 Cink remained in the interview room.
When I got back Mr.
4 Saporito asked Mr. Cink if -- what we were going -- what I 5
was going to interview him about, if it had anything to do 6
with what he and Cink had been discussing earlier in the 7
day.
That was unusual.
As a matter of fact, I was taken a 8
little off-guard, because I wasn't aware that Mr. Saporito 9
had been -- was anymore than just another I&C tech out in 10 the plant.
11 Q
So that gave you the impression that Mr. Saporito 12 had brought some sort of concerns to speak-out.
Is that --
13 A
I wouldn't characterize it as that way.
I was 14 just mainly taken off-guard when Mr. Saporito asked Mr. Cink 15 if my interview had anything to do with things they were 4
16 discussing.
Now, certa:.nly, Speak-out can discuss issues M
aM w dM-o 17 with individuals where are concerneee, but he could
%t 4
EE c
18 also have been just an inte iewee as part nother 19 investigation -- not the subject of an investigation, but 20 someone that Cink would be interviewing as part of an 21 investigation.
22 So, when I heard that, I asked Mr. Cink 23 specifically if Mr. Saporito was a concernee, and he told me 24 he wasn't.
And I said --
25 Q
That he was not?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
53 1
A That he was not a concernee.
And I said fine.
I 2
told Mr. Saporito that anything -- conversations he had with 3
cink had nothing to do with what I was going to be 4
interviewing him about.
And, at that point, I asked Mr.
5 Cink to remain in the room as a witness to the interview.
6 Since we were not goin to have the videotape record of the W
sLt.
7 interview, I could M him as a witness to the interview.
8 And he agreed to do that.
9 Q
Is it usual for people to allow you to videotape 10 the interview, or do you often have people ask to turn the 11 camera off?
12 A
It's -- no, it's quite normal for people to agree.
13 Q
Agree?
14 A
Sure.
How often do you transcribe interviews?
15 Q
I have no comment.
16 A
Well, I mean, you know, I am an investigator.
And 4
17 when I come out of an interview, invariably, someone says 18 well, why did he say this or why did he say that?
And 19 rather than go into a lot of explanation about it, my 20 standard practice is to give him the videotape and let them j
21 review the interview and form their own conclusions.
22 Q
But Mr. Saporito objected to the --
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
-- recording?
25 A
Yes.
But he did not object to Mr. Cink remaining j
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Q
Washington, D. C. 20006 4
(202) 293-3950
=..
l 1
54 l
1 in the room as a witness.
2 Q
And you've stated you turned the video camera off; 3
is that correct?
l l
4 A
Yes, I did.
i
{
5 Q
So, do you have a videotape or any kind of tape
{
6 recording of this interview?
}
7 A
There was probably a couple of minutes on the i
8 videotape before I got around to go turn it off.
And I i
9 can't remember if it was that evening or the next day I went l
i 10 back and taped over that.
I'm sure we've subsequently used j
11 that same tape.
The answer to your question is I do not 12 have a videotape of any portion of that interview to my l
13 regret right now.
14 Q
How about a tape recording?
4 15 A
No.
If a person says to me they don't want to be j
16 recorded, I honor their request.
t 17 Q
Did Mr. Saporito seem to be hostile?
{
18 A
I wouldn't characterize him as hostile.
At one 4
l 19 end of the scale as hostile, and the other and of the scale
{
20 as completely cooperative, I would put him in the middle.
i 21 He was certainly questioning why I was going to do this 22 interview, and I understood that.
I mean, since it had 23 occurred late in the day before quitting time, I didn't feel t
24 it to be particularly hostile that he would question me 25 about why suddenly he had to be interviewed.
l ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
I Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 0
Washington, D. C. 20006 Og (202) 293-3950 i
55 1
Q And what did you tell him was the subject of the
{
2 interview?
l 3
A I told him that, as part of the unescorted access 4
Program, if information is developed during the background j
5 investigations different than what the documents supplied by i
l 6
the employee or information is different or derogatory j
j 7
information is developed., it's normal for the Security 8
Department to do a follow-up investigation, which would 9
usually consist of an interview.
And that was the purpose j
i 10 of the interview.
l 11 Q
okay.
You said information developed during the I
12 course of the background investigation.
Now, this was not 13 developed during the course of a background investigation, j
14 was it?
j 15 A
No.
It wasn't.
But, I'm not so -- I was 1
16 paraphrasing -- when I answered your question I was 17 paraphrasing the sense of what I was telling Mr. Saporito.
18 I was not quoting you word for word what I had told Mr.
19 Saporito.
I told him, in paraphrasing it, I told him that 20 it was normal for the Security Department to do follow-up 21 investigations when information is developed that might 22 impact unescorted access.
23 What he and I would be discussing in that 24 interview related to his unescorted access of the project.
25 And he seemed to understand that.
'~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 h
Washington, D. C. 20006 kl (202) 293-3950
i i
56 1
Q There is a release form of some sort in the file 2
that I understand Mr. Saporito signed before the interview; 3
is that correct?
4 A
I wouldn't characterize it as a release form.
5 Q
Okay.
What exactly is that form, and what does it 6
mean?
7 A
It's titled the preliminary interview form.
HL&P 8
has a corporate policy that says that employees of the 9
company are required to cooperate with the internal 10 investigations.
Since we have large numbers of contractors 11 here on the project, years ago, before I got here, the 12 management here at the project incorporated that same policy 13 into the policies for the nuclear group.
14 The form is something that we have individuals 15 sign prior to interviews.
It explains to them our policies 16 regarding cooperation with internal investigations.
It 17 explains the policies regarding -- and very briefly it 18 explains failure -- what would happen to them if they failed 19 to cooperate.
And it says specifically that if they failed 20 to cooperate they are subject to having their site access 1
21 denied or their employment terminated from the project.
It 22 goes on to say that this is not designed to restrict them 23 from filing concerns with the NRC or Speak-out or, I guess, 24 with any other regulatory authority.
25 So, I presented the form to Mr. Saporito and 1
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters Q
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Ch l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
d 57 1
explained it to him and he signed it.
Cink witnessed it.
2 He didn't have a lot of questions about it.
3 Q
Are people required to sign that form?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
What if someone refused to sign it?
6 A
I would not do the interview and report to 7
management that they had refused to sign the form.
8 Q
And would that fall in to the category of refusing 9
to cooperate with an investigation?
10 A
I would think so, yes.
11 Q
Have you ever had anybody refuse to sign it?
12 A
I've never had anyone refuse to sign it since I've 13 been here at the plant.
I seem to remember some cases when 4?AN gxt 14 I was working as a consulting for HL&P doing polygraph 15 testing, where employees of HL&P had refused to sign the 16 form.
I don't really know what happened to them though.
17 Actually, I don't know.
18 Q
Did Mr. Saporito object to signing that form?
19 A
No.
1 20 Q
Did he ask you if he had to sign it?
21 A
No.
22 Q
He just signed it?
23 A
I won't say he just signed it.
He asked me what 24 it was.
You know, I explained it to him, just like I've i
25 explained to you, that it was part of our standard policy ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 b
Washington, D. C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 l
58 1
and practice.
2 Q
Did you get the impression that he had a problem 3
with signing it?
4 A
No.
5 Q
so he didn't raise any objections that you recall?
6 A
No.
Actually I considered Mr. Saporito to be very j
7 cooperative.
8 Q
At that point?
9 A
Yes.
He had questions, as I think anybody would 10 who is suddenly confronted with an interview, but I 11 considered him to be cooperative.
j 12 Q
So, he signed this form and then you, I suppose, 13 started interviewing him?
14 A
Yes.
15 The first think I did was provided him with the 16 originals of his data form and his screening affidavit from l
17 his nuclear file.
And I asked him to look at them and to 18 verify if they were, in fact, the ones that he had filled 1
19 out and submitted for unescorted access.
And he looked at
- i 20 them and he looked at his signature, and he indicated that 21 they were the same forms that he had submitted.
22 Q
And then what did you do?
23 A
I asked him to go over both of the forms and 24 indicate to me if there were any areas on either of the hE C(%
25 forms that he had not answered completely -- if had, in ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 59 i
i -
1 reviewing the forms, if there was any information he had 2
failed to include on either one of the two forms.
And so he 3
took a few minutes to do that.
4 I am going to start spreading out here.
5 Q
And so he had the screening affidavit and the data 4
6 form, and he actually reviewed them?
7 A
Yes.
He reviewed --
8 Q
Do you recall --
9 A
-- them both.
l l
10 Q
-- how long he took to review those?
i 11 A
A few minutes.
You know, he looked at each and i
i 12 every page, front and back, you know.
And, at the end of i
)
13 that or -- I'm not sure -- at the end or as he was reviewing i
14 them, he began to indicate there were some differences.
He i
{
15 told me initially that he was not sure about the dates that 16 he was employed at the RCA Corporation in Palm Beach
)
17 Gardens, Florida.
The dates listed on the data form was l
18 January of '77 to March of '82.
And he said he may have i
19 been off on those a little bit.
20 The question on the data form, under general
)
21 information, concerning have you ever been subject to a plan l
22 for treating substance abuse or had unescorted access 23 suspended or denied for violation of a fitness for duty 24 policy?
He said he wasn't sure about that one.
6 1
35 1
[
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters n
)
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 p"tJ Washington, D. C. 20006 j
(202) 293-3950
i l
l 60 1
And during that period 2
of time he was assigned to 3
the Training Department, rather than inside the protected 4
area.
And their security people might have had his badge 5
suspended or his access suspended or denied, but he wasn't 6
sure.
7 And the address section on the data form, ha j
8 indicated that he had not listed an address in Avondale, 9
The data form requires that he list all addresses 10 that he's resided for the past five years.
And he had 11 failed to list Avondale, Arizona for about a one-month 12 period.
13 When he looked at the screening affidavit, 14 question number two on the affidavit is have you ever had a 15 security clearance denied or revoked?
And he had checked no i
j 16 on that block; but, in light of what he had said about the
]
17 muscle relaxer at Florida Power and Light, he wasn't sure, i
)
18 you know, maybe he should have checked yes rather than no.
f 19 Question number three was have you ever been l
l 20 subject to a plan for treating substance abuse or had i
21 unescorted access suspended or denied for violation of a l
22 fitness for duty policy, which is essentially a restatement 23 of the question that's on the data form.
He checked no on 24 that one also.
And, in light of the muscle relaxer, he felt 25 maybe he should have checked yes rather than no.
I I
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters i
l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
l 61 1
Question number six on the affidavit is have you 2
ever been convicted, pled guilty, received deferred 3
adjudication or had a conviction set aside in any matter?
4 He had checked no to that question on the affidavit, but he said -- question number four, which concerns the 6 5
I 6
7 g --
l 8
He 9
wasn't sure about that one.
10 Having reviewed both of the two documents, he said 11 those -- that was the only information that he had,not j
12 answered completely on either one of the two documents.
i 13 Q
At that point, he had not said anything yet about J
{
14 ATI; is that correct?
l l
15 A
No.
l 16 Q
Had he said anything about filing a DOL complaint
{
17 against Florida Power and Light?
j 18 A
No.
{
19 Q
So, with the knowledge that you had from the DOL j
20 decision, what did you do next?
a
{'
21 A
Well, I asked him that, in order to be sure that 1
{
22 he had answered completely and truthfully to each one of 23 these areas, I wanted to go over both forms, specifically 1
24 the data form, block by block, one at a time, to make sure 25 that all of the information that we had was correct.
And he i
i l
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
2 Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
()
l Washington, D. C. 20006 Q
(202) 293-3950
62 i-1 agreed to that.
l 2
Q So, you started down this form?
l 3
A Yes,.
I started.
The first block on the data form 4
is his name.
It asks for last name, first name, middle I
5 initial.
He had indicated Saporito, Thomas J.
He said his
]
6 actual -- the "J" stands for Julius, and he's actually a l
7 junior.
So, he should have put Junior at the and of it.
8 His residence in Lake Worth, Florida, that was his 9
permanent residence at the time he filled out the data form.
10 His local residence in Bay City was 4
i 11 M in Bay City, Texas at 77414.
12 Q
But when he filled out the data form, he wasn't in l
13 Bay City?
l 14 A
No.
He wasn't in Bay City at the time.
But, I'd 15 asked him to -- let's make sure that we had all of the l
16 information.
I wanted to make sure we had all information l
17 relating to each block.
f 18 Under his residence telephone number, he indicated 19 to me that his local phone number is dEEEEEEBR It has a 20 block for driver's license number.
At the time he had a j
21 Pennsylvania -- or a Florida driver's license, excuse me.
l 22 And he says he now -- he said he now had a Texas driver's i
23 license.
So, I asked him for it so I could record the l
24 number, but he didn't have it with him at the time.
So, I 25 waited, and he went and got it at the end of the interview.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 (3
Washington, D. C. 20006 Cyj (202) 293-3950
'7 l
63 1
The next part of the form that we talked about was I
2 the education section.
He indicated that he wasn't -- that the dates of his grade school -- he listed '64 to '68.
He 4
wasn't quite sure about the '64 date, you know, that's some 5
time ago.
6 He indicated on the data form that his last grade 7
completed was the eighth grade.
And he wasn't sure, it was 8
either the eighth or the ninth grade.
He was not too sure 9
about that.
10 Q
That's for grade school; is that correct?
11 A
Right.
This was for grade school.
12 Q
Okay.
13 A
His high school was North High School in West 14 Mifflin, Pennsylvania.
And he had graduated from there in 15 the 12th grade.
16 Let's see, we went through some trade school.
He 17 indicated Penn Tech, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he had 18 done a couple of years there.
He said he had an associate's 19 degree as an electronics technician.
And on the data form 20 it says did you graduate.
He had indicated two years.
- And, 21 yes, he had graduated, but he didn't indicate the 22 associate's degree.
23 We then moved to the employment section.
We went 24 down the employment section block by block, one at a time, 25 starting with his present employer.
And he was onsite for ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
64 1
Sun Technical Services.
He indicated to me that he went to 2
work for Sun Technical in January of '92 up till the date of 3
the interview, and that his job site was STP.
That prior to 4
that he worked for the Atlantic Group that was officed out 5
of Norfolk Virginia -- their home office, but his job site 6
was Palo Verde nuclear plant from September of '91 to 7
December of '91.
8 Prior to that he worked for a company called Air 9
Flow Service Corporation, that was actually his own firm, 10 from January of '89 through September of '89.
11 Prior to that he was with Florida Power and Light 12 from March of '82 until December of '88 or January of '89.
13 And he had worked at both Turkey Point and St. Lucie nuclear 14 plants.
15 Those were the only employers that were listed on 16 the data form.
I asked him, at that point, had he worked at 17 any other companies in the five-year period that the data 18 form asked for.
And it was only at that point, when I asked 4
19 him for other employers, that he then mentioned that he had 20 worked for ATI for approximately three to four months in the 21 fall of 1989, and that they were officed in Miami, Florida.
l I
I 22 He said he was a part-time electronics instructor.
He 23 didn't remember the name of the individual that he actually 24 reported to.
25 He said he left that company, he was terminated ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 65 1
because he became involved in a Department of Labor 2
proceeding with Florida Power and Light, that it involved an i
3 ASLB -- a litigation, that Florida Power and. Light had 4
contacted ATI, the school, and that when he was terminated 5
from that job by them they told him the reason was is that 6
they were concerned about the sc.hool becoming involved in an 7
issue with Florida Power and Light.
So that was the reason 8
they fired him.
9 Q
Did he say if he was fired or if his contract --
10 A
He was terminated.
11 Q
-- wasn't renewed?
12 A
No, he said he was terminated.
13 Q
Okay.
14 A
I believe that was his exact words was that he was 15 terminated.
be hnokOI\\
16 He said 3 another job was the Doubletree Hotel 17 that he hadn't listed.
They were also located -- initially 18 he said Miami, Florida, but then he changed it to Coconut 19 Grove.
I am not to sure about that area over there.
20 Apparently there are a lot of little suburbs around and they 21 may be in a -- it may actually be another town, I am not too 22 sure, and he wasn't either.
He said he worked there for 23 about three months, between January of 1990 and April of 24 1990.
25 Q
Was that full-time?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 C
Washington, D. C. 20006 gk (202) 293-3950
l 66 1
A Later on he -- well, at that point, he didn't tell 2
me, but later on he said he worked there 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> a week, so j
3 I would call that full-time.
Well, I take that back.
I do 4
have it in my notes that he said full-time.
I'm sorry.
I 5
had an F/T, and that stands for full-time.
He said he was a 6
chief engineer, that was his title -- that he reported to a 7
gentleman by the name of Tom Goodwin, who was the general 8
manager of the hotel.
j 9
I asked him his reason for leaving.
He said he 10 was terminated.
There was a dispute between the owner of 11 the hotel and the general manager over the location of a 12 pool shower -- that he offered an opinion as to where that i
j 13 pool shower should be located and that, subsequent to that, j
14 for no specific reason, he wasn't given a specific reason, l
15 but he was terminated.
l 16 He also indicated that he was employed by the 17 Jupiter Hilton Hotel in Jupiter, Florida for about three 1
18 months in 1991.
His title was chief engineer.
He could not i
19 remember the name of -- or, no, his title was engineer.
He 20 could not remember the name of the chief engineer that he 21 reported to.
It was a full-time position.
And he left that j
1 22 job.
He said they -- he had hired on to work nights, and 23 j
apparently there were some personnel changes, and so they i
24 transferred him to day shift, and he couldn't work day 25 shift.
w ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 (g
l Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
67 1
So they terminated him for not being able to work the hours 2
that they wanted him to.
3 Those were the only jobs he said that he had had 4
within the last five years that he didn't indicate on the 5
data form.
i 6
The next section --
7 Q
Did he provida you a reason why?
8 A
Not at that point.
I didn't ask him at that 9
point, but I did later.
\\
10 Q
All right.
11 A
Do you want to stay in sequence, or do you want to 12 13 o
we'll just stay in your sequence.
I wouldn't want 14 to --
i 15 A
He said he had never been in the military.
i 16 We went to the next section, organization and
?
17 membership.
The data form says list social, civic, 18 fraternal and honorary organizations.
Indicate whether you 19 are a past or present member, length of membership and any i
20 office held.
And then in parentheses it says you need not j
21 include any organization which might either directly or by
{
22 implication indicate your race, religion, national origin or i
23 sex.
He indicated -- he didn't answer that -- didn't 24 provide anything in t t area of the data form, but he 25 indicated that beh es a board member, for about one year, of s
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 p
- p Washington, D. C. 20006 0
(202) 293-3950
. =.
68 1
the Nuclear Energy Accountability Project.
2 Q
What was that?
3 A
I $ ave no idea -- well, I do -- I do know what it 4
is, I guess, from reading the DOL order.
He had some 5
verbiage in there that it was -- he was an intervenor, I 6
think, in some of FP&L's proceedings.
And that was an 7
organization that he founded.
8 Q
And did that fall into this category of --
9 A
It beats the hell out of me.
I don't know what 10 NEAP is.
11 Q
Okay.
12 A
Do you?
13 Q
No, not really.
I know about what you do, I 14 guess.
15 A
I honestly -- I don't know if it's a social, j
16 civic, fraternal or --
17 Q
That's why I asked you if you believed that it 18 fell into that -- one of those categories?
l 19 A
I don't know.
i
)
20 We got into the general information section.
And i
21 the question in there is list any litigation, legal dispute 1
t i
22 or claim in which you have been involved, lawsuits or claims i
23 against any person or corporation and disposition of the i
j 24 same.
And he answered that question none.
When we got to 25 that one he said that he was a Complainant in a DOL i
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
[
l Washington, D. C. 20006 q
(202) 293-3950
l l
l l
69 l
1 litigation parenthesis.
I wrote proceeding.
He went from i
2 litigation -- the word litigation to proceeding -- against 3
Florida Power and Light and ATI.
He says it's still pending 4
on appeal.
It was an administrative law hearing, and he 5
didn't consider it to be a lawsuit.
l uns N l
6 He said he K a part of an ASLB hearing regarding 7
Turkey Point in 1989 or '90.
He doesn't know the status of i
l 8
that proceeding right now -- that Billy Gard was his 9
attorney for the proceeding.
I 10 He said he was involved in a divorce in January of 11 1991.
He said that, at one point, his daughter fell at a 12 neighbor's house.
At first, he indicated that he was a 13 plaintiff, but then he said that there was -- to his 14 knowledge, there was no suit filed.
He did retain an 1
15 attorney, but didn't go to court, and apparently it was 16 settled out of Court with the insurance company.
{
17 That was all the litigation.
]
18 The next question was have you ever been subject s*0Q And he d g l
19 to a plan for treating substance abuse question.
1 j
20 there was an incident at Florida Power and Light, at Turkey j
21 Point.
He was having some chest pains.
He was examined by 22 three different physicians and diagnosed with severe 1
23 gastritis, and he was prescribed Xantax, which was a 24 prescription drug, some type of stomach medication.
25 He said he notified his supervisor of it and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i
i 70 l
1 Florida Power and Light sent him to their physician, a Dr.
2 Dolsey, D-O-L-S-E-Y, in Miami, Florida, for an examination.
i j
He said during the examination Dolsey became upset and 3
4 indicating that Mr. Saporito was refusing to cooperate with 5
the exam, so Dolsey discontinued the examination.
i 6
They returned him to the site -- I assume Turkey 7
Point was what he was talking about -- and questioned him 8
about NRC information -- or information he had provided to 9
the NRC.
10 Q
Who's they?
11 A
I think he said officials with Florida Power and
)
12 Light.
~13 He was then subsequently terminated.
He said 14 during the time the questioning was going on, he was working 15 in the Training Department, and he was not sure if his i
16 access had been denied or suspended during that period of 17 time.
He said they did have Security pull his badge, and l
18 they told him he couldn't go in the operating part of the l
19 plant.
20 We then went to the address section, and he had 21 told me earlier in the interview about the Avondale, 22 Arizona.
He said he resided at the which were located on 6 in Avondale, Arizona, for 23 d
24 about one month in September of 1991.
25 And he said that was all.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l l
71 l
1 We went over the affidavit that pertained to the 2
information that was on the data form.
He didn't add i
3 anything at that point.
4 So, we went back and summarized.
And I asked him i
1
}
5 why he hadn't provided the complete information on the data 1
6 form, specifically in the areas of his employment?
And he 7
said, they weren't full-time jobs, even though he put in 40 8
hours per week -- that he didn't plan to remain at those 9
jobs forever.
He didn't consider them to be ca se 4
l 10 positions; that those hotels were not listed -- %g the ATI 11
-- was not listed on his resume, and they weren't relevant 12 to his employment history, and that all he did when he i
. 13 filled out our data form was copy from his resume to the 14 data form.
15 In terms of the organization area, he said he just
)
i j
16 missed it -- didn't see it.
i 17 In terms of the litigation question, he said they
]
l 18 were not litigations, they were only administrative law l
}
19 hearings involving the NRC and DOL issues.
a 20 In regards to the fitness for duty denial i
j 21 question, he said it was not a fitness for duty issue.
They l
22 told him that his access hadn't been denied, a
23 In regards to why he didn't list the terminations 24 and some of the other stuff on the affidavit.
Question 25 number nine on the affidavit says:
"Have you ever been k
%w ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Repodem 0
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 Ch 4
(202) 293 3950
72 1
fired, discharged or asked to resign by previous employer?"
2 He indicated yes when he filled it out, but he -- and he 3
said -- and to explain that yes -- on the data form he 4
4 wrote:
" Employment with Florida Power and Light, Turkey 5
Point plant terminated as a direct result of my 6
participation in an NRC investigation of the Turkey Point 7
nuclear plant."
8 So, when I asked him, well why didn't he list the 9
other employers that he was terminated from, he indicated 10 that he had filled out both the data form and the affidavit 11 at the same time.
But, and I did not point this out to him 12 in the interview, but he signed the data form January the 13 8th, and indicated to me that Sun Technical had mailed a 14 blank data form to him, in which he then mailed either back 15 to Sun Tech or to us direct, I'm not sure which.
16 The affidavit indicates though that he signed it 17 on January the 13th and witnessed by Andrew Woods.
So, his 18 statement about filling them out both at the same time 19 didn't make a lot of sense to me.
20 Q
Do you know what standard practice for -- do you 21 send out screening affidavits and data forms at the same 22 time, or do you know?
23 A
At -- I don't -- it's quite common to provide the 24 vendors with copies of the data forms and so forth.
Whether 25 or not a screening affidavit goes with that and they can s
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Q
Washington, D. C. 20006 Mk (202) 293-3950
l 73 1
1 fill it out at the same time, that may occur in some cases, 2
I don't know if it's a practice.
But, certainly, it is our i
i l
3 standard practice that the interviews be conducted one on 4
one with a -- at that time, with a member of the Security 5
Department.
6 I've now continued that practice as part of the 7
access authorization division.
Mr. Woods still conducts 8
these interviews one on one with the individual, a part of 9
the unescorted access process.
10 Q
I think I may have misunderstood you earlier then.
11 I thought that you said that Mr. Woods was going o'ver this 12 screening affidavit form.
But, in fact, the employee has
~13 already filled it out?
Is that --
14 A
No, I don't -- I don't know if Saporito had filled 15 this out ahead of time or filled it out n front of Mr.
j cPFQ 4 16 Woods, or had filled it out at the M and then him and Mr.
17 Woods had gone over it one on one.
18 Q
Okay.
19 A
I don't know.
Our practice is that the affidavit 20 is reviewed with the individual one on one with the member 21 of the access group or, at that time, a member of the 22 Security Department.
If it -- at what point in time the 23 checks are made, I don't know.
24 Q
Okay.
So, Mr. Saporito said he had completed them 25 at the same time, although the dates indicate otherwise; is i
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters p
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 h k Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 w
,.,v..
w--
e m
l 74 1
that correct?
2 A
Uh-huh.
3 Q
Did he offer any other explanations?
4 A
No.
At that point, the interview was essentially 5
concluded.
We exited the room.
I asked Mr. Saporito to go 6
to his car and get his driver's license, which he did do, 7
and came back upstairs, and I recorded his Texas driver's l
8 license number.
And, according to my notes, we actually 9
ended the interview at 5:30 that evening.
10 Q
Were there any gaps in his employment record?
i 11 A
on the data form?
12 Q
on the data form that was -- or was he self-13 employed during this time that he worked for ATI and these l
j 14 hotels?
Was he also saying that he owned or operated the i
l l
15 Air Flow Company?
16 A
Well, I lost it.
Let's see, '77 to -- January i
17
'77, March of
'82, RCA; March of '02, January of '89 Florida 18 Power and Light; January of '89, September of
'91, Air Flow, 19 which was his -- he says owner / operator, and that was his j
20 own business; and then September '91 to December of '91, 21 Atlantic Group at Palo Verde.
There were no -- and then 22 January '92 to the present, Sun Technical.
There were no 23 gaps in the employment record.
24 To fill this out though, the questions that the 25 individual needs to -- or the information he needs to
)
l --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters j
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 j
Washington, D. C. 20006 k
(202) 293-3950
\\
75 l
provide is pretty explicit.
It says you must list every job 1
\\
2 for the past five years, starting with your present or most 3
recent job.
Please indicate all periods of unemployment.
4 If necessary, attach additional sheets of paper and note l
5 that you've done so, and then it has a blank for the person l
]
6 to write in the number of additional sheets that are i
7 attached.
There were no gaps.
8 Q
Did he mention anything about the -- did he offer i
9 that as a reason for leaving those other jobs out -- that he 10 was self-employed at this time, and considered these jobs to i
j 11 be --
12 A
No, he did not.
j 13 The only reason that he gave me for failing to 14 list the employers were that they were not full-time i
l.
positions, even though he put in 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per week -- that 15 l
16 he didn't plan to be at those positions forever, they 1
17 weren't listed on his resume, they were not relevant to his l
18 work history, and that he had just copied from his resume to 19 the data form.
Those were the only reasons he gave me for 1
20 failing to list the positions.
21 Q
And what about the litigation?
He said he didn't 22 consider those to be --
t 23 A
And that's interesting.
He said they were not I
24 litigations, they were only administrative law hearings.
25 According to the notes I took when I asked him about that i;.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
j Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 h
Washington, D. C. 20006
'k 3
(202) 293 3950
. ~.
1 i
76
)
1 question, he said he was a complainant in a DOL litigation, l
2 and then he changed it to proceeding.
3 Q
And that was with Florida Power and Light; is that j
4 correct?
I 5
A Florida Power and Light, ATI, a divorce, and j
6 possibly a personal injury suit, and an ASLB hearing, 7
several.
8 Q
Did he mention anything from Palo Verde?
j 9
A No.
10 Q
Okay.
l 11 A
Has he got one with Palo Verde?
i
)
12 Q
I think he does now, but I don't know when it was
.13 filed.
i 14 A
He did not mention anything to me about Palo l
15 Verde.
e l
16 Q
Okay.
Okay.
So, you concluded your interview, is l
17 that correct, at that time?
Mr. Saporito brought his i'
18 driver's license, you recorded the license number.
And did
)
19 he ask you anything further?
Did he ask you what are you i
20 going to do with this information?
21 A
I'm not sure if he asked me -- it's my standar 22 practice, Virginia, to not let somebody walk away from an l
23 interview without telling them something about what is going l
24 to happen.
And Mr. Saporito and I stepped into my office, i
25 and I told him that I would finalize this information and l
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters l,
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 j
i
m.
m
.m m
A.-
i 77 1
present it to the access program director.
2 Since we had information from the interview that 3
was different than what he had provided on his documents, 4
the access program director would do one of three things:
5 He would either continue Mr. Saporito's access, he would 6
suspend his access, pending follow-up investigation, or he i
7 would revoke his unescorted access.
8 He then asked me well, what should he do?
And I 9
told him that he should report to work at his normally i
10 scheduled time, and that his management would inform him of 11 any additional actions that needed to be taken or decisions i
12 that had been made.
At that point he left.
The interview 13 was over with.
I 14 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Okay.
I think this might be a 1
good time to try to take a lunch --
15 1
l 16 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
We've got 10 minutes.
17 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
-- break.
18 (Whereupon, at 12:50 o' clock p.m.,
the above-19 entitled interview was recessed for lunch, to reconvene at 20 1:35 o' clock p.m. this same day.
21 22 i
23 24 4
J 25 i
b
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
()
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 QUK Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l l
78 1
AFTERNOON SESSION l
2
[1:35 p.m.)
1 3
MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Okay.
We're back on the record.
4 It's approximately 1:35 p.m.
We took a short lunch break.
5 Whereupon,
)
6 JAY WATT HINSON, 7
a witness, was called for examination, and having been 8
previously duly sworn, resumed examination and testified as 9
follows:
10 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 11 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
(Resuming.)
4 4
12 Q
Mr. Hinson, I think that, prior to the break, we 13 had discussed your interview of Mr. Saporito on February 14 20th, 1992.
And you had concluded that intervin -- we were 15 discussing that interview when we took our break.
Is that 16 your recollection?
17 A
Yes.
We had reached the point where we had 18 concluded the interview.
19 Q
And after Mr. Saporito left, did Rick Cink stay?
20 A
Yes.
Because of the amount of information that 21 had been developed in the interview, specifically in regards 22 to Mr. Saporito's employment, I asked Mr. Cink to stay and 23 attend a briefing with Balcom to relate the results of the 24 interview.
25 Q
And did you contact Mr. Balcom?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters n
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 y
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i t
4 79 i
1 A
Yes.
[
2 Q
Was he in his office?
3 A
No.
We had some difficulty locating -- we wound I
l 4
up in Mr. Jump's office with Mr. Jump and Mr. Balcon, Cink, j
and myself.
5 6
Q Did you locate Mr. Balcon in Mr. Jump's office?
l j
7 A
No.
I'm not sure where he was.
I think he 8
probably was over with Mr. Kinsey or somewhere.
I'm not 3
9 real sure where he was, but he came to Mr. Jump's office.
i 10 Q
So, when you couldn't find Mr. Balcom next -- and j
11 I believe his office at that time was next to your office?
1 12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Is that correct?
Did you then go to Mr. Jump's 14 office?
f 15 A
We wound up there, but I think we took k nd of a i
MY 16 circuitous route, walking down through Speak-M, maybe even
)
4
{
17 into QA, up into the executive offices, and then across the 18 building into Jump's, looking for him.
I 19 Q
Did you specifically intend to locate Mr. Jump in j
20 addition to Mr. Balcom?
l 21 A
I went to locate Mr. Balcon.
I assumed, as we 22 were looking for Mr. Balcom, that when we found Balcom we l
23 would find Jump.
24 Q
You mean together or --
25 A
Uh-huh, yes.
I really expected to find them ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 k
m) PAa.amn
s 80
~
l 1
together.
2 Q
Why?
3 A
Well, they -- you know, here we were in Mr. Jump's 4
office, and I was dispatched to do this interview, so I just l
5 assumed that the two of them would be waiting for me to 6
return with the results.
7 Q
Well, how many hours later is this by now?
8 A
About an hour and a half.
9 Q
What time did you conclude your interview?
10 A
5:30.
11 Q
And you initially contacted Rich DeLong I think 12 you said about 4:15?
13 A
Well, okay, it would be about an hour and 15 14 minutes later, something like that.
j 15 Q
So eventually you ended up in Mr. Jump's office, 16 and'Mr. Balcom was either already there or came there 17 shortly after?
i 18 A
Uh-huh.
19 Q
And Mr. Cink was still there?
l 20 A
Ah --
21 Q
He came with you?
i 22 A
Yes.
He came with me.
Yes.
i 23 Q
Okay.
Did you then --
l 24 A
Let me make sure, because I -- he had to have 25 arrived at the office.
i w
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 (k
/
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
81 1
Q Who?
2 A
Mr. Balcom.
Because when I got to Mr. Jump's 3
office n't there and I made a phone call to the t
4 gatehouse -- security gatehouse to have Mr. Saporito's badge 5
placed on hold.
6 Q
Who wasn't there, Mr. --
1 i
7 A
Mr. Balcom.
8 Q
Mr. Balcom was not at Mr. --
i 9
A Right.
10 Q
-- Jump's office?
11 A
Right.
So, I --
12 Q
Was Mr. Jump there?
13 A
I don't recall that.
i 14 Q
You don't know if Mr. Jump was there or not?
15 A
I don't recall it.
And -- I don't recall.
16 Q
So, you called the gatehouse and asked them to put 17 his badge on hold.
Is that standard practice?
l 18 A
Yes.
Absolutely.
19 Q
What did that mean?
20 A
Well, what it means is that the Security 21 Department will not issue his badge should he show up at the 22 gatehouse to access the protected area.
23 Q
Is this an interim procedure that you utilized 24 before you make a final decision?
25 A
Yes.
Yes.
It would equate to suspending access, ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 C
Washington, D. C. 20006 Ch (202) 293-3950
1
\\
l 82 1
pending the results of an investigation.
But, it's not 2
formally suspending access, it's more of an administrative 3
process where we can ensure that a person doesn't get into 4
the protected area while we sort our the details and decide 5
-- give the access program director a chance to make that j
6 decision that he needs to make.
7 Q
And you have the authority to take that action?
8 A
Yes.
j 9
Q Is there any form that needs to be filled out, or 10 just your verbal request?
11 A
There is a form that has to be filled out.
It's 12 called the unescorted access badge transaction form.
- But, 13 at the time, I was a manager within the Security Department 14 that worked with Investigations.
And our Security Force 15 supervisor knows that it's okay to not issue the badge, 16 based on verbal instructions from myself or the other 17 security managers in the section, and then we'll get the 13 paperwork to him.
Eventually paperwork has to be produced 19 to document the placing of the badge on hold.
20 Q
And after you contacted the gatehouse and ask that 21 they do that, what as your next step?
22 A
Brief Balcom on the results of Mr. Saporito's 23 interview.
24 Q
And was Jump present?
25 A
Yes.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
{,
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
t i
l 83 1
Q Was Cink present?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
Did you go over each item as you've just done 4
during our discussion, or did you just -- how did you 5
approach it?
6 A
We were in Mr. Jump's office.
If I remember 7
right, I was sitting at Mr. Jump's conference table.
Mr.
4 8
Jump was behind his desk.
Mr. Balcom was sitting in the 9
front of his desk, and I think cink was actually leaning I
10 against the credenza.
And basically I explained to Mr.
11 Balcom, in detail, the sequence that the interview went 12 through and the information that Mr. Saporito had provided 13 that wasn't on his data form or affidavit.
14 Q
How did Mr. Balcom respond to that?
15 A
He listened to me.
And I believe he asked me what 16 my opinion was.
17 Q
And what was your opinion?
l 1
18 A
That we should deny Mr. Saporito's access to the 19 South Texas Project.
20 Q
Is there a difference between denial and 21 revocation?
22 A
Probably -- yes, there probably is a technical l
23 difference between the two, although the terms are somewhat 24 interchangeable.
Grant -- you're authorizing access.
25 Denied -- I think in the procedure tends to imply that the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 kl (202) 293-3950
84 i
1 person does not have access, and he's not going to get Revoke -- the person has access and you're taking 2
access.
3 it away from him.
And, in this case, the correct I
4 terminology would be revoke, but they're used 5
interchangeably.
6 Q
That had been my understanding from reading some 7
of the documents here, and I just wanted to satisfy that I 8
understood it correctly.
9 A
I kind of bounce from one to the other.
10 MR. BAER:
Do you use different standards for 11 denials and revocations?
4 12 THE WITNESS:
No.
No.
No.
Not really.
No.
i 13 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
14 Q
So, you recommended --
15 A
Revoking.
Correct.
16 Q
-- revoking Mr. Saporito's site access?
17 A
Protected area access, unescorted access.
18 Q
Unescorted access I should have said.
f j
19 And did Mr. Balcom agree with that?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Did he ask you for any additional information at 22 that time?
23 A
No.
24 Q
Did he ask you about what the procedures say or 25 what's --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i l
85 l
1 A
oh.
l 2
0
-- our usual policy regarding something like this?
3 A
When you said no I thought you went like more --
1 i
4 additional investigative information.
l 5
Mr. Balcon was new to the security manager's 6
position.
He had only been in that position since the first i
l 7
of '92, I think around mid-January.
So, I believe he asked s
l 8
me what paperwork -- I as paraphrasing -- what documents j
9 needed to be completed to process the revocation.
And I 10 told him that I knew what those were and that we could go
~
11 take care of that.
l 12 Q
Did he ask you what procedures should be followed?
6 1
13 or did he ask to review any specific procedtfres?
14 A
No.
He did not ask to review any -- we didn't go 1
1 l
15 review the procedure that I recall.
I took it, and my l
16 memory tells me that he was confident that I knew what f
17 documents needed to be completed, and that he and I would go
)
l 18 get those documents and complete them, and we did.
)
19 Q
Did he ask you if revocation of Mr. Saporito's i
i
\\
]
20 access would be appropriate, given the circumstances or the i
i 21 things that you had discovered during the interview with Mr.
i
\\
j 22 Saporito?
23 A
well, I don't think he asked that specific
)
24 question of me.
He asked me what my recommendation was, and 4
i 25 I told him that my recommendation was that we should revoke ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 kg (202) 293-3950 r---,
l 86 1
his access or deny; he used one of the two words.
2 Q
What did you base your recommendation on?
l 3
A wel'1, I felt that the information that we had 4
developed during the interview was pretty significant --
5 that, in my opinion, Mr. Saporito had falsified the 6
documents that caused us to grant him unescorted access.
7 That's a serious offense.
I don't think he should be 8
allowed in the plant because of it.
I 9
Q Because he provided false --
10 A
Uh-huh.
11 Q
-- information on --
12 A
Yes.
He had omitted information that was relevant
'13 to the access authorization process, the unescorted access 14 process.
15 Q
And what do you consider to be relevant?
16 A
Certainly the fact that he had three employers 17 that he was terminated from that he didn't list on the data i
18 form I felt was quite relevant, and still do feel that way.
19 Q
Anything else?
20 A
I felt the litigation question -- that he had 21 neglected to include a complete answer to that question.
22 Certainly, as residence area on the application, he didn't 23 answer that one completely.
24 I think it was significant that he completed the 25 data form on January the 8th; but when he arrived on site ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 8
(202) 293-3950
87 a-1 and was interviewed on the 13th, he also failed to list the 2
same information -- provide the same information as to the 3
terminations on the other three employers, and certainly his 4
confusion over whether or not he was denied access for the b
5 or the Xantax, or whatever those two issues 6
were, whether they were the same incident or two different a
7 incidents.
et h 8
I think it's significant % wher; he was 9
presented with the data forms at the beginning of my 10 interview and was allowed to review the forms, he did not 11 provide me with the information about the employment.
And 12 it was only until we specifically went over, block by block, 13 the data forms -- and even at that point when he was going 14 over, one line at a time, he did not give me those 15 employers, when we were doing them chronologically.
It was 16 only when I asked him if he had any other employment in that 17 five-year period that he then provided that information.
(
18 So, I think there were a sequence of events there l
19 where he had ample opportunity to correct his documents for 20 unescorted access.
And I think in each one of those j
21 sequences of events, he made a decision not to provide that 22 information.
And I think that's highly significant to the 23 unescorted access process.
24 Q
Did you attempt to verify Mr. Saporito's story --
25 his --
l lI ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 p
,r, n c
I 88 i
l 1
A In what respect?
2 Q
-- terminations from his employment primarily?
i j
3 A
well, I --
4 Q
I mean, did you -- I guess what I'm asking is was j
5 the revocation decision made just based on what he told you i
6 at this interview?
Was any attempt made to verify whether 7
or not he was, in fact, terminated from his --
8 A
Why would we do that?
9 Q
Well, I am just asking.
Was there an attempt made 10 to verify Mr. Saporito's story?
i 11 A
It would seem to be a lose / lose situation to me.
12 He had come into an interview for unescorted access -- as
- 13 part of his unescorted access process, told me about i
14 information that was different than his data form.
Now, I 4
15 assume that Mr. Saporito was telling me the truth.
And I l
16 believe he was telling me the truth -- that he had been l
17 terminated from these employers.
If I went and contacted 18 those hotels and found out that had never worked there, l
k l
19 then he would have lied to me my interview, and he would j
20 have failed to cooperate with our investigaticn, I would 21 have recommended that his access be denied.
1 22 Before we broke for lunch -- now -- since you 23 brought it up, you kind of intrigued me.
If he has a 24 litigat4 ith Palo Verde and he lied to me in my 25 interviewh( -- and I haven't followed up on that.
I think i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
l 89 1
maybe I should follow-up on that and supplement my file, 2
because I think he would have lied to me in my interview.
3 And certainly his access should not be allowed on this 4
project or any nuclear plant, in my opinion.
It's too 5
critical an issue.
i 6
Q You mean omissions of information specifically, or 7
just the sua total of all the information or what?
8 A
I think you have to look at a file in totality.
1 9
You accumulate facts as you develop a nuclear file.
And you 10 have to evaluate those facts, as to whether or not they're j
11 relevant to the access authorization process.
If you have 12 differences, I think you have to evaluate whether or not i
i 13 they're significant.
If they're significant and if they're l
q 14 relevant to the process, I think access should be revoked or 15 denied.
I certainly believe that.
l 16 Q
How do you determine what is significant or what's l
17 relevant to the process?
18 A
I wish there was a magical way that you could plug i
19 numbers into some computer and it spits out an obvious 20 answer each time.
You take each fact, each file and you 1
21' look at the facts, and you evaluate it.
How each individual i
j 22 access program director makes those decisions, I think you 23 really need to ask them rather than me.
24 I looked at Mr. Saporito's file and I. felt like j
25 the information that he has failed to include was relevant, ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
[
(202) 293-3950
90 i
i
~'
i 1
and it was clearly asked for.
There was no confusion about 2
what information we were asking for.
I think -- as a 3
result, I think it was relevant.
And I think the fact they 4
were terminations was significant.
And, to me, that met my 5
standard for revocation of unescorted access.
It did then, i
6 does today.
i 7
Q Okay.
So Mr. Balcon said, if I understood you l
8 correctly, he said that he agreed with your recommendation j
l' 9
or your opinion that Mr. --
10 A
I don't know that I said he agreed with it.
His j
11 decision was to revoke Mr. Saporito's access.
I took that l
12 as concurrence with my decision, but I don't specifically l
13 remember him saying what -- that was the correct decision.
i i
14 Q
Well, I know.
But, if you said that you believed
)
15 that his access should be revoked, and Mr. Balcom then said 16 I think that Mr. Saporito's access should be revoked; that's 17 an agreement, is it not?
I mean, I don't know how --
l l
18 A
Well, unless he characterizes it to me as an i
19 agreement, then I'm going to say I don't know if he was 20 agreeing with me.
I know what happened.
The facts were 21 that that was my recommendation.
And his decision was to 22 revoke.
23 Q
But, they're the same as your --
24 A
They just happen to be the same one.
25 Q
-- recommendation.
I~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
91
~
1 A
But he didn't tell me that he agreed with me, and 2
that was your question.
3 Q
His decision was to revoke Mr. Saporito's --
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
-- access?
l 6
A Yes, it was.
7 Q
And your recommendation was to revoke --
8 A
Yes, it was.
9 Q
-- Mr. Saporito's access?
10 Did Mr. Balcom review the procedures prior to 11 reaching his decision?
12 A
You asked me that once before, and I don't 13 remember us going to look at the procedure.
I think, as I 1
14 said earlier, he was new to his position in security.
And I 15 think he relied upon me, knowing what the procedure required 16 and being present with him at the time we completed the 17 documents necessary to do the revocation.
But he may very 18 well have looked at the procedure while I was in the 19 interview with Mr. Saporito, I just don't know.
20 Q
Did Mr. Jump provide an opinion or any input into 21 this discussion while Mr. Balcon was reviewing the 4
22 circumstances in arriving at his decision?
23 A
During the briefing to Mr. Balcom, Mr. Jump didn't 24 have anything to say.
At the time I made my recommendation 25 to Mr. Balcom and Mr. Balcom made his decision to do the
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 C
Washington, D. C. 20006 6k y
(202) 293-3950
l 92 1
revocation, Mr. Jump didn't have any input at all.
2 Once the decision was made to do the revocation, 3
Mr. Balcom mentioned that he needed to contact Mr. Kinsey l
4 and to br of him as to what had occurred during the evening
)
7 Y%%
(
5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> andgled up to the decision to do the revocation.
And l
6 I believe Mr. Jump indicated that he didn't feel that it was 7
necessary to do that.
There was some discussion between the 8
two of them.
And I'll be honest with you, I didn't pay a 9
whole heck of a lot of attention to it.
10 What I remember is that Mr. Jump -- we were in --
11 this is kind of convoluted.
We were in the process of 12 implementing the new NRC access authorization rule.
And 13 when I say "we," I mean the Security Department and the 14 Human Resources Department, which were the two organizations 15 that were involved in the access process.
Since we were 16 implementing an NRC rule, our Licensing Department was 17 involved, or certainly had an interest in how well we 18 complied with the rule.
I 19 It was my understanding that Mr. Jump was placed 20 as the project manager over this -- during this transition 1
21 phase from the old program to whatever was going to be the 22 new program.
So, in the context of their -- the two of them 23 discussing whether or not Mr. Balcom needed to notify Mr.
24 Kinsey, Mr. Jump said, as project manager for implementing 25 access authorization, I don't think you need to call Kinsey, ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 (J
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
I 1
l 93 j
j 1
or I don't think you need to brief Kinsey or words something i
2 to that effect.
His suggestion was that Mr. Balcon didn't 3
need to notify Mr. Kinsey.
And Mr. Balcon accepted that I i
4 think.
i 5
It would be better off to ask them the specifics, i
because I really don't remember the extent of the 6
i l
7 conversation between the two of them.
8 Q
Did Mr. Jump specifically say, as project manager l
9 for the access --
10 A
I don't --
l l
11 Q
-- whatever you call that.
12 A
Again, I want you to understand, Virginia, I was j
13 paraphrasing what --
.i i
14 Q
Yes.
That's why I'm asking that specifically.
Do 1
15 you recall --
16 A
Do I remember him quoting that?
l l
17 Q
Do you remember him saying he was -- as project i
18 manager for the access control division, whatever it is l
19 called -- did he actually sention that, or did he just i
l 20 perhaps say as project manager?
l 21 A
I'm not sure.
I think I confused myself.
.l 22 Your question to me is did he use the phrase i
i 23 project manager of access authorization?
24 Q
Uh-huh?
l 25 A
Or just project manager?
l l
!~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Sune 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
94 1
Q Uh-huh?
2 A
I don't recall.
3 Q
Okay.
But you believed -- it seems like you 4
believed that he was speaking as the project manager for the 5
access program?
6 A
Yes.
Yes.
It was common knowledge that -- I 7
won't say common knowledge, there were a lot of people who 8
probably didn't know it -- but people that were involved in 9
access.
I want to be correct here.
The people that were 10 involved in the Security Department, involved in the access, 11 was aware that Jump, you know, had been placed over this 12 implementation of the new rule, you know.
However the 13 program was going to turn out, nobody really knew.
You 14 know, a lot of decisions have yet to be made, and he was the 15 owner of that project.
16 Q
Did Mr. Balcom usually consult with Mr. Kinsey i
17 before he made this kind of decision or after -- immediately 18 after -- before the action was actually taken?
19 A
I believe it was pretty well established practice 20 for the security manager to notify his boss, especially in i
21 issues of revocation.
I don't know that Mr. Kinsey ever 22 directed Mr. Balcom to do that.
23 Q
But, as far as you know, it was standard practice?
24 A
It's -- yes.
Yes.
You don't make decisions of 25 this type in a vacuum, you know.
You need to let the guy --
<w ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 M
Washington, D. C. 20006 M
(202) 293-3950
95 l
I the employee's management know what's occurring, and you 2
need to let your boss know what's occurring.
And, you know, 3
so -- certainly it was Mr. Balcom's decision though.
He was 4
the access program director.
i 5
Q Did Mr. Jump leave his office or telephone anyone
{
6 that you can recall during this time?
7 A
Yes.
I think he did leave.
I'm not sure if it 8
was during -- he left.
Whether it was this meeting or the 9
one prior to the interview, I'm not sure about come to think 1
10 of it.
But I have the recollection that he did leave.
I 11 Q
Do you recall him saying anything when he came l
12 back?
13 A
He didn't say anything to me.
14 Q
It didn't have to be specifically to you, it could 15 have been to Mr. Balcom.
16 A
Well, I'm not sure.
I'm really not sure.
I would 17 assume he would have.
18 Q
other than Mr. Jump telling Mr. Balcom that he 19 didn't believe he needed to consult with Mr. Kinsey because 20 he was -- Mr. Jump was the project manager --
21 A
Wait a minute.
Say that again.
Because I don't 22 think that's what I said.
23 Q
I thought you said that Mr. Jump said that he did l
24 not believe it was necessary for Mr. Balcom to consult with I
25 Mr. -- or notify Mr. Kinsey; did you not say that?
i
'd i
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
~
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
96 w.
1 A
Yes, I did.
But then you tacked on because Jump 2
was the project --
3 Q
Jump was the project manager.
That's what --
l 4
A I don't think -- I don't think -- I don't want to 5
characterize that Jump is giving instructions to Balcom not 6
to notify -- I'm the project -- I'm speaking as Jump now, 7
okay?
8 Q
okay.
9 A
I don't remember it occurring -- you know, Balcon, 10 I'm the project manager for access authorization.
You do 1
l 11.
not need to -- I'm instructing you not to tell Kinsey.
I 12 don't remember it being characterized that way.
l 13 Q
okay.
I don't think I said that.
i
~
14 A
I think it was two managers --
15 Q
I think I said notify.
I don't think I said 16 instructing but notifying.
17 A
Well, I know.
But the way I heard it, it sounded i
18 like you were characterizing it as Jump was giving Balcom 19 instructions, and that's not the way I would characterize 20 it.
I would characterize it as two managers discussing an i
21 issue.
And I think, in that context, Jump was saying to i
22 him, you know, I'm the project manager for access 1
1
{
23 authorization, I don't think you need to notify Kinsey.
i j
24 I just want to make sure this -- when this is all l
25 typed up and five years from now, you know, when we're all
)
[
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters n$
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
(
97 1
sitting down in some courtroom, if that' t --
l 2
MR. BAER:
Or in some jail DELL.
3 THE WITNESS:
Or some jail I don't want 4
somebody to say, well Hinson said that Jump instructed 5
Balcom not to notify Kinsey, because that's not what 6
happened.
I want to --
7 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
i 8
Q I don't believe I said instruction.
9 A
Well, I know, I'm not --
10 Q
I really don't.
11 A
I know.
12 MR. BAER:
My head hurts.
13 THE WITNESS:
I just -- I want 14 THE REPORTER:
One at a time.
One at a time, 15 THE WITNESS:
I want to be sure I have 16 communicated to you that it was more of a conversation 17 between two managers that I wasn't paying an awful lot of 18 attention to.
So, the answers to your questions should l
19 probably come from Balcom and Jump, because I really don't 20 recall a lot of the details of what they were talking about.
21 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
22 Q
But you do recall Mr. Jump saying to Mr. Balcom 23 that he did not believe it was necessary for Mr. Balcom to 24 notify Mr. Kinsey; now, is that correct?
25 A
That's correct.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters I
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 y
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
d 98
-~
1 Q
Mr. Balcom -- did Mr. Balcom then notify Mr.
2 Kinsey?
j 3
A I have no idea.
4 Q
Did he notify Mr. Kinsey in your presence?
i 5
A No.
l 6
Q Did Mr. Jump provide an opinion as to why he 7
believed -- what action he believes should be taken?
8 A
No.
9 Q
Did Mr. Cink provide an opinion as to what action lo he believes should be taken?
11 A
No.
l 12 Q
And Mr. Balcom made the decision to revoke Mr.
'l 13 Saporito's access?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Was there any further discussion while the four c f 16 you were there in that room?
l 17 A
I don't even think the four of us were together at 18 that point.
At some point in here Cink left.
I'm not sure 1
i 19 he was actually there when the decision was make to revoke 20 access.
And that just may be my memory foggy, I'm not sure.
21 But, when the meeting ended it was just me, Jump and Balcom.
22 I think Cink had already left by then.
23 Q
Was there any additional discussion among the 24 three of you?
25 A
No, not that I recall.
1
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters l
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
[$
l l
(202) 293-3950
99 1
MR. BAER:
You mean you just sat there silently?
2 THE WITNESS:
Well, no, we left to go do the 3
paperwork.
Balcon and I left.
The meeting was over.
The 4
decision had been --
j 5
BY"MS. VAN CLEAVE:
6 Q
The decision was made?
There was no further 7
discussion?
8 A
About?
9 Q
The decision -- about whether or not this was the 10 right decision -- whether or not procedures had been 11 followed?
12 A
No.
Not that I recall.
We left -- Balcom and I 13 left Mr. Jump's office to go implement the decision.
14
'Q And what did that entail?
15 A
We returned to the Security Department and I 16 completed an adjudication documentation form, indicating 17 that information was received, indicating subject did not 4
18 list one employer on the data form.
Subject was interviewed l
19 on February the 20th, 1992, and provided information that he 20 had been employed by three employers that he did not list on j
21 the data form.
See interview reports.
And then indicated 22 that the issues we were looking at, IP7.02Q, Section 8.1.2 23 Q
That's the specific procedure that was cited?
24 A
Uh-huh.
25 Q
Let me ask you -- that reminds me of another l
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
100 l.
l 1
question.
2 A
Uh-huh?
3 Q
Did Security have any additional procedures, l
4 policies, standard practices regarding what specific acts 5
constitute grounds for access denial or revocation?
6 A
Uha-uha.
7 Q
You know, that procedure that you've cited as 8
relatively general?
1 9
A It's the NRC requirement.
10 Q
That doesn't make it any less general.
11 A
Hey.
We used what guidance you all provided us.
12 MR. BAER:
It wasn't our idea.
13 THE WITNESS:
I don't -- you know, it says -- I 14 don't remember exact words, but it says willful omission or 15 falsification of documents --
16 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
17 Q
Material information?
18 A
Yes.
Material information on documents to support 19 the unescorted access, something like that.
20 Q
Well, a lot of requirements like that are 21 relatively general.
A lot of times nuclear sites come up 22 with additional procedures or additional guidelines.
So, in 23 this case, did the Security Department have any additional 24 25 A
No.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 h
Washington, D. C. 20006 Oh (202) 293-3950
i 101 1
Q
-- guidelines?
2 A
No, we did not.
No, we did not.
3 Q
Okay.
So, you completed that form?
4 4
A Yes.
And Mr. Balcom then wrote on it access 5
revoked, and signed it and dated it.
6 To complete the process we had to do two i
7 unescorted access badge transaction forms.
One was to j
8 document the placing of the badge on hold, and the other one t
9 was to document the revocation of the badge.
10 Q
Why is it necessary to complete two foras?
Why do 11 you need to put it on hold?
12 A
So that --
)
13 Q
Why not just revoke it?
14 A
-- so that we -- the documents will accurately 15 reflect the actions that occurred.
The -- there was a -- I i
16 made a decision -- my decision was to -- was to place his i
17 badge on hold, pending the investigation.
18 Balcom made a decision to revoke unescorted i
19 access.
That decision occurred some time after the decision l
20 I made to place the budge on hold.
So, in my mind, at the i
'NOV 21 time, we needed h forms; one to accurately describe the 22 on-hold and one to accurately document the revocation.
23 The other form -- that last form that we needed 24 was a statement of access unsuitability.
In retrospect, I'm 25 not sure if we really needed this one, but we did one.
We 1
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
'3 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C. 20006 hk (202) 293-3950
l 102 l
1 didn't -- we couldn't find one in the Security Department, i
2 so we went to the central Processing Facility to locate one.
3 All of the offices there were locked and neither one of us 4
had a key.
So, I contacted Andrew Woods at his residence 5
and had him come to the project and open up his office, and 6
we obtained the statement of access unsuitability.
And I 7
wrote Mr. Saporito's name and social security number on the 8
top of it, and Mr. Balcom signed it and dated it, and that i
9 wound up in his nuclear file.
10 At that point we went back here to the nuclear 11 support center.
And I don't know if Mr. Balcom went back to j
12 his office or just left.
We were in the parking lot.
And I i
13 vent to the gatehouse to make sure that -- East Gatehouse, j
14 to make sure that the badge had been placed on hold.
15 Q
Did you take any of the forms with you?
4 16 A
I think -- I don't think I took the forms because, i
17 at the time, neither Mr. Balcom nor myself were authorized 18 to sign for the plant manager.
So what I think I did is I
]
took them -- well, I know I took them to odom the next 19 l
20 morning, but I'm not sure if I took them to the gatehouse 21 that night.
I primarily went to the gatehouse to ensure i
22 that Mr. Saporito's badge was placed on hold, and it was 23 unavailable.
He couldn't use it to access the protected 24 area.
25 Q
Had you taken the decision -- or made the decision ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters p
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 ik (202) 293-3950
I 103 l.-
1 to suspend Mr. Saporito's access on your own, or was that on 2
instruction from Mr. Balcom?
i 3
A Well, indirectly it was instructions from Mr.
4 Balcom.
At some point prior -- prior to the interview with 5
Mr. Saporito, somebody, and I cannot remember who, stopped 6
me and -- at the time Mr. Saporito and I believe Mr. Cink 7
were both in the interview room and I was either turning off 8
the TV or maybe it was when I went out to get the files to 9
bring back into the interview room.
At some point in there, 10 somebody in Security had told me that Mr. Balcom had called 11 to leave me a message to place Mr. Saporito's badge on hold 12 at the conclusion of the interview.
I don't remember who 13 told me that.
I took it at face value though and said yes.
14 Q
You took these forms to Mr. Odom?
Was that what 15 you were told to do?
How did that transpire?
16 A
I don't know -- I don't believe I was told to do 17 it.
I knew that only Mr. Hall's direct reports were 18 authorized to sign for the plant manager.
I knew that Mr.
19 odom was one of those direct reports, and I knew he or 20 somebody at his level would have to sign it, and he's the 21 easiest one to find early in the acrning.
He's the human 22 resources manager.
His office is upstairs from the Security 23 Department.
It's just a matter of going up there and 24 getting him to sign them.
25 Q
Do you often ask him to sign these kinds of forms?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 f
Washington, D. C. 20006 Og (202) 293-3950
104 is 1
A Often ask odom to sign them?
I -- I don't think i
l 2
any more than any of other -- any of the rest of Mr. Hall's l
3 direct report.s.
4 Q
So Mr. Balcon didn't tell you to take those forms I
5 to Mr. Odom?
6 A
Not that I recall.
It's possible that be did, but f
7 not that I recall.
)
8 Q
You took both of them --
l 9
A Yes.
10 Q
-- to him?
f 11 A
Uh-huh.
Yes.
He signed both of them.
l l
12 Q
I reviewed those forms and I couldn't really 13 understand what had happened.
I mean, there's a different i
14 date.
It looks like you had signed over here and --
i l
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
-- and it was crossed out.
17 A
This signature here is the lieutenant, our 18 security force supervisor who was on duty.
And I can't 19 remember if it was -- exactly where it occurred in this 1
d i
20 sequence.
But I remember she was saying to me that I could Qb 21 not sign as a requestor, to place a badge on hold.
But
]
)
22 she was -- I knew that wasn't correct, but she was brand new 23 at her job.
And I said well, you know, I need to put this 24 badge on hold.
And she said well she would sign it, and I i
25 said fine, you can sign it.
1--
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 k
(202) 293-3950
l 105 4
1 Q
Well, was that the 20th or was that the 21st?
2 Because it looks like you've signed it.
4 3
A Yes.
It looks like I had signed it, and this is 4
my handwriting here, you know.
Because we filled them out
)
5 that evening -- the evening of the 20th, so I would have 6
signed it and dated it the 20th.
But, from her -- it looks 1
7 to me like she signed it that morning and then, one line and 8
initialled that she had signed it that day.
So, she signed 9
it on the 21st.
i 10 Q
Who completed the top of that form, do you know?
11 A
I didn't.
It may have been filled out at the 12 gatehouse, in anticipation of me bringing this one over 13 there.
That may have been what happened.
I had just i
j 14 noticed that.
This was my handwriting.
From -- since you 15 brought it up -- when was this?
2-20, at 6:00 o' clock.
16
- Okay, f
17 I would suspect that what happened is I called the l
18 gatehouse to place her -- Mr. Saporito's badge on hold, i
l 19 which was done by this SAS analyst -- SAS, Secondary Alarm j
)
l 20 Station at 6:17 on the evening of the 20th is when they i
1 l
21 actually took his badge out of the rack.
4 22 They would have preliminarily completed this form.
j 23 When I went to the gatehouse probably that evening or the i
24 next morning, Pat Belcher, the lieutenant, would have been l
25 on duty, and that's when this would have occurred.
And I i
l 1
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 0
Washington, D. C. 20006 j Q (202) 293 3950
106 I
would have seen that there was no reason for action here, so 2
I wrote in "pending investigation."
3 Now, when odom signed it, I -- the more we're 4
talking about it the more I remember -- when odos signed it, 5
he looked at this date and signed that date, and then
)
6 realized it was the wrong date, so one-lfngd it and put the 7
correct date.
Because he signed it the next morning.
He 8
was not here that evening.
9 Q
Well, you've lost me.
Had you already been to the 10 gatehouse with this form?
11 A
I don't think so.
No.
i 12 Q
And had she already signed it or --
13 A
I don't -- that -- no.
If Pat Belcher signed it 14 and her initials, P.B. were dated 2-21, that means she 15 signed it on the morning of the 21st.
16 Q
After odom signed it?
17 A
It may have been, yes.
She may have looked at 18 this one and said, well, you can't sign it, you're not 19 authorized to.
So, I'll -- but I'll -- if you want it put 20 on hold, I'll sign it as a requestor.
That's what it said, i
21 fine, sure.
22 Q
Well, would it ordinarily have been taken to the 23 gatehouse after a plant manager or his designee signed it?
24 A
I don't know.
I would suspect that these badge l
transaction forms come to the gatehouse without the plant 25 cw*
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Streat, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
l l
107 l
1 manager's signature and then the gatehouse personnel shift 2
them over to the plant manager in some cases or, you know -
3
- and have it signed then.
I don't believe any action would 4
occur on a badge unless it had already been signed by a J
5 plant manager designee or a member of Security management 6
had contacted them and asked them to take action on a badge.
7 Q
Well, what do you do with these forms after --
8 A
We keep them --
9 Q
-- okay -- you've taken them --
3 10 A
-- for --
11 Q
But, I mean, no -- you've taken this for Odom, 12 he's signed them, now what do you do?
13 A
Take them to the gatehouse.
14 Q
Oh, you take them to the gatehouse after that?
15 A
Yes.
I believe I --
16 Q
I thought I just asked.
So, Odom had probably 17 already signed that?
18 A
I don't know.
19 MR. BAER:
Signed it when?
20 THE WITNESS:
He signed -- I know that Odom signed 21 it the morning of the 21st.
I believe that Belcher signed 1
22 it the morning of the 21st.
Whether or not it was before or 23 after Odom, I don't know, don't remember.
24 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
l 25 Q
But would you have gone to the gatehouse to get 1
4 umm8
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters q
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 I
Washington, D. C. 20006
$gk (202) 293-3950
l l
108 1
her to sign it, taken the form back over to odom and then 2
taken it back to the gatehouse?
I mean, is that the usual 3
practice?
1 4
A It doesn't sound logical does it?
5 Q
No.
l 6
A No, it doesn't.
l 7
Q That's why I'm asking.
Is that --
i 8
A But I don't know.
9 Q
-- the usual practice?
Is that --
10 A
I don't recall.
11 Q
You don't have a standard --
12 A
I really don't.
13 Q
-- you don't have a standard way that you handle 14 these forms?
15 A
No, not particularly.
4 16 Q
Where are they supposed to and up, at the 17 gatehouse, so that --
18 A
Uh-huh.
I 19 Q
-- they can --
{
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
-- take some action?
22 A
They -- once this action is done here -- this is 23 actually a multi-part form.
There's two parts to this form.
24 The nuclear security copy of the form -- the -- when the 25 action is taken in the Security computer, it's filed in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C. 20006 IJA (202) 293-3950 V\\
i l
109 1
badging forms, badging files that are located in the l
2 gatehouse.
The other copy of the form is a Human Resources 3
copy, which happens to be this copy, the same form, this --
i 4
here, this -- Human Resources copy.
And gets back over to j
5 the Central Processing Facility and is filed in the nuclear 6
file.
l 7
Q Did Mr. Odom ask you any questions about why the 8
badge was being, or the access was being revoked?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
And what did you tell him?
I j
11 A
I briefed him.
i j
12 Q
You did brief him on the circumstances?
13 A
Yes.
Showed him the adjudication form, where 14 Balcom had revoked access, and the statement of i
15 unsuitability form.
f 16 Q
And was he familiar with this process?
Did he 17 appear to be familiar with this process?
j 18 A
I wouldn't characterize Mr. Odom as being very j
familiar with it, but, I mean, he knew what the forms were, 19
}
20 you know, he's seen the forms before.
As to how familiar he t
j 21 is with the procedure that drives the forms, I don't know.
22 Q
Did he ask you any other questions, once you 23 briefed him and gave him the general information as to what 24 happened, did he ask --
25 A
I think he --
L ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters O
Ok 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
110 1
Q
-- for any specifics?
I 2
A I think he asked me what my recommendation was, 3
and I told him to revoke access.
4 Q
By this time, which was the morning of the 21st of 5
February, did you know yet that Mr. Saporito had a 2.206 6
filed here at the South Texas Project?
7 A
No.
8 Q
You still did not know?
9 A
No.
No.
No.
10 Q
Was it --
11 A
I no longer believed that Mr. Saporito was just another I&c technician; but I did not know - Am 12 wh n I sat b
13 down with Odom, at that point, I did not now % t Saporito J
14 was a 2.206 petitioner.
15 Q
No mention had been made of that in the meetings 16 on the 20th?
l 17 A
Not to my recollection at all.
At what point on 18 the 20th?
i 19 Q
Anytime on the 20th.
20 A
If there was any mention, okay, and I'm not saying 21 there was, it would have been after Mr. Balcom's decision to 22 revoke access.
And I don't really recall any, but I know he l
23 and jump were talking.
And if it came up in there, it may 24 have, but I don't have any recollection of it.
25 Q
When you say "they were talking," --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
111 1
A I'm talking about this -- the conversation we just I
2 went through about notifying Mr. Kinsey and Jump being 3
project manager and all that stuff.
If it came up then it 4
did, but I don't specifically remember it.
You've got to 5
find -- from this point forward, my memory is going to get 6
real cloudy about Mr. Saporito.
Because it -- once these 7
forms were done, in my opinion, I was out of the Saporito 8
case.
I had completed my investigation.
9 Q
Did Mr. Odom say anything about Mr. Saporito being 10 a 2.206 petitioner?
11 A
No, he did not.
12 Q
Did he say anything about Mr. Saporito having 13 filed concerns here at the --
14 A
No.
15 Q
-- South Texas Project?
16 A
No, he did not.
l 17 Q
Okay.
About -- it took about I guess less than 10 1
i 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> after Mr. Jump provided you with the DOL decision, Mr.
19 Saporito was interviewed and the access ~was revoked.
That j
20 revocation action seems relatively quickly to me.
Is this 21 type of quick action common?
I mean, I may be wrong, but -
22 l
i 23 A
Is 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> acceptable?
24 Q
I mean, 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> seems quick to me.
I mean, he -
25
- you know, the decision came -- Mr. Jump got the decision, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 0
Washington, D. C. 20006 0
(202) 293-3950
\\
1 i
112 l
1 you reviewed it, you interviewed him, his access was 1
2 revoked, and this all, the way I understand it occurred in, 3
I don't know, eight to 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
Is that common?
4 A
I don't know if 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> is common.
5 Q
well, I mean, I'm just -- you know, I'm just 6
saying 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
I'm not saying --
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
-- it was exactly 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> either, but --
9 A
I don't know that -- I don't know that 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> is 10 common.
It is common, it is expected to make a timely 11 decision regarding unescorted access.
There's never been 12 any requirement that says, you know, if you learn this piece
'13 of data, the clock is starting, except on reportable events, 14 potentially reportable events.
But, in your normal access, 1
l 15 denial or revocation, there is not a clock that we're 4
{
16 working against, other than management's commitment to 17 making timely decisions on issues of this type.
And that is 18
-- we're really kind of talking management philosophy here.
)
19 Q
Uh-huh.
l 20 A
It is my belief that HL&P management, in operating j
21 this station, expects us to implement decisions in a timely 22 manner, be sure that those decisions are effective i
j 23 decisions.
So, is it common?
It's common for us to take i
l 24 sction, yes.
Whether 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> is common, I don't know.
1 25 I've never clocked -- I've never plotted out how long it i
me ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
113 l_
1 takes us to make acesss decisions.
2 Q
No.
But I would think you would have some idea of l
3 how quickly you act.
I mean, I have been doing 4
investigations for 15 years and no matter what agency I have 4
l 5
worked for I have some idea of how long it usually takes to 6
do a similar situation.
i 7
A In terms of access revocations, 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> would be 8
very slow.
In terms of the totality of revocations of 9
access, because most of the access revocations at the 10 project involve fitness for duty, and that's a matter of the fitness for duty people receiving the results, picking up 11 1
12 the phone and calling Security and we revoke access.
It's i
13 pretty cut and dry.
1 f
14 Q
Okay.
What about an omission of information from j
15 the application forms?
I j
16 A
I honestly can't tell you.
I almost hesitate to 17 answer the question, Virginia, because I've never plotted 18 out the amount of time that it takes to do one of these.
We 19 do them in a logical fashion.
We try to do them in a 20 consistent fashion.
You know, the process remains the same j
21 throughout all of them.
And we try to do it as quickly as i
22 we can get it done, timely.
That's our responsibility.
23 Q
Well, there's probably no definition of timely is i
24 there?
25 A
I don't know.
I guess this case will help decide
]
L-l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 j(
(202) 293-3950
114 1
that.
The regulator comes back to us and questions us on 2
whether or not we've taken -- made timely decisions.
In 3
each case, we're questioned.
So, when it's resolved I guess 4
I'll know if this was done correctly.
I happen to believe 5
it was.
6 Q
Okay.
I reviewed the Central Processing records 7
and that shows that you had Mr. Saporito's file from 8
February the 20th to February the 24th.
What happened to 9
his nuclear file in that time period.
The access revocation 10 decision was made on the 20th.
The forms were all filled l
11 out and sent over to the gatehouse on the 21st.
Did you --
l 12 why did you retain the files until the 24th?
13 A
The last memo that I prepared was communicating 14 the results of the decision to Mr. Saporito's management, 15 which was maintenance.
To document -- to document that I 16 wrote up a memo for Balcom to Sharp.
I wrote it, Balcom 17 signed it, dated February the 24th, communicating to Mr.
18 Sharp that we had revoked Mr. Saporito's access on the 21st.
19 At that point, I believe that I would have turned the file 20 back in to the Central Processing Facility.
l 21 Q
You would have considered the case closed?
l i
I 22 A
Oh, from a -- oh -- I would have considered that I 1
23 wasn't going to be working on it for the next few days.
I 24 don't think this case is going to close for a long time.
25 Q
Well, that's now.
We're dealing from hindsight, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 QCh Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
115 1
back then.
2 A
Well, back then, I mean, come on, Virginia, back 3
then I believed that this case was going to go on for a 4
while.
5 Q
By that time -- when did you find out that Mr.
6 Saporito was a 2.206 petitioner?
7 A
The following week.
When I -- when I really f
8 became conscious of it all was when Mr. Jump provided me 9
with a copy of Mr. Saporito's press release that contained 10 the 2.206 petition, allegations about my conduct with him 11 and several, you know, other documents.
And I think he 12 drafted up some NoVs for you guys to give us and -- and when 13 I kind of -- I didn't read it in great detail, but when I 14 started reading it, yes, I knew that this case was not going 15 to be closed for a long time.
16 Q
That was the following week?
The 21st was a 17 Friday?
l 18 A
Uh-huh.
Was it?
okay?
If it was, it was.
19 Q
It was.
The 21st was a Friday.
So, the following 20 week you found out about this?
Is that --
i 21 A
Uh-huh?
Yes.
l 22 Q
-- correct?
You didn't --
23 A
Let's see.
If the 21st was Friday, then Saturday 24 was the 22nd, and 23rd, 24th would have been -- oh yes, 25 okay.
The 24th would have been the day I wrote the memo.
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 d
Washington, D. C. 20006 T
(202) 293-3950
116 1
Q The meno.
Right.
2 A
Yes, right.
When did it -- yes.
Okay.
3 Q
That's dated --
4 A
Monday.
l l
5 Q
-- on Monday, the 24th.
And the records indicate 6
that you returned the file to Central Processing on the 7
24th.
And you wrote an interview report, I don't know what 8
you call it here, of Mr. Saporito.
l 9
A I'm thinking on the 21st.
10 Q
The 21st?
11 A
Which was the Friday, right?
12 Q
Right.
\\
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Did you have any discussions with anyone else 15 about Mr. Saporito's access revocation on the 21st, after 16 you got Mr. odom to sign the forms?
17 A
Did I have any discucsions with him on the 21st?
18 Q
Did you call anybody from Maintenance, or did 19 anybody from Maintenance call you?
l 20 A
The morning of the 21st, I mean, early in the i,
morning, probably around 7:30, somewhere in there, 7:45, I 21 l
22 got a call from Dan Sanchez, whose title is Director of j
23 Maintenance I believe.
He's like Mr. Sharp's number two 24 guy.
I was in the process of calling him when he called me.
1 25 I explained to him that we had done an interview with Mr.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 fjf (202) 293-3950
117 1
Saporito, who was an I&C technician and had worked for 2
DeLong -- I didn't know if Sanchez knew who the guy was --
3 and that the access program director's decision was to l
4 revoke his access.
I do not believe I <ent into any detail 5
with Mr. Sanchez as to the specifics of the revocation and 6
why the revocation occurred.
I may have mentioned to hin 7
that it was for omissions or falsifications, but I don't 8
think I went into any specifics with him.
9 I told him that we had left it with Mr. Saporito 10 that he would be showing up for work at the normal time and 11 that, you know, he couldn't get into the protected area 12 because we had his badge on hold, and he would need to be 13 out-processed.
14 Q
And that was Mr. Sanchez's responsibility --
15 A
Well --
16 Q
-- to either take that action or arrange for that 17 action to be taken?
18 A
Yes.
He was the -- Saporito was a Maintenance 19 employee and, you know, it was line management's 20 responsibility to ensure that they're in-processed and out-21 processed correctly.
22 Q
Did you meet with Mr. Saporito on the 21st?
23 A
No.
24 Q
Did you have any conversations with him?
25 A
No.
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters h
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 0
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l 1
118 1
Q After you spoke with Mr. Sanchez and spoke with i
2 Mr. Odon, did you have any additional discussions with 3
anyone else on the 21st about Mr. Saporito's access?
j 4
A What are the process here is when an employee is l
5 involuntarily terminated, they have to go through an exit 6
interview with a member of Nuclear Assurance and I believe 7
it says the general manager of Nuclear Assurance or maybe i
l 8
his designee, and the Department Manager or designee of the l,
department the guy works in.
9 10 At some point, and I think it was to take -- let 11 se back up.
At some point they were doing that apparently, 12 Sanchez and Bohner.
Bohner was filling in for Tom Jordan at i
13 the time.
And I was asked to, I believe, bring an appeal 14 form for Mr. Saporito -- to be provided to Mr. Saporito, in 15 case he wanted to appeal the decision -- Balcom's decision.
1
{
16 And, in doing that, the issue came up of whether or not Mr.
17 Saporito should be escorted while he's here on site for the l
18 exit interview and for his whole body count and all that, i
19 And Sanchez asked me to have Security escort the guy, which j
1 20 I felt was an unusual request, and I asked him if Mr.
]
l 21 Saporito had done anything that would cause anyone to l
22 believe that he was a threat -- you know, was he violent or 1
l 23 something that we needed to get armed security officers 24 involved.
And Mr. Sanchez's response was no, he hadn't done J
25 anything like that.
But Sanchez felt uncomfortable i
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 (202) 293-3950 I M/
Washington, D. C. 20006 i
\\
i i
119 1
escorting him.
And I don't know if it was uncomfortable l
2 because of who Saporito was or uncomfortable because Sanchez 3
is a manager and wanted to get back to his normal course of 4
business.
He indicated he felt uncomfortable escorting him.
5 My recommendation was that we did not need to 6
escort Mr. Saporito with armed security officers.
He could 7
not get into the protected area.
I remember -- the final 8
decision was made.
I believe it was myself, Bill Baer, and 9
it may have been Wayne Harrison, I'm not sure, we were in 10 Tom Jordan's office and I said, you know, my recommendation 11 is that Security not escort him.
I believe Bill concurre,
12 and I left.
13 Q
When did Mr. Baer get involved in this process?
14 A
Ask Mr. Baer.
15 Q
To your knowledge, when was the firs time you 16 talked to Mr. %er about this situation -- the revocation of 17 Mr. Saporato's access?
18 A
When was the first time I talked to Mr. Baer about 19 the revocation of his access?
20 Q
Uh-huh.
Or the circumstances surrounding it, 21 which is what this is.
Escorting him offsite is --
22 A
That would have been --
23 Q
-- tends, in general --
24 A
-- the first time.
And that -- we did not discuss 25 the revocation of his access.
I said I just don't think v
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
120 Security needs to escort the guy.
1 2
Q But you still didn't know Mr. Saporito was a 2.206 3
petitioner?
Was that usual to have legal counsel present?
4 A
I'm not sure, at this point -- some -- I'm not j
5 sure, at this point, when the two words 2.206 and Saporito 6
come together.
It's sometime the 21st and after that point.
7 I'm not sure when Mr. Jump provided -- let me see the 8
release form, the press release.
Let me see if there's a 9
date on that.
10 (Witness reviewing document.)
j 11 THE WITNESS:
Where's the rest of it?
This isn't 12 all of it.
Oh, wait a minute.
13 MR. BAER:
Maybe it got out of order or something?
14 THE WITNESS:
Ah, Saporito news release.
Okay.
15 (Witness reviewing document.)
16 THE WITNESS:
I don't remember when I got this.
17 It was sometime that week.
l 18 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
19 Q
That's a different week though than -- we're still l
]
20 on the 21st, so --
21 A
Well, this is -- well, no.
1 22 Q
You've already said that was the following week, q
23 so.
24 A
Well, Monday the -- oh, that's right.
I'm sorry.
25 I'm sorry.
The 21st.
I got to thinking we were talking ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
121 1
about something that happened on Monday.
You're right.
2 We're still on Friday the 21st.
3 That would have been the first time I think I ever 4
saw Mr. Baer on any discussion about Saporito.
The issue 5
that we were talking about was whether or not to escort Mr.
6 Saporito with the security officers.
It was not clear, in 7
my mind -- I had not been told that Mr. Baer -- and still 8
don't know if Mr. Baer was onsite that day because.of 9
Saporito's access revocation.
10 Q
Well, how did he get involved in this discussion 11 to begin with?
12 A
He's counsel for our company.
13 Q
Is that standard?
If you're going to --
14 A
To refer to counsel?
i 15 Q
No.
If you are going to escort someone offsite, 16 is it standard to ask legal counsel if this is appropriate?
17 A
It certainly wouldn't be unusual to do that.
I 18 don't know why.
I don't know who brought Mr. Baer into the 19 conversation.
It wasn't me.
My response to the request to 20 escort Saporito was I don't think Security needs to do that.
21 Sanchez said well I want Security to do that.
It may have 22 been that Harrison said well, we have counsel here onsite, 23 we'll ask him, and went and got Mr. Baer.
I honestly don't 24 remember.
I presented my side of the argument and had 25 prevailed.
We did not escort Mr. Saporito.
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 k
(202) 293-3950
_ _ ~..
122
.1 Q
Did you know Mr. Baer before then?
2 A
No.
3 Q
Is that the first time you ever met him?
4 A
I believe that's the first time I ever met him.
5 Q
Were there any other discussions that day that you 6
can recall involving Mr. Saporito?
7 A
A e point in time I was sitting at my secretar N desk typing interview notes, and I received a 8
9 call from the NRC regional office, Russell Wise, Allegations i
10 Coordinator, and I believe Joe Tapia may have been in the 11 conversation with me.
And they asked if Mr. Saporito was in 12 our offices.
And I said no, I thought he was down in QA.
13 And they said, well, would you transfer us or get a message i
14 that we need to talk to him or whatever.
And I'm not sure j
15 what my response was, but I don't think I complied with i
16 their request.
I think events competing my stuff kind of l
17 overtook me and I just never communicated their request to l
18 anybody.
i j
19 Other than that, I don't think there were any 20 other discuscions regarding Mr. saporito.
21 Q
Did you find that unusual that the allegations i
22 coordinator from the NRC was calling you?
23 A
I don't think he was calling me.
Yes, I guess 24 it's unusual.
I guess I considered it unusual.
i j
25 Q
Did that lead you to the conclusion that there was l-ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters l
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 OSg (202) 293-3950
'\\
1 123 1
at least a possibility that Mr. Saporito may have brought 2
concerns of one sort or another to the NRC?
3 A
Sure.
I guess you could characterize it that way.
4 I almost wish there was a way of including diagrams in 5
transcripts.
Because to describe to you how I -- how I 6
became aware that Saporito was a 2.206 petitioner -- I 7
didn't become aware of it at a particular point in time.
8 At the point the decision was made to revoke his 9
access, my awareness of Saporito and NRC concerns in 2.206 10 and dol and all that has elevated, and continues to elevate, 11 as you -- I mean, you -- I mean Palo Verde litigation.
I 12 sean, I get -- the more this goes on, the more my awareness 13 of Mr. Saporito increases.
So, I would almost like to draw 14 you a graph.
15 Q
Feel free.
16 A
Yes.
I mean, but that's really the way it is.
It l
17 wasn't this blinding flash of light, this -- you know, i
18 somebody burst into my office and says, my God, you've just 19 denied a guy that filed a 2.206 petition?
How could you do 20 that?
You know, it wasn't that way.
It was a slow, gradual l
21 level of knowledge that I began to learn about Mr. Saporito.
22 That started at the time the decision was made to revoke 23 him.
or if I was going to graph it, that would be the point 24 where I would begin to start, but it would be on the zero l
25 line of that graph.
And then as time began to go, on the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
/dp\\
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 124 1
21st up to today, that graph would continue to go up.
I 2
don't want to know anymore about Mr. Saporito.
3 Q
Well, on the 20th, this meeting in Mr. Jump's 4
office, was there any mention of Mr. Saporito taking 5
concerns to the NRC, even though 2.206 may not have been 6
mentioned?
7 A
No.
At the time of that meeting, the graph would 8
be sitting on zero.
The only knowledge I had about Mr.
9 Saporito was contained in his nuclear file or in the 10 investigation file, even though there wasn't much in it at 11 that point in time.
That was the only knowledge I had of 12 Mr. Saporito.
13 Q
Central Processing records show you returned the j
14 file on February the 24th.
And you picked up Mr. Saporito's i
I 15 file again the next day; is that correct?
16 A
I had Mr. Saporito's file off and on since then.
i 17 Q
Why did you pick it up on the 25th?
Now, that 18 would have been a Tuesday.
That's what the records 19 indicate, that you signed it out.
You signed it back in on 20 the 24th, and the next day you signed it out on the 25th.
21 A
Probably for someone to review it.
22 I want to say there was a late evening meeting 23 with Chapman Smith who is an attorney for Baker & Botts, 24 Bill Baer, with Newman and Holtzinger.
25 MR. BAER:
On what date?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 C
j Washington, D. C. 20006 0
j (202) 293-3950
l l
125 1
THE WITNESS:
I'm not saying it was 20th.
I l
2 checked it out on the 25th, you're saying?
]
3 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
a
)
4 Q
The records indicate that you returned it on the 1
5 24th, that was a Monday, and checked it back out on the 6
25th?
7 A
Yes, it could have been.
The next day --
8 Q
The next day?
i 9
A
-- Tuesday.
1 l
10 Q
Tuesday?
11 A
And I don't know why I checked it out on the 25th.
f i
j 12 That's the answer to your question.
1 l
13 Q
But you think it may have been in preparation for l
14 a meeting, or that there was a meeting scheduled?
l 15 A
Yes.
i 16 Q
And the record indicates that you returned it the 1
i 17 day that I initially came here onsite.
j 18 A
When did you -- when was that?
I
}
19 Q
Which was March the 16th.
2 20 A
It could have been.
1 1
21 Q
So that's three weeks just about?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Did you keep that file that whole time?
24 A
I don't know.
I don't recall.
25 Q
You don't recall if you kept it?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Q(d{
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 C'v Washington, D. C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950
1 126 1
A No.
2 Q
What about your records in Security?
l 3
A What records?
4 Q
Your computer records in Security?
l 5
A It wouldn't indicate whether or not I had the file
)
6 I don't think.
7 Q
I think it does.
Because it seems to me that I 8
saw something when I was up there, and I was just asking you 9
general --
j i
10 A
We'd have to go check.
i 11 Q
-- questions.
And I think that it indicated that 12 Mr. Baer had a file?
13 A
It could be.
14 Q
Would the computer record at Security still show l
I 15 anything like that or is that erased, as you --
A I didn't say we've ever erased any of it.
If it l
16 4
c%
17 h ever in there, it should still be in there.
j 18 Q
It should still be there?
i
~
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
Okay.
I'd like to look at those records.
21 A
Okay.
Mr. Balcom can get them for you off of the 4
22 PC up there, or we -- we put them -- backed them up on j
23 floppy disk and moved them over to the CPF.
I can get them i
4 24 over there, if he can't get them for me.
i l
l 25 Q
Do you recall why you returned it on the 16th?
i s
l ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
@b Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
}
i 127 1
A No -- ah, you were probably through with it.
2 Q
No.
I hadn't looked at it yet.
3 A
Then no, I don't.
No.
4 Q
Because Carlos had to go over and get it again.
5 A
Okay.
I don't know.
6 Q
You don't remember why you returned it then?
7 A
Uh-uha.
8 Q
Do you remember giving it to anybody else?
9 A
Sure.
10 Q
Who did you give it to?
11 A
Specifically?
No, I don't remember name,s.
But 12 lots of people reviewed the file.
I'm sure Chapman Smith of 13 Baker & Botts; Bill Baer with Newman and Holtzinger; Will j
14 Jump.
God knows who all looked at the file.
l 15 Q
And you don't keep a record of --
i j
16 A
No.
I think Joe Tapia may have looked at.
That l
17 may not be true.
I don't know about that.
l 18 At some point in time Joe Tapia looked at it, 19 whether or not it was between the 25th and March 16th, I l
20 don't know.
I thought that was -- maybe that's how I got it 1
21
-- wonder why he said he didn't look at it, though?
j j
22 Q
I looked at it on the 16th, but you told me that 23 you didn't have it any longer.
By the time I looked at the i
24 central Processing files, I saw that they had been returned
\\
25 on the 16th by you.
And Carlos said, oh, damn, I have to go ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 a
(202) 293-3950 l
128 1
back and get it.
2 A
I don't really remember.
3 Q
He brought it back over here, gave it to you, you 4
gave it to me.
And that was on the 16th.
5 A
So, you did have the file on the 16th?
i l
6 Q
That is correct.
l 7
A Did you sign something for it, or did -- maybe 8
Tapia might have signed something for it.
9 Q
I think Joe did.
I think Joe did.
j 10 A
Okay.
l 11 Q
But, actually I had it.
I j
12 A
Okay.
Well, then all right.
So Tapia had it.
I 13 think Tapia signed out for it at some time.
l 14 Q
Well, this was all afterwards.
I mean, you --
15 according to the Central Processing files, you had returned 16 it on the 16th.
17 A
Okay.
I guess I did.
18 Q
I specifically asked you for it, because I have -
19
- that was the 16th -- you said you didn't have it.
20 A
Okay.
Then I didn't have it.
21 Q
So, I suppose that you said Central Processing.
22 A
Okay.
i 23 Q
And I asked that it be retrieved, which follows 24 that it was signed out for on the 16th.
25 A
Okay.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 f
(202) 293 4 950
129 i_.
l 1
Q But you don't recall why you had returned it?
i 2
A No.
3 Q
I mean, you kept it for three weeks.
1 4
A No.
I don't recall.
My office is in the Nuclear j
5 Support Center, or was at that time.
And the files were 1
6 kept at the central Processing Facility.
So, anytime 7
somebody wants to look at a nuclear file, one of us would 8
have to go over there and get it, move it back and forth.
9 And I probably kept it for people to review, from the -- if 10 you -- if the record says the 25th through the 16th, I would 11 have had it for that purpose.
Was I doing any investigative 12 work on the file?
No, I was not.
l 13 Q
By that time, do you know if Mr. Saporito had i
i 14 filed a DOL complaint?
i l
15 A
What I found out about -- I think the press f
16 release makes reference to it or something in there.
I l
17 found out about it.
l 18 Q
And that was sometime during the week of the 24th?
1 1
19 A
I have no idea when it was.
l 20 Q
You said it was the following week after the 20th, l
21 that you -- and you don't really know?
i 22 A
I think I said I found out about Saporito and the 23 206 petition sometime during the week of the 24th.
24 Q
And you told me that you got that from a press 25 release?
[
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 j
(202) 293-3950 s
j 130 i
1 A
Yes.
I think I did.
I don't remember a specific 2
date for when I found out about the dol proceeding, the l
3 press release, the 2.206.
And I won't remember the date a 4
month from now when you told me about the Palo Verde l
5 lawsuit.
I mean, I just -- I don't remember it.
i 6
Q Do you keep -- I know you keep a calendar because 7
I have one day here.
8 A
I didn't have that calendar back then.
9 Q
Oh, you didn't?
j 10 A
In early -- let's see, in March -- late -- mid-4 11 March, the last part of March, I went to work for Mr. Jump.
12 And I think April was the first month that I began to keep a
'13 daytimer.
14 Q
Why?
i 2
15 A
My responsibilities had changed.
I attend a lot 16 more meetings now than I used to, now that I'm overall, over 17 the whole access program, and I just needed a better 18 recordkeeping system.
19 Q
Did you keep any kind of record at all back then?
j 20 A
Yes.
You have it all.
You have every document 21 that I got that I know of that's got saporito's name on it, j
22 you've got it all.
23 Q
Well, did you keep anything back in February or 24 March timeframe?
I don't have anything.
I have one piece i
25 of paper --
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 j
(202) 293-3950
i l
131 4
1 A
That's it.
2 Q
-- one calendar, which says April the 22nd, 1992 4
3 on it.
What does it mean?
4 A
I did not have a daytimer back during the February 5
time period.
1 6
Q Did you keep any kind of notebook --
7 A
No.
8 Q
-- that you just jotted down things as they 9
occurred?
10 A
Yes.
And they're -- it's like this kind of stuff, 11 results.
I kept a notebook.
And I would do an interview or 12 do something, record something, and then would throw it in 13 the investigations file.
14 Q
So, you didn't keep --
15 A
But I did not keep a daytimer-type management l
16 system, no.
17 Q
Like an activity record?
18 A
No, I did not.
19 Q
Do you have any idea how many adjudications you've 20 been personally involved in -- either conducted the 21 investigation on or reviewed?
22 A
Just me?
23 Q
Just you?
24 A
No.
25 Q
Personally?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
)
(202) 293-3950
w m.
,u,-
- .--.er--4+
e.
---a-aA-,..m,
,.a.-
a_m4
..m w+4.
A.
a 4..g_,
l l
132 l
1 A
I have no idea.
2 Q
When that job --
I 3
A I have no idea.
4 Q
-- that you had for about four years -- do you 5
have any idea how many adjudications occurred?
i 6
A I know that we've done 725 or 726 since about May 7
of 1989, up to March of '92.
8 Q
Do you have any idea how many of those --
l 9
approximately how many of those relate to omission of 10 information from the data forms or a screening affidavit?
11 A
My sense is about a hundred relate to possible I
12 omissions of criminal history information, and about 20
.13 relate to omissions of other types of information.
s
]
14 Q
And how did you arrive at this -- these figures?
4 15 A
There have been several reviews of access 16 decisions.
Mr. Isereau, with Speak-out, did a review, I 17 believe you did a review, or the NRC has done a review, i
18 Terry Millsap did a review for QA, I believe some contract 19 investigator with Speak-out has employed -- has looked at i
20 the Saporito 2.210 and done a review.
21 And those reviews are less than conclusive.
Some 22 say we were consistent, some say we aren't, we weren't.
So, 23 we have elected to initiate a 100 percent review of the 725 24 cases, with the assistance of legal counsel, to finally try 25 and put to bed how adjudication decisions were conducted.
i, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 1
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
)
133 1
And that study is ongoing.
As of Saturday, I believe, the 2
totals were a hundred roughly, for criminal history stuff 3
and 20 for other stuff.
4 Q
What date did you refer to that the 725 cases 5
spanned?
6 A
It's roughly aid 1989 up through mid-March -- yes, 7
mid-1989 through mid-March of 1992.
8 Q
What was the reason for selecting mid-19897 9
A The -- what you've been characterizing as our log 10 sheet of cases that were kept.
This -- the 921271 number, 11 that database went into effect in mid 1989 and continued up 12 until the implementation of the new access organization, at 13 which time we discontinued using it.
So, I had a printout 14 run and we identified all the access-type cases, and it came 15 to 725 or 26, I can't remember which.
One of those two 16 numbers.
4 17 Q
Access-type cases?
What do you --
18 A
Adjudications.
i 19 Q
Adjudications?
20 A
Uh-huh.
21 Q
So any kind of adjudication you would consider an 22 access-type case?
i 4
~23 A
Yes.
Pretty much.
24 Q
Do you recall how many -- approximately how many 25 adjudication interviews you've done that relate to omission i
' ~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 134 1
of information from these foras?
2 A
No.
I have no idea.
If I gave you a number it l
3 would be just..a blind guess.
4 Q
Does it happen very often?
Every month?
Every 5
week?
Twice a year?
6 A
I don't like to speculate on that, because I I
7 really don't know the number.
I really hesitate to 8
speculate.
It would be pure speculation on my part.
9 Q
Well, were you involved, in one way or another 10 with every adjudication that's occurred since you got here 11
-- or let's say since you were promoted?
When was that?
l 12 A
I was -- I came to work in February 15th of
'88.
i 13 Q
Uh-huh.
1 14 A
Sometime in March of '88 the Security Department, 15 the Investigations Section began to be responsible for
)
l 16 adjudications.
So, I have always been the supervisor over
}
17 the Investigations Section, so in one form or fashion, I l
18 have been involved in every adjudication.
i 19 Q
So, either you did the interview yourself or one 20 of your investigators did the interview and you reviewed it 21 as a supervisor?
22 A
For those that required interviews.
23 Q
What about the ones that didn't?
l j
24 A
I would -- I'm responsible for those adjudications 25 because I'm the supervisor.
Whether or not I physically i
i ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 M'p Washington, D. C. 20006 k
(202) 293 3950
4 135 1
looked at each and every file is, I don't know.
j 2
Q What would have been your usual practice?
Let's i
3 say you assign this to someone else, Mr. Ottino, what would
)
4 have been your practice?
5 A
I would have had him brief me.
1 6
On this case?
i 7
Q No.
Any -- any case?
8 A
It would vary.
9 Q
I mean, if you assigned it to him and he -- maybe 10 he decided it wasn't necessary -- that he didn't believe it was necessary to interview the individual.
Would you review 11 1
j 12 it and approve that decision or would you just as'ume that s
i 13 he was -- you know, his actions were correct?
j 14 A
Both.
I hate to speculate on hypothetical stuff, 15 Virginia, because --
l l
16 Q
Well, you didn't have a standard practice?
I 17 A
No.
Not a standard -- we weren't set up to where i
l 18 if "A" happened you did "B,"
if "B" happened you then did i
19 "C."
We weren't set up like that.
20 Q
But, if an adjudication occurred, you're saying j
21 that you wouldn't necessarily have had to approve the 22 decision or --
23 A
Which decision?
24 Q
-- the action?
25 A
Not necessarily, no.
It depends -- it would l_
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 4
i i
136 1
depend on the experience of the investigator, how confident 2
I was in his abilities.
If he ran in -- you know -- and it 3
would vary from case to case.
4 Q
You didn't have a piece of paper to sign off on?
l i
5 The access program director you said would make a decision.
i j
6 A
Uh-huh.
I 7
Q But you were kind of -- let's say you were the 8
intermediary -- you're the intermediate step here between an 9
investigator, if you were not --
10 A
Not necessarily.
11 Q
You were not?
l 12 A
Not necessarily.
l 13 Q
Not -- even though, as a supervisor of the 14 investigators, you did not?
15 A
If -- if we had an experienced investigator -- Mr.
16 Ottino is an experienced investigator.
It would not be 17 unusual'for him to do an investigation of this type and take 18 it straight to the access program director.
It would depend 19 on a number of factors.
It will vary.
It varied.
20 Q
Well, how would Mr Ottino know what to do with the a
21 case?
i 22 A
Working with me, knowing how I manage him, what 23 latitude I would allow him as an investigator.
You build up 24 a working relationship between an employee and a supervisor 25 over the years.
Certainly problems were encountered, but we
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 g
(202) 293-3950
i l
l 137 1
would communicate extensively.
That was very rare.
So, i
2 there was -- no two cases would ever be particularly the i
3 same.
i 4
Q What did Security consider to be material -- a i
5 material omission?
6 A
Something that would be significant, important, 7
relevant, have an impact on unescorted access.
If the 8
reviewer felt there was an impact it would be material --
l 9
could be material.
l 10 Q
Is there a written definition of that, what's 11 material?
12 A
I don't think anybody has ever written a i
l 13 definition of that.
I'm sure there is in Webster's, Black's 14 Law Dictionary.
15 Q
Here at South Texas did you have a definition or 16 what constituted materiality?
17 A
I can be flippant here and say we have a 18 dictionary, but you're talking about procedurally?
19 Q
Uh-huh?
3 20 A
No.
j 21 Q
Did you consider that determination to be j
22 subjective?
23 A
I'm not sure what you mean by subjective.
24 Q
It sounded like you said that an investigator or 25 an individual looked at the facts and decided if they were 4
f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters n
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 g
Washington, D. C. 20006 0
(202) 293-3950
138 1
relevant or significant, those were the words that you used.
2 Would that be subjective -- a subjective decision on that 3
individual's part?
l 4
A I hesitate to characterize it that way, because it i
5 is a process where facts are accumulated, placed into a j
l 6
package and placed under review by the access program 7
director.
I don't know that I would characterize that as a 8
subjective process.
9 Q
How would you characterize it?
10 A
As a fact-gathering process.
An individual goes 11 to fitness for duty and takes his test and meets that 12 requirement of the access program, and takes his MMPI, meets 13 that process, and goes through each and every one of these 14 steps.
And, as he completes that, facts are gathered that 15 are ultimately reviewed by the access program director or 16 designee, and a decision is made.
I don't think I would 17 characterize it as a subjective process.
18 Q
Would you characterize it as a case-by-case 19 decision?
20 A
Uh-huh.
I would do that, yes, and have done that.
21 Yes.
I would say it was case-by-case.
22 Q
At the time that the decision was reached to 23 revoke Mr. Saporito's access, did you believe that that 24 decision was consistent with actions taken in similar cases 25 in the past?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters C
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
i I
l i
139 l
1 A
Yes.
I still do believe that.
I i
2 Q
You still believe that?
3 A
Yes.
j i
4 Q
You said you've reviewed -- I think you've said j
5 that you've reviewed some of these reviews that have been l
l 6
done of the program.
Do you --
i i
7 A
Let me say -- let me expound on that just a I
8 minute, okay?
We talked about consistent with past i
j 9
practice.
When I testified to San Perez, who was the i
,l 10 Department of Labor Investigator, one of the statements I i
11 made to Mr. Perez and I want to make to you is that, in the 12 period of time that I've been involved in the access 13 program, I cannot think of anybody that comes close to 14 Saporito, as far as the omission of information.
I think he 1
l 15 is an outlier.
16 I believe that any of the access program directors i
)
17 would have denied him access.
I believe that that occurred i
j 18 on people that may have came close to him access was denied.
I 19 But I don't believe there is anybody else out there like f
20 Saporito.
21 Q
In what way?
22 A
I don't believe anybody else has come in here and i
23 lied about as much on their background as Mr. Saporito has.
l
}
j-24 Q
Now, is that belief just based on your 1
25 recollection or the places in the past?
i j
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters Q
)
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 V
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
a
140 1
A It's based on two things, my recollection and the i
2 recent study that we're doing seems to confirm that my sense 3
of this -- of,,these past decisions is correct.
I may be 4
wrong about that, but when it is all said and done, you know 2
5
-- but, I believe that he is an outlier.
6 Q
So you believe that this was an extremely 7
egregious case of falsification or omission --
8 A
Yes, I do.
9 Q
-- of information?
10 A
I think that, if you guys have found that we i
11 continued to let him in, you guys being the NRC -- if the 12 regional inspector had come down here and inspected the file 13 and seen the amount of information that had been left off 14 the file, we would have been violated by the NRC or at least 15 had open items or unresolved items in our access control 16 program.
Yes, I believe that.
No one has inspected it.
No 17 one of the regional inspectors have looked at it, so I don't l
i 18 know what they would think, but I believe that's what they i
19 would think.
20 Q
As you stated earlier, I have reviewed some of the i
21 files, and, as you know, because you helped me.
22 A
Yes.
Well, Carlos did.
23 Q
Carlos, yes.
Yes.
Lucky Carlos did help.
24 A
You and I have our moments.
25 Q
You can put it that way.
j i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters l
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
i 141 1
A Well, you know, but we'll do this some more, you 2
know.
3 Q
okay.
Carlos helped me, yes.
And I reviewed 4
about, I think it was 401 files, Dennis and I did.
And I i
5 didn't see consistency in my review.
Now, you stated, I l
6 believe, that you do still think that there was consistency 7
in the decisions.
8 A
Let me -- I guess we're talking about the word 9
consistent.
We probably disagree on definitions here, okay.
10 And you are probably going to be more right than I am.
If 11 consistent means you always make the same decision every 12 time, then maybe we weren't consistent.
If consistent means 13 that, in general, your practice is to do this -- take this 14 action, then I believe we were consistent.
Part of the 15 reason that I define consistency that way is because when 16 you look at these files, you don't find very many of them 17 that are ever exactly alike.
18 When Mr. Jump asked me to do this review and said 19 I want you to categorize these files into discreet 20 categories that we can defend, how many categories are you 21 going to have?
And I said 725, because no two of them are 22 ever exactly the same.
23 Q
Well, now I am lost.
24 When he asked you to categorize what?
25 A
The 725 cases.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
{
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
142 1
Q He asked you to do that?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
In relation to this review that's going on now?
4 A
Yes.
Mr. Jump said, with assistance from counsel, l
5 we're going to do a research project and to review these 725 6
cases.
And the first thing he wanted me to do when we i
T4 7
started,the review is to discretely categorize them.
And 8
he's then saying to me how many categories are you going to 9
have?
And I say, well probably 725, because there's no two 10 of them that are exactly the same.
11 Now, we're not going to categorize over 725 l
different categories, believe me.
But, in reality, there 12 13 are no two of them that are ever exactly alike.
14 Q
Well, did you narrow these categories down to a 15 reasonable number?
16 A
To a manageable number, I believe.
I'm sure the
]
17 results will be provided, and you'll have a chance to look, 1
18 you know, to comment on it and all that.
I believe it's a j
19 good action we're taking.
20 Q
So, do you believe that you attempted to be i
21 consistent, given the facts are different in each case?
22 A
You're talking about in general, now?
d 23 Q
In general.
I'm talking about in general.
1 24 A
Yes.
I believe, in general, we were consistent, 25 in general.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 g'
Washington, D. C. 20006 3
(202) 293-3950
i j
143 1
Q Did you believe, at the time, that that was the j
2 correct action to take on Mr. Saporito's access?
[
l 3
A I already testified to that.
i-4 Q
And do you still believe that?
5 A
Yes.
You guys would tear us up if we didn't.
You 6
guys being the NRC.
I believe that.
If this document -- if 7
this data form that he neglected to fill out completely was j
8 a control room log, a work package document or any other 9
document that was driven by quality program, and the access 10 control program is a quality program, and a person left l
11 information off of it willfully that was significant to the l
12 process that he was required to record on that document, 13 that we would be remiss in not taking action against that 14 individual.
I believe the NRC would severely criticize us j
15 if we didn't take action.
i 16 Q
During my review of these adjudication files, I l
17 noticed that there were a number of cases that arrests were I
i 18 omitted from the screening affidavit or the data form.
And s
19 I don't just mean one arrest, many many times.
There were 20 two, three, four, even -- I think even up to maybe seven or i
21 eight.
22 A
It's probably the most common category that we run 23 into.
24 Q
That seemed to be what I determined also.
25 In the majority of these cases, access was i
i '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters g
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 b
Washington, D. C. 20006
}
(202) 293-3950
144 1
continued.
A lot of times there wasn't a reason given as to 2
why that was, sometimes there was.
How do you determine 3
whether or not that's a willful material omission or done -
4
- or significant, or lead to -- I think several hours ago, 5
you mentioned trustworthiness of someone with access to a-l 6
nuclear site -- how do you determine whether or not that l
7 information is not relevant, arrests?
8 A
I think you have to -- first of all, you have to 9
look at the total picture.
If you looked at the l
10 investigation files, I believe you only looked at half the 11 picture.
l 12 The other half you have to look at is the nuclear i
i 13 file.
Some of the facts that you develop in a case of that i
14 type, that would play into your decision is the age of the i
1 15 arrest, whether or not the person understood -- I have yet j
16 to go back to the data form as for convictions.
The 17 affidavit asks for arrests.
And I think sometimes there's i
j 18 confusion in people's minds as to whether or not they've i
j 19 been convicted of an offense.
I know -- I have participated 1
l
}
20 in interviews where an individual has told me that -- he i
j 21 didn't list a conviction because his attorney told him that 1
j 22 he received deferred adjudicated probation, and that once he 23 had completed his probation he would not have a conviction.
)
24 I have no way of verifying whether or not his attorney told I
25 him that.
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters p$
l 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 ik (202) 293-3950 1
145 l
1 Q
That still doesn't answer those screening -- the 2
reason for saying no, on the screening affidavit 3
questionnaire.
It says here have you been arrested?
4 A
Right.
That was just -- I was just giving you an
]
5 example.
I think time plays a part in it -- the amount of 6
time since the arrest determines whether or not it's 7
material.
You know, there's lots of things that play a part l
8 in it.
9 Q
What about DWIs?
I mean, there seem like there 10 are a lot of DWI arrests.
And I noticed on your screening
\\
11 affidavit form, it specifically asks have you ever been i
i I
12 arrested for DWI or something to that effect.
i 13 A
Something to that effect.
It does have it.
f 14 Q
I mean, it spells out DWI -- maybe it's DUI.
I l
15 A
I think it's both actually.
1 l
16 Oh, there we go.
"Have you ever been charged with f
17 driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence?"
l 18 Q
It seems like a lot of times people have said no, j
19 and then I guess you either get the NCIC or TCIC or you get l
l 20 something back?
21 A
We get an FBI rap sheet.
i 22 Q
And it shows DWI on there.
How do people explain 23 that, when it specifically says have you ever been arrested 24 for driving under the influence?
j 25 A
They explain it in a variety of different ways.
I 1
i
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters p
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 j
i Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
s i
i 146
~
1 mean, if you ran a scale -- I've had them say, well, I 2
thought you were only asking for felonies, you know, this 3
was a misdemeanor.
I'm not sure -- I was only convicted of 4
reckless driving.
I mean, there's all -- it varies.
5 Q
So, we're kind of down to it's still a 6
case-by-case -- it was still a case-by-case decision?
Is
'1
]
7 that --
i 8
A I believe they were -- I believe they were --
9 well, let me see if I can characterize this question, or 10 answer it correctly.
l 11 The decision for John Doe individual -- the i
12 decision for Mr. Saporito was based upon the facts that was i
1 13 gathered in Mr. Saporito's case.
It would be -- as in Mr.
i 14 Saporito's case, it would not be unusual for the access i
15 program director to make some comment or ask some question l
16 about is this consistent with what we've done in the past?
17 Now, he may not use exactly those terms, but, you know, are i
(
18 we getting out on that limb, is basically how I would 19 interpret those type of questions.
And the memories of the 20 individual investigators, and my own memory would play a l
21 part in those decisions, as to how we handled prior cases.
22 Did we keep a database to the extent that we could 23 go back and reconstruct how many people, by name, date, and 24 social security number, had been revoked or denied for 25 failing to list an employer, we didn't keep records to that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters D
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 I
j (202) 293-3950
i 147 1
degree.
There was no requirement to.
Certainly we're doing 2
that now.
So, in that respect, I would characterize it as a 3
case-by-case basis, tempered with information from the l
4 investigator or the access program directors' memories.
l 5
Q Did Mr. Balcom rely on you at that time to -- on 6
your recollection, since he was new?
7 A
Yes.
And the other staff.
8 And remember, Mr. Balcom -- well, you may not know 9
this.
Mr. Balcom was the QA manager, and had been 10 responsible for auditing the security program on an annual 11 basis, so he wasn't entirely unfamiliar with the process.
I 12 mean, it wasn't like he had no prior knowledge of access.
13 But, yes, he did rely on our memories.
14 Q
Did you have any other meetings with Mr. Saporito 15 ever again after the 20th of February?
16 A
No, and don't want to.
17 Q
Did you have any conversations with him --
18 telephone conversations?
19 A
No.
20 Q
Did you receive any correspondence from him?
21 A
I did not.
No, I did not receive any 22 correspondence.
There is correspondence that's been passed 23 to me -- becomes included in some of the files, letter dated 24 March the 12th addressed to Mr. Balcom.
I think it's his 25 request for an appeal.
I have a copy of the letter from Mr.
a ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 k
Washington, D. C. 20006 U
(202) 293-3950
148 1
Balcom back to saporito.
That's the only -- no -- no --
2 nothing directed back at me.
3 Q
Did you have any input into the wording in the 4
letter sent to Mr. saporito stating why his access was 5
revoked?
6 A
I don't believe I did, no.
7 Q
What about the letter that was sent to Mr.
8 Saporito stating that his appeal was denied?
9 A
No.
10 Q
Were you -- did you discuss the situation with Mr.
11 Wisenburg while he was reviewing the case?
12 A
When Mr. Saporito's appeal came in, the plant 13 manager under that program at the time handles appeals.
So, 14 when that -- when his appeal came in and it needed to be 15 processed, I did meet with Mr. Wisenburg.
I don't remember 16 to what extent we discussed the case.
I remember that an 17 issue came up during the meeting and either I or Wisenburg, 18 I'm not sure which, probably me -- I recommended that he 19 needed to talk to counsel, and I made arrangements to set 20 him up with Bill Baer, Mr. Baer.
l 21 Q
What issue are you referring to?
22 A
You know, I don't really know.
I don't really 23 remember what it was all about.
Again, I want to go back 24 and describe to you my state of mind shall we say at the 25 time -- is, as time has marched on, I have become more and ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300
. g Washington, D. C. 20006
,1 (202) 293-3950
. __ _ ~.. _ _.. _..
i 1
149 1
more aware of Mr. saporito and his background, and am more 2
concerned that everything is handled correctly involving Mr.
3 saporito, because we are in litigation.
I don't know that 4
we are in litigation, but certainly the strong possibility 5
exists that we're going to be in litigation for some period l
6 of time with Mr. saporito.
f 7
So, in meeting with Mr. Wisenburg, he either said 8
something or indicated something, and I honestly do not 9
remember what it was, but I was concerned enough about it t
l 10 that I said I can't answer your question or I can't -- you 11 know, I can't provide you with that, you need to talk to i
12 counsel about it, and made arrangements for him to meet with 13 counsel.
And, at that point, I was out of the appeal 14 process.
j 15 Q
In the letter denying his appeal, Mr. Wisenburg -
16
- or the letter states that it was due to the adverse nature j
17 of the omissions.
Did you have any input into that j
18 language?
l
)
19 A
I don't believe so.
l 20 Q
Do you agree with that?
i 21 A
Do I agree with what?
a j
22 Q
That it was an -- due to the adverse nature of the 23 omissions, that that was --
)
24 A
Do you have a copy of his letter?
Let me read 25 that sentence.
I'll tell you whether or not I agree with ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
(
(202) 293-3950
150 1
it.
Is it in the file?
2 Q
That was easy.
3 A
Which sentence are you talking about?
4 Q
"Given the number and the adverse nature of the 5
omissions in your access authorization paperwork, you have 6
provided no basis for modification of the decision to 7
withdraw your access.
You appeal is denied."
8 Did you --
9 A
Do I agree with that sentence?
10 Q
Yes?
11 A
Yes, I do.
12 Q
You've already said you did not have any input 13 into the wording?
14 A
No, I didn't write it, no, but I do agree with it, 1
15 yes.
16 Q
You agree with that?
17 j
And tell me, again, what you'd consider to be the
)
18 adverse nature?
19 A
Of the omissions?
j 20 Q
Uh-huh.
21 A
I believe -- let me go back.
That was several 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> ago.
I think the adverse nature of his omissions was 23 that he was employed by the ATI company in fall of '89 --
24 three or four months as a part-time instructor, and he was 1
25 terminated from that job.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 yp Washington, D. C. 20006 A
(202) 293-3950
151 1
The data form clearly asked him to list all 2
employers for five years and he did not include that 3
employer.
I believe the fact that he was employed by the 4
Doubletree hotel for three months in January of 1990 to 5
April of 1990 and that he was terminated from that job --
6 the data form clearly asked him to provide that information.
1 7
He didn't do it.
I think the Jupiter Hilton Hotel, he was 8
employed there for three months in 1991, he was terminated 9
from that job.
Again, it was in the time period that the 10 data form was clearly asking for, and he did not provide 11 that information.
12 I believe that the information regarding his 13 litigation with Florida Power and Light and ATI was clearly 14 asked for on the data form.
He answered that question that 15 there as no -- none was his exact words I believe on the 16 data form to that question.
Certainly that information was 17 relevant to it.
i 18 The fact that he was -- had a potential fitness l
19 for duty issue at Turkey Point where, in his mind, he wasn't
]
l 20 clear as to whether or not his access was denied because of 21 the muscle relaxer or the xantax, whichever one of the two l
22 of those, or it was a single one.
I think that was 23 certainly adverse in nature.
I think the form clearly was j
l 24 asking for that data.
He neglected to provide it.
25 I think he completed the data form on January the i
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters O
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 by Washington, D. C. 20006 i
(202) 293-3950
152 1
8th of 1992.
When he arrived onsite, he was afforded an i
l 2
opportunity to go through an interview with a member of the i
j 3
access group,.. Security Department at the time, where he was l
4 asked had he ever been fired from jobs.
Again, he was asked 5
about access denials.
He was afforded that opportunity i
6 there to provide the exact same information.
He neglected 7
to do that.
8 I think, during my initial interview with him when i
I l
9 I initially asked him to review those two forms and provide 4
10 me with any information that he had not answered completely, j
11 he neglected to provide any of that.
oh well, I take that 12 back.
He did -- at that point was the first time he brought I
13 up the issue as to whether or not he might have been denied 14 access.
He certainly had an opportunity to tell me about
)
15 the three employers and the three terminations and the
{
16 litigation.
He neglected to do that then.
l 17 When I interviewed him in specific detail about 1
18 the blocks on the employment section, he initially, in sequential order, neglected to tell me about the three 19 4
]
20 employers, and the fact that he was terminated from the l
21 three jobs, when he obviously had an opportunity there to do j
22 that.
It was only at the point where I asked him if he had 4
23 been employed by any other jobs within this same period of 24 tjse that he, at that point, provided me with the l
1 4
25 information about those three employers.
I think those q
I.
l 1-i ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 i
(?n?) pm-main
153 1
three employers, and the fact that he was terminated was 2
adverse, and I would agree with Mr. Wisenburg's sentence in 3
his letter.
4 Q
Have you attended any other meetings or 5
debriefings other than what we have already discussed?
6 A
We started to discuss a meeting with Chapman Smith 7
of Baker & Botts.
8 Q
Then we got sidetracked.
9 A
And we got off on something else, and I never got 10 back to it.
11 It was me, Chapman Smith, Bill Baer, Will Jump, 12 Rick Cink, Don Bohner, and I'm not sure if Sanchez or Sharp 13 were there, one of the two of them may have been, if not 14 both, I believe Bob Purcell with our Corporate Legal
)
San o Department was M.g hI think that's all the people that 15 16 were there.
That was shortly after the -- in that week of j
1 17 the -- beginning the 24th, somewhere in that neighborhood.
j 18 I've attended meetings with Mr. Baer, as counsel.
19 Q
Just one on one?
20 A
One on one.
21 Q
Who called the meeting that you mentioned earlier 22 of you and Mr. Purcell, Mr. Baer, Mr. Smith and Mr. Cink, 23 and whoever else you mentioned?
24 A
I'm not sure who called the meeting.
I'm not sure 25 how I found out about the meeting.
Somehow or other I was l
l~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950 1
l 154 1
notified to attend.
2 Q
Were you told what the purpose was?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
What was the purpose?
5 A
To discuss the Saporito case.
6 Q
The 2.206 or the --
7 A
No.
The revocation of access.
8 Q
As it related to the NRC or as it related to DOL, 9
or as it related to the HL&P --
10 A
As it related to HL&P.
11 Q
-- potential liability?
12 A
As it related to preparing for the Department of 13 Labor.
14 Q
Had he filed a complaint by them?
15 A
I don't know.
I don't know.
16 Q
Was one anticipated?
17 A
I don't really know.
I would assume so.
18 Certainly we were beginning to prepare for litigation.
As 19 to exactly what type of litigation, I don't know the i
20 specifics.
21 Q
What was your participation in the meeting?
Did 22 you --
23 A
To go through what you're putting me through, and 24 what he's putting me through and God knows who else is going 25 to put me through.
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Qf Washington, D. C. 20006 1 A (202) 293-3950
155 1
Q So, you briefed the participants in this meeting 2
as to what had occurred during your interview of Mr.
3 saporito?
Is that what you --
4 A
Mr. Chapman Smith ran the meeting for Baker &
- 3. Y k 5
Botts, representing us, and was pretty well answering j
6 questions that he was asking me, and everybody else who was 7
there was.
It was a fact-finding kind of meeting, you know, 8
how did you get involved in this, and that kind of thing.
9 It went around the table.
l 10 Q
Now, does Mr. Chapman Smith represent Houston 1
11 Lighting and Power for labor -- the Department of Labor?
j l
12 A
Any involvement I've had with him has been involved in the Department of Labor-type litigation.
I 13 14 don't know what else he practices for the light company, t
15 HL&P.
16 Q
Did you receive any instructions from Mr. Smith or 17 anyone else during that meeting on how to deal with the NRC i
18 or DOL or how to respond to any questions regarding Mr.
19 Saporito's termination?
1 20 A
Yes.
l
\\
t 21 Q
What were those instructions?
22 A
To tell the truth.
23 Q
Any other instructions?
24 A
Don't speculate.
Answer truthfully.
That's the 25 sense of it I got.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 Q(
(202) 293-3950 A
l 156 1
Q Did you attend any other meetings after that one?
2 A
oh, yes.
I met with Mr. Baer one on one to 3
discuss this investigation.
I've been interviewed by Sam I
4 Perez with the Department of Labor, at the DOL 210 Hearing.
5 I've been interviewed by speak-out, in their involvement in 6
the 210.
7 Q
And Mr. Isereau?
I 8
A And Mr. Isereau.
9 Q
Were you interviewed by Terry Millsap or --
10 A
I wouldn't --
i 11 Q
I'm not sure how that was handled -- if that was 12 just a review or if that was --
13 A
I wouldn't characterize it as an interview, 14 although she might.
I'm not sure.
j 15 We brought in a guy by the name of Bob Carter --
16 HL&P, okay -- brought in an individual by ths name of Bob 17 Carter, who is involved in the access program at. I believe 18 River Bend Nuclear Plant.
i 19 MR. BAER:
Let's -- did Terry Millsap ask you 20 about the facts of the Saporito case in particular?
21 THE WITNESS:
No.
22 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
23 Q
so, was their involvement really to look at the 24 adjudication process and the access process in general?
U 25 A
In general.
Yes.
I'm sorry.
They were looking ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 (IN Washington, D. C. 20006 Q /'
(202) 293-3950
r l
157 1
at how we did access or do access now, I guess, and in the 2
past more than anything -- or they contrasted today versus l
3 the old program.
4 Q
When did the new program start?
5 A
Middle or end of March '92.
l 6
Q Okay.
Before I ask about that, were there any 7
other meetings at which Mr. Saporito specifically was 8
discussed --
9 A
I can't remember any specifics.
10 Q
-- that you can --
j i
11 A
No.
l j
12 Q
-- remember attending?
j 13 A
No, I don't.
14 Q
Do you have any notes of any of these meetings?
1 l
15 A
That's what I provided you there.
It was notes I 16 made at the end of providing testimony to Sam Perez.
17 Q
What about any notes of the meeting that you i
18 attended the week of the 24th of February?
i 19 A
I don't remember any.
I may have.
Let's see what 20 happened.
I don't guess so.
I don't remember any.
I 21 didn't find any.
22 Q
When I talked to you back in March, you told me 23 you had notes from --
24 A
From what?
25 Q
-- discussions that you had had at a meeting with
[
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters O
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 C$
Washington, D. C. 20006
'\\
J (202) 293-3950
1 I
158 I
legal counsel.
2 A
I don't know.
I will look again if you want.
3 Q
I wpuld appreciate it.
Because you did tell me 4
that.
You told me that I could not review those notes 5
because you considered them to be privileged.
6 A
I don't remember that conversation.
I probably -
l 7
- if I had notes of a meeting that I felt was privileged, I 8
would review that.
I would have said I've got n6tes, I 9
think they're privileged, and I don't know if I can give 10 them to you.
11 Q
Well, that is what you said.
l 12 A
well, that sounds like something I would say if I 13 haven't.
So, I will go look for them.
But I don't remember 14 the conversation, I don't remember the notes.
15 Q
Okay.
l 16 A
I may be wrong.
17 Q
Okay.
Well, I think that Dennis was also present.
i 18 A
I am not discounting what you're saying, believe 19 me.
If you said I said it, I probably said it, but I don't 20 remember saying it.
21 Q
If you could look again, I would appreciate it.
22 A
Sure, I would be glad to.
23 Q
Do you recall destroying anything, any notes?
I 24 mean, did you change offices?
25 A
Yes.
I moved from Security to the Central I
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 g
(202) 293-3950
159 1
Processing Facility.
I am now in the Fitness for Duty 2
center, what used to be a store room, okay?
3 Q
I didn't know that.
You're no longer in this 4
building?
5 A
No.
6 Q
Did you destroy anything in your move?
7-A I threw a lot of stuff away.
8 Q
Did you go through papers and throw things out?
9 A
Yes.
I cleaned out my desk, and tried to -- I 10 tried to keep things that I though was important and throw 11 away stuff that I had accumulated over the time period, you 12 know.
The stuff that was relevant to the cases I feel 13 confident are in the files.
14 Q
You moved in March?
15 A
It would have probably been the first part of 1
l 16 April.
My function changed from Security to Licensing i
17 around mid-March.
i 18 Q
okay.
So, you were still in that office on March j
19 the 16th?
j 20 A
Oh, yes.
l 21 Q
And I was here for three or four then and you were 22 still there?
23 A
It took me a while to get the store room cleaned 24 out at the Fitness for Duty Center and get the office 1
25 furniture moved in there.
So, I'm thinking probably around ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
l 1
160 1
the first week of April.
2 Q
If you could look for any additional --
3 A
Sure.
j 4
Q
-- notes you might have.
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
I would appreciate it.
7 Now, there was a change in the program then in the 8
middle to the end of March.
I 9
A I believe it was -- March 27th was like the 10 official date when the old program ended and the new program 11 started.
12 Q
Why was that program changed?
13 A
To conform to your guy's NRC access authorization 14 rule.
15 Q
Why was access authorization placed under i
16 Licensing?
17 A
I'll tell you what I've been told.
Because, if we 18 screw it up, Jump has got to explain it.
He's the Licensing i
19 Manager.
That's the reason I was told.
It makes sense to l
i 20 me.
21 Q
How did things change, other than that?
There 22 apparently are new procedures in place.
23 A
What we did is -- and I'm really not the guy to be 24 talking about all of this, because I wasn't to play a big 25 part in it.
But, around the fall of '91, to get ready for ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repodem 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
~
i i
161 1
the implementation of the access authorization rule, which 2
was like April the 27th of '92.
4 l
3 A task force -- I'll characterize it as a task 4
force.
Whether or not that was its official title or not, l
5 I'm not sure.
It was put together by and consisted of Dave
)
6 Sheesly with Security and some of his people, John Odon, i
7 Manager of Human Resources, and some of his people.
And I l
8 believe Licensing had some input into it.
And they began to M
9 look at the procedures from the physical security plank on 10 down to the implementing procedures that pertained to 11 access.
And they began to get ready to move the access 12 program.
I think initially it was to go to Human Resources 13 and then maybe to Licensing.
I'm not sure exactly l
14 organizationally how it all wound up.
l 15 But they began to go through all these various l
16 procedures; identified potential changes that would have to 17 3
be made to conform to the access authorization rule, the 18 proposed Reg Guide 566, which was really nothing more than 19 endorsed NUMARC 8901.
And NUMARC 9103 was in draft form.
I
)
j 20 think it actually was first published in draft form in l
21 February or March of this year.
Mr. Hall had been to a l
5 22 NUMARC conference in Washington, D.C.,
and we were going to 4
{
23 endorse 9103 which allows us to transfer access from one
{
24 utility to another.
l 25 So, what we began to do was to put together what i
J v
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 j
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
l 162 1
procedures needed to be changed to conform to this new 2
access arena that we were going to be in.
Somewhere in
)
3 there obviously Jump became the project manager for that
)
4 implementation.
And I was called in on Friday afternoon and l
l 5
offered the position as manager over the program, accepted 6
it, and we began to transition from Human Resources and 1
7 Security into Licensing.
i i
8 The reason I picked March 27th is because I
)
9 believe that was the date -- the effective date of the new I
3P SO95s 10 procedure that was written for access 9.05Q.
g l
11 Q
The procedures that I've reviewed are dated I
\\
j 12 think the end of May, and they seem to be fairly specific J
l 13 regarding what can constitute grounds for access revocation
{
14 or denial.
Did you --
)
15 A
I'm not sure it's a procedure that you reviewed.
16 Q
It's not a procedure that you --
17 A
I don't know.
Show me what you reviewed and I can 18 tell you.
t l
19 Q
I don't know if I can find it.
My whole briefcase 20 is full of stuff.
21 A
I won't look.
l 22 Q
I thought it all came from here.
1 23 STP Access Authorization Denial Criteria, j
24 A
Le,t me see it.
25 Q
Wait a minute.
I saw something with your name on ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
163 1
it.
Let me see if I can --
2 A
Cover meno.
3 Q
-- find that.
There it is.
4 A
Yes.
This is not a procedure.
5 Q
Okay.
6 A
Although it will be one.
It's one of my action 7
items to do.
8 One of the things that you guys did when you wrote 9
the access authorization rule is you said that we have to -
10
- you very specifically said that we have to provide due 11 process to people that have been denied unescorted. access.
12 We implement them -- I am going to paraphrase from the Reg 13 Guide.
But it says that we have to tell the individuals 14 exactly, very specifically why their access had been denied i
15 or revoked.
And that was never in any NRC regulation to my 16 knowledge.
17 That raises the issue of potential legal problems.
i 18 So, we need to be very consistent on our decision process j
i l
19 for revocations and denials.
l l
l 20 So, when I took the position with Mr. Jump, one of i
l 31 the first tasks that he assigned for me is to write a set of J
l 22 denial criteria that we would begin to apply to denial j
23 dec'.dions, or to adjudications.
We don't call them 24 adjudications anymore, we actually call them evaluations.
)
25 So, I sat down somewhere around the first part of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters i
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 J
(202) 293-3950
164 i
1 April and drafted up the first rev list.
And we began to 2
apply the derogatory information that's developed in the 3
background process.
We began to apply it to this criteria.
4 And the theory is that we will get to a threshold.
Once we 5
reached this level it's an automatic denial.
And we will 6
then notify the employee of that.
As a matter of fact, we 7
send in a certified letter.
We specifically state what the 8
criteria is that he has violated.
We give him 15 days --
9 working days to file for an appeal.
We still use the same 10 form that we use in the old program.
11 Once we receive that form, and with any supporting 12 documents he wants to provide us with, we then have 10 days 13 to convene what we now call the management review panel, 14 which consists of the Security Manager, the Nuclear i
15 Assurance Manager and the Human Resources Manager.
And they i
16 review the facts that we developed in the investigation, the 17 decision that the Access Program Director made against this l
18 criteria.
And they determine whether or not we correctly
(
19 applied the criteria or whether or not we need to do i
20 additional investigation, or whether or not maybe we need to 21 change the criteria.
And that's the appeal process.
i l
22 So, this was written as a guide that's still in 23 the formative stages -- as a guide to coming up with some i
24 specific thresholds for access denials and revocations.
25 Q
Did that have anything at all to do with Mr.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
~~.s.
...~
i 165 l
1 Saporito's case?
1 2
A No.
3 Q
It was just in response to the Reg Guide --
4 A
Uh-huh.
5 Q
-- and NUMARC, I can't remember thrc that's i
6 called?
7 A
8901?
8 No.
It's got nothing to do with Saporito.
9 Saporito had been revoked long before this ever -- this 10 wasn't written until April.
11 Q
But the transition was in place, was it not, 12 around --
13 A
At the time, on February the 20th, the old program 14 was in effect.
15 Q
Still?
l 16 A
Yes.
And the new program did not start -- and I I
17 believe the date on the procedure is March 27th.
18 Q
But you knew that things were going to change, is 19 that not correct?
20 A
I didn't.
21 Q
But you said you knew that Jump was the project 22 director, so --
23 A
Yes, but understand, I played no part -- up until 24 the time of like mid-March, the latter part of March, when j
25 Mr. Jump came to me and said I want you to manage the 4
~
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 l
166 i-l 1
access, I'd like to offer you that position, I had no part 2
in the transitioning from the old program to the new, other 3
than I knew that Licensing -- Jump was like the project 4
manager for the transition.
And the second piece of data I 5
knew was that I was no longer going to be involved in 6
adjudications.
That wasn't going to be my function.
I j
7 would remain in the security -- we were going to, in a 8
sense, take the access functions that were being done by 9
Security Investigations and move them over to whatever the 1
l 10 new organization was.
They would be doing those.
And I 11 wasn't going to move to that new organization to my i
12 knowledge.
There were no plans to move me.
)
13 Q
The program was revised again I understand to i
14 comply with this NUREG and with the NUMARC recommendations; l
15 is that correct?
I
{
16 A
Yes.
Once I became involved -- you know, once I l
17 was offered the position, I don't know what the other guys 18 would have done.
If -- let's say -- well, hypothetical --
19 somebody would have been placed in charge of the program -
20
- some manager on site.
His input, no telling what it would a
21 have been -- I wanted denial criteria.
So, Jump and I had a 22 meeting and I said I think we need to do this, and I can do 23 it, I can do it quickly, and then we can get it out for 24 review and comment.
I think Mr. Baer reviewed it.
I know j
25 Chapman Smith has reviewed it.
A lot of managers onsite L
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters
,~
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
[
l l
l l
167 1
have reviewed it.
2 Q
Why did you want denial criteria?
3 A
oh, I like denial criteria.
4 Q
Why?
5 A
I like black and white issues.
6 Q
Well, you spent four years over in -- telling me 7
that you made decisions on a case-by-case basis.
And now 8
you wanted criteria?
l 9
A Yes.
10 Q
How -- I thought you said that that was 11 impossible?
I thought you said you had 725 different cases?
12 How are you going to come up -- how do you come up with this 13 criteria though?
I 14 A
Oh, I love it.
15 Q
I know.
That's what you just said.
How did you 16 come up with denial criteria, if -- I know earlier --
17 A
Well, the NRC says that illegal use or possession 18 of a controlled substance or abuse of alcohol without 19 evidence of rehabilitation.
l 20 Q
So, you just took that --
j 21 A
And I said, okay, well know, how would I apply 22 that to a particular set of facts?
And I said, well, if a 23 guy had a criminal conviction for sale, delivery or offer of l
24 a dangerous drug, I would say that's probably illegal use or 25 possession, so I'll include that.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006
,1 (202) 293-3950
168 1
If a guy has a felony possession conviction, I'll 2
include that.
That's how I will apply -- that's how I will 3
interpret what the NRC is asking us to do.
That's the way I 4
would interpret it.
And so I put it together.
And I tried 5
to include as many possible scenarios as I can.
This is not 6
the original.
This has evolved over time.
And we then 7
began to apply it to cases.
8 The next go-around we had -- next time we came 9
down here and say, I mean, why did you deny John Doe, and 10 how many other people are the same as John Doe?
I hope to 11 be able to tell you very specifically, and not have to spend 12 several hours, you know?
It will be easier I hope, I 13 suspect.
14 Do you like it?
15 Q
I don't know.
I don't have any objection.
i 16 A
I would be interested in your input.
17 Q
All right.
Mr. Hinson, have I threatened you in 18 any manner or offered you any rewards in return for your 19 statement?
20 A
No.
You have not threatened me or offered me any 21 rewards.
22 Q
Is there anything further that you would like to 23 add for the record?
24 A
No.
25 MR. BAER:
I'm sure glad you said no.
I'm too ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers; l
1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 & 50
169 1
tired to keep this up much longer.
2 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Thank you.
3 This interview is concluded.
We're off the 4
record.
5
[Whereupon, at 3:52 o' clock p.m.,
on Tuesday, July 6
28th, 1992, the above-entitled interview was concluded.J 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i
i j
17 i
18
]
19 20 i
21 j
1 22 23 24 l
25 l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
I Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1
~
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This ts to certify that the attached proceed-ings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of NAME OF PROCEEDINGE Jay Hinson DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING:
Bay City, TX i
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
taken by se and thereafter reduced to typewriting by se or under the direction of the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoir.g proceedings.
j l
YYdd Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
i l
i l
h l
i
)
i I have read the foregoing transcript, made and initialed any necessary corrections, and have signed my initials at the bottom of each page.
This transcript is the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Some topics covered in this transcript are described in more detail in my April 2,1992 affidavit and accompanying notes. That affidavit and notes were prepared shortly after the events in question when my memory was fresher. The affidavit and notes were provided to the NRC at or before the time this transcript was made.
CL ua L -
sidse Siseture Dat'e EXHIBIT /30
,, - 0 Y, PAGE/7 / OF /7 / PAGE(S)