ML20092C630
| ML20092C630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1992 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092C478 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-95-80 NUDOCS 9509130068 | |
| Download: ML20092C630 (65) | |
Text
...
4 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 INTERVIEW OF
)
5
)
6 WILLIAM G.
ISEREAU
)
l 7
C s.d.n.e 8
Nuclear Support Systen W S 9
South Texas Project
]
10 Bay City, Texas 11 Tuesday, July 28, 1992 i
12 l
13 The above-entitled interview convened, pursuant to 1
14 notice, in closed session at 4:46 p.m.
4 15 16 ON BEHALF OF NRC:
17 VIRGINIA VAN CLEAVE, Investigator t
18 Arlington, Texas 19 1
20 ON BEHALF OF THE WITNESS:
21 WILLIAM E. BAER, JR., ESQ.
22 Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
23 1615 L Street N. W.
-, jr p, y.--rj vf ; d.'gej t-,.,,
24 Washington, D.
C.
m'.3a
_._. N 5
1-se ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
- -- /Jf' 0l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 y,t 4 !003 Washington, D. C. 20006
,,, ;,,, i.Q j 9509130068 950811
@2) N3M
)
Oh5-80 SAPOR PDR
2 1
PROCEEDINGS l
2 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
For the record, this is an 3
interview of William G.
Isereau -- I-s-e-r-e-a-u -- O 7
4 date of birth 6 5
6, who is employed by Houston Lighting and Power 6
South Texas Project.
7 The date is July 28th 1992 and the time is 8
approximately 4:46 p.m.
9 Present at this interview are myself, Virginia Van 10 Cleave, investigator for the NRC Office of Investigation, i
i 11 and William Baer, attorney with Newman and Holtzinger.
12 This interview is being tape recorded by court 13 report Tom Whiteside.
l I
14 Mr. Isereau, if you will please stand and raise l
15 your right hand, l
i 16 Whereupon, 17 WILLIAM G.
ISEREAU l
18 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 19 was examined and testified as follows:
20 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
I have a couple of initial i
21 questions to ask regarding Mr. Baer's presence.
They are 22 standard questions.
23 Does your employer require you to have an attorney 24 present when you talk to the NRC?
25 THE WITNESS:
No.
I l
t ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 10 6
3 l
l-1 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Is Mr. Baer acting as your l
2 personal representative?
4 3
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
4 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Did you select him personally or 5
did your company select him for you?
6 THE WITNESS:
He was made available to me and I 7
selected him.
'8 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Mr. Baer, who is your employer?
9 MR. BAER:
Newman and Holtzinger.
10 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Are you acting as Mr. Isereau's 11 personal representative?
12 MR. BAER:
Yes, I am.
13 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Does your firm represent any 14 other party associated with the South Texas Project?
15 MR. BAER:
Yes, it does.
16 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Do you personally represent any 17 other parties at the South Texas Project?
18 MR. BAER: Yes.
19 MS. VAM CLEAVE:
And those parties are?
20 MR. BAER:
Houston Lighting and Power Company and 21 other individuals being interviewed during the course of 22 this investigation.
23 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Then do you personally represent 24 Houston Lighting and Power with respect to this interview?
25 MR. BAER:
Yes, I do.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
4 1
MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Do you believe a potential 2
conflict of interest could arise during the course of this 3
interview?
l 4
MR. BAER:
It is always possible that a conflict l
5 of interest may arise.
However, I do not foresee such a 6
conflict at this time.
7 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
If a potential conflict of 8
interest arises, what will you do?
9 MR. BAER:
I will stop the interview and will 1
10 consult with Mr. Isereau and we will decide how to proceed i
11 at that time.
12 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Mr. Isereau, do you understand 13 that Mr. Baer represents other parties associated with the l
l 14 South Texas Project?
l 15 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
16 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
What is your understanding of who 17 is paying Mr. Baer's fee?
18 THE WITNESS:
HL&P to my knowledge.
19 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
With that understanding, do you 20 still want Mr. Baer as your representative?
21 THE WITNESS:
Yes, I do.
22 EXAMINATION 23 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
24 Q
Mr. Isereau, what is your position here at the 25 South Texas site?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
5 1
A I'm the quality assurance audit supervisor.
2 Q
How long have you had that position?
3 A
Since January of
'92.
I 4
Q So about six months?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Did you work at the South Texas Project prior to 1
7 that time?
I 8
A Yes.
9 Q
What position did you have then?
(
10 A
Quality assurance surveillance supervisor.
11 Q
How long did you have that position?
1 12 A
Since approximately 1984.
13 Q
Were you onsite here the whole time?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Did you work for Houston Lighting and Power prior 16 to 19847 17 A
Yes, since 1981.
18 Q
You started in 1981?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
Did you start here onsite?
l 21 A
Yes.
22 Q
In 1981?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
I'm here looking into the circumstances I
25 surrounding the revocation of Mr. Thomas J. Saporito's i
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
d 6
1 access, unescorted access and I have a report that has your G-investigation by W. g. f name on it, Concern Number 12266A, 2
3 Isereau, and it relates to the revocation of Mr. Saporito's l
4 unescorted access.
A 3
LJr's ht.
5 Did you wrote this report?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
And did you conduct such an investigation?
8 A
I did.
9 Q
And I believe since that time another report and a 10 review of this investigation have been completed.
11 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Did you want to make some 12 comments about that, Mr. Baer?
13 MR. BAER:
Yes.
This was a review performed by i
14 Mr. David H. Andrews -- this is my understanding -- of 15 Chicago, Illinois.
16 HL&P has provided this report to Ms. Van cleave in 17 response to her request for documents relating to this 18 investigation.
The report is undated.
However, my 19 understanding is that HL&P received it on July 24th 1992.
20 The company has not yet had the opportunity to 21 review the report in detail and cannot vouch for the 22 accuracy of information contained within it.
23 However, with that understanding, the company has 24 no objection to providing the report.
25 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Thank you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 pg4
7 1
BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
2 Q
Mr. Isereau, when did you first become aware of 3
Mr. Saporito?
4 A
About the middle of March, when I started the 5
investigation.
I was given some background information.
6 Q
why was this investigation assigned to you?
7 A
It was my understanding that I had no previous 8
involvement and
- r. Jordan -- Tom Jordan -- asked me if I 9
would be available for it.
I believe other people had been WM 10 involved as-in one way or another -- the normal people that 11 would do it, the normal Speak Out people, so I was asked if 12 I could do it.
13 Q
Had you ever conducted other investigations for 14 Speak Out?
15 A
No, I had not.
16 Q
Had anyone to your knowledge assigned to QA audit 17 conducted any investigations for Speak Out?
18 A
Had I as --
19 Q
Anyone else.
You said you were an audit 20 supervisor.
Had anyone else in your group ever conducted 21 investigations for Speak Out?
22 A
I couldn't say for sure.
23 Q
Do you know why you specifically were selected?
24 A
No.
25 Q
I understand as a disinterested party you were ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 p)$ F
8 1
someone who had no prior knowledge of Mr. Saporito, but do 2
you know why it was you specifically?
3 A
other than that, I don't know.
I wasn't given any 4
specifics other than that.
5 Q
Do you have any kind of investigatory background?
6 A
No.
7 Q
What instructions did Mr. Jordan give you 8
regarding conducting this investigation?
9 A
He basically asked me to get with Don Bohner and 10 that was it.
He really didn't give me any instructions or 11 any directions other than once it was agreed that I could do 12 it, he asked me to get with Don Bohner.
13 Q
And Don Bohner was the supervisor of Speak out, is 14 that correct?
15 A
Supervisor or manager of Speak out, right.
16 Q
And did you get with Mr. Bohner?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Do you recall when that was?
i 19 A
I have to look at when my notes started and go l
20 back from there, my interview notes, because I don't i
21 remember.
It was probably within a week of when I started
~
22 the first interview.
23 Q
I have some copies of Speak out interview notes 24 and the first date I have is March 18th 1992.
Does that 25 sound about right as to when you started the investigation?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 l
(202) 293-3950
,offfi
l l
9 1
MR. BAER:
Are those your notes?
2 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
The 18th does appear to be the 3
first date.
4 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
1 5
Q The only date I see here, just very briefly l
6 flipping through your report, is a date -- it looks like it 7
might have been signed by Mr. Bohner on a Speak out 8
investigation plan and it's dated March 17th 1992 and it has j
9 your name at the top.
1 i
10 Did you prepare that?
i l
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
And would that have been -- this date down here, 13 would that --
1 14 A
That was probably three to five days after I A
b
{
15 initially started.
I did some reading,and put this together 16 so I would guess it would be the 13th of March, or somewhere 2
I 17 between the 13th and 15th is when I first called Don and got i
j 18 started on it.
d 19 Q
What did Mr. Bohner tell you about conducting the i
j 20 investigation?
Did he give you any specific instructions?
j 21 Did he make any suggestions?
22 A
No, he didn't give me any specific instructions.
23 He gave me some information, some documents which I don't 24 really recall just which they were, and I believe he gave me
)
25
-- either I asked or he gave me the procedures, some Speak 1
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
~
(202) 293-3950 g
i 10 1
out procedures that I could read.
2 He was very vague on giving me any direction on 3
what to do or how to do it or where to go or who to see or 4
anything like that.
i 5
Q And how did you prepare for conducting the i
6 investigation?
4 7
A I read through the documentation that he gave me 8
and then some additional documentation that he indicated 9
Rick Cink had, who was a regular Speak Out investigator.
I 10 got that information and read through and then sat down and 11 discussed this plan, this investigation plan as to how to 12 put it together.
13 It's pretty self-explanatory with the questions 14 there and so I went back and put that together and I think i
15 he indicated up front that this was the starting point and e s. CY 16 that it may grow during the investigation with 4eh questions 1
1 17 and things that I would ask.
j 18 Q
"He" being Mr. Bohner?
19 A
Yes.
l 20 Q
There is another investigation plan here dated --
21 I think it's February 26th 1992 and it shows the 22 investigator as Mr. Cink.
23 Did you have this investigation plan?
Do you 24 recall?
25 A
I don't recall ever seeing this.
) _..
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 Mf#,-
11 1
Q Do you recall what documents you reviewed?
Did 2
you review Mr. saporito's personnel file, his nuclear 3
security file?
4 A
When I was planning this?
5 Q
When you were planning the investigation.
6 A
No.
7 Q
I guess I'm trying to understand what documents 8
you reviewed.
Your testimony indicates that Mr. Bohner 9
said, well, here's the situation and he didn't really give 10 you any specifics and you hadn't worked -- you said you had 11 not conducted a Speak Out investigation before, so how did 12 you know -- What did you do?
gD-r e-7. o A 13 A
I reviewed this MG42.
14 Q
That's the procedure.
15 A
Yes, two of them here because they were in the 16 process of changing it.
The administrative practice, the 17 2.206.
I believe there was another document.
I don't know l
18 if it was this dol document.
I really don't know which one l
l 19 it was.
1 20 Q
What were you specifically charged with?
What was j
21 the intent of the investigation as it was explained to you?
22 A
That paragraph right there is basically what I was 23 provided, an individual's concern --
24 Q
A discriminatory action administered against him i
25 in violation of -- Is that what you were provided with?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 y h,
l 12 I
f-1 A
Yes, it was a different form but it was that -- I 2
think it was a piece of paper that had other ones on there, 3
other items like that, but as I recall some were blacked out 4
and I don't remember -- That was the information that I had 5
to start with was that statement.
6 Q
You reviewed the procedures and you said you 7
reviewed the 2.206 petition and perhaps the DOL document but 8
you're not sure about that, is that correct?
9 A
Right, and I had some -- I forget if it was Speak 10 out procedures out of the manual, two or three of those.
I 11 don't recall the number.
I 12 Q
How did you know even who to interview?
i
.13 A
I'm trying to think how I did get started.
Oh, I 14 had some other information, some other documents from Rick 1
15 Cink that were -- these three memos from Rick Cink, Sanchez 16 notes here, I believe this Hinson memo was in there on the 17 adjudication and I think that was all that was in there at 18 that time which this is information that Rick had in a 19 package and he just gave a package of information that Don 2o had indicated that Rick may have some additional 21 information.
This was probably about an inch of information fag V MS-22 the he gave me.
23 Q
Did he provide you with any verbal information 24 about Mr. Saporito?
i 25 MR. BAER:
At that time?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 w)fM--
13 1
MS. VAN CLEAVE:
When he gave him that inch 1
2 package.
3 THE WITNESS:
I don't recall.
I believe he just 4
gave me and said this is everything I have.
It was just 5
clipped together and he gave it to me.
i 6
BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
7 Q
Are you familiar with Section 210 of the Energy j
8 Reorganization Act -- I mean were you?
9 A
No, I was not.
10 Q
Did you feel comfortable with this?
Did you 11 understand what you were supposed to be investigating?
12 A
I felt comfortable t,at I understood what I was u) u.e i W I
13 investigating.
I didr.'t too sure that I was 14 administratively following the process because so very 15 little was explained as to the how-to, the mechanics of it.
16 I knew what I was after.
I didn't know the 17 mechanics of how to --
18 Q
You mean how Speak out is usually conducted?
19 A
Yes, forms to fill out, paperwork format, 20 arranging the interviews, those kinds of logistics because 21 no one really told me how to do it.
22 Q
Did you ask Mr. Cink or Mr. Bohner for guidance in 23 that regard?
24 A
Yes, I asked Mr. Bohner and I didn't really get 25 auch.
I later concluded that I think it was intentional, I ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 M
i 14 1
thought for fear of influencing me or steering me that he j
2 just kind of fed it back to me.
I would ask him a question
{
3 and it was just, do what you think, that type of nebulous 1
4 answer that didn't say yes and didn't say no.
5 Q
on the speak out investigation plan, it has your j
i 6
name at the top and it's apparently signed by Mr. Bohner j
7 dated March 17th 1992, were these your questions?
It says 8
questions to be answered.
There are seven of them.
I 9
Individuals to be interviewed and there are three 10 individuals named, and documents to be reviewed and there 11 are three documents.
12 Did you prepare this?
l 13 A
Yes.
I prepared the whole thing.
1 14 Q
Did you get input from anyone while you were l
15 preparing it?
i 16 A
No, other than just Don told me I need one of l
l 17 these to get started, a plan to get started, and that it i
18 could be expanded as it went on so I went back and sat down i
19 with what I had and developed that.
l 20 Q
You have Mr. Hinson, Mr. Balcom and Mr. Harrison 21 as individuals to interview and several documents.
The l
22 procedures, you've already said you did review those. 'Y A P- 0 4- 04 23 Adjudication memo dated February 21st 1992.
4@e999-What is 24 that?
25 A
It's an administrative practice and I believe'--
i i
i_
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1
l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 j
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 g
i 4
15
+/h thetitleofitshouldbeinthereport--/'mployee 1
todS-uUdk 2
/eparation/n'terviews.
3 Q
Did you review that document and the procedures 4
and the adjudication memo before you began interviewing 5
people?
Did you have access to that material?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Who did you interview first?
8 A
I believe it was either Mr. Balcom or Mr. Hinson.
9 They're both listed on the 18th.
I can't recall which one 10 was first but I believe it was one of those two.
11 Q
Your report states you interviewed Mr. Balcom, Mr.
12 Hinson, Mr. Cink, Mr. Woods, Mr. Bohner, Mm, Harrison, Mr.
o ffmc W4 13 Moore, Mr. Jump, Mr. Sanchez, Mr. OLine, Mr. Smith and Ms.
14 Brown.
15 Did you speak to anyone else?
16 A
I believe that's everybody.
17 Q
What did Mr. Jump tell you regarding his receipt 18 of Florida Lighting and Power's 2.206 response and the dol 19 decision regarding Mr. Saporito v. Florida Power and Light 20 and ATI?
21 A
Would you repeat it?
22 Q
Mr. Jump received a Florida Power and Light 2.206 23 response and a dol decision concerning Mr. Saporito versus 24 Florida Power and Light and a company called ATI and I'm 25 asking you what he -- Well, did you discuss those issues ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
j Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 W4b
i 16 1
with Mr. Jump?
2 I've read your -- These are your interview notes 3
and I have read those.
Do you want to review them?
4 A
Yes.
I talked to Mr. Jump several times.
5 Q
Why don't you review those notes because I would 6
like to know what Mr. Jump told you about his receipt of 4
7 those two documents.
8 (Witness examining documents.)
9 A
To answer your question, Mr. Jump indicated to me 10 that he had gotten a 2.206 to answer and that he had asked 11 for additional examples of responses such that he could 12 format or respond back to this one in a like fashion.
13 Q
He had gotten a 2.206 from Mr. Saporito, or he had 14 just gotten a 2.206?
4dI bess,eb 15 A
That he had gotten it.
I don't recall that^he had 16 gotten it from Mr. Saporito.
17 Q
Did he indicate to you what the 2.206 response 18 that he received was?
?
19 A
No.
20 Q
Did he tell you who it involved?
21 A
No.
At that time I wasn't asking for that.
22 Q
What were you asking for?
23 A
I had asked how he had gotten the documents and he 24 indicated that he had requested them from counsel as he had 25 requested examples of other responses, I think utility ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 WM
i 17 I
1 responses, that he was preparing the response for this and 2
was looking for other examples.
3 Q
What prompted you to ever ask that question in the 4
first place?
l 5
A I was concerned as to how the documents -- how he 6
-- since he had submitted the documents to the access 7
program director, as to what prompted him to -- where they 8
came from to submit -- what prompted him to have the f
9 documents to submit when he had requested that they look 10 into it.
11 Q
So you had reviewed those documents already at 12 that time and you knew that they related to Mr. Saporito?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
You knew that the 2.206 response and the DOL 15 decision related to Mr. Saporito, correct?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
You had already reviewed those documents, correct?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
When Mr. Jump told you that he asked for examples 20 from his legal counsel, who was that?
21 A
He didn't say.
He said either counsel or legal 22 counsel or the lawyers.
He didn't give me any specific 23 name.
24 Q
Did he tell you whether or not he specifically 25 asked for that 2.206 response or that DOL decision, or if he ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers; 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 g3 (202) 293-3950 WM
18 i -~
1 simply asked for examples?
2 A
As I recall, he said that he had asked for 3
examples in general.
4 Q
And he received these two documents from legal 5
counsel?
6 A
I believe so, yes.
7 Q
Is that what he said?
I 8
A Yes, that he had gotten them, yes, from counsel, 9
or the lawyers, whichever terminology.
I don't remember a
10 what he used.
11 Q
And after he got those documents, what did he do 4
12 with them?
13 A
He told me that he either gave them or called Mr.
14 Hinson, the access program people, and asked that they 15 investigate or review these and get back to him.
I think 16 those were his words, that he wanted them to review them and 4
17 get back to him.
18 MR. BAER:
Did he say -- I want to be clear.
Did 19 he say he gave the 2.206 responses to the investigations j
20 people or just the dol decision?
21 THE WITNESS:
I don't recall which one.
I get 22 confused with the two documents.
I don't recall which one 23 he actually said.
I'll look here and see if I have 24 anything.
25 (Witness examining documents.)
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
J Coud Reponers j
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D. C. 20006 Wg (202) 293-3950
i l
19 1
I have DOL document and litigation against Florida 2
Power and Light and ATI trade school -- which Mr. Jump 3
indicated he thought was a trade school in Florida, so it's 4
the 2.206 that he had requested that security review.
5 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
1 6
Q Now is it the 2.206 or is it the DOL decision?
i 7
You just said ik was the DOL decision.
.pd wF 8
A A I have here included as an example was the DOL 9
litigation and because -- okay, the DOL litigation that he l
10 had asked because he was aware of the complainant's name on 11 the 2.206 and then it was also on this DOL litigation that 12 he had received, so the DOL litigation is what he gave to j
.13 security to review.
t 14 Q
What is the date on that interview note?
i 15 A
3/23.
l 16 Q
Is that the second time you interviewed Mr. Jump, 17 or the first time?
i 18 A
I believe it's the first time.
I don't remember.
19 I'm just going by the date on that.
1 20 Q
According to this, it says that Jump requested 21 from legal counsel examples of other responses to NRC 22 documentation of other allegations -- I'm not sure what that 23 means -- included as an example was DOL documented 24 litigation against Florida Power and Light and ATI.
Because 25 Jump was aware of complainant's name on the 2.206 and also ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 gh
20 1
on the Florida Power and Light ATI documents, he requested 4
2 security to review the documents and the nuclear file.
l 3
What does that mean?
r 4
A He'had already sent the first document that was 1
5 the --
I j
6 Q
The 2.206 response?
7 A
Yes, and knew Mr. Saporito's name was on it.
When
,,wdJ-8 he read this one and it was gun there -- Mr. Saporito's name
]
9 was on that document, also, and seeing that also come up he 10 had given the document to the access program people to i
11 review for any inconsistencies or anything like that because 12 the name popped up again.
j 13 Q
Was this purely a coincidence that Mr. Saporito's 14 name appeared on this 2.206 response?
4 j
15 A
I couldn't answer that, really.
1 16 Q
Well, in your report you said in reviewing this j
17 document -- which is the 2.206 petition as I read it -- Mr.
18 Jump became aware that the concernee was identified in the i
i 19 Department of Labor document and also on the 10CFR2.206 l
20 petition.
21 What does that mean?
22 A
He indicated to me that he reviewed the second 23 document.
He recognized the name, Mr. Saporito's name on 24 that second document.
25 Q
But when you wrote --
Your report says in ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l_
Coud Reponers l
1612 K Street, N.W., Suit * ')00 Washington, D. C. & d
-(202) 293-3950 WM i
= - -
i 21 F
I --
1 reviewing this document, the 2.206 petition, Mr. Jump became i
2 aware that the concernee was identified in the Department of j
3 Labor document and also on the 2.206 petition.
4 Was this purely a coincidence or did Mr. Jump 5
request documentation related to Mr. Saporito or did he not i
j 6
address that point?
7 A
I can't answer that.
I don't know what he 8
requested.
He indicated to me that he requested other 9
examples.
4 10 Q
So you didn't address that point, whether or not 4
3 11 he asked specifically for anything --
i 12 A
No, I did not ask that question.
1 I
13 Q
-- related to Mr. Saporito or just for --
14 The impression I'm getting from you is that Mr.
i l
15 Jump asked for -- that you got the impression that Mr. Jump 16 just asked for examples of 2.206 responses.
l 17 A
Yes, that was my understanding in talking to him.
i 18 Q
That he asked just for examples.
l 19 A
Yes.
20 Q
And he got these documents -- Did he tell you if 21 he got any other documents besides this one 2.206?
I 22 A
I don't recall him telling me.
23 Q
Did you ask him?
recall soMS-24 A
I don't^that, either, if I did.
l 25 Q
Did you know that Mr. Saporito was the 2.206 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 4d>Tb
22 i
1 petitioner here at the plant -- at this plant here at South 2
l 3
A Yes, I did.
4 Q
And you didn't ask Mr. Jump whether this was just 5
purely a coincidence that this 2.206 response happened to 6
relate to Mr. Saporito?
7 A
I believe I asked him how he got that document and 8
that's when he just indicated that he had gotten -- that he 9
had requested rom counsel examples, or other responses I 10 think N his words.
~
11 Q
When I read your report, I got the impression that 12 this was a coincidence.
I mean you say in an interview with 13 Mr. Jump revealed that he requested legal counsel to provide l
14 examples of responses to NRC documentation of other 15 allegations for reference in responding to the 10CFR2.206 16 petition.
i j
17 I read that and I thought is this a coincidence 18 that Mr. Jump got a 2.206 petition that happened to relate 19 to Mr. Saporito and then when he got the DOL document it 20 also related to Mr. Saporito?
i 21 This sentence right here, what does that mean?
22 Did you write this?
23 A
Yes.
I took it as this was his statement to me, 24 that he had requested other examples of responses and that 25 this was what he had gotten.
I believe his words were ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 g-p_
(202) 293-3950 l
i 23 1
"other examples."
I would have to check my notes.
I don't 2
know if I have the exact words.
3 Q
Do you have any other notes?
4 A
No, all I have is what's in the file, the Speak 5
Out file.
6 Q
Did Mr. Jump then get the DOL decision at a later 7
time?
8 A
The DOL decision?
9 Q
There were two documents.
There was the 2.206 10 response by Florida Power and Light and then there was a DOL 11 decision which related to Mr. Saporito versus Florida Power 12 and Light and ATI.
13 Did he get those documents at the same -- Did he 14 tell you that he got those documents at the same time or did 15 he tell you that he got them at different times?
16 A
I don't recall him saying either way.
17 Q
Your report also states "in reviewing this 18 document, Mr. Jump became aware that the concernee was 19 identified in the Department of Labor document and also on 20 the 10CFR2.206 petition.
Mr. Jump indicated he felt it was 21 his obligation upon identifying this information to refer it 22 to the proper organization for evaluation."
23 What does that mean?
Upon identifying what 24 information?
25 A
The information that this individual had this suit ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 WM
i i
24 1
or whatever with another company.
2 Q
Why would --
3 A
Litigation -- that is part of the investigation or 4
part of the employment process is identifying any other 5
litigation.
i 6
Q What did Mr. Jump tell you to indicate that he 7
believed that this was pertinent or --
8 A
I don't recall him saying why he felt it was 9
pertinent.
He said that he had become aware of the 10 information and that he felt the responsibility to -- words 11 that --
He indicated --
,jM9-i to 12 He told me that he indicated 4 Watt Hinson he was 13 obligated upon finding questionable information to get this 14 information reviewed.
15 Q
What was the questionable information?
4 16 A
I can't say.
I don't want to speculate myself as i
17 to what it was.
l 18 Q
You didn't ask him what the questionable 19 information was?
20 A
No.
I believe I assumed that it was the 21 information that was contained in there, the litigation, but 22 I didn't ask him what he thought it was.
23 Q
Did you ask him what led him to believe there was
{
24 anything questionable in any of these documents?
]
25 A
I don't recall asking him that question, no.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
- g (202) 293-3950 4
I I
l 25 l
1 Q
Did he say whether or not he had ever reviewed Mr.
l 2
Saporito's nuclear file?
)
3 A
I don't recall him saying anything like that.
]
4 Q
Did you ask him if he had reviewed his file?
j 5
A I don't recall asking him, either.
6 Q
According to the interview notes here that you've j
7 already said that you made, you interviewed Mr. Jump three 8
times, is that correct?
9 A
I believe that's it, yes.
The 23rd, 31st and
?
10 10th, that's three times.
I WO Mv3L j
11 Q
was he interviewed three times?
{
12 A
As I recall, questions came up from subsequent i
l 13 interviews that made me think of another question that I i
j 14 wanted to ask him.
The details -- I would have to look J
j 15 through each case but basically what it was I recalled j
16 information from his previous interview and in a subsequent j
17 interview and that raised a question for me to go back and l
18 ask him for another bit of information.
19 Q
I read the interview reports and they seem to be j
20 asking for clarification regarding his receipt of these two 21 documents, the 2.206 response and the DOL decision.
{
22 Did you receive information from someone that led l
23 you to believe you needed further clarification about when j
24 Mr. Jump received those documents?
i 25 A
I believe so from subsequent interviews, but I i
1.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
j Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 M
(202) 293-3950 i
26 s ddl a
1 can't recall what the specifics were that 42MHr prompted me 2
to go back and clarify.
3 Q
Did anyone direct you to go back and re-interview
~;
4 Mr. Jump?
5 A
No.
6 Q
Mr. Bohner didn't ask you to go back or make a 7
suggestion that perhaps you should go back and re-interview 8
him?
9 A
I don't recall Mr. Bohner asking or suggesting or 10 anything that I go back and interview him.
11 Q
Were you consulting with anyone or getting any l
12 advice from anyone as you were conducting your 13 investigation?
14 A
Very little with Mr. Bohner.
That was the only 15 one -- other than Rick Cink was helping me to -- I asked him 16 to give me some thoughts on the formatting of the report,
,u)$'
17 just strictly what goes in what section and whcr; does the 18 detail go here versus here and that type of thing, because I i
19 started putting the report together as I was -- my interview 20 notes and drawing conclusions and that type of thing.
21 Q
Did he offer any suggestions as to who he thought 22 you might want to interview, or if you might want to 23 interview someone more than once or --
24 A
Who?
25 Q
Mr. Cink -- or ask for additional information from ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 g$
(202) 293 3950
27 1
anyone?
2 A
No.
His was just strictly limited to getting my i
3 paperwork every day.
I started down there where he is and 4
helping me format the report as to what goes in what 5
section, that type of thing.
Administratively, I guess you l
6 would call it.
7 Q
Your report is dated April 14th, that's the final.
8 Did you do -- Well, this is a silly question.
I'm sure you 9
did an initial draft.
10 Do you recall when you did an initial draft of 11 your report?
g 12 A
I believe it was somewhere^the 24th and the 30th, 13 the break in the interviews from 3/24 to 3/30, somewhere in
'14 that timeframe.
l 15 Q
You did an initial draft.
Did anyone review the 16 initial draft?
l 17 A
Rick did the pieces when I started -- again like I 18 started adding my contacts and the documents, he looked at 19 it to see that I was formatting it right, but he didn't 20 review the content.
He was looking more for am I putting 4
21 the right things in the right places.
22 I believe -- I can't say for sure if Don -- he 23 would have been the only one and I can't say that he 24 reviewed it.
I don't recall if he did or didn't.
25 Q
You said you did the initial draft sometime during ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
e Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 w#L f
(202) 293-3950
i 28 1
1 this break in the interviews.
l 2
After you did your original draft., did something 3
lead you to believe you needed to conduct other interviews?
4 A
Yes.
After I had the draft done, I believe I 5
talked with Don and Don looked at the draft and asked me l
6 some questions which I didn't really -- clarifying questions 7
which I didn't really have the answers.
I don't recall but 8
it was things that I decided then that I needed to find out 9
some more information to answer that.
j j
10 Q
Did he ask you anything about clarifying Mr.
l 11 Jump's receipt of these two documents?
l 12 A
I think that was later, toward the very end.
That 13 was between 3/31 and 4/10.
l 14 Q
Do you think you did a second draft of your 15 opinion then?
16 A
Yeah, I did several.
I can't recall how many 17 drafts but -- By " drafts," I mean I would change a paragraph
[
18 or expand a little bit detail or that type of thing.
There l
19 were several of them.
4sMM-l rowswo1 20 Q
And Mr. Bohner *=tri-"-all of them?
j i
21 A
Yes, I was submitting them to him and discussing 22 them with him, yeah.
23 Q
And did he provide you some guidance or insight 24 regarding anything further he thought you might need to do?
25 A
No, other than asking questions, reading the ANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 OM (202) 293 3950
.-)
i i
i 1
1 29
- .~
1 information and asking a question about it and as a result I i
2 didn't have all the information I thought I needed to answer 3
it so I went back and did some more interviewing, but I i
j 4
don't recall what the specific questions were.
l j
5 Q
But by asking questions, was he in effect
]
6 providing you guidance?
Did you get the impression that l
i j
7 those were things that perhaps you should try to clarify?
8 MR. BAER:
Objection.
What's the question on the
]
9 record?
10 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
As Mr. Bohner was asking a
11 questions --
i
'2 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
j 13 Q
You said he was asking you questions about the l
1 l
14 report.
l 15 A
About the report and the content.
16 Q
And you didn't always have the answers to those i
17 questions, is that correct?
l 18 A
That's correct.
t l
19 Q
Did the questions that Mr. Bohner was asking lead t
20 you to believe that perhaps you needed to clarify some
{
21 issues or you needed to conduct additional investigations, 22 so even though he might not be directing you specifically to i
i 23 go out and re-interview someone or look at this document, l
24 did his questions kind of lead you in that direction?
i 25 A
I would say yes.
It made me ask myself questions l
I l
i...
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
l.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C. 20006 4
l l
(202) 293-3950 l
i
30 1
-- do I need to find out more information.
It would raise 2
questions with myself.
1 3
Q And you did in fact conduct -- You said you've got 4
two gaps in the --
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
-- sets of interviews that you conducted so you 7
did in fact conduct additional interviews -- either re-
)
)
8 interviews or initial interviews of additional individuals, 9
I'm not sure.
1 1
10 A
Both.
11 Q
And these additional interviews did follow 12 discussions with Mr. Bohner, is that --
13 A
Yes, his review of the draft report.
14 Q
And you did state, did you not, that Mr. Bohner 15 did ask you some questions about Mr. Jump's receipt of these 16 two documents -- this 2.206 response and the dol decision?
17 You said that came later is the way I believe you phrased 1
18 it.
19 A
Yes.
I believe he did ask -- I don't remember the 20
'testion but it was related to the receipt of those 21 documents.
I believe it was the timeliness as to when.
l 22 Q
You interviewed -- According to your records, your 23 last interview was Mr. Jump on April the 10th 1992 and it 24 says discussed previous interview with Jump, Jump clarified
)
25 he received examples of 2.206 responses and was made aware l
C ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers t
l 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 gjf p.
l A
I 31 l
1 of the dol 210 existence.
2 Again this says examples of 2.206 responses.
Was 3
any clarification obtained at that time regarding what kind 4
of 2.206 responses -- if he received any other documents 5
other than one related to Mr. Saporito?
6 A
I don't recall anything like that, no.
7 Q
And you at that time also did not ask him if he 8
had specifically asked for the 2.206 response related to Mr.
9 Saporito?
10 A
I don't remember asking him that question, no.
11 Q
As you were conducting your investigation, did you 12 discuss it with Mr. Baer or any other legal counsel?
13 A
No. I only talked to Mr. Baer I believe once during then when I requested a file from his -- that I was 14 i
15 told he had.
16 Q
What file was that?
17 A
Mr. Saporito's, and I believe that was the only 18 one.
There may have been others but I believe that was the 19 only one I got from him.
I went to several different places 20 to get it and each one said that someone else had it and I 21 finally got it.
Mr. Baer had it.
22 Q
That was Mr. Saporito's nuclear security file --
23 is that what they're called?
24 A
Nuclear file, yes.
25 Q
How many adjudication files did you review during ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 yXM
32 1
the course of your investigation?
2 A
Two separate groups.
I reviewed 13 here, Mr.
3 Saporito's and 12, and then there's another I believe six Yes,'19 total.
4 more.
5 Q
Does that include Mr. Saporito's file?
6 A
Yes, 18 and Mr. Saporito's file.
7 Q
How did you select the other 18?
8 A
The first 12 that I did, I talked to Mr. Andrew l
.g; My-Woodsoveratthe[entral[rocessing[acilityandIbelieve 9
10 I asked him for documentation that he would have of 11 adjudications submitted.
12 I believe he gave me a log -- I asked for the more 13 recent ones looking for '92 and working back, and I believe 6 W 14 it wasAlog that he gave me but I don't recall what form it 15 was.
It had the various adjudications and then I picked 16 those that were the three items similar to Mr. Saporito's 17 and tried to get those that were at least one of the three 18 and then tried to get some files of those that were at least 19 two of the three or three of the three.
20 Q
What were the three?
21 A
Credit history, previous employment and criminal 22 history.
23 Q
The records that Mr. Woods gave you, did it 24 indicate the reason for the adjudication?
You said he gave 25 you some kind of log.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 10M
33 1
A Yes, I believe that's where I picked and chose 2
from based on what the reasons were so that I could be sure 3
to get similar reasons and multiple reasons.
4 Q
The initial 12, is that what I understood you to 5
say?
6 A
Yes, initially I picked 12.
7 Q
And Mr. Saporito was 13, so you had six more.
How 8
did you select those remaining six?
9 A
The remnining six, I went back to human resources 10 and -- I forget just what I asked for.
11 I believe I went to Betty Brown first and asked if 12 she was aware of any instances where there was deliberate 13 omission of information on the screening forms and she I 14 believe indicated that she herself did not know of but she 15 suggested that I talk to Bob Smith and Jessie DeLeon, which 16 I did.
17 Q
So how did you get the six additional?
18 A
I asked the same question -- I believe I talked to 19 Jessie on the phone first and he had indicated that -- he 20 basically sent me to Bob, that Bob had everything.
21 I went up and interviewed Bob and asked him the 22 question -- as I sit here today -- do you know of any l
s0Ak 23 previous instances af d;115:r:t; inatmm;;--a? deliberate 24 omission of information and he went out and came back with a 25 stack of file folders and provided me with these examples.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 pyfp (202) 293-3950
34 1
Q What did they relate to?
Were they HL&P g
2 employees?
W ee' g g.
3 A
Yes, theyAHL&P employees back around the '89 era.
i 4
Q I think you say here '88 and
'89.
i 5
A Yeah, back in the early days.
As I understand, 6
they were doing the initial investigations and backgrounds j
7 from the early days that they were starting to do with the 8
existing employees and new hires coming in and these were 9
examples of cases where information was withheld and this 10 type of thing, or that they had run into problems during the 11 verification process.
12 Q
Did Mr. Smith have those right handy?
13 A
No.
14 Q
How did he get those files so quickly?
l 15 A
Well, he went out of the office -- I was in his 16 office and he went out of the office and in a short time, I i
17 would say -- oh, I don't know -- minutes, three to five 18 minutes or something like that -- he came back with these 19 folders.
I don't know where he got them.
It was out of his 20 office.
They weren't in his office.
He left his office and 21 came back in with them in his hands.
22 Q
What did he say they represented?
23 A
He just laid these out and we started going 24 through them.
He didn't really tell me that these are 25 anything.
He just opened up the first one and started I
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C, 20006 gf4 (202) 293 3950 l
35 1
showing me the notes and went over them one by one and I 2
reviewed them and decided which ones -- I picked out these 3
six to go and look at the nuclear files.
4 Q
Did you know that you were going to ask that 5
question?
I mean I can't understand how he had these six 6
files just very handy that in just a very few minutes he 7
could go out and come back with here's six examples of 8
exactly what --
9 A
I don't recall if there were six files or if there 10 were more than six files.
I believe there were more than 11 six.
I picked six.
I don't remember all of what they were.
12 He just handed them to me one at a time and I reviewed them 13 and decided that, yeah, these are ones that I want and I
.14 just picked these six people to go to security and get their 15 nuclear files.
16 I don't recall how many there were.
He just 17 brought in a stack of manila folders.
18 Q
Your report says R. Smith provided interview 19 notes for six individuals, the investigator determined from 20 subsequer.t nuclear file review that the individuals had i
21 withheld information from their applications and data forms.
22 In fact, you're saying that Mr. Smith provided you 23 records for more than six individuals.
Is that accurate?
24 A
I don't know how many he had there.
He had a pile 25 on his desk that I went through one-by-one and picked these ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
a Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 gg (202) 293-3950
36 1
six.
I don't recall if they were the first six or --
2 Q
What did the pile that he brought you represent?
3 Did it represent he just picked out a handful of personnel 4
folders from a file cabinet, or did it represent individuals S
who had had access revoked or denied, or what did it 6
represent?
7 A
These were cases or individuals that had been 8
referred to them.
There's a variety of different things in 9
here.
I think some were access denied.
One I found out was 10 released.
I believe these were either employees that were 11 initially here or new hires that were in the incoming 12 process that they had run into these various problems and 13 identified this information.
14 Q
So the folders represented individuals who had all 15 omitted information from the data forms?
May I look at i
16 this?
)
17 A
Sure.
I believe it was a variety of information 18 that -- there may have been some information that was 19 contained there but it was ques ionable.
B wd 20 Q
This says asked #S do you know of any previous 21 instances of deliberate omission of information on a 22 screening affidavit or data form which did not result in 23 revocation of unescorted access; his response was possibly 24 with employment applications.
25 I take that to mean HL&P employment applications.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
~
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 g)f$t-(202) 293-3950 f
37 1
A Yes.
2 Q
He provided me with examples and meeting minutes 3
for the following personnel who were released and those who 4
were not, and you've listed six people and you stated on 5
here I guess whatever the reason was.
All these seem to be 1
6 some sort of potential problem or -- this one says criminal 7
record not on application and data file and this one says 8
family abuse.
9 So these are all individuals who have problems of 10 one sort or another, I guess.
11 A
One sort or another.
12 Q
What about the other files?
Am I understanding 13 you correctly that he did provide you with more than just 14 six files?
I believe there were more gd that we were going 15 A
16 through the pile, he just me a folder to review at a 17 time.
I don't know how many there were in the stack there.
18 Some of these files were very thick and other ones weren't.
19 Q
What about the ones he didn't hand you?
What were 20 they?
i i
j 21 A
I don't know.
22 Q
Did you ask him?
.I 23 A
I don't recall asking him, no.
I assume they were 24 the same thing, more of the same.
25 Q
But in fact they may not have been, is that l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 WM (202) 293-3950
- - - --~
38 1
correct?
We don't know?
~~
l 2
A I couldn't say that.
3 Q
In one of these notes here, you state that the 4
results of ybur review of the adjudication process are 5
documented separately.
6 I know I asked you this earlier on the telephone 7
but I'm going to ask you again for the record.
8 A
Okay.
9 Q
Where is that documentation?
What does that mean 10 when it says that my review of the adjudication process --
11 the results of my review of the adjudication process are 12 documented separately, what does that mean?
)
13 Do you want me to find it?
1 l
14 A
Yes, I don't recall the context.
15 Q
This is relating to A. W. Woods and it says you i
16 selected 12 files which identified criminal history, l
17 education history or credit history or employment l
18 inconsistencies referred to adjudication.
The purpose of my 19 review was to determine if a consistency existed in both 20 referral for adjudication and the decisions resulting from 21 adjudication.
The results of my review are documented 1
22 separately.
23 A
I believe that was -- call it a field note that I i
24 had where I listed each individual -- I didn't list the 25 individual.
I think I used Social Security numbers and the ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 WM (202) 293-3950 i
l l
39 1
details as to what the situation was for each one of those.
2 Q
Where is that?
3 A
I would assume if it exists it would be in that 4
folder that Don has, the folder.
I don't have anything left 5
on it.
6 Q
Didn't you say something about transferring 7
information from one form to another and that you had --
8 A
Yeah, these interview notes here, I was taking my 9
notes on just regular tablet paper and then after I did the 10 interview I went back and transferred these notes from my 11 tablet paper onto these notes, onto this form, and then I 12 just shredded up the field notes once I got it transcribed 13 onto here and I was satisfied that I had what information I 14 needed on here.
15 Q
And what about the review of these 12 files?
I 16 didn't see anything like that and I got the impression from 17 you when I talked to you on the telephone that you thought 18 it was possible that that was also destroyed.
19 A
If it's not in the file, I would have shredded it 20 up because I gave Done everything that I had.
21 Q
You don't have anything in your personal files?
22 A
No, I have nothi g.
E ni all w)&
23 Q
Do you eed-l what you found out in your review of 24 those 12 files?
25 A
I recall some.
I don't recall each one but I ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 W)$h (202) 293-3950
40 1
recall some about some of these.
l l
2 Q
What were the circumstances involved in the 3
adjudication of those individuals?
Do you recall that?
4 A
I recall one in particular was for not disclosing 5
information about a previous criminal arrest and the 6
interview that was held with the individual, in reading his 7
notes and the interviewer's notes, it was obvious, to me 8
anyway, that it was a misunderstanding on the individual's 9
part and the details that he was told --
10 I think he originally as a teenager had stolen a 11 stop sign or something like that and he was brought in front 12 of a justice of the peace and I believe he indicated that 13 the justice of the peace indicated to him that if he did not 14 get into additional trouble this would not appear on his 15 record and he indicated that he had not been in any 16 additional trouble so he assumed that that was not on his 17 record and therefore didn't say -- he didn't report it.
18 When they questioned him on it, the interview 19 indicated that he admitted that, yes, he did it and this was 20 the reason he didn't report it, was because he was told that 21 if he didn't get into any additional trouble it wouldn't 22 appear on his record so he assumed it didn't appear on his 23 record.
I recall that one in particular.
24 The other ones, I just recall they were basically 25 for credit and I think one had worked at Wal-Mart and was ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 1dMk-(202) 293 3950 i
41 1
either asked to leave or asked to resign or something like 2
that.
Just bits and pieces like that that I recall.
j 3
Q In your report you state that a review of the 4
adjudication files indicated consistency in those items 4
)
5 identified for adjudication and also in the decisions of 6
granting or denying access following adjudication.
7 You also note in here that of those 12 8
adjudications, there was only one case where access was 9
denied or revoked and I think you said that that was the l
i 10 result of an individual with -- you say here a repetitive 11 criminal record and in parentheses you have six arrests.
4 l
12 I take that to mean that in the other eleven cases 1
13 that access was granted or continued.
Is that correct?
4
'14 A
I believe so.
i 15 Q
You say right here that --
4 16 MR. BAER:
If you want to look at tha* report, go 17 ahead.
r 18 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
19 Q
It's by that question mark I have there.
l 20 A
I think they were but I'm not sure that in one of 21 those that there was a person that subsequently quit on 22 their own so I don't know if they were eventually all given 23 access or not.
24 Q
You mean quit during the adjudication process?
25 A
I believe during it or shortly after it or while ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 I
Washington, D. C. 20006 Td M (202) 293-3950
42 1
they were in the process but I couldn't say for sure if that 2
was in that sample.
3 Q
What did you base your conclusion on where you 4
state that consistency appears to exist in the adjudication 5
of these files?
6 A
In looking at the files, excluding the one that I 7
explained there, the basis or the information, the details 8
of the various items that they adjudicated were very similar j
9 in that they were typically previous credit had been 10 questionable, late on payments and that type of thing.
I 11 put them all at -- the severity as I judged it was basically 12 the same thi 9
13
/ solated arrests for whatever reason and a clean l
14 record after that and the cases, the individuals, paralleled 15 very much and their adjudication is that they accepted them i
16 consistently and looked at these things for whatever reason 4
17 as not being grounds to deny access.
18 There was no intention or no deceit other than 19 this one case.
It was just things that showed up on the 1,9{Nb i
4 j
20 records as a result of them filling out the forms andiyes, 21 they had been arrested and they had been -- whether it be 22 fired or be asked to resign from previous jobs, and of 23 course the credit check comes through and that has the 24 details on it where you can review it and it tells if they 25 were late on obligations.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 WM (202) 293-3950
l 43 1
Q So are you saying that only one of these files 2
related to omission of information from the data form?
3 A
Just one of those 12.
4 Q
You have your one file of adjudicated for an i
5 inconsistency on the data form.
Is that the only one of j
6 those 12 that had anything to do with omission of 7
information from the data form or inconsistency?
8 A
Yes, that was --
9 MR. BAER:
Aside from cases where there was a 4
10 misunderstanding or something.
11 THE WITNESS:
Yes, that was the misunderstanding, 12 the one with the stop sign situation.
~
13 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
14 Q
I guess what I'm trying to clarify in my mind is 15 that the other eleven did not relate to omission of 16 information from the data for or you're calling it datu
- d M'
17 inconsistency on the data form.
Is that accurate?
18 A
That's accurate.
Most of it came from the police 19 rap sheets which are subsequent.
They normally get in the 20 criminal histo.ry after the papers are filled out and 21 everything.
4 22 Q
But was the information that they got on the rap 23 sheet also on the individual's employment application?
24 A
I believe to the degree the question says have you 25 ever been arrested, it's just a yes or no answer, and I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 40)(fL (202) 293-3950
44 l
1 believe there's a detail block over there which didn't 2
really tell a whole lot -- just if yes, the circumstances 3
and that type of thing.
4 Q
But was the information that subsequently turned 5
up on the FBI rap sheet on the individual's employment 6
forms, except for this one instance with the stop sign?
7 A
I don't recall the -- there was one individual had 8
a number of arrests and I don't recall how that was 9
answcred, how clear that was.
10 Q
That was the one here that you said that was 11 denied access for repetitive criminal -- six arrests is what 12 it says here.
13 A
I don't recall if he pointed out six arrests or 14 pointed out have you been arrested, yes.
I don't recall how 15 that was on the forms that he filled out.
16 Q
Now we've got two files here.
Now the remaining 17 ten, you have specifically mentioned the FBI rap sheet and I 18 want to be clear in my mind here.
19 Was the information that came back on the FBI rap 20 sheets -- did the screening affidavit and the data forms l
21 reflect that information or was that information omitted 22 from those individual's forms?
23 A
I believe to a limited degree that it was,yes, 24 there were arrests, it was on the forms.
25 Q
It was on the forms.
It may not have had ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1812 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 Yg (202) 293-3950 l
~
l 45 1
specifics but it was on the forms.
,~
l 2
A The answer to the yes or no question was yes for j
3 those.
It didn't give the details to the extent that the l
4-rap sheet did but I believe the question was were you ever l
5 7
arrested, yes or no, and that they were answered yes, as I i
6-recall.
i 7
Q You interviewed a number of people when you were 8
conducting this investigation.
Did you attend any meetings 9
or debriefings, so to speak, regarding Mr. Saporito, where l
10 his situation was discussed?
11 A
No.
The only meetings were one-on-one interviews.
j 12 Q
And I've already asked you if you have any i
l 13 additional notes and you said no.
)
14 A
I have nothing.
15 Q
You stated you wrote several revisions of your l
16 report.
Did anyone provide input into your report?
17 A
Not other than the format and then the last
{
18 paragraph on the last time around on the draft, Don i
19 commented that I didn't have any -- I think he used the i
20 words concluding or summarizing paragraph on the report, j
21 that we needed that, and he had already --
22 He had gotten it to review and I think the next 23 day when I talked with him he told me that and he had a
)
24 paragraph drafted up that summarized it.
l
]
25 Q
What paragraph is that?
i ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
~
j Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D. C. 20006 pM (202) 293-3950 i
J
46 i
I_
1 A
It starts with " based on the interview."
I had 2
ended the report with "the investigator determined" and gave 3
it to him and I believe overnight he reviewed it or the next 4
day and indicated that I needed to summarize or conclude the 5
overall investigation and he offered that.
6 Q
He wrote this paragraph, or at least he gave this 7
paragraph to you?
8 A
He had a handwritten draft.
9 Q
Do you know if he wrote it?
10 A
It was -- the writing on the paper was his 11 writing.
I don't know where he got the words.
The writing j
was in handwriting on my report, my typewritten report.
He 12 13 added a handwritten paragraph and it was in his handwriting.
14 I don't know where he got the information because 15 I think it was the next day when he discussed the report j
16 with me and he explained to me that I needed a paragraph and I
17 I have this and take a look at it and that type of thing.
18 I don't know where he got the information.
All I 19 know is it was his handwriting.
20 Q
So he has said here that the concernee's l
21 unescorted access authorization was not unjustly revoked as i
22 a result of concernee's involvement in protected activities.
23 The investigator further concludes that revocation of 24 unescorted access provides a valid basis for releasing the 25 concernee back to his sponsoring company.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
.gg)$[L.
(202) 293-3950 4
47 1
Now the next line underneath that says this 2
concern was not substantiated.
Was that in your report or 3
did he also add that?
4 A
I believe he added that.
I think that's a 5
standard thing with all the Speak Up concerns that either, 6
yes or no, that the concern was substantiated or was not 7
substantiated, and I think I may have had it up in the front 8
of the report and standard practice was to put it there and 4
9 I wasn't familiar with the format they were using.
10 Q
Did you feel comfortable with this wording?
11 A
Yes.
I definitely wouldn't have signed it if 1 12 hadn't.
13 Q
Did you agree with it?
14 A
Yes.
I think we talked about it.
We may have 15 reworded a couple of words that I didn't understand or feel 16 comfortable with.
I don't even remember.
I remember we 17 played around with it a little bit.
I definitely wculdn't 18 have signed had I not been comfortable with it.
19 Q
What about the paragraph on the first page which 20 is to me somewhat conclusionary?
21 It says this concern was not substantiated because 22 no evidence was obtained to indicate that the revocation of 23 unescorted access was a result of engaging in activities 24 protected by Section 210(a).
25 Did you write that?
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 pg (202) 293-3950
48 1
A Yes.
That's why I didn't have the paragraph at 2
the end.
I thought that was conclusive enough when I wrote 3
the report.
4 Q
What did you base that conclusion on?
5 A
The interviews that I had had and the questions I 6
had asked, that in all of this I found nothing that 7
indicated that this was a result of his 206.
I found 8
nothing to say anything to the contrary.
9 Q
What did you conclude that it was a result of --
10 the action?
11 A
That it was a result of the last adjudication 12 interview that it appeared to me that he had been offered an 13 opportunity to provide supplementing information, as other 14 people had, and for whatever reason chose not to.
15 Based on that, the access program director made a 16 judgment of questioning his trustworthiness based on that 17 failure to provide that information.
1 18 Q
Did you conclude that that action in revoking Mr.
19 Saporito's access was consistent with action taken in similar cases in the past?
20 21 A
There was no other -- I didn't have any other, as 22 I say, deliberate or whatever reasons for withholding 4
23 information to compare that with.
24 In all the other cases, the individuals were 25 afforded the opportunity to give information and they gave 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Reponers 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 gg (202) 293-3950
49 4
1 it and it was evaluated es such.
2 Q
When you say they gave it -- I tried to clarify 2
3 that earlier -- they gave it on their data form or their 4
screening --
4 l
5 A
During the adjudication interviews, the example 6
being the individual with the stop sign.
He was asked why 7
did you not do this or is there any other information and'he 8
willingly told them, he gave it to them.
He told them, yes, 9
this is why I didn't give it.
There was no attempt, at 10 least I saw nothing, that he was withholding or decided not l
11 to give it.
1 12 Q
Were there any other examples of omission of 13 information from the data form or the screening affidavit?
'14 A
Yes.
There was one other individual who -- in the j
15 group that I got from Bob Smith -- that had, as I recall, an i
16 arrest and this individual --
l 17 I believe it was an arrest for breaking into a 18 store or something and stealing something minor, I think it 19 was a carton of cigarettes or a pack of beer or something 20 like that.
He had done it many years ago, as I recall, and 21 in the interview he indicated in his notes, which I pointed 22 out in there, that he had something to the effect that he 23 didn't identify it because had he identified it he may not 24 be considered for employment.
This was many years ago in 25 Oklahoma or Nebraska or something like that.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006
- M (202) 293-3950
50 1
Q I don't see anything in here.
Do you perhaps mean 2
your interview notes of Mr. Smith?
3 Unescorted access was restored for one individual 4
who admitted" withholding information because he felt it 5
would affect his employment opportunity.
Is that the one 6
you're talking about?
7 A
Yes, that's the one.
8 Q
And do you recall what type of information he 9
withheld?
10 A
That was the arrest for breaking into a store.
I 11 believe it was -- It may have not been an arrest.
It may 12 have been a probation or something, but it was a result of 13 breaking into a ntore and taking something and it was either 14 arrest or probation, something relating to a criminal 15 record.
16 Q
These relate back to '88 and
'89, is that correct?
i 17 A
Yes.
These are the ones that I got from Bob
{
18 Smith.
l 19 Q
The way I read your interview notes here, it seems 20 to me that these six all relate -- they all appear to relate 21 to omissions of information or questionable information on 22 the employment application, all six of those, is that 23 correct?
24 A
I believe so.
25 Q
That's what led me to question originally how we ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 g4 (202) 293-3950
l l
51 1
got those six that Mr. Smith just left and two minutes later l
2
'came back with six files.
1 1
3 A
Ibelievethesereferregtothemfromtheoriginal w a.ro i
4 investigations, that there w inconsistencies or omitted 5
information.
'i 6
Q So what you received in terms of adjudication 1
7 files, you picked up 12 files from the record over at j
8 central processing that Mr. Woods had.
)
9 A
Yes, initially.
10 Q
Based on the reason for adjudication written out 1
11 to the side or somewhere that you've got bad credit or 12 employment or criminal history, is that right?
l 13 A
Right.
'14 Q
Then you got six more files from Mr. Smith.
I'm 15 still unclear as to what you asked for, how you got these 16 six, how Mr. Smith left and in two minutes came back with 1
17 six files that all related to omissions of information.
I 18 still don't understand that.
Maybe Mr. Smith would recall 19 that.
I 20 They all seem to relate to omissions of
)
21 information back in the '88 and '89 time period.
They were 2-apparently HL&P employees and all but two either were i
2 23 released or their access was denied or they, in this one 24 instance, offer of employment was withdrawn.
i 25 A
You said they were all HL&P employees.
I'm not l
h.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 gM 1
(202) 293-3950 4
52 1
sure if some were not contract employees that may have been 2
in there.
l 3
Q The reason I said that was because your note here 4
says that you asked about any previous instances of a 5
deliberate omission of information which did not result in 6
revocation of unescorted access and his response was 7
possibly on employment applications and that was the way I 8
understood they phrased HL&P.
n>A9" 9
A Yeah, I think N e were temporary employees.
10 That's what I'm thinking.
There may have been some 11 temporary -- I think that in talking with records management 12 there may have been some temporary employees.
They were 13 HL&P employees but temporary' employees may have been in 14 there.
15 Q
And based on a review of those files and then your i
16 interviews with these individuals, that led you to your i
17 conclusion that there was not any -- there was no 1
l 18 inconsistency in the adjudication process or the decisions 19 following the adjudication, and your conclusion that Mr.
20 Saporito's cccess was not revoked as a result of his 21 participation in so-called protected activity.
22 Is that accurate?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
You are comfortable with your conclusions?
25 A
Yes, I am.
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coud Repoders 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 WM (202) 293 3950 4
)
p 53
.p en 1
Q You wrote that conclusion ^page one.
2 A
Yes, I did.
3 Q
And you said that you did not write this final 4
paragraph on page eleven but you agreed with it.
5 A
Yes, I did.
6 Q
Did anyone else make any changes in your report?
7 A
Not to my knowledge.
I was interfacing with Don 8
all this time.
I gave it to him and got it back from him.
9 Q
Did you read it -- Did you know what-- Is it your 10 report?
11 A
Yes.
12 MR. BAER:
Wait, just to be clear.
13 When you say that Mr. Bohner made changes, did he 14 do those on the computer or did he give you a handwritten -
15 THE WITNESS:
They were handwritten.
He would 16 just mark a word up here or there or that type of thing.
17 They were handwritten, yes.
18 BY MS. VAN CLEAVE:
l 19 Q
Did any of his changes change the -- I don't know 20 how to phrase this -- the intent of the report or the 21 accuracy of the report?
22 Do you know what I mean?
I mean you could make 23 changes to a report where you just cross out " stated" and 24 put in "said" or something like that, 25 A
That's basically what they were, yes.
j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Coun Reponem 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 gg (202) 293-3950
54 1
Q That doesn't change the meaning of the report.
2 A
Other than adding that last paragraph, it was the 3
type that you were talking -- instead of " stated" use 4
"said."
Those kinds of word changes and typos, misspellings 5
and that type of stuff.
There was nothing of any material 6
meaning, intent change or anything like that.
7 Q
Did anyone suggest to you omitting any information
{
8 from your report?
9 A
Not that I recall.
I don't recall anything like 10 that, no.
11 Q
How about adding information to your report, other 12 than this one paragraph we've already discussed?
13 A
There may have been some spots in there where Don 14 just put a question mark out there -- what did I mean by that--andaf,gerIexplainedittohim,hemayhavesaid, 15 well,nYwHIdon'tyouwriteitlikethatorwhydon'tyouadd
}
16 l
17 that in or that type of thing, clarity, additional j
18 clarification type things.
19 There may have been some of that or word choices 20 that I would say this word and, you know, go ahead and do it 21 that way, that type of thing.
22 There was nothing that I recall like add a 23 paragraph here or delete a paragraph there.
24 Q
Do have any copies of your earlier drafts?
25 A
No.
The only thing that would exist would in that ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 o
(202) 293-3950 3
53 1
file that Don has.
I don't know if there are copies in 2
there or not.
3 I don't know if they have these on the word 4
processor.
That would be the only o.ther possibility.
e.go vr,4 dk-5 Q
What did you put youreon?
6 A
I handwrote it and then gave it to Chris and she 7
typed it up.
8 Q
Is Chris your secretary?
9 A
She does all the typing and word processing.
10 Q
other than Mr. Bohner, did you discuss this report 11 with anyone else?
~
12 A
No.
13 Q
With Mr. Cink?
14 A
No, other than just, as I said, in the beginning 15 when I drafted out and handwritten, are the sections the 16 right way and do I have --
17 There was a question about -- I had kind of 18 flipflopped.
I had put more details in one section and the 19 brief part in another section and he just said normally they i
20 do it the exact opposite so I just swapped them around and 4
21 went about my business.
22 I think there was one other -- I used the format 23 in the procedure, I think it was, and they were different a 24 little bit on their format.
That's all he did, just we've 25 been doing them this way and I said, fine, I'll do it that 1
ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006 g
(202) 293-3950 i
i 56 1
way but there was nothing in the content of the report that 2
was discussed with Rick.
l 3
Q Have you received any instructions from anyone, 4
either HL&P employees or legal counsel, on how to respond to i
5 any questions regarding your report?
6 A
Yes, in regards to this interview I received from 7
legal counsel -- he basically told me to above all be honest 8
.and truthful about it and if I didn't understand or if I 9
didn't know then to say that I don't recall or don't know 10 and not to assume anything or recall from a gray memory.
11 That was from Mr. Baer.
He's the only one that's 12 talked to me about this.
13 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Mr. Isereau, have I threatened 14 you in any manner or offered you any rewards in return for 15 your statement?
16 THE WITNESS:
No, you have not.
17 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Is there anything further you 18 would like to add for the record?
l i
l 19 THE WITNESS:
No, nothing I can recall.
{
i l
20 MS. VAN CLEAVE:
Thank you very much, i
21 This interview is concluded.
The time is 22 approximately 6:25 p.m.
23 (Whereupon the matter concluded at 6:25 p.m.)
24 r A s,,.,o a m o p g +,k m 3'6*'d ~ 1
' 4ia k a+y
.mt;f ~.Je _J ;, Al,. A n < c ' * " ri 'a r '"A '" d
~
R e-25
~
behm oI 'L'k P ' T 1 ' T h i* h w o r ' d /* t l, c b E f o g e W c4 o f w,q k ro u l eJ<30 u d b. li'A -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, Ltd. MM. kg"""
Court Reporters 9 ~ / 7 ' ' A-1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 1
Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- g
REFORTER'S CERTIFICATE I
I This is to certify that the attached proceed-ings before the United states Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
A NAME OF FROCEEDING:
William Isereau DOCKET NUMBER:
FLACE OF PROCEEDING: Bay City, TX were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
/ m, /t h t r w
\\
Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
l 1
i I
Ob
REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH l
BETTY J. BROWN BROWN was interviewed on July 28, 1992, by Nuclear Regulatory Comnission i
Investigator Virginia Van Cleave at the Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P),
SouthTexasProject(STP). Also present during this interview was William E.
BAER, Attorney with Newman and Holtzinger, representing HL&P and BROWN. BROWN i
stated that she is HL&P's Manager of Personnel Relations, Human Resources i
Department, at STP.
She stated she has held this position since 1988 and has been employed by HL&P since January 1985. Her imediate supervisor is John ODOM. She stated that as part of her duties, she coordinates Department of Labor (DOL) Section 210 complaints which are sent to her. Upon receipt of a Section 210 complaint, she notifies the appropriate departments such as Speakout. Legal, Licensing, and Quality Assurance.
l BROWN stated that on March 2, 1992, Richard DeLONG, at that time a supervisor in the Maintenance Department, telephoned her and stated that he had been contacted by Troy CONNER, an investigator for the Nuclear Support Services.
3 l
Hershey, Pennsylvania. CONN 6R asked for infomation regarding a f,ormer l
Instrumentation and Control Technician, Thomas J. SAPORITO. According to BROWN, DeLONG told her that he [DeLONG] had already given CONNER some information regarding SAPORITO's employment as a contractor at STP. BROWN l
stated she told DeLONG that he needed to obtain a release from SAPORITO in i
order to be covered regarding the infomation he had provided to CONNER.
l BROWN said DeLONG stated that SAPORITO was a Section 210 complainant, but she told him he was mistaken because she did not have a Section 210 from SAPORITO.
BROWN stated that later that same day William JUMP, Licensing Manager, j
telephoned her and told her that SAPORITO was going to file a Section 210 j
complaint and that he [ JUMP] had initiated action with Speakout and had also contacted legal counsel. BROWN stated that JUMP did not give her any specific l
instructions in handling the SAPORITO matter.
She did not believe he j
mentioned that SAPORITO had filed a 2.206 petition because she stated that at that time she would not have known what that meant.
)
BROWN stated that she subsequently received a release from NSS signed by SAPORITO. She stated that was the only facsimile she received from NSS.
She 4
reviewed two additional facsimiles in the reporting investigator's possession, one directed to Andrew WOODS and one to Georgia, and stated she had not seen either of those before. She stated that Georgia might be the secretary in the Fitness for Duty Program, and the facsimile might have been sent to them.
She 1
stated she did not know anything about either facsimile or if any responses were made to them.
l BROWN stated that CONNER telephoned her on at least two occasions and asked for information regarding SAPORITO's temination from STP.
BROWN stated that the standard response regarding contractor employees, such as SAPORIT0, was to i
tell requesters to contact the contracting company, in this case, Sun Technical Services.
BROWN stated that she told CONNER she would not release i
any information on SAPORITO, even though he had signed a release. She stated 1
she did not recall telling CONNER to contact Sun Technical for additional i
infomation.
I l
Case No. 4-92-003 1
Exhib t h
Page og
t j
BROWN stated that on March 3, 1992, she telephoned Andrew WOODS, Senior Coordinator, Access Screening, and told him not to release any information on SAPORITO without first talking to her or to his management. She stated that she had no subsequent conversations with WOODS regarding SAPORIT0, and he did not provide her with a copy of the facsimile he received from CONNER, nor did he tell her that he had received it. She stated she had no conversation with Richard BALCOM, Director of the Nuclear Security Department (NSD), or anyone i
else from the NSD regarding the request for infonnation on SAPORITO.
BROWN stated that she had not been contacted by any other employers or potential employers of SAPORITO regarding infonnation concerning him.
In addition, she stated she had not contacted any other nuclear sites regarding any other D0L 4
l Section 210 complaints filed by SAPORITO. However, subsequent to her conversations with JUMP and WOODS, she became aware that he [SAPORIT0] had filed additional DOL complaints at other nuclear sites. She stated she is currently the coordinator for dealing with the D0L and responding to the Section 210 complaint filed by SAPORITO against HL&P.
l This report prepared on August 3, 1992, from investigator's notes.
AM j
^
Ab Virginia Van Cleave, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, RIV J
i s
1 i
i 4
Case No. 4-92-003 2
h M
4
REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH JOSEPH D. SHARPE SHARPE was interviewed on July 29, 1992, by Nuclear Regulatory Conunission (NRC) Investigator Virginia Van Cleave at Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P).
South Texas Project (STP). Also present during this interview was William E.
BAER, Attorney with Newman and Holtzinger, representing HL&P and SHARPE.
SHARPE stated that he began working for HL&P at STP on his retirement from the U.S. Navy in June 1990.
He has been the maintenance manager since January 1991.
SHARPE stated that Donald HALL, STP's Group Vice President-Nuclear, called him into a meeting in HALL's office sometime in the afternoon, in the middle of February 1992 He stated he could not recall the exact date. According to SHARPE, HALL stated that Instrumentation and Control Technician, Thomas J.
SAPORIT0, had filed a 2.206 petition against HL&P. SHARPE stated that he got the impression HALL had just received the 2.206.
SHARPE said when he heard SAPORITO's name, he remembered he had signed SAPORITO's unescorted access authorization form 1 or 2 days earlier.
In addition to SHARPE and HALL.
William JUMP, STP Licensing Manager, and John ODOM, STP Human Resources Manager, were also present in HALL's office.
SHARPE said other individuals were in and out of HALL's office during these discussions. According to SHARPE, HALL stated he wanted him, as the maintenance manager, to ensure that SAPORITO was " protected from disciplinary actions." SHARPE stated he took this to mean that there would be no disciplinary action taken against SAPORITO without previous approval by Warren KINSEY, STP Vice President-Nuclear Generation, unless such action was necessary to ensure the public safety.
SHARPE recalled that HALL stated that SAPORITO had "done this kind of thing before" at other nuclear sites.
SHARPE said he could not recall if HALL mentioned specific actions taken by SAPORITO.
He stated he believed HALL mentioned more than one nuclear plant but could not recall names or locations.
SHARPE said HALL assigned JUMP the task of investigating all of SAPORITO's 2.206 issues. SHARPE stated he did not recall HALL mentioning where he had received the information on SAPORITO's past nor did he recall HALL mentioning contact with legal counsel.
SHARPE did not recall anyone else in HALL's office talking specifically about SAPORITO.
Insnediately following this meeting in HALL's office SHARPE stated he was called into a meeting with KINSEY.
KINSEY explained what a 2.206 was in general terms to SHARPE and one or two others whom SHARPE stated he could not recall. According to SHARPE, KINSEY told him he wanted to ensure that SHARPE understood what was required of the maintenance department and that SAPORITO would be " protected." SHARPE stated that he had never seen SAPORIT0's nuclear file and did not recall seeing such a file in either HALL or KINSEY's office.
SHARPE stated he asked KINSEY if Daniel SANCHEZ and Richard LeLONG, Maintenance Department Supervisors, could be notified about the SAP 0RITO matter, and KINSEY told him yes.
SHARPE. stated that later that day, he called SANCHEZ and DeLONG into his office and told them that SAPORITO had filed a 2.206 petition. He explained to them that this document included allegations that would be investigated by Case No. 4-92-003 1
Exhibit /33 Page / Q
HL&P and perhaps the NRC.
SHARPE said he told them that SAPORITO would continue working at STP and was not to be disciplined in any way without notifying him.
He said that if he was not present on the site, SANCHEZ was to notify KINSEY prior to taking any action against SAPORITO. SHARPE stated that DeLONG seemed to be somewhat familiar with SAPORIT0, but did not say anything specifically about him. SHARPE said he told DeLONG and SANCHEZ that SAPORITO had been involved in similar activities at other plants. He stated he did not recall if he specified those plants, but he probably did so, since he would have seen no reason not to provide that information to them. Additionally, he told them to treat SAPORIT0's name in a confidential manner and to ensure that he [SAPORIT0] was protected from disciplinary action.
SHARPE stated that he was away from STP in February 1992, when SAPORITO's unescorted access was revoked.
He stated he could not recall when this was or whether he was away from STP for personal or business reasons. However, when he returned, he recalled that SANCHEZ told him that SAPORITO's access had been revoked.
He stated he could not recall if he asked for and/or received the reason for the revocation.
SHARPE stated he does not maintain a calendar nor does he ever take notes of any nieetings. SHARPE stated that he heard nothing further regarding SAPORITO except he was asked to review HL&P's draft response to sections of the 2.206 that applied to the maintenance department and the final HL&P response to the NRC.
i i
This report prepared on August 3, 1992, from investigator's notes.
I
- 4d4 Ad>
Virgtafa Van Cleave, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, RIV i
Case No. 4-92-003 2
hib
i l
REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH TERRY J. MILLSAP MILLSAP was interviewsd on July 29, 1992, by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Investigator Virginia Van Cleave at Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P).
South Texas Project (STP). Also present during the interview was William E.
BAER, Attorney with Newman and Holtzinger, representing HL&P and MILLSAP.
MILLSAP stated that she has been employed by HL&P as a senior quality assurance specialist since December 1988.
Prior to that time, she worked as a contract investigator for the Speakout program beginning in March 1986.
4 MILLSAP stated that her supervisor Thomas J. JORDAN,(told her he wanted someone from outside the Nuclear Security Department NSD) to perform an assessment of the access authorization program.
JORDAN selected MILLSAP and Robert CARTER, Access Program Supervisor with Gulf States Utilities Company, to perform this assessment. According to MILLSAP, on June 1, 1992, JORDAN presented her with the management objectives for this project and requested that she develop an assessment plan, which she subsequently provided to him on i
June 15, 1992. The assessment of the program was perfonned from June 15 - 19, 1992. MILLSAP stated that JORDAN told her he wanted this assessment due to l
HL&P's receipt of a 2.206 petition. She stated he did not mention the 2.206 petitioner by name. MILLSAP said the first she had heard of Thomas J.
SAPORITO was during the performance of the assessment when Watt HINSON mentioned the name [SAPORIT0] to CARTER. MILLSAP stated she did not recall what HINSON told CARTER about SAPORIT0.
She said she also could not recall if JORDAN mentioned an NRC investigation involving the access authorization program.
MILLSAP stated that she reviewed the Investigation's Tracking System open items log and decided to categorize the NSD adjudications by the following categories:
fitness-for-duty; subsequent arrests requiring 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> notification; credit history; repetitive criminal issues; failure to disclose; random; and revoked / denied. MILLSAP stated that neither JORDAN nor anyone else specifically told her to look at the failure to disclose issues. The review encompassed the beginning of 1989 until mid-June 1992.
She stated that she and CARTER reviewed approximately 200 files that were adjudicated under l
the old criteria and approximately 25 that were investigated using the new
]
criteria instituted in May 1992. MILLSAP stated that she reviewed subsequent arrests, fitness-for-duty, and repetitive criminal issues and assigned CARTER to review the failure to disclose issue.
She stated that her review indicated that no one had ever been denied or revoked access to STP solely as a result of credit history issues. She stated that she also determined that access was denied only in two cases solely as a result of failure to report a subsequent arrest within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, and each of these two cases involved a second offense.
MILLSAP also determined that access was granted even though there was a record of substance abuse if the fitness-for-duty failure was initially disclosed; i
more than 3 years had elapsed since the failure; and the employee provided objective evidence of substance abuse rehabilitation.
MILLSAP stated that CARTER reviewed all the failure to disclose issues, and MILLSAP requested that he matrix his results into categories and subcategories. However, he never provided her with this information.
~
Case No. 4-92-003 1
)
Consequently, she reviewed his " failure to disclose" notes and categorized the results. This review resulted in two categories: one for criminal issues, and one for other reasons such as education, employment, etc. MILLSAP explained that she did not count cases in her total of revocations or denials if she could not detemine the reason for the decision. She stated that of the 200 files reviewed, 57 were adjudicated for failure to disclose information. According to MILLSAP, STP usually granted or continued access to individuals who failed to disclose criminal history, but revoked or denied i
access to individuals who failed to disclose information other than criminal
- issues, She stated that she detemined that nine individuals failed to disclose information other than criminal history and eight of these were denied access to STP. MILLSAP said it appeared that a judgement call was made to determine if the failure to disclose information was a willful omission, and frequently, the basis for granting or denying access was not documented in the files. MILLSAP stated that there appeared to be some inconsistencies in granting or revoking / denying access as a result of failure to disclose issues prior to the revision of the access denial criteria in May 1992.
She stated that the review of 25 files, processed after this revision, indicated the criteria were consistently applied and decisions were free from bias and discrimination.
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE:
The investigator and MILLSAP reviewed all of MILLSAP's handwritten notes and analyses of the data. She provided the investigator with a copy of her notes and explained each subheading.
This report prepared on August 3, 1992, from investigator's notes.
-el d-Virgifrfa van cleave, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, RIV i
(
Case No. 4-92-003 2
Exhibit
[
i Page 9 oi f
REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH j
ANDREW W. WOODS i
j WOODS was interviewed on July 29, 1992, by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) i Investigator Virginia Van Cleave by telephone from Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P), Houston, Texas. Also present during this interview was William E.
BAER, Attorney with Newman and Holtzinger, representing HL&P and WOODS.
WOODS stated that he has been employed at the South Texas Project (STP) since February 13, 1976. On March 7. 1983, he began working for HL&P in their Nuclear Security Department (NSD). Since the end of 1988, he has been
]
a senior coordinator in access screening in the NSD.
WOODS explained that two employment application type foms were completed by contractor employees. These were the data form, which was completed prior to j
arrival on site and given by the contractors to their supervisor upon arrival at STP; and the screening affidavit, which was provided to the contractors 3
j when they reported to the central processing facility at STP. WOODS stated that contractors did not receive the screening affidavit prior to reporting for duty at STP. According to WOODS, the contractor completed the screening 3
i affidavit and either WOODS or the administrative clerk, Ophelia LARA, reviewed j
the screening affidavit fom with the individual. WOODS stated that he explained to the employees that they must identify any potentially derogatory infomation and any omissions or false information could lead to denial or revocation of site access. WOODS stated that he reviewed anything i
questionable on the form with the employee and provided them an opportunity to ask questions regarding their background investigation. WOODS said the screening affidavit was then forwarded to the backgrounds section, which is located at STP, and if any potentially derogatory information was revealed during the review of the screening affidavit form, he forwarded the form to j
the NSD for their review and possible adjudication of the employee.
WOODS recalled that he did not review the screening affidavit form with Thomas J. SAPORIT0, adding that duty was handled by LARA; but he signed the fom verifying everything on it. WOODS stated that following LARA's review with SAPORIT0, he [ WOODS. reviewed SAPORITO's nuclear file and requested that NSD adjudicate it for credit, employment, and criminal history. He stated that they did so, and access was granted to SAPORITO. WOODS stated that he l
had nothing to do with SAPORITO's second adjudication and had no knowledge about SAPORITO's access revocation.
He stated that when an access was revoked l
for cause, he usually received the badge transaction request fom and asked for an adjudication to see if the individual should be placed on STP's access l
denial list. WOODS said he did not believe such an adjudication was performed i
in SAPORITO's case because he did not recall receiving SAPORITO's badge transaction form.
WOODS stated that he was contacted in March 1992, by Troy CONNER, an investigator for the Nuclear Support Services, Hershey, Pennsylvania, who requested information about SAPORITO. WOODS stated that any releases for criminal history requests from other utilities were sent to him for his completion. WOODS recalled that Betty BROWN, STP Manager of Personnel R21ations, telephoned him and told him not to release any information on SAPORITO because there was an ongoing access investigation on him. According Case No. 4-92-003 1
Exhibit Pagelo 1
to WOODS, she told him to notify his management if he got any requests for information about SAPORITO. WOODS stated that when BROWN telephoned him, he had already spoken with CONNER, but had not received SAPORITO's release from him. WOODS stated that he told BROWN about his conversation with CONNER, and she reiterated that he should not release any infonnation without his management's approval; WOODS stated at that time, Richard BALCOM and Rex MOORE were his supervisors. WOODS stated that he notified both of these individuals of CONNER's request.
WOODS said he believed he provided MOORE with a copy of the facsimile he had received from CONNER. WOODS stated he did not respond to this facsimile and did not know if BALCOM or MOORE had responded. According to WOODS, MOORE and BALCOM instructed him to notify them imediately if he received any other requests from anyone for information on SAPORITO. WOODS stated that he never received any further requests from anyone regarding SAPORITO. He stated that he had no subsequent discussions with BALCOM or MOORE regarding SAPORITO.
WOODS explained that HL&F's usual procedure was to complete a security letter on a former employee providing personnel information, criminal history, and dates of employment. He said HL&P provided this information solely to other utilities and usually did not release any information regarding fonner employees to any company other than a utility.
However, WOODS explained that this was the access program coordinator's decision.
i WOODS stated that in late April or early May 1992, he attended a briefing by BAER, who told him that there was an ongoing investigation regarding SAPORITO and to cooperate with the NRC if he was asked questions regarding this matter.
WOODS stated that he had attended no other meetings or briefings during which SAPORITO was discussed.
This report prepared on August 3, 1992, from investigator's notes.
i Ah f, Ms
{
Virg6cla van cleave, Investigator i
Office of Investigations Field Office, RIV i
l d
i i
i l
i i
Case No. 4-92-003 2
-