ML20087L330

Affidavit of RW Cink Re Speakout Program

ML20087L330
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/02/1992
From:	Cink R HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20087L307	List: ML20087L330 ML20087L349 ML20087L356 ML20087L365
References
FOIA-95-80 NUDOCS 9508250154
Download: ML20087L330 (25)

Text

a ,,

1; AFFIDAVIT OF R. W. CINK I Ricky W. Cink, being duly sworn, say as follows:

1. I am currently employed by Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) as a Senior Investigator in the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STPEGS) l SPEAKOUT program.

• e

2. The HL&P SPEAKOUT program is a confidential employee safety concern program. Its purpose is to identify and )

investigate employee nuclear safety concerns while protecting the confidentiality of the identity of the employees raising the concerns. ,

3. On the morning of February 20, 1992 Mr. William J. Jump,  ;

Manager-Nuclear Licensing, requested me to interview '

Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. concerning alleged safety concerns at STPEGS which Mr. Saporito had raised with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Mr. Don Bohner, to whom I report, was present at this tims. j

4. On the morning of February 20, 1992 I arranged an interview meeting with Mr. Saporito, scheduled for -

12:30 p.m. that afternoon. At approximately 12:30 p.m. '

I received a phone call from Mr. Saporito. He stated that he did not wish to attend this meeting with me unless the NRC also participated, and that he was waiting for the NRC to decide whether to participate. I informed i him that I would be pleased to have the NRC participate, but that if they decided not to I still needed to speak with him regarding his safety concerns.

5. At approximately 12:50 p.m. Mr. Saporito arrived at my office and informed me that he would not discuss his i j safety concerns with me, that he had filed a 10 CFR 2.206 petition with the NRC, and that he could not discuss i specifics involved in the petition because he did not want to interfere with an official NRC investigation. i He also requested a meeting with Mr. D.P. Hall, Executive Vice President-Nuclear. I explained HL&P's SPEAKOUT program to Mr. Saporito and stated that, with his t permission, I would report the contents of our l j conversation, including his request to meet with Mr. Hall, to my management. At no time during this i meeting did Mr. Saporito state that he had informed the NRC of a Technical Specification violation at STPEGS concerning work performed in the boric acid system. My i

notes of this meeting are attached as~ Exhibit A to this Affidavit.

t

6. I next saw Mr. Saporito at approximately 4:15 p.m. on i February 20, 1992 in the elevator lobby of the Nuclear l Support Center building. I was leaving to go home from

- work at the time. Mr. Saporito asked me to attend a -

' meeting between him and Mr. Watt Hinson, Adminis p tor-Investication/ connlianca. which I did. I*'""T J8_

4 ' 9 2 ~ 0

9508250154 950425 PDR FOIA SAPORIT095-80 PDR

/ 9b '

~. - .

9

7. I was not aware that a meeting between Mr. Saporito and i Mr. Hinson had been scheduled, nor was I aware of any question concerning Mr. Saporito's access authorization to STPEGS. I had not had any discussions with Mr. Hinson concerning Mr. Saporito.

8. Upon Mr. Saporito's request and with the agreement of Mr.

Hinson, I witnessed the interview meeting between .

- Mr. Hinson and Mr. Saporito. I did not participate in l the interview. My notes of this interview are appended as Exhibits B1 and B2 to this Affidavit. Mr. Saporito l requested that the interview not be videotaped, and Mr.  !

I Hinson complied with this request (Mr. Hinson also at this time asked me to witness the interview, and I agreed to do so).

9. At the beginning of the interview, Mr. Hinson asked Mr.

Saporito to sign an interview consent form. Mr. Saporito voluntarily signed the form without any pressure or duress from myself or Mr. Hinson. Mr. Hinson then explained that the interview was part of an investigation

, related to Mr. Saporito's request for unescorted access to STPEGS and that the interview would consist of questions concerning the information Mr. Saporito had supplied on his access authorization data form and screening affidavit.

10. At no time prior to, during, or subsequent to this meeting did I inform Mr. Hinson that Mr. Saporito had raised safety concerns or filed a 2.206 petition with the NRC. I do not recall any instance in which Mr. Saporito informed Mr. Hinson that he had raised safety concerns regarding STPEGS with the NRC.

11. During the interview, Mr. Hinson provided Mr. Saporito with his access authorization data form and screening affidavit and asked Mr. Saporito to verify them and determine whether they were the same forms he had submitted for unescorted access. After reviewing both documents, Mr. Saporito confirmed that the documents were those which he submitted previously, and identified some areas where the information he provided might be inaccurate or incomplete. Mr. Hinson then asked Mr.

Saporito if those items were the only ones that were inaccurate or incomplete. Mr. Saporito stated that those were the only areas that were not answered completely.

12. Mr. Hinson then asked Mr. Saporito to go through the form with him " block-by-block". After being further questioned by Mr. Hinson on each specific area of the two documents, Mr. Saporito acknowledged that:

a. He had been employed by ATI Career Trainin

"- ~

c'nter (ATI) and was terminated.

,,,' _..- ___. M 4 003

l l' ', i

b. He had been a complainant in a Department of Labor  !

proceeding against Florida Power & Light 4

i (DOL)

- Company (FPL) and ATI and had been involved in other i legal disputes. l l c. He had been employed previously as a full-time  !

engineer at the Double Tree hotel in Miami, Florida

' from January - April 1990 and had been terminated '

"because he offered an opinion regarding the location of a pool shower."

d. He had been employed previously as a full-time i engineer at the Jupiter Hilton Hotel for three i months in 1991 and was also terminated from that position.

i

e. He noted various other respects in which the information he provided was inaccurate or incomplete.

He did not mentioned these items until questioned on the l form " block-by-block" by Mr. Hinson.

L

' 13. At the conclusion of the interview, Mr. Hinson informed Mr. Saporito that the information he provided would be f given to the Access Program Director, who would make a

- decision regarding the continuation of his unescorted access. Mr. Saporito was told to report to work according to his normal schedule and that his management

would inform him of any further actions.

14. At no time during the interview did Mr. Saporito indicate that he was hungry, thirsty or in need of a break.

15. Following the interview with Mr. Saporito, I attended a

' discussion at which Mr. Hinson, Mr. Richard Balcon, the i STPEGS Security Manager, and Mr. Jump were present, j Mr. Hinson reported the results of his interview with Mr. Saporito to Mr. Balcom and Mr. Jump. The bearing of the facts obtained during the interview upon 1

Mr. Saporito's access authorization was discussed between Mr. Hinson and Mr. Balcom. Mr. Balcom then stated that he had decided to withdraw Mr. Saporito's access  ;

authorization. During this meeting, I do not recall any

" discussion to the effect that Mr. Saporito had filed a 1 10 CFR 2.206 petition or had otherwise raised safety concerns to the NRC or HL&P. Neither Mr. Jump nor I counselled Mr Balcom as to whether Mr. Saporito's 2

unescorted access to STPEGS should be continued or 1 withdrawn.

l- 16. On February 21, 1992 at approximately 8:55 a.m. I

~

attended an exit interview of Mr. Saporito conducted by  ;

Daniel P. Sanchez, Jr., Director of Maintenance at STPEGS, and Mr. D. W. Bohner, Manager-SPEAKgy,T.pphm. l Exit interviews are a normal practice at STPEO., ud l

4 -9 2 - 0 0 3 provide exiting employees an opportuni,ty, tg raish.._ ..

_ny g)

safety concerns the employee may have concerning STPEGS.

Mr. Saporito refused to' describe specific safety concerns unless several additional individuals were called to attend, including the HL&P Vice President-Nuclear, the STPEGS QA Manager, and several others. Mr. Bohner J

informed Mr. Saporito that this was not standard practica, that the individuals already present were there to record and investigate his concerns, and that this d mand would not be mat. Mr. Sanchez informed Mr.

Saporito that his unescorted access had been revoked by the STPEGS Security Department and that followi'1g standard practice, he was released from STPEGS to his representing company, Sun Technical Services. Mr.

- Sanchez further notified Mr. Saporito of his right to i appeal this decision and informed Mr. Saporito that the exiting process included Mr. Saporito receiving a Whole Body Count at STPEGS's Central Processing Facility. In response to a query by Mr. Saporito, Mr. Sanchez informed 4 him that he did not know why Mr. Saporito's site access had been revoked. In response to a request for a written explanation of the reasons for the revocat!on of his. site access, Mr. Sanchez informed Mr. Saporito that he should ask the STPEGS Security department for that information.

My notes of this interview are attached as Exhibit C to this Affidavit.

17. The February 21, 1992- interview concluded at approximately 11:00 a.m. I then followed Mr. Saporito i to his car. I asked Mr. Saporito to accompany me to my I

office so that we could arrange for him to go through out processing, including receiving a whole body count.

Mr. Saporito agreed to do so, and came to my office. At about 11:15 a.m. , I called D. Bohner to arrange an escort to take Mr. Saporito through outprocessing, and Mr. Bohner agreed to arrange it. After about 15 minutes, I called Mr. Bohner again to ask where the escort was, and Mr. Behner said that Mr. Sanchez was arranging one.

Shortly thereafter, at approximately 11:30 p.m.

Mr. Saporito said that he was going to lunch, and that he would leave if there was no escort to take him through outprocessing by the time he was through with lunch. I followed Mr. Saporito to the cafeteria. At approximately 11:45 a.m., he abruptly finished lunch and exited the station. When I returned to my office at about 11:45 or 11:50 a.m. , Mr. Sanchez was waiting there with a foreman to escort Mr. Saporito through outproccasing.

18. On February 27, at approximately 12:00 noon, I received i a telephone call from Mr. Saporito, who said he needed i to meet with me. He arrived at the STPEGS site and we m?t at approximately 12:30 p.m. At that time, he

, presented me with a list of financial and other demands, and told me that if these demands were met, he would drop his labor complaint and would not participate in any activities with the news media. He also requested a r..--

f 4 003 e  :

(...._

[.... . ,: l.d,. b .

1

l-I meeting with the Director, Quality Assurance. I told Mr. Saporito that I would pass on his demands to STPEGS management, and that I would try to arrange the requested meeting. I then informed Mr. Saporito that he really needed to get his whole body count and go through outprocessing, and accompanied him to the Central Processing Facility, where he did so.

19. I arranged the meeting that Mr. Saporito requested. The meeting commenced at approximately 2:00 p.m. on February 27, 1992, with Masrs. R. J. Rehkugler, Director, Quality Assurance, R. A. DeLong, Division Manager, Instrumentation and control (I&C) Maintenance, Mr. Saporito, and myself present. My notes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit D to this Affidavit.

During the meeting, Mr. Saporito raised various concerns regarding alleged inadequacies of STPEGS work processes and procedures, and procedural and Technical Specification violations. Mr. Saporito stated that he had no specific examples of instances in which operation of STPEGS was unsafe or operational Technical Specifications were violated. ,

/ s RidEi y. 'cinV

SPE4 ROUT Investigator  !

STATE OF TEXAS )

) I

)

Subscribed and sworn to before me, ,

Notary Public in and for the State of Texas this y day of , 1992 WmEcoNzAus K

N*m % sm.t w No$ary Public Mfor "F Camaman Eg== uun the State of Texas I

.. Cr L

. .E.

k . .; ~ ~

4 003

.""*"'"" Hcuston Lighting & Power Company Ed*i+ A to AEraav74 c1'

• ~

OFFICE MEMORANDUM To W.J. Jump February 25, 1992*

F,om R.W. Cink ,

f Su6/cci 10CFR2.206 Petitioner First Contact l I

Per your request, on 02-20-92, I scheduled an interview with the 10CFR2.206 Petitioner who recently registered problems relating to Security, Technical Specifications, and Work Process / Procedures.

I scheduled the interview through P. Travis, IEC Technical i

Supervisor, at approximately 10:45 A.M., with aTravis request to Travis called back that I interview the individual at 12:30 P.M. i to indicate that t.he individual had been informed that he was to meet me at 12:30 P..M.

i At 12:30 P.M., I received a phone call from the individual.

The individual indicated that he was currently at the NRC Sr.

, Resident Inspector's Office awaiting a phone call from the NRC Region IV office. He indicated that he did not wish to attend this i mesting with me unless the NRC participated also. He was waiting J for a phone. call from the Region to ascertain.their position on I allowing the NRC to participate in the meeting. I informed the individual that I would wait to hear from him.  :

l' I then told the individual that even 41f the NRC did not wish j

to participate in the meeting that I still needed to speak with him. He then indicated that he was hesitant about speaking with me after he had read one of the recent concern postings relating to an individual (contractor) who claimed that he had been terminated for registering problems with SPEAKOUT. I then informed him that I was aware of that particular case and that I wished to speak with him to clear up any misconceptions about the case.

At appro::imately 12:50 P.M., the individual arrived at my office (NSC, Room 4215). He immediately informed me that the NRC would not participate in the meeting. He then indicated he had filed a 10CFR2.206 Petition and that he could not discuss specifics involved in the Petition because he did not want to interfere with an official NRC investigation.

I then explained the concern posting that he had reservations about. I then explained that I wanted to investigate the issues identified in the Petition but could not because the issues were too generic in nature. Once again he reiterated that he could not provide specific information regarding the issues for fear of interfering with an official NRC investigation.

He then indicated that the problems identified in the Petition were still occurring today. He commented that he would >

volunteer to meet with mr. Hall and discuss the issues but felt that he (Mr. Hall) would not discuss the issues because he (the individual) had, through someone within the NRC, requested Mr. Hall to be present when he met with the NRC to discuss the issues. He then indicated that he.was in the process of writing a letter to Mr. Don Jordan, and informing him of his problems. The indiv g al indicated that he was disturbed because Mr. Hall had ndt"thKerjyny action related to the Petition. #

4'92~003 iU.' . , . ..

Hcuston Lighting & Power Company OFFICE MEMORANDUM T* W.J. Jump February 25, 1992*

Page 2

1. '#"' R.W. CinP.

Subject 10CFR2.206 Petitioner First Contact i I inquired as to what action the individual expected Mr.

Hall to implement. The individual-indicated that he expected Mr.

Hall to . implement the requests found on his petition. I then asked l the individual if the really expected Mr. Hall to implement the i requests based on the brief information supplied on the Petition.  ;

He then indicated that the Palo Verde Plant directed a Maintenance 1

" Stand Down" with even less information than identified on his Petition.

The conversation was then concluded with the individual indicating that he would not send the letter to Mr. Jordan until he heard back from me regarding his request to meet with Mr. Hall.

I then told the individual, with his " permission", that I would report the contents of our conversation, Theincluding interview washis comp request to 1'eted meet with Mr. Hall, to my management.  !

with the individual at approximately 1:30 P.M.

RWC/jkf cc: SPEAKOUT Concern #12266 ,.

4 4

l f

i i

4 i

l l

i i

r-....-,- ,

i

~ . .

. . . . - ~)

s ,2-oo, ,

4 '"" ' * " N iston Lighting & Power %mpany Exat si %

Af%if d l OFFICE MEMORANDUM k W bK To NSD Fil 92-1271 February 21, 1994 j' I

from J. W. Hi R. W. Cin j Sub/ect Adjudication: Thomas J. Saporito

(

On February 20, 1992' an interview was conducted with Saporito by i, J. W. Hinson and witnessed by R. W. Cink. This interview commenced i at about 1615 and concluded at about 1730. The interview was 4

2 conducted in the interview room of the Nuclear Security Department Investigations Section. P

- Prior to commencing the interview Hinson explained to Saporito that ,

the interview was part of an adjudication investigation regarding his request for unescorted access to the STPEGS and that the interview would consist of questions concerning the information he had supplied on his data form and screening affidavit. Saporito did sign a Preliminary Interview Form.

t During the interview Saporito was provided the data form and ',,

screening affidavit from his nuclear file and was asided to verify that they were the same forms as he submitted for unescorthd access. After reviewing the two forms he stated that they were the  ;

same forms that he had submitted for unescorted access.

Saporito was asked to review both forms and determine if any of the -

requested information had not been answered completely. After his review he stated:  ;

o He was not sure if he had provided the correct dates for his employment at RCA. (data form) o He was not sure if he had been denied access at FPL. He

- had been injured while repairing his house and was prescribed a muscle relaxer. Upon notifying his supervisor FPL had him remain in training for awhile, during which his access may have been suspended or denied, but he was not sure. (data form) 1 o Prior to his listed previous address in Glendale, Arizona 1 he had resided for about one month in Avondale, Arizona.

(data form) l o He was not sure if he had answered Questions #2 & 3 completely in light of his information about the muscle relaxer. (a f fidavit)

. o He was not sure if he had answered Question #6 correctly,

, but had indicated on Question #4 that he had been arrested and the charges were dismissed. (affidavit)

Having provided the above information, Saporito stated those were the only areas on either of the two forms that were not answered completely.

h 7

4 ~92 - 0 0 3 i_ .z _..J. f . . . ~.. a-

i ** '"" F~isten Lighting & Power Company OFFICE NEMORANDUM ,

February 21, 1992 To NSD File #92-1271 Page 2 i from J. W. Hinson/R. W. Cink 4

Sub/cci Adjudication: Thomas,J. Saporito Hinson then interviewed Saporito over each specific area of the ,

two forms. During this review Saporito indicated:

R=nlovnent Area He was employed by ATI in Miami, Florida for He about three months as a part time electronics instructor. could not remember the name of his supervisor. He was terminated from

. ATI because they were concerned about becoming involved in the litigation he had initiated against FPL through the DOL and

. ASLB.

i He was employed by the Double' tree Hotel in Miami, Florida from about January, 1990 to April, 1990 as a full time chief engineer. His supervisor was Tom Goodwin, General Hanager.

He was terminated from the hotel because he offered an opiriion

! regarding the location of a pool shower. No specific reason was given to him as to why he was being terminated.

H

' He was employed by the Jupiter Hilton Hotel in Jupiter, Florida for about three months in 1991 as a full time engineer. He reported to the ch'ief engineer, but could not remember his name. He was terminated because he could not work a day shift.

i

' He stated the reason he did not provide the above employers on the data form was because these jobs were not ful.1 time, even though he did put in forty hours per week. He indicated he did not accept the jobs with the idea of remaining at them

' forever. He stated when he was completing the data form he copied from his resume, which did not list these jobs. He i

stated he understood the data form was requesting all jobs for  :

the past five years.

General Information - Litiaation, Leoal Dispute, Claim Area i

He stated he was a complainant in a dol proceeding against FPL l and ATI, which is still pending appeal. He stated his understanding was this proceeding was not a lawsuit, but an

- Administrative Law Hearing.

He stated he, filed a complaint against FPL in 1989 or 1990 with the ASLB regarding their license to operate the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. He stated he is not sure of the status

, of this complaint.

He stated he was involved in a divorce in 1991.

. .. C @

_ J _ . ...

C' ,

4 003

" " " " " F-iston Lighting & Power Company OFFICE MEMOR AMDUM NSD File f92-1271 To February 21, 1992 Page 3 from J. W. Hinson/R. W. Cink Subject Adjudication: Thomas J. Saporito He stated his daughter was injured at a neighbors house and, while he did retain an attorney, he was not sure if a lawsuit was actually filed. He indicated he received a settlement.

He stated he did not indicate the above information on the data form, because he did not believe they were litigations.

General Information - Unescorted Access Susnension/ Denial Area He stated while employed at Turkey Point he began to experience chest pains. He was examined by three physicians who diagnosed his condition as severe gastritis. He was prescribed Zantex, a stomach medication. .

lie stated upon reporting this to his FPL supervisor he,was sent to a company physician, Dr. Dolsey, for examination. ' He stated he requested an IBEW steward accompany him during the exam. He stated Dolsey became upset during the exam and reported to FPL that he was not cooperating. He was returned to the plant where he was questioned for three days regarding information he had provided to the NRC. He stated he was told that security had pulled his badge, but he does not know if they suspended / denied his access. He was told that he could not go into the plant, but not because of a FFD violation.

l He did not indicate this information because he was not sure I it was a FFP issue.

Oraanization Membershin Area He indicated he was a board member of the Nuclear Energy Accountability Project for about one year.

He stated he did not provide information for this area because he missed it. He did state that he is not sure if the project organization was a social, civic, fraternal, or honorary organization. .

Previous Address Area i He stat d for about one month in Se tember, 1991 he resided at the Avondale, Arizona.

Saporito stated the only areas on the screening affidavit he did not answer completely were those areas also addressed by the information he provided regarding the data form.

e.....,

4 003 k. dE --

" " ~ " ' "

F iston Lighting & Power Company i

, OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM

, To NSD File #92-1271 February 21, 1992 Page 4 from J. W. Hinson/R. W. Cink Sue /cca Adjudication: Thomas J. Saporito At the conclusion of the interview Saporito was informed that the '

information he provided would be given to the Access Program

. Director, who would make a decision regarding the continuation of '

his unescorted access. Saporito was told to report to work according to his normal schedule and his management would inform him of any further actions.

t JWH/jwh 6

i i ,

+ l 7 ..

9 l

9 l

l l

-lL . ak. .

4 003

PRELIMINARY INTERVIEV FORM SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT I

The Houston Lighting & Power Company (HlhP) desires to Interview you relacive to an official Investigacion it is conduccing. In that regard, HIhP expects your full and coepiece cooperacion in the investigacion. Any refusal or failure by you to cooperace fully In the investigacion may result in your discharge from the employ of HihP. Failure to cooperace on your parc any-include ouc not be ,

ILaited co:

1)

• Your not answering cruthfully any question asked of you.

2) Your not ceiling the complete cruch.

3) Your withholding any facts material to this invescigation.

4) If a subsequent appointment is scheduled for future Lacerview, your failure to keep that appoincuent.

5) Your failure to respond cruchfully co a polygr ph exantinacion conducted in accordance with che Employee Polygraph Proteccfon Act of 1988.

6) Your discussing this interview vich other employees.

l Noching herein is in any way Incended to rescr.Lcc you from presencing inforescion or concents regarding nuclear quality or safecy to che NRC or any ocher ]

regulacory authoricy, SPEAKOUT, or any other person.

I have read and I understand the above.

v -

S,gn.y.

l o.2-2o-F1 Dace o.ss Y n

- /

Jr ?}

,........,. Q t"~-@~M~~....:.,.]

4 9y 003

l tife 246A (06/901 CONTRACTOR /. VENDOR / UTILITY ,

I DAT A FORM i

l (FOr Unescorted Access Authorization)

YOU MUST COMPLETE THIS FORM CAREFULLY.

COMPLETELY. IN YOUR OWN llANOWRITING AND j IN BLACK INK. Please do NOT obtweviste.

l failure to do so may result in o delay or possible

! t c jection.

FERSONAL: usOOLE SOOAL SECURITY NUMBER FIRST

! NAME LAST _

11 btvl7 / n i re nt A S SEX MAIDEN NAuC)!ALONG WTH DATES USED.

s.085E5 OR OTHEW NAuCS PREMOUSLY UkO.(EXAuPLC: .

g ,

! ZsP STATE i OTY i PRESENT ADDRESS

}

NO NO. 5T:

i ER OTlZEH OF HE Jrli .

TEL NUMBER COOHIRY _(( S N 5A T,YPE 27 3 25 /sr hnnl/<12, suC/A e& uc DOR /uT1 TY ADORESS S

! CON

' wicA Sc.w /

l'c n lit c v C n1E M A s. /A*w.) n 9229/

l. /71K. )<lch 94 L e s)A PLACE OF BtRTH

} EDR THO ATE ExPtR ATIOtt O ATE STATE

, DRIVER'S UCENSE NUuSER l

! PERSONAL

REFERENCES:

l I UST FOUR PERSONS WHO WLLALLVOUCH REFER [NCES FOR YOUR USTED WUST COVER CH AR ACTER AND die PRECEDtHC FIVE YEM4 AR j 00 NOT INCLU0C RELAftVES OR FORuCR EIAPLOYERS.

j PER100. PHONE ADDRESS 1 OCCUPA TION NAME

' "' m'& qf6"; y,n Wr-nimo l os ua. m~o, se um ~~:nsx ~~

i A awpo -

se

, ,,, .n ,

4/A4&~, u r rna ,

l t

kS . . {} /)Q&

< t t a c. i t * *' 4 f

@ , .. 3 1 l

sus s. s-- <

n . . . s. r"" ~ Clh amer!  :

l s 2 m,"

1

,1 _ e,-, _ n-vn ,< e . .u ._ ....', . . . - o l

'SrP 2460 (06/90)

EDUCATION: YOU uust UST EWRy Hot SCHOOL. ruADE SCHOOL DUSINESS SO400L. COu.ECE AHO OttiCR LOUCAfiou UST ONLY DECREES ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND GRADES SUCCESSFULLY COWPLEICD; BNSilTUil0NS. ' **8? 45/*'O * '

ATTENDEO u5 fog y MA8N SueJECTS OF STUOY NAME ANO LOCATION N Md to Ed SCHOOL Fphew -/4'////T/!h o f/} f9gy /}t g 9

, CRADE

/1 UcS t.< //c y ,. M a c y ,

HICH L;c;2 {/ jf' / - fp i/ j/7lk />Q /9c:y, f 9 ';rf cussNESS

,y8g f/afa,r sc.S TRADC few &}{ _ ))y/&fxj, pg jg jj jg 3 .2 s

OTHER WHEN_ WHERE

' YES NO CED .a COLLEGE LEVEL INFORM ATION ONLY #*

d m HDEO,g ws c,, ,,o DEGREE REC *O AND MAJOR LEVEL NAME AND LOCATION uNoEn I

I I#

/A CRAOUATE i

1 assoc. .. n m i / / / //

u- t <<

CRADUATE a dit THE l IF YOU H AVE OBT AINED HOURS OR CREDITS TOWARD A DECREE NOT YET CO FOLLOWINC INFORM ATION:

NUMBCR OF HOURS / CREDITS COMPLETED I/, NUMBER OF HOURS REOUIREO FOR DECREE ) ,

START WIIH YOUR PRESENT OR MOST RECENT JOS EMPLOYMENT: YOU uuST UST EVERY Joe FOR THE PAST FivE YEAits. PER PLE ASE INDIC ATE ALL PERIOOSA00tflONAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

SHEET (S) ARE ATTACHEO.

IF NECESSARY. ATTACH ANO NOTE THAT YOU HAVC DONE 50 LIST: II C SON FOR LE AVlHG HAME AHO COMPLETE ADORESS OF COMP ANY y gg yg '

/1//m / *w kn ,n p -s"</11- /LL,', . E,.z> 1;>h InsYk stw'i-("iv k l Di A. Aa.{, :ov Ix- A s en Pn/c fla r>.> w/w V $l /2 -9) lenFJk l//) n r/3 -

AfD fl.:, s S .> cs de c . /'.cnD ~ > '1e ~.> %ln x Sf tits 11seit ett>4fenfrR

~

twa n/;ic i%

I- 89 9- 9/ La>;i.,,r . Fic.wm ' Gro.~, ,1 r , n/ MA f/r.a'nn Pc.,a n J /*1r ~

^

(~o - m k -i;.J h lnn '

~

E->p/n. J 7hh-i 1 a4 s S*SL l~ 29 .

' Z1k/L,, se & A,/ FA,1% ' , ' ~

R L f) (r n,b,.n n 1 ter.! - 9% /,,, kr l< Em,.h r/, itir>n

~

%r%a -Gh l~ 77 F '2'A.

i Sr,n & L,u/ - nG, cu  %,, r A

' Tim-,Y4Aa / M/ '

ShSc8 STP $AtA- - Kid. f,rUr%,e TWrr 1/sw b%

.~91 l . .

l 2 l MILIT ARY EXPERIENCE:

OR ANCH Or SCRviCC I/, OA1ES Of SCRvtCC rRou ... 10 LASI IU,l W .

tiEASON 000 DISCl4 ARC [ ___ OISCHARGC TYPC _____ .

_ f ,'

IR AlHING RCCCIVCD AND OU TICS PERf 0RuCO wiHI C IN fitC uit i t r.R Y SCR viC C __ _ _._ _ __. .

^RE YOU HOw A utuoER Or rHC AC rivC RCSCRVEs OR H AliON AL GU Aum' ..____.__ - . . _____

M' DAIES Of SCuvtCL ORANCil Of St:RvlC[ . ' '

linb1 ._... M.-

O 4 0.03

. .,n' 24(A. (06 /90)

. CMG AfifZATION MEMBERSHIP:

INDICATE wtEIHER YOU ARE A PAST OR PRESENT LIST SOOAI. OVIC. FRATERNAL. AND HONORARY ORCANilADONS.(YOU NEED NOT 8HCLUDC WCu0ER. LENGTie Or uEuBERSH P. AND ANY OrYICE NELD.

OT)iER DeRECTLY OR DY supuCAnON INDICATE YOUR RACE. REDOON. NADON AL CRIGN OR SEX.)

CONVICTION RECORD; s 0E st4 HAW YOU EVER BEEN CONVtCTED. PLED CUtLTY. RECOVCO DEFERRED Ir YE$. ADJUDI A Crew NAL WATTER (INCLU0tNC Owl OR TRArrsC OrrCNSE OTHER THAN NON-814 JURY TR EXPLAsH ALL 0,CCURRENCES IN OCTAIL-

.Da-GENER At. INFORM ATiON:

HAVE YOU CVER BEEN REFUSED A BONO OR HAD ONE CANCEt1E0? _ OO M11CH YOU HAVE SCEN tt4VOtvCO (LAwSulTS OR CLAtus 6; Art 4ST ANY L ST A*4Y UnCADON. LEGAL OfSPUTE OR CLAtu sN PERSON OR CORPORADO:4) AND OtSPOSinON OF SAuC:

//0ND

// F R

~-

HAVE YOU EVER BED 4 OlSCHARCEO OR ASKED TO RESIGN . :, . SY A FREVIOUS EuPLOYER? _4 A A N /c A' e 1 0 -

er 50. UST EuptOYER. DATE AND ORCUuSTANCES. - o . I a-n -nu - u,:.R L. - n wa ~

~

~a '

~c~of:~

, m -~, ak rziaQ pt~o'd{~ ,

SUOJECT TO A PL AN FOR TREAftelG SOGSI ANCC AOUSE (EXO.UDES SEtr-REFERRyt / d ) .44 HAD ItAVE YOU CVER OCEN UNESCORIED ACCESS SUSPENDEO OR DENiEO FOR viOLAft04 Or A FITNESS FOR DUTY POUCY?

er 50. PROviOE COuPLETE DETAILS. 4 l

FtE ASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOMNC INFORu ANON ABOUT Alt. PLACCS YOU H AVE RES80E0 FOR INE P AST F4VE YE ARS.

NING WTH YOUR PRESENT ADORESS. ALL PERIOOS Of TiuC uuST DE ACCOUNTE0 'FOR. AND ALL uutTIPLE RESIDENCES 0 uuST DE USTED. ) CIT Y STREET ADDRESS COUNTY l ST ATE / ZIP l W

FRou .TO S

I I CER Tif Y IH A i ALL INFORM A flON PROv1000 ON THIS 0AIA FORu iS CORREC1. AND DDetAL t ut 8001S til Al ANf HiSSI AlEMO a f. MISREPRE$Oll ATIOi4 Olt OuiSStoll ra A t COe:Silfu1E C AUSE FOu Actfl <.S sicN A , on, ._, w

.v j _-('. . . _gf

,. ...L'E.--

. .., O L l

I Um c>' -o o gt --  ;

4 003 . ~

1 i

DATE STP 68I (03/90) 500 ..f TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STAllON SCREENING AFFIDAVIT HOME PHONE NO.

MIDDLE MAIDEN

(.AST NAME (IYPE OR PRIN1) FIRS T AbP D A TEOOF UfR TH nmaT $ STATE & EXPI 4 DATE SOCIAL SECURITY NO. ORivERS UC NSE NO.

EMPLOYER nab _

1. Have pu ever been granted unescorted occess to ony other -yes no nuclear facility?

yes # no

2. Move you ever had a security cieoronce denied or revoked?

1 Hove you ever been subject to o plon for treating substonce obuse (excludes self-referrol) or hod' unescorted occess ps 7 no suspended or denied for violation of o fitness for duty policy

• 4 Have you ever been orrested, indicted. or chorged for yes no violating grly low, regulation or ordinance?

5. Are pu currently charged with, under indictment or pending yes no triot on ony motter?

6. Hove you ever been convicted, pied guilty, received deferred ps no odpdicotion, or hod a conviction set oside in any matter?

7. Hove pu ever t5een chorged with Driving While intoxicoted or yes o Driving Under the influence?

yes do

8. Hove you ever been refused o bond or had one concelled?

9. Hove you ever been fired. dischorged or osked to resign by yes no a previous employer?

10. Hove you ever been o defendant in o court mortial yes do proceeding while in the military service?

11. Hove pu ever, in the post, tested positive for drugs or use yes no of olcohol resulting in on-duty impoirment?

12. Hove you ever received treatment for' olcohol abuse' yes do I 11 Hove you ever ' received treotment for drug abuse? yes do

14. Hove pu ever been treated for mentoi, emotional or yes no odpstment problems?

15. Hove you ever been associated with ony organization or combinotion of persons which you knew odvocoted the no over throw of any government? yes

16. Hove you ever committed or ottempted to commit, or wittingty oided or obetted onother who committed or ottempted to commil ,0 cts of violent or untowful protest ogoinst the use of nucleor energy by public utilities? _ __ ye s no 17 Hove you ever porticipated in the pubhcotion of written ma t erial encouroging others to violently or untowfuHy no protest the use of nucleor energy for peaceful purposes 9 yes 16 15 there onything in your bockground not mentioned above which moy of f ect your obiht y to be gronted occess to o nucleos plor t or on ything which ma y r equire Ivr ther e m planotion yes .. n o if YOU AN$W[R[0 ~ YES" IO ANY OF THESE OUESilONS. PLE AS[ RI FLM W I h il OUfS TIO'!

NUMB (R AND PR0vt0E COMPLCIE DE T AILS ON TH[ RE V[RSE SIDE _,

a -n - o o, A_ M. . ..u

-- . _ _ _ _ _ ~ .

• a SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERAL. , S T A%10h l

. Ouostion 1 Complete Detoils ,

l l , 19 $ o AluC =AR Q vto_oveJ26Ys1H a S Y/f.b n ~ / + Ali Y . A 5t -

t * (d. t" f W. A)Lt r vAf D A AJ Y ~E- _

w W9. >

%D kwa p 7biLW bo el. Att- ,2> /.A n t - M s n i ., M i ,

l l

l

$. ErrpAa- ,2 wl&L FL 'aA Pa 1f.lh

/ A- U

-Mkn,A v. ,'a i

,i st,CJY 'bWAJrr #$h sfs A P, r5 hKu $ cS #14 i

i Nd < , %i,a s //.R.c< does>%L. v

+, 5AlM r-A a1. A)b AlWC fA'A-lt i

' A-Alb .

I i

i l

i

(

i i understond that any misstotement, misrepresentation, or omission on ony documentation

! used to process unescorted occess will constitute cause for denial of occess at any time.

I 1

i

/,,

O/-/3-92 s Applicont noture / Date l Informed opplicont to report oil orrests by low enforcement ogencies, including DWI or j of fenses other than non-enpry traf fic or porking, to the (JuCleor Security Ocportment j within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of the orrest

[l1 # $ __

Secue st y Representative m.. . . .

/ Dotc %

! 4 003 .

. r. . . . . _. .

. . 1

" " " " Houston Lighting & Power Company & w 8 2 4c l A m M cf >

OFFICE MEMORANDUM S O bd ,

i To W.J. Jump February 25, 1992 l From R.W. Cink Sub/cci 10CFR2.206 Petitioner Second Contact  !

At approximately 4:15 P.M. on 02/20/92, as I exited the  !

elevators on the first floor of the NSC, I met the Petitioner. The individual had a yellow " sticky" note that identified J.W. Hinson, Administrator Investigations and Compliance, and his (Hinson's) room number. The individual asked if I knew what Hinson wanted to speak to him about. I informed him that I did not know the purpose of Hinson's request. He then asked if the meeting with Hinson related in any way to our conversation earlier that day. I informed him that I had no idea.

I then escorted the individual to Hinson's office. After introductions in the aisleway outside of Hinson's c#fice, Hinson asked the individual to proceed to the NSD Interview Room (Room No. 4104). At this time, the individual asked In if I would witness the Interview Room, the conversation, of which Hinson agreed.

Hinson explained that the interview was part of an adjudication investigation related to the individual's station unescorted access. Before finishing the introduction, the individual recognized the camera installed in the room and asked Hinson if it was turned on. Hinson indicated that it was turned on and it is ,

l the normal practice to utilize the camera for interviews.

The individual insisted that the camera be turned off.

Hinson told the individual that he (Hinson) would have to get l authorization before he could turn the camera off. Hinson then exited the room to apparently get authorization from R. Balcom, l Manager, NSD. Approximately 30 seconds later I exited the room to attempt to contact R. Stauber, SPEAKOUT Investigator, and inform him that I would be a few minutes. (NOTE: I rode to work with  ;

Stauber that morning. When I met the individual on the first floor at 4:15 P.M., Stauber and myself were leaving for the day.) While out of the Interview Room, I met Hinson, who indicated that he could not find Balcom and that he had made the decision to turn off the. camera. He then indicated that he wanted me to witness the interview also, and subsequently informed the individual of this request. The interview was completed at approximately 5:50 P.M.

I RWC/jkf  ;

cc: SPEAKOUT Concern #12266 I

l J

• a4  %

d_b_ . . .,4 4 003  :

. .. ... 7.

. l

"""*"'"" Houston Lighting & Power Company em e s '

AKrh. v N of OFilCE MEMOR ANDUM S' C4 To 'SPEAKOUT Concern File No. 12266 March 6, 1992 Fmm R.W. Cink M/cci 10CFR2.206 Petitioner Separation Interview (Third Contact)

On 02/21/92, I was contacted by D. Bohner, Manager, SPEAKOUT Program, and informed that the Petitioner had cr'. led for me.

Bohner indicated that the Petitioner was in the NRC Office and requested my presence. Bohner requested that I ask the individual if he would be willing to participate in an employee separation interview. I then proceeded to the NRC office. I told the individual that it was his right to participate in an Employee i Separation Interview and that an interview had already been l arranged if he wished to participate. He then inquired as to who would participate. I then informed him that D. Bohner, (acting as designee for T. Jordan, General Manager, Nuclear Assurance), and D. Sanchez, (acting as designee for J. Sharpe, Manager, Maintenance), would participate. He then indicated that he wanted me to participate in the interview. I told him that I did not have a problem with his request if Bohner and Sanchez did not. .

The interview began at approximately 8:55 A.M. Present were Bohner, Sanchez, the Petitioner, and myself. The following are topics that I recall from the interview:

Sanchez began the interview by explaining the separation Interview policy. He also explained that in accordance with IP-7.2Q the Petitioner has the right to appeal the revoking of his access within 15 days. The Petitioner asked Sanchez what the reason was for his denial of access. Sanchez explained that he did not know the specific reason. Later in the interview the Petitioner

" officially" requested that he be informed in writing of

the reason for the revoking of his access and that the l

15 day appeal time not begin until he receives the written reason.

i Sanchez explained that he had the right to interview with )

SPEAKOUT if he wished.  :

i

) The Petitioner then requested that his tools and personal belongings be brought to him and explained where they ,

J

. were, located in the I&C Shop.

The Petitioner then indicated that he will pursue his termination through the Department of Labor under  !

42USC6851 and explained his rights under this law. He i

then explained that the access related interview of the

day before was a violation of the "Act" and that the subsequent revoking of access was also a violation of the

, Act. Later during the interview he indicated that he felt his access was denied to keep him from identifying more violations of NRC requirements.

...... _ d. . . 2 k

.i 4 003 .

I

, . . _ - - _ , ,_ _ . _ - __ __ _ _ _ _ . __o

" '*"'"" Houston Lighting & Power Company l OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To SPEAKOUT Concern File No. 12266 March 6, 1992 Page 2 from R.W. Cink

Sub/cc' 10CFR2.206.. Petitioner separation Interview (Third Contact)

The Petitioner then indicated that after he returned to  !

t his residence in Bay City after the access related i

I interview the day ' before, he discovered that he was missing personal documents related to what he had .

discussed with the NRC. He indicated that he had l reported the " burglary" to the Bay City police. He  !

suspected that J. Hinson, Administrator, Investigations  ;

and Compliance, had something to do with the missing l

' documents. He also indicated that TWC employs ex-FBI agents that had the capability to break in and take the .

documents.

/

• The Petitioner indicated he was a " heartbeat" away from calling a news conference. l 2

! The Petitioner then indicated that he was aware of a l

Technical Specification violation relating to an activity 4

related to the Boric Acid Level Control. He indicated I that the Foreman and Craftsmen assigned to the activity l did not know they were doing wrong but were only doing what they were trained to do. When questioned about t specific details about the activity, the Petitioner indicated that he would not comply unless the following conditions were satisfied:

1) He requested a copy of the work package, 4

OPGP03-ZA-0090, OPGP03-ZA-0040, OPGP03-ZA-0010, and a PMP that he could not specifically identify but thought the last two numbers of the procedure ended 4

with "21".

f 2

2) He requested that Mr. Hall, the Director of QA,

Sanchez, Bohner, Cink, J. Springfield, (I&C Foreman) ,- R. Duran, I&C Technician, and Norman (did 4

not know his last name) attend the discussion.

After the Petitioner stated his conditions, Bohner and j- Sanchez exited Bohner's office. When they returned they offered the Petitioner that they would provide the procedures and work package but would not arrange the meeting the individual had requested. They explained

that we (Bohner, Sanchez, and Cink) were the three l individuals at this time at the Station that were responsible for discussing his concerns.

The individual refused to discuss the issue then exited (somewhat irritated) the office carrying his tools and personal belongings. I followed him down the stairwell to his car, parked on the north side of the NS 4 003

$ ' 16 U.L.:." -

I l

"*"'"" Houston Lighting & Power Company OFFICE MEMORANDUM To SPEAKOUT Concern File No. 12266 March 6, 1992 Page 3 From R.W. Cink i Subicci 10CFR2.206 Petitioner Separation Interview (Third Contact) l

- I asked the individual to come to my office and arrange  !

i, for someone to escort him through out processing (turn  !

, in badges, whole body count, etc.). The Petitioner

agreed. I then contacted Bohner from my office and informed him that the Petitioner was waiting for someone

to escort him through out processing. Bohner indicated that he would arrange it. This was at approximately 11

15 A.M.  ;

1 I again After approximately 15 minutes of waiting, contacted Bohner to ask him the status. He indicated that Sanchez was arranging for an escort. l 1

J During the waiting time in my office, the Petitioner I i' . expressed (without much detail) a concern about a violation of the Access Control Procedure. He indicated

that the procedure requires personnel inside the Protected Area to have their badges clipped in two places. He indicated that he could walk out into the Protected Area "right now" and identify " violation after violation" of this requirement.

At approximately 11:30 A.M. the individual indicated that he was going to lunch and commented that if "they" would

have really wanted to " process him out" they would have i already been here. He then indicated that if someone did not come by the time he was done with lunch he was leaving.

I followed him to the cafeteria. Approximately 15

minutes later (11

45 A.M.), the Petitioner abruptly finished lunch and exited the Station.

[

I returned to my office where I met Sanchez and an I&C Foreman (identity unknown) who were waiting for the Petitioner to return from lunch. I informed them that he had already left the Stdtion.

At approximately 12:50 P.M. , I received a phone call from the Petitioner. The Petitioner wanted me to call Attorney Billie Garde and gave me her phone number. I informed him that I would inform my Management but warned him that I probably would not call her. He then indicated that he did not know why, "she was only going to go through me to save" my " Company". He then commented that he could not talk anymore because he had to go contact the Associated Press.

RWC/jkf , - . -.

cc: W.J. Jump

!.. 1 -- d '"l 4 003 -

• G uihif D h

'l I 5 P 'n ste sia na,3 MrAvi+ cf 2.:0 0

- - 6. w.On k SPEAKOUT INTERVIEW tif.!."LTO?.".S NOTES S P RI A M otJT CONCERN NO. l L9le[D DATE: 'l D'7-U INTERVIEWEE: I SADof'iiO

~I INVESilGATOR: k.ld. Cob 1A -fo nucaLre I

-=> bo. 2 9 aavarcA 11 in 3/1f

/

Plant No/[rfin / fo /- ZMt -S c, ,_ ,,L w i&h 24 -9o ,

II%S tobe. Immed:& s >o d<n. c . RA 1 cesso Au o.T4 S 00e <>;cisas I' /

i e' II d f [i) C Y /diAk(L Q . ou. On to ff /A/t, Vha e < m ,m o f Peii x '

Ho& hew cia ~ Sea. 2$,, /%'/ %%5ICw) .

j 1 ./ ~ / j/

OCYu/~e a $ CO+Ah, Netb e kie MA , k nr1 8f5 'If <*,u tY S kiorebe is aot well todrleu. /$itlavh, ehe, .s 1LauA+nenlure. i r

/ / 7 i tA11h i11 > (rior</fk C /E Tf/tu'YVS /HYr<Nef<< $b*1 6 flVd6'Yt1/f. (b f H c,1,1yas c Y3 I a k a b a d'rvel w / A. m c/s,e n &w 4>ob no m--+ as bo ema(A \

J~ ' / ' /

A,1 ' S6 C$1lP $lft"P15 0/k ofO? c'/wllra

, C u)bd vs n Qsk sa,M,

'ls Neue l/PcW4 .

$AAf t. J W1 Y $ f) /

• 8f s 'af> h kY 's Que81,ul0., ns -4 taho kmiousl Ale t%<G,v& i,1babra,n musu<o 7 T'S <u <J lI0 ~Tnsk da niA nn-7eadtaroIiu,h'sl< T5 c)icaarees. co <<h t<< fas s OS. fD) V h L (f. U-($ /011 ( t HQ f hfr14rif)// X<1t44 a

' , E s h dn u o< & ct Oladnbeye s fio,ac/vit(<s}. bGef to s,b, shpot llJah r}! iu#nackr n <kic) m 8 Ts sshd,</ A)n. lautek 1,$ hilk Yo i.,steado!!a w. -

... . .y 4 o o 3 n. .m. n. . .. .

STPJ72 089)

SPEAKOUT INTERVIEW NOTES

~

'sem"#E'"d6T CONCERN NO.

DATE:

INTERVIEWER:

itNESTIGATOR:

. Taime10< sa /el soo. t,%1 rc, s, eudo,s oL n / a // / /d ib%,a uudas,

~

Lk TS sosiM Alesee henal r,,,, -Ga//n<f

/

~

\ ~

Et3 eo,,,onioi?Wfsb % c < o;aised as nAJ,ws (ei/ARw n.f'n, /$9,Nv/ai_re-han. L. siaetor feeA<L, clat%nt yhan G . . Ns,nn ,' n e

toWW kY /lDY Anz G ads / />')o

%W: Tit C were nd' auktre CW/)foJ &<o SuD/eskl76 be us darkdeoC nNer J- 3/-12. Be1ues yhd ec acNpa//aflac /

/

~,-oa <<Q ck!,,

\

TTCds 41eteses aAwi,n /na A~ rra6snea es-81/A m / Y , '

6 ) wa +u k e risi,11, ales nh;,.,e bu-cu'f in m lik to'me 8/ack sh A ld .Dre ;ob briel,< *

, . exca//,n isAst/Ern+1o1 sad)-9 &ai14, i,)Ai, t frdfisann*Sni,C Cm o;olale .ota<dvcb i bu com,oiniA, i,/ou nf,nx>ce&e

, c owh resti,dd, 1

floanii% a /e a n f a1d/ko'n<1

,t$ caw 11brUiril).C y--

c "- -- Q&_

-M . h_ . . ...,

i 4 003 l

STR 377 (249)

SPEAKOUT INTERVIEW NOTES

= __=.e SP E AM CPUY CONCERN NO.

, DATE:

INTERVIEWER:

INVESTIGATOR:

0,IT+ sc,+:on 3. II

.R R 4. ? 5 Cra[f5vhe r1 llr?IWNe [.Rn M/A?ui_k < msuJml-

i VW Sh1PA YA LA ff7 ff VA /2m da f it $

(1,8 ,O f ,14,s-

. . 08 f ,/*s) .

Q/*@lUh(16 (~M7 k9 W1ra .

5Aa.,,os c,.;fZ du /l-.w Asw & G. A.</.i,,...

f$liuon. X -3 foNedro #fr, 1

/

b_ i $ b f ~$Af $ 1 $ / 1 l $ $f/) 2

' ' ~

I / 7' i

(L, /s"<:Vce us A> sawcp e

f n b l $. Y

<> f/rr kn d A f,I,I Ns37sP-144 , A s A u I

l trit

(

$ \.,kk M h tJr></,b c:41s Q x) kf. '

l})d h (")<1 \0h 8n ti1'}1 D rirIikchliDA t1)AA r10l M('

730 0 cc AtI < 11eek al0e ir]Odhb6 l ub d'Cb of) h.>VWsi<bV n1

I,'~ ' M-6a(1smn e004 u umna ud ,

.,a l 1  : . .. #1. ML

O e.

GT P.372 <249)

SPEAKOUT INTERVIEW NOTES

=

SPE AKouT CONCERN NO. .

DATE:

INTERVIEWER:

INVESilGATOR:

. ll/M/rf SkoR.l/ ,/)f/, sad 12 ln XIW f <

14 /aY 7h rd. srLi.in /AVT Sh/Ye)e, Ypbu,u $lf0u) ukr /be<l m ,Afbr Y~fGu ,) e ,

30 /'

tfra n/ r/4 e '

AlOr. 0.

j b/Ws u,.,sai / m a/s/c n uw A rs4sw . ECC) im/iw/ iib o,w mA d} Aam. n, /He/widuJfsdENAm,a.///dicaMe eu,w],

t9/>emtatReceb=kl w,rlsUtarsn, A/sa5N/. Dia'l,Nfw-

$tivl's,a, .

A N!&/xtthsd

.re . Nti/,nNDi>te Cd' L,, out .

u.,d,d

~,,W, D& laA.

1 $ l f n f i:1<n,f a fn ire flin r / fo trou Akksn &sfrared 77xs</m docun~ye

/}/dist kN r a na /kclam hdsafsja rYsuns > 6 A i/ Jra h eaf Innlbdon ,b_bb,s /, /lbs't,b .

4 003 ,

j' s

. 9_6 . 26_. . . _.40)

. sfW #~

_. -. - - _ - - - - . - _ - - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - -