ML20087L365

Affidavit of Rl Balcom Re Access Authorization Program

ML20087L365
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/02/1992
From:	Balcom R HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20087L307	List: ML20087L330 ML20087L349 ML20087L356 ML20087L365
References
FOIA-95-80 NUDOCS 9508250174
Download: ML20087L365 (4)

Text

. ~

6 s

AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD L. BALCOM I, RICHARD L. BALCOM, being duly sworn, say as follows:

1. I am currently employed by Houaton Lighting and Power company as the Manager of Security at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STPEGS).

2. At the time of the events described in this Affidavit, as part of my ordinary duties, I served as the Access Program Director (APD) for STPEGS. As APD, I had responsibility for determining whether personnel seeking unescorted access to STPEGs should be granted or denied access under the STPEGS Access Authorization program. i The Access Authorization program is required by NRC

- regulations set forth in 10 CFR 73.56. These regulations are designed to assure that NRC nuclear poder plant licensees provide unescorted access only to individuals who are " trustworthy and reliable, and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the' public health and safety, including a potential to commit radiological sabotage."

In accordance with NRC regulations and guidance docu-ments, the STPEGS Access Authorization program contains procedures and criteria for determining whether access l should be granted or denied'.  ;

3. One specific responsibility of the APD is to " adjudicate" any cases in which a question as to an individual's trust-worthiness or reliability arises. Informatio:. raising such a question may arise initially as a result of reference checks or data in an individual's access authorization paperwork, or may become known later based on a criminal history check or from other sources. In such cases, the APD evaluates the information to deter-mine whether denial of site access is warranted.

4. On February 6, 1992, I performed an adjudication of the access authorization paperwork of Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. A credit check of Mr. Saporito had disclosed some credit problems, and Mr. Saporito's paperwork also showed an arrest, subsequently " discharged," in Septembar 1990 for trespassing. The paperwork also noted that Mr. (

Saporito had been discharged from Florid 3 Power & Light Company's Turkey Point nuclear plant "at,a direct result of [his] participating in a NRC investigation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant." Upon evaluating these concerns, I concluded that the cre' lit issues were not i i

particularly large or unusual, and that the arrest alone, without a conviction, was not a sufficient basis for denial of access. With respect tr.) the termination from FPL, while this seemed unusual, rearticipating in an NRC t "**

9508250174 950425 " }

4 -003e PDR FOIA SAPORIT095-80 PDR " ~":]-- ~ '

-- '/ [

. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ j f n 7 ,r -

a 4 investigation is not grounds for denial of access.

Accordingly, I determined at that time that Mr. Saporito .

F should not be denied unescorted access to STPEGS.

5. On or about February 12-14, 1992, I was informed by Mr.

Warren Kinsey, Vice President-Nuclear Generation, CFR 2.206, that anda petition had been filed pursuant to 10 that Mr. William J. Jump had been assigned to investigate the matter raised by the petition. Shortly thereafter, I assigned one of my managers, Mr. Rex Moore, to investi-gate security-related concerns identified in the peti-tion. I directed Mr. Moore to coordinate his efforts There-with Licensing personnel assigned by Mr. Jump.

after, I did not participate in the investigation of those concerns (though I did attend one meeting at which plans for investigating each I was ofspecifically the concerns in the peti-instructed to tion were discussed).

keep the identity of the 2.206 petitioner confidential.

I

6. At approximately 12:00 noon on February 20, 1992, Mr.

i Watt Hinson, who reports to me, came to me and stated that he had been given some litigation records involving Mr. Saporito by Mr. Jump which Mr. Jump had asked him to review. Later in the afternoon, I met with Mr. Jump and Mr. Hinson to discuss the results of Mr. Hinson's review. )

Based on the information provided to me by Mr. Hinson, I  !

concluded that, because there did appear to be omissions in Mr. Saporito's access authorization paperwork, more l investigation was appropriate. Since I knew that Mr.

Saporito had filed the 2.206 Petition,taken I wasagainst concerned Mr.

that no inappropriate action be Saporito. Accordingly, I asked Mr. Hinson (without referring to the fact that a 2.206 Petition had been filed) how this type of information had normally been handled in the past. He informed me that the normal course was to provide the individual with an opportunityI to explain any apparent omissions or discrepancies.

then dirt.cted Mr. Hinson to interview Mr. Saporito to determine whether there might be a reasonable explanation for the apparent omissions in his paperwork. Neither I nor Mr. Jump informed Mr. Hinson that Mr. Saporito had filed a 2.206 petition.

At approximately 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. on February 20, 1992, I again met with Mr. Hinson and Mr. Jump. Mr. Rick Cink 7.

was also present. Mr. Hinson informed me that he had just completed an interview with Mr. Saporito, which was also witnessed by Mr. Cink. Mr. Hinson recounted that  ;

during the interview, Mr. Saporito confirmed that there were omissions f rom his access authorization paperwork from relating to previous employment, termination previous employment, and other matters. These omissions r......

4 m >...- Mh. ~

. . - _. . .__._..___..__._._m . _ _ _ _ _ . - .

J i-

.. t i ,-  !

.Hinson's several which were not apparent and which included review from Mr. j

) of the litigation materials,  !

j Mr. Saporito did not admit to until closely questioned. ,

I- reviewed these _ omissions and noted that there were several which involved facts highly unfavorable to Mr.

Saporito and which, had I known them at the time 1992,I  !

{ performed his initial adjudication on February 6, would likely have led me to deny unescorted access to l  ;

STPEGS. Based on these numerous omissions, I concluded i that there was a systematic pattern of omission of [

adverse information indicating that the omissions were

}

i

' willful and that these omissions reflected adversely on l j

Mr. Saporito's trustworthiness.  !

j

' 8. STPEGS Access Authorization procedures specifically list j d as a basis for falsification accessfacts of material denial on the willful omission paperwork submitted or in l Based on -

support of employment or access authorization.  ;

the facts obtained during Mr. Hinson's interview, and in i I decided to revoke Mr.

i accordance with this procedure,and directed Mr. Hinson to  ;

{ Saporito's access to STPEGS,This decision was made by me have this accomplished.

acting only upon the advice of Mr. Hinson. Nr. Jump and 4 i Mr. Cink, though present, did not counsel me as to whether or not Mr. Saporito's access should be continued ,

l or revoked. During this meeting, no discussion relating j

to Mr. Saporito's 10 CFR $ 2.206 petition or any other  ;

f safety allegations by him took place.

i  ;

9. On March 4, 1992, in response to a request made by Mr.

Saporito during an exit interview, I mailed a letter to him describing the basis for the denial of his access J

- authorization. A copy of that letter is attached as ,

Exhibit A to this affidavit.

L AUWY Richard L. Balcom

! Manager of Security a

1 i

e r ~ . --f

, a * -e**s

"'d 4 00h ,

STATE OF TEXAS )

)

)

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, this "E day of Apg. u , 1992.

l m *O,, . .

Public in and for

- ,'. , ., , ,_. - Wr h tapa smis

• a

,4 State of Texas 1

4 l

l l

I I

l 1 i i

r i

J

~4 - ... .. -.

a.

. 11

. 9. . . . . . . .

L.

- . - ,)

4 ~92 -0 03