ML19354E868
| ML19354E868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1989 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19354E856 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002020134 | |
| Download: ML19354E868 (61) | |
Text
_
I
\\
Ca d
/o a+
- i..
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CORGESSION x
e f
.i i
b BRivid.....gh IONS In the Matter oft
)
j
)
i INVESTIGATIVE INTERV. TEM
)
)
)
WILLIAM HUTCHI SON
)
)
i
{
(CLOSED)
)
l I
3 l
l l
i i
v I
Pages:
1 through 59 Place:
Bethesda, Maryland
(
Date:
March 22, 1989 i
e l
DY HERITAGE REPORTING. CORPORATION 1
opuntawes i
t229 L Street, N.W., Seite 600
~
9002025134 90o129 T'
WasWagton, D.C. 20005 PDR ADOCK 05000220!
(102) 628 4888 T
e 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COM(ISSION l
i
)
In the Matter oft
)
i
)
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIE'J
)
)
WILLIAM D. HUTCHISON
}
t
) '-
(CLOSED)
)
- c Wednesday, March 22, 1989 NRC 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda,' Maryland The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 8:20 a..m.
i l
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Nuclear Reaulatory Ca==4s'sion t
l ALAN S. ROSENTHAL KAREN D. CYR, ESQ.
SUSAN S. CHIDAKEL, ESQ.
l lI l
'l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 2
C0NTENT8 i
WITNESS EXAMINATIO19
' William D. Hutchison 3
1 EXHIBITS None s
t.
l l
t L
b 1'
I
.j Heritage Reporting Corporation-(202) 628-4888 iv m
y e.
.+-t-g.
p w
3 1
MR. ROSENTHAL : I an Alan S. Rosenthal, the 2
Retired Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a 3
Atomic Safety end Licensing Appeal Panel.
4 By a February 28, 1989 letter on behalf of 'the 5
Commission, Chairman Zeck called upon me to assume 6
superviaory responsibility for all pending Office of-7 Inspector and Audito.
nvestigations involving the Office of 8
Investigations.
9 And currently being assisted in the conduct of.
10 those investigations are Karen D. Cyr and Susan S._Chidakel, 11 attorneys in the Commission's Offico of the General Counsel.
12 Pursuant to my March 20, 1989 lettor to him, 13 William D. Hutchison is being interviewed this morning in l
14 connection with one.of'the investigations for which I am now l
15 responsible.
16 As he has been previously advised, the interview 17 is being stenographically transcribed.
l 18 NW. Cyr and th. Chidakel are-participating in the i
19 interview and from time to time may supplement _my: questions i
20 with questions of their own.
j 21 This is an_ official investigation and therefore-is 22 subject to the provisions 'of 18.USC 1001.
l 23 Whereupon, l
j 1
l 24 WILLIAM: DAVID HUTCHISON I
l l
l 25 having been called as a witness was examined and testified.
i l
-a Heritage Reporting Corporation
'l (202) 628-4888 1
1
i 4-4
+
1 as follows:
2 EXAMINATION 3
BY MR ROSENTHAL:
l 4
Q Mr. Hutchison, wq,uld you state your full name 5
please?
9 6
A William David Hutchison.
H-U-T-C-H-I-S-O-N.
7 C
And what is your official position within the NRC?
IlamcurrentlytheAssistanttotheDirectoregh83E.
i 8
A 9
Q And how long have you held that position?
10 A
About one month now.
11 Q
One month.
And how long have you been in the 12 Office of Investigations?
13 A
Since retiring from the military in 1984.
August 5
l 14 of 1984.
l l
15 Q
I see.
And what was the nature of your primary 16 duties when in the military service?
17 A
I was-in first the Marine Corps' Criminal ~
s 18
" estigation Division and transferred to the Army.
And I 19 was in the Army Criminal Investigation. Division primarily 1
20 working nm utics law enforcement when I wasn't in a.
21 supervis; y capacity.
22 Q
What was your official position within the Office 23 of Investigations in 1986 and 19877 24 A
I was Field. Operations Officer-responsible for, 25 depending on how many operations. Officers we had,; two or i
Heritage Reporting-Corporation i
(202) 628-4888
______m-__m, _,, _ _ _ _ _, _.
,g p
i l
a 0
1 three regions for coordinating investigative efforts, 2
coordinating the agents, the Field Office Directors, and 1
3 establishing the Headquartere-contact between the field and 4
the Headquarters.
5 Q
And in that capacity, to whom did you report 6
directly?
7 A
To Roger Fortuna.
8 Q
I see.
1 9
A Who was Deputy Director of the Office of 10 Investigations.
11 0
So your role in the conduct of investigations by 12 the Office of Investigations was as you've just described 13 it?
You sort of served in the coordinating role?
Is that 14 it?
l 15 A
It's a staff level position and we.are the-16 responsible individuals for reviewing the reports that come
[
17 in from the field from our respective regions.
And also.the 18 point of contact at Headquarters, the' first point of contact 19 at Headquarters for day-to-day routine activities, policy l
20 interpretation and those kinds of things.
21 The daily questions that come in from the fie'id or 22 go out to the field for.Mr. Hayes 6r Mr. Fortuna.
23 Q
Was one of your functions in that capacity.to pass l
24 judgment upon whether the field office was conducting a 25 particular investigation appropriately?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888-i
...a
.,r
.4
~
e-
4
)
1 A
Not to pass judgment.
More to analyze and make.
2 recommendations to Mr. Fortuna, who.would then direct.- We 3
were not in a directing capacity.
j 4
Q But if you saw something in the papers, let'us 5
say, that you received in connection with an investigation 6
'that indicated to you that the investigation had certain 7
shortcomings, would you bring that point of view to the 8
attention of Mr. Fortuna?
9 A
Yes.
In the normal course of things, I would-10 probably bring that to the attention of the Field Office 11 Director first and we would discuss it.
12 Q
I see.
13 A
And there may be a way that it could be. worked out 14 without it ever going any higher.
If it was merely a small 15 directional thing or something wrong with one of the i
16 descriptions of, say,_a statement'that didn't quite make 17 sense or was unclear.
18 Q
Well, over the course of the period that you 19 occupied this position, did you from time to time have 20 occasion to discuss with a Field Office: Director certain-j 21 aspects of an investigation-that you thought might require 22 sharpening or--
l 23 A
Absolutely. -Almost daily.
24 Q
All right.
Let us turn, if I.may, particularly to
-i 25 the matter of the investigation that was instituted at:the i
l I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
1 l'
t 7
1 instance of one Douglas Ellison in 1986.
2 Are you familiar with the name of Mr. Ellison?
L 3
A I ma familiar with the name of Mr. Ellison and I'm l
/Ps familiar generag ith the Nine Mile Point investigation that 4
5 his name was associated with.
But I honestly do not recall 6
the details..
l 7
Q I see.
Have you had any personal contact with Mr.-
8 Ellison over the years?
9 A
I have asked myself that question and I can i
10 remember possibly talking to him once on the telephone in.
11 which I think I referred him to someone else.
I-can also' 12 recall being involved in a conversation I think with Mr.
13 Fortuna where he asked me to come in the room while he was 14 talking to Mr. Ellison.
But my memory on both of those is 15 somewhat vague.
16 Q
Was he talking with Mr. Ellison in person'or on 17 the telephone?
18 A
'New$nthetelephone.
19 Q
But you had no personal. contact with Mr. Ellison I e
20 take it?
i 21 A
Not that I can recall.
22 Q
As far as you can recall'.
23 A.
Other than what I said.
24 Q
And, now, did you, lus best as you can recall,.did 25 you have any kind of-personal involvement with the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i 8'
1 investigation that Mr. Ellison instigated?
2 A
No.
Any involvement I had at that time would have 3
been very general and in'the position of overseeing and 4
coordinating kind of the investigative effort.
s.
5 And to my knowledge, I didn't have a personal 6
involvement in the Ellison matter.
7 Q
Do you recall whether you had any involvement in 8
the decision to withhold an OI investigation to await the 9
outcome of the investigation that was instituted by the i
10 licensee of Mr. Ellison's allegations?
Are you aware that 11 there was--
12 A
I'm aware that there was.
And I am probably more 13 aware of.the investigation than the fact that possibly it 14 was instigated by Mr. Ellison.
15 Q
All right.
l l
16 A
That would have been the kind of. generic decision:
17 that the Headquarters would be involved in as to whether or 1
18 not to allow a licensee to investigate.
And I do recall 19 some portions of that.
j i'
20 Q
Were you involved in that--
21 A
I think I!was involved in discussions at that 22 point, yes.
23 Q
Do you recall what your own thinking on that i
24 matter was at the time?
.j l
25 A
I think my recommendation was that we go along I
Heritage Reporting Corporation
~ (202) 628-4888 1
I i
l 9
1 with the Field Office Director's decision, which I think was 2
to allow it to go to the licensee for investigation.
3 Q
Oh, I suppose more accurately,-to withhold An OI 4
investigation until the lip,ensee completed-its 5
investigation.
You would never stop, could you, a licensee 6
from investigating it if they wished to do so..
i l
7 A
That's exactly right.
8 Q
Do you recall offhand what was the rationale for 9
the decision to hold off an OI investigation until after the 10 licensee completed its investigation?
11 A
It seems to me there were several points 12 discussed, resources and available resources among them and 13 how soon we could actually get to the case.
4.
14 Each of th/se kinds of" cases,-because it is not a 4,
15 practice that we would prefer to do--each of thpse kinds of 16 cases we usually take into consideration very strongly what.
17 are the capabilities of.the licensee.. And if'I'm not 18 mistaken, in this case they had some actual law enforcement 19 people working it.as opposed to some of the other licensees l
l 20 that we've dealt with who did not have professional 21 investigators working cases and I think that was a factor in 22 the decision.
).
23 Q
Uh-huh.
24 A
And I think those were the main factors I was-4 I
25 involved in.
Because that was--in a sense, one of my i
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888' 4
k
- + - -
m y
e, e-w e
,vv
- m, 4
3 s
10 l
1 functions was to keep track of the utilization of the I
2 resources in the regions that I was responsible for and keep 3
Roger Fortuna and Ben Hayes apprised.
4 If a load was getting too heavy.for certain.
5 investigators or if there needed to be help from another 6
region come in, that was the kind of oversight that the 7
Operation Officers dealt with.
8 Q
To what extent, if any, were you familiar, do you-9 recall now, the allegations that were made by Mr. Ellison?
10 A
I don't recall the details of those allegations i
11 and my memory tells me it was what we refer to as harassment 12 and intimidation, but I think a better word for that would 13 be retaliation kinds of things against bringing up safety 14 concerns, actions taken by the licensee'against safety 15 concerns, but I would not stake too much on my memory in i
16 that sense.
f 17 Q
And.are there many instances in which OI.is i
18 confronted with that kind of allegation, either retaliation 19 or--
20 A
Yes.
We do have a lot of cases referred ~to us'for i
W i
21 that, coming under Section 210 50.7, protection of 4
22 employees.
23 Q
What's the: normal-way that they're' handled?'
24 A
We have an agreement :with the Department of Labor 25 and in the past what we have tried to'do is if someone calls Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
4 e,---.
11:
1 in, explain to them that they have the right to go to the 2
Department of Labor and that any return of their status in 3
monetary terms of anything of that nature is going to'be the 4
responsibility of Labor.to,get together with them on.
And 5
to try to steer them within the time frene allowed to make 6
their complaint to the Department of Labor.
Because that'is 7
a personal thing with them.
They need to get that done no 8
matter what else happens.
f 9
From a professional investigative. standpoint,.
10 rather than going on the same track with two different 11 agencies, if they do go to the Department of. Labor, the i
12 normal course is.to allow them to finish with Labor.
Let 13 Labor do their investigation and then we take a close look 4
14 at it with the staff, and if the. staff' sees a reason within 15 that investigation ' for us ' to take it a step farther for NRC j
16 purposes, then we would proceed.
l 17 MS. CHIDAKEL:
What if 'they don't go to the l
1 18 Department of Labor?
19 THE WITNESS:
Then we-would. decide at that point-20 whether or not to open an investigation, whether or'not this 21 was retaliation or whether this was merely a_ management 22 problem, that type of decision..
23 Normally the' staff would make that and referrit to i
24 us and we would probably be hard pressed to ' disagree.with l
25 the staff's assessment of whether or not we should l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
12-1 investigate.
We can disagree and we can turn it back to 2
them.
But I don't recall too many instances where that's 3
happened.
4 BY MR. ROSENTHAL4 5
Q So as a general matter, you allow the Regional-6 Administrator's staff to make the determination as to why 7
your office should undertake an investigation of a i
8 retaliation or intimidation or harassment claim?
9 A
In the normal course of our business,.our cases 10 are referred from the staff to us, and we would prefer it to-11 be that way.
We reserve the right to self initiate if we 12 disagree or if we see that there is a need.to self initiate, 13 say, something which is too close to the staff or involves' 14 in some way the activities of the staff.
15 We've had instances where an alleger did not want 16 to talk to the Regional staff. 'Just flat refused.
And in-l I
t 17 those kinds of cases or in cases where the Regional staff-I
.g 18 says they do not want to refer ity f(e feel there is 19 wrongdoing here 4nd if there's a need, we can self j j 20 initiate.
i i
21 But the norm, he overwhelming norm, is that cases 22 are referred from.the staff to us.
l 23 Q
So is it fair to say that in the time.that you 24 occupied this position that there were very few instances-in which OI would institute an investigation in circumstances 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
/
(202) 628-4888' 4
l
13; 1
where the Regional Administrator was not recommending it?
l 2
A Well, it is not.an unheard of thing.
And I don't 3
want to give that impression.
4 Q
No, no.- I understand 'it's not unheard of. -But it 5
did not occur frequently, is that.right?
6 A
It did not occur frequently, Ymq.
7 Q
As a general matter, you took your lead from:the 8
Regional Administrator?
9 A
'From the staff, whether it be Region or.
10 Headquarters, depending) what--
t i
11 Q
All right.
But from the technical staff 12 A
From the technical staff'of the NRC.
13 Q
Well, what might lead OI to conclude that it 14 should investigate a harassment or intimidation or 15 retaliation asserting in circumstances where the--
16 A
The staff might disagree?
17 Q
--technical staff had felt that.no such l
18 investigation was warranted?
What would lead you to do it?
19 A
Let me give you a hypothetical.. If we had had,-
l 20 say, a series of pieces of information.that might indicate l
21 some kind of a pattern of harassment suu1 intimidation that i
l
~
22 was not perhaps perceived by the staff who were only looking 23 at one isolated instance, we might open and self initiate.
s 24 I can envision that happening.
And'also there may 25 be instances where the staff does not feel that the-Heritage Reporting-Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
.L
. ~.
~. -,
14-l 1
retsliation was for a-serious enough safety concern and 2
therefore it.was not worth referrin over-to OI may 3
say that, asut if the involvement that particular licensee.
4 in the harassment and intimidation was at a management 5
level, then we' re talking about the integrity-of a licensee, 6
which la a serious safety problem.
Much more serious than 7
what perhaps might be perceived by the staff.in their 8
initial--
9 Q
So you might be looking at it from a'somewhat 10 different perspective than the Regional Administrator's
[
11 staff--
t 12 A
Yes.
I 13 Q
--or the technical staff in Washington?
14 A
Yes.
A great deal of our focus is on integrity of y
15 the management of the licensees and that's. not ~ really a 16 staff call, in that sense,1it's more of a people-call.
It's 17 not a technical call.
18 MS. CYR:
Do'you have any sense of.the total a
19 number of intimidation and harassment claims that may come 20 into the agency of those for which you are asked to 21 investigate?
I mean do you think.it's.a large percentage, a 22 small percentage?
Do you have any sense at all?
23 THE WITNESS:
No, I'm sorry.
I have-none.-
r 24 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
25 Q
Now, as I understand it, in connection with the Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
t I
'15 1
Ellison investigation, or the investigation of Mr. Ellison's 2
allegations, the licensee undertook an investigation, came 3
up with an interim report,.was sent back to'the drawing 4
board and came up.with a final report.
5 A
Uh-huh.
6 Q
And as a consequence of that final report, the l
7 determination was made not to have an independent OI 1
8 investigation.
Is that your understanding of it?
9 A
That is my understanding of it.
In fact, )P(- I r
10 think,sent them back to the drawing board.
I think it's our-11 Case Agent who sent them back to the drawing board.
12 Q
Now, did you have any personal involvement in 13 determining whether the final report of the licensee was 14 satisfactory?
15 A
I do not believe that I reviewed that report, no.
16 MS. CHIDAKEL:
Who did review that report?-
17 THE WITNESS:
The Case Agent who was monitoring 18 the case, if I'm not mistaken.
19 MS. CHIDAKEL:
He would'have reviewed both the 20 interim report and the final report, is that correct?
21 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
The first report they gave and 22 then when they went back and wrote'it?
-Yes, he was keeping 23 a fairly close monitorship on this.because as a rule we 24 don't prefer that the licensee do the investigation.
i i
25 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
i-Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 i
....... ~. -.
I 16 1
Q When you refer to the Case Agent, you are 2
referring to Mr. Matakis--
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
--the Field Investigator?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
All right.
7 BY MS. CHIDAKEL:
i 8
Q So there would have been no review from 9
Headquarters of either of those reports with the purpose of 10 determining whether the licensee's investigation was 11 satisfactory?
12 A
Not exactly.
When a caseHis opened and the case 13 was reviewed by Mr. Matakis, he' was reviewing because, he was -
14 the first level of oversight on that licensee investigation.
15 And his view of that investigation, since he'd actually 16 talked to the investigators and discussed it with them, was-17 the one that we would rely on most.
18 That report would be included in our report.
It 19 would then go through'the normal review process.
So his-20 Field Office Director would also review the report.
It l
21 would come to the Headquarters and the Operations Officer t
22 would review it.
And then it woul'd go through various 4
23 stages of review within the Headquarters element to_the 24 Deputy Director and Director to be signed out.
i l
25 Now, I don't recall whether.I actually reviewed i
i l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888
~
~...
..- -.-_- ~
- )
17' 1
that report or not.
I just don't recall the report.
2 Q
Well, who makes the final judgment as to whether 3
the licensee has done an adequate job, either with their-4 interim report or with their final report?
5 A
Well, the final judgment on whether or not am YbbL 6
Office of Investigation is finished lies with Ben Hayes, the L
7 Director.
He's the one who signs.
And:the report does not 8
go out as a completed report until Ben Hayes signs it.
9 Q
But I guess my question is, who looks--who l
10 actually--does anyone from Headquarters actually look at 11 what the licensee has done and determined whether this is an 12 adequate job?
Or is that only done in the field?
13 A
No.
It's done also at Headquarters in the review 4
14 process.
I didn't-mean to--
l 15 MS. CYR:
Would there be a difference whether this 16 was an inquiry or a Q case as opposed to a full-blown l
17 investigation?
18 THE WIJNE S:,
The Q case would normally'have been Mlaid0 19 signed off by the Director.
If it was a Q, then the-20 Director would sign off on it in the field.
And then there 21 would be a post review at Headquarters after it was signed 22 off.
23 If it had been upped to a full-scale 24 investigation, then a final R.OI is written and then it goes 25 through the normal review process--Field Office. Director, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
18 1
Ops Officer at Headquarters, Deputy' Director, Director.
2 Am I answering your question?
j 3
MS. CYR:
So in the case of a Q report then, how 4
at Headquarters would the p,ost review be done?
5 THE WITNESS:
A copy of it is sent to the 6
Headquarters.
And it's placed with the Operations Officer.
7 He takes a look at it and if he has no real serious 8
misgivings as to how it was closed out and why'it was closed 9
out, then it is merely laid to rest.
10 MS. CHIDAKEL:
The Operations Officer would be you 1
~
11 in this case, is that correct?
12 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
13 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Do you know who in this instance 14 in Headquarters reviewed the final report of the--
l 15 MS. CYR:
This was in fact a Q.
16 THE WITNESS:
I do not know who actually looked at 17 it.
I i
18 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
19 Q
Now, did you have any involvement in the decision, 20 as I understand it, to refer this matter to the United 21 States Attorney's Office in Syracuse,-New York?-
1 22 A
Not that I can recall.
'I may have discussed it 1
23 with Mr. Fortuna and Mr. Matakis and possibly Mr. Whitei tut 24 I don't recall the conversations.
25 Q
You are aware that it was. referred to the U.. S ~.
t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
't
_~
t 19 i
1 Attorney's Office in Syracuse?
2 A
I'm aware that it' was.
3 Q
Are you aware of any action that the United Statea 4
Attorney's Office might have taken with regard to it?
5 A
No.
6 Q
Let's move on to the matter of.Mr. Steven Conley.
7 Is that name familiar to you?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And have you ever met or spoken to Mr. Comley 10 personally?
t 11 A
Yes.
For most of an.aiternoon on the 15th of 12 January.
13 Q
15th of January.
14 A
In 1987.
15 Q
And where was that?
16 A
Federal Triangle Building, downtown Washington et 17 the U. S. Attorney's Office.
That's Main Justice-18 Litigation.
19 Q
The U.S. Attorney or was it the Main Justice?
20 A
It was Main Justice Litigation Branch.
21 Q
Right.
It was not the_U.S. Attorney's Office, is 22 that correct?
23 A
Correct.
24 Q
All right.
Would you be so kind as to tell us~how 1
25 you became an attendee or participant in this meeting?
IL Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
20 1
mean what was the meeting all about?
How did you become-2 involved in it?
3 A
Well, I think to call it a meeting is somewhat of-4 a mischaracterization.
j 5
Q Well, you can characterize it--
6 A
It was an interview.
{
7 Q
It was several people gathered together,'all 8
right?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Tell me about it.
11 A
As I recall, within a couple of' weeks before that 12 we were asksd by an Assistant U.S. Attorney--now, this is a i
13 staff attorney in the Litigation Division.
M. Shamwell, r
14 Earl Shamwell.
15 Q
He was probably not an Assistant U.S. Attorney but 16 a Justice Department staff lawyer, is that correct?
17 A
Yes.
I think that was his title.
I'm not sure 18 what his title was.
19 Q
All right, but.anyway--
20 A
And he requested investigative technical 21 assistance in e.n interview that he was going to conduct with 22 Mr. Conley on the 15th of January.
23 Q
Well, you say "We were requested." ~Mho did.that-24 request come to, do you know?
25 A
It came to the Headquarters.- I think I~first-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
+
a m.-
-es.
~
m e
--+a-
. 9
t 21' i
1 heard about it from Roger Fortuna and it--to tell you the 2
honest truth, it may have come up through the Region.
3 Because it could easily have gone to Region'I first and come 4
up to the Headquarters.
I' m honestly not sure.
5 Q
All right.. But this was a request from NW.
6 Shamwell---
7 A
For assistance.
8 Q
--to have assistance in an-interview with Mr.
9 Comley?
10 A
Yes.
Il Q
Now, why was Mr. Shamwell -interviewing Mr. Conley?
12 Were you told that?
13 A
Yes.
The impression that I had was that' Mr.
14 Comley had information that may cause us to want to relook 15 at an old case or some old cases involving the Seabrook 16 Plant and also that he may have new information involving l
17 the Seabrook Plant that OI might need tc look at.
18 Q
He had gone to.Mr. Shamwell and informed him he 19 had this information?
20 A
I think generally he.had.
And I've been trying to 21 figure that out in my head.
22 105. CYR:
To your knowJedge, had he ever come to 23 the NRC with this information before that time?
24 THE WITNESS:. Well, we didn't lanow what - that 25 information was at that time..
i l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888-i'
. ~..
2
^ :
22 1
MS. CYR:
Had he come to the NRC at all to your 2
knowledge prior to that time?
3 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
I was familiar with the name 4
of Mr. Comley and I knew that he was associated with 5
Seabrook.
6 MS. CHIDAKEL:
Is this.the normal way that this 7
kind of thing would be handled if somebody came to the 8
Department of Justice with concerns that involved Nuclear 9
Regulatory Commission matters?
Is this what normally 10 happens?
The Department of Justice calls you and asks you 11 to sit in on an interview, rather than referring this person 12 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
i 13 THE WITNESS:
No.
Normally I think they would 4
14 have referred it.
In this case though, I_think that' one of Sw...
15 the things that Mr. Comley--I think because this-is the l
16 impression that I'm getting-from my memory,-but I think one 17 of the things he had told Mr. Shamwell was one of the cases 4
18 that he thinks ought to be relooked at or lun thought ought 19 to be relooked at was a case-that had been handled by the 20 Department of Justice.
I 21 BY HR. ROSENTHAL:
22 Q
That was the'Patavano ca'se
)
l 23 A
Yes.
I did~not I think neugit was the:Patavano l
24 case until we actually-arrived.
But that is the' case that l
25-became the issue that' he wanted to talk to Mr. Shamwell Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ll-
-w-T*wa---we+
4 r
e*
7-+=
u&-e-a
~
1 R
23 1
about.
2 Q
And from whom did you first learn about this j
3 request of Mr. Shamwell?
From Mr. Fortuna or from somebody 4
else?
5 A
My recall is that it was from Mr. Fortuna?
6 Q
All right.
And obviously a decision was made that-7 you would attend that meeting, is that correct?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Or excuse me.
Interview.
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Who made that decision, to the best of your 12 knowledge?
13 A
As I remember the process, it may well-have-been 14 my request as well as anything else, becauso it wasEr mutual 15 decision.
I had another reason for going down there.. I was:
16 doing business with another one of.the staff. attorneys on 17 another case that-we had.
,It.gave me a chance to do more 18 liaison with the Department of Justice.
19 In addition.to'that, we asked Region I for what-l' 20 resources they had available.
Rich Matakis was available.
l
. :21 He also had some knowledge of Seabrook-cases which made it l
22 quite appropriate that I think he--
23 Q
You say it was a mutual decision--
i 24 A
Myself talking to Roger Fortuna talking to Chet i
25 White.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
4
, e e,_,.
,r
t
,j 24 1
Q All right.
Now, Mr. Hayes involved in that at 2
all, do you,know?
3 A
I do not believe Mr. Hayes was involved in that.
4 Q
The decision that you would go was' basically a s-5 decision reached by you-in consultation with Mr. Fortuna and 6
perhaps Mr. White as well?
7 A
It was a decision that was reached.
I am not sure 8
it was reached by me.
I would not have gone had it not been 9
Mr. Fortuna's. desire since he was my boss.
10 Q
I see.
I understand that.
11 Now, the decision to send Mr. Matakis down from 12 King of Prussia, do you know who made that?
l 13 A
The specific decision to send Mr. Matakis as 14 opposed to another. agent was probably left with Chet White.
15 I'm pretty sure it was left with-Chet White because he was 16 his boss.
17
'Q But.the decision was made in Headquarters that-18 somebody should be coming down from your Region I Field 19 office?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
And who would have made that decision?
22 A
Mr. Fertuna.
l l
23 Q.
Mr. Fortuna.
l 24 A
Uh-huh.
l.
l 25 Q
And, now, you said that there had been some i
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1 a
25 1
contact with Mr. Conley prior to this particular occasion?
2-A Yes.
I'm sure that Mr. Matakis was aware of him 3
and I'm sure there had been contacts with Re'gion I because l
4 of the Seabrook Plant, and because Mr. Comley was active as 5
a--I think he was the director.of an organization that.had a 6
lot to do with opposing the evacuation plans and a few other 7
things at the plant.
And so I'm sure that that name was 8
well known in Region I.
And I. knew it up at Headquarters as 9
associated with it.
10 Q
Do you know whether Mr. Fortuna was acquainted.
11 with Mr. Comley prior to this time?
~
12 A
I do not know if Mr. Fortuna was acquainted with j
i 13 him.
I think--my memory. tells me he has talked to Mr.
14 Comley or had talked to him on-the phone.
But'I'have no 15 specific details on that.
I i
16 Q
Very good.- All right.
And I take it'that--well, 17 had Mr. Fortuna ever discussed Mr. Conley with you prior to 18 this interview with a request that NRC be represented at'the.
19 interview?
Do you recall any conversations with him?
20 A
I don't recall any conversations prior to just-21 before the 15th of January hat maybe two-week period 22 after'Mr. Shamwell had requested the' interview.
23 Q
All right.
Well, would you-tell us now what 24 transpired at that interview?
First of all, who was 25 present?
I I
Heritage Reporting Corporation 4
(202) 628-4888
.-._~
-~
s 26 1
A Mr. Comley,.myself, Richard Matakis, and Mr.
2 Shamwell.
I 3
Q So just the four of you?
4 A
Just the four of,us.
5 Q
All right.
And what happened?
q 6
A Am I said, it was at Mr. Shamwell's request.
He 7
primarily handled'the questioning at first in finding out 8
just what the concerns-of Mr. Comley were..
l o
l 9
He discussed almost entirely the Patavano matter:
10 because Mr. Comley's concerns seemed to be that'the 11 Department of Justice should not have plea bargained the 12 case.
13 And he also talked to him about any other concerns 14 he had that related to the-Department of Justice.
And.
15 overall his portion of the. questioning of Mr.-Comley dealt 16 with whether or not he had some information.that'might cause 17 the Department of Justice to come back'into any 18 investigation or any litigation that might'be involved in 19 the Patavano matter or any. other matter the Department of
- i 20 Justice might have been involved in in Seabrook.
21 Q
Were you involved at all.with the Patavano matter 22 when--
I i
23 A
It was before my time.
l 24 Q
Okay.
25 A
I was not aware of it even when we were sitting 4
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l-4
27c 1
there talking to Mr. Comley.
I was merely sitting back 2
listening.
3 Q
Well, in that connection, you'were not told'in h
4 advance of the meeting that.the focus of Mr. Comley's 5
concerns was the Patavano matter?
6 A
I honestly don't remember whether I knew.the name 7
Patavano before I went there or not.-
I think it was after j
8 we arrived.
We sat in Mr. Shamwell's office and Mr.
9 Shamwell may have told us these were where his concerns.were l
10 focusing on that particular matter.
Or at least some of his.
11 concerns.
12 Q
So you really didn't know what specifically was 13 going to be on the table when you went down to that meeting, 14 is that correct?
15 A
No, I did not.
16 MS, CHIDAKEL:
What exactly did Mr. Fortuna tell 17 you before you went?
Did he give you any information about 18 what your role was or brief you as to what the subject 19 matter would be?
Or anything?
20 THE WITNESS:
I think what both his and my l
21 concerns were and what he had given me as a mandate when I 22 went down there was make sure that' Mr..Comley does not have 23 any information that would cause us to relook at an OI. case.
24 And particularly, does he haveJany'information about the U_ M 25 Seabrook Plant which would GaeW us to open new Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888-4 4
~.
7 28 1
investigations?
2 And I think that was the mission.
That's the 3
reason I was there.
And I made that abundantly clear to Mt.
4 Comley before we left.
Thgt if he has any specific' 5
information, which he did not have, concerning gliegations that we ' eed to know about it W we are Mo move.
6 n
j 7
We also told him that if--and as this some;three-8 hour interview progressed, it became fairly obvious that Mr.
d 9
comley did not have specific first-hand information.
10 It evolved over three hours to that decision.'
l 11 That this man was not going to give us detailed first-hand 12 information that we could move on..
l FM\\
% tpgHALQ Was he claiming that in point of fact--
13 14 A
He had claimed that.
15 Q
--there was information- -
16 A
I think he had a problem.
-l 17 Q
--going to the safety of the Seabrook Plant which 18 the NRC was not aware of?
19 A
I think he had'a problem with the definition of 20 what kind of specificity you needed.
We explained to him, 21 as I recall--at one point I told him "What you are telling.
22 us, if we proceeded on those kinds'of things, would be a 23 witch hunt.
And.we need the specificity that-would allow us
~
F 24 to focus an investigation on something."
25 And what-it was boiling down to, and what it ended i
[
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l s
-- ~>
i 29 i
l 1
up as, is this man was not going to give us first-hand l
2 information, but this man did know sources who could.
l l
l 3
And what we were aiming at and what I was aiming l
)
4 at in the course of the int 3rview with the gentleman was 5
"Give us the names of your sources.
Tell us where you are 6
getting this general information from so we can go out and 7
interview those sources and get the specifics."
8 Q
Do you recall what this general information j
9 consistect of?
i 10 A
There were two somewhat technical issues that I 11 recall he mentioned but I don't recall the details.
l 12 Q
These were deficiencies in plant construction, or l
13 something of that order?
14 A
Yes.
l 15 MS. CYRt Was there any indication that these l
t 16 sources were there in the area available or--
17 THE WITNESS:
He.did keep indicating--we got'to a 18 point where it was apparent that this was a negotiation and 19 not an interview.
And nobody was quite sure what he wanted 20 in return for whatever he thought he could give us.
So we 21 proceeded as a witness interview.
Which is to ask him 22 questions straight forward and expect straightforward 4
23 answers and not in any way, say, " Hey, well, look.
If you 24 tell us this, we'll give you that.
t 25
- BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
,---,,--w-,
,_,y,,,ww--,,,%,
,-m,..
~
m.,--w-,,-.---
i j
30 1
Q Did you ask him some questions or was all the 2
questioning d,one by Mr. Shamwell?
1 3
A No, no.
We asked.
Both Mr. Matakis and I asked 4
him specific questions, trying to draw him out to give us i
5 more details or to give us the names of the people.
6 Q
Now, with respect to Mr. Patavano, I gather--
l 7
A Mr. Shamwell asked the questions and answered 8
questions of Mr. Comley almost entirely.
9 Q
All right.
Now, the point, I take it, that Conley 10 was making was that Patavano shouldn't have been given a 11 plea bargain, was that it?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Got off too lightly?
Was that the basic thrust?
14 A
The gist of it was he got off too lightly for what 15 he did.
And secondly, the plant should not have been i
16 licensed with all of the concerns that were aired at the l
17 time.
And we explained to him that it was not an 18 investigative function to license a plant.
Nor was it the l
19 Department of Justice's involvement.
20 Q
Now, I realize that the Patavano matter took place 21 before you came on the scene, but do you recall basically 22 what Mr. Patavano was?
Was he an insurance inspector or--
i l
i 23 what did he get into trouble for?
Do you remember?
If not, 24 just say so, all right?
25 A
I don't honestly remember.
I Beritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
i 1
l 31 l
i 1
Ms. CYR Was there any indication that the 2
information he had went specifically to the Patavano case or 1
3 was it--I mean, you said you described two specific concerns l
4 he had was the Patavano cans and he thought he got off too 5
lightly.
And that we licenood the plant despite of the fact 6
of having those concerne.
7 Did he indicata any other particular problems that 8
he was aware of surrounding the incident that led tc Mr.-
-l 9
Patavano's--or was it mostly that he had additional new 10 information?
Or did you get any sense at a 1 of this?
11 THE WITNESS:
No, we did not g what we 12 expected to get from the interview.
We expected new 13 information.
We did not get new information.
Other than 14 generalities.
And that was not I don't think about 15 Patavano.
I think his concern about Patavano, at least as I 16 read it, was with the Department of Justice and their 1
17 actions.
And then with the NRC and their licensing actions.
18 And not to provide new information to us.
19 MS. CHIDAKEL:
Why didn't Roger Fortuna attend 20 that meeting or interview with you?
21 THE WITNESS I think it would have been highly 22 unlikely that the Director or Deputy Director of an office 23 would attend an interview with an alleger.
l 24 BY MR. ROSENTHAL 25 Q
Now, when you came back, did you report to Mr.
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t 32 i
Fortuna the substance of the interview?
i 2
A Yes.
3 Q
What was his reaction, if you recall it?
4 A
Well, I think he felt somewhat more assurance that s.
5 we didn't at least have information on the table that we 6
needed to open up some case on.
But I think he had the same 7
uisgivings that I had that this gentleman had sources that 8
he wasn't telling us about and that if we could get to those 9
sources we could proceed to interview them and get the 10 details of something that--
11 Q
Why did you have misgivings if the most that this 12 man, Mr. Comley, came up with were the generalities?
13 Wouldn't that have led you to the conclusion that there i
14 probably is nothing specific?
I i
15 A
No.
Because he kept alluding to the fact thet ha 16 didn't have the information but he might be able to get it.
17 He didn't have specifies to give us but he is still working
)
18 on it.
As I recall, these were a couple of times in there 1
19 his words.
"But I'm still working on it and I think I can 20 get that information."
21 Our next question is, "Who can you get that 23 information from?
Tell us his name and let us interview 23 him."
And the answer was, "Well, no.
I can't do that."
1 24 Q
Well, wouldn't the response to Mr. Conley be in i
25 those circumstances, "All right.
Go back to your sources 5eritage Reporting-Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
m
33 i
1 and get that information in detail and coms to us"?
2 A
That's exactly the response we gave him.
l 3
Q Did he follow through?
j 4
A
'nd did he ever jpilow through to do that?
j 2
5 Q
Yeu.
Ycu asked him--
i 6
A To ths best of my knowledge, sir, he did not.
I j
1 7
do not think Mr. Matakis--Y know I did not hear from him
]
8 again.
9 Q
so in ahort--
10 A
And I don't think Mr. MatahAs heard from nia l
11 again.
l 12 Q
So if I understand you corroctly, Mr. Conley came
{
13 up with a lot of generalities.
Thors was some suggestion i
14 that he had sources that could put meat on these bones.
He 1
15 wouldn't disclose the name of those sourcas.
You asked him i
16 in those circumstances to go back tc the sources.
And to l
17 provide you with the meat or to have them provids you with I
16 the nient for the bones.
And to your knowledge, that didn't 19 happon.
Is that an accurate summary--
20 7
71.at's exactly correct.
21 0
--of what transpired?
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
All right.
Now, to your knowledge, was there any 24 contact between Mr. Comley and Mr. Fortuna or other people 4
25 in liesdquarters 01 subsequent to this January 15th meeting?
j l
Heritage Reporting Ccrporation (202) 628-4888 9
r-,- -,, - - -
-,. ~ -
,.m e
_...,-_r..,
,v.
wp.
,.,.-w,y.,,..e-r-=.m..w-w y
..v.-.w.-
j 34 1
A I am not aware of any additional contact.
2 Q
There certainly was no contact with you.
l 3
A There was none with me.
4 Q
And to your knowl, edge at least, there was none l
3 with anyone else?
i G
A No.
You may have to ask Mr. Matakia if he was 7
contacted again but--
8 Q
No.
I'm just asking you whether you were 9
contacted or to your knowledge was there contact with other i
10 people, and the answer to that is no?
t 11 A
The answer to that is no.
12 MS. CHIDAKEL:
What about prior to the meeting?
13 Do you know if Mr. Conley ever had any contact about the 14 meeting with anybody?
i 15 THE WITNESS:
- Yes, I think I mentioned that--
I 16 about the meeting?
17 MS. CHIDAKEL:
Yes.
About the interview.
Was 18 there ever any contact, to your knowledge, from Comley 6
19 before the meeting or interview?
20 THE WITNESS:
Not to my knowledge at all, no.
21 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
22 Q
Did Mr. Fortuna,-prior t'o the meeting, indicate to 23 you that he'd had-discussions with Conley that might have 24 related to this meeting?
25 A
I don't recall him saying that.
He could have Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 35 1
mentioned that but I don't recall it specifically.
2 Q
So as far as you recall now, there was no j
3 discussion between you and Mr. Fortuna prior to the meeting 4
about any contact that Mr.,Eortuna might have had with Mr.
j j
5 Comley regarding the meeting?
6 A
Regarding the meeting?
Not that I recall.
Not i
7 that I recall.
f 8
Q All right.
Have you ever heard of the Hoplar 9
case?
W-0-P-L-A-R.
Does that name mean anything to you at 10 all?
11 A
Only recently, and I don't know why.
I do not 12 know why that rings a bell, but it does recently.
I 13 recently saw it somewhere.
[
t 14 Q
You may have seen the name but you don't have any 15 knowledge of this case or what it involved or--
16 A
I think I would remember-it because of the close 17 association to the television judge.
l 18 Q
All right.
I'm going to ask.you just a few very-19 general questions with regard to dealing with informers as a 20 general matter and the cultivating of sources.
This based 21 upon particularly your prior military experience.
22 Before I get to that, however, I'm going to ask 23 MW. Cyr and Ms. Chidakel whether they have any further 24 questions going specifically to the matter at hand.
25 MS. CYR:
Do you remember any discussions prior to Beritage Reporting Corporation (202)' 628-4888 9
J k
-.,-,_%p.
.m
..,,,_,_...,y,.
., -..,. -,.. -,.. ~,.. -.. - _ -
4 36 I
i 1
the January 15th meeting about Mr. Matakis' role in the 2
meeting?
]
3 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
I believe there were 4
discussions between Chet White on the phone, Roger Fortuna n
5 and myself in a telephone conference about which agent was 6
going to go and attend the meeting.
7 MS. CYR:
Were there any concerns expressed about i
8 Mr. Matakis being the one who was going or particular 9
benefits about him going or anything?
I 10 THE WITNESS:
Well, I think there were benefits of 11 his going because he was familiar with some of the Seabrook 12 cases and I think the Patavano case was actually his.
13 Although I wasn't aware that that was the case they were l
14 talking about or going to address.
At least I don't l
15 remember having discussed that particular case.
16 I do recall that his familiarity with Seabrook was 17 one of the factors.
i 18 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
4 19 Q
But you don't recall there being any Headquarters i
20 involvement in the decision to send Mr. Matakis?
Because I 21 think what you said before was that Headquarters decided 22 there should be somebody--that somebody should come down i
23 from the Region but it was probably Chester White's decision 24 that it was Mr. Matakis.
Did I understand you correctly?
25 A
That's my recollection..
1 Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e-,,,
.--e.
,,n
.,._-e-.
e.
.n.n.
.-,e,
.,,,-,,-e
+
l 4
37 1
Q All right.
2 A
But it could just twee. easily--I don't remember l
A 4
3 the details of those conversations.
I think what we are 4
talking about here is the pJocess that we normally go j
5 through in choosing something like this.
This was merely an l
6 interview with an alleger that we had a deep concern about 7
because he may be giving new information.
And that 8
obviously Mr. Shamwell and the Department of Justice had a l
9 concern about, because they had asked that we be there.
10 And so in those kinds of instances, we merely get 11 together and talk about, you know, who's available, who has i
12 the best knowledge, and who has the resources, and then it's 13 sort of Mr. White saying, yeah, that sounds like Natakis is l
14 the best man for the job, and obviously Roger concurring or I
15 oven saying, yes, do it.
l 16 Q
But from your standpoint, at least, Mr. Matakis 17 would have been a logical choice because of his--
l l
18 A
Absolutely.
19 Q
--prior involvement with Seabrook and, as you j
20 recall it at least, involvement with the Patavano matter l
21 itself.
l 22 A
I don't remember whether'the name "Patavano" came i
j 23 up in our discussions then, if they came up when we arrived l
24 with Mr. Shamwell, or the first time I heard it was in the 25 interview.
So I don't think Patavano may have been a Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
s'
. - ~ ~.,
.-.-..n
.w,
,.,.,e-ws
38 1
factor.
2 Q
Seabrook was a factor?
3 A
Seabrook was a factor.
4 Q
You did know, of c,ourse, that Mr. Conley's focus 5
was on the Seabrook Plant?
6 A
Yes.
I might add, and this I know absolutely, 7
there was no discussion of any connection between Mr.
8 Ellison and Nine Mile Point and Mr. Conley and Seabrook.
9 They were two--in my mind, they were two entirely separate 10 issues.
11 Q
So that, in short, when you went down to this 12 interview, the Nine Mile Point investigation was the I
13 farthest thing from your mind?
14 A
Yes.
Well, yes.
15 Q
And, I take it, it didn't come up.
Is that 16 correct?
17 A
Not that I recall.
Now, he may have mentioned i
18 that as one of those things that he had concerns with, 19 because there were several times during our interview with 20 him that we had to bring him back on track.
He would start 21 talking about general concerns in the nuclear industry in 22 various places, and we had to say,'"Mr. Conley, do you have 23 direct knowledge from your own knowledge of this particular i
24 instance, do you know about this?"
And he would say, "No,"
l l
25 And we would say, "Could we please get back on the subject"?
i Beritage Reporting Corporation-i (202) 628-4888 l.
..,.....,.~,.-,
. ~..
39 l
1 Q
Do you recall him having--
i 1
1 2
A I do not recall that the Nine Mile Point 3
investigation was mentioned.
4 0
You don't recall,him mentioned Mr. Ellison by 5
name--
6 A
No.
7 Q
--in the course of the interview?
8 A
I do not.
I i
9 HS. CHIDAKEL:
Were you familiar at all with the
{
10 name of Steven Comley before this meeting?
Had his name or 11 identidy ever come up?
1 12 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
I was familiar to the extent 13 that I knew he was associated with the plant, with Seabrook, 14 and I think I may even have seen some newspaper clippings i
15 come across.
Because what we do at the Headquarters is pick 16 out newspaper clippings that have to do with various plants 17 that might have interest to us.
And then circulate them 18 around the office.
And I may have seen newspaper clippings i
19 with his name on it.
20 And I know he was the director of Romley--the 21 people of Romley Care kind of thing.
It was,an organization 22 that was concerned very heavily wi'th the evacuation plans-at 23 Seabrook.
24 MS. CHIDAKEL:
But other than that, you weren't I
i 25 aware that he was actually more involved in any kind of an Heritage Reporting Corporation 4
(202) 628-4888 i
i
._.,~_,...._,_.._.,_,,._,._..m.
...,,._,.m.._,,,.,,,,., _
1 I
T 40 1
OI matter or that he had ever, say, brought any allegations 2
to oI about anything directly?
j 3
THE WITNESS:
He may have, but I don't recall j
4 being aware of it at that time.
l 5
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Anything further?
I 6
MS. CYRt No.
7 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
8 Q
Okay.
Let's, if I might, turn to your general j
9 experience as an investigator over the years.
I would like 10 to know whether you think that there are circumstances in i
11 which it might be appropriate in order to cultivate a
'l 12 possible source of information to provide that individual 13 with internal information that normally would be kept in-14 house?
Do you follow the question?
15 A
I think:I do.
The first decision that an 16 investigator has to make when he's dealing with an 4
l 17 individual who has information of some kind is whether he is 18 dealing with a witness or whether he is dealing with someone 19 that he is going to have to go into some negotiation process 20 with.
i 21 If he is merely a witness, it's.a straightforward
+
22 investigative witness interview kind of technique.
But'even 23 if you start that way, it_ becomes fairly obvious, 'if he's 4
24 not going to be a witness, very quickly, ' because he's very 25 reluctant to answer questions and he starts asking you other Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
=
m
.,.m.-__.
r -,. -, - -
y
...w-4 w.-4
,w--
v
.m,--.-
~.
i 41 1
questions.
2 Usually the source or informant that we're talking 3
about, once it passes that witness threshold, it becomes--
I 4
MS. CYR:
You get the sense that you've passed i
5 that threshold because he's asking you questions?
6 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
And it's starting to move into 1
7 him trying to get you into a conspiratorial. type 8
relationship, a negotiation type relationship, where it's l
9 give and take.
"You tell me this, but I want something in
(
10 return."
i 11 Now, what he might want is money.
What he might 12 want is--his motivation is what we're talking about.
And
{
13 that's the thing that the investigator, through his own i
14 experience, has to decide, in talking to someone, what his 4
15 motivation is.
And he has to decide that fairly quickly.
2 j
16 Because that's the key to opening him up.
17 And it may not be that cut and dried.
You may not i
18 be able to decide it right away.
So you keep trying
[
19 different keys, different motivations, and you see which one 20 is going to work.
21 His motivation could be as simple as he wants l
22 money for information.
His motivation could be as 23 complicated as ha is, say, a drug dealer, and wants to i
24 eliminate his competition.
It may.be as complicated as he 25 wants to know what techniques you use,.let's say, in I
- u Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 v
..-.--,,-,,.-4
.n.
..-w..,-
--,-.-.--+.,--w---.---.
....... - +. -, -, - -, - -,. -. - -.
42 1
surveillance or in working under cover and how do you bring 2
your money in and what kind of money do yeu use, for his own 1
3 benefit in what he might want to do.
4 It may be that hg wants--and this is a very 5
prominent motive that everybody knows because everyone 6
watches television, that he may just want to get off the l
7 hook.
He may have some problems of his own with law
[
8 enforcement and ho may want you to take care of those j
9 problems in payment for giving you information.
10 In any event, the key ~to it is trying to determine l
11 that motive.
And it's a very difficult process, a very 12 sensitive process.
And it requires a lot of concentration 13 and a lot,of chancy things that you do to try to open that A4 14 door that going to make him react.
l 15 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
16 Q
In order to embark upon that course, would you i
17 have to be reasonably satisfied that this is an individual 18 who in fact has information that would be useful to you?
I l
19 A
You mean prior--
4 20 Q
Mell, before you would, for example, give-this 21 individual information--
l 22 A
Uh-huh.
23 Q
--in order to cultivate him, information that you j
24 would normally not give to an outsider, would you have to be 25 reasonably satisfied that there is something this_ guy 1
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
i e
+
l
\\
~
43 1
possesses of value to you?
2 A
Yes.
3 MS. CHIDAKEL:
Now, who would do s'omething like 4
that?
Is that like.anyone in OI, say, the field 5
investigators as well as people from Headquarters might have j
6 this kind of a relacionship with--
i 7
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
I think it is incumbent on 8
everyone involved in the investigative process to cultivate 9
sources.
10 MS. CYR:
Do you do that?
11 THE WITNESS:
Oh, yes.
12 BY H3. CHIDAKEL:
13 Q
And once this is done, the fact that this has 14 happened, is this relayed to anybody else within OI?
For 15 example, if an investigator is having this kind of I
16 relationship, would he be expected to tell his supervisor or 17 to tell anybody else in the organization?
18 A
It's a very subjective decision.
Obviously, if 19 the individual requests confidentiality, then he has to tell 20 someone, because he has to fill out a form and we have a 21 process even more form &1 now than it was before of l
22 registering informants that have requested confidentiality.
l 23 But there's the difference that we are talking
\\
24 about.
Many law enforcement agencies break it down that am J$
informant is the one that you are talking 4 25 about Beritage Reporting Corporation 2
(202) 628-4888 i
w.~,
.-.r.,
..w..-.4
..,yr-_,
---...-r
_,7.%-vv--s-,.,,w,.,:,w.w.-,-.,-....
44 I
confidentiality, and if you are not, then you'd call it a 2
source.
i 3
So if it's just a source of information, and he 4
hasn't requested confidentiality but it's still a source 1
s-.
5 that you are in that negotiation, conspiratorial kind of l
6 relationship with.
And you are merely not doing it from a l
T 7
confidentiality standpoint, then anyone is required--that's j
4 8
the kinds of sources that make the investigative business j
9 work.
t 10 Q
But what I'm saying, would you be expected to be i
i 11 apprised of something like that as a manager or--
12 A
I would say probably not, the sources.
Every l
13 investigator has sources in his back pocket.
4 14 Q
And they don't necessarily share that information 15 with you, is that what you are saying?
16 A
I would be highly surprised if they shared that I
17 kind of information on a regular basis.
i 18 MS. CYR Even within OI as opposed to in some l
19 other kind of enforcement organization?
i 20 M3. CHIDAKEL:
I'm talking about OI.
21 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
And I know that.
And I know 22 that this may be hard to visualize from someone looking at r
1 23 it from the outside.
1 24 But it is a "need to know" in the sense that the 1
25 kinds of information that somebody is providing, it's a kind Beritags Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 4
45 l
1 of a delicste relationship.
And if too many people know 2
about it who, don't need to know, and this guy happens to l
3 call the office and starts talking to, say,'another agent,
)
4 the other agent has been told by you that this guy is doing 5
A, 8 and C, and you somehow give the person you are talking 6
to the impression that you know that, then that relationship l
7 he's had with the first individual he's talked to is 8
shattered.
And that's a very delicate relationship.
And 1
9 that shattering can cause that man to clam up, go away, and 10 not talk to anyone anymore, j
11 MS. CYR But if a circumstance arose where j
i
+
12 because of the first agent had this relationship with this 13 source or was cultivating this source, knows that somebody 14 else from his office is going to have some dealings with
{
15 that person, would you expect the second person to somehow
[
16 become appris;d of any information about that source?
That 4
17 the first agent would have some obligation or feel some 18 obligation to tell the second agent anything that he knew 19 about that person or that he was dealing with him or 20 anything like that?
21 THE WITNESS:- You are talking about very, very i
22 subjective decision-making kinds of things that it's pretty i
23 much case by case up to the individual.
1 24 And I can understand circumstances where you might 25 not want to do that.
For instance, if you were sending 3
Beritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 a
........m.
i i
46 1
someone out, you might want him to go in cold to see what 2
his appraisal and his assessment of this was.
3 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
4 Q
Well, let me ask,you this question.
You are 5
doubtless familiar with Policy 18 in the OI guidance manual.
l 6
Well, I'll read it to you.
I didn't expect you to remember t
7 it by number.
8 It says, and I'm quoting, "With'the exception of i
9 significant safety issues, information regarding an goiny OI 10 investigation will not be disclosed by any NRC employee f
11 outside NRC without the specific approval of the Director, 12 OI, or his designee."
13 A
Uh-huh.
14 Q
And I'm sure you are familiar with that?
15 A
I am.
l 16 Q
Do I take it that this means that an investigator i
17 would be prohibited from disclosing information to a 18 possible source without obtaining the approval of the 19 Director or his designee?
In other words, there's not the l
l 20 diacrotion.on the part of the investigator to disclose this 21 information on his own simply because he feels that this is 22 necessary to work out this relationship.
23 A
I understand.
I do. not think the spirit of that l
24 was in any way aimed at how you deal with informants anymore t
i 25 than'it was how you would deal with witnesses.
I think it-a Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
g yi.-
-e..
-.-,,-,r 9yy 7w..,,r,-,
.m_-
,-,3,,-we-.9
%.w,,-,,
r.inv y
+--
i 47 1
is aimed at how you would deal with the media or how you 2
would deal with people outside.
3 Q
Well,, it's written it's written.
Let me read it 4
to you again.
"With the enception of significant safety 5
issues, information regarding an ongoing CI investigation 6
will not be disclosed by any NRC employee outside NRC 7
without specific approval."
Now, it doesn' t say. to the i
8 media.
And outside NRC would include, would it not, 9
informants?
l 10 A
It would seem to me that if you took that to the 11 letter, you would no longer be able to question people.
4 l
12 Because in questioning them, you would give them information 13 about an investigation in order to gain their responses.
14 MS. CHIDAKEL:
How do you know what information is i
15 appropriate to share with these sources?
Are there any i
16 guidelines?
You know, how do you knew how much to say?
17 MS. CYR If that's not the guideline, whet 18 guideline do you havet 19 THE WITNESS:
I think a good deal of the guideline 20 we're dealing with informants is common conse.
I don't t
21 think it it. in writing what information that you can give to 22 a-source or an informant.
l 23 BY MS. CHIDAKEL:
1 24 Q
In other words, what you are sayin7 is that 25 investigator is free to just relay anything he wants to and l
l tt Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
~.
I
\\
48 1
no one is even going to know about it because he doesn't i
2 have to share that with other people within OI?
Is that an
?
accurate--
4 A
No.
I think he i,3 incumbent by virtue of his own 5
integrity and his own professionalism p"E te give out 6
information that he feela is not necessary to give out.
The 7
balance you havo to create is whe.t you judge.
If you knew 8
what you think you can get from this individual--it may be
]
i 9
information.
It mey also just be, as in the case of Mr.
10 Comley--I think the only thing I would probably getting out 11 of him are the names of people who might have information, j
12 and that's as good as getting good information, because it 13 gives you a lead to follow.
14 But whatever information you are getting from the l
15 individual has to be weighed against what he wants from you.
16 And if what he wants from you are, any, tactics, we have t
17 very little qualms in law enforcement about giving out a-lot I
i 18 cf tactics.
Most of them are on television.
All you have 19 to do is watch Miami Vice.
20 Q
Say what he wants from you is specific information 1
21 about cases, not tactics or anything of that sort, but 22 specifics of that investigation?
23 A
I understand.
I think it would be incumbent'on 24 the investigator to weigh, number one, is that a matter of 25 public knowledge, as well as being part of the l
l.
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
49 1
investigation?
Is it something that is in some way 2
confidential,with a confidentiality umbrelle on it?
Because 3
if it is, it is very doubtful it would be revealed because 4
it might give away the identify of a confidential source.
5 Has it been put in the PDR7 Is it an open case or a closes 6
case?
7 And I think with that kind of information, what 8
you have to do is go stop by step and you hold back as much 9
as you possibly can and have to make the decision on each 10 individual piece as to whether it'e appropriate to give that 11 piece to that individual in order to gain what you want.
12 Q
Let us suppose that the answers to the questions 13 you just raised wera no.
No, the information is not public.
14 No, the information is not in the PDR.
Yes, it is still an j
15 open lavestigation.
16 A
Worst etas.
17 Q
Worst casa scenario.
Would it still be J
j 18 appropriate under certain circumstances for an investigator, 19 an oI person, to give out that type of information to an 20 Informant or a source because he feels he can get something l
l 21 perhaps from the source?
22 A
I think I can envision instances where that would i
23 be appropriate.
4 24 Q
It would be appropriate?
25 A
Yes.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
i 1
50 l
1 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
)
2 Q
Now, to what extent would the investigator--
3 A
I should clarify that.
Excluding ' confidentiality.
4 I don't think there is any time anywhere that it's necessary 5
to confidential source's identity out to someone else.
6 Q
Nell, leaving aside the matter of disclosure of l
7 the name of your source, to what extent, if any, is the 8
investigator under an obligation to inform his or her 9
management that information respecting an ongoing 10 investigation has been given to some outsider?
l 11 A
I think we're getting farther afield from--if we 12 are talking about an ongoing investigation--are we talking 13 about the investigation that you are talking to this 14 individual about?
15 Q
I'm talking--no. ' Let me state clearly--
16 MS. CYR:
A separate investigation.
17 BY MR. ROSENTHAL:
18 Q
A separate investigation.
What I have in mind is 19 this.
That an ir.vestigator decides that he wishes to 20 cultivate a particular individual who works in a plant.
21 A
Uh-huh.
22 Q
And the reason that he wants to cu!.tivate that 23 individual is because he thinks that that individual might 24 be prepared to tell him about things that are going wrong _in 25 the plant.
Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888
51 1
A or identify a source or do something--
2 Q
No.
Or he wants to get this fellow's confidence.
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
And he decides that the way to do that is to drop 5
little tidbits here and there as to what OI is doing with 6
respect some other aspects of that plant.
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
He thinks that it will be helpful if he conveys to 9
this individual a feeling that OI trusts him.
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
And the way he's going to demonstrate that trust 12 is by giving him information.
Letting him know that they 13 are looking at Joe Blow over there and they are looking at 14 Sam Smith or whatever.
15 How, my question is to what extent, if any, is 16 that investigator under an obligation to have his management I
17 know that he's pursuing this course with the consequence 18 that this source he's trying to cultivate has got 19 information in his possession which the management normally 20 would think nobody at that plant would possess, 21 Is that question clear enough?
22 A
I think so.
l l
23 Q
And how would-you respond to it?
l l
24 A
If someone came to me with that same scenario'and I
I 25 asked my advice, I would tell them it would be a goodIldea l
l Beritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
l
L t
52 1
to check with your next higher superior and make sure.that 2
you are on the right track here.
And don't give away l
j 3
information that might compromise something else that's f
4 being done.
Because you may not be fully aware of that kind 5
of thing.
i 6
Also, just to protect the individual, I would I
7 recommend that he go to his next higher superior.
I 8
BY MS. CHIDAKEL:
9 Q
I would like to turn the question around a minute.
10 What about information that is received from a 11 source or from an informant that is given, you know, to an i
12 investigator under some kind of negotiation, as you put it?
13 A
Uh-huh.
l l
14 Q
Would the investigator be expected to share that i
15 information with his supervisor or with anybody else within 16 the organization?
17 A
I'm not sure I understand to what degree we' re i
18 talking about.
On a daily basis, ordinary information was 19 not--
20 Q
No.
The investigator has cultivated this source-l
- nueGiMatbr 21 for whatever the ;M wants out of the guy, and the source l
22 has finally provided some information that may be important.
23 Would the investigator be under an obligation to share that l
(
24 information with his supervisor or with someone else within l
25 the organization?
I l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 I
+
l
)
1 53 1
A I guess it would depend on the importance and his 2
assessment of the importance.
But if he is--I think what 3
you are getting at is, if he is building a package, he 4
probably would wait and pr,epent the package.
I mean if he 5
is building--if he is building in his own mind, this is one I
6 piece in a scenario that I am going to end up with a package 7
on, I would probably wait until I had the package to brief 8
my supervisor.
I 9
Q But at some peint he would brief his supervisor--
10 A
Oh, of course.
11 Q
--of the information that he has received?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
He might not necessarily reveal where he received 14 some of this information according to what you were saying 15 before?
He doesn't have to reveal the names of the sources 16 is what you said before, 17 A
It would depend on the confidentiality issue.
18 Q
But he would be expected to share the information 19 that he was given, is that correct?
20 A
Yes.
21 NR. ROSENTHAL:
Anything further?
t j
22 N3. CYR:
Well, Ifa curious about how you view 23 that relationship in terms of your obligations under Manual
[
24 Chapter 517 which talks about reporting allegations without 25 a-basic judgment of the significance or non-significance of Beritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 62s-4ssa j
n.--n.,-,-
..n
..,...~.....,,,n..
e y
e.---
y 54 1
that allegation.
And having it brought to the attention of 2
the agency through this system.
i 3
THE WITNESS:
Well, the package I a referring to I 4
guess would be the allegation.
You know, the-details-of the 5
allegation.
That would strike me that the package that 6
we're referring to.
The pieces of information would be 7
building toward whatever it is that we're going to say is 1
8 the allegation.
1 9
MS. CYR:
Well, how long do you believe that 10 process can go on of gathering together these pieces before j
i l
11 you have some obligation to report through 5177 12 THE WITNESS:
That's pretty subjective.
I~ don't 13 know how long it would take.
It would depend on what the 14 information was and what the pieces were, j
15 H3. CHIDAKEL:
How are these procedures, if you 16 want to call them, unwritten procedures and formal ideas 17 about negotiating with sources and so forth--are 18 investigators told about this as part of their basic 19 training or, how do they find out what their appropriate i
l l
20 behavior is with regard to this?
That they are allowed to l
21 do this type of thing?
l 22 THE WITNESS:
Oh, yes.
They sre trained.
j 4
i 23 MS. CHIDAKEL:
They are told this in training that 24 this is the normal procedure?
25 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
G, Beritage Repor, ting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.,..e
,,,. _,..., _, _. _ ~..
...._-,m, r,,.,
,m
..._.y.
e
i 1
55 1
MS. CYR:
OI does training in this?
1 i
2 THE WITNESS:
01 doesn't, no.
Our normal entry 3
level into OI is a GS-13.
At best a GS-12. ' By the time a s
4 federal investigator that we hire on has reached that level, j
l 5
he's been dealing with sources and informants all of his 1
6 career.
r 7
MS. CYR:
So OI has no policies or guidance that 8
you give through training of how within your organization
)
9 informants are to be dealt with or this process to be dealt 10 with?
11 THE WITNESS:
We have the chapter within our
?
12 Manual on confidentiality which I think you have a copy of.
13 MS. CHIDAKEL:
We're not talking about 1
14 confidentiality necessarily.
We' re talking about--
15 THE WITNESS:
Informant handling?
There is no--
16 H3. CHIDAKEL:
The business of informant and 17 source cultivation.
18 THE WITNESS:
There is none.
19 M3, CHIDAKEL:
How do people become~ aware that 20 this is done?
How do these investigators know that they can 21 do this?
22 THE WITNESS:.And the an'swer is when they,are 23 hired by the Office of Investigation--
l 24 MS. CHIDAKEL:
They have niready done this before'.
25 THE WITNESS:
Within their career they_have~done s
r seritage maporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
)
)
56
)
1 this.
]
2 MS, CYR:
And OI gives them no guidance on the j
3 bounds within which they must operate or shculd operate 4
within your organization to do this.
For instance, when it 5
would be appropriate--that they have no particular guidance I
i 6
for when it would be appropriate to talk to a superior about
[
7 this or anything?
8 THE WITNESS:
There's no guidelines like that that 9
I'm aware of.
I think it's individual agent's jrdgment and 10 our agents are very--to tell you the truth, I've worked with 11 a couple of different federal agencies and the level of 12 experience within the NRC is higher than any agency I've 4
13 ever worked with.
I 14 BY HR. ROSENTHAL:
15 Q
So your investigators, when they come to NRC, are f
16 all experienced?
l 17 A
Ch, yes, I would say eight, nine, ten and more 18 years when they come on board.
And I can remember in Army 19 CID our level was two and a half or two years'.'
And that was 20 considered high.
21 Q
All right.
But you would be, I take it, somewhat 22 disturbed if an investigator gave'information to an i
23 individual in circumstances in which there was no real 24 reason to believe that that individual.was going to be'a' 25 source of any good information?
Beritoge Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888
__.._v-
.i
. e.
57 1
A~
Yes.
2 Q
He's supposed to be mahting-a : judgment that-this is 3
a source or potential source worth cultivating.
4 A
Yes, you are right.
I would be disturbed if 5
someone gave out information frivolously or capriciously, i
6 not.for any reason to get-anything.-
If there was-no' reason 1
7 to believe--
8 Q
It may be his professional judgment that this.~is--
9 A
Exactly.
10 Q
--a source worth cultivating.
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
And--
13 MS. CHIDAKEL*
Of course, the chances of you 14 finding that are, I'
.. /, under what I'm hearing, are 15 pretty slim.
Becay 4e investigator doesn't-necessarily 16 have to tell you 2e shares or with whom.
So youlwould 17 have no way of rea. y knowing whether.somebody had shared 18 something that was not[: appropriate with someone that was 5
19 just a frivolous thing.
20 How would you ever. find that out?
1 21 THE WITNESS:
Well, it comes out in various 22 different ways.
I mean.there are also--eventually someone 23 else is going to talk to this particular-source.
..:r. -s.
3 24 One of the big problems--the biggest problem 4,
1.
probably across the board in ibvestigations when you'are 25 Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 m
- vt5 S 4yv e-pt---
e-y9 a
-y ge ey-wi-M m.
a
--u-
/ **
e a
m si e
udM---A 49'V"'e rw
58 1
dealing with sources is to have them turn on you.
And it 2
has to be something overy invest'igator keeps in mind all the 3
time he's working with a source, that tomorrow morning you 4
may be the enemy.
i 5
And so there is the code of conduct that says you J
6 are going to do what's right.
And what you feel is right.
7 And what you are going to give to a source, whether-it is l
8 money or anything else, what you are going to give to a-9 source to get back information is the bare minimum that you f
1 10 have to give him within the law and within your own code of 11 investigative conduct that you can give him to get that 12 information.
13 Do you see any distinction between line 14 investigators and senior management in terms of what would 15 he appropriate for them to do in cultivating sources and l
16 providing information?
17 In other words, do you-think it's just as e
18 appropriate, for example, for an office director to be 19 dealing with these potential ~ sources and handing out' 20 information as it would be for a line investigator to do it?
21 A-Normal?
Mith regard to-normal investigative 22 activities, there would be'e.-diffe'rence.
But when-you are i
23
-talking about informants and sources, you continually lhave j
l 24 people who want to-talk to the boss and won't-talk to anyone-
~25
'else.
And so the boss has to be in the same position-in-
,, h '
i
- Beritage Reporting Corporation
' 'l
[
(202) 628-4888 1
.. ~.
~.
-~a --
I 59 J
1 dealing with these people as the investigators do.
2 And that's a norm.
Because there are ople who j
3-have an ego motive.
And one of the ego mot'i hat they 4
. have is that they want to get the massaging that they can J
5 feel aving talked just to the boss or to the head man, c
6 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Any further questions?
7 MS. CHIDAKEL:
No.
8 MS. CYR:
No.
l 9
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Thank you, Mr. Hutchison.
I.think l
10 that will conclude the interview.
11 (Whereupon, the interview was concluded at 9:40 12 a.m.)
13 14 15 16 17 18 e
gg 20 l
21
~
22 y-
- j w
23 24 25 E
11.
.;1 l
4.
i Beritage Reporting Corporation'
'(202)'628-4888 o
I f
yp
l 1
CERTIFICATE 2
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings b5 fore'the 4
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter 5
of:
6 Name:
Investigative Interview: William Hutchinson 7
8 Docket Number:
N/A 9
Place:
Bethesda, Maryland 10 Date:
March 22, 1989 l
11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 13' Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by.zme;and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or..under the-l l
15 direction of the court reporting. company, and that the i
3:.
16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 2.1 l
17' proceedings.
i 18
' /s/
9M M 2/1/
i-f-
19 (Signature typed):
Irwin Coffenberry; -/
)
20
. Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting: Corporation r3 p d'
gy l
@.;Q% s
> mi i 23 t
mm,:p y s
i 24
.i pq;p f$*
p 25
' l[k]
C i
Heritage Itaporting Corporation.
(202) 628-4883 i
i
<?
I e
,_..