ML20247N508

Forwards Answers to Questions Contained in Re Agency Investigation

ML20247N508
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/22/1989
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Gejdenson S HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
Shared Package
ML20247N513	List: ML20247N508 ML20247N608 ML20247N619 ML20247N629 ML20247N645
References
NUDOCS 8906050379
Download: ML20247N508 (33)

Text

, _ - _ _ _ _ - ___-

i- 4; f-

• ,:' . p9 r*1"%,,h UNITED STATES

'pp

)e .

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

,g

• j

<*, ~ .s ,$ May 22, 1989

. CHAIRMAN l

l The Honorable Sam Gejdenson Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on-Interior and-Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives-Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Congressman Gejdenson:

I am enclosing answers ~to the questions contained in your letter of May 1, 1989, concerning an agency investigation.

These responses reflect information which was received by the Commission from the appropriate offices and officials within the: agency..

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely, W N. ^ .

Lando W. Z , J cc: Chairman Morris K. Udall Rep. James V. Hansen i

, (; ' , . ,

,s'*'rr,4%-

44 4dprj, ^l # .

1. [-' rp g b ' +f ,

pea  !

c g; gas 22 v

! OUESTION 1. What NRC regulations govern recording by NRC personnel L

and/or NRC contractors of conversations in which one or more-parties to the conversation are not aware that such recordings are being made?

ANSWER.-

NRC Manual Appendix 0270 Part II, D.5., " Monitoring or Recording of Wire or Oral Conversations" (copy enclosed), sets forth NRC policy prohibiting NRC personnel from monitoring or recording wire or oral communications-without the specific knowledge and consent of all parties to the conversa-tion. Exceptions to the policy are noted..

There are no NRC regulations covering the subject of contractors recording

' conversations.

Enclosure:

l NRC Manual Appendix 0270, l

l Part II, D.5., approved July 28, 1988 l

myw.m

W ~

l c f x QUESTION 1 4

l 3 Enclosure NRC Appendix 0270 part 11--

TE L ECOMMU NIC ATIONS '

b L

' Each. call. will be valued and collection made in accordance w' ragraph b. of f 201-38.007-4, as - implemented by th C.

Rei rsing the ' Government for unauthorized calls oes not l exempt employee from appropriate administra, ' e, civil, or criminal ac .

'b. NRC ' collections sha e composed of parts:

E, (1)' The - value of the ca ased on commercial.' long distance-rates rounded to the ar ' dollar; and

.(2) An amount odnded to the nea t dollar to cover the N R C's a istrative costs, for e le, to . determine that ,.t e ' ' call was unauthorized and process -the colhiction .

/

c. PfR C will determine the appropriate account for dep

• ing the monies collected.

'N-w b 5. Monitorino or Recording of Wire or Oral Conversations.

a. The monitoring .or recording of . wire or oral communications without the consent of at least .one party to the conversation (nonconse~nsual) is prohibited by the Omnibus Crime Control L and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amenced (18 U.S.C. 2510 et.

seq.), except under circumstances specified therein. Because none of these circumstances apply to NRC activities, non-consensual monitoring or recording by NRC personnel is prohibited.

b. The Attorney General requires Federal agencies to promulgate rules concerning the permissibility of consensual monitoring of wire and verbal communications. (See Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Re: Monitorina Private Conversations With the Consent of a Party, October 16, 1972).

The . Attorney General has also established procedures concern-ing the interception of verbal communications. (See Memorandum to the Heads. and Inspectors General of Executive Department and Agencies, Re: Procedures for Lawful, Warrantless Intercep-tions of Verbal Communications, September 22, 1980). Generally, NRC policy prohibits NRC personnel from monitoring or record-ing wire or. oral communications without the specific knowledge and consent of all parties to the conversation. This prohibition includes the use' of extension phones and speakerphones.

Exceptions are permitted only:

(1) Under conditions cited in the Attorney General's memo-randum and NRC Appendix 2101, Part Xill, " Prohibitions on Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Devices."

F

- - - . --~.~n. - -

QUESTION l' Enclosure.

p. s

-TEl.ECOMMUNIC ATIONS

• Part (2) - Under conditions cited in Federal information ~ Resource Management- Regulations 201-6. This exception requires prior- written ~ approval . of' the Executive Director for

Operations.

by the Requests for capproval. shall be concurred in b Director-,.

Management. Office of Administration and Resources A copy of.each request and approval shall be provided the Requisition Office; tr.e Director, Division' of Security;- ' the inspector ' and Auditor; and the Chief, Telecommunications Branch. Reevaluation of each need is:

required every ~two years. Details and necessary assistance may be obtained from the Telecommunications Branch.

L (3) Under provisions of Federal Communications Commission

' Memorandum . Opinion and Order, "In the Matter of Use of

- Recording of. Devices in Connection with Telephone Service," Docket No. 20840, May 18,.1981. This order per-mits ' the recording . of conversations to. and from the - NRC Operations Center . without all party consent or automatic tone (" beep tone"). warnings. NRC policy is to obtain all

_ party consent or apply ' automatic tone warnings when com-municating' with parties outside. the dedicated emergency

. communications systems supporting .the NRC Operations Center. No automttic warnings. will be ' applied to emer-

.gency networks.

(4) in exigent circumstances, where one party to a telephone conversation is threatening the safety of persons of property, the other party to the conversation. may autho-rize another person to monitor the conversation by ex-tension phone. Any such incident shall be -reported immediately to the ~ Division of Security. Recording of such conversations is not permitted.

c. Willful violation of' paragraph a. or b.,

administrative above, is subject to

'"_ disciplinary action under the provisions of NRC 4171. Willful violation of paragraph a., above, may also be subject to criminal penalties of- up to $10,000 fine, or imprisonment. for not more than 5 years, or both, under 18 U .S. C. 2511(1)'.

b4RC Headquarters Operator Assistance. NRC telephone op td pro the following services:

c -a. Answer ca 'made to the official N C- elephone number and l

?

refer those calls f& t appropri office or individual.

b. Extend emergencyM to th'e' N C Operations Center or to designated Wofficers. ~

c. vide official business telephone referral servic'e'to persons trying to contact NRC offices or employees. '

wm . a- n ,, m -

l '

i QUESTION 2. Who is' conducting an inquiry to determine whether or not tapes provided by Mr. Ellison to the NRC were recorded in a  !

-j manner that would have_ violated NRC procedures if Mr. Ellison had been an NRC employee at the time of  ;

recording? When was any such inquiry initiated? What are .

. the results of any such inquiry? ' l I

i ANSWER.

i

.This ques' tion is based on.an incorrect assumption that Mr. Ellison was an NRC employee at the time he recorded the conversations, the. tapes of which ]

were obtained by NRC as a' result of our September 1, 1988 contract with l J

him. NRC is not conducting an inquiry to determine whether or not tapes provided by Mr. Ellison to the NRC were recorded in a manner that would have violated NRC procedures based on a purely hypothetical situation that assumes Mr. Ellison might have been an NRC employee at.the time of recording.

1 1

i i

, l'.I [

i OVESTION-3. Who is. conducting an inquiry into whether tapes provided by Mr. Ellison to the NRC were recorded in a manner that '

i- violated the laws of the State of New York or other states?

When was any such inquiry initiated? What are the results

. of any such inquiry?

ANSWER.

I-NRC is not conducting an inquiry into whether tapes provided by Mr. Ellison to the NRC were recorded in a manner that violated the laws of the State of New York or other states.

-4 .

O-

'. 4 OUESTION 4 Who is conducting an inquiry into whether tapes provided by Mr. Ellison to the NRC were recorded in a manner that violated laws of the United States? When was any such inquiry. initiated? What is the. result of any such' inquiry?

ANSWER.

The.0ffice of the General Counsel is presently considering this question in regard to the possible use of the tapes in any administrative actions taken by the NRC. The. consideration of the question began in March 1989, and the results thus far would indicate that the answer to the question posed will turn on certain factual questions regarding who were parties to the recorded conversations and who in fact made the recordings.

l l

I

7 4

OVESTION 5. What allegations did Mr. Ellison make against NRC and utility officials in August and September 1988? Who has produced a listing of the allegations made against NRC and utility officials by Mr. Ellison in August and September 1988? Where is any such listing at this time?

ANSWER.  !

f Allegations made by Mr. Ellison against NRC and utility officials in August and September 1988 are listed below. These allegations were documented in a record of telephone conversation prepared by OIA Investigator Donna Rowe and in notes and summaries of investigative activity prepared by Sharon Connelly, Mark Resner, and James Blaha. Those documents have been provided to Judge Alan Rosenthal, current investigator on the case.

1. Professional misconduct by Chester White, 01, NRC Region I, by mishandling Ellison's case, on or about January 10, 1987.

2. Criminal misconduct of former Commissioner James K. Asselstine and his technical assistant, John Austin, by disclosing Ellison's whistle-blower identification on or about January 7,1987.

1

3. Criminal misconduct of Roger Fortuna, 01, by discussing and sharing Ellison's case with unauthorized third parties, not employed by the NRC or the utility, on or about January 14, 1987.

I

l QUESTION 5 (Continued) 4. Criminal misconduct of Roger Fortuna, 01, by discussing and sharing sensitive and confidential NRC information and strategies in reference to several 01 investigations with unauthorized third parties outside of the NRC, on or about January 14, 1987.

5. Region I was not responsive to Mr. Ellison's request for information in that Jim Linville, Supervisor, Project Engineering, Region I, told Ellison to " feel free to call" him if he had any questions or problems of any nature. Ellison said he placed three telephone calls to Linville which were not returned.

6. Mr. Ellison said he had not seen or received the " full report" out-lining 15 allegations that he made against the utility and reported to NRC. He had reviewed several inspection reports, but does not know how his allegations were handled by NRC.

7. Region I did not adequately follow up on allegations made by Mr. Ellison, and the NRC " covered up" utility wrongdoing.

8. Nine Mile Point Unit 1 HPCI pumps switches are not adequately cali-brated for cold start; therefore, the pumps cannot be relied upon to start during an emergency.

9. On or about April 27, 1986, there was a fire in the dry well at Nine Mile Point Unit I which was not reported to NRC.

'OVESTION 5 (Continued) )

10. Monthly operating reports sent to NRC for Nine Mile Point Unit I have been falsified for the period January to July 1986, in that they did not i

report maintenance which took place on LPRM connectors. l l

l

11. Drug abuse, particularly use of marijuana, was comonplace in the Instrumentation and Control Section of the Nine Mile Point plant during the period October 1984 to July-1986, and the utility failed to carry out a drug testing program during this period.

12. Mr. Ellison was harassed and intimidated by Niagara Mohawk employees because he raised safety concerns, and this was known by high-level utility management.

13. Thomas Murley, former Administrator, Region I, and Sam Collins, Region I, may have kept a report relating to Mr. Ellison's allegations fre being issued.

14. Radiological Control and Tool in Reactor Vessel -- Mr. Ellison questioned NRC followup to his concern of July 1986.

15. It is possible to access the reactor process computer from an off-site personal computer.

OVESTION 5 (Continued) l

16. Mr. Ellison's co-workers were coerced by Joe Sunser, head of Security at Niagara Mohawk, into signing false statements against Mr. Ellison.

Sunser allegedly threatened one of the co-workers with a tape recording evidencing the co-worker's drug use in order to obtain a false signed statement against Ellison.

17. 01A provided Mr. Ellison with copies of inspection reports on the original allegations he provided to Region I and he commented as follows:

o CRD Pump Violations - Mr. Ellison pesed five questions regarding NRC followup to his concerns of July 1986.

o Helium Leak Test of Stack Gas System - Mr. Ellison restated one of the concerns originally expressed in July 1986.

o Feedwater Check Valve Leak Test - Mr. Ellison posed one question regarding NRC followup to his concern of July 1986.

o Freeing Stuck Feedwater Check Valve - Mr. Ellison posed two questions regarding NRC followup to his concern of July 1986.

o LPRM Connectors - Mr. Ellison posed one question regarding NRC followup to his concern of July 1986.

QUESTION 5 (Continued) .

o Improper Quality Control (QC) Involvement in 1.PRM Connector Work - Mr. Ellison posed three questions regarding NRC followup to his concern of' July 1986.

o Harassment and Intimidation - Mr. Ellison posed one question regarding NRC followup to his concern of July.1986.

o Documentation ~for Connector Replacement and Surveillance Testing - Mr. Ellison posed one question regarding NRC followup

.to his concern of July 1986.

Judge Rosenthal has in his possession documents that reflect a number of allegations made by Mr. Ellison in August and September 1968 with respect to NRC officials. Not being involved in the receipt of Mr. Ellison's allegations, he does not know for certain whether Mr. Ellison made addi-tional allegations that are not alluded to in the OIA investigative file.  ;

l In any event, Judge.Rosenthal does not possess anything purporting to be.a complete listing of Ellison allegations. l 1

l

00ESTION 6.- Which of the alle'ations g involving NRC and utility officials made by Mr. Ellison in August and September 1988 have been investigated by the NRC or are currently under  ;

active investigation by the NRC? j t

ANSWER ,

! I OIA had the responsibility to investigate all of the allegations listed in j Question 5 or refer them to the EDO for investigation by DI or the region.

l Responsibility for reviewing allegations about Mr. Fortuna and other 01 '

officials was subsequently transferred to Judge Rosenthal.

l L To the extent that they are both reflected in the investigative file turned over to him by OIA and sufficiently particularized, all of Mr. Ellison's  !

August and September 1988 allegations involving 01 officials have been investigated by Judge Rosenthal. As to some but not all of those allega- 4 tions, the investigation has been completed and Judge Rnsenthal's findings j l

transmitted to the Commission. The balance of the allegations remain under l

active investigation.

l The only Office of Investigations (01) investigation of allegations by Mr. Ellison was conducted under 01 Case Number Q1-86-012, which has been l closed. 01 is not currently investigating any allegations by Mr. Ellison. l Because the start-up date for Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 had slipped from the fall of 1988, action on technical allegations was temporarily suspended. i i

i 1

j

e.. -

QUESTION 6 (Continued) However, the current start-up date for the plant.is the summer or fall of 1989. In March 1989, in recognition of the potential near-term start-up of the plant, Mr. James Taylor, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Support, at the request of the EDO, requested approval from Judge Rosenthal to investigate safety related technical allegations made by Mr. Ellison. Information on these allega-tions was provided to Mr. Taylor, who subsequently referred them to Region I for evaluation. Some of these allegations could involve utility officials. The region is currently reviewing the allegations.

0. .

r i l

1

~00ESTION 7.. Did Mrs. Connelly (or other OIA personnel) report to.the.

Comission, or. to 01, allegations against Niagra Mohawk-

~

made by. Mr.. Ellison .during August and September 19887 If not, should'Mrs. Connelly-(or other 01A personnel) have made .i such a report? Who is conducting an investigation as-to whether Mrs. Conne11y's failure to report Ellison's alle-

,gations concerning utility officials to either the j

.Comission or OI represents. a failure to fulfill official responsibilities? On what date was any such inquiry initiated? l ANSWER.

~

The appropriate reporting channel for issues involving licensees is through the Office of the Executive Director for Operations. Mrs. Connelly briefed the Executive Director for Operations (ED0) on new issues raised by Mr. I Ellison regarding the utility during~the period August and September 1988.

These were not considered to be of imediate safety concern because Nine Mile Point Unit I was and still is shut down. The allegations and any other information OIA obtained regarding the alleg6tions during the course of the investigation would have been formally referred to the EDO once the confidentiality of other matters under investigation was no longer of concern. However, before this could occur, responsibility for the

)

investigation was transferred to Judge Rosenthal.

The Office of the Inspector General is initiating a review related to various aspects of 01A's investigation of Mr. Fortuna. The Inspector Gener:1 (Acting) will be communicating with you by separate letter

+ concerning this review.

I

'4:

-QUESTION 8.- -What' documents describe events and discussions during.the

! August 29-30, 1988 meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida when Mrs.. Connelly, Mr. Resner, and Mr. Blaha' met with Mr. Ellison?

ANSWER.

t-t.

Notes taken by the three NRC representatives document the discussions

-during the August 29-30 meeting.

. i h ., ..-

]

QUESTION 9. Did Mr. Ellison provide his. tapes to NRC officials-during the {

Daytona Beach meeting on August 29-30, 1988? If so, why did j

the NRC contract with Ellison? What information was obtained from Ellison during the September 1 through .

September 16, 1988 period that cculd not have been gleaned I

l. from the tapes? )

1 l

l ANSWER.

On August 30, 1988, a few minutes before NRC officials lef t their hotel to cepart for the airport, Mr. Ellison handed Mrs. Connelly six tapes. This was after Mr. Ellison had been advised that Mrs. Connelly would recommend to the ~ appropriate NRC Headquarters officials that the NRC enter into a contract with Mr. Ellison to obtain information, tapes, and his cooperation in the investigation. The contract was undertaken to obtain the additional tapes Mr. Ellison had in his possession, as well as documents and other information that were important to the investigation. Also, his coopera-tion and assistance were needed to identify the voices on the tapes and ,

put the tapes in the appropriate context.

i i ,

i L

L _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

i' L OUESTION 10.- Did NRC take possession of (or copy) the. materials in the

" boxes of documents" which Mr. Ellison believed lent support to his allegations? What reviews of such documents have been conducted by the NRC7 During what time period were such reviews conducted? What were the results of such reviews?

L ANSWER.

During the period September 1 - 16, 1988, DIA reviewed all information that Mr. Ellison provided and made copies of those documents that appeared to be relevant to the inquiry. In the case of one box of documents which Mr. Ellison did not want to retain, 0IA took possession of the original documents contained in the box. Some of the information Mr. Ellison provided included pictures and notes which he believed corroborated his allegations.

The above information was provided to Judge Alan.Rosenthal. Some of the information deals with safety allegations and and is.teing considered as part of the review by the Region.

l

l ..  ;'

. QUESTION 11.- What were the priorities of the inquiry into the allegations.

put'forth by Mr. Ellison? Who established these priorities?

Where are such priorities documented?

ANSWER.

l l- OIA categorized investigations as either priority one, two, or three, with one being the highest priority. The case was originally assigned priority p  ;

two. When the case was upgraded to an investigation, it was assigned priority one. Case priorities were assigned by OIA management. Priorities )

are documented in 01A's investigative tracking system.

' Safety-related' allegations raised by Mr. Ellison were considered in two i categories, those already raised to the NRC and those being raised for the first time. No formal priorities were established, but Mr. Stello specifi-cally requested that Mr. Blaha pay particular attention to new allegations )

which had not previously been evaluated. Mr. Stello was briefed on the nature l of these new allegations and concluded no imediate safety concern existed  ;

since Nine Mile Point Unit I was shut down at the time. The importance of resolving these allegations has increased, however, since the licensee may be i

interested in restarting the plant this sumer or fall.

1 I

i

)

l l

h 12 QUESTION 12. On what date did Mr. Stello direct NRC staff to assess the safety-related allegations made by Mr. Ellison during August and September 19837 What was the result of any such assessment?

ANSWER.

On or about the week of March 27, 1989, Mr. Stello asked Mr. Taylor, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Support, to look into the safety-related allegations made by Mr. Ellison.

After getting permission from Judge Rosenthal, Mr. Taylor and his staff-reviewed selected records. Subsequently, on April 25, 1989 Mr. Taylor referred the technical and drug-related issues to the Regional Administrator of NRC's Region I office in King of Prussia, PA. Assessment of these issues has not been completed.

j -: o

. QUESTION 13. What inquiry did NRC conduct of Mr. Ellison's allegation concerning drug use at Nine Mile Point and presented to Mrs.

Connelly, Mr. Resner, and Mr. Blaha on August 29 and 30 1988? During what time period was this inquiry conducted?

l Was this issued referred to OI? If the matter was not referred to 01, why was such a referral not made. What was the result of any inquiry into drug use at Nine Mile Point by 01 or other NRC entity?

ANSWER.

As stated in our response to Question 12, the drug-related issues were referred for action to Region I on April 25, 1989. Region I may request assistance from the Office of Investigations in assessing these issues if appropriate. Our sense of urgency with regard to the technical and drug-related issues raised by Mr. Ellison was lessened by two major factors.

First, most of his allegations were related to Unit 1, and that unit has been shut down since December 1987. Second, NRC has had an elevated focus on both Nine Mile Point units since the summer of 1988 due to operational safety concerns. This has resulted in heightened sensitivity to safe '

operations at the plant on the part of both inspectors and management. In addition, we know that the management at Niagara Mohawk is aware of past i instances of drug use, and they are sensitive to that concern. We are confident that Unit 2 is being operated safely and competently.

,. s.

QUESTION 14 Who at the NRC, if anyone, made the determination that the Ellison allegations applied to the " organization culture" at Nine Mile Point Unit I and not to that at Nine Mile Point Unit 27 ANSWER.

If' substantiated, some of the allegations by Mr. Ellison could raise questions about the attitude or organizational culture that allowed the problem to occur. Depending on the specific issue and the utility organization responsible, the problem could be unique to Unit 1 or could include Unit 2. Mr. Stel'o, the Executive Director for Operations has directed that the safety-related allegations be evaluated. Depending on the findings, the conclusions could relate to one or both units at the site. NRC has increased oversight and inspection of both units at Nine Mile Point over the past year. We are confident that Unit 2 is being operated safely.

u i

l

l LOVESTION 15. What is the work product of the Ellison contract? Who reviewed that work product?

ANSWER.

The work product consisted of information about specific safety. concerns

and' wrongdoing by NRC' employees;- documentation in the form of audio and video tapes, memoranda, and other written documents which were relevant to the objectives of the contract; explanation, amplification, and context for

-such documentation; and signed, sworn statements in response to questions posed by the Project Officer or other NRC personnel. The work product was reviewed by Sharon Connelly, the Project Officer on the contract.

l;..

j. -

i QUESTION 16. 'In the course of OIA inquiries into the'Fortuna affair  !

' during the August 1988 through February 1989 period, did OIA l interview Mr. Comley to determine what he might have had to  !

say'about the alleged Comley-Fortuna conspiracy to " topple" the NRC7 If not, why not? If so, what was the result of I any such interview? l ANSWER.

Mr. Comley was not interviewed during the August 1988 through February 1989 period as it would have been premature to interview him before interviewing 4

Mr. Fortuna. Depending on the nature of Mr. Fortuna's responses, it might j i

not have been necessary to interview Mr. Comley. The NRC is currently pursuing enforcement of a subpoena to obtain documentary evidence from  ;

Mr. Comley which may determine whether an interview of Mr. Comley is

.1 necessary..

i 1

l j

I 4

_-____.__.-__m__.____.

..~ .

I OtfESTION 17. Who besides Mr. E111 son'was inteniewed by OIA in the period.

August 1988 through February 1989 for the purpose of obtaining information concerning the alleged Comley-Fortuna conspiracy to " topple" the NRC?

ANSWER.

No one else was interviewed for the purpose of obtaining information concerning the relationship between Mr. Comley and Mr. Fortuna.

i-(

t OUESTION 18. What did OIA staff mean when they stated in a draft report that the tapes provide support for Ellison's belief thtt

"...Comley, with the assistance of, or under the direction of, Fortuna, ... (was) ... building an organization to topple the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

ANSWER.

This was a statement that appeared in a rough draft of a summary of investigative activity to date. Mr. Ellison had told the investigators that Mr. Comley, with the assistance of, or under the direction of, Mr. Fortuna, was building an organization to topple the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He q provided tapes of conversations which he believed supported this. The statement was removed from the next draft of the summary of investigative activity and replaced with language which more clearly delineates the investigative findings at that point in time from Mr. Ellison's views. The revised language in the subsequent draft states:

Subsequent interviews of Ellison revealed that he had audio tapes of conversations with NRC employees, as well as others, to support his allegations. Upon 01A's review of the tapes.

OIA found evidence to indicate a concerted effort by Stephen Comley, a nursing home operator in Rowley, Massachusetts and founder of "We the People," to obtain information and co-operation from Roger Fortuna Deputy Director, Office of Investigations, NRC, and possibly others in the NRC. There are

. .. . .o

). D -

I t l

. QUESTION 18 (Continued) some connents by Comley on the tapes to indicate he wants 01 Investigator, Richard Matakas, on his team.

According to Ellison, Comley's' intent is to show that the NRC is not acting to protect the health and safety of the American people. Ellison believes that Comley and~Fortuna are gathering as much as they can to put together the " biggest package to prove that the agency isn't regulating but promoting the industry."

OVESTION 19. D;d OIA believe that Mr. Fortuna and Mr. Comley were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to " topple" or discredit the NRC7 What -

was the nature of any such conspiracy? What was the evidence supporting any such belief?

p ANSWER.

DIA did not know what activity Messrs. Fortuna and Comley were engaged in.

The nature of the conversations betneen the two raised questions about the appropriateness of Mr. Fortuna's actions in that Mr.,Fortuna appeared to be:

(1) discussing NRC business with someone outside the NRC; (2) giving advice to Mr. Comley on how he should carry out his activities; and-(3) taking direction from Mr. Comley. There was discussion about Mr. Fortuna having future communication with Mr. Comley through an intermediary, and Mr. Fortuna indicated he didn't want to be " front city." However, whether Mr. Fortuna's actions were, in fact, appropriate cannot be determined until the completion of the investigation.

4

L .

3.-

QUESTION 20. Prior to September 1, 1988, what information did Mrs. Connelly and/or Mr. Stello and/or their staffs provide the Comission, individual Commissioners, and/or Commissioners' assistants with regard to Ellison's allegations and the proposed contract with Mr. Ellison?

ANSWER.

Mrs. Connelly does not recall which Comission offices, if any, were briefed with regard to Ellison's allegations and the proposed contract prior to September 1, 1988. She does recall briefing each Comission office, however.

She met with the Chairman, Commissioners Roberts' and Carr's legal assistants, and Commissioner Rogers and his legal assistant. She knows~that the Chairman was briefed after September. I since he was out of the country prior to that time. Also, Commissioner Curtiss had not yet joined the Commission, so he was not briefed prior to September 1. She recalls discussing the generic question of an informants fund with the Chairman's technical assistant, but she did not discuss the specifics of the Ellison case with him.

l l

l 1

t K QUESTION 21. Did the NRC/0GC review the evidence to determine whether it indicated that Mr. Fortuna and/or Mr. Comley were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to " topple" or discredit the NRC?

What was the nature and result of any such review?

ANSWER. i No such review was made. At the time (around February 17,1989) that OGC

. became aware of portions of the actual evidence in the case, the Department of Justice had already declined prosecution, and, therefore, the matter was- -)

dealt with as an administrative inquiry rather than a criminal inquiry.

I

)

i

-_2__:__-_=___-_- _- _ i

,e '4 I ;, .

I

' QUESTION 22. Since assuming responsibility for investigating the allegations involving Mr. Fortuna, has Mr. Rosenthal

' interviewed Mr. Ellison? If not, why not?

ANSWER r

i  :

I --

l .,

Since assuming responsibility for investigating the allegations involving Mr. Fortuna, Judge Rosenthal has not interviewed Mr. Ellison because he perceived no useful purpose to be served in so doing.

i l

1

C: -

u. ,

3 1

QUESTION 23.. Since establishment of the Office of Inspector General, has Mr. Rosenthal been instructed that his investigation of

-Mr. Fortuna and other 01 matters would henceforth be under the aegis of the Office of the Inspector General to whom he would henceforth report?

l:

ANSWER i

At the. time of the establishment of the Office of Inspector General and the Appointment of:the Acting Inspector General, the Project Officer responsible for the contract with Judge Rosenthal discussed this subject with the Acting Inspector General and Judge Rosenthal. It was agreed.that Judge Rosenthal would continue to operate under the terms of his contract, which require.that he report .to.the Commission through the Project Officer.- Judge Rosenthal keeps the Acting IG informed of his activities and provides copies of all his reports to the Acting IG. It was fully understood that the Acting Inspector-General could conduct his own investigation and/or request that Judge Rosenthal's activities be brought to an end.. However, the Acting

-Inspector General indicated that he did not intend to launch a separate investigation or to request that Judge Rosenthal cease his activities.

l

QUESTION'24. Is the Commission aware that in early 1987, Mrs. Connelly and her staff decided not to pursue allegations brought to 01A by.

Mr. Ellison? If so, on approximately what date did the Commission become aware of this . fact?

ANSWER.

On January 13, 1987, the Director, OIA, sent a memorandum to Commissioner Asselstine regarding Ellison's allegations which indicated that Ellison declined to be interviewed by OIA. The memorandum transmitted a copy of 01A's letter to Ellison dated January 9, 1987, confirming 01A's conversations with l

Ellison on January 8, 1987, and a copy of 01A Investigator Edward Campbell's memorandum to file dated January 9,1987, summarizing his January 8,1987, telephone contact with Ellison. Copies of the memorandum to Commissioner Asselstine and the attachments were sent to the other four NRC commissioners.

Copies of these documents are attached.

_ __ ________ - _ __________ _ _ - _________ _-