ML20247N629
| ML20247N629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/09/1987 |
| From: | Campbell E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247N513 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906050408 | |
| Download: ML20247N629 (5) | |
Text
T-
. ] /].,. m. %,,#
a A
UNITED STATES 6
)
.y
-c; *i f
.:LE AR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt
(
E l
WASHINGTON D. C. 205$5
\\...
/
January 9,
inR7 MEMORAUDUM FOR:
FiIe107-7 lhhU:
George A. Mulley, Assistant DirectorM for Invartigaticns, DIA FROM:-
Edward T. Campbell, Investigator Office of Inspector and Auditnr
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CP. TACT WITH DOUGLAS ell:50N Cn January 8, 1907, Douglas Elliser, RD #4, Town Hall Road, Auburn, New York 13021 (telephone: 315-255-2870) was contacted by telephone.
He stGted essen-ticily the following:
He is the author of a December 6,1986, letter to tha Office of Inspector and Auditor Director,Sharon R. Connelly, and a December 12, 1980,. letter to the Office of Investigations Director; Ben B. Hayes.
He refus'es'to speak to anyone.from the NRC about these letters.
He expects a written reply to them. He is a taxpayer and he feels that the NRC works directly for him. He does not have anything to state to any NRC investigators other than what he wrote.
When he rentioned in paragraph 6 of his December 6 and, December 12 letters that there "is a breach of the regulatory process in region oiie management," he had no specifics to back up this comment. Rather, he intended to convey his generat dissatisfaction with the f;RC and the Commis-sioners since the inception of the agency.
He feels that if he is interviewed, his house will be ransacked. This has happened to some people that he knows. He is currently under active inves-tigation by the FBI. All his records have been subpoenaed because of this investigation. He will not admit any investigators to his home, nor will he agree to meet them at a neutral site.
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE:
During this short telephone conversation with Ellison, his language was replete with profanity. He called all NRC investigators l
f,,,_,,_ clowns. He said that he wishes no further contact from the NRC.
890605 PDR. c 89052g v
m.
a
).
}
- 0UESTION 25.
Did Mr. Ellison inform Mrs. Connelly of his allegations concerning the alleged Comley-Fortuna conspiracy in his communications'with OIA in early 1987? If not, did Mrs. Connelly, in the August - September 1988 period ask l
.Mr. Ellison why he had waited some 20 months, after obtaining the tapes that subsequently became the principal rationale for the OIA investigation of Fortuna, before taking these'allega-tions to the NRC?.If Mrs. Connelly did ask such questions, what were the answers? If Mrs. Connelly did not ask questions concerning this point, why did she not ask such questions?
- ANSWER.
Mr. Ellison did not' inform Mrs. Connelly about the relationship between Mes'srs. Fortuna and Comley in his communications with OIA in early 1987.
. Mr. Ellison was asked why he refused to talk with OIA investigators in the past, and he indicated he did not trust the NRC, and particularly OIA. He related that on the day he was contacted by OIA in January 1987, he was also.
contacted by Niagara Mohawk and Commissioner Asselstine's office. This upset him as he thought, because of the timing of the calls, th'at DIA was working with the utility and the Commissioner's office.
4 l
!o 00ESTION 26.-
Why did 01A not seek to obtain Mr. Ellison's tapes via a subpoena? What analysis was done of ite pros and cons of j
seeking obtaining information from Mr. Ellison through a i
subpoena rather than by a contract? What does the NRC General Counsel'believe to be the pros and cons of-obtaining the l
information from Mr. Ellison through a subpoena rather.than by i
a contract?
ANSWER.
4 i
OIA could not issue a subpoena for the tapes and other information Mr. Ellison:
1 had because it'did not have subpoena authority.
In order to obtain a l
l subpoena, DIA would have had to request the Commission to issue a subpoena.
Obtaining the Commission's approval would have involved additional NRC staff and increased the probability that the existence of the tapes and the ensuing investigation would become known before OIA had an opportunity toLfully review and assess the evidence.
In addition, and perhaps more importantly, ~ 01A.
I needed Mr. Ellison's cooperation in identifying the voices on the tapes and putting the conversations into the appropriate context so that DIA could then confirm whether or not the information was actually evidence of wrongdoing.
Without Mr. Ellison's cooperation, DIA would have had a difficult and time-consuming task to try to identify the voices and the circumstances referred to i
on the tapes. Mr. Ellison indicated he did tiot trust the NRC. He had brought i
allegations to OIA previously and then refused to be interviewed when contacted by an OIA investigator.
In addition, he told OIA he l
l
QUESTION 26 (Continued) l believed he should be compensated for doing the NRC's job in documenting wrongdoing.
He indicated he was willing to cooperate with OIA only if he were paid for his services.
If a subpoena had been issued to him there were no assurances that he would have cooperated with OIA to the extent he co-operated under the contract. Further the possibility exists that, considering his state of mind and views about the NRC, Mr. Ellison might have refused to respond to a subpoena, which would then cause the NRC to incur the expense and delay of court enforcement.
In the meantime, the case would be made L
public, OIA's investigative effort would be severely compromised, and in the time delay that would occur, there is a possibility that some or all of the tapes might be lost or destroyed. Thus, OIA did not believe that the issuance of a subpoena was a feasible alternative from an investigative standpoint.
The foregoing points were considered in determining the best way to obtain the tapes and information Mr. Ellison had in his possession.
With respect to your question as to the General Counsel's views, had the General Counsel known the nature of the investigation, including which individuals were involved and relevant background information about the external source, he would have insisted that, if the agency decided to proceed with an inquiry into the matter, it issue a subpoena to Mr. Ellison. However, see the response to Question 27 regarding legal advice on the propriety of the I
contract and the procedures followed in letting it.
L
l OUESTION 27 Who at the NRC is conducting an inquiry into whether the
)
Ellison contract involved wrongdoing with respect to whether it was proper to pay a person for the information and/or materials sought from Ellison, whether proper procedures had been followed in letting the contact and determining that Mr..Ellison had fulfilled his contract obligations prior to his being paid, whether it was proper to pay Ellison in cash, and whether the contract with Ellison violated either general or specific guidance from the Office of General Counsel?
ANSWER.
The Assistant General Counsel for Administration, Hudson B. Ragan, who is responsible for providing legal advice with respect to agency Focurement activities, has reviewed the contract and the procedures followed in letting the contract and has concluded that the contract was proper. Moreover, Mr. Ragan has concluded that the contract is not inconsistent with the guidance provided in his memorandum to Ben Hayes, Director 01, dated September 2, 1986 (Copy enclosed).
....... _