requested under the FOIA. However, the information subsequently provided

voluntarily to Mr. Johansen by the WINCO Technology Transfer Section and the

Fuel Processing Restoration project construction team did not receive the required review prior to release.

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE THURMAN

SALE OF REPROCESSING EQUIPMENT

Question 9e):

Answer:

During the hearing, Representative Thurman asked
Mr. Durham whether or not Exhibit 12 indicated
that actual sale of the reprocessing equipment to
Mr. Johansen was not completed until August 11,
1993 when final payment was made. Ms. Thurman
asked that this information be provided for the
record. Provide a chronology of the details of
the sale and transfer of physical control and
legal title of the reprocessing equipment. This
chronology should also include a description of
the arrangements made to maintain the reprocessing
equipment in place at the same warehouse used by
EG&G. Also explain how storage of the equipment
in the EG&G warehouse after the sale is consistent
with the required terms of the sale.

Bids Opened

1993

Notice of Award prepared and sent to Mr.
Johansen

Invitation for Bid special clause requiring
the successful bidder to have materials
removed from the warehouse 20 working days
from the date of award was reemphasized to
Mr. Johansen.

1993

Check for $46,200.00 received from Mr.
Johansen

August 11, 1993

Notice of Award signed by Mr. Johansen
Check for $107,799.99 received from Mr.
Johansen

'August 12, 1993

Mr. Johansen assumes legal title of the
reprocessing equipment, per the Notice of
Award.

August 13, 1993

Warehouse owner notified that the EG&G lease
of the warehouse would expire on September
15, 1994. The lease contract required a 30
day written notification.

Mr. Johansen contacts INEL and the warehouse owner in an attempt to extend the EG&G lease. EG&G informed Mr. Johansen that their lease expired on September 15, 1994 and he would have to make arrangements with the warehouse owner if he intended to leave the equipment in place.

The following information is provided

regarding EG&G allowing Mr. Johnasen to leave the material in place:

1) EG&G intended to leave in place other materials, already located is said warehouse, through September 15, 1994.

2) EG&G could not break the lease without a 30 day notification.

3) Mr. Johansen had contracted with the
warehouse owner to lease the warehouse after
September 15, 1994.

4) The terms of the sale did not specify
that said equipment will/may be maintained in
the EG&G warehouse after the sale.

September 15, 1994

Mr. Johansen provided the INEL a memorandum stating that "as of September 15, 1993 he assumed responsibility for the material and lease of the warehouse".

QUESTIONS FROM SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT,
ENERGY, AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Question 9f): During the hearing, Representative Thurman asked Ms. Dedik to explain why as late as February 4, 1994 her office did not know what technical documentation had been provided to Mr. Johansen. Representative Thurman asked for a chronology of all of the events surrounding release of information to Mr. Johansen, communications between NRC and DOE, and the efforts of the Office of Intelligence and National Security to determine what information had been provided and what action needed to be taken. Provide this chronology including the dates of transfers of any and all technical information from any and all DOE contractors or DOE personnel to Mr. Johansen. This chronology should include a description of the information (i.e., drawings, radiographs, etc.) and the individual and organization providing the information.

Answer:

The Export Control Operations Division did not know that technical documentation had been provided to Mr. Johansen until somewhere around January 28 - February 1, 1994, when it was informed by the Department of State that Mr. Johansen had received technical information, e.g., blue-prints, flowcharts. At this time, we still did not have complete knowledge of the exact nature of the technical documentation. The following is a chronology of documents surrounding the release of information to Mr. Johansen between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy (DOE):

2/25/94

NRC Chairman Selin letter to the Secretary states concerns about the
Frontier Salvage case.

Question 9f Continued:

7/5/94

Secretary's response to Chairman Selin notes DOE has put Frontier

Salvage on notice regarding export license requirements.

The following is taken from the handwritten telephone log of John Boyd, Export

Control Operations Division.

Listing of applicable telephone conversations:

2/9/94

Conversation with Mr. Johansen, Frontier Salvage - conversation

very helpful - Johansen received flow sheets, mechanical design -
evasive as to where it came from - is willing to have equipment cut
up and sold as scrap metal. Contact somebody at Idaho Management
Office - they need to get involved - audit trail - inspect - look at
drawing - find out where he got these drawings - who is calling about
them. If sale looks legitimate, why does he not just dispose of it -

Letter Zan - classification must review this kind of equipment for