significant the Agency's legal problems were. And that is why I called Mr. Martin.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Martin testified that you called him because you were allegedly a prospective nominee of the TVA Board of Di

rectors.

Mr. ROBERTS. I don't want to contradict what Mr. Martin said. I can't respond to that. I went to see Mr. Martin for two reasons. The primary one was my surprise at seeing Mr. Sanger quoted in the press with an entirely different position than the one he had expressed earlier in the year.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And did you call Mr. Martin to tell him you didn't appreciate his testimony?

Mr. ROBERTS. I called Mr. Martin and said, I want to correct one thing. I didn't study his testimony in great detail. The TVA situation is a very delicate circumstance. And to the best of my knowledge, there is a sitting chairman of TVA. He was named by the current president. It was a very delicate situation, and to the best of my recollection, to the best of my recollection, I did not tell Mr. Martin I was going to be chairman of TVA. I wouldn't have done that.

I mean you are talking about people's reputations and personalities and so forth. I just didn't-it was a very delicate situation. Mr. GEJDENSON. Did you talk about being on the board?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think so.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And did you say to him you didn't appreciate his testimony afterwards?

Mr. ROBERTS. I don't think I used those precise words, but I don't know.

Mr. GEJDENSON. We can provide for you something that will help your memory on this. This is a memorandum to File, from Courtney, re: 10/3/86 meeting with NRC Commissioner Roberts, dated October 6, 1986. I think it is page 3, paragraph 2.

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-Memo to file from Courtney re 10/3/86 meeting with NRC Commissioner Roberts 10/6/86.]

MEMORANDUM

TO: File

FROM: Courtney

RE: T0/3/86 Meeting with NRC Commissioner Roberts
DATE: October 6, 1986.

Rick and I met with NRC Commissioner Tom Roberts at his office to ask him about any conversations he had with David Martin concerning the TVA conflict-of-interest matters. The questions we asked Roberts were based on the Herb Sanger's testimony at the Subcommittee's September 30, 1986 hearing. Sanger testified about conversations he (Sanger) had with Martin in which Martin told Sanger about details of his (Martin's) conversation with Roberts.

ROBERTS' INTEREST IN THE MATTER

Roberts explained that because he is from Tennessee he has always had a longstanding interest in the TVA. Sometime in July, (he couldn't recall the specific date) Roberts read an article in a publication that he couldn't identify, containing a statement by Sanger that questioned the legality of Steven White's contract with TVA. Roberts stated he was "astounded" to read that Sanger was questioning the legality of White's contract because only months before, on March 11, 1986, Roberts attended an NRC meeting with the TVA at which Sanger confirmed the legality of White's contract.

To support his point, Roberts quoted from a copy of the transcript of the March 11, 1986 meeting. He read exerpts from an exchange between himself (Roberts) and Sanger in which Roberts questioned Sanger about White's contract. In the exchange Sanger stated that under Section 9(b) of the TVA Act, TVA could enter into the type of contract it did with White.

The apparently contradictory statements by Sanger on the legality of White's contract were the cause of some concern for Roberts and he decided to call downstairs to David Martin to try and get some definitive answer and as he put it, "straighten things out." Because the Office of Government Ethics is only a few floors below Roberts' office, Roberts asked if he could come down and speak to Martin.

ROBERTS' MEETING WITH MARTIN

According to Roberts, he asked Martin if there was a problem with White's contract. Martin told Roberts that OGE was talking to Sanger about White's contract and all of the conflict-of-interest concerns and "there is something to look in 11

Roberts stated that he never told Martin that he might become chairman of the TVA Board. The subject of Roberts' possible appointment to the Board did come up. According to Roberts, he told Martin that there was a lot of speculation that he (Roberts) may be going to the TVA Board. He told Martin his appointment "may or may not happen" but he (Roberts) had a long term interest in TVA and his possible appointment was irrelevant.

Roberts also asked Martin if 00E had jurisdiction over TVA. Roberts said he asked this question because TVA 18 such a unique and different "animal", the only organization of its kind.. Martin said that OGE did have Jurisdiction over TVA. Roberts felt there was absolutely nothing wrong with asking Martin if OGE had jurisdiction and it was only for his (Roberts') own information. Roberts stated that in his discussion with Martin, he never questioned OGE's objectivity. He said he made no mention of the Board's confidence or lack thereof in Sanger and in fact, there was no discussion of the Board at all.

Sanger testified on September 30 that Martin had told him that Roberts asked Martin about Jane Ley, a staff attorney at OGE, and questioned her loyalty wondering if she might have her own agenda. Roberts told us he had never mentioned Ley's name in his conversation with Martin. Roberts stated that the first time he ever heard or saw Jane Ley's name was in reading the NRC congressional liason's report of the Subcommittee's 9/30 hearing. He explained he had asked Martin whether Martin was personally involved in the case or if it was being handled by a person down the ladder but had not mentioned Jane Ley's name....

Roberts said he told Martin that he (Roberts) understood that Martin had to do his job and uphold the law but he (Roberts) stressed the importance of getting TVA's nuclear program turned around. Roberts said he "panted on him pretty hard" and told him The TVA problem was a $12-15 billion problem.

ROBERTS' ANALYSIS .

Roberts emphasized that he was not a "player" in the conflict-of-interest controversy and had no stake in the outcome of the controversy. He said he had no relationship or ties with OGE. He made the call to Martin only to satisfy his own curiousity and to find out what was going on at TVA. He stated that he was not "carrying water for Sanger, Dean, White or anyone else." His primary interest in the matter w o see that the ratepayers are not "raped" by havi. y for the continuing nuclear power

problems at TVA.

Roberts stated that he contacted Martin on his own initiative and he was not representing anyone. He did not recall discussing the call to Martin with anyone "who was a player" before or after it was placed although he said he may have discussed it with his wife. He said he had never had a conversation with Sanger or Waters and had met Dean only once or twice and had talked to White a coule of times on the phone.

When asked if he had any subsequent conversations with Martin, Roberts said that he had called Martin on 10/2/86, 2 days after the Subcommittee's hearing to say that he (Roberts) didn't appreciate the way Martin described their Conversation in his (Martin's) testimony to the

Subcommittee Roberts did not describe Martin's response to this call, saying only that Martin "mumbled something."

Mr. GEJDENSON. Do you recall being visited by two people from Congressman Sikorski's staff?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, I do. I remember the meeting.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If I can read this to you. Do you recall that they were taking notes during the meeting?

Mr. ROBERTS. As I recall, they did.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will read you that paragraph:

When asked if he had any subsequent conversations with Martin, Roberts said that he had called Martin on 10/2/86, 2 days after the subcommittee's hearings, to say that he (Roberts) didn't appreciate the way Martin described their conversation in his (Martin's) testimony to the subcommittee.

Do you remember that?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not precisely.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Do you have any reason to believe it wasn't true?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. GEJDENSON. As an NRC Commissioner, do you regulate TVA?

Mr. ROBERTS. TVA? Yes. They have five licensed plants and two under construction, and two others that nobody knows whether they are suspended or canceled.

Mr. GEJDENSON. So you went to visit Mr. Martin regarding one of the entities that you regulate as an NRC Commissioner, and Mr. Martin at least perceived that the basis of your visit was your prospective appointment to the Board of the regulated entity.

Mr. ROBERTS. I earlier said I went to see Mr. Martin for two reasons. The primary one and the compelling one

Mr. GEJDENSON. Is my characterization essentially correct?
Mr. ROBERTS. Would you say it again?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Regarding Mr. Martin's perception, is my characterization essentially correct that Mr. Martin at least perceived that the basis of your visit was your prospective appointment to the Board of the regulated entity?

Mr. ROBERTS. I can't speak for what Mr. Martin's perception was. Mr. GEJDENSON. Did Mr. Martin explain the term "conflict of interest" to you?

Mr. ROBERTS. I don't recall.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Was it your intention in visiting Martin to get some definite answer and straighten things out?

Mr. ROBERTS. I wanted to make Mr. Martin aware of the contradiction in the testimony that Mr. Sanger had given in March of 1986 and what I was reading in the newspaper.

Mr. GEJDENSON. The answer to that is yes. The answer to that is yes? You did go there to straighten something out.

Mr. ROBERTS. I didn't go there to straighten something out. I went there to make sure that Mr. Martin was aware of what we had been told earlier in the year.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Again I can quote the memorandum of Mr. Courtney:

The apparently contradictory statements by Sanger on the legality of White's contract were the cause of some of the concern for Roberts and he decided to call downstairs to David Martin to try and get some definite answer, as you put it, and straighten things out.