Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. ROBERTS. I don't want to repeat myself, but I want to make sure you understand what I was trying to do. TVA operates several nuclear facilities, or at least it had five such plants available for nuclear power generation. In the spring of 1986 they were all lying fallow, unused.

I thought I had a duty and a mandate as an NRC Commissioner to ensure that the management of TVA was in competent and fairminded hands. We had had a public hearing on the matter in March 1986.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Were you trying to be an advocate for the licensee?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Could I just finish this? With respect to the outside contract agreements with Admiral White and others, I asked the following question. Now, this is straight out of the transcript of the public meeting at the NRC.

Has the legality or the permissibility for this scheme been thoroughly confirmed? Several people answered that. And then Mr. Sanger said—and I quote:

We have looked at this very carefully, of course, and what we are doing here is contracting for work, and we have express authority under section 9(b) of the TVA Act to do that. Although this is an unprecedented kind of thing in terms of placing people in line management position, TVA has always had these kinds of contracts. I don't have any doubt about their legality, and I have so assured the Board and did so before we entered into this arrangement.

Several months later, I read that Mr. Martin had commenced an Office of Government Ethics investigation into the TVA contractual arrangements, in part as I read the newspaper, on the basis of a charge by Mr. Sanger that the contracts were illegal. And this is the contradiction that occasioned my call to Mr. Martin.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Did you challenge the OGE's jurisdiction to look into TVA?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, I did not. TVA is a strange entity of government. I have read the enabling regulations and it is quite confusing to me. I did not question his jurisdiction. I just wanted to know if in fact the Office of Government Ethics had jurisdiction over TVA. I didn't question it. I just wanted to know.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Asked Mr. Martin if the OGA had jurisdiction over TVA. So that is essentially correct.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. GEJDENSON. You asked him whether or not he had?

Mr. ROBERTS. I mean my layman's understanding was that OGE is primarily for executive branch agencies. Is the TVA part of the executive branch? I don't know.

I want to make sure you understand I had no ulterior or improper motive in calling Mr. Martin.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And you don't think that Mr. Martin, who is with the Office of Government Ethics, had any reason to perceive that you were trying to intimidate him?

Mr. ROBERTS. I can't conceive of that. I don't have any jurisdiction over Mr. Martin. I don't know Mr. Martin. That is the first time I ever laid eyes on him. How he could think I could have any influence over him, I think, is absurd.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And you consider a conflict of interest charge serious, don't you?

Mr. ROBERTS. Sure. Well, I consider a conflict of interest very serious if there is, in fact, a conflict of interest. Ever since August 1981, I have been accused of conflict of interest. Roberts can't possibly serve on the Commission because he has a conflict of interest. That charge is made repeatedly. I have yet to find interest that is at conflict.

I certainly have no financial interest in any licensee or the health or the illness of the nuclear power industry in the United States or any of the manufacturers or equipment suppliers.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Even after Mr. Martin informed you that there was something to look into, you continued to pursue the matter with Mr. Martin; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. I don't believe that is correct. I had one meeting with Mr. Martin and then I called him-

Mr. GEJDENSON. At that meeting, you continued to pursue the issue?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was a short meeting. It was 10 or 12 minutes. There was hardly time to say hello and introduce myself and give him the transcript. I didn't pursue it. I shared the information with him that I had.

Mr. GEJDENSON. We have three pages of notes from you on this 10-minute meeting, at the beginning of which——

Mr. ROBERTS. I didn't write those notes, and this is the first time I have seen them.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would be happy to get you a copy of them. I think you have a copy of them now.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do have them now. It is pretty hard to concentrate.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Is there anything in these notes that you have seen in these notes that is inconsistent with your knowledge of the meeting?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to have the opportunity to read it and if I may, I would like to respond to you in writing.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Did you stress the importance of getting TVA's nuclear program turned around?

Mr. ROBERTS. I probably did. I am a native Tennessean and that is an economic disaster down there.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Did you tell him that TVA's problem was a $12$15 billion dollar problem?

Mr. ROBERTS. I may have. I don't recall.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And did you lean on him pretty hard?

Mr. ROBERTS. Absolutely not. I did not lean on him in any way. I had no ability to do so.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If you take a look at page 2, the next-to-the last paragraph, I will read it for you:

Roberts said he told Martin that he (Roberts) understood that Martin had to do his job and to 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 TVA's problem was a $12-$15 billion problem."

Mr. ROBERTS. That phrase, "panted on him," that is not in my vocabulary. I am not disputing the person who took the notes.

Mr. GEJDENSON. But you recall the two people in the room at that time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Two people met with me. Yes, that is correct. I have stated that.

Mr. GEJDENSON. This memo is a product of those notes, you understand that?

Mr. ROBERTS. I presume it is.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Let's talk about the D.C. Cook case. The Department of Justice brought a criminal case developed by the NRC against D.C. Cook utility; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Were all the Commissioners of the NRC to appear before the Grand Jury?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is my recollection.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And did the U.S. Attorney request that Commissioners inform him of meetings with defense counsel so that he, the U.S. Attorney, would be given the opportunity to be present?

Mr. ROBERTS. I will have to check with my legal assistant.

Mr. GEJDENSON. We will be happy to refresh your recollection. Again we have a handwritten note here from Briggs, who was then the General Counsel of the NRC,

Advised Mac Cutchin again of the U.S. Attorney, Smietanka's request. Cutchin visited to clarify these points:

[1] Don't talk to defense counsel without Smietanka or prosecutors present.

[2] Keep log of calls regarding D.C. Cook. Mac said 4 p.m., Roberts was scheduled to meet with Charnoff, very short notice. Mac was not sure what the meeting was about. Mac said that he would keep notes of the meeting.

I asked if I should call Smietanka. Mac replied, not yet. He was going to relay my message to Roberts.

Mr. ROBERTS. I will have to check with my legal assistant. Most of the time, I always have my legal assistant with me.

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-Note from General Counsel Briggs of NRC follows:]

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Mr. GEJDENSON. Was Charnoff an attorney for the defense in D.C. Cook?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think maybe he was.

Mr. GEJDENSON. On September 4, 1985, Mr. Charnoff called to meet with you that same day. Is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. He very well may have. I don't have any instant recall of that. I am not disputing it either.

Mr. GEJDENSON. At this point, you have the memo; you have no reason to believe that is not correct.

Mr. ROBERTS. I have no reason to believe this is not correct.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Was the purpose of the meeting to discuss the meetings that you had previously had with the U.S. Attorney regarding your appearance before the Grand Jury?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have no idea.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I will read for you memorandum to file, J.M. Cutchin IV, Legal Assistant to Commissioner Roberts. Meeting with General Charnoff.

On September 4, 1985, Gerald Charnoff asked Commissioner Roberts to meet with him later that day to discuss D.C. Cook. Commissioner Roberts and I met with Charnoff at a few past 4 p.m. The meeting lasted about 90 minutes. As the meeting began, Mr. Charnoff stated that his purpose for requesting the meeting was to discuss with Commissioner Roberts the meeting that Commissioner Roberts had with the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Smietanka, regarding Commissioner Roberts' appearance before the Grand Jury investigating whether willful material false statements were made by the licensee about its compliance with the NRC's fire protection regulations at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Powerplant.

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-Memo to file from J.M. Cutchin 9/10/85.]

« PreviousContinue »