On September 4, 1985, Gerald Charnoff asked Commissioner Roberts to meet cc: W. Briggs Mr. GEJDENSON. Does that refresh your recollection? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. Well, looking at this memo to file from my legal assistant does. Mr. GEJDENSON. Didn't Mr. Briggs advise against Mr. Cutchin against meeting without the U.S. Attorney present? Mr. ROBERTS. I can't comment on what Mr. Briggs may have instructed Mr. Cutchin. I can only say I do and did trust Mr. Cutchin's ability to keep me within what I can and cannot do, and I relied on him. Mr. GEJDENSON. You were not informed of the U.S. Attorney's desire to keep the-you knew that? Mr. ROBERTS. I may have, or may not. I don't know. Again I repeat what I said. I rely on my legal assistant to guide me in these things, and he is a very cautious man. Mr. GEJDENSON. And if I can continue in that paragraph actually, "At that point"-this is Cutchin's memo-"I advised Mr. Charnoff that I understood the U.S. Attorney had requested that he be informed of meetings to discuss this subject and be invited to attend." This is the meeting between you and Mr. Charnoff. At that point, you didn't think it made sense to wait till somebody from the U.S. Attorney's office could be present? Mr. ROBERTS. I am not sure at that time if I was aware of that request. I repeat what I said. Mr. GEJDENSON. This is notes from Mr. Cutchin regarding the statements made at the meeting. Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. Mr. GEJDENSON. So you were present at that? Mr. ROBERTS. Well, if I can quote it, it says "I also stated that I would make notes from which I would prepare minutes to be made available to the U.S. Attorney." Mr. GEJDENSON. But you were aware of the U.S. Attorney's request? Mr. ROBERTS. No, I am not sure I was. I suspect my legal assistant was. That is why I have him. Mr. GEJDENSON. Anyway, the document here says that your legal assistant made that known at the meeting. And you didn't think that was serious enough to make note of it, that the U.S. Attorney's people wanted to be present during questioning by the defendant's attorneys of a Commissioner of the NRC? Mr. ROBERTS. I was not being questioned. Mr. GEJDENSON. What were you doing with Mr. Charnoff? Mr. ROBERTS. I don't know. He made an appointment to see me. When people call me and ask to make an appointment, I see them. I also see them with my legal counsel, to make sure that there is no ex parte or improper communication. To my knowledge, there was no impropriety in that meeting. Mr. GEJDENSON. Did you discuss with Mr. Charnoff your testimony before the Grand Jury? Mr. ROBERTS. Absolutely not. Mr. GEJDENSON. With the U.S. Attorney? Mr. ROBERTS. My quick answer is, of course not, but I will have to check with my lawyer who was there. Mr. GEJDENSON. Last line of the memo: "Most of the discussion centered around what had been said by Commissioner Roberts during his meeting with the U.S. Attorney." Mr. ROBERTS. And that would have been done by my legal assistant. Mr. GEJDENSON. Three of you were at the meeting. It continuously refers to your role here, but you don't remember any of it? Mr. ROBERTS. I am sorry. Mr. GEJDENSON. It doesn't say here that it provided to Mr. Charnoff Mr. Cutchin's memories of what happened with the U.S. Attorney, but it is your discussions with the U.S. Attorney as a Commissioner of the NRC. That is what is being talked about here. That you talked with the defense counsel after being notified at the meeting that you were supposed to, or at least had been requested by the U.S. Attorney, to have somebody present. You listened to your legal counsel at that point apparently. You said that his taking notes would be sufficient, and then you proceeded to tell Mr. Charnoff all that you told the U.S. Attorney. Mr. ROBERTS. I will have to refresh my recollection. I will say this, though. I don't believe anything improper was discussed at that meeting, because I had competent legal counsel that I depended upon and relied upon and he was acutely aware of the sensitivity of these types of items. Mr. GEJDENSON. You find nothing in the memo dated September 10, 1985 memorandum to file from J.M. Cutchin, subject, meeting with Gerald Charnoff, to be inaccurate or in any way disputed? Mr. ROBERTS. I didn't write the memo. I am not disputing it, but I am also not categorically telling you that it is 100-percent accurate because I don't remember. To my knowledge, this is the first time I have ever seen that memo. I will be happy to look into it. Mr. GEJDENSON. But you don't know at this point of any facts that would put this memo in dispute. Mr. ROBERTS. No. Mr. GEJDENSON. Do you have any recollection of what was discussed at that meeting? Mr. ROBERTS. No. Mr. GEJDENSON. Do you think that Mr. Cutchin did an adequate job of having notes regarding what was discussed at that meeting for the U.S. Attorney? Can you tell what happened at that meeting in any detail from those notes? Mr. ROBERTS. No. I don't think there was much substance that occurred. Mr. GEJDENSON. It was a 90-minute meeting. No substance. Most of the discussion centered around what had been said by Commissioner Roberts during his meeting with the U.S. Attorney, so I guess what we need are the notes of what you said to the U.S. Attorney to find out what happened during those 90 minutes. Mr. ROBERTS. I would like the opportunity to look into it. Maybe I can give you some more information. Mr. GEJDENSON. We would love to have some. Did you oppose taking criminal action against D.C. Cook? Mr. ROBERTS. I am sorry. Did I what? Mr. GEJDENSON. Did you oppose taking criminal action against D.C. Cook? Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I was not in the Commission majority that awarded a big civil penalty, so I never even reached that threshold, so obviously if I didn't believe they were guilty of a civil violation, I wouldn't have thought that a criminal violation would be suitable. Mr. GEJDENSON. So you opposed it. The answer is yes. Mr. ROBERTS. So I what? Mr. GEJDENSON. You were not in favor of the case being pursued Mr. ROBERTS. I don't believe I was asked the question. Mr. GEJDENSON. Pardon? Mr. ROBERTS. I don't believe that question was ever put to me, but I am only saying, since I was not in the majority for the civil enforcement action, it is not logical I would believe that criminal action would be appropriate. Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. It appears to me that you are confused by our interest in these varied issues. Somehow the legislative process has found a victim in the NRC and that we are trying to make it you. Mr. ROBERTS. I didn't say that, sir. Mr. GEJDENSON. I am saying it seems to me at least that you see all of this to be of very little importance. Gee, why is all this fuss being made? Mr. ROBERTS. I am sorry if you have that impression. I regard this as extremely serious. And I regard my job as extremely seri ous. Mr. GEJDENSON. I am glad to hear that, because I think the respect for the process by which the NRC operates is directly related to how effective this Agency is going to be. This is a tough place to be. We have started off with an Agency that was an advocate for nuclear power under the Atomic Energy Commission, and we have gone through considerable change, and it is of the utmost importance that every one of the Commissioners takes with the most seriousness their responsibilities and duties to follow the law. Mr. ROBERTS. I agree with you completely, Mr. Chairman. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-Additional memoranda and correspondence follow:] Thank you for your letter of May 18, 1987. asked the following question: In it you Did Mr. Briggs, Mr. Cutchin or anyone else at the The answer to your question is, "No." Thank you very much for your inquiry, and I hope this is of assistance to you in your oversight responsibilities. very truly yours, JAS:jmr CC: JOHN A. SMIETANKA United States Attorney Mr. Cary Copeland Office of Legislative Affairs Washington, DC 20530 |