ML20136E057
| ML20136E057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/24/1983 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136D878 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-415 NUDOCS 8511210415 | |
| Download: ML20136E057 (31) | |
Text
l
.. . u b olk .' QDy/J3 ~j~
.c b
^
6 Judge Hoyt: Tape 1 of _a reinterview of Mr. Sinclair, OIA, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the date is "sy 24, 1983. Persons present in my office are myself, Mr. Sinclair, and Ruthanne Miller. Mr. Sebastian Aloot is on the telephone and we have his conversation connected to us from downtown by a speakerphone that's on the top of my desk. -Mr.
Aloot woulti you acknowledge that?
Mr. Alcot: ~
That's correct. I'm here.
Judge Hoyt: Thank you. Alright. Mr. Sinclair you were being interviewed I think before as you recall about a week or so ago and we had talked with you about some contacts that the OIA had made with the U.S.
Attorney's office. Let me start out with asking you about the ones in Chicago first. Do you recall those?
Mr. Sinclair: No. I don't. I don't recall any contacts with the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago.
Judge Hoyt: How about Cincinnati?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, Cincinnati I do recall.
Judge Hoyt: Do you recall the dates of those contacts that you had with the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's office, in Cincinnati, Ohio?
Mr. Sinclair: The exact dates I don't recall. There were...
Judge Hoyt: Can you give us some time frame?
Mr. Sinclair: I think one of them occurred about March, ah, what year, 19 8511210415 851106 PDR FOIA BAUSER 84-415 PDR
u Judge Hoyt: Would that be 19817 Mr. Sinclair: 1981, and the next meeting, I think, occurred approximately in September of 1981.
Judge Hoyt: Can you recall what the discussion, subject of the discussion, at the March 1981 meeting was?
Mr. Sinclair: Ah, yes, generally, the discussion revolved around the issuance of the Region III report which later became known as 81-13 and had an enforcement action and civil penalty attachment and co-respondent (?)
issues.
Judge Hoyt: Did I understand you to say correctly 81-13?
Mr. Sinclair: That's correct.
Judge Hoyt: Alright.
Mr. Alcot: Sure it wasn't 81-18?
Mr. Sinclair: No, it.wasn't the OIA report. We were discussing the Region's report. Now...
Mr. Alcot: I see.
Mr. Sinclair: ah, let me think. I think 81-18 (I'm trying to go real fast here; I didn't really prepare for this-)
which was the review of the earlier Region III investigation. ;
Mr. Alcot: That is correct.
Mr. Sinclair: That had been, that had already beer'fpassed over to the U.S. Attorney's office; they were in possession of that. Wait a minute. That doesn't sound right. I There was some discussion about 81-18, but I think
we either made a commitment or something like that to get them that report when we were finished. They did, they were interested in the false records issue that had been surfaced through the Region's effort which was there own report and that was the 81-13.
While the discussion revolved around potential .
federal violations, criminal violations, and the
.U.S. Attorney's interest in getting in very early and following any kind of allegations or information related to that, to false records and things like that, at the Zimmer site.
Judge Hoyt: Who was the person in the U.S. Attorney's office that you spoke with?
Mr. Sinclair: One of the attorneys that was in Cincinnati was the first assistant U.S. Attorney Bernard Gilbay and the other attorney was an attorney from the Cleveland office who was assigned out of the main Justice. He's a part of some type of a federal task force for organized crime. His name was David Everett.
Judge Hoyt: Do you recall the name of the assistant U.S.
Attorney there in Cincinnati?
Mr. Sinclair: Well, the first assistant I just mentioned, that was l
Bernard Gilbay, and I don't recall who the U.S. l Attorney was at the time, although they have changed.
4 Judge Hoyt:- You don't recall talking with.the U.S. Attorney j himself?
Mr. Sinclair: He was out of town. He did want to talk with us but ,
Mr. Gilbay said that he would provide everything and he was speaking for the U.S. Attorney in terms of, you know, expressing their interest in what NRC was doing.
Judge Hoyt: What representation did you make on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Connission? And let me also see if we can put some names on the persons who were with you at that interview.
Mr. Sinclair: . Alright. Being present for the NRC was myself and James McCartin who was the investigator from Region III. We were the only two NRC people there.
Judge Hoyt: Alright. Now let's take the second meeting that you mentioned.
Mr. Aloot: I have a question about that March 81 meeting.
Judge Hoyt: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Alcot: Was there any request at the March 1981 meeting with the U.S. Attorney's office that the U.S. Attorney's office not conduct any criminal investigation at that time?
Mr. Sinclair: I don't know how to...there wasn't a request by us not to conduct and if anything they were expressing an interest in getting into actively pursuing this records issue. Maybe not...they weren't going to
convene a Grand Jury or anything like that but they
~
actively wanted to open a case file and start to put together documentation as we brought it to them regarding potential criminal violations.
Mr. Aloot: Was the case file opened at that time?
Mr. Sinclair: On.their part?
Mr. Aloot: Yes.
Mr. Sinclair: I really don't know, but I do know that they were committed to actively following this thing. There were a lot of, no, making a lot of generalizatio,ns, there were more than one, several telephone calls between OIA, attorneys at main Justice, and attorneys out in Cincinnati and I think Dave Everett from Cleveland. They were on round robin conference calls, so there were repeated contacts. I didn't make all of them, I think, Jim Cummings made some.
Judge Hoyt: Was Jim Cummings present at those meetings? That first meeting in March?
I Mr. Sinclair: Not the first meeting he wasn't. The only two -
people there were the two investigators: one from OIA and one from Inspection and Enforcement.
Mr. Aloot: Basically, the purpose of that March 81 meeting was to get acquainted and make arrangements for the sharing of information?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes. .
Mr. Aloot: 0.X.
l 1
Judge Hoyt: Alright. Anything else?
Mr. Aloot: No.
Judge Hoyt: Alright. Let's move on to the next meeting and let's put the date on that one again, Mr. Sinclair.
Mr. Sinclair: August or late August or September, I think, of 1981.
Judge Hoyt: 1981. Who was present on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission at that meeting?
Mr. Sinclair: From OIA, it was myself and another investigator, David Gamble; from Inspection and Enforcement, Region III, it was John Streeter and Paul Barrett.
Judge Hoyt: Was Mr. Cumings present at that meeting?
Mr. Sinclair: No.
Judge Hoyt: Who was present on behalf of the U.S. Attorney's office of the Department of Justice?
Mr. Sinclair: There were two attorneys there, the primary attorney that's been on the Zinsner investigation -- which turned out to be the Zinsner investigation -- from U.S. Attorney's office was Anne Marie Tracy and-another attorney whose name escapes me right at the minute. I did know it. I can't recall his name.
I'll think about it.
Mr. Alcot: Was it a Mr. Handley?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, it's Patrick Handley. Yeah, that's correct.
E 1 l
1 Judge Hoyt: Now, can you tell us what the subject of the conversation was? Did you make the contact to go there? Did they ask you to come and what was the subject matter of the conversation?
Mr. Sinclair: I don't, uh, I'm not sure that I know how the meeting was set up.
Judge Hoyt: How did you get out there then?
Mr. Sinclair: Well, I was sent. I think Mr. Cumings told me to go. I don't know who originated it.
Judge Hoyt: And he had you go with Mr. Gamble?
Mr. Sinclair: That's correct.
Judge Hoyt: From Washington and then of course you met mister, uh Mr. Sinclair: Mr. Streeter Judge Hoyt: Met Mr. Streeter out there and Mr. Barrett out there. What was the subject of the investigation?
I'm sorry, what was the subject of the conversation that you had with the office there?
Mr. Sinclair: Well, I believe this is right; I may be somewhat -
mixed up in the order that I present it. But the U.S. Attorney at that time, months had passed by, and they were expecting a report of some kind, something from the NRC that gave them some information regarding false records and things of that nature that had been rumored and talked about.
OIA, we were there basically, you know, following the same line that we had been all along that we
were waiting to hear from the Region, see the reports from the Region, and assess the information and either make a official referral to them or by doing an analysis and drawing out what we thought may be the potential violations or at least some type of a liaison mail route where we would take the information and send it to Justice under our office letterhead. And, if I remember correctly, even to that date we hadn't seen anything and we were informed by the Region that they were progressing and they weren't done yet. They had more work to do but they would eventually get us something. We had been, if I'm not mistaken, conveying that message on a fairly regular basis to the U.S. Attorney's otiice. Ms , I think, the meeting probably resulted in, you know, let's talk about that some more and sit down and see when a report is coming out and when the U.S. Attorney may be able to get some hard documentation. .
Judge Hoyt: Now the material that the Region III was to provide that was the second set of allegations. Is that correct? Of Mr. Applegate?
Mr. Sinclair Yes, I think I follow. I don't...the second set by meaning that there were health and safety issues or allegations that were brought up at the time that
I the initial petition came in and I&E began to work it.
Judge Hoyt: That's correct. That it came in by Petition.
Mr. Sinclair: Right.
Judge Hoyt: And those were the 19. I believe. Is that correct?
Mr. Sinclair: I think that's right. .
Judge Hoyt: That kind of puts an identity on them, I think. And those were the ones that you were discussing with the U.S. Attorney?
Mr. Sinclair: Well, It wasn't so much that we were going through a list of discussing the 19. Adjunct to the 19 the Region had already, or had concurrently, developed a second area of information, and the one because of the work they did on 81-13 they discovered what the Region classified as false quality control documentation, inspection documentation, if you will. And they addressed to some degree in the regulatory sense and I think even issued a portion of the civil penalties specifically to alter their false records, but they didn't broaden it nor did they, I guess, intend to and that's a little conjecture on my part; but they didn't intend to do more in the false records area and they had been discussing it in the sense of taking that same documentation and providing it to the Justice
. -- . - . _ . - - - . . . _ _ _ ~
3:
i .
Department to see if the degree of intent or l
. wi11 fulness was there and whether it was a violable criminal violation as well. Does that make sense?
That's really what we were talking about and there -
had been so much discussion, if you will, about i i false records. The extent of which we in OIA did not know at any given time. We kept saying, "Stop talking, supply the documentation. Give us the i
report and let us see what you're talking about."
There was also another area which dealt with nonconformance reports which was the impropriety of or capriciously avoiding of these quality control
^
documents that had been written identifying
! potential safety deficiencies. That may have been and may still be a violable federal violation as far as the U.S. Attorney was concerned, but those two areas of documentation problems and the suspicion of altered and false records was the entire conversation. We kept dwelling on that as a - ;
violable issue and potential offenses. [
Judge Hoyt: Did either you, Mr. Gamble, or your two colleagues from the Region III office, Mr. Sinclair, ask the <
- U.S. Attorney to withhold action on anything until 4
the Region III investigation was complete?
i
Mr. Sinclair: No, I don't think in terms of withholding. I'm trying to think how the conversation went, but the mechanics of it were that there was some speculation on the part of the U.S. Attorney and it was discussed with all of us present that we may because of the methods that we were following the I&E Region investigation not acknowledging to anybody that anybody who may be a suspect in this, if you will, that it may be more serious than a civil, just a pure civil violation. In other words, they didn't want to address false records in any fashion if it had the appearance of being a potential criminal violation.
Judge Hoyt: By that you mean Mr. Sinclair: The Region. Alright, they were making a very fine distinction as to how far they would go.
Judge Hoyt: How far they were going in what, the investigation?
Mr. Sinclair: Right, and whether they would talk to people and whether they would, you know, flush up any of the
. things which might disclose willfulness or intent, things like that. The fact that OIA, let's see, in September, yeah, we had been to the sight and we had done some work that we were identifying that we were looking at false records from what could potentially be a criminal violation. The fact that both investigative groups on the sight were working at the same time and interviewing the same people the
U.S. Attorney's feelings were, or Patrick Handley's feelings were, that we could be running into a problem with parallel proceedings issues. It Was one sided. It wasn't so much the OIA effort but it was the Region's method of investigating and not willing to come to grips if they were to interview somebody that if they asked them is this purely civil they would say, "Well, we don't know; it may be more serious than that." Because we had both groups down there at the same time looking like they were doing the same thing, their perception was that the parallel proceedings a defense could be raised later on that the interviewees were not given full notice, if you will, what the nature of the events was.
Judge Hoyt: Advised to their rights?
Mr. Sinclair: Yeah, without getting quite that far. It looked like the government on one side may of not been operating in good faith because we were all wearing inspector hats, if you will, or something like that and we were going around in our routine of gathering information and evidence and then nobody would realize that actually, that something, you know, a criminal case may be in the making.
Mr. Alcot: Mr. Sinclair, could I ask a question here? At the time of the September meeting, was it your
4
/
understandingthatonsitehealthandsafety inspections were ongoing?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes.
. Mr. Aloot: -
During the course of this meeting, did Mr. Streeter and/or Mr. Barrett indicate that there were ongoing Region III investigations or health and safety investigations at Zimmer?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, 81-13 hadn't been finished as of yet. That was another thing. The report that we were all looking for still hadn't come out. In fact, didn't come out for a couple of months later.
Mr. Aloot: Ah, yes, but is there not a distinction between the report coming out and at some earlier date the actual investigation efforts being terminated?
Mr. Sinclair: I think you lost me, wait a minute.
Mr. Aloot: The fact that the report had not come out does not necessarily mean that the Regional office was conducting onsite investigations as of September 1981? - -
Mr. Sinclair: 0.K. Inspection and Enforcement net er stopped l
anything; they continued to work.
Mr. Aloot: I see.
Mr. Sinclair: Patrick Handley asked OIA if we would stop. 0.K.?
And then I said, well, if 2
Mr. Aloot: The request to stop was U.S. Attorney to OIA?
Mr. Sinclair: I think that's correct.
Mr. Aloot: Alright.
Mr. Sinclair: Now, in the of what I mentioned, the parallel proceedings issue and then, but in trying to put perspective on that Handley asked the Regional people if they could give him a time limit as to what they thought completion would be. Since so much time had passed already, I guess he was looking, you know, for some figure and he asked how much time they needed. I.think they came back with 3-6 months. That may be a little off, but 6 months they should be finished all of their work and there might be a little something outstanding but basically they should be done and the report should be issued. Under those conunitments, Handiny said in order to alleviate or to make sure that'they don't have any problems why doesn't DIA just back out for a while. And, then,'we'll get everything from the civil side done and then you guys can go back in and we don't have to worry about parallel proceedings.
Mr. Aloot: Was Ms. Tracy of the same view?
Mr. Sinclair: I thing so.
Mr. Alcot: She didn't voice any objection to that kind of procedure?
Mr. Sinclair: No, I don't think so. I think it was pretty clear in everybody's mind at the end of the meeting that there was an element of reason to that. I mean it
sounded workable and based on...we were there for several hours. The discussion was really hard to get everything pinned down as to what I&E was doing or wasn't doing and they knew OIA would pursue the criminet aspect or at least look for the element of willfulness and .
Mr. Aloot: Were any documents provided to the U.S. Attorney's office at this meeting?
Mr. Sinclair: There might have been; I'm not sure. I'm not sure if they maybe had a draft of the report; they might have provided a draft.
Mr. Alcot: What about just documents of interviews or do:uments from the site that they had decided to share with you as attorney? Do you recall any of that?
Mr. Sinclair: No, I don't.
Mr. Aloot: 0.K. That's all I had. Judge Hoyt: I don't think that I have any other questions on that particular area, Mr. Aloot. Do you want to go ahead with any additional questions on that area? .
Mr. Alcot: Oh, 0.K. Now, Mr. Sinclair, was there a meeting between OIA and the U.S. Attorney's office in May, I believe, 827 Mr. Sinclair: There were a couple more meetings. I was at one.
Mr. Alcot: Which meeting was that? When did that occur?
Mr. Sinclair: I'm trying to think. I don't think I want to the May meeting.
Mr. Alcot: ' ' O.K. At the other meeting mentioned ?
Mr. S1n' clair: I didn't go. I did not go to the May meeting.
Mr. Aloot: To your best recollection, who want to that May meeting?
Mr. Sinclair: I think Mr. Cummings did.
Mr. Aloot: Alone? .
Mr. Sinclair: I think so. Somebody from the Region came.
Judge Hoyt: Do you know who that is, Mr. Sinclair?
Mr. Sinclair: Maybe Mr. Warnick. I may be guessing but Mr.
Warnick and Mr. Cummings and maybe someone else from the Region. Yeah, I didn't go; I was, I ti. ink, 1
working on another investigation or something.
Mr. Aloot: 0.K. You mentioned that there may be another meeting you want to. When was that?
Mr. Sinclair: Much later. I think it was around August of 82.
Mr. Alcot: What transpired at that meeting?
Mr. Sinclair: Well, there were an awful lot of people at this meeting; it was rather large. I went as a representative from the Office of Investigations with Mr. Fitzgerald who was the acting director and Ted Gilbert.
Mr. Aloot: This involved Itsmer? Correct?
Mr. Sinclair: It's the same follow-on; it's continued saga. Mr.
Cummings went from OIA, the senior resident inspector was there from Zimmer, Dorwin Hunter, the project manager, if you will, for Region III on
Zimmer came. There were at least 2, probably 3, people from the FBI office there. There were at least 2 attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's office, including Miss Ann Marie Tracy.
Mr. Aloot: By region attorneys, you mean that Mr. Lewis?
Mr. Sinclair: I'm not sure; I have to think about that whether there was any Regional attorney there.
Mr. Alcot: I see. What was the purpose of this large meeting?
Mr. Sinclair: The U.S. Attorney wanted to know when -- it's the same question basically, I think -- the false records issue and the documentation related to that was going to be followed up. They had a copy of 81-13 that addressed the several documents of quality control inspection.
Mr. Alcot:
Was that referred to as phase 17 Mr. Sinclair: It later became phase 1, right.
Mr. Alcot: I see. 0.K.
Mr. Sinclair: Or something like that. It turned out that 81-13 did not resolve all the issues and they pursued on with more effort. I'm trying to think. The U.S.
Attorney was trying to get additional reports or something in writing from the NRC relating to what's been done in the false records area.
Mr. Aloot: And that report would be from which office?
Mr. Sinclair: Well, there wasn't anything coming from OIA unless it would have been a referral and a review.
Mr. Aloot: Normally, does things go to the Department of Justice through OIA?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, Mr. Alcot: In a nonnal routine practice, wouldn't this kind of documentation or liaison be conducted through OIA?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes.
Mr. Alcot: You recall no understanding that DIA would be the liaison office for this additional in~ formation?
Mr. Sinclair: Oh, wait a minute. No, OIA has a responsibility for the referrals and all cont. acts with the Justice Department. And anytime the regions or anybody does anything they would send that infonnation to notify the OIA office.
Mr. Alcot: Then OIA would turn it over to Justice!
Mr. Sinclair: Exactly. You jarred my memory a little bit.
Something that was going on that I wasn't actively involved in but I did talk to Mr. Cumings about it and there were discussions going on; I was not really assigned to Zimmer or the office wasn't doing anyting actively about Zimmer and I heard from somebody else what kind of contacts were made. At some point in late 81, starting into early 1982 ( I thinkI'mrightonthis),yes,(I'vebeeninvolved with Zimmer so long), up through to about this l 1
August meeting, there was.a contention between the ;
Justice Department and NRC I guess, now I'm saying l
4 I wasn't totally privileged to all.of this about whether or not the matter had been referred to them.
That's something, I don't know where it started or
~
how it evolved but apparently the NRC said that all of this stuff had been referred to Justice. 0.K.
Mr. Aloot: Yeah.
Mr. Sinclair: Justice came back and said, "What have you i referred?" And I don't know what kind of discussions were going on but that meeting
- Mr. Alcot
- These discussions would normally be between, let's say, Mr. Cummings and the Department of Justice?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes.
Mr. Alcot: A collection of discussions were in this case?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, and the Region, too. Ultimately, there was
- some correspondence and Mr. Cummings showed me a letter that came in from the U.S. Attorney, I guess,
- written by Ann Marie Tracy, saying
- Thank you,
, Mr. Cummings, and I've contacted Mr. Warnick 4
regarding this matter of a referral to the Justice Department and, well, the bottom line to the letter was: I understand that no official referral has been made.
Mr. Aloot: Oh, I see. ,
E j
3 20 -
Mr. Sinclair: And Mr. Cumings came to ra 'and said, "What's that mean?" And I said, "I don't know; it looks pretty muchlipswhatit'ssupposedtomean,thatnothing has ever been referred to them.
Mr. Aloot: What was his response?
Mr. Sinclair: He said something to' me like: there's referrals and then there's referrals. You know, I said, "No."
P We have never sent a, we had, let me back up a minute, at least I'm used to it, evea by just procedure, we always made a legal analysis,
' Judge Hoyt: Tape 1 of the reinterview of Mr. John Sinclair. I I believe you were answering your question on the referrals.
Mr. Sinclair: Through procedure we did an analysis of what we l
j thought was the potential violation, drew out the i elements and wrote a sununary depicting where we i
think the evidence of this particular violation was, i
l etc., and forwarded that type of summary as a referral, as an official referral.to Justice for t
their appropriate action, 0.K.
Mr. Aloot: Was a referral perfonned in this case?
t Mr. Sinclair: No.
Mr.'Aloot: 0.K. Is that what Mr. Cumings referred to as:
\'
~
There are referrals and then there are referrals?
[ Mr. Sinclair: I don't know; I re' ally 3d on't want to answer that for him. But the letter came in and said that Ann Tracy f had talked to Jim Cunanings and Bob Warnick and it
(= . . .
was clear from those discussions that there was no referral.
Mr. Aloot: I see.
Mr. Sinclair: 0.K. I don't know what Jim Cummings was getting at but I said we haven't referred anything.
Judge Hoyt: And that's when you got: There are referrals and referrals from Mr. Cummings?
Mr. Sinclair: Right.
Judge Hoyt: Did you ever check the files of the OIA office while you were there to see if they in fact made any formal referral?
Mr. Sinclair: No, I'm sure I'd been in and out of the Zimmer file because of just putting correspondence in it, and so on, but up to that point I don't know how current to that exact date. I didn't check it to see if there had been a referral. It would have been strange because I would have been probably the one who would have wrote it.
Judge Hoyt: Why, because you're a lawyer?
Mr. Sinclair: No, but because I was on top of Zimmer or I had been handling it as a primary investigator and I usually was asked, you know, to provide my knowledge about what was happening. l Judge Hoyt: Did you make legal analysis on these referrals for the office? j l
Mr. Sinclair: Yes. Oh, for other investigatins. Yes.
s Judge Hoyt: But not on this one?
Mr. Sinclair: Not on this one.
Judge Hoyt: Do you know whether Mr. Cummings asked anyone else in the office to make that kind of an analysis?
Mr. Sinclair: No, I don't.
Judge Hoyt: Go ahead, Mr. Alcot.
Mr. Aloot: If there was no official referral .then, can I assume that the U.S.' Attorney's interest in this ,,
case as early as March 1981 was generated on its l own?
J Mr. Sinclair: Yes, I think that's fair. Do you mean did they come
, in kind of unsoliciten? .
Mr. Aloot: Yeah.
Mr. Sinclair: Yes.
Mr. Aloot: Do you recall what prompted them to get interested in this? Was it the news reports? Was it a phone call? The FBI advised them of problems?
Mr. Sinclair: A little of everything. Mr. Applegate had been in touch with the FBI. Mr. Applegate, I think, had been contacted by one of the U.S. Attorneys. It might have been Dave Everett, oh, no, Mr. Gilday, I believe. Whether or not they were not evaluating this information so much as they were just receiving it.
- - - -- v
~
Mr. Alcot: In the course of these meetings, did the U.S.
Attorney's office ever mention prior contact with Mr. Applegate?
l Mr. Sinclair: Yes, I just said that. .
Mr. Alcot: Oh, I'm sorry. Did they explain why they at that point did nothing with his allegations? .
Mr. Sinclair: Well, I don't know if it was nothing. They had talked to the FBI. I don't know the mechanics of
'it. The FBI had been talked to by Mr. Applegate.
They didn't pursue it. The FBI did not open .
investigation on anything that Thomas Applegate brought.
Mr. Aloot: I see.
Mr. Sinclair: The investigations were, no, the allegations were very broad. It went from prostitution, racketeering, selling guns and liquor on the site to, you know, faulty wells, unsafe storage of nuclear fuel on the site. There were a lot of things most of which the FBI could not really find a federal nexus or a lot of evidence upfront that they wanted to act on so at that point because they didn't have very much did not open an active investigation. And I think that's probably how the U.S. Attorney ended up just waiting to see if anything else ever developed.
Mr. Aloot: Did they basically, your impression, relied on NRC to develop the significant facts?
I i
Mr. Sinclair: Yes. In false records, the earlier contacts by Applegate did not relate so much to false records.
In fact, I'm not sure if it was ever brought up at all.
Mr. Alcot: I understand.
Mr. Sinclair: That came from Region III.
Mr. Alcot: Back to Applegate...ever allege false records or was that an aspect of 81-13 that was independently -
developed?
Mr. Sinclair: I think that's right. I think it's 81-13'that really brought... potential problem with records.
Mr. Aloot: I see. 0.K. So I forgot, what is the point. At this, I guess, August 1982 meeting, meeting, did the Region people indicate that they were at that point still conducting investigations onsite, or had they completed their work?
Mr. Sinclair: Well, I'm not sure, for some reason I'm not sure my memory is real good on that. The Region people said that there was an ongoing program that there was a quality confirmation program in place that there was additional inspection effort to be conducted. They were in the process of writing numerous inspection reports on their activity and that anything that they developed -- and I'm not sure it was specifically brought up, but it may have been --
that they had identified more areas of potential
. ,*- .l l
l l
- as - -
l record problems that that information would be passed over as expeditiously as possible to OIA for i referral to the Department of Justice.
Mr. Aloot: Let me see if I understand correctly. At this point you were with OI not OIA?
Mr. Sinclair: That's right.
. Mr. Alcot: 0.K.
Mr. Sinclair: And OI's position was that the Zimer investigation for false records and threats and intimidation against personnel was just gearing up as an OI effort and I was work it and Ted Gilbert was to work it and we were to assign some more investigators to it. And whatever we developed in the Office of Investigations would be sent to 0IA for referral to the Department of Justice.
Mr. Alcot: To the best of your recollection was any infonnation subsequently given to OIA for transmittal to the Department of Justice?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes. . .
Mr. Aloot: Do you happen to know whether that information was transferred to the Department of Justice?
Mr.~Sinclair: I have to assume it was. Alright, I don't remember I
the exact dates. I think it went out around December of 82. It was a background report and I have to assume that that went. It did go from our office to OIA with the. intent of having it sent on L
. .~
- 26 -
~
to...I'll back up a minute; I think they did get it because (I'm trying to think when) there was another meeting with the U.S. Attorney.
. Mr. Alcot: Oh, I see.
Mr. Sinclair: And they had seen it.
Mr. Alcot: When was this second meeting?
Mr. Sinclair: Let me think. What did I say? The report went out around December.
Judge H'yt:
o December of 82?
Mr. Sinclair: .I think it was in January.
Mr. Alcot: Of 837 Mr. Sinclair: Of 83.
Judge Hoyt: Were you at that' meeting?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes.
Judge Hoyt: Who else was there? ,
Mr. Sinclair: Ted Gilbert from the Office of Investigations and myself.
Mr. Alcot: Let me try to put you back in time. During these l
various meetings with the U.S. Attorney's office, '
was it your understanding that between, let's say, April 1981 and June of 1982 that Regional office had l l
an active, ongoing, onsite investigation at Zimmer?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes.
l- Mr. Aloot: By saying yes, those investigations be somewhat
- different than a routine inspections that the Regions perform?
-r w + y - .-w.,
Mr. Sinclair: I think I know what you're saying. I was with the Office of Inspector and Auditor and I was under the impression that even though James McCartin who was the original Region III investigator working totally dedicated to Zimmer that even though he was leaving the agency that they had assigned another investigator to be full time and that the investigation in fact was being conducted during the period that you stated which was like mid-81 through l Mr. Alcot: Mid-82?
Mr. Sinclair: Mid-82.
Mr. Aloot: And that was what was represented to the U.S.
Attorney's office?
Mr. Sinclair: I believe that's probably what was said. I might have been mostly verbal but I'm assuming that we were saying, "Yes, they're still working and we're still waiting."
Mr. Alcot: And was it that representation to U.S. Attorney's office that caused them to delay -their own criminal investigation?
Mr. Sinclair: I'm not sure; I'm not sure. I know that they were relying on NRC's 0IA's presentation -- that something was being done, something is being affected and that we would get it all to them as soon as we possibly could.
Mr. Alcot: To your knowledge or best recollection during this period, did the U.S. Attorney stop its investigation or did it have sort of a low level investigation?
Mr. Sinclair: I have problems with that. I don't know that they were really investigating. I mean I don't consider .
them to be an investigative-type body until they start something like a grand jury.
Mr. Alcot: I see. It was your impression they were just waiting for the NRC to drop this package in front of them?
Mr. Sinclair: Right.
Mr. Alcot: And that based on that they would take it and run?
Mr. Sinclair: Get the FBI involved or do whatever they had to do to...
Mr. Alcot: To your knowledge, did the FBI or U.S. Attorney's office ever initiate an investigation of Mr.
Applegate personally?
Mr. Sinclair: No, I don't know that. I haven't heard that.
Mr. Alcot: 0.K. I have no more questions on.this last meeting, Judge Hoyt.
Judge Hoyt: 0.K. I don't have any on the...I'm satisfied that I've got all I wanted on the meetings on that subject, Mr. Aloot. Do you want to go on to the next subject?
Mr. Alcot: Yeah, you can go on. I don't have a next subject. ,
__- -_-y _.-
o Judge Hoyt: Oh, I have only one really sort of a broad question I wanted to ask Mr. Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair, during the investigation that Mr. Aloot and I are conducting these last few days and weeks, we have had indications made to us by various persons that we have talked with,that at some time or the other
. during the OIA investigation into the Region III activities, that is, the investigation that started in January 1981 and the report which culminated the investigation on August 4,1981, that during the earlier part of 1981 in these interviews and the investigation that you were conducting in Region III was made that some reporting, surreptitious reporting had been done. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Sinclair: No, but I think I understand how the question arises. After the OIA report that was issued in August came out, there was a rebuttal, I guess, made by Region III personnel. In one .of the connents that one of the investigators made was that due to the detail of the interviews and so on and the amount of facts that were still left within the interview that it appeared 0.K., I guess, or they believed that the interviews were recorded of the interviewees without having given them any knowledge that there might have been a recording device
present. That's just not true. 0.K. The interviews that were...nobody that was involved in the investigation, myself, specifically, had a tape recorder with them. We didn't use any tape recorders to record the interviews; they were all done from notes and put together in that fashion, so we didn't have any recording devices.
Mr. Alcot: Mr. Sinclair, in the course of the FOIA litigation involving Mr. Applegate, were all your notes released to the public? Investigative notes?
Mr. Sinclair: Gee, that's a good question. Ah, a lot of, I guess, well, I can't answer that unequivocally; I'm not 4
sure. The reason I say that is that a lot of stuff in movement to the different offices I kept in boxes and I went back through and tried to screen out everything that was applicable to the FOIA. And I did have some handwritten drafts that ultimately became typed interviews or statements, or interviews in this case, and there were some.other notes that were relevant to that I probably used as the outline but that was released. Anything that I could find at that time was released.
Mr. Aloot: I have a clarification of a question. We were referred to 81-13. Was that an OIA file designation or Region III file designation?
3 f et m , .e~ - , , e- , - - - , - - - -
. ,n--,.-, - -----,,,,-------e - y,- - . w, e
I Mr. Sinclair: That was a Region III; that's a Region III investigation that's under the doc'ket for Zimmer under 53-58. It's a chronology, chonological number for their investigations at Zimmer for that year.
Mr. Alcot: 0.K. I have no further questions.
Judge Hoyt: I have no further questions either, Mr. Alcot. Mr.
Sinclair, is there any clarification that you want to make at this-time about anything that you've testified to here?
Mr. Sinclair: No, just, I hope it's clear. I mean I've tried to
. make the answers as explicit as I can. I feel a little like a fish out of water on this last episode here because I'm not sure what it really means; but as long as my answers seem to be responsive, I'm satisfied.
Judge Hoyt: We're satisfied. That concludes the interview of Mr. Alcot on the side and concludes all the recorded matter for tape number 1 of this interview.
~ ,
, \
(hb 3
l MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE :
1 FROM: Ruthanne Miller
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH JAMES McCARTEN, June 2, 1983 DATE: June 3, 1983 On June 2,1983, Judge Hoyt initiated a telephone interview with James McCarten. Sebastian Aloot also participated in the interview.
Ruthanne Miller was present in the office taking notes.
Judge Hoyt rea'd to Mr., McCarten the allegation from the Malsch Memorandum at page 5 concerning him: "Applegate stated that McCarten, who was to give him weekly investigative reports, told him that he couldn't do so anymore because Applegate was to be investigated."
McCarten said that he never said that to him. McCarten told us that the FBI looked into Applegate's allegations. He said he did interview Applegate's former employer in the summer of 1981 about his knowledge of-Applegate's activities at Zimmer to get clarification of the allegations and to get more information.
McCarten said that there was a time when Keppler agreed to brief Applegate; McCarten was clearly in touch with Devine. He stopped briefing Applegate when he finished investigating the 19 allegations, by March 30. After that date, McCarten was only doing spcradic follow-up on the allegations. He specifically didn't make any inquiry into Applegate's background because of the sensitivity of the case. He received unsolicited comments about Applegate from some of the people he interviewed.
Although McCarten stopped briefing Applegate, Keppler kept Devine apprised of the investigiation. There was no formal stopping of the briefings. At various phases of the investigation (January - November),
8511210416 851106
'~