ML19256A210

Transcript of Discussion of Oia/Ogc Inquiry in Testimony of the Executive Director for Operations.Pp 1-61

ML19256A210
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/25/1978
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811030238
Download: ML19256A210 (62)

Text

<

g.pa atcw '(k,

oq UNITED STATES

{

4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg g

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 d

e

• '.s

%...../

g OFFICE OF THE October 13, 1978 SECRETARY DISCUSSION OF OIA/OGC INQUIRY IN TESTIMONY Ol' THE EXECUTI'fE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS May 25, 1978 Pursuant to the Commission's Regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act (10 CFR 9.108(d)), the Commission, on the advice of the General Counsel, determined that the subject meeting record, a tape recording, should be made available to the public.

The tape recording is available on request.

DISCLAIMER This is an unof ficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 25, 1978 in the Commissioner's offices at 1717 H Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

The meeting was closed to public attendance and obser-vation.

This transcript was prepared from a tape recording of the meeting.

It has not been corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general information purposes.

It is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may a thorize.

l

-.. (h

[h...

Samuel J.

kilk Secretary of th Commission e

7811030F6%

i 1

'.j l

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

i 4

DISCUSSION OF OIA/OGC INQUIRY IN i

i a

TESTIMONY OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS 6

(Closed to Public Attendance) 7 l

l Chairman's Conference Room j

3 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

3 l

Thursday, May 25, 1978 l

10 l l

j The l'eeting commenced, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m!,

~~

Joseph Hendrie, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.

~~

i, i

i 13 l,

ll PRESENT:

{

A4

j Chairman Hendrie 3

Commissioner Gilinsky l

Commissioner Kennedy

,,o Commissioner Bradford ll l

l 17 h

O 13 il Il i

19 I

20 (This transcript was prepared from a tape recording.)

21

!i ll 77

'l

~~

i 23 0

i n

24 I

25 i

4 a

2 I

1 l PROCEEDINGS l

i 2

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Shall we proceed with the meeting.

3 Item No. 1 -- let me pass around to you a draft 4 !

cf -- this is a memo to Chilk to record the results of the 1

5 previous meeting on the inquiry into the Commission review 6

of the OGC/OIA report, inquiry in to testimony of the EDO.

7 I got comments back from Peter, and I guess I got comments 3

from everyone.

9 l I don't feel a compelling rush that this go final l

immediately, but it seemed to me that I ought to try to --

10 j

t i

since we did come to some conclusions at the meeting, that I l

i

,,~~ l l

ought to try to get them down before they escape totally from I

13 l

mem rv and from the standpoint of our joint review of it, why l

li the same probably applies.

~,

l 4

il

'l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Are there problems among the

.3 I

comments?

16 j

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The same probably applies.

l,e i

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Are there problems among the

,S b

I

'd comments, because I think I have a couple.

19 I

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I didn't think so.

20 l

l l

As you would expect, why it seemed to me when I 21 1

read your comments that I promptly wanted to word-engineer 22 1

y them a little bit.

23 pi In your first insert, top of page 2, I am inclined 24

j

'l to make another sentence of that added phrase.

2a_

b e

n

'h

I 3

1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

That's probably fine. I no 2

I longer have my ---

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It's marked in there.

The new 4

copy has added matter under ---

3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

There is a typo.

It should 6

be "than the situation."

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, "than the situation."

o i This is already a long sentence.

"The Commission 9

I l

believes it unqualified.

No evidence statement should be

' O avoided to characterize the inventory difference matters,"

i il i

l di-di-da, di-di-da.

ll

}

I don't know, does anybody have any perferences or j

2 would you prefer to go and contemplate it.

l 1

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

You could take the "and" out l

and capitalize the "t".

15 i

l 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What is it that they are going I

i 17 i.

to do?

h I

h 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, on the second one, what is it?l

'l 19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I don't care, maybe they can 20 figure it out, but I'm not sure what it is they are suppose 21 l

to do.

l i

22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, what I had in mind was 23 j in effect, t'

restate or to replace what had been the no-evidence 24

't statement, that is, if the Commission and the staff need a h

'l specific formulation dealing with the question of whether or notb--

25 e:i l

i!

i

i 4

l 1

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Is that what everything that 2

has gone before sort of said?

We are dealing with specific 3

I circumstances not so generalized ones.

l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Right.

I guess -- I can live 5

without that second -- that last point because it is more 6

trouble than helping.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Is that the statement that

=

l l

~

has "your contributions".?

d COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes. It seemed to me that if

~

there is still a need ---

11 COMMISSmv.. R KENNEDY:

It doesn't make any difference

^^

to me, I'm just not sure what good it is going to generate.

l

-l I

1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, what I had hoped it I

j would generate would be a sentence that would describe the t

{

overall situation with regard to + heft and diversion of l

^3 l

16 significant amounts of strategic amounts of SNM, and that l

17 that sentence then simply replaces the no evidence sentence 18 in the interest of the staff and the Commission testimony.

13 In a way, I should think it would be more useful to the staff 20 than to us.

I think probably it would be a more positive i

21 l

statement about ---

l 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I don't propose to make any 23 positive statements about anything.

I could even withdraw o

my objection to Congressional investigation of the licensing 24 i

1 25 S

of Tarapur, but I won't.

Why didn't you speak up louder when N

h a

.1

5 i

1 the draft went around Vic?

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I did everything I could.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

You were right, for Christ sake.

j 4

Why in the hell are you backing off?

I think I am going to 5

edit this statement.

6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, go ahead. I will make it.

7 It happens to be factually correct, for Christ sake.

There is 3

no need to back up just because somebody bits you unprompted.

You are going to get that as long as you are in this i

10 l

Commission.

They are going to be prompted to get you and you

~~

ought to face that, just expect it and enjoy it, for God's 17 i

~~

sake and bark back.

^3 1

3 You saw what the senator said after I made my statement.

i I

l "Of course, you are absolutely right." Well, what else could he I

say?

Don't back off everytime somebody barks, for God's sake.

^

^6 l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If the original statement had been 17 a little more explicit, why ---

1 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I thought it was explit.

i e

19 enough.

It was explicit enough, and it was understood by 20 him to be exactly what it was.

He was prompted to make a 21 question -- the only darn question he had, by the way you 22 noticed, the only thing he wanted to raise.

i 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

'l 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Didn't you find that I

hinteresting?

With all of that enormous staff of extraordinary, 23 I

'l il 4

1

6 1

high-priced, enormously competent, guys who have been working i

2 on these subjects for months, years.

Architects of the bill 3

by their own definition.

And the only question they had was 4

that.

I thought it was fascinating and it is going to make 5

a fascinating record.

6 If you back off, you should be sure that you are --

7 you should understand that you are backing away from me, 3

because I won't back off.

l 2

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Look at the last paragraph in j

10 there.

There is sort of a gratuitous paragraph after the

~

saying, we are quasi this and we are quasi that and we get' in to

• ~,

court.

I j us t ---

i I

^3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That comes about by the reversal l 14 of the things to which I agreed, but I didn't give a damn.

l

^

i l

15 just seemed to distract from

~

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

0 the thought, and I thought I might just want to take that out.

17 COMMISSIONEP KENNEDY: You won't get a change to use 1

1 13 it again, anyway.

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, we may have to go back to i

20 the House, so I may want to circulate that and see ---

21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

You were, in fact, I 22 gathered from the exchange, saying something a little different t

23 I,

than what I had thought and than what the thought was aimed i

I 24 at.

That is, Iwaswithyoucompletelyintermsofnotwanting{

l 25 to get going into making judgments based on ".ypothetical or

!i 1

Il I

7 l

L l

1 future cases.

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's what I thought the l

3 statement said.

4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Right.

I gathered, Joe, and 5 l i

I presume that you were also concerned that we would not, for 6

example, be intimidated or slated by coming down there and 7

being t'rangued,McClure if he would have done it or ----

S i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well ---

9 l j

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

It isn't that, I was just i

^O l

talking about it is part of the game and ---

i I

l l

~-

i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It may be part of a game, but I really am very unhappy with the prospect that the Congress l

e 7

j feels free to call us down on a specific case action, even i

a

] though, as you say, the export matters don't have the formal l

il' 15 adjudicatory structure that a reactor licensing case would have.!

16 I

But to feel free to call us down on an explicit license action, I; 17 I

and in effect, lecture individual members of the Commission on i

13 whether they did right or wrong in arriving at certain f

i 19 conclusions.

It was only a step from the relatively innocuous 1

20 things, although I thought McClure banged on you guys a little 21 rough.

I don't appreciate Glenn telling me I have to write 22 individual opinions if I don't feel it appropriately the case, 1

23 but that was relatively mild.

But it is only a step from 1

24 there to getting a couple rf the demagogue types on that bench, 1

25

! just beating the hell out of one another,of us or something that' i

l 8

I was written in the past for some stand taken on a case.

2 You know, maybe it is all part of a game, but it seems to me 3

that we ought to remind the Congress that that is not the 4

way you are suppose to run an inquiry.

5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I would not join you in 6

supporting that view, as a general proposition.

7 If I feel that way about a particular case, I will 8

not in the least be hesitant to sit right back and bark right 9

back and say, you are wrong, you are approaching this from y

i l

10 the wrong perspective.

What do you expect of people who are 11 suppose to make independent judgments,and that is precisely 12 what they are, and that is exactly what I will sit there and i

i 13 tell them.

I will not sit there and just be meek and swallow I

14 all that crap unless I think the practical situation demands it.!

13 But to make a general statement of that kind, is, I think, 16 asking for what I guess, if I were sitting up on that bench, 17 you would get.

A clubbing over the head.

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I think the problem, in a 19 sense, if you were anticipating what would happen.

Now, if i

20 he said something like that and you then made a little speech like,that it would be okay.

But in a sense, you might be f

y doing something that is just not right.

Let me rephrase that.I 7,

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Let me just take the other 23 I

tact.

2,,

There is a reasonable presumption here, given the 5

i

ia

i i

9 i

1 variety and stength and depth of talents sitting behind the 2

chairman of that committee yesterday.

And the fact that 3

indeed at least one of them was, I might quote, "an architect 4

of that bill," unquote.

And indeed, a man who has only one 5

week ago,made an impatient speech to the effect that the 6

views taken by thesu two Commissioners was absolutely correct, I

7 they are on the mark, twice.

Which is fine. ---

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I find this news.

l 9

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, I will give you the i

I 10 speech.

I thought you guys intelligence was the greatest j

11 !

l in town, that's what I have been told.

i 17

~~

l But at any rate -- only trithin the staff.

Let me l

3, just point out, there is a reasona le presumption, I think, l

~

3,

^'

that you can expect in such a circumstance to have all kinds I

l I

of questions, the purpose of which would be to draw out 16 view points here, and get a discussion of those view points 17 and the differences.

And the fact that you didn't,may well 1 3 be a reflection of the fact that they had your statement 10 and knew precisely what it meant before the meeting.

20 l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Oh, they probably didn't read it.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Oh, indeed they did.

That's o,

why the questions were there and that's why you were getting l

\\

23 all wound up.

l i

hl 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Any way, it is a different matter il' 25 and let's come back to the one at hand.

o It i

.t

i

I 10 1

I guess I don't have any difficulty asking the staff 2

to come up with a sort of general statement. I wouldn't 3

put a time limit on it, but it may be that ---

4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Why don't we change 5

" approval" to " consideration".

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

".. should be considered 3

irrelevant"?

9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

No.

The last line where it i

la says: ".. for Committee approval."

l 71 COMMISSIONER GILINE"Y:

Oh.

l 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I should think it might be f

i 13 l

of some help to people like Cliff and Lee when they go up to i

1 testify on matters relating to MUFs, have a Commission 14 15 Position to resort to instead of having ---

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

One thing the instruction 16 does is to allow the staff to take what is drafted here, if

.7 l

18 they find it a little awkward in places or it doesn't cover something they are worried about, why they can fix that and g

l Come back and say, here's what we all say about it.

It does have that considerable advantage, as a matter of fact, since t.,

i I obviously haven't instructed the staff.

,,a t

Anything else with this thing?

I don't know whether I

l you would feel ready just to say, good, that's it with the i

changes as made, or whether you would like to take it back and l

,_ a i

o

11 1

re-read it at your leisure before ---

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What are the quotes in the 3

next paragraph for?

E COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

These are the recommendations.

5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

These are quotes --

Oh, I remembr,

6 There was something I wanted to do with that.

I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Now that's a funny thing to do.

l 3

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

What?

I 9

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

To put the quotes there, I 10 think.

In fact, it doesn't make any difference to me, I don't 11 care, it is just that it looks odd.

l 12,

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.-

It is the language directly out l

l 13 i

of Recommendation 4.

i i

14 l

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You might want to be more l

l 15 explicit and say ---

l l

I 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

As stated in ---

17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

"As stated in the regulation,"

i 13 and quote "as".

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

20 Now, let's see.

There was something that would 21 worry me about that which I got to thinking about after this i

I, one.

_33 Oh, let me tell you what:

I would like to take the 24 quotes out and retain the thought that, "we wish the staff to identify alleged thefts or diversions, clarify them publicly

_3 l

'. i i

12 1

and take the appropriate actions, or" ---

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Who is going to clarify these 3

publicly -- you know.

What does that mean?

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That we have got a document 5

that probably ought to go in to the Public Document Room.

6 Remember the threat that ---

7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

If that's what we are talking 3

about, that's what we ought to say.

You know, " clarifying 9 l publicly" some guy is going to get up on the stump and say, l

10 now, let me tell you about this or issue for press purposes.

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

The principal change I I

in l wanted to make was to have it read that alleged thefts or l

13 ll diversions, including those mentioned by Mr. Conran -- that is, i

l'l I don' t want to tie it sort of specifically to the Conran 14 l

15 list, in the first instance.

The thought is in there, but it 16 is sort of do the Conran list and then add anything else you know about.

I would rather have it: put down the things you i

17 know about and include the Conran list.

13 I

h You know, Smith has had a request to Conran for 19 l'

f ur r five m nths or whatever, six months.

"Would you 0

i please list these," and all you get back is just flak and j

garbage and hand waiving over: "Who took away my reports?"

j "Are you going to give me another 1,000 pages of classified l

y

~~

material?" and so on.

I think they are going to have to do it

,4 3,

ll sort of without a specific explicit list from Conran.

2:_

I,

'l I

i

13 I

l L

1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I think we ought to focus 2

on our own list.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

There is ---

i 5

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let me re-draft and re-circulate j

6 to you, okay?

7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Joe, I think in terms of --

I 8

this might be clarifying and helpful to you about the possi-9 bility to clarify part of that list or at least some items 10 on that list without divulging the entire thing or whatever.

f 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

All right, without divulging it.

12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I should mention, on the l

\\

13 j

subject of Mr. Conran,that he left a message for me on Monday j

i 14 that he wanted to get together and discuss criminal misconduct, l l

15 which aroused my curiosity, and also he asked the possibility l

16 that on that basis I would be reopening the prior prospect l

1 i

f those (inaudible) and I sent a memo back to the t

17 effect that I did not think it right that I should even

'^3 l

discuss the material that the Commission has up until, yg April 19th,whereby if I had questions now based on the material 20 i

i I

before us,I would get in touch with him,that if it were criminal l misconduct related or tc matters unrelated (inaudible).

2 1

p COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

By the way, I don't know q

!! whether I mentioned it to you, but when you were out, f

Conran called up and said that he had a request from his -- one of 25

'l

,a 6

h

14 I

his compilations or whatever his problem, Brian Jenkins at 2

Rand who is under the contract to DOE in this area on 3

terrorism, requested that that be sent to him and I said 4

that as far as I was concerned he would have to make a request, 5

and that he have the proper clearance and so on, and as far 6

as I was concerned the stuff could go.

7 Now, I don't know what would have to be done due to i

3 l the fact if there was a request or ---

l 9

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Was it a classified list of 10 Conran's or what?

11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, probably Conran put i

12 l

some material together in response to somebody's FOIA request 1

t and that material was then subject to be classified here.

13 i

l 14 1

And I don't even know what the naterial is or what it j

13 concerns, but it may be this -- it sounded like it was a list I

16 f incidents or something and that he claimed that he had I

i talked with this other fellow and that -- Brian is one of 17 l

_i e j

the terrorism experts.

m CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What a depressing profession.

19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes.

-- and he is working 20 l

for, I guess Harvey (inaudible) l I

l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Good, glad that he is getting l

it together. It could be valuable to us.

l 3

d COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Right.

i a

]

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We will forward him everything we

.o q

ll

'l 4

15 I

have got and ask him for a copy of or a carbon of everything 2

he sends.

3 Okay, this thing, I will fix that last paragraph 4

the way I think it ought to be, and I will pass it around so 3

you will get a chance to read it one more time.

I don't know, 6

it might be worth just seeing it again, because we are here 7

trying to set explicit -- this language will go. Sam will 3

now forward it as a directive to the staff, so it is language 9

in which the Commission is speaking to the staff about these i

10 l no-evidence matters and offering explicit guidance.

So a 11 certain amount of care is appropriate.

12 The second item, with regard to the OGC/OIA inquiry i

13 l

that I want to go forward to, we need to move on and look at m

14 the worth of the inquiry's findings and conclusions and see 15 whether we agree with them or disagree with them.

We need 16 to develop a Commission position.

There may very well be l,

17 individual views as there often are of the Commissioners.

18

, We have been requested by Mr. Udall to let him know what l

I 19 the Commission's view is on the findings, conclusions and l

recommendations.

The recommendations part was dealt with 20 i

which was pretty easy, but the findings and conclusions l

21 l

22 l

remain, and some other questions that he asked.

23 l

I might note that we have the basic communication i

with Mr. Udall saying, well, what do you think of this?

That l

ne

] was on March 2nd.

,_3 Il l

1

16 I

l 1

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

March 2nd?

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

A one-pager from March 2nd.

3 I will read it.

"I am enclosing..."

hesendsalongl--

4 his staff has prepared -- I don't know -- a 10 or 15 page 5

critique of Lee's position.

6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Is that an answer?

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, in part.

Let me read the 3 l letter, because the others don't have it.

il 9 ;l "I am enclosing the committee staff critique of 10 the statement cited by Mr. Gossick in support of his contention l i

11 that it was the position,that in their view,there has been no evidence..."

et cetera.

13 "I would appreciate your providing me the Commission's.

14 and Mr. Gossick's comments on this staff critique."

Now, what we have done in response to that, I asked 15 l

l Lee to please respond and I believe

-- it seems to me that 16 in that one there were also comments backed up from Cliff Smith.

17 l

18 Any way, those were forwarded to Mr. Udall saying, I have I

asked Mr. Gossick to reply to part 1 of your letter.

His yg i

comments are attached, but the Commission will be looking 0

further in to the matters you raised and so on. So it is half i

done.

22 i

f The rest of the letter says:

"We look forward to 3

dl receiving the Commission's response and comments of individual ll Commissioners where appropriate, with regard to the inquiry's q

l

.I

7 1

findings, conclusions and recommendations.

I also believe 2

it important that the Commission consider the question of whether the NRC staff errored in light of the meetings of 4

August 2nd in not correcting testimony presented by Mr. Gossick I 5

on July 29 and August 8th."

6 More recently we have had a May 8th letter which 7

deals with parts of the Conran matters which we haven't talked 3

about, but when we move on to the next meeting this morning l

9 I

to talk about personnel matters, this will be covered.

10 But it does also speak to the inquiry matter, and:

11 "As a related item, I consider the inquiry into 12 l

the Executive Director's testimony to be inadequate."

l 13 i

I don't know why.

Oh, I see, the OGC/OIA.

14 "The summary volume does not reflect accurately l

15 material in Volumes II and III:

the interviews did not

~6 1

address important questions; and there appears to have been 17 I

no attempt to resolve significant contradictions among statements

'^S made to the investigators.

To the extent that this investigation

^9 1

reflects the Commission's determination to come to grips with 20 difficult issues, it has revealed a severe weakness in the 1

71 system upon which we rely for protection of che public health 4

and safety from the hazards of nuclear power."

22 23 l

There is a note piece, a Congreselonal Office draft 2

around,which snapped back somewhat taintishly ---

25 l

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Which one is that?

il U

d

i J

l

18 l

1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

A draft I received May 8th, and 2

it says:

"I received your letter" --- this is a draft.

3

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I received your letter..."

4 I don't know.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

This is the letter Steve 6

was carrying, a draft letter?

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

It deals principally with a

the Conran paragraph of his letter, but there is a tack-on 9

at the botton with respect to the second issue mentioned, i

i I believe that "we have already initiated further inquiry into j

19 {

11 the investigation of the testimony...."

t COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What does that mean?

_3 _9 i

3

[

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

initiated further inquiry..."

H 14 is not the right language for it.

l i

The Commission is reviewing the findings, conclusions

,_13 and recommendations of the investigation that I put in motion 16 h

just before Christmas.

So that isn't quite correct.

l

.,zo There is also an OPE note around to you that says --

l g

l that recommends -- no that deals only with the Conran (inaudible l )

19 l

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That would be in lieu of the j

l other paragraph that was in that draft?

21 i

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

Well, the main part of the 22 i

draft concerns the stuff about the Conran -- you know, Udall wrote us on -- that May 8th letter has got the thing in there l

that concerns me a good deal.

It says:

"While I am not in a

?.o e

19 1

position to judge whether Mr. Conran has had sufficient 2

opportunity to present his concerns in full detail, there is 3

ample reason to conclude that his allegations do have a 4

substantial, factual basis."

5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Which allegations is he 6

referring to?

Those are the only allegations -- well, there 7

are so many allegations made by this time I'm not sure what i

8 I

he is talking about, but if he is talking about the one 9

i involving ---

10 i

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Officers of the Commission.

11

~~

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes.

Major misconduct if not i

l illegal actions on their part, then, you know, I'm amazed l

~~

~"

.j that a statement that there is substantial factual basis, h

- i

^'

because I have not seen any, nor has Mr. Conran presented any, j

even though asked to do so.

6 Maybe we should ask ---

l i

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well,it is part of the subject, i

13 because one of the things which I wanted to discuss with you

'9 this morning in connection with reviewing this is where to

^

20 go with the staff's report of not answering or whatever the 21 case may be, this latest letter from Udall.

However, the main irsues raised in that latest l

l 23 letter, it seems to me, relate to the Conran allegations i

l 24 and that is a matter o5 I would like to postpone discussion 25 on it until later this morning when we have the second of

.t l!

!i o

4

d 20 l

f l

3 i

^

-l this morning's meetings.

2 COMMISSION 0R GILINSKY:

I would separate the two out.

3 You have a report comirc.7 in from the inspector and the general counsel, that is, a bunc h of findings and conclusions, you 5

know, there are 10 par". graphs and you can agree with them or 6

disagree with them and (huvia, hle)

--- and I think it is l

l a separate matter.

-3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is a separate matter and I I

I 1

would like to treat it somewhat separately this morning.

So l

10 I prefer not to deal with that section of Udall's letter now.

t I

11 l But with regard to answering his question on the Gossick 4

I 12 h testimony matter, the substantive answer involves the I

o 13 Commission going ahead and deciding whatyit thinks about this d

thing and then writing that conclusion down.

14 0l 15 Now, we have done that with regard to the 16 recommendations and they can be quickly reflected.

As a sort 17 of an interim matter, you know, a paragraph saying ue are i

13 looking in to it, after all, it probably wouldn't be inapprop-j I

19 riate if we write him s'eme other letter that deals with ---

20 he keeps writing us letters that have both subjects in it, 21 and we have to write him back on the main subject, why, a paragraph saying,look, on this other thing we are meeting on f

22 li h

it.

It wouldn't be inappropriate, it wouldn't seem to me.

l 23 i

l 24 I don't know whether a separate letter on it is justified or i

25 not and that's part what the Omnission is doing about reviewing 4

ll

'l

21 1

the inquiry.

2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I mean, it is posted in the Commissioners' schedule and we are only discussing these 4

matters, and when we come to a conclusion we ought to write 5

him a letter.

I think we also have to write Mr. Dingell on 6

what we (inaudible).

7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The testimony before his 3

other committee or the report?

9 i

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I think the tsstimony on

^

his other committee.

I don't know if we got a direct question i

~^.

I 37 with regards to the report but (inaudible.)

7?

~~,

l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, I don't find much j

i

{

enthusiam for trying to draft a letter that simply tells I

Udall that we are continuing to look into reviewing the Mr.

i 15 inquiry, at the present time.

15 If for other reasons there is a letter that addresses l

one of these joint subject letters, then a paragraph should la l be considered.

19 I

Okay, onward to the findings and conclusions.

20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I'm sorry to distract from 21 that last item, but how does one deal in a process like this 22 with the allegations, unless it is backed up somewhere that l

23 l

those findings and conclusions in the summary volume does not I

24 l

l represent the testimony in Volumes II and III ---

25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, but you are not taking d.

'. i i

f i

22 t

1 them at face value and you had better make that judgment 2

prior to the response.

3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

But if we are about to go 4

through the findings, I guess what I'm really doing is 5

recoilling in horror of the prospect of having me going through 6

Volumes II and III, and unguided, reach a conclusion on the 7

matter.

At that point I would be at something of a loss.

3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I don't know to what he is l

9 l referring to.

I 19 l

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I don't either, and I don't 1

il know what the back-up materials are.

If anything happens ---

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I agree with that 13 stabsmnt in the summary volume that it more accurately reflectsj i

(inaudible) material, and ---

t 14 COMMISSIONER LR:iDFORD:

Maybe my question can back g

me up.

, o, t

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Maybe we can even figure out 7

I where the questions came from.

g

~~ ^"

^

^

19 l

Because I don't think that prevents you from looking at the conclusions and we could get right on to them, instead of the j

I findings.

I i

22 i

i

,i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I take the opposite point of

view, t

24

q COMMISSIONER GILINSKY

I mean, that's part of the j

inquiry.

a, e

23 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think the summary is probably intended that they provide a reasonable conclusion for the summary volume.

You must remember that we set up a group headed by Barry and Tom McTiernan and then Fizgerald 3

worked full time on it and a couple of other guys part time in 6

OGC and I suppose OIA.

It was primarily the 4 of them, I think, 7

that thought out the finding and conclusions in the summary 3

volume.

9 They had different views on the matter, I know, that 10 i

if they weren't -- they were just like this group.

They didn't 11 come charmingly and without disagreement and they came finally 12 to a set of findings and conclusions which represent a l

13 i

collegial statement which was mutual.

I think they did a l

14 1

fairly good job, but I think (inaudible) 13 Now, if their judgment requires them to go back 16 and study in great detail the other volumes or indeed to ask 17 l

further questions.

That seems to be ---

13 l

l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, having read the entire l

i 14 i

report, and more than once, I did not have the feeling that l

20 the summary volume incompletely and inaccurately spoke to i

21 t

l that.

Certainly not the latter, but the mere fact that it was a summary volume,it is less than complete.

But I didn't

~~

i i

find discrepancies that troubled me and so now I'm concerned j

24 that there may be some that I missed, and I'd like to have an n

1 h

idea of what they are, because they do bear upon, ultimately 1

d I

i e

i 24 I

they bear upon your judgment as to the findings and 2

conclusions in the recommendations, I should think.

3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it is a question of 4

which material they selected to put in the summary volume, 5

and I would have used a different selection, but I don't 6

think you are limited to looking t.o the summary volume.

So 7

you have to look at the whole thing.

8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, is it fair to say that 9

we should dispose of that comment of Mr. Udall's by simply 10 saying,2 side from whether the summary volume completdly i

11 l reflects or necessarily. accurately reflects, whatever he 8

'l I

12 ij said, the full material, the Commission,in acting upon the i

il l

13 1

matter has not been constrained by the limits of the summary 14 volume, but ra ther has acted on its understanding of the l

f 15 i

entire situation as contained in the entire report, the complete' 16 l;

report.

i 17 l

Tha: would reflect my own view.

Now we could look 13 at the summart of the findings, conclusions and recommendations

9 in the light of the entire package rather than the summary 20 report.

Won't that deal with Mr. Udall's point?

2' CHnIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, I don't think it is

'Il necessary for us to deal with whether the summary volume is y

I what we could live with collegially if we had those two larger 23 h,

volumes or not.

It is not the point.

You should turn to the j

3,.,

i, findings and ---

,a.

c o

II 1

i

.I 1

25 4

1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

You should make that point 2

to Mr. Udall, lest we get another letter saying, well, you 3

guys, obviously you don't understand the point.

You wouldn't 4

have undertaken this -- you wouldn't have taken these steps, 5

you wouldn't have concluded or reached these conclusions if 6

you would have taken into account the other views reflected in 7

the other comments.

8 I'm just suggesting that ---

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Keep that in mind for an eventual 10 letter.

It is hardly an item I'd like to send in this letter.

11 Keep it in mind.

12 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Oh, that's what I thought we l

1 13 l

were doing now, we were getting a letter together telling him i

14 what we are going to do.

15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, this is not quite at j

16 the letter-writing stage.

17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Gh.

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And I don't know what good an 19 l

interim letter -- you know, a one-paragraph letter saying, come on ---

20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

We are still here.

21 l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- come on, Mo, we are working on l

79 i

23 it for G d's sakes.

We could.

I l

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, has he asked us

~,

t I

SPecifically to deal with the summary or only deal with the ld 25

l i

i'

i 4

29 1

[

1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Tons of stuff comes up here 2

going to George Murphy, now ---

3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Now wait, Vic.

l 4

You can, on the one hand, try them for not accepting 5

generalized statements, but on the other hand, not try us for 6

having ignored or having not acted appropriately on material 7

presented to us.

Albeit that we may have tons of it, I 3

read every God damned bit of it and accept responsibility for i

9 it.

If I've missed it, that's my fault, not theirs.

j l

10 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

All right, all right.

i i

11 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's just the way I look l

12 l at it and the only way,I think,of any kind of a hierarchical I

l 13 staff organization functions.

I I

14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let's look at the practical l

j 15 situation.

j i

16 You can't disregard the fact that Anders was l

uncomfortable or noticed one of these no-evidence statements, 17 i

l 13 crossed the God damned thing out and made quite a point of it.

i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And did not cross the next one 19 out.

20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Which he may or may not have 37 seen.

I m.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

No.

23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But the fact is ---

4 l

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The fact is, it was redundant.

I

!I

.I o

i

30 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Vic, look.

I recognize what 2

you are saying, and I must say, from the staff's standpoint 3

it takes more explicit directions from a Commission than 4

whetuer or not a commissioner crosses out a paragraph.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I'm not arguing here that 6

the Commission made any clear statements to the staff.

They 7

didn't, and I agree with this other stuff about that we should 3

have given better direction.

I don't think there is any i

9 question about that, but I think that if it went wrong it was l

l 10 l

not in telling people to say no evidence.

I think, in fact, l

11 l the Commission was quite careful about that.

It was in i

12 l the Commission, I think, giving the staff the idea that one I

ll 13 q didn't want trouble in this area.

And the staff may well 14 have interpreted it ---

1 l

13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Do you think the Commission l

l 16 did that?

l l

17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I think the Commission did, l

l' 13 yes.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, it had never occurred to 19 me that that was what the Commission was doing.

Never.

20 i

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I think that that was l

22 l

the impression th:

was conveyed.

Let me put it that way.

N NN e

certainly was no 23 intention on my part to convey any such a position, nor did

.4 it ever occur to me that impression was made.

,_43 l

i 5

I

31 1

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That may very well be, but 2

I think the staff understood it as well, not only to protect 3

these facilities, but also to keep the public calm.

And ---

1 4

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I've never heard this before.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I think if ----

6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I've never heard this before.

7 COMMISSIONER G LINSKY:

-- if you get the staff on 8

a couch, I think you could probably draw it out.

l 9 i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

If you got certain people l

~0 l

1 l

from the staff.

You know, I have found one thing about this j

l^'

I l

staff, and it is not surprising and it happens to be true of i

any population group over the number of three, that yo'. can

-~

i i

find opinions on any side of any qutstion.

Some opinions well

^"

l 14 thought about and just sort of generatsd, but nonetheless, you j 15 can find any opinion you want.

Just go on_ and selectively pick 16 l

the people you interviewed, but it never occurred to me that 17 this Commission, at any time, and it certainly was never my 18 intention as a Commissioner, that we conveyed a notion to the 19 staff that we wanted to keep things calm.

Nor, did I ever 20 have any feeling that the staff was motivated by a notion that 21 it wanted to keep people calm and didn't want to upset people, 22 and wanted to protect the industry.

Never.

I 23 I have never noticed this staff protecting the i

24 l

industry against anything.

Indeed, much of the staff seems I

25 y

sometimes bent on creating issues where there are none.

l1 I

il l

.i

l

l 32 1

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

That's a different approach 2

to it.

3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, that's the other side 4

of the same coin, isn't it?

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No.

6 But in any case, I say that there is a pattern of 7

Commission actions which points us in direct -- I think this 3

is wrong.

I mean, I would attach at least as much weight to 9

the fact that Andres crossessomethingoutastothefactthatl l

i something slipped through.

In other words, tons of stuff gets 10 l

i 11 shipped up.

If one out of 100 gets through, that becomes

~

12 policy.

I 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I think you are making an 14 assumption, Vic.

13 I think you are making an assumption that in the same l

Paper he crossed out one and didn't cross out the other, the 16 ne he crossed out he focused on and the other one he slipped 17 l

13 through.

I don't think that follows.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

It is a kind of a regulatory 19 archeology, I mean, we are trying to keep pieces of paper 20 and we are drawing a lot of conclusions.

21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It is also theology and not fact. We are out of it.

l l

j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Wait a minute.

In fact,

,,s, j

there were all sorts of conversations and discussions that

,a_

g i

1

'i a

d

33 1

went on and none of this was recorded, and which we don't have.

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The fact is, the Commission 3

rever communicated in a clear, precise and unmistakable view I

4 what it believed on this subject.

And that's a simple fact, i

5 that is a true.

6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think that's true, but 7

I think ---

i 3

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's what the issue is.

i 9 !

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Now, wait a minute.

There j

1 10 l

is a difference between that, those things of a pattern of I

Commission action, which reflect the position that there 11 e 12 has been no diversion of SNM.

And you didn't m'%e any statements i

llikethat?

13 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

No.

15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, if I was a -- you know r

16 Perceptive staff guy -- they catch on, you know.

Marc didn't 17 make any statements like that.

I didn't make any statements 13 like that and I had many discussions on this subject with people',

19 none of which I can not cite, but I mean, they knew I didn't 20 make this kind of statement.

Anders was very, very careful.

21 He was very nervous about this sort of thing.

He was very l

l careful.

l 3,

j Now, the fact ---

23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I'm prepared to accept all l

of that, and I think we are debating a non-issue.

The fundamental g

II ll

,i

(

i 34 i

l I

l issue is:

Did the Commission communicate this in clear, i

2 unmistakable terms to the staff as the view of the Commission?

3 In my view the answer is unequivocally, "no, it did not,"

and i

to that extent, the failure was with the Commission.

l 4

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I agree with that, but 6

there is a difference between that statement and the statement 7

that there was a pattern of Commission action playing the other l 3

way.

i 3

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But, you know, as far as I'm I

I I

10 j

concerned I would be prepared to consider that sentence irrele-l 11 vant.

i I

12 l

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, ---

I 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let me tell you how -- let me tell 1

14 you -- the difference of point of view is I mark us together l

l i

15 on sentence 1, and on sentence 2 reading pattern of action 16 in a broad sense which seems to me a reasonable summary.

I 17 can see where you disagree that the Commission's side is a 18 pattern of action, but it is more a pattern of silence and 19 well, sort of ---

l 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I just don't agree with 21 the " pattern of action" while we sit and wait.

It is one I

thing to say that the Commission did not give clear guidance ll 22 i

i ll on that issue, I agree with that.

No question about it.

I

,3 t

I if l

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's what the second sentence '

9 '.

.I l

in the paragraph says.

"In our view,"

that's the finding,

,5 t

ll

l 35 I

i I

1 i

i In our view, because the inherent ambiguity and the no-I i

7 evidence things, Clifford apparen'ly did creada an asssumption, c

i 3 i a misleading impression.

Some such message should have been i

4 l sent.

l l

5 l That, it seems to me, is what the point is.

I 6

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Wait a minute.

I mean that --

7 on the previous -- we are talking about the inferior and l

3 ambiguity of the no-evidence message, because that tied back i

l 9 i to an earlier pattern of the no-evidence statement on the 10 part of tne Commission.

11 Now, if you want to say the Commission should have l

12 given guidance on -- you know, what the state of affairs was 13 ol whether it was a reasonable statement about the past, I 14 think that's right, and it did.

It felt they did have, and I 15 agree.

16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, you don't like the way the l

17 second sentence is phrased.

From my standpoint, as I say, 13 clearly and broadly it is okay.

19 Do you have a feeling, Peter?

20 l

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, let me wrestle with 1

2; it a moment longer.

It is fair to say that neither the Commission f'

nor any individual Commissioner ever sent a message outside of I

i I

33 the Commission to the contrary, that is, the only actual i

34 j;

statements that were ever made were no-evidence statements.

'l t

l The other is the indication to the contrary of things like

,a_

m q

i'

,' l il

l 36 1

Marc's signature status ---

2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Right, right.

3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: -- and Andres crossing 4

something out, but there never was a standard, except going j

i I

3 l outside of the agency that even indicated any reservations.

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wall, let me suggest the following:

7 Some other language, a pattern of action -- a l

l l

3 i pattern of staff action and Commission inactions, maybe.

!I 9 i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It seems to me as to what i

i 1]

could be said as to this finding, conclusion or whatever, 11 that whatever the pattern, and it is clear that there can I

be differing appreciation of the facts that whatever the i

12 i

l 13 situation, the simple fact remains that the Commission did 14 not make it unamgibuously clear to the staff that its view 15 was, as a Commission, that the no-evidence statement wasn't 16 an appropriate statement.

Now, that, I think, is a fact.

17 Now, however one looks at who said what and all I

18 that, the simple fact remains that as a Commission we did j

i 19 not in unambiguous terms make that clear to the staff.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could you imagine yourself 20 having made that statement without a statement saying, no, 21 don't make no evidence.

i 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Can I imagine -- yes, I

,3 i

4 h

guess I could.

l

.4 3

1 i

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What part of it?

q l

u l'

q k

a i

1

37 I

i CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, essentially what I l

2 l

said in the hearings.

I 3

l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I expect that ---

4 I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

After all, you know, senior j

5 officials of this government were making the same statement.

- l i

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The fact that the Commission 0

I 7 i was pretty silent would suggest to me it was sort of the l

3 nature of the time,didn't encourage that sort of expression.

I 3

But you have to realize that was also true on the staff side e

10 i

and even more so in view of the Commission's not moving from l

11 the classical language.

12 Now, look ---

13 i

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

As I expressed at the hearing, 14 if I had made the statement, it would have -- from my perspective 15 I would have been saying sort of like I relayed yesterday, I 16 would have been saying what we are now conveying by a no 17 conclusive evidence statement.

That what's I would have thought 13 I

I was saying.

It is clear now that that kind of a statement 19 l

also has ambiguity in it.

The statement itself is ambiguous, i

l I was concerned about the no-conclusive evidence statement 20 21 or some such word, because whenever you begin to put qualifiers, l

l 1

39 the question is:

what is it you are qualifying?

Well, what j

does that mean?

Does it mean that there is inconclusive f

l

~#

evidence or what does it mean?

All these kinds of questions.

l 24 1

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Would that be because people

j 5

3 i

P 9

l

'l l

t

38 l

1 didn't want to use the words no conclusive evidence?

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Because they didn't know 3

what the answer was to those questions, I suppose.

l l

4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: They didn't want to get involved i

5 in it and answered the other question.

l 6

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And it depended upon what one's i

7 view of evidence was.

And it is obvious that there had to be j

t 3

some way to say, this -- there is no way in which one can say --i l

9 everybody knows that, you know.

Everybody knows that there is l

l 10 no way that you can say with absolute po itive assurance that there could be no diversion of material if there was a MUF.

l'_

l 12 There was just no way you could do that.

l i

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, nobody ever made that i

14 clear.

You know, what we have got here ---

15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We had discussed that, you know!,

l 16 everybody knew that.

We discussed that many times.

Hadn't we?

17 COMMISSIO"ER GILINSKY: Well, the point doesn't seem i

18 to bring that across.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, I think it gets to the yg language, you know.

20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Here, let me wrap for order for 21 a second and say -- let me come back to this sentence in 9,

23 l

ust a second, but let me first ask you, what about the 3rd l

1 j

and 4th sentences of Finding One?

l I

e 9_

p COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Having said I already agree

'~

l 1

!i

39 l

i I

I i

I with the entire paragraph, how can I further cut back.

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I accept the endorsement.

3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You know, "If the Commission believed that the CIA briefing warranted particular caution 5

or circumspe: tion in public statements, it failed to communi-6 cate that message."

Look, we had the top guys in the area 7

there.

It was pretty clear that everybody took that briefing 3

l pretty seriously.

I know damned well Anders did, I mean, his 9 I I

l jaws dropped.

l 10 !

l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

His jaw dropped at a different aspect of that briefing.

i l

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well.

~~

13 i

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

You and I both know that.

l 1

l

^

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Do you mean the fact that i

15 the briefing was going on at all?

l i

3-COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, the fact that a number l

^

l of things were said in that breifing.

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

In front of such a large 9

l 1

l group?

20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Yes.

,i 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, but I don't thinx --

l I mean, I think that's right, but I think that wasn't all of 22 23 it and ---

24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, I can't speak for his 25 in this regard, obviously and I wouldn't try.

11 Il i

ll 3

U il

40 l

1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You know, I can give you 2

my recollections, but the fact is ---

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Suppose he was really taken 4 l aback ---

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I mean, you had the top 6

guys there, you know, there was Chapman and Builder, these were the guys that dealt with the area.

I mean, I don't think --

3 you know, we are not dealing with a bunch of GS ---

i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Except that when this 10 i

l issue arose none of those guys was here, remember.

And the guy who was here, Gossick, wasn't at the briefing, f'

.."i i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, let's take this a f

f 13 l

step at a time.

The first sentence says ---

[

i 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I see the point you are getting to,;

l 13 okay.

i 16 Now, let me go on and suggest the following:

17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

That's a transition problem.

11 if 13 f

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

19 Let me go back a sentence and pick this one up 20 cc4.ng forward.

With regard to sentence number two where I

21 I

tnere is some disagreement you feel " pattern of action by l

22 the Commission" doesn't put the matter quite correctly?

l i

23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right, i

l 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I could go with a Commission Il comment on noting that the suggestion that there was a pattern 25 n

'I a

d i

q i

i

'l

i 41 I

1 of action on the Commission part may not be the best way to 2

characterize the Commission's actions or the Commission's l

3 i

position, but it is quite -- the Commission gave no explicit 4

direction to the staff on the matter.

That was kind of the 5

thrust of.a previous thing you said too, Vic, that I was 6

trying to get to.

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, does that ---

3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The Commission is ---

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, that's what we are talking i

10 about.

i

^l l

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, all right, but was there

^~

a par *ern of action on your part which reflects the position of i I

h no evidence with respect to diversion of SNM?

l

^4 l

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There wasn't.

i I5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

On my part, I don't think it 16 was done.

i l,e COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

To the extent that I did not 13 correct statements that came to me or change them, I suppose, 19 that's a perfectly reasonable statement to make.

20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And which statements?

Was 21 l

there anything ---

{

i i

22 l

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I was not intending anything i

h by this.

23 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Okay.

i 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It simply happens that if it l

i I.!

4

42 1

is perceived from the other side, it had to have been 2

acquiescence.

3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And is there anything besides 4

that question in answer to George Murphy or -- that falls in 5

this ---

6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There were several papers.

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That went by you?

3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Yes.

As I recall them there 9 l l

were several papers that went by all of us.

Weren't there?

10 1 3

I think the record showed that.

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, what I'm suggesting is that

,l in commenting on finding A-1, I would object to a comment l

~~

13 l

~

j along the line that while the Ccmmission might not agree precisely on a characterization pattern of action, that I

l i

nevertheless it is clear that no explicit guidance was given

~

i j

to the Commission.

i 3,'

COMMISSIONER FF.dEDY :

That's pretty weak.

13 i

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, look at it this way, l

19 there sat Marc Rowden, Chairman of the Commission, telling 20 the Executive Director this was not the right way to say l

21 that in June 1977, and you could say that your acquiescence 22 in that and the fact that you did not object to Marc's 23 objection to the statement, in effect, put you in agreement j

l 24 l

with it, I mean, using that same kind of logic.

l

'l 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's correct.

f s'l ll

i 43 l

1 1

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

It puts the Commission as i

saying, damn it, that isn't the right way to say it.

3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Vic, look, I agree with 1

4 what you are saying, but you have got to run around the other 5

side and look back and see how it looks.

6 Maybe what Joe has said is a reasonable statement, 7

you know, while we -- we would not characterize -- while we 3

would not characterize the statement as a. pattern of Commission i

l 3

or staff actions, the fact remains that the Commission did 10 not, in clear and unambiguous terms as a Commission inform 11 the staff of its Commission view point on this matter.

12 ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I agree with that.

l-1 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

There, we have come to an I

14 y

agreement.

All you have to do is write it down, Joe.

Take i

15 i

it off the tape.

I think we are actually agreed on this.

l One of our problems here always is, in this whole 16 i

i exercise, has been this problem of semantics, what does a l

17 sentence mean when it gets so bound up that we keep forgetting 18

d I

h t

19 l

what the real issue is and we do that -- you know, I think i

I 20 that's what happened in the report, too.

It got all wound up 21 in all kinds of esoterics and forgot what the issues really i

are, which is -- you know -- if we made mistakes here, let's 22 find out what they are and correct them so it won't happen 23 i

34 l'

again.

That's what the issue is, it seems to me and all of l

I i

25 h

the rest of it is recriminations Tnd wishing things weren't so, l

a h

i

44 1

but that is just wasteful time.

What we ought to do is find 2

out where the mistakes and problems arose and correct them.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Now, I have got the front end 4

along the lines:

while we would not particularly characterize 5

the Commission's position in the 1975-77 period as constituting 6

a pattern of Commission action which lacked the position that I

I there is no evidence of theft or diversion of SNM, ---

I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

-- The fact remains that the 3

Commission did not convey in any clear unambiguous way, as 10 l

a Commission, its view to the staff on this mattter.

11 Isn't that fair?

12 COMMISSIONER GILINSK'1: Well, it's true.

l 1

13 I

CHAIRMAN HENDRI.9:

Okay.

I i

l 14 Now, with regard to the sentence:

"If the Commission I 15 believed they warranted or failed to communicate that message,"

16 if it would -- it seemed to me, Vic, the point that you were 17 getting to on that sentence was:

you know, after all, there i

IS

,- were principal officers of the staff in that area of respon-19 sibility who were present at the briefing and joined with the 20 Commission in appreciating, and if you would like that noted 21 in connection with this (inaudible), why I have no ---

i i

i I

22 l

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But we have gotten to the i

i 23 transition problem.

I I

24 g

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- why, I have no problem with ll 23

.I that.

It is just that, you know, I think we would then need to l 1

o I

I 6

45 l

I 1

go ahead and point out that these people left the Commission before the crucial testimony period and the the memory was 3

not restored.

I 4

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

We can come to that, but 5

the point is that -- you know -- you are not dealing with a 6

bunch of GS-12s here.

Not everything gets put down in explicit language.

When you meet together on whatever it is, 8

a safety issue or what, and you are sitting with the case, 9

you have just heard about how the Westinghouse code has got 1 0 a bunch of errors, you don't have to sit down and give them 11 explicit instructions as to what that means.

{

12 !

Now, what this report does -- I'm anticipating a l

13

[

little bit -- is to make the staff, the high officers of the i

'I l

staff to be a bunch of sort of mechanical men.

And if you I

i, 15 program them wrong it goes wrong.

You have to program them l

16 exactly right.

If you have any bugs in your program that's l

17 it.

Too bad.

i q

13 Now, we sat down and discussed a serious subject in I

i 19 l

the presence of the top officials in this area.

One was l

I 20 a statutory office and to say that the seriousness of the 21 occasion was not conveyed to them makes them out to be some i

l kind of idiots.

You have got to hit them on the head.

l 22 l

23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I don't agree with that.

I" l

24 What you are also saying is that the principal il h officers are required in some magical way to define the true 25

.i o

1I

46 i

i i

meanings behind whatever Commissioners individually and 2

collectively either say or don't say and are then liable 3

for any mistakes they make in those interpretations.

And 4

I think that is simply unreasonable.

If the Commission wants the staff to do a certain thing or to take a certain position, 6

I think there can be no question that an explicit and direct 7

statement to that end is the way to do it.

3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Now, look, these guys should 9

e not be saying evidence or no evidence because Commissioners j

i

~O I

told them to.

It ought to be that's what they think.

I mean -,-

1^1 I

l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is what they think, may I tell Il ll you.

It is the opinion of the safeguards staff, the

-~

l 1,

professional safeguards staff that the no-evidence statement i

j is correct.

15 l

COB 1MISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well ---

16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

They read it in the no evidence, l~

in the hard proof sense, okay, just as Dick Kennedy does.

And 13 i

they think it is a correct statement.

I f

19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: All right.

First of all 20 I am entitled ---

21 )

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- and they made it in letters, j

i I

22 thqr made it.i n Commission meetings.

It was the classical I

23 term of our coming out of the AEC days and the Commission l

24 simply never made any explicit caution ---

l 1

25 U

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Let me raise something

'I h,

i I

ll

47 1

1 a little different.

I 2

The use of the word " evidence" in that context l

3 doesn't really require safeguards, it requires a lawyer.

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is just how -- how do you 5

use " evidence" in your daily life?

6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, let me tell you, by 7

the way -- if I may interrupt.

I discussed this point with 3

Lee in great detail when this whole thing was breaking, and 9

before I sent my letter, and I asked him explicitly, do you, 10 Lee, take evidence to mean hard evidence.

He said, no, no, i

11 l he did not.

That means not taking the position Commissioner Kennedy was taking, in that conversation with 12 l

i i

him at that point.

So at least it doesn't apply to him, but l

13

(

a I

14 in any case ---

I l

5 l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It sure as hell applies to l

1 I

i 16 the professional safeguards staff.

Page and all the rest of 17 those guys.down the line have believed, and I think still do - I 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Page was not at this briefing, i

okay.

79 Now, the people I was talking about were Chapman and 3g Builder, not the people who are in charge now or those who 3,

were not present.

So you can't ---

l i

I

~~

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

But when you use a word L

l like " evidence" to the Congress it doesn't go over too well.

a i

I would think your general counsel or legal director ---

i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, these guys would not

I 48 l

l l

1 1 j

tend to think along these lines automatically, anyway, but I

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It's a perfectly normal word.

3 I don't in any sense regard that it is a word that is for 4

your specific meaning.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes, but the common-sense 6

i meaning of it: is there any indication, is there any ---

I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I'm sorry.

The dictionary says 3

that you can go at it either two equally valid ways, and one 9

of them is proof and one of them is indication.

I

~9 i

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: All right.

But getting back to the point ---

i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

But what you then want to l

13 l

do is look up the word proof, and you will find that you can i

i 14 use that two different ways too and one of them is evidence i

i i

5 and one of them is conclusion.

And what you do if you do that 1

6 16 is to bootstrap evidence over to mean conclusive proof because 17 that is a second definition proof, that the definition of the 18 1 word proof coinsides with evidence. It is not the same as the i

19 definition of proof that says, on the basis of this you go 20 to jail.

(inaudible) 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Peter, I don't understand it.

l q!i i

22

]f COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, you are saying that l

i 23 there are two definitions of evidence, one and two.

And the a

ri I

24 definition of two coinside with one of two definitions of i

25 proof.

l t

J l

i 49 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Coinside with both.

2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Okay, at that point I think 3

we disagree about the word evidence.

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

No, this one is conclusive, okay?

I 5

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Right.

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It certainly is consistent there.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Wall, at that point I think 8 i i

you really do have to say conclusive evidence, that you can 9

f l

use proof to mean conclusive, but you cannot mean use

'0 I

I 1

i evidence to mean conclusive.

I 1 1 The phrase "I have proof that you did this" is

~~

1, i

different from the phrase "I have evidence that you did l

-~

4

]

this."

Or at least can be different.

l 1

1

~'

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, yes.

There is certainly

I' h

a shade, but the people who read evidence i-the hard sense 15 16 j'

think of a clear difference between a category of things you I

j would call evidence, which have hard proof-like factual l

i I

13 aspects and ccnnotations as against the people who read 19 evidence in the sense any indication in the evidence. It is 20 much broader.

Those are recognizable accepted definitions.

21

[

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, look.

Since the 22 ll Commission didn't act on the matter at all, if you are l

i 23 referring to the Commission as a body, the fact is, the l

24 Commission didn't deal with it at all.

So it failed to 25 communicate that message or any other message.

I mean, it just i

l 1

50 i

l 1

didn't deal with the matter as a body.

And in that sense, 2

it is subsumed in the previous sentence.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And if we make this comment along 4

the lines outlined here right, it, in effect, covers that, 5 i okay?

6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

The thought then that some 7

such message should have been sent is subsumed in the comment 3

that ---

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Now, wait.

10 Vic is ---

11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

May I ask what we are trying 12 l to do?

l 13 i

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Vic has agreed that indeed in ii hthesenseofthecollegialcommunicationitfailedto 14 15 communicate that message.

i 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Could I ask what it is we 17 are trying to do, because if these are their findings and l

conclusions and we are only commenting on our view of them, 73 g

is that right?

j l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

O COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Okay.

l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I'm trying to work through to a 3

!j formal Commission statement that says here is the position of e s, o

h I

g the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on this day in May or q

l' whenever ---

25

,i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Right.

t I

51 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- on the findings and i

2 l conclusions of this investigation.

3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Right.

4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Except I am troubled by 5

going to December of

'77.

I mean, the fact is as I said, in 6

June

'77, there is Marc Rowden saying this is not the way 7

to describe it with the other Commissioners siting there ---

8 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Wait a minute, I hadn't i

9 !

focused on December '77.

I have to flag something at that ll 10 point too,since I was never interviewed, never got in to this.

11 !

But in late November or early December of

'77, some document i

12 ;

came through containing a no-evidence statement, and I said i

13 I didn't think it ought to be in there.

It was our joint --

j 14 f

before we went to ERDA.

I said I wanted one to come out.

15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

This is the date of the i

l 16 Transportation Report.

f i

17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes, that's right.

And that i

13 one caused so much trouble that somebody over in DOE called 19 Lee up and said if Bradford was going, just on that he 20 w nted to meet personally with the Chairman.

As it turned i

1 ut, the document in question was not intended to reach back l

21 i

l past 1975. So I withdrew my concern.

But as of late November l

2<,

"j r early December, I had certainly registered a very strong 23 thought of which Lee was fully aware,that no evidence statements q

p could be made.

I think it would be useful to stop on that 1

O i

-l u

52 1

finding (inaudible)

-- because if you reach to December, then I have done this exchange with Lee and DOE that would 3

also be relevant, but it is in no way important to Lee's 4

i testimony.

5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, we could back it up to 6

November, because the Udall letter came through'the middle 7

of November.

S COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But how do you deal with 9

the fact that ---

l 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And from then on, why, ---

I 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

It just doesn't matter much j

after August. The whole focus of the inquiry is on why Lee 2

^~

said what he said in August and July. If you try to reach 1,

l forward further to December and say the Commission was still l

5 making no-evidence statements, you then have to end with at i

least this one episode in which I would -- it would be very l

7 l!

j 1

hard not to rate.

18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, you are also ignoring j

19 the fact that we had great debates here, we didn't have a 20 Commission, I mean in the sense that we didn't have a quorum.

I

'l-i But we had meetings and debates and so on and it is sort of 22 funny to say the Commission wasn't doing anything.

The fact 23 l

is we had a lot of discussions on the points.

And I guess I 24 l

think it is misleading to say the Commisson didn't act as Il a body, when in fact, there were various other things going on.

2-u ll

1 53 l

l 1

And in a sense, I would say that when Marc was telling the 2

staff that that was not the right way to do it, there was the 3

whole Commission.

And that was June, I believe.

4 So it is a complicated picture and I think -- just 5

the fact is there is no Commission statement on the subject.

6 So obviously the Commission didn't do anything.

So that 7

I statement isn't true.

But I think that, by itself, is misleading.

3 It depends how far you stretch the dates.

It certainly is true if you say that it failed to communicate that message at that time to them.

11

^^.

Well, why don't we sort of run through this without l

I sort of carving it in stone.

And we may get a preliminary view of

~~

i 3

the number of the findings that may allow us to make some o

i n

j headway.

j i

13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Let me point out that we 16 have been now dealing with these four sentences for one hour, 17 15 minutes per sentence.

I suggest that you said something l

3 about May, and the only thing you didn't do is identify the 19 year.

20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Actually, I'm going to have to 21 l

terminate the discussion on the Inquiry, now, in terms of, i

22 l

in effect,the second meeting.

l 23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It seems to me that ---

1 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

The Conran business?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I have a whole series of things 25

'j

i n

54 b

I 1

that I think would ---

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

May I make a suggestion as 3

to a way to proceed?

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Please do.

5 COMMISSIOFER KENNEDY:

Maybe each of us can read 6

through these things again, jot down his views about them, and we could come back and discuss whatever thoughts we have then, rather than try to go through this and parse it 8 i I

g l sentence-by-sentence and phrase-by-phrase.

I'm afraid if we 10 l

try to do that we will never ca@lete it, because what we will l

l 11 be trying to do is re-write the report, in a sense..

What we j

i are trying to do is -- I think what we are trying to do is l

~~

!q i

get our impressions of the language as it is used and what i-o j

we think it conveys, and whether we agree with what it conveys.

.4 l

Isn't that correct?

l 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, I think that the general 16 section, in a sense, is a bit harder to deal with because it 37 l

sets a context and everyone has his own view of what that was, j

1S I think it is a way to simply deal with explicit testimony.

g 20 necessarily an indication of how long the rest of it is 21 going to take, but I think you may want to take that approach, j

at least on the first er.ction.

.J l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, let me encourage you to 24 t

please read it carefully and jot down thoughts and I'm going 2a_

'l N

u h

l

1 i

55 i

l 1

to keep hammering away l

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let me tell you, the reason I am making these points,and many of them seem precious to 4

you, on the first paragraph is that in my view the general b

section really tries to set a context that explains the whole 6

thing away, I think improperly.

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, it is my view that it sets 3

the context correctly.

It isn't a matter of explaining away, 9

it is a matter of pointing out that the Commission failed to a

10 i take the actions that it should have taken.

j i

11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, but even going beyond l

12 l

to the next paragraph ---

l i

13 h

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

A view which I hold as well.

b 14 j'

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

-- to the next paragraph and l

sort of making out and saying -- talking about Lee's involving 15 I

16 role and all that stuff, and how he wasn't include in anything j

17 and that ---

13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It happens to be true, i

l 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

-- and that he is a second i

20 class citizen, he took over the stewardship, he hadn't been I

21 told anything and so on.

I mean, this is really not a real i

P cture.

22 33 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, Vic, that's a view that i

24 you hold of it and may want to express individually.

I'll i

25

!l give you my candid bottom line.

I think this Commission shi t on p

l i

e

56 l

7 the guy.

^

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I agree with that.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think if you had been treated 4

that way, you would be absolutely outraged and in court.

t 5

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that says a lot of 6

things, but the fact is, I don't think it bears on his ability 7

to answer those questions.

I 3 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Oh, boy.

l 9 !

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

At what point in time, Joe, 10 when do you ---

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Huh?

h 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

When you say that, what point !

t I

13

\\

in time are you referring to?

Do you mean after the testimony 14 i

in July or do you mean the time leading up to that?

When you 15 say, "The Commission shit on the guy."

16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

In the time leading up to it when 17 Builder and Chapman --

when the corporate memory on this l

18 thing were allow to leave the agency and not be replaced.

I I

19 Everybody damn well knew Gossick hadn't been --

eve.# ody 20 damn well knew Gossick had been bumpered around for two years 21 while peole -- while the strong office directors fought out i

the war of whether they were going to be an individual set l

22 f EDOs and this guy was just some kind of an administrative 3

l chief of administration and a flunky or whether he was in 34 l;, fact the manager of the staff for the Commission on a day-to-day.

jj basis.

d o

i

.I

i 57 I

i.

1

~

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

There were Commissioners who 2

believed both sides of that issue.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And then you come down to the 4

time when the Commission went poop on the 30th of June and 3

this guy's told to go ahead and take care of it.

He would 6

have been fully justified ---

~'

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's not quite fair.

l 3

That isn't quite fair, now.

Just one second, Mr. Chairman.

9 And if we want to get in to that, you know, we can i

10 go a long way back.

We can go back to January when the 11 administration, though warned of an impending situation,was

[I unable to bring itself together to present to the Congress, I

12 I

13 people who might have made it possible that that situation 14 wouldn't arise.

i 15 I

But aside from that, Mr. Gilinsky and I spent a 16 great deal of time with every member of that staff, every single;I 17 day from July 1 on and until the day of your arrival.

That l

18 staff wasn't cut adrift, not for one second.

Nor was tha 1

i 19 staff imposed upon one second.

The staff came to us every single l

20 day and asked our view in order that they could get guidance 21 from what remained of the Commission and they got it.

So I I

22 would suggest, sir, that you be just a little careful.

i 23 l

You are correct -- you are correct that he was not 24 l advised as he should have been, but he wasn't cut adrift either.t li

,H CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

You were here?

i a

4 a

58 1

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Yes, I was.

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

So, I think we have very strong 3

differences on the thrust of this general section and I 4

can stand some language like the stuff we had worked out which 5

deals with what I can see is a reasonable objection to the b

phrase, "the pattern of Commission actions," and there are 7

other places where there will be similar accommodations. But 3

I'm not going to be able.to agree to a general conclusion of 9

i the Commission that this reflects and just simply -- is an

^9 1

incorrect to do with the general context.

l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Okay, but I think I have a to j

problem dealing with his testimony before Dingell.

Whatever

~~

l 3

1 l

you think of the previous time, the fact is such and such.

d CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That's a subject we will argue to 13 when we get it, but what we are talking about now ic the 16 general lead here in the context in which these things i

17 occurred.

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I just don't think it has 19 anything to do with whether or not he can answer the questiens.

20 I mean, the fact that he had arguments with Ben Rusche or 21 something ---

\\

22 l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Vic, that's a view ---

I 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

-- I mean, so what.

Look, I

i 24 he is complaining about not having been at this original 25 briefing, but he was given the drift of the briefing by others.

a n

il d

e

59 I

i l

1 The report in the end claims there wasn't much in that 2

original briefing, any way, which I find peculiar.

I 3

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I don't.

4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

-- But ---

5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I was at that briefing too.

j 6

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

-- But in any case, he has 7

trouble remembering a briefing that took place a week before 1

8 j his second testimony, than it would have been for him to have l

l 9 l been at the briefing, you know, two years earlier.

j i

I i

10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The accounts of that August 2nd i

I t

11 meeting indicate pretty clearly that everybody has his own l

12 ;

view of what was said and what was heard.

l l

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Which meeting are you talking 14 about?

}

ll CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

August 2nd.

13 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I mean, theCommissionmeetingf i

I

,,i

[

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We will get to tha t one.

No, 13 j the RUMP meeting ---

1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I know, but you don't even l

_3 -v 20 need that RUMP meeting.

We had discussion at the Commission 21 and it is quite clear that you couldn't go off and make the kind of statement you made before Dingell on the Commission's 22 I

i view about the document and so on.

You could have said ---

l 2a, a!

i ll COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Mr. Chairman, are we going l

to go through this whole God damned thing over again?

You know,i a

u l

s

1 60 I

we have been doing it since last November.

It is high time

^

?

some how or other this matter be put behind us and the

~

3 Commission get on with the business which is pilled up lying 4

i before it.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If the Comnission has any other 6

suggestion how, as a collegial body,we are to make a reply in writing to the Oversight Committee of the Congress that has 3

asked us this question, I will be glad to consider other o

alternatives.

I i

l 13 i Dick, I don't see anything -- any option ---

11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

All right.

I am expressing i

12 !

a sense of total frustration.

il l

i 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, I dcn't disagree with you i

in that feeling, but I don't see much choice, except to bludgeon 14 1

l 13 l

it out a line at a time and decide where the consensus lies 16 and attempt to write that down.

Then, people who don't 17 agree fully with the consensus or want to elaborate on their l

13 own points of view can add their own remarks to it and it j

19 then becomes the Commission's view on these things.

I don't 20 see any other way to do it.

21 And I have to turn now to the other matters.

We i

1 22 l

have got to get on with a batch of these other things.

f COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What is it we have to do?

23 l,

I 24 i

Is it the Conran business or---?

I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is the Conran business and I l

_o.-

i q

i l!

l a

i 61 i

b l

l l

^

have got a number of other things that I have got to inform 9

you about that have been around a long time.

Now, in order to get on with these matters, I 4

think I ought to make a tape change.

1 5

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Do you need a vote now to i

6 withhold this one?

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, it would probably be useful 3

while we remember it.

l 9

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Fine.

l 1

10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I need a vote to withhold this one.l l

11 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Aye.

I 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Okay.

i 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let me get a tape change which gives us a minute and a half so I can go down the hall.

14 i

15 (Whereupon the meeting was concluded approximately 16 10:45 a.m.)

17 i

13 l

l 19 20 21 i

i 22 l

23 i

i i

24 f

25 i

.t I

l a