ML20136E008
| ML20136E008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/12/1983 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136D878 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-415 NUDOCS 8511210405 | |
| Download: ML20136E008 (82) | |
Text
, I,. .g 4
INTERVIEW OF ARTHUR A. SCHNEBELEN t
May 12, 1983 Judge Hoyt Mr. Schnebelen, I'd like to introduce myself here on this record for you and tell you that my name is Helen F. Hoyt and I am an Administrative Law Judge assigned to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel here in Bethesda. My
, Colleague here is Mr. Sebastian Alcot from the General Counsel's Office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The third person here in this room with us today is Ruthanne Miller who is a law clerk with the Safety Board, Mr. Alcot and I have been assigned by Chairman' Faliadino on May 5, 1983 to undertake an investigation into the allegations detailed in the November 16, 1982 memorandum to Chairman Palladino from Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel entitled " Interview with Thomas Applegate" and copy for that is right there on, yes sir right on your right, yes sir.
i In accordance with our assignment, the focus of our 1
investigation will be whether or not the Director of OIA and that office made a good faith effort to carry out their responsibilities in an OIA investigation of Applegate's 8511210405 851106 PDR FOIA BAUSER B4-415 PDR
2 allegations investigated by Region III in the early months i
of 1980. And to anticipate any questions you may have concerning an attorney, we would like to asscre you that you may have one if you wish. We have elected to use a small dictaphone cassette recorder in lieu of making copious notes. It is intended for our use only and will remain in our files and will be used to transcribe the events of this interview that we will have with you today. We ask that you not discuss this interview with anyone in this Commission's office or any other office. This request is made of you to ensure what we discuss with you, if it could influence any i
others would remain here and you would not talk with anyone about that discussion that you've had with us. Do you have any questions, sir?
1 i
Mr. Schnebelen No M'am. Not yet.
Judge Hoyt When we have completed the investigation, we will report our findings and our recommendations to the Commission. Mr. !
Aloot is going to ask the bulk of the questions of this
\
interview and at this time I'll turn it over to him.
Mr. Alcot 4
- - - - - , , , - - - - _-,e ,.~,.e r-n ,,n r
3 Would you like to take a couple of minutes and ...
Mr. Schnabelen I would yes.
Judge Hoyt All right sir.
Mr. Aloot I would like to identify the tape, side one Tape one of Schnebelen interview of May 12, 1983.
Mr. Alcot could you state your full name for the record?
Mr. Schnebelen Arthur A. Schnebelen 4
i Mr. Aloot.
Mr. Schnebelen could you describe the periods of employment with the NRC and the responsibility you held while you were with the NRC?
Mr. Schnebelen
,, m- e,, n - . - - , -,- , o .,,- - - --, ,- -.- , ,----,---,r-, , - - - - - , -,,--- -
4
'I started working in September 1975. I believe my position was, I think, Senior Auditor. Later I became Branch Chief l l
of the Administrative and Program Audits and then approximately 1979 or 1980 I became Special Assistant to the Director, and then in March of 1981 I became Acting Director of Investigations. .
Mr. Aloot This is all Office of Investigations...
Mr. Schnabelen All was within the Office of Inspection and Audit. I believe my last day of work, I think was May 5, 1982.
Mr. Aloot .
Mr. Schnebelen, when was the first time you learned of i allegations relating to Zimmer or the Region III investigation of Zimmer or Mr. Applegate?
Mr. Schnebelen I would have.to say, it would be in January of 1980.
Mr. Alcot What was the basis for your knowledge?
t 5
Mr. Schnebelen First,'you are going to have to bear with me that was a long time ago and I'm not sure about some of this. It's been a long time. I believe, Mr. Cummings, the Director of OIA either. called me at his office or he came to mine or somewhere and asked me or advised me that I was going to be assigned to Mr. Fortuna's Division who at that time was, I think, Director of Investigations to help them with a potential investigation that they ha'd at Region III. I believe at that time he showed me the letter from the Chairman.
Mr. Aloot Ahearne.
Mr. Schnebelen Yes, yes Chairman Ahearne, requesting OIA to perform a review or an investigation of Region III as.to the adequacy or inadequacy of their investigation of the Thomas Applegate allegations.
Are you, or could it have been January of 1981 rather than 1 19807
}
6 Mr. Schnebelen It could have been, whatever the Chairman's letter was dated, it was' then that following January.
1 Mr. Alcot .
O'kay, I think that was January 1981.
Mr. Schnebelen Well, o'kay change that machine, correct that previous testiimony to read that.
Mr. Alcot All right. Let me direct your attention to the time period of nine to ten months earlier, approximately February of 1980, around that time period, Did Mr. Cummings or anyone else in the Office of Investigation and Audit tell you that they had received a telephone call from Mr. Applegate?
Mr. Schnebelen I -
This was about ten months before the Chairman's?
r i
Mr. Alcot Yes.
l Mr. Schnebelen
_ - . _ - - .. ... .=
7 l No, no, no.
I
(
Mr. Aloot j So, January was the first time you ever heard about l App'egate? .
Mr. Schnebelen That's correct. That's correct.
Mr. Aloot Was there any reascy., do you know why you were assigned to the Applegate inquiry?
Mr. Schnebelen No. I could ask Mr. Cummings that. I presume, I would like to think because of my background, experience I was available, probably. I think they wanted a kind of senior grade individual with them because of the nature or the' potential problem that could arise between one agency within NRC investigating the other one. So I would hope that it was because of the various background problems, background traits.
Mr. Aloot Do you have a background in investigation? ,
l
8 Mr. Schnebelen l 1
During the Air Force days we, within the Air Force...during the latter part of my Air Force career, I was with the Controller's Office, Auditor General. Such, we had, I headed up various offices from three to tw'enty men on the audit side. We did a lot of fraud work and as a result of that we worked very closely with the Office Inspection and Litigation (OSI Air Force) . We would work jointly and then during our career time, I would take various courses in some of the techniques just to keep abreast of it. I was not a career investigator, though.
Judge Hoyt Did you ever conduct any Article 32 investigations', Mr.
Schnebelen? Article 32 investigations?
Mr. Schnebelen Which article? .
Judge Hoyt criminal investigations for offenses...
Mr. Schnebelen ,
Yes ma'am, yes ma'am. About...
j l
9 Judge Hoyt
{ .How many of them did you do? ,
)
1 1
1 Mr. Schnebelen That would be hard to say because they were small. Anywhere from a bowling alley fraud that somebody was stealing nickels and dimes up to the Commissary of Bowling. We had a six months investigation of bowling on misappropriation of funds included. So, number-wise, I...
Judge Hoyt That's not important.
Mr. Schnebelen Ye'ah, no, we were ye'ah.
Judge Hoyt But you were familiar with the techniques of investigations under Article 32?
Mr. Schnebelen Yea ma'am.
Judge Hoyt .
Uniform Code of Military Castings?
4 10 -
Mr. Aloot could you describe how the investigation was scoped? That's the word we've been told how the office determined what the purpose, the scope, of the investigation would be. Could you describe how this particular investigation was scoped in January 19817
- Mr. Schnebelen I'm going to have to guess.on some of this. I would think .
I that Mr. Cummings and Mr. Fortuna initially must have gotten together even before my entrance onto the team to discuss the various aspect of it. I don't know for a fact.
Mr. Alcot When was the first time that you got involved in this process?
4 Mr. Schnebelen I could only say that it was sometime in January. Well, I i called in like I previously said and then that's when Mr.
Fortuna, I guess it was a joint meeting and Cummings and I think it was Dave Gamble and John Sinclair were going to be 1
on the team and that's when we said we would have to go out and stock up. First of all, I said that we were only going i
!- to be concerned with the adequacy of the Region III
11
/
investigation of the Applegate allegations. We were not going to determine whether there was construction deficiencies or things of that nature. That the Chairman letter we received was very clear that Region III was going to be responsible for that side. We were going to look at I the Region III's tre,atment of the Applegate allegations. So consequently, Mr. Fortuna, Mr. Cummings directed the three of us, meaning myself, Gamble and Sinclair, that we were to go out to Region III and interview everyone regardless of -
where they sat on the staff position to determine their adequacy of the investigation and to go anywhere and do almost anything we needed to do to come up with a responsive report to the Chairman. So we, based on those ground rules, initially, we started, I think John and I went to GAP to receive some more data they had supposably attained from I some people. We reviewed that. Now I guess John and Dave and I went out to Region III. I don't know exactly when, but I'd say January or February time, probably January..
Mr. Alcot Do you recall that during these January scoping meetings whether there was any discussion regarding not making this investigation an employee misconduct type investigation?
Mr. Schnebelen E. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _._ _ _ .____ _ -... _ _ ___.___. _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . - _ _ .
i l
12 You know, I'll be honest with you. Can you turn it off?
Judge Hoyt I want to have, just reflect on this tape. We had turned it off for a moment when Mr. Schnebelen asked us to and we did so to try to allay any fears that Mr. Schnebelen had, what our mission was, and that we felt that if he needed any time during the questioning to refresh his recollection from any
, documents, anything he may have available, please just advi'se us to stop at that point and we have these notes that we're making for ourselves on this tape to reflect that in it. And I think that Mr. Schnabelen wanted that last
. question and line of questioning that Mr. Alcot was headed toward to be begun again, and again Mr. Schnebelen, and on this tape, I want to be sure to tell you that you may take all the time you need to respond. It is not necessary that you respond instantaneously. Do it at your leisure, sir, Mr. Aloot Mr. Schnebelen, in January 1981 during the scoping mestings,
, was there any discussion as to whether this particular inquiry was going to be conducted as an employee misconduct investigation or as a investigation into the adequacy of the Region III investigative program? '
..m.~ .-. - - , - -----# i -- - - , - . - -,v.- --- - , -.--. ~..,,,,---------------r,---,-w- - -, - - - - - , - , , ---,-.m -r-,-u----w -
13 i
l Mr. Schnebelen To the best of my recollection, I can only say that during the initial stages of my participation into this, the whole l
scope was geared toward the adequacy of the investigation that Region III conducted of the Applegate allegations.
Mr. Alcot That is to be distinguished from what the focus on...
Mr. Schnebelen Individuals.
I Mr. Alcot Phillip individually.
Mr. Schnebelen That's correct. I could say one more thing.
Mr. Alcot Go ahead.
Mr. Schnebelen During our initial entrance visit with the Region III senior staff, after we indicated, I say we, it was John, Dave and
.- myself, indicated to the Region III people while we were
14 there during some portion of it, I believe Mr. Keppler or one of the other gentlemen spoke up and said, I don't know the words, but in summation, something to the effect that.it sound like your investigating Jerry Phillips. Does he need an attorney? And, I believe our response was that if Mr.
Phillips wants an attorney, he's sure welcome to have one, but that we, CIA, was not there to investigate Jerry Phillips or anyone else, individually. We were there only at the direction of the Chairman to see how Region III, Region III handled the allegations.
Mr. Aloot During these January meetings, was it discussed among yourself, Mr. Gamble, Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Cummings, how to handle the problem of the GAP allegation that Mr. Cummings had prior knowledge of these problems and did nothing about them?
Mr. Schnebelen I'm sorry I don't understand this?
Mr. Aloot Was there a discussion among yourself and the other members of OIA who were assigned to this investigation about GAP's or Mr. Applegate's first allegation that Mr. Cummings had
1
. . . . 1 l
l 15 l
prior knowledge of the problems at Zimmer and failed to i
communicate them to Region III or any other office? '
, Mr. Schnebelen This was prior to January of '817 3
Mr. Aloot Yes. You don't recall any conversation?
l 1
l Mr. Schnebelen I don' t even know we had one. No, I don't know, as a matter of fact I wasn't even aware of anyone in the office knew about anything prior to '80. Maybe they did. See, I wasn't in...
Mr. Aloot Youwereinadifherent...
Mr. Schnabelen I was in the other side of the house then. I don't know if they were aware of anything before January of '81. I really can't answer that.
i Mr. Aloot l
k
,. -- n ..- _ - . - -, , . . _ . ,, - - . - ~ - , , ,._,,.._.,-.a , -, . . , . - . . _ _ . , , ,
16 on the followup points on the purpose of'the investigation, did your meeting with GAP confirm your interpretation of their petition that it wasn't aimed at Mr. Phillip individually but at Region III generally?
Mr. Schnebelen Did we tell GAP that or...
Mr. Alcot Yes. Did you tell them, the GAP, that that was your reading of their petition and did they agree with your...
1 Mr. Schnebelen I doubt if we said we discussed their petition, hardly but I don't think we went into whether we were going to satisfy their particular petition or not,. We advised them what we j were chaired to do and that we wanted to get as much information from them that they said they had that would help us and that we went down to obtain the documents from them and advised them that we were going to start this but...
Mr. Aloot- ,
I But there was no mention at that point by GAP that OIA was l 1
unduly restricting the investigation?
l
7 _ - _. ____
17 Mr. Schnebelen No, no or no they weren't, they didn't know what we were going to do really because we were just, we hadn't even started ourselves when we saw GAP. We hadn't even been out l to Region III yet.
Mr. Alcot Now, you mentio *ned that the charter you received from the Chairman and through Mr. Cummings was go out to Region III, l
l talk to whoever we have to talk to, look at whatever you have to look at to resolve this matter. Prior to going out to Region III ,the first time, did you identify the people l you wanted to interview?
Mr. Schnabelen 1 -
I believe we did. Yes.
l l
Mr. Aloot Did you have a list?
Mr. Schnebelen f
Yes. I think we made a big list up. We sat in the office and primarily it was those people obviously involved with the investigation and then we wanted to see those people I
.. believe that Applegate had indicated names somewhere in some
, . .. - . - -. -- . ._- - .- . ~.
l t 18 of his data and then also we wanted to see, if possible, any l of the names that were given to us by GAP. They gave us j some names, some allegations and so forth.
l Mr. Alcot Now, let me see if I can clarify this. By we, you mean who?
Mr. Schnebelen It would be John, myself and Dave that was really down to the' nitty gritty part but the top part was Roger and partly Mr. Cummings. I just can't sit back now and think back two l
years ago as to who was what because we were back and forth of each others office, so, but I'm sure Mr. Cummings was l l involved in quite a bit, I know Mr. Fortuna was, and then,
'of course Dave and I and John were the worker bees?
Mr. Alcot Any you say you identified or you intended to interview-
~
people that were identified by GAP? Were all these people l that were identified all this information, particularly the I
information from GAP, did all that relate to this particular i investigation or was it related to some other investigation?
Mr. Schnebelen l
s
F-I 19 It would relate really. The data that GAP gave us was, I think'was a lot of material that Applegate came up with during his period on the site when he was a private detective or something and I think he was at that time when he came across some of these names he was talking with the people. He would meet them, I guess, at the local bar or tavern and then, I think, he gave a lot of these names to the GAP and then they in turn, I guess put them in some type of a listing form and furnished us the names. Our pursuing 1
i with that was to see if Region III had it. Did they have this available? We ourselves at that point were not planning on interviewing those people unless it was to show whether Region III people were negligent in the performance of their duty, did they go TE9 n ought that they had them so forth and so on.
Mr. Alcot I see. Who wrote the interview summaries?
Mr. Schnebelen Of the people we interviewed?
Mr. Alcot Uh hu.
h
20 Mr. Schnebelen Generally, John'or Dave. Depending on who I designated.
John would write some, David would write some. We all took notes. Whoever wrote it, the other people would look at it to see if our notes supported it.
Mr. Aloot who were you assigned to this? And did you attend these appeal interviews as a supervisor?
Mr. Schnebelen When I went out during January, February, I guess, the first week in March. It was a team, we were kind of equal but, 1 since I was the GS-15, they were 13-type, you know, you more or less are saying, hey, you head the team up even though 1
the two gentlemen had far more day-to-day experience in l
investigations then I did. So, when you say supervisor, I don't think we're really at the point that I was that much i
.of a supervisor.but I think because of the grade structure !
they kind of said let Art call some of the shots and, if we !
have to, go talk to some of the supervisors, but nothing came out saying that Schnabelen was the supervisor and the other two people, were, the three of us worked together.
l Mr. Aloot
21 As a team? 1 l
l Mr. Schnebelen That's right.
Mr. Aloot ,
Did you assign, who would write the interview summaries?
Mr.-Schnebelen No. We kind of osmosis on that. Right.
Mr. Alcot The lottery?
Mr. Schnebelen Who had the most work. The Phillip's, for example, was a e
big interview we had and then the other was smaller so we kind of bundled it out together. . .
Mr. Alcot I see. Were people interviewed in any particular order?
Mr. Schnebelen Ye'ah, I think we did Jerry first. We either did Jerry or
_/ the radiographer. I can't remember his name now.
22 Mr. Aloot !
Would it be Kavin Ward? .
l Mr. Schnebelen Kavin Ward, yes. Yes, I think it was Jerry first, I'm not positive. If I saw that report I could tell you about something important.
Mr. Alcot To the best of your recollection, did subsequent interviews of other people flow from the Phillip interview or did you already have in mind?
Mr. Schnebelen Some did flow, but we already had in mind, but if you wanted to see, what we really tried to find out was, did the Region really have an interest in the Applegate allegations or were they just gushing off, and we figured by talking to the-various supervisors in the branches as to what emphasis was placed on the allegations. Did they go out and check the wells out so on and so forth. That's why we wanted to check, I think all the people we interviewed were connected somehow within the Branch or had supervisory responsibility of the Zimmer site. -
23 TAPE ONE SIDE TWO Mr. 7. loot Mr. Schnebelen, did you review the interview summaries as they were written?
Mr. Schnebelen Yes.
,Mr. Aloot This was prior to April 19817' Mr. Schnebelen Yes.
Mr. Aloot What was the process for your review of those individual interview summaries, say they were written,a week later?
Mr. Schnebelen I think I indicated before. Generally, when John wrote the interview, then generally Dave and I would review them as to-did the interview, the written interview basically reflect what the words were back and forth. That's what our
e O 4
~
24
. /
~
primary concern was, to make sure that the written interview actually reflected what was said.
Mr. Alcot Did you review each and every summary as they were prepared?
Mr. Schnebelen You mean, each interview?
Mr..Alcot Each interview as the summary was prepared.
Mr. Schnebelen I'd have to say yes. I mean I can't be sure about having t'o i
say yes.
Mr. Alcot To the best of your recollection, when were,the first round of interviews completed? Ball park figure?
Mr. Schnebelen I'd have to say that, I'm guessing, Do you happen to have the report by any chance? That would tell you, look on the interview. If you really wanted to get accurate it would
_. tell you right. -
25 Mr. Aloot Well, actually all the interviews are dated.
Mr. Schnebelen Yes, ye'ah each interview's dated. I tried to tell you-when it's complete that's why...
Mr. Alcot Yes I was specifically director to the first round in the sense that there were any subsequent interviews that were, or people identified interviews after you...
Mr. Schnebelen We had to go back on some because they were out of the office, either on field trips or investigations. I think Kavin Ward was one we had to go back for. I just don't recall.
Mr. Alcot Was there a time when you returned to the Bethesda office after your first round of interviews and it was determined that you needed to interview more people or reinterview other people?
-- Mr. Schnebelen
f 26 I know we went back out several tines.
Mr. Alcot Let me direct your attention to...
Mr. Schnebelen It could have been, I don't recall, without seeing the itinerary by trips. I didn't go back John and Dave went to the site and talked to one of the resident inspectors I .
know.
Mr. Alcot Was that to request weld records?
Mr. Schnabelen Ye'ah, I think, I'm confused.
Mr. Alcot .
There came a point when you decided to reinterview Mr.
Phillip and Mr. Ward?
Mr. Schnebelen Yes, I believe so. I think that will show it.
_ Mr. Alcot
27 Mr. Cummings, yourself, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Gamble all conducted reinterviews. First, why was Mr. Ward and Mr.
Phillip reinterviewed? What was the purpose of the reinterviews?
Mr. Schnabelen Correct. If I could see that report it might help.
i Mr. Alcot sure, let me show you this somewhat marked up copy.
Mr. Schnabelen I think we found some deficiencies in some records and we wanted to know if they spotted them.
Mr. Alcot ,
Could you freshen your recollection by reading this copy of the inspection report, investigation report? ,
i Mr. Schnebelen Ye'ah I remember now. It's vague. This was after we came back in January. I believe I called out to the resident inspector at the site and asked them for some weld packages.
- Would they send us copies of weld packages. I think, for
_. example, I remember the name CY606 HR42 and K11. I believe
28 now without going to the report I believe these were, either one or all, were mentioned, I believe by applicant and we found some problems during our review of the weld packages, ,'
and we wanted'to go back and see whether Ward and Phillips had considered them during these investigation and that's what I believe a lot of our reinvestigation in February was addressed towards those welds and the word I think, on some of the sign offs that the inspectors had done, I believe we wanted to ask them if these welds used accepted as is or so forth.
Mr. Alcot These are questions that weren't asked at the first interview?
Mr. Schnebelen That's correct. We didn't have the package.
Mr. Alcot My second question on that reinterview is, what was the purpose or role Mr. Cummings was to play in participating in the interview?
Mr. Schnebelen
~
29 Well, other than him being the bossman and wanting to know what was going on, I would say, to satisfy himself that he l
was the Director. He would have to sign a report and he was really theoretically conducting the investigation. I would presume that he worked to go out. Especially in view of the fact of what we found between the first and second timeframe. In other words, the first timeframe we really had nothing other than the allegations, and then we found these weld package discrepancies and that's when he really -
got interested and that's why I think he wanted to go out
.there to see what this story, what their answers would be.
Mr. Alcot During this period when all four of you were out there, apparently, Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Gamble went to St. Louis to l
interview Mr. pandall.
Mr. Schnebelen. .
That's correct. Mr. andell.
Mr. Aloot Mr.pandell. During that day they were away, did you and/or Mr. Cummings interview anyone else or review any records?
_, Mr. Schnebelen
l 1
l 30 l
l I think we were, if I'm mistaken I think we were working ;
down in the document control room pulling packages to see I know I was, to see what inspection reports, what old inspection reports, to see whether there were any items in
! old inspection reports that we could trace into the current discrepancies Applegate was trying to bring aboard.
l Mr. Aloot l
I see, l
i Mr. Schnebelen That's, I also know Mr. Cummings was out, I can't recall it, but I know he went out too I think with work with about three different cases at one time. He was doing something for the Commission or the Chairman ah.
i l
! Mr. Aloot i
On a different matter? .
Mr. Schnebelen On a different matter, completely unrelated to our trip out there, he was covering about three different things, I know that.
Mr. Alcot
31 l So while Mr. Gamble and Mr. Sinclair were away, you were !
reviewing relevant documents?
Mr. Schnebelen That's right, yes.
Mr. Alcot Files Mr. Schnebelen Yes.
Mr. Alcot Did you find any relevant documents?
Mr. Schnebelen Ah.
Mr. Alcot Were you able to trace old inspection reports especially?
Mr. Schnabelen We had some but they had all been brought out before, in other words, in the local document room we found where some
. of the inspectors that had previously gone out to the site
32 had brought items forth and I think, matter of fact, we even 4
had some I don't know whether they went to the your board but they had some special hearings on them and I think these
, were brought out beforehand.
Mr. Aloot So there is no new information?
Mr. Schnebelen Not new, no. But there again this was just another investigative technique. You cannot look at something and say maybe you aren't going to say we would find anything, so you have to go to find out, did something come out two years ago or three years ago that Region III didn't cover, so that's why we did it.
Mr. Aloot who decided to interview Mr. Harpster? -
i Mr. Schnebelen I really don't know, I'm guessing I'm just having to go back on memory. I think someone mentioned it to us. I think
\
from I&E staff somewhere. I'm not sure. Gilmore or his '
former boss I can't remember his name anymore. But someone I"
on the I&E staff did mentioned I think to Mr. Cummings or to i
, . . . ._._,....-...._..-._._..m,___......,_,___ . _ _ . _ _ . _ , . _ , _ _ _ _ , _ , _ . _ . . . _ . , _ . . . _ . _ . -
k
(
33 Dave and John hay maybe you might want to talk to Terry since he had been I think he had been the resident inspector out there or had been on the inspection staff at Region III and he had some data so that's when I think we decided to interview him.
Mr. Alcot Mr. Bandall was, who decided to interview Mr. Bandell?
Mr. Schnebelen That was just a joint thing since he was the resident inspector.
Mr. Alcot During the relevant period?
Mr. Schnebelen During the current one I think. ,
Mr. Alcot I see, and Mr. Harpster was the resident?
Mr. Schnebelen
.-.w_. -+. ~ - - - -- --, < - - - -
, _ - _ , . _ , - _ - - ~ . - _ - . - . , - , - - . - - - - . , - - - , . . . . , _ _
l 64 34
/
Ch, way back somewhere I don't know exactly when, this might tell us in here. Quite aways back plus I think he was also on the staff out in Region III, I believe.
Mr. Alcot Do you recall about what time all the interviews were completed and the reporte the first draft of the report was completed and sent to you for review?
Mr. Schnebelen I think April sticks in my mind for some reason.
Mr. Alcot New when this first draft came to you, you previously stated that you reviewed the interview summaries as they were written, so when it came to you in say April was that the second time you had seen those interview summaries?
Mr. Schnebelen Ah, well that's hard to say. I really can't do that because I don't o'kay. The interview summaries, when we started the initial review of the draft we probably didn't have the summaries attached to the draft.
Mr. Alcot
i i
I 35
- . . i I see. j Mr. Schnebelen l There was just a narrative of the draft and the cap that they had I don't believe the interviews were at that point 2 attached to the draft well they could have I don't know, I l
just don't recall, maybe. ,
r 2
Mr. Aloot ,
- What would be the draft then, the summary?
1 Mr. Schnebelen Well the summary. The interviews themselves for all practical purposes were finished probably well before the draft was even started. It had to be. so then the draft l was done. Now the draft of the report consisted of I
initially I believe of a summary and I think a bunch of attachments. But then we revised, we changed it around a little bit, because we wanted to bring in the weld package we thought that was the critical point to' prove our point that Region III did not do a good job. So that's when we started movin.g up. But on the initial draft I just don't
- know whether the complete neat typewritten draft included
- everything or not. I don't recall it, it could have been.
l-
36 Mr. Alcot when you got the first draft in April, did Mr. Cusumings also get copy of that first draft?
Mr. Schnabelen Normally, he would not because, c'kay keep in mind when the draft started up I had switched from the team member and now all of a sudden I was supervisor. In March or something I was appointed acting director so now I became officially their boss. So before, in all fairness to me, before anything went to Mr. Cummings I liked to have my shot at it.
So my guess would be, now I do know I can't say whether it was a first draft or later drafts, but due to trying to get the report out they knew that there was a lot of interest in it and the pressure on it a lot of times when were worked something, in order to save time, we typed it up in probably four copies, one for John, one for Dave, one for me and one for cummings, so we could all work on it together and try to compress and save time to try to get the report out that I know happened a lot of times on the very first draft, can't say whether Cummings saw it or not? To answer your question I don't know.
Mr. Aloot
1 l
l 37 Do you recall at this, today, that there was pressure to get this report out?
Mr. Schnebelen Within the office? Oh ye'ah, oh definitely. We had a mandate from the Chairman to get the investigation going we wanted it out.
Mr. Alcot Give me a timeframe or given that pressure to get it out, deadline, somewhere, is there any... what would explain the fourth month time period between initial draft in April and final release in August. Number 1 was that a common length of time for review?
Mr. Schnebelen Ah, I don't know what common would be so I really can't answer that. Ah, I do know that we had to do even after the first draft, I'm going by memory, I believe and some of this could reflect on me as supervisor, but even when we gave Mr.
Cummings a, what we felt was a pretty final draft and he started going over it and he called me in to ask me questions about it I saw, he pointed out some problems. I don't recall now what they were but I know we have some shortfalls in it and I believe we had to go back and do some
38 more work on it. Ah, I know he, that was at point in time that he wanted to rearrange the report from a standpoint of showing that showing the weld packages as summaries, or as attachments, rather than what we sent into them as . Which I don't remember how. Ah, I do recall that, but I can't recall the specifics of it so I do know that we got it back and I think John was off on another Texas and Company and Dave and I sat down and prepared some of these weld packages or what they are currently attached to the reports and it took Dave and I some time to do that I know that. But this was after April time frame I am almost positive. I can't say when I don't know how long it took us. Ah, but I do know we had that. Keep in mind I don't know when, can't remember there was also another criminal investigation we set up for the Zimmer, not with Region III, put them aside.
We established and opened a case on Zimmer itself and during that timeframe I don't know again but I know John and Dave or John and I think Al Puglia went out to the site at timmer i to conduct some invest... some interviews rather. Not to do !
with this report but due to another one. Ah,...
Mr. Alcot .
Is this separate investigation, or was that identified as 81-39 a file number?
- e. 0 39 Mr. Schnabelen What's tie other one? Yes.
Mr. Aloot 81-18.
Mr. Schnt Jelen O'kay then you're right, yes. One was the Region III, the first one should have been Region III, the latter number should have been the investigation of Zimmer. Yes.
Mr. Aloot By latter you mean 81-397 Mr. Schnebelen 39 correct.
Mr. Aloot During this four month period do you recall any other than adding additional investigator material, were there any discussions between yourself and Mr. Cummings regarding substantive changes? Changes in substance of the report.
Mr. Schnebelen Yes.
b
~
40 Mr. Aloot 4
- What was the nature of those discussions?
Mr. Schnebelen I believe one of them was to do with training or I think it was investigator's Region III investigative training manual , ,
or something to.do with the training I can't recall what.
And I think we initially had at'tachments to the report with that. Now I believe we also had some comments in the report about it. Ah, and then subsequently after Mr. Cummings
- received it and then I don't know whether John and David was i
with me at the time or that's immaterial but we did discuss j
as to whether this was appropriate to be put into the report at this time and with that I went back and reread the report r
the draft and went back to Cummings and said I after looking at this I think that we should take this out of the report I
and schedule this for a inspection / investigation of all of I
IEE to see whether its shortfall throughout the agency or was it a shortfall just for this one isolate instance. It wouldn't be fair I felt to give the Chairman a report which i
3 contained negative statements about his training or
- l investigation program unless we had support for it. Would 1
one case suffice for that support? As an auditor I said no.
{. That generally if you go out to do a report,on audit and you
!- find one thing wrong you don't stop and prepara a report
l 41 chastizing someone for one document missing or one signature is wrong. You would go out in larger sample to see is this a prevalent problem throughout and then if it is you should come back and advise the management of that. This case we only.had one, one investigation out of a 1,000 that is done in the agency in the course of a year that there could have been a problem at. So we felt this should be a matter of a special CIA' investigation and I believe it is in the report.
I could be wrong on that. I think we even might ch maybe it wasn't. I thought we put it in the report that we were going to make this a matter of a special investigation and as a result of this report of our report it was then decided
. after meetings and meetings and meetings with the Chairman and his people that they would then bust up the so called Region concept investigation and make it one IE NRC Office.
With that we never scheduled our inspection to see whether the investigation program in IE was good because they had to give a ground ah new marching orders by the chairman to come up with a new training manual and new program so that more or less said hey OIA hold off a while. And then along with that I believe we had marching orders to review or I believe they had orders to say whatever they come up with, send copies to OIA first to make sure they comply with...
Mr. Aloot
~
42 So you made the decision to...
Mr. Schnebelen It was upstating ah it was joint between I think Jim and I.
Yes. Yes. ,
Mr. Aloot Are any other changes in the substance of the report during the four-month period?
Mr.Schnabelen Tha. one sticks in my mind, I can remember that one ah. I'm sure fccmat was a big one ah.
Mr. Aloot What about the Harpsters interview?
Mr. Schnebelen . .
O'kay, yes that was o'kay that was attached initially to the report you're right. Ah Mr. Cummings was the one I believe that made the decision to take that out. Ah he felt that the Harpster interview at that time and after listening to him I couldn't argue with the man was more appropriate to be part of the 39 file because of the type of information in the Harpster interview rather in the Region III file. The
.. o l
l I
43 4
, Region III file was really geared toward not really geared toward it was geared only toward Region III's investigation of Applegate's allegations. Harpster covered kind of a waterfront and we felt it was more appropriate to be included in 39. Which was, excuse me, an ongoing .
investigation.
Mr. Aloot was there discussion about the possibility of creating a i l third separate file for the Harpster interview?
Mr. Schnebelen It could have been ah yes it could have been, fine ah, I don't recall.
Mr. Alcot Do you recall any conversations about just putting a cover 4
memo on the Harpster interview and sending it somewhere?
Mr. Schnebelen Yes, to the Chairman, I guess.
Mr. Alcot Laugh i =
I
, , - , , . ------g- , , , - + , , - - . - - , , . _ , , , , _ _ _ _ , _ - , , . . , . - . , . , . - , 4.,--g,,-,,e.._,..,,,e ,.ny,w4.,,,, , , . ~ . , _ . - - - , __-a-.-- . - , -.*q . , - -
.. =
i 44
/
i
- Mr. Schnabelen I'm sure, yes, because what are we going to do, we are going to have to do something with it?
Mr. Aloot l
All of these options were discussed? -
Mr."Schnebelen Ye'ah I'm sure that John and Dave was thinking at the time was going on it too and that cold have been one'of the t concluding options, yes, let's send it to somebody but I think it was then we decided to put them into ah 39 that.was
[
going to be our baby.
Mr. Aloot Do you recall any ah, any changes to this draft report that would take out a discussion of I believe about a meeting in Chicago with the FBI and with the PM subcontractors, radiographers for tho'timmer contract?
Mr. Schnebelen Meeting in Chicago, I thought that was part of one of our interviews, did GAP say anything? I don't remember when.
1 l~' Mr. Alcot
..---,vr= ---
,- --...,-.,.~,----,e--.,.---.--,e--,----m-------,...-.-.m ------ -------w - ---e,,-,-rw..,
L 45 We haven't received the information but there was some discussion, at least at some point ah, about tracking down the meetings with the FBI in Chicago ah?
Mr. Schnebelen That we went to our Applegate went to?
Mr. Alcot That apparently, that Applegate went to and may be some Region III people went to also some information relating to the, I forget the magnum, Peabody Magnum Report?
Mr. Schnebelen Ah, o'kay, well Applegate, I guess someone from Region III went to the, either the assistant or the attorney in l Chicago. We went, we also went back to talk with the U.S.
- Attorney to see what his reactions were to some of Applegate's allegations primarily toward the area you re speaking of rather than the criminal side. Applegate kept pressing or trying to pressure us and to look at all the things. We kept saying we don't have the authority to look at ah, gambling or to guns or to prostitution.
Mr. Alcot .
By we, you mean Region III?
46 Mr. Schnebelen
,OIA.
Mr. Aloot Oh, OIA.
Mr. Schnebelen He wanted us to do it and we're saying hay that's not our bag that's why you have the local police for, you have the U.S. Attorney for, you have the FBI for. They have that basic jurisdiction. We are concerned, yes, but he kept wanting us to go investigate this thing. The buckles the...
Mr. Alcot You had conversations with Mr. Applegate during the course of your investigation or the office did?
Mr. Schnebelen . .
I did, I know for one time, for eight hours at a meeting with him with Region III and Applegate.
Mr. Aloot During the investigation phase or after the issue of this report or afterwards?
i 47
/
Mr. Schnebelen Either had to be toward the er.d of it or after we issued it.
I don't know . I know Region III then tried to, Applegate kept calling Region III about this and Region III said, ;
let's sit down with the man face to face, brought Applegate, l Tom Devine from QAP in and said let's go through these 1, 2, 3 so we know what exactly you're speaking about and we can trace each one down. And We spent eight hours in Region III office going through with Applegate allegations I don't know" when this timeframe was.
l Mr. Aloot That brings a question to mind. Was it, obviously Mr.
Applegate was not formally interviewed. Who made the decision not to interview him or was it just the absence of l
l the decision to interview him?
Mr. Schnebelen . -
l I think the latter probably, I don't think we really, no I
! think it was probably the latter.
Mr. Alcot
! Were there any other changes in the draft report that you
- can recall between?
I
47 Mr. Schnebelen Either had to be toward the end of it or after we issued it.
I don't know . I know Region III then tried to, Applegate kept calling Region III about this and Region III said, let's sit down with the man face to face, brought Applegate, Tom Devine from QAP in and said let's go through these 1, 2, 3 so we know what exactly you're speaking about and we can trace each one down. And We spent eight hours in Region III l office going through with Applegate allegations I don't know' when this timeframe was.
Mr. Aloot That brings a question to mind. Was it, obviously Mr.
Applegate was not formally interviewed. Who made the decision not to interview him or was it just the absence of the decision to interview him?
Mr. Schnebelen i
I think the latter probably, I don't think we really, no I l
think it was probably the latter.
1 i l Mr. Alcot i l
Were there any other changes in the draft report that you ;
can -recall between? l
l l
l 1
l 48 )
i Mr. Schnebelen
~
Now that I have seen all the drafts, you know I know there were a lot of changes made from the initial , oh yes, a whole bunch of format, words, ah, like we've talked about things that were taken out, Cummings had some strong opinions on some things since he signed the report.
Mr. Alcot Do you recall what those things were?
Mr. Schnebelen Harpsters, one, training part another.
Mr. Aloot Why would the decision to exclude or delete the Applegate interview was irrelevant, that Applegate's information was not...
9 9
e*
l k.
e.
1 Schnebelen Interview - Tape L Side 1 (cannot be understocd)
Schnebelen Interview, May 12,1983 - Tape 2, Side 2 (parts understood)
~
Mr. Schnebelen, I am going to give you a copy, the official copy, l of the Special Inquiry regarding the . . . I&E investigation 50-358/80-9, with a covering memo for your awareness. Let me direct your attention to the last paragraph of the Report's summary. Yes, that would be page 2.
Were any modifications of that paragraph made as a result of your August 4 meeting with Region III management? .
Let me think now. I'm not sure. We had some discussion. I don't know whether it was at the meeting with or what, but there were discussions about the review, the re-review, of radiographs I believe. Let me think. I think it might have been in this area. This review stated in October 1970. There was something in this area I think they were discussing and we might have--that could be what you are referring to. Possibly portions of the report are still be studying.
Maybe that was it from that area. That's my recollect' ion.
Could the modification that could have taken place in that paragraph could have been made in connection with a telephone call betweem Mr. Keppler and Mr. Cumings? -
If it was done, it was brought out between Keppler, myself and Dave i
~ - - - -
n., -,,,+ - e .e.
3 What makes you say you're sure? .
I would either be there or else Cummings would write a memo about it and I discuss it with Kappler. I know about your concern about the progress of the Region III SECY Report. I know that. This was going'on in the same time frame. He was very concerned about that. He was concerned about Bert Davis and Region III people investigation of Zimmer because we also had the criminal investigation going on at the same time. Now I know they were talking about that some. .
There were telephone calls between Region III and Mr. Cummings, but those calls were not necessarily limited to what we referred to as the 8118 investigation?' It could have been the 81 . . .
They could have been. I'm not saying that Mr. Cummings and Keppler could not have talked about the specific--the report.
I could have been sitting there. I don't know. I don't recall Cummings and Keppler in my presence talking verbatim about this report. I mean a word change of course. I sure they discussed after our visit out there . . . . I sure Keppler was not too happy.
Let me direct your attention to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the summary--on page 1. Does that sentence refer to the scope of the investigation? l i
Right. That's the one that the Chairman directed us to do.
_% . - . - . , , . . . - , , . - , , , , - - . , m _ _ , . , , _ . - -
o w
., c
- t.
- 2 Was there a conference telephone call between yourself, Mr. Gamble and Mr. Keppler?
There could have been. We've had many calls.
Right after this August 4 meeting?
Im sure Mr. Keppler . . . he was completely . . . I'm sure they .
talked.
You don't recall being party . . .?
As far as sitting there over a telephone, I don't know. I recall this. It could have been at the meeting at Region III when Dave and I were there.
Do you recall a telephone call between Mr. Keppler and Mr. Cummings following the meeting at Region III?
If I recall a specific one, no. I can recall some telephone calls between Cummings and Keppler, yes.
~
The substance of those telephone calls?
I don't know. .
What was the time frame of those telephone calls? Before the Region III
. meeting or after?
I sure Cummings had called Keppler well before the meeting and after the meeting.
-e -
Olivia Sweeney Schnebelen Interview, Tape 2. Side 2 (continued)
Q. Was that sentence, that last sentence in the- first paragraph was that in the draft report you read to the Region III management, or was that inserted at a later time?
A. I can't answer that; I don't recall.
Q. (Garbled.)
A. I can't answer that. I don't know.
Q. Let me get onto another point. During the course of the investigation, 1881 investigation, did you interview or speak to any individuals or any persons out of the office relating to this particular investigation other than those mentioned in the report, either inside or outside the agency?
A. Did we interview?
Q. Well, did you interview other people or did you merely phone other people to get either additional infonnation or .....get clarification perhaps other than the people that are identified as being interviewed?
A. (Garbled.)
Q. Ah, did we contact anyone else that is not listed here by name?
A. Oh, I'm sure we did.
Q. ... call...?
. A. One would have been that resident inspector, I'm not sure, the current resident inspector, not Mandell, now, but the current one, there, he's the one I know. I personally called and got the... -
package...
Q. That was... documents. I was speaking in terms of either calling someone and telling them the status of the investigation or asking them for specific factual information...used in that report?
A. (Garbled.)
Q. ....try to phrase it in a different way. During the course of this investigation, did you, as an individual, contact anybody regarding the investigation?
A. (Garbled. )
2 Q. Other than the ones you mentioned? You must have phoned 1 Mr. Keppler, at least? l 1
A. Yeah. I talked to, I'm sure I talked with somebody in I&E headquaters. . . .
Q. (' Garbled. ) !
l A. . . . I tal ked to this Mrs. . . . 1 Q. Dudley Thomps'on?
A. Dudley Thompson, a couple times about some investigations that we ~!
might want to talk with people about...or as making available for us.
Q. Those would be normal scheduling?
A. I think, yeah, like I said. Yeah. Let me see. I could have talked I to. I could have had a phone call from a newspaper person who !
wanted to know when the report was coming out and I would say, "I'm sorry, we're still in the process of it." I had a contact from !
Applegate several times.
Q. Did he call?
A. Called and I talked to him. He wanted to know when the report...
Q. ... memos to the files?
A. I got some memos to the files on that., I believe. I talked to Tom.... He called about when the report is coming out and I told him we are still in processing.
Q. How about Region III people...?
A. I could have talked, that's what I was trying to'tell you. I can't remember his name; he was the one that was doing, was sitting :
in on those interviews at Zimmer. ,
Q. (Garbled.)
l
, A. That's maybe... investigator.
Q. (Garbled. )
A. He left. He got a little disturbed that time, but he,.with all of l us, Dave, John and myself have...I think even Cummings has talked to him several times but not in the pure contents of trying to see 4.-
i
l 3 what we have got, no, no. It was in the contents of what was going on currently at that site, have we changed, have we come up with anything different. We were trying to keep on top of.
Q. (Garbled.)
! A. Thirty-nine, not this.
Q. Not this?
A. Yeah, that's why I'm having a hard time distinguishing between the two of them. We had both of them on at the same time.
Q. . Yeah, well, let me ask another question. ...Mr. Cunnings have contact with other individuals regarding this particular investigation, the substance .of this particular investigation, either individual Connissioner or the Connission generally, or another member of I&E, Region III? .
A. I really don't know who he talked to downtown. My guess is he must have talked with the Chairinan. I don't know. I don't know what he does downtown when he goes down, so I presume the Chairman says,
" Hey, Jim, how you doing on your Zinner thing." Jim probably says,
" Hey, we're wrapping up." I'm sure the Chairman said,"what did you find?" But, first hand, "No," I don't know.
Q. What about other offices, like I&E7 A. (Garbled.)
Q. That you have?'
A. Personal knowledge of.
Q. Do you have personal knowledge of or that Mr. Cunnings suddenly came into infor1 nation that he didn't have before; he didn't get from you about the facts in this investigation?
A. I'm lost now. The facts that he would not have before but now he has.
Q. Yes.
4 A. That's in the report.
Q. Yeah. (Garbled.)
A. That we didn't get but someone gave us.
s Q. Yeah.
4 i
A. That someone else gave us.
Q. There was nothing during the review period that would lead you to believe that Mr. Cummings was able to pick up the phone and phone somebody and clarify a question in his mind?
A. Oh, I'm not saying he didn't. I mean, he could have. Oh yes.
He could have very well called up the resident inspector now, or he could have called Region III or some inspector wanting to know how you do this type of paper process. I mean he could have very well done that. Of course, it is not dasy for the average person to understand the welding process, inspecting process. I just don't know. It would surprise me if he had not called someone to get the technical knowledge, help explain to him.
, But do I have first-hand knowledge...in his office when he made some calls and I was there a lot of times when he made calls but that is one area you are addressing that doesn't ring a bell.
Q. I'm going to show you a hand written note dated March 24 I assume that is '81...I meant to bring this up to logical order...My question is, do you recall getting that note and that attached outline of the gap allegations?
A. Oh, I'm sure. I think this is a Region III memo, isn't it. I think Region III made this up. I'm just talking from memory now.
I think they try to consolidate all their stuff into one nice neat...chron. I don't know who made this chron up.
Q. Could it have been Mr. Gamble?
A. ...You know, I don't know. I don't know...these cards indicate...this is the way we kept our...the numbers on these Cards art....
Q. You think so?
A. Maybe this was...someone has made a...has' reconstructed...I'm sure I saw it.
Q. The reason I ask is the note indicated that Mr. Cummings asked for this listing of the allegations to be prepared and it was sent to you as....Do you recall why? Was it that the investigation was beyond its identification stage? Why wasn't this gap allegation not used in preparing the OIA report?
A. Keep in mind.. 90 some percent of the allegations made by Applegate were the direct responsibility of Region III to look at, not OIA.
We can't go out and determine whether a weld was good or bad. We
.couldn't go out and detemine blaw, blaw, blaw so, when you say the Applegate allegations, initially we made a cut to determine which of the allegations would we or OIA be responsible for and which was
l 5
Region II, I'm sorry, Region III. And I think the Chairman even made that cut to a certain degree. So, consequently, we were only concerned... don't misunderstand me, but as far as our charter, we were only concerned about the allegation that Region III did do a good job. Now the other allegation we talked about...that has no bearing on our review of Region III.. Keep that in mind. These were the whole thing that Applegate had come up with during his stay at the site.
Q. I see.
A And these were the ones that he had previously talked...someone about. These are the ones he had also gone down to... Region III, I took him down by the hand. So, when we sat down the initial scope...we were concerned only about those allegations that said, I think the gap petition...but we interpreted that to be Region III and that's where our concern was. Did they do a job? Did they follow up on some of these things? If they did, did they do it adequately? They addressed them, but we found that they didn't do a good job.
Q. I see.
A. So, to say as to did we consider all of these in our report, "No."
4 We shouldn't. ,
Q. It was outside your jurisdiction?.
A. Yes, it was completely outside of our scope of our investigation.
As a matter of fact, I think if you look at our report we say that, don't we. -I believe. We should have.
Q. ...The report I believe talks about the gap petition, referring to that section described. Could you turn to the second sheet in
, that package...this one right here, don't know the date, apparently from yourself to Mr. Gamble. Do you recall writ.ing that?
! A. No, no.
Q. I assume.
A. I can only guess as to what I'm saying to you is that.... initial cut... don't worry about it. I felt that we've covered all of the areas that we were in charge to do. Therefore, why sit down and go through this whole darn thing, Dave...
Q. Judge Hoyt, do you have any questions at this time?
A. No, go ahead.
~.o, -- . . - , _ . , - - - - - - . _ , , , . . - _ - - - - - - . - - - - , - , , - - , ,
- - - - ~ ~ , - - - * ~
6 Q. After this short break, Mr. Schnebelen I wanted to clarify a point. I must have not been paying attention. You mentioned that a Region III representative sat in on some of the OIA interviews.
A. 8139. -
Q. That's what I wanted to clarify. The 8139 interviews?
A. Only 8139, nothing to do with this report.
Okay. Could you, we've been over this before, could you clarify Q.
what your input was during the interviews and I guess, assisting Mr. Gamble and Mr. Sinclair in developing revelvant information?
A. This is the initial interviews?
Q. Yes, the initial interviews.
A. My particular...
Q. Yes?
A. I was the participant as well as Dave and John. Each of us took notes. Sometime beforehand one or the other of us would be the lead and maybe in a certain area, and then during the interview, depending on what the line of questioning was, it might ring a bell in another person's mind, he would pick that up, file it and then when they had a break or he could bring his point forward....from that aspect we all had equal time as far as inteviewing individuals... points you wanted to bring out.
Q. Did you also describe your input at the review stage of this report?
- A. Of the report....
Q. Yes, between April and August, 19817 What was your general, how did you see your general responsibility as to reviewing the report?
A. First line supervisor.
Q. Did that include both substance and forinat?
A. That's correct. Yes.
Q. Would your responsibilities regarding this review of this report had been different if you had not been a actual participant most of the interviews.
A. No, no. This would be easier because I was a participant.
7 Q. In any case, you would have looked to the substance?-
A. That's right.
Q. Could you describe the working relationship between yourself and Mr. Cumings when you were the assistant director?
(Garbled) .
Q. Were you a... supervisory level; were there decisions that you were expected to make without going to Mr. Cummings?
A. Yes. Definitely.
Q. What were the nature of those types of decisions, if there was any distinction whatsoever?
A. I didn't have a list, black and white what I could or could not do? No, I didn't have that, no. I think I just used my best judgment as to what I felt was my prerogative to do. Anything I think which would affect the agency, as a whole, a decision would have been that made by Mr. Cummings as Office Director. If it l could affect my immediate staff without affecting the outside, I ,
think, that was my prerogative to make a decision, simple, simple, l leave, granting leave. That would be simple. I wouldn't go to him and ask him about that. If a fellow came to me and said he wanted to go interview someone other than who we talked about and they showed me why, I would just automatically go ahead. Now, I might ,
go to Cummings and say I'm cutting orders for " Joe Blow" to go to l "Timbuckto" just to interview. He would want to know why and I l would tell him.
Q. In terms of recommendations that you would make to Mr. Cumings, or where recomendations Mr. Cummings would make to you, was there any, did you proceed on your part to disagree?
A. With Mr. Cummings?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Were there any instances in this report that you disagreed with Mr. Cummings?
A. Initially, yes. There were some areas that we had disagreements on. I can't remember offhand, but there were some cases where I
, didn't quite see eye to eye on, but I grew up in the military and I 1 always used the concept that it was my duty to my superior that if I- I disagreed with him to advise him; tell him once. I was not going to go and butt my head against the wall four times and tell him. I
- . - - . . - - - - . . . - . . ~ -____= _.
~
8 tell him once and then after that was told to him and he still makes a decision, it's my responsibility to support the man, Q. Yeah.
A. That was my responsibility. We have people on the staff who wouldn't accept that, and that's the problem why I think we are here today, gentlemen. They weren't man enough to accept their boss's reconinendations or decisions. They wanted their own and they were...we had some babies on the staff. They hadn't grown up, very smart, very capable, but they are inmature in some cases and just because management said we are going to do it this way ar? if it didn't agree with them, they would not accept it. They wouldn't go along with it...they would fight right down to the wire. So, consequently, we had some problems. Yes, I'll be the first to admit it. I think Mr. Cummings will admit it. I'm sure Dave and John will admit. We had problems.
Q. Who are we speaking about?
A. Just say the staff and management.
Q. Are you saying there were ongoing problems between staff and management?
A. No question about it. There were disagreements, lots. Even before I came on board. Yes, I heard about them.
Q. What was the working relationship between yourself and Mr. Gamble and Mr. Sinclair?
A. They are my employees. I felt they were very good. I felt we had a good relationship. I relied on them because they had a lot more experience than I had in the area. I relied on their expertise to help me out.
Q. Do they have the same view of chain of command as you do?
A. I doubt it. Keep in mind, I don't think anyone, and including myself, would be happy when in your own division, the too man leaves and you expect them to bring in another person to fill that slot within that structure or someone outside who is highly qualified and I will be very honest, when I was appointed acting.
iny qualifications as far as assistant director for investigations was not very high; so, I don't think they were too happy, the staff.
Q. But you did have experience in the area? !
A. No question about that, but still they were looking at a very very i
4 .
~
9 narrow spectrum. They never told me, but' I just feel based on thoughts coming out recently they weren't very happy.
Q. Do you think this perception, assuming it to be true, affected how they interacted with you in preparing or reviewing this report?
A. I don'.t think so; I hope not...I hope not...whatever personal thing we had would go by the wayside and get the product out.
End of tape.
A.
.---r- ,,,- ,y. y_ . , , . __--, _ _ , ,y _ , -.. - ,,,- . -
. - ,.-,g-g, e q - we , ,
3 Side 1 Tape RE: Schnebeleh Interview - May 12, 1983 -
i Mr. Schnebeleh - we are discussing the working relationship's between Management and Staff in CIA during the relevant periods before it was being prepared and reviewed. Do you have any views as to the working relationship between Mr. Gamble Sinclair and Mr. Cumings regarding the preparation of this report?
Mr. Schnebeler: What respect, sir:
Let's go with, I guess, officially - was there any distinction or firm policy about drawing up chaining from the end so the.t it would be unacceptable for either Mr. Sinclair or Mr. Gamble to go directly to Mr. Cumings without first going to you.
Mr. Schnebeler: No. Really, they have that which I still answered it. My coment was I would appreciate it if there was a problem they had at leas' discuss it with me first. However, I don't want to stop them or instill any' reasons of a big wall there that they had a perfect right. Mr. Cumings worked both ways. He would work through me but he also would work directly with the investigators.sometime. That's the way he could man work. Whether you like or not, he'did that. He had that habit. He wanted that answer new so he would go right to the person and talk to him. A lot of time I would not know specifically what a certain area was about. But generally, no, they had the authority to go directly to Mr. Cumings. And especially when you can't use that context across-the-board, I'm sorry. I'm talking about a specific case, like this one.
j Yes. That, too.
l Mr. Schnebeler: Let's confine it to the Comission investiga-I tion where all four of us were very intimate involved in Cummings.
l- He could speak as low about the techniques and the problem as any of us could .
In other words, that's how involved?
I Mr. Schnebeler: So, yes, he would go directly to the people and people could answer him.
~
Were there any instances where Mr.' Gamble and/or Mr. Sinclair went directly to Mr. Cumings with problems about the nature of changes ( ) without going thresh you or you had no knowledge.
Mr. Schnebeler: I can't say specifically that I recall but I would say that it would not surprise me. They could have gone to Mr. Cumings, you know, without rny knowing. He could call them in i- without me. See, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying that Dave or John went by me on purpose. I'm saying that Mr. Cunm@gs could have called
- and said
- " Hey, Dave, how about this?" Or," John, how about this?"
i
y
- So, yes, it could have happened very liberally.
Did Mr. Cumings periodically call you in and advise you of any changes he had made in the report or any modifications he was thinking about making?
Mr. Schnebeler: 'I think generally when he did, he would call all three of us in. I'm not saying he couldn't have called me in on maybe on a certain area wanting to know hey, dummy, why did you let
. this thing go through or something to me but, I would have to guess that generally he would call the three of us in. He might have called me in or he might have called Dave in by himself.
Was there any discussion prior to going out to - I may have asked this - tell me if I have - prior to going out to Region III in August of 1981, was there any discussion about what to call that trip, whether it was to be listed as a interview or reinterview, written up as a separate interview. Was there any discussion among any of you?
Mr. Schnebeler: Could have been. Yes. We discussed it. i
' Dave wasn't happy about it at all and I'm sure John wasn't. !
About going back out. What they were saying it.just was not 1
accepted investigative technique.
They said this to both yourself and Mr. Cumings?
Mr. Schnebeler: Oh yes, I'm sure. At leastthey said it to me anyway. And I'm sure, I don't know, whether they mentioned it to Mr. Cumings or not. But, I know that to me they weren't too happy about it. As for Mr. Cumings, I could have brought it to him , they could have, but he made it very clear that he felt that he wanted this report to be foolproof. He just felt that that '
while I might not been accepted technique that he didn't want to be left out in left field and find some inaccuracies in the .
4 report. He felt a little bit of if there was any compromising at l all he didn't feel as compromised from the standpoint of where a person is reading his own interview. Now he's not letting you ,
read hers or hers read yours.. Only that person. That was very clear to us. So he felt that it was worth whatever criticism <
you might to me he said this that he wanted to make sure this whole thing was clean. We knew what we knew the attention the thing i was going to get. Not just inside but externally. We had three i
i newspapers waiting for us. We had Congressional and others Committees was waiting for.it.
i Was there any concern or raised at the time that well, the August meeting with Region III may blunt internal criticism that could lead to greater external criticism. ,
4
- , ,, , , . - - - . - - - . - - - . ,. , - - ,,- --+ -n---
Mr. Schnebeler: Well, they could have discussed it. I'm not saying they couldn't have. But I think there again --
Let's go back a little. Was any decision made not to identify or list this August Meeting at Region III as an interview?
Mr. Schnebeler: Well, it doesn't ring a bell as to why we would or would not talk about it. It could have been - no - I don't know. You mean in why it wasn't in the report a separate statement made that--
Why I know it's in the report but there's an asterick that indicates that certain individuals were reinterviewed on August 3 or 4,1981. You may want to reflect on the initial version.
Mr. Schnebeler: And, what was the question now?
Certain interviews or at the very end of the interview there's an asterick indicates that particular individual was re-interviewed on August.3rd or August 4th of 1981. That is, maybe Kappler or Philip Ward.
Mr. Schnebeler: Let me see - is on bottom of page 16 it says an asterick changes incorporated-pursuant to reinterview of 8/4 so this goes back to my other question where there was a change made based on that reinterview which obviously was our error because we've acknowledged it here.
Was 'the use of that asterick notation approved by either your-self or Mr. Cummings?
Mr. Schnebeler: Well, obviously it would have to be approved by Cummings. And I would have to take my responsibility for it too.
Yeah, I mean, no --
What I call responsibility--
Mr. Schnebeler: Oh, no, you can't put your head in the sand because I was the Division Director, so, yes, I'd have to see up.
When was the report officially issued?
Mr. Schnebeler: August 7.
Was the report actually transmitted August 77 Mr. Schnebeler: Yes sir.
No at some later date?
Mr. Schnebeler: No sir. It might have been August 8.
Within the next business day.
Mr. Schnebeler: Ohn definitely). I see no reason whn it tmld
i .
l Obviously Mr. Cummings must have been on leave that day. And I signed i it for him so I.would say it either went out that day or the very next. l l
As you were finishing up the review you mentioned before that there was some pressure to get this report out certainly within~ the Connission and externally. As you approached say the beginning of July--
Prime dates ,
Yeah, was there a acknowledgment of the need to get this out? l Mr. Schnebeler: Oh I think, oh all of us were I'm sure l Mr. Cunnings, myself and the two fellows wanted to get it out. Yes.
Because we wanted to get this thing away so we could concentrate on ,
i the criminal investigation.
- And I believe you mentioned before that this four month delay is not unconnon.
- Mr. Schnebeler: Well, I'd say for - I think for a job this size you can't say all investigation - no, some investigation don't even take a month or two. You do it right and you get out. In all honesty, I think it probably could have been issued earlier now obviously how much earlier? I don't know. I really can't say why Mr. Cunnings didn't approve it earlier on certai , aspects of it.
3 I can't answer. I just know that we did do rewurk doing some of the time frame. Yes.
You saying it could have been approved at an earlier date than Mr. Cunnings just didn't approve it.
Mr. Schnebeler: Well no, I think probably it was a matter of all of us. The rework that was required was probably start Cunnings pout because he maybe didn't maybe crack the whip on me
, quite enough. I in turn did not crack the whip on the two people hard enough to do some of the work. We let things maybe.naybe we should work 10-hours a day, I don't know.
But you had other assignments.
Mr. Schnebeler: Oh, definitely there were other things 4
going on. Yes, no question about it. So did the fellows. We 7~
had other things going on. But to say its unconnon I think it might been a little too long from the field work to the report issue date. I know we had conflict between the two people (undistinguishablewords)
Between which two people.
l i
Mr. Schnebeler: Well between Dave and John and Mr. Cummings.
I mean that's nothing, nothing secret about that.
Does personality conflict--
Mr. Schnebeler: There words I mean a matter of reports so--
Oh, I see - the conflicts were about the style.
Mr. Schnebeler: That's.right. And what should be included and what shouldn't be included.
In terms of the style - were conflicts merely choice of words Mr. Schnebeler: Both - now go back to saying the choice of words and some of the words upset him. Some of the words and choice of the words as well as the what was said. I'll give you an example - we have a persoa that comits murder and you also have got a person that's jaywalking - you really don't go after him with .
the same type of club, law enfarcement, or other resources against the poor guythat's jaywalking versus the guy commit murder. Well, we have several people that could not separate those two. In other words, regardless of whether you jaywalk or if you comitted murder you should be hit as hard as possible. So consequently sometimes the choice of words reflected that person's thinking. So that's what we have to watch out for. The choice of words was GET HIM.
Yes, get him, and, I think every case you have to review on its merits and I think Cumings did the same thing. So, consequently, '
some of the words some of our people chose were I guess he thought were overkill.
By some of these people, are you referring to Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Gamble?
Mr. Schnebeler: Lets say some of our employees.
Laughter - To the extent that there were choice of word problems in this report, are we referring to Mr. Gamble and Mr. -Sinclair?
We'll walk right on.
Well, Mr. Schnebeler.
~
Mr. Schnebeler: That's right I actuate 152.
Laughter - OK.
xMrxxSahnahalax: Are you finished with that now?
Yeah.
~
~
Judge Hoyt: Several words struck me about this Memorandum of March 24 from Dave Gamble to you has been the very detailed listing of these problems or allegations raised in the documents and when he wrote it to you, he tells you in the investigation and all these sections - he breaks them down for you. And he tells you that Jim has asked for this breakdown.. Is that Jim Cummings?
Mr. Schnebeler: I would say, yes, it would have to be either Jim Keppler or Jim Cummings and I can't see Keppler acting this way.
Must have been Cumings.
Judge Hoyt: Did you ever consider forwarding this over to Jim Cummings?
Mr. Schnebeler: I was just trying to think why if he asked for
. it why didn't he get it which would be the normal procedure to give i
it to him but now I don't know why. If you only got the initial package I don't know whether this was the initial package or whether it was more to it. I'm sorry I just can't. I don't know why - no further effort on this is necessary.
, Judge Hoyt: That's what you're telling Dave.
Mr. Schnebeler: Yeah, as I say, I just don't know why there must have been something between the time I got this and j
wrote this back to Dave. Unless there's a piece of paper missing.
Judge Hoyt: What piece of paper?
Mr. Schnebeler: Well, I don't know.
Judge Hoyt: What' piece of paper can you define that would be missing which would help you?
Mr. Schnebeler: Well, what I'm wondering about is - why would I write this on this piece of paper when I could have wrote the same thing on this piece of paper. It looks like - I'm not saying it is -
but I would never I don't think attach a separate piece of paper.
1 just to make this short a note when I could have wrote on this piece of paper. I don't know. It just don't make sense.
Judge Hoyt: Well,* don't you think on this pieces of i paper that you 're looking at here are xeroxed copies of pieces of note paper !
Mr. Schnebeler: Oh, yes Ma'am, yes, Ma'am - this is all xerox. But I'm wondering - I'm trying 'to answer your question !
l just by guessing but could I have sent this to Cumings and that part's missing here. He probably m4ght have sent it to me l say give it back we don't need it or something. I'm trying to answer your question. I don't know. I'm just saying I don't i
l I
think if Jim asked for it knowing me, he would have gotten it if he asked for it. My question now is, like yours, why did he get it, and the only logical explanation I can see I handed it to him and he said no further work or the routing slip from me to Cummings .
is missing. Just, you know, just lost somehow.That's the only thing I can think of.
Judge Hoyt: Did you agree with what Dave set forth in that Memorandum or did you feel that - By God we've sat with this thing for months now and gone back and forth and enough is enough -
let's wind it up. Is that sort of the spirit which you--
Mr. Schnebeler: I think we all felt that way. We worked ourselves on this thing - trips and TDY trips and been away for weeks on.end that we wanted to get this thing wrapped up. Yes, Ma'am.
Judge Hoyt: That was in March just before the writing of the report itself.
Judge Hoyt: .: I think though you're saying in effect as of March 24 or thereabouts because we don't know when your - you had concluded that there was nothing else could be done when the allega-tion came from GAP.
Mr. Schnebeler: I would have to say - I'm just guessing now I think Jim asked for a breakdown in allegations to show which one being held. I think at this timeframe which was March 24 he wanted to make sure that of the allegations that GAP had made that those that were under the direct purview of CIA we had covered them all.
That's why I'm guessing why he asked for this. If what allegations were made. that we have to respond to. We would be responsible for.
.So that's what I'm assuming. That's why he asked someone or in this case, he asked Dave to break down GAP allegations to show which one's being handled by IE and CIA. So I think he wanted to make sure that, hey, as of this date we probably said we're getting ready to write the report or something and he said now let's make sure that .
everything has been covered by OIA.
Judge Hoyt: Everything has been put in some appropriate compartment.
Mr. Schnebeler: And we've covered all the allegations either through an interview or to documentation or through support. Yes, Ma'am.
Judge Hoyt: When you got that Memorandum from Dave, did you look at those allegations and did you independently make on your own a judgment that they had all gone into proper compartments and were being treated appropriately?
~
v . .
.. . j l
l Mr. Schnebeler: I can only say as a manager I hope I did that.
To tell you to your face that I specifically did that and recall it -
No Ma'an I can't say that. I'd be kidding syself. Few~ years ago, I couldn't do that. I would hope as a manager I would look at this and hey, yes, knowing what I do, time clock padding, hey, we don't need that - filing issue of things - sale of a stolen gun, hey, we don't need that, labor material personnel, we don't need that. The guy-works on his private home. That's not part of our thing. We come down to independent test of graphs we got that one out, rely on documentation. We got that one out or we code that and handed it to you. That's what I'd presume I would jo.
Judge Hoyt: On this, I want to move into another area.
Oh, not on this document. !
Judge Hoyt: Let me just say its just this one question and i Mr. Schnebeler, why did you wait until the fourth of August to go l out to Region III when the report was going to be issued within the i next few days and, in fact, it was issued the seventh or the eighth, . i as you indicated here.
Mr. Schnebeler: Why didn't it go sooner?
Judge Hoyt: Why wait so long? If that was a concern that you had about what Region III's reaction of this report would be, why did you wait until the last minute so to speak, the last few days?
Mr. Schnebeler: I can only say that probably that's when the report was completely finalized and signed off and then once it was signed off then was in a position to take that out as our final product. Other than that, I can't answer you.
Judge Hoyt: You don't know then what the last possible date was that the last draft of this report was-----
~
Mr. Schnebeler: No Ma'am, because when we worked,'I can say this, that we , during the whenever the first draft was done of the' nice neat guy and then maybe the product of a few more drafts there might have been another typo but I'd be willing to bet you along about from June on that I can ramen6er this very vivid we would sit around a table and we'd be working on a yellow note pads 1 we would rewrite something and give it to the secretary and we '
would be doing and she would come back with another insert which they'd cut and paste. I don't know whether we really had a good draft toward the latter stages and I'm saying let's say July 9.
We might have, I don't know. But I know there was a lot of cutting and pasting, I know Cummings took it home at night and .
worked on it, on weekends, then he would come tack in and dictate it to Ann, she in turn would type up three copies and give me one, Dave and John one. I just know that's the way it finally pulled
s together and my guess is it probably pulled together to his satis-faction,as Office Director, probably about the first of August. And then once we got together that's when he might have said,I'm guessing, I think we should go out at least to make sure we're on firm ground now and up the people we do business.
Judge Hoyt: Do.you feel that after delaying so long that this was wise decision - did you feel that you became in the chain of command situation that you owed to your superior the duty of telling him that perhaps you shouldn't make that trip out to .
Region III?
Mr. Schnebeler: I can't' recall completely. But I know we had a discussion on this. I know John and Dave discussed it with -
me and I don't know whether the three of us went in to Cumings or I went in to Cumings and, at least, discussed with him their strong feelings about going to Region III to review and I'm almost positive Dave was with me. I don't think John so much be-cause John wasn't involved at.that time. But I'm sure Dave gave him some real strong words on it. And I don't recall- -
words Judge Hoyt: Yourf very strong?
Mr. Schnebeler: I just felt I can't remember now how strong.
I just felt I told Jim that I thought the fellows had a valid point.
That we in the past had never discussed draft investigative reports with management or with anybody. His coments were like I said, first of all he said: In the past most of our reports have always been against the person we've investigated a person a resident inspector. A accounting officer, a supply officer, a this. This was a really an investigation of a region therefore we weren't-really investigating a person but a region. Based on that, based on and he knew, as we all did, he knew the circulation, the recipients of this report, who was going to get it, even though it was an internal report, it was going to be a very short matter of time before the people got it and it was going to be released and he is going to make sure of that. Everything was
- right and that was his bottom line when going out he sa'id: I'll take the criticism for deviating a little bit from accepted factors but I'd rather do that than to get a phone call three months from now from a senator. a congressman, a chairman, saying Cumings why did you let this go out in this report. And that was his basis that was his bottom line and once he went that route I told Dave, I said, hey, he got his point, you got your point - what can we do.
. I said let's get our bag packed and go out and do it. That's what 1 we did. ;
Question here - did Mr. Cumings have reason to believe that his inspectors may have gotten or investigators may have gotten their sumaries wrong?
Mr. Schnebeler: No, I well I'm not the man's mind so I can't tell you why he did it. No, I just think he wanted to make sure everything was right.
_ Did he ask Mr. Gamble and Mr. Sinclair - are you sure everything is right - did he ask you?
Mr. Schnebeler: I don't know.
You don't remember any questions to you or to the other principal investigators. Or lead him to believe that maybe he should give Region III its second and third chance to correct any errors. -
Mr. Schnebeler: I don't think - we weren't going to correct any errors that Region III did --
No, but I mean-- transcribing or doing the sunmaries.
Mr. Schnebeler: I don't know what - at this point in time.
I don't know what the reason was or what brought him to his mind.
If there was a specific instance found in the r2 port - maybe he found something. I don't recall. But I don't recall what triggered 4 this to start in this light. I don't know. At least I don't recall .
Maybe there was an error as somebody had goof - I don't know.
But you don't recall something like that being identified to you. It would be something you'd remember.
Mr. Schnebeler: I think I would have too because I would have gotten chewed out.
Judge Hoyt: Do you know Mr. Schnebeler if anyone else in your office beside the four of you we've talked about rather extensively here - you know of anyone else was privvy to this report?
l Mr. Schnebeler: The secretary.
1 Judge Hoyt: Outside the secretary.
Mr. Schnebeler: The secretaries - this was before it was issued or after, or what?
Judge Hoyt: Before it was issued.
Would Mr. Smith have any involvement?
Mr. Schnebeler: That's what I'm trying to think. I don't know whether Dave did or not - I mean Ron Smith - he was never involved never than Foyer with Zinmer.
Or Region III?
Mr. Schnebeler: Didn't go on any trips - Ron was not - no way, unless he was used for proofingfor some reason to look for something.
He might have read portions of it and I wasn't aware of. No.
4
Al Freer went to Zimmer but I don't think he got involved in this. ,
l He went to Zimmer on another -- l Mr. Schnebeler: He went he was going to take over from Dave. For that reason that Dave and another John and Al
. But giving one whole report some-where, I don't recall. I'm not saying they couldn't have because when ycu got office
- Judge Hoyt: Which brings me to ask you this: What kind of security did you maintain over those drafts - did you put your box in the safe at night, desk drawer, cabinet?
Mr. Schnebeler: All the while our investigative reports -
the policy was all investigative files h&d to be returned to the file cabinet at the end of the day.
Judge Hoyt: Let's talk about this report - was this report handled that way?
4
- - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - , . - - - ---m---- ,
- -, 9
Side II Tape RE: Schnebeler Interview - May 12, 1983 The process of this report -- My office was the only secure office in their physical area. This office was open. Mine was the only one that was locked. I don't know where, I'll be very honest, I don't know where. No, first of all. Honestly, no they were secure because I see now all kinds of xeroxing someone did. Honestly, David John had copies of it, their office was not secure. They could have locked them up in their desks. Once the report was issued and -- I don't know where they were stored at. Either in the safe in my office or in the file cabinets. But during the processing of it, now that I think back, they didn't -- in any of the investigators drawers, file cabinets, briefcase.
We, know for a fact that they were in Mr. Cummings' home.
Yes, the drafts from the drafts in fact he was working, yes. I can only say that whatever I had was always locked.
To your entire office?
I. locked my door when I left.
Judge Hoyt: Four copies we know exist Of the first draft? ,
Judge Hoyt: Yes.
Very first draft?
Judge Hoyt: Yes.
I would have to say at least four, yes Ma'am. I would have to say Cumings, myself and the two (garbled) I would say the minimum.
Judge Hoyt: You know whether the second, third or ever how many were drafts or you know how many copies of those were made by the secretary? .
No Ma'am because they -- when the first draft of a pair either Dave or John themselves or had one of the secretaries xerox x number of copies.
Judge Hoyt: Does x equal the four copies.
Let me ask something -- questions at this point sound like they are off the wall. Somebody forgot to ask someone (laughter). Ah when you originally scoped this investigation in January,1981, was there any understanding on your part that DIA was suppose to monitor the Region III investigation of the health and safety issues?
No sir.
2 Was there a specific decision made or just (A response not understood - garbled)
No.
Hey, I was referring to the Applegate.
No, it was very clear from the Chainnan's letter that we to only to .
review the Region III's investigation and that Region III was chaired to
- do their investigation and look at all the Applegate offices and come up with their report. That's clear, to me, its very clear. But we don't
, have any -- we were not assigned nor do we have the responsibility to monitor what IAE does. Only through an audit program or through an investigative program, but we were no way controlling Mr. Keppler at Region III as to what he was doing. No No, that was not our job nor did
, we want that job. You know, no, I mean no I talk about from a conflict of interest point of view how could we monitor during the operation stage of it and then turn back around and go in on it and inspect it ourselves. It wouldn't be good.
In your opinion, is the sumary that was finally issued on August 7, 1981. Is that some scope of that sumary consistent with the scope of the investigation as originally determined in January of 19817
- As to the stage that I got into it, yes sir it was. Thats exactly :
what we was suppose to have done. Was the Region III investigation :
adequate? And we come and said hey it was unsatisfactory and we tried to show why.
- You believe that your sumary went to the issue of why it... ,
Yes Sir, I think it did real clear about when we- talked about the i i well packages acceptance of the judgment of the inspectors. ;
i So in your opinion there was no change in scope of this l investigation over the pass in time. i Not when I was involved in it, now there might have been changes from day one when they first sat down and I wasn't there that first week '
or however how long it was. But as far as I can see, no our biggest problem was trying to keep the scope narrowed because its just too big a job I mean that was the biggest job that I think I had was keeping down the road and then in view of some of the problems that were uncovered by Region III and so forth which let us open our investigative side made it
more difficult (garbled) we wanted to keep that criminal stuff completely away from our Region III investigation. Don't get into that.
Not into the adequacy of construction, nothing.
Merely, the adequacy of this particular investigation...
All we want to know is did Region III do a good job, Applegate said they didn't and we have to go with Applegate. The Comission said lets find out so they sent us out and we said hey whats with Applegate, let them do it.
I have no further questions Judge Hoyt: I have no further questions do you have anything you wish to ask about Sir.
Ma'am, only for what its worth about two sentences. First, as a
. taxpayer, not as a ex-NRC employee I think it is a shame that we are spending money and hours doing this type of thing but ask me (garbled) 4 Judge Hoyt: Now are you talking about the investigation you did
. Sir or...
I No Ma'am, the investigation they're doing. I think its a shame its just a complete waste of time and effort everythings possible, but I know we have got to do it so we'll do it. Scme of -- If you look at some of the allegations here, obviously the f.erson doesn't know what he's talking about which omits Appidgate. I was involved on two things here and its complete wrong. I can't say whether Mr. Cumings fails to appreciate this seriousness, but knowing Cumings, thats not him. How could not appreciate it when he signs two investigations and brings me over as a GS-15 of another job to work with the problems. I don't understand that, but thats to be seen. Then he said we failed to
. monitor the second one, thats not our job. There's no way we can go in there and monitor their job. That wasn't given to us.by the Chairman.
There's no way (garbled) allowed to go to monitor. TUGC0 wouldn't stand still for that. There set the ground rules, thats just (garbled).... I went out there, this was when -- what he is alluding to here was the eight hour meeting we had with Keppler, Devine and the Region III staff.
I was invited out only to sat there to make sure we knew what was going on, but it wasn't Keppler. He didn't have to ask us to come out, but he did so we--I went out and sat with him., We also had a representative ,
from the I&E headquarters. They spent eight hours with this man and .l they tried to convince him that for the sake of the investigation, lets i leave out the beer cans, the belt buckles, the guns, the prostitution I and the parties (garbled) make that up, we can't do it. Now, lets go !
through the specific allegations andlyou tell us who we should see, how l
\
. i
- _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ , , . . _ - _ , - , -,,y ._
, t 1
we should see them and so forth. Thats where we spend a buck at a time.
1 And I say they did because they had the instructions. OIA had nothing
, to do with this, we can't go out and determine whether they were (garbled)...or not. I know we had problems because one man Ghout would say Joe Doe said this Region III will go out and talk to the same Joe Doe if he said "I never said that to Applegate or to Ghout" we had (garbled) of the same thing. But getting back to these things, the one here yeah, (garbled) this investigation of wrongdoing is eminent.
Cummings and I argued with DOJ not to suspend out something. They basically directed us to because of this (garbled). We didn't go out there with open arms and say hey take us off of this thing. We thought we had a nice case to work up, we really did, but they specifically and got very very argumentativel going to have the (garbled) go y strong to the aboutChaiman it saying and have we know you taken we are off.
Cumings argued, I was with him when he was talking.
Was this a main Justice attorney or U.S. Attorney's Office?
, U.S. attorney in Cincinnati and also, I think his office was in Columbus, I believe his headquarters.
I forgot the gentleman's name now.
Garbled. As a matter of fact John went out and had two meetings with this man.
That was John Sinclair.
Yes. Garbled for some reason Applegate has a something (garbled) it might have an influence here, but he had no support of his feelings.
- He said I need the very resource to investigate Applegate. Well, I don't know what all he did, we have no way of knowing. I refute that though at least as far as OIA is concerned. We did (garbled) backwards. I think our report thats what surprising about this, how strong can our report be against Region III. How much longer can you say (I forgot g sumary, one parable, one sentence out of the whole thing, complete unsatisfactory) i That was a sentence of Mr. Cumings
- That was the one he -- I wanted to turn it down and he held strong to that word. He said no I didn't like the word unsatisfactory, because to me it connotated the whole investigation that Region III did was unsatisfactory. I felt that there was some portions, it might have been
, just one phase, little phase, but I felt they did some things right.
Cumings said no the whole thing was unsatisfactory as far as he was l concerned and thats the statement he repeated. Now if a man was '
l l
. m l:
/
- compromising and did all of this stuff, why would he leave that in his report. I just think it is a shame. I am not saying that we didn't i drag our feet on some of it, yes, I think we could have... hind sight is great and I think we could have compressed (garbled) yes I think we ,
should have. Maybe our priorities was a little bit off I don't know.
We could problems personality have gotten between it out!
somein maybe June orand (not understood July), but I do know we had management because of the way some of them felt. That created problems -- I '
think cooperation got a little bit -- they were least desirable than what should be. I think they could have cooperated more, recognizing Cumings is the bpss and if he wants to let this thing go out in a certain way thats it. We have told him for awhile we wanted to change things or not change things' and if he still wants to do it, he sign it,
. not them. He's the Office Director, he's got to answer to the Chaiman or to the public. We had problems, yeih, no question about it. I don't think the problems that this thing talks about any way, shape or fom talks about what (garbled) these are just... I don't know what happened 1
to them, I really don't understand (garbled). Cumings (garbled) to me, I don't know why.
Is it your position that the sumary that is contained OIA Report is a complete and accurate statement of the investigative findings of the investigation?
Now there was things that we ran across doing it that are not in the report, but they are not your main issues. That's what I'm saying.
- yes, they're gcod parties the training people (garbled). We are going to go out and raise heck on that. As a matter of fact, we have even ,
scheduled some -- in our budget. We had programed where we are going i
to visit each Region for two week just to look at their training program l to see if it was bad. No question about it, that's in our budget, a !
long item budget. Because the guys were all disturbed when I said we were going to spend a lot of our time on the road to prove his point.
Given your belief that the purpose of ,the scope of this investigation was detennined, why did Region III conduct an inadequate investigation that the sumaries findings in their report completely sets forth all the deficiencies and the causes of those deficiencies that you identified.
Causes? We didn't get into any causes. That wasn't part of our (notunderstood). We didn't go into that -- to the particular causes of everything. We only went into the fact that was it adequate and we say hey no and a ton of reasons, I think we say, as to why they were adequate, a calling card. But there was also other causes which caused (garbled), that was going to be part of our follow-up work.
1 l l
, w e
J 4
- I see, so there was an indication at least in your mind that one of the cause could have been a failing in the generic I&E inspection program.
Sure, when a man says he threw away his notes of interviewing a witness and then he make up a formal (garbled) then there is something wrong. You know that if you talk to a man for four hours, then you come back and then six months or a year later the Director gets up and comes and ask you well can I see your interviews and say we don't have one or can I see your notes, I don't have one. Something else. But the problem is when you talk to some of the other people, they have them.
So that's one reason why we want to go back out there because J. Phillips said he didn't keep them on this case. Now, maybe he conveniently threw them away, I don't know. No and I say, if anything, I was going to argue against Cummings (garbled) about the word unsatisfactory. I thought that was too strong for the whole thing. I think it should have been that this phase and this phase is unsatisfactory, but these might have been marginal. But he said no that this will be all unsatisfactory. I said yes Sir. I think David Giles can back me up on that because I (not understood) with him in a telephone boo'th from Ohio.
! They say your experience and your involvement in the investigations of this matter -- would it be your position -- is your position the adequacies of this investigation are due to an inadequate investigator or inadequate investigative techniques.
I don't want to say the investigator, it wouldn't be fair to him, I would say it was probably due to -- I can't say techniques because techniques would go back to investigator -- I would say it would probably be the program itself was bad and basically NRC was at fault ,
, because it was not a standard -- they have a manual. We didn't believe that the investigative program was being administered in a standard format &:9. supervised within the agency. Each Region had its own investigative staff. Each Region had its own policies. Each Region had its own Director, he instilled how he felt. Some Regions were pro investigations and some Regions were anti-investigations. I mean anti-investigations. Consequently, you can what you come up with, you got an investigator in Region I doing something entirely different from the investigator in Region IV is doing, entirely different. So that was the reason why we said hey, this should be a matter of a special
- inspection or investigation -- we been calling it inspection -- but we
, were going to do it. Now lets point out to NRC management or Chairman f that our program is bad and we conveyed this, I think Cummings did verbally or in a memorandum to the Chairman after, I think, many, many sessions with the Chairman. That's when I think one of the things that
{ came about was the quality of reorganization of the I&E investigative 4
l 7
functions. Took it away from each of the Regional Directors and made this one central office and I think one of the connittees had a lot of input on this after seeing our report. They felt that hey something is wrong out there, make this under one office, however, if its under Marques, Udall's or one of them or one those connittees they've got.
4 That's how he reports to you now. So that was the reason, without beating a drum, this report caused the reorganization I think, the final blow of the I&E inspection. We had only one man.
Let me ask this, does CIA have or did it have any written policies -
on initiation of conduct disposition of investigations, any fcnnal policies?
4 We had a handbook that was like other people in draft days
- (laughter) and there again it got pushed back on the back burner. I
- would say there was some memos out from. I think McTiernan had some in his day, I think he called Walker's memos or training memos I don't know what, but there was a few out yes. Cunnings had issued some, I know one of the' things that when I first took over there was a lack, I felt, of continuity between investigators so I suggested to Cunnings that we have a weekly meeting of our knowledge so he can put what may be verbal policies, this meant on the table in front of all of us at one time so we could understand. For administering oaths, recording your interviews do you keep your notes, all of these types of things. We had these meetings for quite a while.
The (garbled) has never been issued. '
I don't know. I don't know. I know it was (garbled) that I know got out.
(Garbled).
Judge Hoyt: After a couple -- its always a (garbled) for an
- interview going a long time. Anywhere along the line, Mr. Schneblen, did you feel that your charter from the (not understood) was restrictive by what you were finding and that you should go back to the Chairman, "Say, we.need to get this thing broader." Did Mr. Cummings ever consider it, did you ever consider it or was there ever any discussion in the office?
I don't think so.
i Judge Hoyt: In hind sight would you say that a broader charter would have been more hopeful or more restrictive or how would you evaluate that?
1
-l
. ,,-r--w-.-.w.. , . - - , . - - - - - ,...%.--, , , , - , . . . - - - - - - - . . , - -
1 For the only broader charter we would have had got the bid would have been for us to -- but we couldn't have -- the only way we could have done something else. You ring a bell, I think we discussed something like this. I brought it up of course that was long time ago
- with the NRC. I felt that if we would task with all of the allegations that (not understood) made, we did not have the expertise to do it so where would be get it from, either outside or within. So I think we discussed it (garbled) or maybe we could task Region I, II, IV and V, not III with a radiologist (sounds like raologist) and this guy and this guy bring it together and then put them on our team and go out as a big team and do this review, but then the problem was you had taken those people away from their critical jobs for so long. I think we might just rush that around a little bit, but we did that during the one down at Virginia (garbled) plant. We were involved in an investigation there that fault instructions, wells were bad and one man was supposely shot at or something so he came to us and we had to have a meeting or something, probably (garbled) we talked to for awhile and then we got and we did some initial work and then we turned it over to I&E. They do the resources from any Region except Region II which was responsible and they come up with (garbled). Looking back, we could have broaden it, i but I don't -- then it have missed, no -- we could have broaden it, but I then we would not have come up with the main (garbled) that Applicant was' saying it was a bad investigation. That I think we covered well, I really do. Now we could have some spinoffs which I think we recognized one was in training area. We were going to do ourselves. We also had another spinoff we had in that program. I just don't know how we could I i taken on more without getting so darned technical. We could not.
Judge Hoyt: Sir, do you have anything to followup on that. I had
. forgotten I had assessed time when we discuss what the problem was (garbled). Do you know whether there was an when they were outside the office (garbled) y discussion by Mr. Cummings I thing we discussed it but You didn't ask it Judge Hoyt: Maybe I didn't hear it.
You ma Judge Hoyt)y(Laughter) be better at than I did (talking simultaneously wtih Judge Hoyt: Was anyone else outside that office.
- I think my answer was conceivably it could have been with one of the Comissioners, Chainnan. During a nonnal meeting, you might have
! Cumings (garbled)...
. w
-g-Judge Hoyt: I recall what you say now I am not-saying that some -- I don't know -- to sqy knowledge -
anyway, direct knowledge, I don't have any specific (garbled) he. talked to outside of our office. He could have talked with them and he could have talked with someone in I&E as to that we are still working on it, it is down the road aways, but we are going to wrap it up in two months.
Or he could have said yes we are going to talke with Xeppler or somebody. As to the findings, obviously, he must have talked and I did too probably to the Resident Inspector and Zinner and we had to to have gotten those well packages in, I'm sure of that. We might have talked to someone in (garbled) to get some technical help from in certain areas.
Judge Hoyt: You know it was such a sensitive report I think that would be well recognized, would you agree to that.
No question about yeah because we (garbled) in Region III pretty bad.
Judge Hoyt: It was such a sensitive report being out sought of left hanging to dry. This has been usually an interest by someone at the high levels of our agency, regardless of what (garbled). All these (garbled) inquiry. We had anything like that here with this (not understood). Do you know of anyone inquiring on any level outsfde that office other than the one you just discussed.
(Garbled) Applegate and Keppler and I think Dudley Thompson and I think I&E recalled Judge Hoyt: Lets go way above that, lets go up to the stratosphere and see if we come out with something there.
(Garbled with laughter) I don't know, first hand. I think I recall where Jim might have come back and said hey we.got to get mov.ing again because the Chainnan just asked me how the status report was. I think that type of thing, he could have asked at his weekly or monthly staff meetings.
Judge Hoyt: Did he .say (garbled)...and by the way I told him x, y, z about the status and this is where we are. What did he respond or what did he follow up with?
I don't know, I think what my feeling was, the contact was to get the report out rather than the content of it, now I am not saying they could have discussed content, but my reaction was they was concerned about timeliness to get this thing moving.
. u Judge Hoyt: Was there more than one of these conversations that you think Mr. Cusmings may have had some...
I'm just sumising now, I don't know, I don't know, I really don't.
Judge Hoyt: Did you accompany Mr. Cummings when he went down to meet with the Chairman, for example?
4 No, because usually these would be at a nomal staff meeting and he always went as Office Director to the staff meeting.
Judge Hoyt: Did you go to the staff meeting?
No, only when he didn't go.
Judge Hoyt: When you did go to staff meetings, were you asked anything about the --
No Ma'am.
Judge Hoyt: Zimer Report or (garbled) report?
No Ma'am.
Judge Hoyt: Applegate affair?
No Ma'am OIA did turn out a monthly status report --
That's correct, every month we send our status report to the Chainnan -- Connission. Those were more or less -- we would probably say investigation continued.
Judge Hoyt: They were (not understood), they were not substantive would you say.
I have no more questions at this time.
Judge Hoyt: I think we are about the end of the line here.
Obviously, we would like to request your assistance in the event that we want to meet -- talk with you again.
Next time, come down to my place.
Judge Hoyt: Where is that, Sir?
i e
I
, , ,--. - ,-- , , . . - - . , - . , - - -. . _ _ - . . _ . , . - - . _ - . . _ _ . , , , - - , , - , - - - , - . . - , - - - - , - , - - - - - - - , - _ , . . , - . - + ~ _ , .
., m (Garbled) I'm at the water place, I got a water place down --
Judge Hoyt: Anytime. (Laughter) Only if you can get me some trout. We would of course like to chat with you again sir and if you have any phone number other than the one we reached you on this time, we would appreciate having it so that we -- in the event we did need to talk with you on some point. Certainly not be, hopefully not be at this length, but would be more pointed in its question because we have roamed quite freely through the meadows, valleys in this thing. We thank you very much. . .
My pleasure. -
Judge Hoyt: ...for coming here for this.
You got a nice job to do (tune beat upon table) and I still think its even.
(Laughter)
Judge Hoyt: Okay sir, Thank you very much. its even.
i l
- - , - - - .- , - . - - - . - - . - , - - - - - . . . ,,,..-.,----,,--e--...,.,,., . - . - . - - , - , . - - - , - . . - - , - , .