ML20148D839
| ML20148D839 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/1978 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148D778 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811060027 | |
| Download: ML20148D839 (34) | |
Text
' , 1 1
1 4
l 1 ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l 3 j 4 DISCUSSION OF OIA/OGC INQUIRY IN 5 TESTIMONY OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 6
FOR OPERATIONS 7
3 (Closed to Public Attendance) 9 l
10 g
,, Chairman's Conference Room f
^^
1717 H Street, N.W. j Washington, D.C. ;
12 }
Monday, June 12, 1978 3
I 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m.,
.2 Joseph Hendrie, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
17 PRESENT:
13 Chairman Hendrie 19 ,
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford 20 :
I l 21 ! '
e ;
22 ! ,
i 23 24 l (Note: This transcript was prepared from a tape 25 ! recording.)
I l
il
- a. ,
781 ?G 0417 a.. __ . .
i a 2 a
1 PROCEEDINGS' 2
3
"^ ^" " * " " "' " " *** Y ""9*#'
I used to be interested in military history and things like 4
, tMat and I remember reading the great strategists and there a
~
were two kinds: those who committed their reserves early in
~
order to carry the maximum force fonned, and those who never committed.their reserves early and were always able to come in later in the game. l The next time we get in to one of these -- what this has to do with things is the next time.we get in to one 11 of.these wrangles, let us remember that we never commit our final and ultimate investigating unit until very, very 12 late. Otherwise, we will find ourselves once more with 1 14 i nobody left to investigate the people who have been most 15 recently accused.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, that's a sound 17 -
principle, but at the same' time there has to be some way 18 to keep the final investigating unit in a posture in which 19 they are unassailable, because otherwise, they too get 20 swallowed up.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, maybe we could quarter them .
17
~~ !
in -- I don't know -- Atlanta. How about Atlanta. !
'~3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And constantly taking ,
24 -
I l
corresoondence courses in ethics. i 25 i i
- l t
_._..__...._L__._..-_._._._.._.s_ . . . - . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . .
s
. 3 !
t 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: On to the inquiry.
2 You had a suggestion that we start at the back of 3 d.he Findings and Conclusions on more specific ones and work 4 ,
our way back to the more general one and hope that the 5 more specific ones might be ---
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we did deal with the 7 Recommendation first, so ---
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, and that -- and precisely for 9 the same reason, too, I must say.
10 By the way, should we cite that result in any interim l' 11 reply?
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think you might, yes.
I 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's public. You know, it is in j i
14 i the PDR and ---
zg ,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, by all means, yes.
I '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- there seems little enough 16 reason. Actually, that may turn out in the long run to be 17
, one the more useful products of the whole endeavor, actually. l 18 i i l
g Okay, why don't we turn to page 47 of the Inquiry Report, 80 percent of the way down the page, 4. !
20
,, "No packet was offered to or refused by." l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You are really taking this 22 ,
j j literally by going backwards.
! , i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I wasn't there. Let's !
i i see. Do you remember anything contrary to that?
20 ;
I 1 h
h
'l i
l
, 4 a
4 l
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I was one of the 2 people who didn't remember anything about a packet of 3- information.
4 COMMISSIONEP RRADFORD: Was there someone who thought 5 that there was a' packet of information?
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In the memo of the Mattson 7 Task Force, which described a conversation they had with 8 Bryan Eagle and possibly Peter Strauss, there was mention of g this packet of information, I believe. And at some point this I
10 memo came up to us -- I guess it was in July of '77 Henry ,
11 Meyers asked that it be declassified. So it was sent around ,
3, to us to take a look at, and one of the things I noticed was l 1 i .
this thing about a packet of information and I guess -- I don't' j 13
, know whether I had ever read it before or I guess I didn't
.4
,. o_
notice it. And I sent Lee a note saying, I notice it said here something about a packet of information. I don't remember 16 and would he please find out if there was one. ,
7 Then I guess they ended up not finding anything, then g
the thing surfaced again somewhere along the way. I guess g
Dingell picked it up or somebody picked it up. But in any case, I guess there were some people who thought there might 21 ;
, have been one and others say they never heard of any. ,
22 l I don't know whether it is a big deal one way !
23 !
or the other. I certainly didn't remember it. i 24 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We have no reason not to agree with :
25 !
h'
I 5 <
s .
1 the finding and the best evidence ---
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: -- And we have no evidence.
3 We have no evidence ---
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think the point is 5
that the interviews speak to this point. And you can scan 6
the interviews yourself and I think, I don't remember what 7 they all say, I presume this is kind of a -- that at least 8 51 percent of them didn't remember one.but ---
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, I think that's right.
10 Okay, I don't think we need to dwell on it. -
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't think so.
- 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: A: it is not all that important, 13 B: as far as I can see we are in agreement.
14 Backing up one.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: "Mr. Gossick's absence 16 from the February 1976 briefing was not due to any lack of 17 confidence in him."
18 I don't think it was ever made clear why Lee was 19 not at that meeting. Now, it is not clear to me here,why 20 they relate this to the question of the lack of confidence in 21 him.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It is a funny thing to 23 highlight, but it seems to me that that conclusion sort of l l
24 rhymes or falls on the testimony of whoever it was who !
i 25 j decided who should be invited to the meeting, which is probably; l
i l
i i
!! l l
- _. , . - . . - . . . . . . - - . ~ . . _ . _ . _ . . . ~ . _ . - _ - _ _ _ . . . _ . -
- - . - _-- -_. . . - - . _ ~
~ -
1 s 6 I
4 4
1 Bill Anders.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And I don't remember his 3 interview very well, but my impression is that he was not 4 clear as to why Lee was not there. I-don't think anybody was 5 clear and Lee's calendar has never been straightened out. .
6 He thought he might have been at a hearing, but he wasn't 7
sure. I think-it has just never been resolved.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you disagree with the Finding?
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I just have no idea.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That and -- I guess really, ,
on both of those I just don't have much in mind.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would just say, it is just not clear why he was not there.
3 l It is not clear to me what point they are making.
A Why is it important whether or not it had something to do la_
with lack of confidence in him?
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It came up in some of the interviews, it seems to me.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But in writing those up, 19 they seemed to slant things the other way and I ---
20 ;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, in a couple of interviews, 21 j
- people commented that they didn't think there was any lack j ,
22 <
l of confidence in Lee,that he wasn't brought in to the briefing, t 23 l but rather it was a matter of limiting the number of people to 24 l, strict "need-to-know" or whatever. l 25 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I must say that was not l
i t.
I h . . _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . - _ _ . ~ _ . . _ - - - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ , . _ . _ . - . _ ,
, 7 0 e t
1 my impression of the meeting -- of the attendance at the-2 meeting. In other words, I thought there were rather more 3 Pe0P l e than you would have expected, rather than that it was 4 something that was very, very closely held. For example, 5 John Davis was-there. That's kind of a surprise. And in fact, 6 there are several places where ---
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Was the head of Inspection.there?
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, he was the' head at 9
that time. He was the acting head.
10 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE: I see.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But nevertheless, I mean, f 1
still it seemed a bit odd. I mean, if in fact this was 12
' 3 p something'that was very, very closely held.
a i
., ,4 My impression, which may have been wrong, was that
,_ , in fact there were that many people there in order. to make
_a #
sure that everybody got the message,that the situation was 16 j
_ really all right. And Andres and others were -- well, in any way, Andres got a surprise with the outcome. And certainly g
was surprised that the CIA briefer went on as he did to an audience-as large as was in the room.
So I don't think -- it just doesn't make sense that Lee was kicked out because it was so closely held. I just ;
22 , ;
l have no idea why he wasn't there. !
23 i j i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Page 21 of the Summary )
c, 1 i Volume summarizes everyone's different reasons for why Lee !
25 i , i l' .
i i
?
i
l
, 8 i I wasn't there and some stuff about "need-to-know" and ... a 2 strong or a weak Executive Director..." and that'really~all 3 should be conjecture because none of them really made the '
4 decision.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. I mean, if -- it is 6 pretty hard to explain why John Davis was there and why Lee 7 wasn't. It may well have been that --- .
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Chapman said Andres asked g him to set up the briefing and I think he decided not to 10 invite Lee. ,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, there are different-11 stories ns to who set up the briefing.
.- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Was Lee at the ERDA !
2a .
i d briefing?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, I believe so.
lo_
,. o, And I might say, you know, the original closely held informations group was the one on nuclear explosive 1 ,/
devices, and it is the one that Conran complained about, and g
in fact, the one that I set up, very good or ill, and g
originally it didn't include Lee. That was in fact to limit it to the smallert number of people, but then he was informed
.1 about it and he asked to be included and he was.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So what do I write down about this <
23 l l l
- Finding? l I 24 ! 1 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY
- I would say I have no !
25 l .
l 1 i view on -- you know -- why he was or was not excluded. 1 i
I
._._._-.____b.__..__.-_...._____._, . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ :_I
. 9 s 1 1 I don't even know how the meeting was set up and 2 the stories in the interviews conflict. I don't know that 3 it is terribly important, anywny.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, if the Task Force writes 5 chis report and they come to a finding that Gossick's 6 absence from the briefing was not due to any lack of confidence r 7 if the Commission backs away from that as a Commission 3 finding, I think it ought to do so with some care.
9 What I find is that Anders, in his interview and
,, his statement, said in his letter -- he has a separate letter i
1; to Mr. Udall and a copy was furnished to us, and so did Marc 3
Rowden when he was Chairman. Both of them speak very highly of their confidence in Gossick and in the-interviews here 3
., l Strauss and Kennedy, Eagle come around to the limitation on 1" i c
,_ some other ground than lacks confidence ---
.2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Other ground?
6 ,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Primarily the "need-to-know".
l ,< i All f them mentioned the need-to-know.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess.I don't see any
- need to raise the question of confidence. I don't know what it has to do with his not being at the briefing. I mean, I l have no idea why he wasn't there. He certainly wasn't 22 l l excluded. He was apparently not invited. I don't know who !
23 l did the inviting. ,
24 ! ,
! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I think under the 25 ;
b 1 !
s 1 I
P 1 .
l i
10 s
1 circumstances if you are not invited you are excluded.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, I don't think so.
3 I mean, in fact, .Anders says that -- if I remember correctly -
4 they thought Lee had some important things to do in Bethesda 5
or something like that. I mean, I just -- I don't know. Is 6
it clear to you how the meeting was set up and who did the 7
inviting and why people were included or not included? It 8
certainly is not clear to me.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is certainly not clear to me 10 either. On the other hand, we have got the statements of a 1
^ ^1 number of people who were involved and I haven't found anybody 19 in those statements, that I can recall, who suggests Gossick i
'3
^ i wasn't -- because there was a lack of confidence in him. Okay.!
,~ ' . !
Now, the team who took the interviews, they say:
"One of our findings says that Gossick's absence was not due i 16 You notice that they to any lack of confidence in him."
17 stay away from saying: "We have determined that it was because 1, i j of the need-to-know limitation." They have simply said, we 19 l have talked to enough people who have expressed the view that 20 it wasn't a lack of confidence that we set that finding down.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess I just have to say 22 ! I don't know, because you know, I have these interviews by 23 ; us and old Bill Anders and I remember things that got said and l
- l 24 ll I just don't know. It is possible, it might be right, might !
'I 25 ! not be right, might not have anything to do with it.
d 1
l l
i 11 =
1 I don't know why -- you know -- you need to have 2
a system's confidence in Lee turn out of whether or not he 3
was at that meeting. I just don't know what the facts are.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I have to deal with it because it is in this report. If I don't deal with it, I will have 6
a letter from downtown saying, "What about Finding C-3, Mr. Hendrie; say exclusively whether you agree with it or 3
don't agree with it?"
9 Now, I have already said I agree with it --
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I haven't said, I 11 don't know.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- and you know.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What I would say about that ;
n :
14 one, really, No. 4 as well, is that I was not here doing that 15 time and the most I can say is that the Finding represents, in 16 both of these cases, an accurate summary of the evidence.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Available.
13 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The evidence in the report.
I 19 lI COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now, they seem to be i
20 ! missing a point, too.
I 21 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
22 j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Which makes you wonder.
23 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Oh, shit. What does one
! i 24 j say about point No. 2. !'
.I o
25 y CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think -- I'll tell you what I l
l ;
}
- 12 1
think.- I think they got the thing mis-numbered.
2 We have got A a general category and B, July 29th 3
testimony'and category with five items,and C on August 8th 4
testimony category, and I think 3 and 4 should have been .
5 .
D and E or something like that.
6 .
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's right, because they 7
are really ---
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Of'a different character.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, of a different character.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What's the lack of confidence, 11
^^
the briefing got to do with the testimony on August 8th. It 1
2 really ought to be ---
'3
~
l=
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In fact, it is not clear 1
4 why they wrote it in there. Well, the CIA packet, I guess I l
mean.
, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There were things, probably l
l 17 which either a member of the inquiry team or member of one 1 8 of the Congressional staffs that were consulted. If you 19 remember, the team had frequent communications in the days 20 it was going forward,with the Committee staff and they did 21 a certain amount of shaping of the thing to meet the comments 22 and questions. But this should have been a "D" category.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think that's right. ,
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, back up to C-1. l i
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The only difficulty that I have t
4 If m.,, , , , . , . ~ , , . . - - .'L , . . , - - . , ,-.,-.,._-m._ . . . . . . , . . - - . . _ , . . . . . . . . _ , , . _ , . . _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ ,_,_,..._..,,,,_L.
13 1
with C-1 is the suggestion that Lee could have cured the 2
defect by using adjectives such as " conclusive" or "hard."
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I didn't understand that at 4
all, frankly.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The problem with that is 6
that if you link it in with the business about the Commission 7
reaffirming the judgme..c, you can't make sense of it. The Commission didn't say - the Commission said no evidence.
9 Lee couldn't have read the words " conclusive or hard" in to
^O i that. So that it seems to me that the only way to have 11 cured the problem would have been to limit his testimony to ,
,o 1 the post '68 period. And all of that stuff about -- there l i
13 was no way to say what Lee was saying and use adjectives 1 P i like " conclusive" or "hard." That wouldn't make any sense of l
,-3 t I the thing.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think that's right, and 17 he could not easily at the post '68,because he went on and 18 said you should know that they said this after having briefed 19 and so on. So he very clearly stuck it on the earlier period.
20 They also don't deal with the question as to whether he 21 was personally informed of the matter before August 8th. !
22 ! COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What is one to make of -- !
i 23 Lee was present at the ERDA briefing. It says that the ERDA l l
n i 24 o briefer disagreed with the CIA briefer. If the ERDA briefer ,'
d 25 Hl disagreed with the CIA briefer how could Lee not have known l
h n
il l
1 5 l .._ _
, _ . _ . , . , _ .. . ___ ~ . _ , _ , _ . , _ _.
, 14 l
I what the CIA briefer had said?
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I don't think we 3 discussed-this CIA briefing and the ERDA briefing.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, the summary says that 5 the ERDA briefer disagreed with the CIA briefer.
6 . COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think he just had 7 a different view.-
g COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Does that mean he just said 9 something different? He didn't say we disagree with the CIA 10 on this? ,
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, I believe that that's 12 right, yes.
13 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And after that the FBI came 14 to see Lee, asked him what he knew about material missing.
NUMEC had said that they had.an investigation going of a 15 p tention version.
16 7
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When was that?
13 g
'T8. I'm sorry, between '76 and July of '77.
I I'm fairly comfortable with Item 1, as far as it goes, up to the mid-point of the second paragraph. From
,,, j then on where it says what should have been done to cure the t
i problem, I guess I would have to see the specific questioning and his responding to, but I think my view is that he would have e
l i
been a lot better off at that point to have said -- just to have' 25 l l l
- I ,
_-.,,,.,1..,-....,.,_,-m.__,~._._-_...._,...,.____.,_..___.,_.________l_..
. 15 -
h 1 simply said, Ah, that we should go into Executive Session 2 if you want to pursue this any further or to have said that 3 there was one episode on which the evidence was ambiguous.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, they'didn't have to 5 pursue it. I mean, it was really all gratuitous. He was 6 asked: you haven't had access to intelligence ~ data, have you?
7 and he said, no. And the guy said, then you really can't, 9 you know, on you own say ---
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Was that the question asked?
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: -- clearly, you know, whether. ,
11 or not something had happened and he just went in to this 12 monologue, instead.of just saying, yes or no, or whatever the 13 right answer was. i 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Okay, now this is the point at which Smith and Burnett_are sitting by his elbow? .This is 15 16 Dingell now?
l,e COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes.
18
^ * " Y # " *" ^
g the briefing either, of course, because they hadn't even been
" #9"" Y' 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Now, what did they know?
22 l Have they ever given any indication whether ---
l
' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Whatever they got in the l 24 !
! i
- two August 2 meetings. !' i 22 j ;
e i
16 e
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I see.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Flus whatever Conran -- you 3
know -- I mean, whatever weight you attach to Conran's state-4 ments.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Or that he had told them?
6
, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, plus the newspapers.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Has the newspaper said 3
anything about NUMEC by that ---
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, sure. Oh, yes. There 1
0 .
was a series in the Star every day.
11
^^
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: About NUMEC?
,o
~~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sure.
3 1' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Of course, at that time I l
4 was still reading the Agusta -- 1*nnebec' Journal rather than l
1" '
the Washington --
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think you have to 17 probably agree that here is a higher threshold for leaping l
18 out of the audience ---
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And crashing forward.
20 I don't know what the CIA was, was he up there l
21 i alone or was it one of those things where there were three of j l
l 22 ! them up in a row? f l l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wasn't there. I don't i I, .
24 know. Dingell would know that.
l l 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Was Smith at that ---
I
_ _ _ . t! _
i 17 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: One now has to go back in to 2 the Conran matter.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, he was one of the 4 two or -- are you asking whether he was ---
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I think it was the Dingell 6 one that they were all at, but I'm not sure.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you something 8 about the first line. It says: "We have no information i
indicating this was done with intent to deceive or mislead '
g 10 the subcommittee."
11 Do we have information for the contrary proposition?
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We havr Gossick's statements and !
i
_3 the character references at the right point and no ---
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't think you can i I
,_ resolve the factual questions with these cht.racter references.
.a COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I think that one can safely say that Mr. Gossick's intent was no different of whoever oriainally framed the no-evidence fornela over at ---
t 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I don't know. It is very hard to know what was in his mind. I don't know whether he is clear on what was in his mind.
21 l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The best conjecture I have ,
22 ,
j heard on that was to the effect that he wasn't going to be 23 l
the first person in the U.S. Government to break ranks. l
~'
l l l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but this is his second 25 :
d 4
j d
, 18 1 time around.
2 In other words, this is August 8th. It weighed on 3 his mind that he had made this statement on July 29th.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: How heavily did it weigh?
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, he was concerned 6 about it, and he could have done one of two things. He could 7 have corrected it or he could have done what he did, which is 3 just to wrap himself in the Commission.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Now, what happened after 10 this, Vic, did he come back and say -- did he come back to the - ,
11 well, I guess at this point I was just about here, so I ought 12 to know, but did he then report back and say Dingell raised l 13 l the same questions and he had given the same answer and the I
14
. whole thing then just went undiscovered until, the Congress- -
l 3-a Udall letter much letter?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, from one of these, July 16 29th or August 8th, I think it was the July 29th. Kammerer 17 i
l sent around a note, I don't think that was the case here.
18 l
,g But actually, I didn't see it until Udall wrote a letter,
" " ~~~
i 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In fact, I didn't see it 21 i
! until Gossick's letter of response --- l t
.t I l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Lee's response where he !
i said it is okay, because I said the same thing to Dingell.
- ,! 3
'. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right. !
25 d
i t
o I- -- - , - - -- _ , _ , , _ . , , _ _ _ _, ,, _
I 19 a
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Smith wasn't'at the August 8th 2
hearing. Neither Smirb nor Burnett reviewed either of the ;
3 transcripts.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: He was at the July 29 meeting?
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think he probably was.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I remember the Udall 7
committee complaining that if the other staff members didn't 8
correct their testimony, so I think he must have been at that 9
one.
'O CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He probably complained about them 1^1 not correcting the March 8th -- the August 8th, wasn't it?
To
^-
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but I think they ,
^3 expected them to actua11 leap up.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: At the meeting?
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: At the meeting.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Fine.
1I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or at least tug at Lee's 13 elbow.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's damned hard to go back 20 through these volumes and reconstruct this stuff, 21 Okay, C-1. Testified incorrectly.
22 Now, there is a little glich in that -- at the top 23 of page 47 the inquiry, people keep citing the MUF Report.
l 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now, in fairness to Lee, !
1 I
25 he claims that he was not referring to the MUF Report. I n
i 1 . . - - _. _ ._ - _ . ___..!
i
. . - .~ - -. . = - . -- -. . . .. _. . -.
. 20 b
t 1
believe that's what he claims,.that he was referring'to 2
some?other Commission position.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There is a memo -- well --
4 page 5 of the thing. It says, "No reference was made by ,
5 Mr. Ward in his question or by me in my answer to.the 6
Commission to the release of ourLMUF Report. I understood, 7
Mr. Ward's question to go beyond the post '68 time period 8
and believe he was aware of and referring to the no-evidence 9
statements he knew had been made or approved by the
^O Commission throughout the '76 '77 period."
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I didn't regard that l'~
- to be his response. I thought it was pretty clear it dealt
- 3 1
with that MUF Report.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Huh?.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought it was pretty
- 6 clear that it dealt with that report.
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That what?
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought it was pretty 19 clear that it dealt with that report, the findings.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: His response?
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. It is the only 22 , report ever in need of the word "ever". l l l l 23 l
Was he saying he had something specific in mind, i i
24 or that it was just some vague recollection or he thought l ,
25 I that is what the Commission had.been saying? l l
I i
't
~
.i
~,.,~...,.,..,___.,:.},..,,,,,.,,_,,_,..,____,.,__,,_.,_,..,.,,.,_,_,_.__. , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _
. 21 1
1 Anyway, what does it matter what the -- well, of 2 course, I guess he is talking about a Commission position.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It matters only that you need to 4 take note of the fact that Gossick's comment, in fact, his 5' only comment on the inquiry report was that he believed 6 that they were in error in ascribing that piece of the 7 Dingell testimony so closely to the MUF Report.
8 The MUF Report, indeed, wasn't -- the language that 9 the inquiry used is, in fact, -- foge 47. It is in the 10 end of the second -- third line, if.you deleted the words: ,
"in releasing the MUF Report," that is, .. testified 11 13 j incorrectly when he agreed that the Commission has," quotes, di-di-da. I guess, take the quotes out. Then, delete "referrin'g-13 14 ;' to the same report" and just leave, "Gossick also testified l in rrectly.in stating..." di-di-da, then, Gossick presumably 15 w uldn't have felt compelled to write this. Then, similarly, 6
y, on down the next paragraph ---
M ONER GILINSKY: Yes, 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- The next paragraph is g
incorrect because he failed to take into consideration the fact the MUF Report and so on, and so on. What he is saying is, I was thinking not only of the MUF Report statement, which I agree was post '68, but other Commission statements in s3 ,
the period which appeared to me to cover the whole time. j i
Now, it is a fairly minor point, it seems to me.
to ,
I l
l
!l l
' r
- . - - , , , . , . - -- ),b , , , _ . . , , . . _ . _ . . _ _ , . , . , _ , . . . . _ , , . , . , . . _ . , _ _ , , , . _ , _ , . _ _ _ , _ , , . . , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _
I
- 22 0
4 l
1 COMMISSIONER-GILINSKY: Well, it's pretty 2
important, I guess, to him. ;
3 I suppose what the author should have said is 4
that we believe, referring to the MUF Report, because that 5
seems to be our conclusion.
6 ~
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, don't you really 7
have to have the transcript in front of you to really assess 8
that? It depends a lot .cn1 what the question was.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, well, it is in'that 10 .
summary.
' l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What was the question that l~' he was answering?
~3 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, let's see.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: He was saying -- it says, 15 "You have not seen the raw intelligence data, you really 16 can't state of yor.r own knowledge that..." something or l
17 other.
l l 1 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But then you would also l
l 19 have.to have the whole of his answer, because this is part 20 of his answer ---
l 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Actually, there are a 22 ,
6 bunch of questions and answers, you are right. And, right. .
1 23- I! There is an exchange.
24 ! Ward does not refer specifically to the reports.
i !
25 That isn't the question.
l I
i !
9l ,
. l
. ~ . - , . . - ,
0.._.,._,, ___ _ ___,__ ___ _ _ _.
23 l
3 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's correct,'nor did Gossick 2 refer to it in his answer.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: On the other hand, that 4 was what the subject of the hearing was, and Ward said, now 5 the Commission has given assurance that, and he basically 6 quotes a statement out of the report. I mean, you have got 7 to decide whether that -- in that context that's what that 8 means. Does it mean the report or did he ask him the general 9 question or was Gossick responding. But the report was the 10 subject of the hearing.
11 If in fact the Commission's or the organization's 12 latest statement was careful to qualify the no-evidence l l
13 statement, then even if he remembered other statements, why l l
'I would he, before this committee, again without qualification of' 14 l
15 I the earlier statement.
I
.o CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If what?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, if the last thing the 17 ;
}
i NRC did is to say no evidence since '68, however, why would 13 '
l i g
he say to them -- you know -- even if there were earlier n evidence that were unqualified, why would you respond with 20 3 ., ! earlier statements? Not with your latest statement which 1
l t reflects, you know, better information about the problem, .
I 2e. !
ex ept to contrast them or something like that. ;
3 i l l I
! COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, what do we really i l 24 l :
l 1
,, j need here, I mean, the general consensus, including, I guess, l j
- l. ,
- l l
i 1
, 24 1 Lee, is that in this particular instance he screwed up and 2 there is some question as to the magnitude, but everybody 3 from him through us and the Committee and everybody else 4 feels that he should have answered the question differently.
5 It seems to me that Udall, the only thing he is probably 6 interested in at this point is what significance we attach 7 to that circumstance. It is easy enough to say that,I should g think, as a response to this one regardless of the precise 9 questions and reference in context,this general agreement, 10 these treasured words didn't convey the precise situation.
11 Do we have to say a lot more than that?
I' I mean, at the end we have to come to the conclusions 12 13 f what one does about all this, but in response to that l
l 14 particular finding. ;
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY
- Well, you have to decide 5
whether this is just a wrong view on this or whether he is 6
misleading the Committee.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, I think the point 18 everybody is prepared to conceive is that he mislead the g
Committee, including me,at this point and that he should have said something else. We may have to decide whether it was 4.
! intentional or not, but there is no dispute that the answer 22 i L
j he gave in the context he gave it, mislead the Committee. ,
23 ' :
I n COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now, this report also --
24 ,,
m h does that mean it does not deal with the question, as I say, l
'R !
h ,
u 4
i i
_ _ _ . . _ _ , _ , . ~ . . , , __ _ _ . _ ._.
25 1 circumstances, including the August 2nd briefing and the 2 meeting which followed, should have, in any event let Mr.
3 Gossick to articulate those limitations in his testimony.
4 They just didn't address the question of whether --
5 you know -- what they knew about all of this.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And was discussed earlier, 7 the limitations that they proposed here would not have actually g solved the problem.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, the limitation -- take 10 out the word " Commission."
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, the real answer to I
12 l why does he say -- okay -- the real answer to Ward's question !
I' l 13 was at best, yes, I really have no basis for making this j n
statement, but better still --- i 14 l8 ,
l
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Or ---
13 l
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: He could have said that in l
our latest report ---
17
, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: -- to the '68 period and
.g g
there was an ambiguous episode earlier.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. Or something like that.
, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I hate to leave this item unresolved here, but I've got to go. l
~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Holy mackerel, it is way past.
l i l I didn't realize we were stretching you out so close. !
44 q
I t COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Just like some mornings when f 25 9l
- l i i!
- , , ,, ,,n.,- , , - - , , - - . , - ,
26 e
1 I'm late ---
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Like normal.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see, let me just settle it.
5 The 0 and A sequence ascribes to the Commission 6
assurance that no significant quantities have ever been diverted or stolen, to include pre- and post '68. That's 8
takes some careful phrasing.
o I think we come eventually to a conclusion that
' O will come to a conclusion that we ought to write Mr. Dingell.
^^
But what we say will be very interesting. I'm unable to tell i
' what was on the mind of the five Commissioners who composed e .-
.. d 3 i! the body which -- whose opinion Lee thought he was reflecting d
14 j' on these two days. Okay? ;
15 I The five of you left no verifiable trace, their 16 interviews ---
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. First of all, the first 18 day he wasn't referring to the Commission's views, he was 19 giving his own views. He's saying these don't differ from i 20 I state.nents made by others.
21 The second day he is giving -- he is representing l ,
i I
22 l the Commission's views. What Commission, I don't know. At ti 23 i that time there were two Commissioners and whether he was I talking about three Commissioners, other Commissioners, 24 ; j 25 ll earlier times with the AEC. I think it is pretty clear that ;
j h ,
ll l 1
l .
l 1 i I
4 27 I
i l
7
^
he is talking about that report, the present. It seems to o
~
me it was a straightforward interpretation.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, he says, though, this 4
is not the case.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But at any rate -- right.
b Well, that's right. We have to make a judgment on a lot of that.
3 But, when you.say the Commission, you have to refer 9
to some -- you can't sort of collect different 2cmmissioners
' O at different times. I mean, it has to be like tne Commission's 1 statement, the Commission's views and I guess he has things ---
i 12 ! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Just so. I 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: -- that he points to and so i
14 on. I 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He has a body of material which 16 he points to, none of which constitutes any sort of clear i
i 17 Commission statement in a collegial fashion, and says, I 13 gathered from all of this, these bits and pieces, that the l l 19 -
collegial Commission view was thus and so.
l 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: At a certain time. I mean, l i l !
21 in other words, at some time they had this view.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. And presumably running !
I l
l 23 back in the period '76 ---
3 24 d COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And it must have been right 25 up to the time he had testified, because if it wasn't, you a
, , - - . ,, n-,-a . , - - -~ .g., + - - . , , -
,r,
_ .-- - . . . - -. =_ _. . . __ -
.' .,. 28 1
would think he would give them the latest view, or at -least 2
up to that time the Commission went out of business.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yep. True.
4 My impression is that the staff and Lee felt they !
5 ~
didn't discern any difference over the opinion.
6 Now, what I'm saying there is no way to tell, I
the commission left no clear -- now, there isn't a paper that 3
appears for the first time to see the light of day which ,
9 says, "We the Commission," you know, signatures to the role, 10 "believe it is possible." -
11 It seems to me then that the way we address ourselves ,
12 to Mr. Dingell is to say, we believe it appropriate in view .
13 of the testimony on August 8th and the questions that have .
14 been raised about it'or the inquiry report, believe it is !
15 appropriate that the present Commission make or clarify that l t ,
16 record or put a statement on the record now which says, you l 17 know, for whatever those other fellows may have thought ;
i 13 collegia 11y or not thought collegially, that is now pretty l 19 hard to determine in an objective way. And what we can do is :
20 to say what we think now, put that on the record. And ask 21 that you consider that our statement here, in this letter, -
22 i represent the Commission's views and not what Mr. Gossick ! ,
23 said he believed the Commission's view to be back on August .
l 24 ! 8th. j i
25 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but are you taking any t
i w r e-* e v e)-
29 o
1 view of what he said? Are you just sort of finessing 2
that or are you ---
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, ---
4 .
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I mean, I have a view about it .
3 5
j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes?
6' i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: (inaudible) 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think it was an unfortunate 8
piece of testimony, you-know, who knows why people say things ---
9 COMMISSIONER CILINSKY: Well, but you know. God
^ 10 '
knows I've said dumb things at hearings, but there is a way 11
~~
to deal with-it. You correct it.
10
~~
Here was'one where he just insisted on sticking to ,
I
'3 hole deeper and deeper and deeper, the story, and digging the j 14
~
You know, look, he you know, didn't stop on August 8th.
15 could have corrected this July 29th testimony, I mean, stuck i 16 a word in, testified differently on August 8th. There was
, 17 just no need for any of this. Now, something impelled him 18 along this line, I guess. I don't know, what, you know, old l
19 soldiers standing with their -- I just don't know.
20 I mean, the normal bureaucratic instinct is to be 21 cautious, it is not to make flat-out statements. 'Normally, f i
22 our language is hedged'in a million different ways, and when l l
. 23 the bureaucrats go out and make blanket statements, it is l 1
24 because he feels somehow the pain of doing the other -- you !
25 know -- is greater than -- he overcomes his natural, sort of i
i r
- -e -emv+ -
.,+,,,,-,....,.,,._,,_..,.m.,.
,,r, . . . , , _ , , , ,,,,,m._.. , , . . _ _ , , , , _ , _ _ , , , , _ , , _ , ,,,
30 6
1 disinclination to make blanket statements. In other words, 9
~
it was the party line and he was not going to break ranks, 3
I guess. I don't know. But I think he knew better than to 4 ~
.say those things, I really do.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think he felt that,in turning 6
to us as to what the Commission's position was.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:~ How could he think that?
3 We just ha' a roaring argument, you know, several days before.
9
.I:RMAN HENDRIE: Well, other people came out of 10 that roaring argument with a less-than-clear description.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Listen, you didn't catch !
I 12 i Cliff Smith saying things like that or Burnett, even though i l
13
, they claimed they don't remember what they got told.
I 14 ,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: They don ' t - - I I'b COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: They were pretty careful.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: They didn't testify.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I just don't think, you know -i-l 1S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: God knows what they would have said.
i 19 What they have said in thei. interviews is that they think 20 maybe ther would have fallen into the same place, because the 21 language at the staff level is the language --'what was regarded i 22 as the safe and classic way to express the agency's view on l 23 this matter. 1 1
l 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well --- t 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Why would they not have just. !
31
', , 'a 1
gone up before Dingell on this one on the plot in itself?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't know.
3 Unless the investigators in this report didn't 4
really follow up on the question of what Gossick got informed.
5 They didn't really crot1-check or wanted to view it to another 6 to see the clear discrepancies on, certainly our little 7 meeting,when we talked to them about ---
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Of course there were discrepancies.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but there were some 10 obvious things that they just didn't even ask the other guys -
11 about from one interview to another.
12 They really didn't address the question of what it i
13 was one can say about what Gossick did or didn't know. l
! l 14 ! They just sort of let it go.
15 l Well, you know, I didn't participate. I have my l 16 own view of the ---
l l
l 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Of course.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: --
of the matter.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But I also talked to the other 20 four guys who were doing it, and I must say, going back to the l
21 time that I wrote the first response to Udall, it seemed very ;
22 I clear to me that other people had very much less than the l
23 clear impression when I talked to you, you felt, you know, 24 i that it certainly should have been well understood there, ,
25 and well, I found in the other four, it just didn't reflect l [
ji at-- w -_e _a ma. . . ._ .,m_
I 32
- ..o '
1 1 that at all. And --- j 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, this is really a 3 side issue.
4 I don't think his testimony, the correctness or 5
lack of it, turns on that. I mean, I think that, you know, 6 sort of a larger meeting was ample and warned him not to 7
speak like that, let alone that a month earlier or six g weeks earlier Marc, in his last statement on the matter -- you 9
know -- on this subject, cautioned them not to make such statements.
0 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But nothing ever recycled.
The staff --- i 12 ;
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You know, we are using this !
13 :
argument that the man's an idiot. I mean, you have got to l 1,,
either conclude that he is incompetent or ---
la CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I mean, how could he 17 l
be so lacking in perceptidn. I mean, this is a guy who has 18 hung around with the Commissioners for the previous -- you ,
19 ;
l know - "x" years --- l l 20
( CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You ought to work for this outfit 21 ;
for a couple of years in close at the Commission level and !
22 , l' j see what the staff thinks of the ability of this body,of 23 U l making sort of mind known in any shape or form. l 24 j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: All right, okay. But the l 23 l fact is ---
ll i! - _ . , _ _ _ . -
33 l
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I have listened to a good deal 2 of that since I have come here and before, as a matter of 3 fact, so I ---
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I listen to a good deal 5 of it too, I mean ---
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I must say ---
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But the end result of it 8
isn't normally for staffers to go up and take an unequivocal 9
position on the Hill if they find the Commission's intent to i
10 be equivocal. And I agree with you that there is --- !
l
~;
3 ,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's right. Nor do I find i
- i
,, I Lee the sort of old innovator likely to take that kind of !
i i I
initiative. !
J ! ;
,, ! COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Okay, it cuts both ways. !
., I
,_ l That is, a no-evidence statement is an unequivocal position ---
.a ,
' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. I
~6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: -- and was on the other hand --
17 l
it is not an unequivocal position as long as you believe that it is also the Commission's position. It is a kind of an i unequivocal position after you have had a discussion which t would raise questio..s about it. l 21 l l l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I mean, he's not going to l 22 i run up there and say the Commission believes that there is l 23 >
absolutely no problem with disposable waste or something like 24 ;
j that. ,
25 l l
t COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: He might, he might.
i' u
i i
l . - , _. , . . . - -
- m. .
- =>4 21 s .
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, more of C-1 and on.
2 But I think.the place we have come outais'that 3
the record out to be clarified.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I agree'with that.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think we have an' agreed basis 6
to set that record straight in the light of what we are 7
willing to say collatively, and the agreement we made on the 3
recommendation, you know.,'that is, the language and this 9
sort of thing.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You have my vote to close.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh,yes. I need to ask you to 12 vote this one and the other one, if you please?
{'
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Aye.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Aye.
I
'5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So ordered.
16 Jolly good. Sorry to keep you so long over, Peter, f 17 These things are like fly paper, you just can't get out of 13 them. .
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I could have left earlier.
20 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at approximately 21 ,
3:30 p.m.) >
22 i
23'
]
24 l
^
I !D s l i 4
}
y 1 y gr e -r e- -pw