ML20237L642
| ML20237L642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1986 |
| From: | Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F760 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708200289 | |
| Download: ML20237L642 (37) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ - _ _ - - s BEFORE THE 9 2 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISTION 4 ___________x i Interview of: j 6 l ROBERT C. STEWART i 7 i _______________x 8 Room 668 9 Rodeway Inn 833 North Watrion Road 10 Arlington, Texas 11 Wednesday, 12 May 28, 1986 i 13 APPEARANCES: I 14 For the Commission: 15 GEORGE A. MULLEY, JR. 16 Spqcial Assistant to the Director Office of Inspector and Auditor 17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 1 4 19 l I, m 21 22 l 23 i i .i 24 25 i '1 26 l. -3 4 Attachment S ~$ 4 D 89 G70819 '. O OCK 050004 5 PD m~~---- ,.,__.._x fi$ j'i '.'N4 J. b:,~',,..*7*., *.' ' L' 'is n i s.e,, r
2 l. 1 Whereupon, 1 ROBERT C. STEWART, l 2 3 having been. duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth 4 l l and nothing but the truth, was interviewed and answered as l I 6 l follows: ) 4 i i 6 MR. MULLEY: The time is 10:50. The date 7 8 is the 28th of May 2986. We are in Room 668 of the l 9 Arlington, Texas Rodeway Inn. I 10 Present are Mr. Robert Stewart, who is a l l II reactor inspector with NRC, Region IV; myself, George ( 12 Mulley, who is a Special Assistant to the Director, Office l 13 i of Inspector and Auditor, NRC; and the court reporter, Ms. 14 Sandra Harden. 15 l i Mr. Stewart is here today at my request 16 4 {' jy to discuss information he may have concerning Region IV's l 18 management of the regulatory process at the Comanche Peak f 19 Nuclear Power Station. i BY MR. MULLEY: 21 i 4 Mr. Stewart, before we start, would you 22 j l l please provide a summary of your background for the j l l 23 1 l record. I 24 i 1 1 A Okay. I have got thirty-eight years j 25 l l 26 diversified experience, starting in 1947, when I was on l I l -F% l l .s gy v,' g s.. ~. ,.,-.y,. v m ..g
.b .. -. ~. -.. 3 4-1 the Hanford Project for some eight years. 2 Then I joined Atomics International, which is I i 3 now Rockwell International. I was with them for 15. years. 4 I am currently with the NRC going on sixteen j, { 5 years. 6 I O Have you specialized in any one particular l area with the NRC7 Is there any one discipline that you g 9 have more fmniliarity with? 10 A I guess in the sixteen years it has been 11 principally construction, although I am in operations at j 12 I this point. ] 13 I O Mr.. Stewart, what involvement have you had ~ 14 with the Comanche Peak Project? ) 15 t 1 A I was the principal inspector--I believe 1 fr m 1975 on through 1978. 17 i 18 0 Since 1978 have you had any involvement in 19 Comanche Peak? 20 A I was following allegations, some--almost 21 three years. 22 0 These allegations came from whom? 23 A From the individual workers. 24 I 0 What is your perception of the way Region 5 26 IV has handled Comanche Peak? How well do you feel d ~r } h e] a.**g; y, k.p,- f,, y q \\ , {;. e g
. -. -... ~ 4 1 Region IV has done as a regulator in getting this plant 2 built? 3 A Well, my feeling is that we are nothing but 4 i puppets to the NRR; and that creates significant problems. l 5 i We react-- We overreact in many are'as. G Do you have any examples that you could 7 8 provide that you feel that Region IV has overreacted to 9 the NRR7 10 A. I can-- The more'recent-- Well, the early 11 findings in the TRT--the Technical Review Team--came down 12 from NRR. They hired many consultants, and my feeling is 13 l l that their findings did not justify the actions that were i 14 i imposed on the licensee, particularly in the concrete 15 i 16 area, because I am very well familiar with the concrete. 17 That's essentially one of the areas that 18 I have covered quite extensively. 18 The results of the TRT team demanded that 1 20 they go back and reexamine all of the concrete. i 21 4 What type of findings concerning concrete 22 l .I are we talking about? { l 23 t i i. A. Well, there were some indications of falsify- ) 24 \\ -{ l 25 ing compression strengths dylinder t'ests. If you: ( 26 look at the history, where the source of the allegation ~ l l s. f -G l .. k is sk '. YINt= Uh. \\ =.M e,. ii E. a. .4
- E "5
AM *
- a b-s
- + -
+ +- ~ ' " ~ " * - - ~ ~ - + < ...y
q 5 t 1 came from, the individual that alleges that he falsified I 2 is ; min'is'cul'e compared to the overall number of cylinders. 3 A batch plant is like a mixing bowl. If you put the right l l 4 ingredients, it's going to come out in a consistency. I 5 j don't think that the inspector ever looked at the batch 6 j j plant records. 7 They're produced by computers, and there's i 8 virtually hundreds of thousands of data available to 9 establish that that concrete was produced within the code 10 i and standards. 11 12 G When you're talking about a batch plant, 13 explain to me what you mean. 14 A okay. The batch plant is the mixing point 15 of the concrete with ingredients. They go in individually. 16 They're weighed. They have a very good, modern, up to date 17 computerized batch plant. So everything came out in these 39 components within the computer were calibrated continually. 20 Any concrete is going to be-- The net l l { 21 result of the concrete is going to be what goes in the 22 batch plant. So the process of placing it in goes from i l 23 l the batch plant, to a truck mixer, to the point of place-l l 24 ment, and there are certain inspections done from the 25 l trucks prior to being placed or during placement. 26 ' :s i l. EwX :. L M.a.'k.1 4'. .i: a.....
- ~
~ ..,., e ' -.?.'." T ~ ~ '. s
.... -.. ~..... ...... - = 1 g 3 These axxmt b3 consistency for ease of handl-2 ing, slump. tests, air entrainment tests. Air is added 3 to the concrete for cold weather cycling, so that it 4 doesn't crack. It prevents damage in the concrete over a 5 period of time when it freezes and thaws. 6 i This area down here, thern's really no l. problem in that regard. However, there was air entrain-8 ment. An inspector--and this is one of the basis for the 10 TRT to demand that the licensee go back and reexamine all 11 the concrete. One of the bases he had'was that there was 12 a falsification of air entrainment. 9 13 There was one young individual--and I am the I 14 i one that followed that allegation. The air entrainment 15 l was measured in percentage, like four percent is the 16 j maximum, or he might have had a--the reading was a 4.9, 17 I believe--you know, a fraction over. 18 19 Well, this is within the area of measure-20 ment. This happened one time. Yet the basis for going sj 21 back and reexamining the concrete.was based on that one t 22 falsification, plus the allegation that somebody falsified I l 23 l some of tdue cylinder break tests. l 24 l The cylinder break tests are done 7 and 28 1 25 l f. days normal--and 90 days, so that you've got reams and 26 1 ! ) '.7.; { l_- t i i .'. ') . Nw., CC...a. S. J N 4 Ja t - , *.E a .4- .-43 i m 71
.----......... ~.... 7 q reams of documentation. There's over--almost--probably two f 1 2 million yards of concrete placed iri the cylinder--safety 3 related concrete. 4 So you've got the data--empirical data that l 5 q would reflect there's nothing wrong with that concrete. 6 But yet they had to go back and d'.o Swiss hammer tests in 7 all of the areas of safety relat ed concrete. It proved q to be correct; there was nothing wrong. 10 But that's the type of thing that is~- i 11 It's criminal, j 1 1 12 0 You were talking about one inspector, j 1 13 or do you feel that it is just the result of one inspector I 14 coming up with some of these findings that caused this-- 15 I A Oh, yes, it was a consultant. I have read 16 I the report. I cringed. I just couldn't believe the basis 17 l f what he was demanding--the basis of the finding that he 18 l 19 had that would justify what he demanded. 20 G This was an NRR consultant? 21 A Yes. 22 G Do you know his name? 23 A He was a Polish fellow, a Polish name, j 24 l g But, you know, item after item. It was 25 I just like they had to do something to make them reinspect to 26 1 6 i 4 ..... m.s.. o s.._,_. _.... 4 ;_ :.. :u,,.a.a m...... :..- L
l 8 satisfy the interveners. 1 2 0 5t Comanche Peak, based on your experience, 3 does Region IV--the management of Region IV, do they 4 emphasize hardware or quality assurance issues? 5 A Oh, I think it's more quality assurance in i 6 the paper. I think it's an overkill; you know, if it 7 doesn't have a piece of paper, then that means the'whole 8 3 plant is questionable. g i 10 That seems to be the party line. i 11 0 Do you feel that when Region IV finds, for 12 . example, a piece of hardware that is incorrect, do you feel i 13 that then they try to determine if other pieces of hardware I are also' incorrect? i i i 15 A ch, yeah. That seems to be the Torm. This 16 j piece of-- They found a piece here that's bad, so that. l 17 makes every pieca in the plant questionable'. 18 gg O Have you had some er.periences Wbue that sort u } 20 of thing has happened? i 21 A ch, yeah, I spent months on an allegation t 22 on core drilling or rebar drilling. The allegation was l j 23 that they were cutting into rebar when they were putting l 24 l 'j the Hilti bolts in, and it was not recorded. 25 I { Yet I went through some five thousand items 26 l '_ - of his and tracked--took a sample. It was very obvious t W gp E 1 ~?QM..w *;..s, L ,, e ....u, ' " " ' * * ~ ' * ~ ~ ~ ' _ z-_.
... ~.. ~ 9 3 that what he was alleging was not correct. 2 But yet the attitude is that-- This was 3 rampant, you know. They cut rebar without recording it. i 4 Number one, I've never found any findings 5 j that that was the case. ~ 6 Number two, even if they did cut some i 7 .l rebar, that's no big deal. It's so overdesigned with safety factors in it. 9 f 10 It's like the allegation that the building i, 11 is going to fall down. I mean, that's ludicrous. There 12 doesn't seem to be any reason.. Nobody within the Commis-13 sion that has any backbone to stand up and say, " Hey, this is what we find. This is correct." 15 i i But they put the nonkgr on the licensee's i 16 'I back and won' t believe' it. l 17 G Taking the example of cutting the rebar, 18 i 19 are there procedures that say, you know, "This is what 20 you should do"-- I 21 g
- yes, i
22 G --and all that. -l 23 A The program was there. I think it may not i 24 f' have been the best, but it doesn't have to be. I mean, it a was enough--enough evidence demonstrated that the overall 1 l _; - t
i .. q 4 10 1 plant 2 You can never verify-- If a guy-- If an inspector says that he did something, tb.ere'snowaythat l 3 4 you can say, "Yes, he did," or "Yes, he didn't," to 5 l things that are material, because he can lie through his ) 8 l teeth. 7 f You don't know whether he has really looked l .i 8 g at something and yet he said he didn't, or if he did. You 10 have to accept that. 11 O From what you're saying, it seems to me-- 12 l maybe I'm wrong--but there's a certain margin of safety 13 { that's built into these procedures. I 14 Take your example of cutting through the 15 rebar and installing Hilti bolts. Even though it might 16 have not been quoting the procedure maybe, there was ( 18 still enough margin of safety that it would make what they i 19 did okay. 20 Am I getting that right? Is that-- 21 A Yes, yes. I mean, so maybe he did cut a 22 l a, rebar somewhere. But out of the millions and millions of t 23 i pounds of reinforcing steel in that concrete, no matter 24 i where it is, it's going to be all right. 25 j I mean, the margin of design is not that 3 26 .! A l ~~/ g gp r l N *'***M'. i...." :.'tL En.7 ,'. @;g- .a*"^ =C - -,. 'O ..di:4.:.* " d ' ^r'.' ~b h.'. s,e. .s
11 1 marginal. There's so much safety built into the design 2 aspects. On the rebar that's put in, there's always i 3 n'ominally ektra'r'ebar. 4 I mean, that kind of thing has cost the 5
- l utility millions of dollars, has caused the Government and I
i 6 ratepayers to sit in hearings--attorneys. In my opinion, 7 Bloch is anti-nuke. He. has got a history of it. And all of there issues. These hearings g 10 have been going on since 1981. They still have not found 11 anything significant that would really jeopardize the 12 health and safety of the public. 13 0 So you feel then that--just based on your ~ 14 experience--that Region IV is not trying to downplay quality 15 assurance-- t 16 A No.. I 17 1 0 --and is not trying to take action against 18 19 inspectors for finding quality assurance problems? 20 A I think it's an overkill, by far an over-21 kill. What are they coming up with now? Some five hundred j 22 open items of concerns that ninety-nine percent of them' l I 23 are very minor type things. It's paper, and it's-- It's 24 { ridiculous. It's an overkill.
- ]
25 O Based on your experience at Comanche Peake ) 26 i i ! ~< 's I l ' kt : m,. m s.=.-,ug,, _.. o,, p_..... m.s.. ~., ,~---d . ~ s.u..~.- - ~, - . a.. ma ~ -.
...-a --~ 12 do you feel that the quality assurance that TUGCO had in 2 place was adequate to assure somebody from the outside that 3 the plant was built safely? 4 A Sure, they have. It has been demonstrated. j 5 I mean, what their findings are-- They've got paperwork 6 in the design area, you know. They made modifications and 7 changes, and the paper has never caught up with the original 8 design drawings. And there's clutches. 9 I mean, you're going to have this. Quality I 11 assurance is not a hundred percent. It's not a science in j { 12 the essence that we're trying to make it to be. It's a t 13 management tool. l# Sure, people are going to screw up on 15 i procedures. But, you know, it can be corrected. But then 18 it's--you know, it's-- They fouled up here on there 17 4 procedures; that means they fouled up on every procedure going. 9 20 It's just--you know, you're dealing with { i l 21 people. There are some four thousand employees down there. i { 22 Now, to go back and resurrect some of these ridiculous 4 23 issues. And then make them go back and reinspect. 24 O So you feel then the screw ups that did 25 occur were not widespread, and there was no indication of 26 l d.h l2 t l
.. ~... _ ......A... I 13 i systematic' screw up, like you say, people make mistakes, and i 3 ~ 2 you're~ talking about isolated examples. 3 A Oh, yeah. 'I mean, you get a man-- One of the biggest allegators down there., he went to the president ) 4 5 l of Brown & Root. ~ Half.of..what he came up with was hear-j say. 7 I was in the middle of tracking creen some 8 thirty-two of his allegations, when they brought the TRT 10 team in from Headquarters, and they said, " Turn everything 11 you have over to'them," which I did. 12 Some of the documents have never-- They l 13 disappeared. I don't know what happened to them. But I ~~ t g l __ was tracking down thirty-two of this guy's--this particular I 15 fellow's allegations. 16 l None of them were really safety significant. 17 i l He made a big issue out of the pool liner, which is ) ,g 19 n nsense. I mean, the liner is there, particularly for a 20 leakage problem. It's easier to clean up, if they do have l 21 a contamination. 1 j 22 They had leak chases, that if a leak would develop in the welding, it would show up in the drain 24 system. They had an elaborate system. Yet they had to go 25 back in and reexamine every damn weld in the liner. 2.% l hV l r i .1 . '6TI,".4., . J..W.3f :.
- c. L.
,..'~': *O %.v.. -..-D.
- .. @YE. N
< ~ ~
..:.1 14 1 There's thousands and thousands of feet of 2 welds. That was just ludicrous. l 3 Nobody in the Commission would stand up to the interveners.- You know, I had one utility man tell me i 5 that he was on a hearing, and one of the principal speakers--- 6 or a panel--came off the podium and said to the inter-i I f J ven r, "Well, did I do all right?" That just frosts me. O g We react to the interveners, instead of 1 10 standing up and saying-- of course, one of the problems is I 11 we have very few people experienced in construction.' 12 They read the book and go by the book. It's 13 all cut and dried. 14 l To me we don't need those kind of 15 inspectors. 37 0 Let me ask you, have you ever encountered l 18 any attempts to harass or intimidate you by Region IV I i 19 management when you have identified violations or things 20 like that at Comanche Peak? 21 A Not related to Comanche Peak, no. No, j 22 I have never been harassed. 23 i G The next question is going to have be: i 24 What do you mean by not related to Comanche Peak? 25 l 26 A Well, I had an incident involving Arkansas 'M 4
- s.
W.sn, ~, g. 7,. . M*Y P*ItdenW.1.M$ i.I' < a %.,- ..Q l I _, M C,keA - J ';;j, a
-i \\ '15 l i 1 some time ago, and I thought I had a pretty good finding i 1 2 related to design control. And I had go,t into arguments. I was just assisting that particular~section' chief in doing 4 a design review. 5 I found a glich in their system, which I 6 l thought was, and I wrote it up that way, but I was kind of-- 7 I 8 in the long run I conceded, "All right, it's your plant. 9 Do what you want." That was my finding. 10 0 The finding, was it a violation? I A I thought it was. 12 O Why did they dismiss the violation? Did ) 13 -{ they have a reason? i 14 ] A Because they had been letting them do it for 15 16 so long that--they apparently had other arguments about it 17 before with other people. I, don't know. i 18 But it eventually got changed to the way I 19 felt it should be. 4 l l 20 But that was really, to my recollection, 21 l . i the only one that I felt I was right, but, you know, 22 i that's management's prerogative. 23 1 But overall, I think if I identify a j 24 25 problem and the facts--demonstrate that's the case, I j 26 know some people in our region will go around the back door 75) l _e' t-i i l l l l =- ~ ~ L______________
a 16 3 trying to get a violation, and it just doesn't hold water. 2 Then they get really ticked. 3 0 Talking about your example, you said it was 4 management's prerogative, who in management are we talking 5 l about? 1 ' A That would have to be Jasdon.- 6 5 7 l But he presented to you arguments that, I i 8 guess, were valid as to why there should be a violation? g 10 A Not really. Mike Murphy was part of that i i i 11 program.' That was his plant I believe; maybe it still 12 is, although Bill Johnson, who is the resident, had 13' agreed with me. ~ 14 l But he said, you know, " Yeah, this is the l 15 way we've been doing it'." It wasn't that big.a deal. Procedurally, yes,'I thought it was. l In the overall, I don't think it would 33 i 19 have--it didn't really matter because the salient features 20 of the attributes of the design were really being e l 21 covered. It was a matter of word engineering that i 23 they could have--they tried to get out of. So it wasn't 24 that-- If I thought there was a safety issue, I would 25 I have never given up. 26
- -N i
l1}Y l i l a ~ . -m - 5 ...V d ' M d k'..*h ' 7.' .:m - -- rwwp-~-~m7 =- s T *F.W - =. .c .....;a
- '.j
n -q \\ 17 1 4 0 When they decided not to cite the violation, 3 1 2 were you aware of their decision at the time, or was it j 3 something that you sent the report up and the violation 4 got dropped, and you found out later that the violation had 5 q been dropped? t 6 ? A No, no, it was discussed. l 7 l 0 What was the time frame of'this? 8 A I would say about three years ago. g 3o 0 Okay.,You said earlier that as far as your 11 involvement with Comanche Peak, you were. the ' principal 12 inspector from '75 to '78-- 13 A Uh-huh. I 14 l 0 --and that since that time you have been 15 f6llowing allegations at Comanche Peak. 16 A Well, I was up until--oh, at least a year I 17 I { ag. Maybe longer than that, j 18 19 But I turned everything over to TRT on 20 that. 21 Q Considering the nature of what you were '8 22 doing, as far as tracking down the allegations since '78 l 4 23 when you turned it over to TRT, have you had occasion to i 24 I write a violation up on Comanche Peak? { 25 1 A No, I haven't been involved with . 53) Mr h 8 ..av., w b '
- N '**5
.,. e.a s= 4t
- e. i Y.
~ ' Y.*
- a t
~
- O n....
,! Y '
- 3. ' s J'*'
4 e '* + ']
l 18 i i j 1 . inspection. I guess I've been kind of, ostracized as Bob 3 Taylor was or any former Region IV inspectors that were 4 involved in Comanche were. 5 1 Q. Kept awap? ] 6 )g A. Kept away. 7 i 8 Q. From '75 to '78, you were actually making 9 inspections? j j to A. Oh, yeah. 11 O. And during those inspections you had 12 violations? 13 A. Oh, yeah. Back in '75, that's one of the l 14 I issues that the interveners, brought up was on an overblast ) 15 to that occurred, and they've taken that, and it's, I think, i j 17 still going on. It's'just ludicrous. .l 18 Q. "Overblast", what was-- j l 19 A. Well, what happened, initially they were i 20 blasing the limestone for'the containment structures, and 21 their initial drilling, they'd go down six feet, a series I 22 of holes, and then they'd load them with dynamite and set 23 them off. 24 25 The idea was to implode the rock so that the 26 I,s I i A c - nu h .;,- a..A..&,4ea A. - -..-- .,i m.. x - -.. 2 a : =
19 1 perimeter would still be intact. So it was a series of 2 time delays. They would blow the center, so that 3 everything would flow back in. 4 Well, the initial charges were way over - 5 i charged. So they blew a lot of surface area, top surf ace. i The nature of their-- This was-- The 7 8 work was done on the LWA--limited work authorization. The 9 license agreement, in doing that work, said there would be 10 no quality assurance required because it was nonsafety l' related. 12 Well, when they did that, I, more or less, 13 had them stop work, said, " Hey, you're blowing this i 14 countryside away. Let's get some' procedures. Let's get 15 16 some contro,1, so you're not going to do this all the way f 17 down." l l 18 Then I got in an argument with NRR; they t i 19 were saying it was not safety related. O I said, "Well, it is from a seismic .i i 21 l standpoint." You know, it's good solid rock now and i 22 then they fissure the whole damn countryside, then it's 23 t g ing to affect the seismic response. 24 25 So, anyway, I won out in the long run. 26 But in the meantime, since I really didn't n l SdE e 9 I i. s.-. .,,.. m.. x 1 m
20 i l 1 have the authority give them a citation, but I did. And 2 they responded. l 3 1 They took-- They went off and made sample 1 I i 5 blasts..They set.up seismic recorders to make sure there 1 6 was no overcharge. It worked fine. From that point on, l .i 7 . ~. they went down in both containments. 'But that initial blast, 8 about six feet of rock was all shattered and ruined. g { 10 So what they did, they went in and cleaned 11 it all out, got rid of all of the overblast. .There were 12 i some fissures left, almost..h.a.ir..li..n...e. fissures
- 1. eft..in some o
l 13 areas. 14 i 15 They agreed. They plotted them. They l 16 mapped them. They said they would grout them. Drill a 1 17 hole and pump the concrete in it. Which is fine. 18 I don't think it would have mattered if they didn't, but they agreed to do that. ~~~ ~ 20 But here, back during the hearing period-- ' 21 m l! Let me add ene thing more. ~ $i-yM:%f7N',' ;):;-Q.q;$t 4;4-I'! l l 22 i ?. ': ~-?. "%.7. -:. : ~ The concrete is thirty-two.f.e. f.o.-f. :_. ) 5l Sv. ~.. -:W e1 concreteu q.- e ' ..u t.M:. BF ? L . er% s:' 23 Then 'thsrs,4.g%.~ T..;;pi.;:w;: c u;;,. :.: 2.4.c , t. ; . ye :g.norK en f..L. .s, 24 that the containment sits on. ??? :.t@ M:c L & y.
- .Wg a..y
_X;.;; I ~ c-~: on top of the liner is anot51er three feet.,o.f.fco. n. crath..t.halt'..p-:c & ?7,- m; 25 .): . :x. we - _, u,% a-20 the reactor base floor. ~ :$ i am 1 . p.np= -"'*[ - 7.311..q . 7M'. . :....r.:; ..V:: i2 .] '= :.."0. ..mc .. [4's '.a.- %l \\Mic ;. lMi'5lN.Y.^d,6;t.: b1$5 5.. a.- ',e G' ~ .L ,t L______.__
21 l l 1 Then above-- The building above that is the 2 reactor biological shield around the core. 3 Well, when they were pouring the slab for 4 the biological shielding around the reactor containment, j l 1 5 I j they had a shrinkage problem because it was so large a I I 'j pour, which is normal. 7 >l { 8 You get a shrinkage problem or some kind of ] 9 cracking from that large a pour. to They had written an NCR. That was picked up l in the hearings. The interveners tried to relate that 12 shrinkage cracking to the overblast down on-you know, 13 i l on the support structure. j 14 5 I mean, it was ludicrous. But they spent i thousands of manhours in the hearings demonstrating. 16 l 17 There's no relationship. I l 18 Not only that, but the damn shrinkage cracking 19 was mostly surface--surface cracking. I mean, you get a 20 l lot of shrinkage cracking in mass pours. 21 l l Of course, I'm not involved in that part t 22 4 of it. But early in in the Laterventions, there was a con-l 23 t I tention--it was called contention 7--on the overblast--the 24 25 early hearing judge, Marshall. } 28 We developed the whole history of that i, lgs u-I i i ? .. oguys.pgsymer m., d.,.n,*u;i :-r%:4,,7tdNWCleDMihiGM6si? p- / ,y ,_e,_ .-s' s l
...~~.r... 1 1 22 1 overblast. Not only we, th e NRC, but also the Mason-2 Johnson, who was the controlling geotechnical service that 3 was doing it, submitted to the Board what had happened. 4 The overblas was removed, so there was no S question. Okay? 6 i But that Contention 7, the hearing judge of 7 I 8 the Board at that time said, " Okay, f ine. " It was thrown 9 out; it wasn't an issue any longer. 10 But now Bloch comes into the picture. The 11 interveners still pick up on it, and it's opened again. 12 And then another thousands of hours of 13 people's time wasted on it. And I think it's still there. 14 l They won't let go of it. i 15 It's just ludicrous. 16 r I may be diverting from what your interest 17 18 is. ~ 19 Q. No, I wanted to get some of that background. Getting back, then, you've never been asked t 21 l or directed orintimidated to draw up violations from 22 inspections-23 J A. To drop? 1 24 I Q. Yeah, or-- i 25 i ) 26 A. No. i I e ~?. !, Ca/ t M 3 .h.d S *is d,$ds.'
- N'.
,,% c. 't. N. Di[h df; ,b( ,,a[ t ,(
23 1 Q. --or to downgrade violations to unresolved 2 items, things like that. 3 A. No. 4 Q. Has Region IV management or Region IV super-i { visors ever asked you to go to Comanche Peak--this is j f i 7 recently, you know, as the plant neared licensing--and ) I i 8 asked you to go to Comanche Peak and to close out all the 9 remaining open items and maybe even the manual Chapter 25-12 l 10 inspection items? 11 A. No. 12 l Q. Was there any direction like that to go out and conduct inspections and just to close out the open l 14 items so we can get this thing licensed? I I 15 l 16 A. No. 17 Q Have you ever been asked or has anybody l 18 ever indicated to you to go out and just to pencil whip 18 inspections--you know, just get something down on paper 20 and close out items? 8' 21 I A No. No, I think the one issue that becomes i 22 quite apparent is inspection time. There's this need to 1 23 l 1 k good on paper. You've got to get out and get the 24 25 thirty percent of your time on inspections. And that seems ..(
- l' 26 to be an overloading requirement, instead of--
Well, I think .P ~ 1 fr j'.(d.M.NbsyQNki bYL'h..N'kMkkkOb
- M.C$h*).n,
h45[.-'. 6<,. i.: Lc.
I 24 I that's a major f ault that I have. 2 Q. Have you ever--or do you know of anybody 3 that has gone out and closed out inspection modules as 4 being a hundred percent complete when, in reality, it has 5 ly been twenty-three percent complete, for whatever 6 j 7 reason? 8 A. I don't think that would be that gross. You I 9 know, I mean that's a judgment factor. You' re the inspector. 10 If you've covered the module, maybe you haven't done it 11 like somebody else would do. Okay? l 12 j Q. Yeah. 13 A. And it gets closed out. That, I'm sure, has 14 happened. l 16 Q. Would-- In these inspection modules, are 17 there certain-- Excuse me. j 18 (Interruption for incoming phone call.) I 19 Q. Okay. Getting back, these inspection modules, 1 20 i do they have certain line items that have to be closed out or s 21 } A. Oh, they used to have. There was a company j 22 where the module line item items which, I don't think, really 23 got the attention that maybe was intended to be. Because 25 a m dule is a guidance. You know, it's more of a guidance 26 than it is anything else, in my term. And I think a lot of 1, _ 1 '$U J ,, $. k. -m{ ' , 0.'.'sYtA4rNr 5<- ' sm. * *~.O C' 'YNASCS* rOim? MW5" ~ ~ Y....... ..s. '.. =. -.,,r, ".,M;r'??>h ' 'O*. s# s
- w. s'E %. -
25 i I 1 people realize that. Because some of the items spelled out 2 in the procedure may not be applicable to that particular 3 facility. So, you know, you have to use judgment. 4 Q. Okay. So, at least in your experience and i 5 { opinion, then, it'r, not necessary to actually inspect every I 6 ene of these line items because some of these line items 7 8 might not apply. 4 9 A. Yeah. I don't know when they started changing 10 the format'of the modules and what have you. I think that 11 kind of disappeared. Q. If you were doing an inspection module 13 and, for some reason, you didn't complete it, you decided l 14 you were going to stop work on the. inspection module, how 15 would you record that? Would you record it as a hundred 37 percent complete, 6r how would that work? i i 18 A. It would depend on what attribute you had 1 19 seen. If there are attributes that were significant, you 20 l would estimate your percentage still had to be done. l 21 But if you got into a module and everything 22 you were looking at-- you know, anything you started 23 skimming becasue, you know, it looked good enough here for i that. So, you'd sign it off as a hundred percent complete. 25 l 26 And if numbers of people have already looked ?-3 i2 9 9 P 4 5 [, ,4 "9
- M#h
$s n -b 4 9+
- e
26 1 at the same module you may say, " Hey, there's enough 2 i inspections on this area. Let's cross it out." 'l 3 Q. Would you-- For example, on an inspection 4 module, one of the 25-12 inspection modules or any of them, 5 i 1 l would you cite different inspection report.s to show the work 6 s t t 7 that was done in closing out? Is that the way that works? i l 8 You know, you cite-- 9~ A. Well, tracking has been a major problem. 10 When I was a project inspector, I used to record, track 11 what inspection a particular module was related to. We 12 i would-- If I recall, we would put that into the 25-20 I tracking system. And it never-- You know, it never-- 14 t Samehow, it was awful hard to go back and track this infor-1 i 15 16 mation because this 766 system is-very cumbersome. t I And it took quite a while to try to go ' l 17 i 18 back and reshuffle them. { j 19 Q. On the 766 's, who prepares that form? For l 20 example, you do an inspection report. 21 .l A. The inspector-- Generally, the inspector. 22 I or inspectors, if there's more than one. l 23 Q. l 24 So, if you did an inspection, you covered ertain m dules, y u w uld get the 766 and you would-- 25 28 let's say it was inspection 86-12--on that 766, you would ,s. i _.m . y-- ~ f hk ~*
- *I t\\
I* ~ ' ~ ~ SS ^! s
27 I l 1 1 say, module so-and-so and cite this inspection report as 2 work done on-- 3 A. Well, the 766 was just an attachment to that, t 4 and the 766 would identify the inspection report, plus the i 1 period of time that the inspection was done. I 6 i Q. So, if you had a 766 that said Inspection 7 8 Module 35-10 was worked on, you go back to the inspection ? 9 report then and see what work was done. 10 A. Yeah. And try to-- 11 Q. They should be similar, I guess is what I'm 12 saying. l.l 13 A. Oh, yeah. i 14 l Q. So, based on your experience and what'you've 15 i done, if you didn't complete a module, then you would. just 16 l 17 charge it off as being 60 percent-- l 18 A. Percent, yeah. 4 ,I } 19 Q. --unless you felt that other work had been i 20 done or-- l 21 A. Well, if I felt that module--that area had i 22 been adequately inspected, then write it off. But some of l j 23 the modules that we had way back when were somewhat vague and 24 so generalized that it was difficult to say, " Hey, what do g 26 they really want out of this. module?" And you really have
- -N l
l-1 l i 1 ,, r - ,v
- h
- kd. $
- abhk 'a
? *5.* j' ' t i A* r++ * $ ** ~
1 l m W 28 l I 1 to use some of your own judgment. Say, "This is the area. 2 Regardless of what the module says, let's. go into it in 3 every aspect of it and get the principal attributes and i 1 4 l sign it off. l l 5 h O. Is there any sort of quality control on these j 6 l 766's? If'~you fill out a 766'and you say you've done work 7 j 8 on certain modules and you've closed thcm out, is there l 9 anybody who will doublecheck later on down the line to make l 10 sure that the 766 is accurate? Or is it pretty much up to 11 ) l the inspector? 12 i A. It's pretty much up to the inspector.
- Again, l
13 ]_ it's a judgment factor. You're going to 'say, "Okay, did 1... 'd you really do 20 percent or did you do 100 percent?" You know, it's so subjective. You read the report, and it kind 16 i 1 l 17 of outlines what was covered. 1 1 18 Q. So, when somebody takes the 766 's and enteres j i 19 them on the computer or the tracking system,-- l 20 A. Yeah, it goes to the secretary and-- I don't 21 know just what the flow is, or was then. But I remember i l i 22 s l ' '! Jean Perry was principal recorder of all that information. i 23 1 2 Q. Do you have any specific knowledge about the l t l 25 25-12 inspection program having to do with quality assurance 1 26 construction? Did you have any involvement with that at all? l } eC7h Ih# l I c l k I -i i ~ :i.f',2,;s;- W% S.: - c., n.. ".:, A D, R%bl.e A M i 1 i
I i s i 29 i l 1 A Oh, yeah. I mean, the modules are spelled ( 1 2 out. l 3 G Do you feel that that Module 25-12 with l l 4 regards to Comanche Peak has been adequately completed? 5 a A I would say in the overall, it was. I.mean, l l 6 \\ l the modules called for looking at two major pours. We must i 7 have looked at a hundred of them; I mean, it was an I 8 l overkill, because that's all that was going on in essence. 9 10 - G What about structural steel? That came up 11 as an issue. How do you feel about that? i 12 A Oh, I try to relate if I g' t any of it-- e 13 0 I'm not implying that'you did. I'm just 14 l asking-- 15 A No, no, I'm just trying to think back. I i 16 think we have an overkill in the structural steel area, l 17 t 18 particularly in the seismic restraints and allegations l 19 that took place with Atchison; 20 - G Right, Atchison. l 21 l That again was way out of proportion. A l 22 l G Do you feel that the Region IV management i f 23 has emphasized and taken sufficient steps to ensure that l 24 this Inspection Module 25-12 has been properly conducted? 25 l A Oh, I think in the overall. There have been 26 4Ih 1 l s8 4.,2.4 . $ k' 'E**V** [$ ' ' S ' ', .L 'J--
- b 'M
\\' t.
i i i 30 i j different managers involved. One more recent individual, i bis main theme is quality assurance, and it's cut and dried, 2 3 as if that's an end product. We don't need that type of 1 4 bureaucrat? It's just not-You can't have a hundred .;( y .,... r %.;. j percent. There's just no'way, particularly in construction, I* 6 a-i and I think these individuals think that there should be, y%,. l 7 s ~ " ' e particularly when you're' going back and looking at e i 4 t., history n ' P.* ?. O.$.r... -.v m.,,u.;; 9 ?, N.. em.t,,w' s .~ 4 to 6 You mentioned'~that before. Cterious.ly' there l $ :q'.b.x, .,. v,. ;x y &:... .q: ;O. " h r ~ . '.i % f8 W i J has been 11
- ..' mg @some discussion in the Region about people like -
i:n., y m n Wey h.@f.:yy;. 5, T tS. O c ('%gs.: you just. talked,% p,. w.9t'that,think-thatquality
- ye,. b.:, it t
- 7..
at e is ..s .'. p ym., - . d of 'the Whole.projecti.":. q . y @. 7. 0,. s - -'.;,the begime8 d aad'. W.v en. n.-
- g. r "?.'n
. as . a g. o u ..J3 ..e .3,.,..;.. 4' y,ge. 3 im..,... ,'. \\:ce.a. Ed c.T".h.d.$,p '#'% d. Bas.i there b..W.. e,n,K 10=*'. d.sc,ussion betwee L i N O Mt r e i . gg; 2.x re W,, e,,AJN, '. t,.a s. - e. e.@..h.sve..
- m..
f .u. i "~~ i. (p. -managemen&...and, individuals -like :that that you have knowl-16. O.. st.; N.+r.p.,. & - 2 ' ' VJR-#.t
- W :'e M.. 4. 9
-t- -4 .,4< s g edge,i; W,- R W~oR..p y nitMe'e 'W.. e.... %h 6 ? V; * +rV ',We W... .' c ',o,. W' - E E.M%d[3, '- 'g em sure there. has 'bedtse'cause almoist' 18 - irsw.( 2".%..,... -.. ,- ~s,. u + a,- 3, ... u..... .~ n i sg 'every disonssion that"he got. intoWthat.has"been his arghs 1 - -s,. 9.:-. u.; w +w.. 1 aant.m:e ' #... '.n u m ? % ~ m?h : k. . '......a v.c.w s N' . W. d. J:.'./ r
- i. ". 3,x
%e.,w+he I
- Mr x-
'a. f*".w. .x ....w.,T. w e w.e War,amW - N. se*v At e.ia. e .gg 4 s7t ..... J wc-W W. person?..r p -*.. -.f, w_ N. * - 4 . m, +.
- 4.,
- w.
',f*W,4.... m r
- n.
g a. r_,,x.t., r.. - 'I'n' talking abouti yI .v., n. :.. _. . I eN... .... ~. -. 3, ;. pt gy j' n, ',, pg ** M~ I %,},V* ~know$a'.T kYd@ N bas'I*M N.[# $sWhat happened;with him and Sha 'l - ~ W ' M. h g M - a MMQ Phillips"W;i.f,8$$$R4%$W NW475;MM 97Tk q ^ .c maw;;. Op i.;?~%. '.* V d M iD M % % % W M M W B M P M bs ca ling? ~ did theusame thing at Gouth.TexasT l5e wa l i m .n 4, ,,,,,and saying that the managemen.t in Region:$T&? 5L IK e ' #f".'\\.c.7.',,, '., ~ i ' ;, - e $..... u* ,,, ' ?. &# A. '.'
- 1...........b
- ****/. 4 v c. f h*. ; * ~f n.. k i ~*;,-{ t 13 3.g .'. >. f. #y ,v - e.. 4 ;, .s m ' W. ,4 h y t... n .o
- ., * ', *c+N. e '>., r&
g ~1, gn $. -b s.. g j w .g,4 % ,,w 1'I I. s %sm.as N l*. n( 'y 4- ,s ,.g 44 # g .. y).., 9'.'A ' ;.. e a r. .r k- , 2. #.,, 'y a. .m
- .c..
. e errss. % &.'.m .3 ,,; f,- e "..g, X.. ..1 -r ,t .p n.i., n l c. Av. A % w.> - e.*.,y. w- %m+ m.:..% y r;
- 4..q;gp' ey g'.
,."P * *~ o< .(*' x%. ,j, '4 a.', j,a,py,,. x <sn. e. l 4e ..A.;, w .1-s.,.l. s.y. 4. C .?e.x n.'.
- y,$
- ' - ~W&,..rd, g
J... -. :.y s
- w..e m. v. s..%
~ g.<lleQi,~f, .s. 9. s -s- .'& ~ v -~M -4 ~ n* .. M *f *> . x. & ;. Q g. "ll % 0. )> W n.; L t e ~%@%. ~.
- v:w
-H : n.v,w f
l 31 e 1 1 wasn't supporting him. j 2 This individual came up with things that are 3 i almost unbelievable. 1 4 " Bey, how did you get there, from A to 37 ) 8 c.. sv
- .sl. -
3 And yea're 'sayini,,..this is.the citation?" It's just; a 4 s..... ~ t,. 'c .7 unbelievable..'l~ ~ ..g. u... ..a.,,. i m M n~;,.+ > M. w :vi...., + u. v.. ? w w,r w 3 <+ ~.. - i 8 q. ^ I have read some of his reports'.. The maa
- ,b, i - e,...
..c.L. .o p.e / u,7.sg@b...u14W.. o. t.* bi, li. ths M W, ' - %. $s. $..' N ' 7 D.if Ym ~ - ..; sh "n i ~ ition'he's in'4 .~ ~w~ s .oc *1 $'P, V ' W m. X. p:WP
- 3 -
L10. .q p7.,@ 7 Q.4 iBas sabian IV management' talked J- ~. m. n.. g. wm. w.. ns.,:. +
- u
- 4.y,.,.. v.
n,.,m..:. jj . 5r % w i W;orWhillipsaboutthese kind of things? f % NM:$r.gf.. '" l J GMsi ,t%%@.%%@p*;. Hip: y n, w %,,p.W.x&. ip@pW:..,.* l 4. 4 1-G M m.,, PWok/ I' sure they havs'..' Ilain' tkno k y.it Y. Ma .,,,.x.1s g t.j >Typ%a.. sa4..,.... .y.. ;pt, w.;..+. J.;.weg.'grpw e , w :. 4 we . w.s ?.%. w . w x. m..e;w...,. x ..%c. snot in.the management trea..- aut I can.'m,helpib, ut',think4, %, .y s. 7 14 t ,,;~.v.w;sa.r ~s o.
- mt m,;.a, c.
4 w.mpm:6.lghtj,y a.- ~, somebo% w m e.;;,L..has got.to yot some_sensibilit 6....som .. m'.g:g.:. ..p. g / ,s. o .cs n ..a .ecu,. . p< ..p. ;,,. y n,p..pg 9-.9y g.4.g,,,).45,q.yy,s. :gue :,,h r. pyP., m+-w aM.ycgio. y j gg , me - r.ag. . rf;. ~ ". . t,.,a w e.. 3 .. n,b. g ;ne. . mw w.: u.mi.*y.4y v.qq w vgg.Q, p.p, . %g.L. 17 - s 34. ,' I think it's' justW It's.$nst:. unbelievable.'- .. e h.: l
- w..; e,.
v m g a g,e q q q.,e.w :.w 2.g g g,% p. a -.+.,.n.. ' ' - Q.a 'Youwereenlinspector;youwereoutatl, r. - c s,.w..s.. e, . n,, q:., u ComanchePeak,and'hou've,beenoutatotherpl$m.,....,tsN Y you g sf4 .~..~.; m,.<-v.,o.s. 3 6.. feel that 'the Region IV managers, do they know what?sMs. 1 u. ..% e m.-
- ,.w.ag,
~ .magg.mww ;2,s.,,,. m,.... g p.; goinion' out in.' the'~f1514 with'.you ' guys?f." ~ '.' ' g ~ 7 ~ .u y 'sg y,; n-g~.. 7. g..- 'A. g I'think, in~ general, yes. But whether there's, X.. '; n.. u.. w. .8 .a.m;wGn w&.6m.. n.z.t y..6,yng.5{w a, really any management over that activity,.I think_.thatl . v 4:.W%. _g 3 %!kW J-M 8-. %~a
- ..& ' +
m.Wgxy.w.W,B.. . 9..:.' g, s. Z..<.now there :isc;Iithink that now that Westaman 3 ras'pu -H ,q. ;,i as, Tinn .,. +.. ,.' w y c,... -- ...,x.+ _. 4.~y e. .n. p..g. My.,,g,; 7 ,f c.
- 1. u x,.
a.1 ]b*My.;gthere, I think maybe there's some sensibility involved.1.i~ M ~. ',7 d .se %..r. 1 1 ,, g l ac. - _.4... w r,,, s %.n,4 m,m. %c.; g - ~ g#4.q' 7 .m .s, 'e. .' 8,,
- ks ?..
f 9"W.y,T, n'f.*. . M L. w.e:!.+,..H ~.r:.:.x:
- t 4 7s.4.;.
- g L. *;..., :
\\ a %,L-s f"* p..%,,,(,.,s.t.h &p '.4* s,='s ..,'*). ? + e ,q.- '. v. ;., y l+ . m., y. ',.,, g 4.,,, ws ? .e it > *,. 1-' g,4.c..
- r
.tr ' ;..*, ~ .9O m r t e, n..;. j 7,.-M. 4
- j.+,<.
y t. . a.k 1 .,.g y... ,f.3 *.. 4 .r.4 6 '.*.r.t w@... .4,.. '..,..*NC.
- o. ; 'r,'. - ". -
,./,,.t.s. 7, y % 2r f 9 : e>. 6 .s ~ s 4 g ,c_ 4 rA w.. aw
- yJ ~
.=..,.p.
- p* 8 e
+.* t, ,g' .'*V ._ ___. viT T-h I f h g y [ wu
-
,y
32 How he and Barnes is doing now, I don't know. 2 But he and Barnes came out of the vendor. program. If you 3 look at his background, he's never had experience in the 4 construction area. And whether he can interpret things 5 pr perly, I don't know. I just have not-- 6 7 If I start reading all of the paper that's i 8 being generated on the Comanche, I probably would go stark 9 raving mad because it's a real sore spot with me. In my 10 j opinion, it's one of the better built plants in the nation, 11 and yet they're killing it. 12 Q. So you feel. guys like Westerman and the l 13 l l Regional Administrator, they know what's going on out there? I 14 A. I think they're being puppets for the NRR, 15 16 Noonan. 17 Q. Let me ask you a question that's a little t 18 bit-- Well, let me ask you one that maybe is on line. 18 Do you know of any safety issues at Comanche Peak that have not been appropriately addressed by Region i 21 'l IV? 22 A. No, I wouldn't have-- I couldn't think of any. In fact, what's going on, I think, is just an over-24 l 25 kill. It's just unbelievable. i l 26 Q. Let me ask you a question that's a little
- -73
- W WP l
l ,w,.- l m. ,w .c ~.
33 I bit of f the track but has to do with the Freedom of Informa-2 tion requests that the Region gets. 3 Have you ever heard or have you ever been 4 given direction by anybody at Region IV to get rid of draft reports, draft documents because there was a FOIA i 6 i request on its way down? 7 8 A. Not to get rid of, no. I have seen-- In 9 fact, one of the FOIA's that came out had to do with the 10 same stuff that Shannon Phillips had. He sent me the whole Il packet, and I went through it. I didn't throw anything away. l 12 g I just separated it, duplications. What I thought was a [ draft-- In fact,.I pulled out the draft reports and l 14 ) separated them. But I certainly didn't throw them away. 16 0 The draft reports, what happens to them? { 17 A. They would have stayed with the packet. In i 18 fact, I gave them back to Phillips. f 19 0 But nobody in Region IV management has ever 20 said, " Listen, we've been told that there's a FOIA request 21 up at the.NRC headquarters coming down to Region IV, and i 22 'I we want you to get rid of all of the stuff so you won't 23 have to produce it under FOIA"? A* 25 i } 26 O. Nothing like that has ever been told to you. j -7 I ~" w ? k ,. MD'.'. ..d'L.ksC'.:n.-5..~2 G U?D s ~ ^ ^ "~
._,.-.....z. ...... w = 34 l l l 1 A. Oh, no. I mean, I think it's smart for 2 people to understand that when you finish a report, get rid 3 of your notes and stuff because they'll end up in FOIA. 4 But that 's not-- I mean, that's not a 5 management instruction. You use your own judgment. 6 i Q. I'm talking about especially after a FOIA 7 ) g has been received. i 9 A. Oh, no, I don't think there has been any-4 10 thing like that. I think Bill Sidell who handles that is 11 above reproach in that matter. He would never jeopartize his.... 13 i' _ Q. Do you have anything else that you would like 14 -~' to add now that you have a feel for what I'm talking and stuff like that? Do you have anything you 'd like to add j 10 37 before we close? I 18 A.
- Well, I--
What, in recent activities in what 1 l 19 Asseltine, he should be impeached for what he's given the 20 3 press. I mean, it's just taken out of context, like the I 21 l best and worst reactors. That should never have been put 4 22 j out in that context, based on SAUP reports that are a 1 23 l management information tool. It doesn't make it worst or 24 best. It's just like saying, "I've got brilliant students 4 i 26 in my class. Every one of them pases." Now, wht.ch one is !O ,v ty am- ~~ ., k'l 1 ." h ' ' s ' + 'A t
35 \\ ~ 1 the lowest and which is the highest? They're all-- You know. 2 And the way it's picked up in the press, it l 3 just infuriates me. 4 I You know, I could probably go on and on in 1 5 j that area. 6 Q. Yeah, I understand. 7 !l 8 A. I think overall they ought to shut the'NRC I 9 down and start over again. 10 Q. As far as comanche Peak's concerned, then, ? l 11 you feel that Region IV's management has had a good attitude 12 and has been aboveboard in their dealings? i i 13 i A. Oh, I think we've got some good, you know, 14 ~ individuals that, you know, maybe you don't agree with their i 16 philosophy, but they're trying to do a good job. It's a 17 nightmare to try to satisfy the interveners, the NRR, i i 18 particularly and then do the paper that's coming out. I mean .i { 19 we re building a papermill that's becoming horrendous. e 20 i ] Instead of closing out and getting rid of some 1 21 I of the items, they go on and on and on and add more to it. 22 It's just-- I don't see an end to it, and I imagine they feel the same way. i} 24 1 El O. As an inspector with Region IV for quite a j 25 u 26 few years now, do you feel that you've been allowed to do i ~~%. 1 # ~ \\ .i t .owW4vs %wiaMM?i:% 3:sWMMi:MuW?%: d
...-~---y; 36 4 I } your job? Have you been treated fairly? 2 A Whether I've.been treated fairly, that's one 3 thing. I think nobody had the balls to keep me there or 4 let me continue. And the same way with Bob Taylor. I 5 think he did the best he could. He was down there by himself, and I think he did-- he picked out the areas 7 8 that he felt was more significant from a safety issue and 9 delved into those. 10 Maybe the paper track doesn't look like hb 'I did a hundred precent. Wel, he couldn't. So I think 12 that by keeping me away from it, keeping Taylor out, it's 13 purely political. And I think the whole issue is political. 14 '~ I don't think there's a question of the safety of that facility. 18 17 MR. MULLEY: Okay, that ends it. 18 (Interview conicuded at 11:45 a.m.) 19 20 21 22 23 l 24 i 25 26 ',p., i3 e W .-v,.,,g r-es .., _
- i ,a ',." '..? 2',,-j!
- 4, r{ ;fa, g,p r i,
w .. g',,, g,;. ;, ..: g .v'. a
I 1 1 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 I hereby certify that the proceedings herein are 3 contained fully and accuratdly in the notes tak'en by me 4 during the sworn intrarview of ROBERT C. STEWART on 5 J .M a '. 2 8, 198 6, commencing at 10:50 a.m., and that this y 6 is a true and accurate transcript of the same. 7 8 9 . J rr C , 4, c Sandra Harden 10 Reporter 11 My commission expires: 6-4-89 12 13 I4 5 15 16 I 17 i { 18 j i l 19 l 20 21 1 l 23 24 .i 25 i 26 .3 h t = I g.iMS5idDiali%. ...'27 fT, ' 1,, pf,. ,2,ff.& 6,,,W:,. .s.; / ' 1- ....-.-._.........-m .-}}