ML20040D436

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of Rl Cloud Associates Testimony by Hk Loey on 811231 in San Francisco,Ca.Pp 580-591
ML20040D436
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 12/31/1981
From: Loey H
ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML17083A976 List:
References
NUDOCS 8202010294
Download: ML20040D436 (13)
v • d • e


Text

1 i

l hN 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 INVESTIGATION OF 5 DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 6

7 INTERVIEW OF 8 HANSON K. LOEY 9

10 Robert L. Cloud Associates 125 University Avenue ij Berkeley, California 12 Thursday December 31, 1981 13 (C The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, i4 15 Pursuant- to notice , at 2:4 3 p.m.

16

- 17 APPEARANCES:

j 18 On behalf of the NRC Staff:

g 19 OWEN C. SHACKLETON, JR., Moderator j 20 PHILIP J. MORRILL a

! 21 i

f 22 i

. 23 24 25 s.

[E#"258!!4!!gs!?3 0 -580-PDR

ERRATA SHEET Interview of Hanson K. Loey, December 31, 1981 No changes or corrections were identified by Hanson K. Loey or Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.

s L

-581 -

1 l

l

^

1 P_ R, Q q E E Q I_ E g E 2 2:43 p.m 3 MR. SHACKLETON: This is December 31, 1981. The 4 time is now 2:4 3 p.m. This is an interview of Mr. Hanson l 5 K. Loey. Mr. Loey is an engineer with the firm of Robert ,

6 L. Cloud & Associates, Inc. This interview is taking place 7 in the offices of Robert L. Cloud & Associates, Inc., at l 8 125 University Avenue, Berkeley, California.

9 The purpose of this interview of Mr. Loey is 10 to develop the facts and the hanpenings surrounding the it present reverification program of the seismic design of the 12 Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. This investigation is 13 being conducted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Conmission.

k, . .

14 In addition to Mr. Loey being present for this 15 interview, representing the US Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 16 from Region V is Mr. Philip J. Morrill, Reactor Inspector.

17 My name is Owen C. Shackleton, Jr. I am a senior investi-g l 18 gator.

g 19 Mr. Loey, prior to going on record I advised you c

j 20 of your right to have personal legal counsel present. Do 21 you waive that right?

a f 22 MR. LOEY: Yes.

23 MR. SHACKLETOM: I also explained to you and am 24 requesting on behalf of the Conmiss. on that you keep the 25 testimony that you are about to give confidential. Is that k.

-582-

+. . . -,.,,...-.~~~~n._.

(? I understood?

2 MR. LOEY: I understand.

3 MR. SHACKLETON: Very good. Would you please 4 stand for the oath.

5 Whereupon, 6 HANSON K. LOEY 7 was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn, 8 was examined and testified as follows:

9 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Loey, would you please state to your full name?

ji MR. LOEY: Hanson Kon Loey.

12 MR. SHACKLETON: And would you spell your middle 13 name, please?

(f 14  !!R. LOEY: K-o-n.

15 MR. SHACKLETON: And what is your vocation?

16 MR. LOEY: Engineer, 17 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Loey, how long have you been g

j 18 employed by R. L. Cloud & Associates, Inc.?

3 19 MR. LOEY: Since July 1 of this year.

3 20 MR. SHACKLETON: And you are presently assigned l l 21 to the reverification study for the Pacific Gas & Electric I

f. 22 Company?

l i

6 23 MR. LOEY: Yes.

24 MR. SHACKLETON: When were you first assigned 25 to this contract?

(L 1

l

-583-i

?.

( 1 MR. LOEY: The Sunday of October -- you'll have 2 to help me with the date. Maybe the 12th. Is that the 3 14th, around there?

4 MR. SHACKLETON: Let me make available a 5 calendar.

6 (Mr. Loey examines the calendar.)

7 MR. LOEY: I think I would have started the 10th.

8 I think that's the date -- I'm sorry. The lith. Sunday.

9 MR. SHACKLETON: So your assignment then beginning to on this contract was October 11, 1981.

11 MR. LOEY: Uh-huh. Or I'm not sure. It could 12 have been the next Sunday after that.

13 MR. SHACKLETO'7 : But it was at least --

k- 14 MR. LOEY: The middle of October.

15 MR. SHACKLETON: The middle of October. Were 16 you involved in the preparation and the writings of the 17 October 21, October 26, November 6 and November 12, 1981 l 18 draft reports?

g 19 MR. LOEY: I was.

j 20 MR. SHACKLETON: Were you involved in the revi-21 sion of the October 21, October 26 and November 6 draft a

f 22 reports ?

! 23 MR. LOEY: I was.

24 MR. SHACKLETON: What were the original instruc-25 tions provided to Cloud employees performing the development

(. '

-584-

5 hj i of the report and handling of comments?

2 MR. LOEY: Instructions from whom?

3 MR. SHACKLETON: Let's start first of all from 4 Cloud & Associates. Did you have any formal briefings?

5 MR. LOEY: There were no specific instructions.

6 MR. SHACKLETON: Were any instructions given 7

with any meetings with Pacific Gas & Electric employees?

8 MR. LOEY: I don't recall.

9 MR. SHACKLETON: Did you receive any verbal 3g comments from Pacific Gas & Electric, Westinghouse, or 33 any other company personnel concerning recommended revi-sions to the October 21, October 26 and Novenber 6 draft 12 reports?

13 k g MR. LOEY: Yes. Some comments, yes.

MR. SHACKLETON: Were these comments given by 15 a person-to-person encounter, by telephone calls? Could 16

- 17 you please explain for the record?

MR. LOEY: Some coments were in a written form.

(  ! 18

19 I had a telephone call in which we discussed some written i

comments. I don't recall if there were any person-to-person j 20 f 21 comments . There may have been, but I'm not sure.

I I Mr. Loey, were these verbal MR. SHACKLETON:

f 22 t  !* 23 comments documented by you or by someone else in Cloud?

i MR. LOEY: I don't think they were, no.

24 MR. SHACKLETON: When I say verbal conments, I 25

( .

! h-i I

I f

-585-

G (h3 1 am relating primarily to requests for revisions of your 2 drafts. Do you rpresently maintain any type of a log 3 concerning your interface with PG&E engineer staff?

4 MR. LOEY: Personal or company basis type log?

5 MR. SHACKLETOM: Whichever.

6 MR. LOEY: At the company we do have a record of, 7 you know, these types of conversations. Personally, I keep 8 records of my own conversations where I felt they were, g you know, of sdbstance, of the type that would go into a 10 report form, information that would be put into a report.

11 MR. SHACKLETON: You stated several answers 12 earlier to me that you had no fornal procedure to follow

., 13 in the preparation of this report. Did whatever procedu:ces k- 14 you followed just develop as the work progressed? Could 15 you explain to us how you did proceed?

16 MR. LOEY: I think basically we began on that

17 Sunday, that first day of that project, and we discussed

=

l 18 the objective of this review. Proceeding from that meeting, g 19 we I guess proceeded on a day-to-day basis revising our a

j 20 procedures and actual objectives based on information we f 21 have obtained and limitations we may have come up against i

f 22 that we didn ' t know about before.

23 MR. SHACKLETON: Could you for the Commission's 24 benefit enlighten us into what specific areas that you were 25 assigned?

L

-586-

hb 1 MR. LOEY: Initially Mr. Paul Anderson and I 2 were assigned to look into mechanical equipment and piping 3 and all the other areas not involving buildings and the 4 actual Blume/PG&E interface concerning the building qualif-5 ications , building models. Eventually it developed that 6 I was responsible for reviewing the initial review of 7 valves and electrical equipment and instrumentation.

8 MR. SHACKLETON: Did your work require you to go 9 over to PG&S headquarters in San Francisco to request to documentation from the files of the engineering department?

11 MR. LOEY: Yes.

12 MR. SHACKLETON: Did you have to make frequent 13 trips during the period that you have been employed on this

(' 14 contract?

15 MR. LOEY: Yes. During the first period, the l

l 16 first week, we were there every day from Sunday through, l 17 for myself, Friday all day and part of Saturday morning.

l 18 MR. SHACKLETON: For the record, Mr. Loey, there g 19 are many people who will be reading this report and your a

l j 20 comments who are not real familiar with what is involved f: 21 in the engineering effort that you have been involved in.

f 22 Could you please at this tine expound a little bit about l 23 why you have to go over, why you would be required to go 24 to PG&E's engineering department to work on your assignment?

l 25 MRI. LOEY: Basically this review consisted of l

-586.a-

. . - .. .: a w.. ...m., .vm , , , , . ... u. .w_~_._._

-a

i

-l 1

4  :

( 1 examination of documents contained in the PG&E files to gain 2 a better understanding of the history and background of 3 the seismic qualification of Diablo Canyon nuclear power 4 plant. In particular. in my area of valves and electrical 5 equipment, we were basically interested in obtaining inform-6 ation on the process in which the equipment -- equipment 7 including valves -- was seismically qualified and that 8 documentation and, in some cases, calculations and state-9 ments of opinions of PG&E engineers regarding work done by 10 outside contractors or whoever, as the case may be, this ij documentation was contained in the PG&E files and in some 12 cases PG&E engineers' personal files.

13 MR. SHACKLETON: Do I understand correctly that

(. 34 each of you in the preparation of the draft reports that 15 we are discussing had particular sections that you had to 16 be the author initially, is that correct?

17 MR. LOEY: Initially. That is true.

l 18 MR. SHACKLETON: In writing those sections of the g 19 report that were your responsibility, were you ever encour-l :

j 20 aged or directed by anyone to change any of your original fa 21 findings?

f 22 MR. LOEY: Not to change the findings , no. In 23 some cases where information was not available, when the 24 draft was submitted to PG&E this information became a' vail-l 25 able as the engineers, as particular engineers may have l

l C

l -587-

1 determined that such information-was indeed in their persona].

2 files.

3 MR. SHACKLETON: These are PG&E engineers you 4 are referring to, is that correct?

5 MR. LOEY: Right.

6 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Loey, have you ever in these 7 drafts that we are referring to, October 21 and October 26 8 and November 6, did you ever make any changes without sub-9 stantiating documentation?

10 MR. LOEY: I don't think so. In the cases where 11 I have made changes particular documentation was supplied 12 to ne.

, 13 MR. SHACKLETON: And is this documentation

(

maintained in the records of Cloud & Associates?

14 j 15 MR. LOEY: They are in oufflogbooks, yes.

l l 16 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Morrill, do you have any

17 questions you would like to ask Mr. Loey?

l l 18 MR. MORRILL: Yes. Mr. Loey, you mentioned some g 19 of the information you found you had to obtain from the c

j 20 personal files.

i e

$ 21 MR. LOEY: Right.

a MR. MORRILL: And that was retained by -- how f 22 t

Where was it found?

\

would you characterize that material?

l l 23 24 MR. LOEY: Well, it was material that I felt 25 should have been in the central files but in some cases, k.)

-588-

~

, . .. . . v .s. >.- . , n. - , ... ,,..- .. _ _ .

' ')

('M 1 maybe through some recordkeepina procedures, it just either 2 didn't get there or I was net able to find it in the time 3 available to us. This documentation was obtained by actually 4 going into the PG&E engineers' personal files and asking -

5 them if we could examine their files.

6 MR. MORRILL: So then information may be avail-7 able in the files of PG&E, but due to shortage of time you 8 obtained copies you needed from the engineers.

9 MR. LOEY: Right. If such information was to available in the files we would have obtained it from there 11 first.

12 MR. MORRILL: In the progress of preparing these 13 drafts did you discuss the revisions you were making and

(

14 the work you were doing with the other engineers involved?

15 MR. LOEY: Yes, absolutely.

16 MR. MORRILL: How would you characterize that

17 discussion? Was it daily? Weekly?

l 18 MR. LOEY: Oh, certainly on a dally basis, g 19 Sometimes often. Throughout that period we were working in a

j 20 very close proximity, often revising and incorporating

! 21 revisions in the office, working late hours and everything, i

f 22 and we would discuss certain comments and discuss the merit, 23 you know, and see if they were worth actually considering.

24 In some cases these comments were simply asinine or, you 25 know, grammatical type of comments, in which case, you know, b

-589-

. + . . .- . ...~.-msru n. m , _

w

r I

11 f.I 1 we just disregarded them.

2 MR. MORRILL: I have nothing more. Thank you.

3 MR. SHACKLETON: Mr. Loey, in the section of 4 the reports that you had to prepare the sections and the 5 part of the studies that you have worked on, have you ever 6 had to remove any or maybe you did'not find any adverse 7 information concerning the reverification study?

8 MR. LOEY: No.

9 MR. SHACKLETCN: Do you feel, then, that you to have had the appropriate freedom and were able to express 13 your findings honestly in your report?

12 MR. LOEY: Yes, I do.

13 MR. SH ACKLETON: Is there any comment that you k- 14 have made that you would like to enlarge upon at this time 15 for the record?

16 MR. LOEY: No, I don't believe so. The only

, 17 comment I would have is that the effect of submitting my l 18 section of the report, the draft, was that it put pressure g 39 on PG&E engineers to supply information where it looked a

j 20 like their recordkeeping was in poor condition. In effect, l 21 my section was actually made longer by a few paragraphs or i

f 22 so where letters to say outside contractors were provided, 23 supplied from PG&E engineers' personal files.

24 MR. SHACKLETON: Is there any additional informa-25 tion, Mr. Loey, relating to the seismic reverification study b

-590-c... . , , , , , . ,~ - -, . ~ . , . --- - _ ..- -

4

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20040D436&oldid=2584227"