IR 05000312/1978007
| ML19309A170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1978 |
| From: | Engelken R, Shackleton O NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309A164 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-78-07, 50-312-78-7, NUDOCS 8003260881 | |
| Download: ML19309A170 (11) | |
Text
..__ _-
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O,.
.
.
'
l. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMIS'
-
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENMRCErmNT
'
REGION V
'
'
Report No. 50-312/78-07 Docket No. 50-312 Licensa No. _ DPR-54 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
..
.
P. O. Box 15830
-
Sacramento. California 95813 Facility Name:
Rancho Seco Unit 1 ISh5Nk$ba"t:
Bechtel Power Corporation, Los Angeles Division, Norwalk, Calif and Investigation Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, Calif.
IMMpuutaBn conducte :
_ _ Maw 16.17. 22.1978
.
[
/ [
Je Inspector
/
~
/
D e Si ned
.
VW. G. Albert,Te Ctdr Ins ector
$$ lf f
f %.1/
M a
7 Owen C. ShtckTeton;f dr.,
vestigator Darg signed Date Signed
~24, [7J'
Approved By:
,
R. H. Engelken, Director bate signed Sunnary:
.
Special Investication on May 16, 17 & 22, 1978 (Report No. 50-312/78-07)
Investigated allegations by an NRC employee that Bechtel Corporation withheld significant seismic information and neglected to correct a significant design error.
Results: Neither of the allegations could be substantiated nor was there any i '
evidence of design deficiencies in the structures which were the subjects of i
the allegations.
!
s
,
O RV Form 219 (2)
'
'
8003260 (
a
-
, _.,
,,., -
. - -.. _. ~
.
,
.
.
'
.
,
'
-
l
-
s
.-
' '
OETAILS
'
.__...
.. _
,
1.
Individuals Contacted
~
-
a.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)
-
J. J. Mattimoe, Chief Engineer
- J. P. Hiltz, Manager of Hydro Operations
.
b.
Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
,
'
- W. A. Brandes, Chief Civil Structural Engineer
.
-
- A. H. Hadjian, Principal Engineer
-
- L. G. Hinkelman, Vice President and Manager of Operations
"
-
Los Angeles Division
- L. M. Moon, Engineering Group Supervisor R. B. Fa11gren, Engineering Group Supervisor
~.
C. T. Shen, Engineering Group Supervisor
-
,
- D. W. Phillips, Pipe Stress Supervisor
- Signed statements were requested and obtained from these individuals.
See attachments.
.. _
_..
,
- Interviewed by telephone.
2.
Allegations Two allegations, numbered I and V, were relayed to Region V by internal correspondence. This correspondence contained.the allegations as
'
written by the alleger, plus amplifying information. Attachments 1 and 2 are copies of the original allegations that Region V was requested
- -
to investigate.
Interviews with the alleger by IE Headquarters provided the amplifying infonnation which is reflected in the following summaries
.
'
of the allegations.
,
"
a.
Allegation No. I
.
,
This allegation states that Mr.' W. A. Brandes of Bechtel Corporation, who was the alleger's supervisor at the time, made a pencil correction of a decimal point error which the alleger had found during a routine check of some original design calculations for the Spent Fuel Storage Building at Rancho Seco Unit 1.
The incident took place in 1972 while
. +,
,
.
.
e
. ~ - - - - -,
-- -
--
,.-c
,e
--r-, -, -. -..,,---,
'
-
,
.
..
.
,
.
-2-V
-
-
,
the alleger was employed by the Bechtel Power Corporation, Los Angeles Power Division. The alleger contends that the decimal point error was nonconservative and was ignored.
-
The alleger stated that his concern was principally that it constituted a building to'ds violation rather than a radiological threat.
b.
Allegation No. V This allegation also concerned Rancho Seco Unit 1 design. It states that significant information (" generic seismic criteria")
was obtained from the San Fernando earthquake of February 9,
.
1971. According to the alleger, a team of structural engineers found that some " Category I" Rancho Seco structures would collapse because of these findings. When this infonnation was presented to Messrs. Hinkelman and Brandes, they involved Mr. Hadjian and other engineers in an assessment of these findings. This assessment showed that the original findings
.
were valid but "somewhat attenuated." The alleger states that these findings were withheld from the ASLB and others and infers that they were suppressed within the Bechtel Corporation. The alleger was not directly involved in these assessments and gathered his impressions and information from conversations with others in Bechtel.
Although the title of the allegation indicates that the information was purportedly withheld by the applicant, there is nothing in the text of the allegation or explanatory interviews to indicate that the applicant (SMUD) was involved.
The specific component of concern was the air cooling towers, althoughhestatedotherstructures(undefined)werealso l
involved.
3.
Investigation Plan In order to determine the substance of the allegations, Region V interviewed the individuals who, the alleger recalled as being involved.
i The design calculations for the spent fuel storage building were j
examined to determine dates, designers and checkers. The check
calculations for the natural draft cooling towars were also examined.
(Bechtel did not perform the original design of the cooling towers but did check the design.) Aconsultant(nottheconsultantreferenced j
,
i
.
i
.
l
...
i
'
-
_
,
- _ _.
__
_
_ _ _ - - _ _
-_ -- --
-
_ _ - -.
-
-
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
-3-
-
..
'
in' the allegation) prepared a report for SMUD on seismic events after
-
..
-
the construction ermit was granted. This report was examined (See Attachment 8. Interviews were also held with the Chief Engineer and the Project Civil Engineer for SMUD at the time of the
)
alleged incidents.
.,.
.
l Insofar as practicable, the identity of the alleger was protected.
However, as the investigation proceeded, Mr. Brandes and others in Bechtel readily perceived his identity.
Statements were obtained from those interviewees who directly influenced the design or design review at the time of the alleged incidents. These statements are includea in this report as Attachments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
4.
Findings - Allegation No. I Records of Design Calculations and Checks Do Not Indicate a.
that Alleger Performed Calculations or Checks for Spent
,
Fuel Storage Building Desig All calculation sheets for the Spent Fuel Storage Building i
were examined for evidence of involvement by the alleger.
i None of these sheets bore the alleger's name or initials, nor do any of the drawings for this structure bear his name or
'
initials. The original design and design checking was per-formed from July 1968 through May 1970. Records of design calculations for the Spent Fuel Building during this period are contained in a single bound record. Following completion of the original design work, further checks were performed.
Wind loading on the building was checked in March 1971 by.
E. H. Van O' Linda.
In February 1972. E. S. Vorrath performed a check of thermal stresses, and in March 1972 Mr. Vorrath again performed a check analysis of the ability of the structure to
,
withstand a cask drop. In 1975, the building structure was again analyzed for increased spent fuel capacity by Mr. P. Wong.
b.
Employment Records Do Not Indicate that A11eaer Would Have Performed Design or Design Check Calculations After Mr. Brandes perceived the identity of the alleger, NRC investigators asked for employment statistics. Bechtel's check of personnel files showed that the alleger was employed from July 14,1969 to May 12,1972.
Initial employment was for
- .
non-nuclear design work on a military project. He was first assigned to Rancho Seco in March 1971.
l
-
l
.
.
-
p
..
--
,
r
.e
..
-
.. -, -..,
,-
- ~,,,.,.., -..
, - - -. -
,. -.
- - -.. - ---
-
_ _. _ - -. - - - - _ - - -. _ _ - _ _. _ _ - - _
_ _ _ _ _. - _ - - -
-
-_- - - -----_--
'
.
.
-
'
.
O
'
4-
-
.
,
,
c.
Bechtel Personnel Refute Contention that Allecer was Ever Assigned Work on the Spent Fuel Storage Building Neither Messrs. Brandes, Moon or Hinkelman recall having assigned the alleger work.on the Spent Fuel Storage Building.
d.
Bechtel Personnel Do Not Recall Any Incident Involving an Error of One Magnitude Which Was Ignored in the Spent Fuel Building Design
They noted that the alleger was an extremely conservative designer and that he often accepted direction to design more conventionally with reluctance. However, the incident as
,
described by the NRC investigators did not coincide with any incidents in the memory of Bechtel personnel regarding Spent Fuel Building design.
See statements by Messrs. Brandes, Moon and Hinkelman in
'
Attachments 3, 4 and 5.
e.
Fuel Storace Building Design has been Subject To Checks By Competent Designers As noted above, the structure was reanalyzed in 1975 by a O
competent structural engineer to detennine its adequacy for increased fuel storage capacity. No problems were noted. Also, following the initial visit by the NRC to Bechtel Corporation in Norwalk on May 16, 1978, Bechtel asked the original fuel storage pool design engineer, Mr. R. B. Fa11gren, to examine all changes which had been made to his original calculations.
In an interview on May 22, 1978, Mr. Fallgren stated that he was satisfied that the changes which had been made were appropriate. Mr. Fa11gren was not employed by Bechtel during the period of the alleger's employment. Mr. Fa11gren is a professional engineer with both civil and structural qualifica-tions in the State of California.
Other personnel involved in the original design or design checking between 1968 and 1972 were either not available as Bechtel employees or were deceased.
The above findings indicate that the design of the Spent Fuel Storage
.
Building could not have been advesely affected by the incident
-
described if it did occur. Neither de these findings provide any i
_
i
---. -.
-
. -. - -
...
.
. _ _ _,
.
__
.
_..
.
.
-_ _ __ __ _
- - - - _ _ - - - - - -. - - - - - _ -.
.
.
'*i
%
5-.
-
.-
,-
evidence that such an incident actually took place in the manner i
described by the alleger.
ViolationsoftheUniformBuildingCode(UCB)wereconsidered extremely unlikely by Bechtel since other design criteria wera
,
normally controlling in a nuclear plant such as Rancho Seco.
'
5.
Findings - Allegation No. Y a.
The Natural Draft Cooling Towers Are Not Safety Related '
Structures
,
,
According to the FSAR (Section 5.5.3), these structures are Class II. This means that the loss of function for these structures would interrupt power generation but not pose a threat to the health and safety of the public. The FSAR notes that the seismic design criteria of such structures is based on
'
O.10 g horizontal ground acceleration.
,
b.
The Controlling Design Criteria For The Natural Draft Cooling Towers is Wind Loading Section 5.5.3 of the FSAR notes that wind load was the controlling factor in cooling tower design. However, the FSAR
'
<
in the same section states that "an independent check of the design indicates that the towers can withstand the Class I operatir.g base earthquake" (0BE). This earthquake would produce a 0.13 g horizontal ground acceleration.
c.
i" the Event of Collapse, Cooling Towers will not Affect Ftner Equipment-This was addressed by the NRC (AEC) at the time of the operating license review. Bechtel had analyzed the type of collapse which would most likely occur. The failure mode
correlated with available experience on cooling tower failure at Ferrybridge, United Kingdom.
!
!
d.
The San Fernando Earthquake Has No Bearing or Significance To Rancho Seco Design See Attachment 6 which is a statement by A. H. Hadjian which
~
effectively refutes any significance for this event.
In addition, note statements by J. Hiltz, Attachment 7.
Attachment 8 is a summary letter report prepared by an independent consultant for the applicant. This report was
!
~
'
g
.
t'
~
,,.
. -. - -.
,,.
_
,.
-
.,.
-...... -.. - - -
.. -
_,.
-
- _ _ _
_..
_ _
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_
.
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
_ ____.
_
'
.
.
.
..
,
.
,
. -6-
,
prepared during the operating license review phase of the i
project to assure that no new seismic data (since issuance of the construction permit) would affect design criteria.
The consultant stated that the original design basis was unaffected by any newer data. By omission, it is apparent that he also did not consider the San Fernando earthquake, which had occurred in.the interim, as having any applicability and did not mention it in an attached listing of applicable seismic events.
!
Bechtel Performed an Independent Seismic Review Following e.
Orioinal Design
-
'
In September 1970, after the NASTRAN computer program became available, Bechtel reanalyzed the most complicated Rancho Seco structure (the Auxiliary Building) using this program.
'
The Cal. Tech. B-2 earthquake spectra (artificial) and the Taft 1952 earthquake (actual) were both utilized. The results indicated that the existing design met established seismic
-
criteria.
The above findings indicate that the San Fernando earthquake was not applicable to the Rancho Seco design and that in any event the collapse of the cooling towers was not a threat to nuclear safety.
O The allegation was not substantiated.
In searching for possible sources for the alleger's San Fernando earthquake concern, the NRC investigators noted that the scientific community had paid particular attention to some abnormally high acceleration readings at the Pacoima Dam an( that Bechtel itself was very interested in damage to the nearby Sylmar Converter Station which
,
they had designed. Such items as this would certainly have resulted in general speculation about other structures and possibly led to the concern expressed by the alleger.
6.
Other Findings Possibly Relating to Allegations
,
a.
Use of Incorrect Ground Acceleration in Design of Plant i
Vent Structure
.
t Investigators found that the principal Rancho Seco design
<
activity of the alleger concerned the plant vent.
In i
attempting to locate a source for the alleger's concern, it was noted that the calculations for the buttress configuratien (vertical portion of the vent) contained a note reading:
,
d
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
...
.
_
_
- _ _ _
_ _ - - - _ _ _ - -
_ - _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
'
..
.
.
,
~
O
_7
'
U
.-
,
"Use.036 g design min.
per Bill Brandes, Proj. Engr.
(over the above designer's objections)"
On the following page, it was noted that the use of this low acceleration value (obviously in error by a decimal point)
resulted in a very small load for the vent duct bracing.
Immediately following was a calculation for wind loading which exceeded the erroneously calculated seismic loading by a factor of 11. Since wind loading was more than a factor of 10 greater than seismic loading, the question of whether to use.036 g or
.36 g was academic.
Mr. Brandes stated that the footnote resulted from a mis-
-
understanding with the alleger. He did not believe that the sheet was worth changing since it obviously was not design controlling.
b.
The Alleger Did Perform Design Work On The Plant Vent System
.
Which Was Braced To The Fuel Storace Buildina Wall For A Portion Of The Horizontal Run Design notes stated that the original intent was to brace the duct work to the 10" thick fuel storage building upper wall at about the 54' level. However, actual design used diagonal bracing to the approximately 5' thick heavy pool walls. There is no indication that loading on this section of the wall was then of any further concern in the design. From the records, this appeared to be the only connection the alleger had with the design of the Fuel Storage Building.
7.
General Observations From Ir.vestigation a.
Qua'ifications of Interviewees All persons interviewed at Bechtel were professional engineers registered in the State of California in either civil or structural engineering or both.
.
b.
Prepared Statements Information contained in the prepared statements is consistent and correlated with all other information obtained during the investigation. Statements were not solicited from individuals
.
g O
_
!
'
.. - -
--
_.
-_.
._
- _
_
_ - __ _ - -_ _ _____
...
.
+
s
,<, )
?\\v-8-
,-
-
who did not have design or design review responsibility during the period of the alleger's employment on Rancho Seco design, c.
Bechtel Computer Codes
,,
Bechtel personnel stated that computer codes were normally given names when first developed similar to the typical acronyms used for such codes. After being proven acceptable for general use, they are assigned a number, such as "C-21," meaning civil engineering code number 21. They had no recollection of a code identified as " anonymous" (See Attachment 2).
d.
Non-Civil or Non-Nuclear Work by A11eger at Bechtei During the period of the alleger's employment at Bechtel, he worked on other tasks which were unrelated to civil-structural work for Rancho Seco.
It was found that in the two months prior to termination of Bechtel employment, he worked on pipe stress.
analyses which were applicable to Rancho Seco. The supervisor for this activity was contacted but could not recall any specific instances which appeared to correlate with the allegations.
.
\\
.
k
~
- -
-
I AUAC19fENT 1 i_.
'
,
,
,
Information and Recorts
-
-
f-
.-
'
,
.
-
\\
,'
. s.-
.
.
.,
pected safety significant infermation notine <n to have been
'
'(On
brought to the a'.tention of the Commission. Licensing Boards and ACRS.)
.
-
.
.
.
'
J.
Incident _:
.>
'
laisification of records cor$sidered the basis of an O!. appitcation.
'
.
-
.
.
.
Players:
-
s
.
-
.
Mr. A. Doe - a corporate officer of the XYZ Company responsible
.-
for the task of Engineering Project Manager (?) thrcughcu- (?)
,
the PSAR and FSAR licensing stages on nuclear reactcr " Zebra".
~
>
.
Mr. B. Doe - a design engineer subordinate to Mr. A. Doe; also
-
'
an employee of the XYZ Company.:
..
,
-
.
'
Backgrounrf:
-
.
Raactor " Zebra" was nearing the coh:uletion of construction. Tha J
XYZ Company, an architect engineering firm responsible for design,
.
was under intense pressure to finalize its design basis in support
'
of an OL application (the FSAP. was then.under review by the Agency).
.
Various design calculatfor.s, constituting the basis for drawings
.-
of structures and equipment already built or in-place had to be-
.
'
" signed off" by an engineer not involved in the original design
to comply with official int 2rnal precedures formulated and
-
-
.-
implemented by the XYZ Ccmpany.
Mr. A. Doe had assigned such a task to Mr. B. Doe. The incident occurred se the time Mr. B. Coe
-
'
-
-
-
~
s.abmitted his results.
-
-
.
-
....
~
.
' '
Events:
.
.
-
,
.
,
Mr. B. Doe rescrted to M.. A. Doe that,.as a result of his check
-
'
of the calculations, he concluded that (1) the numeric results of the calculations were unconsarvative by an order of magnitude
'
(decimal error at key step), (2)(the drawings were consistent with
-
-
the erroneous calculations, and 3) the structure had been built
..
-
' based upon erroneous drawings.
.
'
+
.
'
.
'
-
.
....
.
.
t
.
...
...
..
,
!
. Action:
-
.
,
.
Mr. A. Doe corrected the results sheets (in pencil) of tha,'calculatic
'
by roving tha cecimal point over ona place throughout.
No cther
.
corre:tions or rer.:edial actior.s cre known or reperud t: have taen
P ace.
'N
,
,
..,
.
,
~
-
-
'
'
.
..
,
-
,.
,
.
,
,
,
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
-
.
..
.._
.
_ _.
_
.
.
-
.
.-. -.
. -
.
.,V v. - ancimnt:
ATTACHMENT 2'
,
.
.
.
.
.-
..
-
Withhc ine1'f safety-significant in'
ma 'an by an applicant.
.
.
m.
m
-
-
-
-
.
..
..
.
.
.
^
V'
&
Players:
-
..
-
"-
-
-
.
.
-
i
%
.
..
.
"
(All employees of the RST Company, an architect-engineer censultant
.
.
.
. to the ABC Utility, responsible for design of nuclear reacter
.
.Vega".).
-
.
.
.'
.. Messrs. D. Doe C. Do'e,'etc. - a team of highly qualified senior
. eng'ineers responsible,for development and application of. the
-
in-house finite element computer code "AHONYMOUS".
,
,.
,
.
Messrs. A. Engr, 8. Engr, etc. - an assortment. (Tess than six)
.
.nf separate, staff designers responsible for specific cc=penents
,'
'
j of reactor '"/ega", indep2ndent of the team composed of Messrs. Dce
-
'.. P.
(wfio they all ceae'nded upon for ccmputer support).
'
,,.
-
w
.
Messrs. A. Mgr, B. Mgr - responsible corporate officers.
-
,
[
/. -
Mr. A. Consult - a highly qualified and reputable staff consultant'.
.
.
-
,
.
Background _:
.
'
The ' reactor Vega" was very near the 1.icensing decision point
.
(by the ASLB) very near ccmolation of cor.struction, and the FSAR sutzmf ttal complete when the ncdorate seismic event "SURFRISE" took place which hed a substantial influence (eventually) on ger.eric
.
seismic criteria.
Ir=ediat2 y. grasping.1ts obvious potential
~
significance, the team corrposed of Messrs. Doe, independent of
-
. ' -
Messrs. Engr, raanalized key compenents of reactor "Vega" subje::c to the racord of event " SURPRISE".
The event involves how the
-
i results of that analysis were treated.
.
-
.
.
.
.
Event:
'
.
'
The results (7) for sore Category I components were very adverse, j
.
predicting either partial or ccmplate collapse.
The team ccmposed
..
,
of Massrs. Doe took (?) their findings to Messrs. Mgr, who
.
immediately involved Mr. Consult. An effort was mace to assess
'
the'limiticq capabilities of these key ccmponents and this effert
-
necessarily involved Messrs. Engr, but not to the point of revealing the findings of the team of.%essrs. Doe.
When the
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.results of,this assessment were ccmpared to these findings it was
'
.
detennined that findings remained basica11y' unchanged, although
-
.
somewhat attantuated.
'
'
'
-
.
,
.
.
-
-
,
,.
.
-
..
..
.
,
'
'
]
'
Action:
.
.
.
,
The source of this information re. mains unaware of the forwarding i
of this infcrmation to the ASL7 or anyone else.
The whole
"f incidant was never widely discussed within the RST Ccmpany.
>
,
Messrs. Mgr and Mr. Consult were reported to have submittad some sort of ar.endment provision delinn ting the responsibility
'
~
of the RST Conpany with respect to the e, vent " SURPRISE". [3]
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
$
.[
. _
-
-.
,.
_.
.
.-
.
.
.
,.... - -
.
.. -.,. _.
.
.