IR 05000261/1982003

IE Investigation Rept 50-261/82-03 on 820111-0226. Noncompliance Noted:Failure to Process Info Received from Contractor & Failure to Request Amend to Tech Specs to Make Heatup & Cooldown Curves More Conservative

ML20062J471
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	04/22/1982
From:	Alderson C, Vorse J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062J373	List: IR 05000261/1982003 ML20062J370 ML20062J409 ML20062J421 ML20062J438
References
50-261-82-03, 50-261-82-3, NUDOCS 8208160377
Download: ML20062J471 (4)

Text

, , ,-

-

pn ** c

.. . oq'o,

',

UNITED STATES l' '

n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$'3 o

E

REGION ll 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

.....

MIN 2 41982 INVESTIGATION REPORT N0. 50-261/82-03 SUBJECT: Carolina Power and Light Company H. B. Robinson Nuclear Plant Hartsville, South Carolina Possible Material False Statement DATES OF INVESTIGATION: JanuaF9 11 - February 26, 1982 INVESTIGATOR: O y'-/'f # 2__

,/O f. . Vorse, Regional Investigator Date Signed Enforcement and Investigations Staff REVIEWED BY: 4 v. w - 4-21-1 Carl G Alderson, Director Date Signed Enforcdnent and Investigations Staff

.

,

l

!

l

.

8200160377 820729 PDR ADOCK 05000261 0 PDR o _ . _ - ,, . . _ . . . _ . . _ . __,_ - .,._ __. __ ,_ _._.,_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

7 . . .

-

.

. .

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION CAROLIllA POWER At1D LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBIflSON fiUCLEAR PLANT JArlUARY 11 - FEBRUARY 26, 1982

.

R u

.'.' o

. .

. .

1-1 J, . INTRODUCTION On December 10, 1981, NRC Region II was informed by Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) that an employee had found a letter dated April 4, 1977 from Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) which informed CP&L that an error had been discovered in data provided in their final report on a reactor vessel surveillance specimen capsule. The data submitted in the final SWRI report which was received by CP&L in October 1976, required a Technical Specification change request which was granted by the NRC in February 1977. The April 1977 letter containing the revised calculations also required a Technical Specifications change request; however this was not accomplishe After the discovery of the April 4, 1977 letter the licensee did, on January 11, 1982, submit a written report following up on the initial telephone notification indicating the error was due to an isolated administrative oversight. This report was in accordance with section 6.9.2 of the Technical Specifications. Additionally, CP&L advised the NRC that this revised information had not been provided to the NRC Commissioner who had attended a meeting at H. B. Robinson regarding the thermal shock issu Pursuant to the authority provided by Section 161.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, an investigation was initiated by the NRC on December 30, 198 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION Based on a review of the information supplied by the licensee it was determined that the investigation should include: A determination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the failure to notify the NRC of the erroneous data and request a Technical Specifications amendmen . A .'etermination of whether or not a system is now in effect to prevent a similar occurrenc During the course of the investigation, the Investigator held formal interviews with several current and former licensee employees who were considered to have knowledge of the omissio The investigation included a review of appropriate regulatory requirements, NRC records and licensee procedures including:

-

Southwest Research Institute Letter dated April 4, 1977

-

Various letters from CP&L to the NRC regarding Technical Specification amendments

-

CP&L procedures for controlling work of contractors

,

&

. . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ . - ._

-

. e-

. .

'

. . .

I-2 The investigation involved one investigator and required 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> of investigative activit C. CONCLUSION The licensee's failure to process the information received from Southwest Research Institute and to request an amendment to the ,

Technical Specifications which would have made the heatup and cooldown curves more conservative, represents a material false statement by omission. However, no information was obtained to indicate the material false statement was willful or deliberat To the contrcry, the information obtained indicates that the failure was the result of inadequate administrative controls at the time the letter was receive The review of existing administrative controls for handling the work of contractors indicates that they are sufficient to preclude a similar occurrenc .

t

-