IR 05000400/1982008

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Investigation Repts 50-400/82-08 & 50-401/82-08 on 820222-23.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Investigated: Allegations Re Improper Maint Insp Procedures
ML20054G564
Person / Time
Site: Harris  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/25/1982
From: Alderson C, Vorse J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054G561 List:
References
50-400-82-08, 50-400-82-8, 50-401-82-08, 50-401-82-8, NUDOCS 8206220067
Download: ML20054G564 (3)


Text

._

-.

_

. . .. _

- .

..

-

.

  1. perrug'o; UNITED STATES

! I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 E REGION 11

,

  1. 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o,

g o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

MAY 2 51992

.

INVESTIGATION REPORT NOS. 50-400/82-08 and 50-401/82-08 l l

SUBJECl: Carolina Power and Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant New Hill, North Carolina Improper Maintenance Inspection Practices DATES OF INVESTIGATION: February 22-23, 1982

. /

INVESTIGATOR: [ u- M- M J' J/ 7. Vorse, Regional Investigator Date Signed Enforcement cnd Investigations Staff i

?

REVIEWED BY: 4 LAh%

Carl E.,Alderson, Director G -25- B Date Signed Enforcement and Investigations Staff 8206220067 820525 gDRADOCK 05000400 PDR

- __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .- _

n

  • i I-1- INTRODUCTION On January 25 and February 2,1982 the NRC Resident Inspector at-Carolina Power and Light Company's Shearon Harris nuclear power plant site called NRC Region II Enforcement and Investigation Staff

.

and expressed concerns related to improper maintenance inspection practices. He related the following two concerns: Inspection records for two Boric Acid Transfer Pumps, a Service Water Booster Pump and two Air Handling Units were signed off by an maintenance inspector as having been checked for damage and paint deterioration. However, in some instances the maintenance inspector never lifted the polyethylene covering from the equipmen . Megger (megohmmeter) checks were not conducted on a 100 hp motor on the 150 ton Fuel Handling Crane although they were signed off by a QC inspector as having been performe 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 February 2, 198 B. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION Based on the information provided by the Resident Inspector it was determined that the investigation should include a determination the facts and circumstances pertaining to the apparent failures to

'

properly inspect equipment in accordance with prescribed maintenance procedures and identification of any willful or deliberate actions by the licensee's inspectors to falsify inspection record During the course of the investigation, the Investigator held formal interviews with several licensee and contractor employees who may have had knowledge of the incidents.

The investigation included a review of appropriate regulatory I

requirements, NRC records and licensee procedures and records

including:

-

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations

-

Material Maintenance Requirements j -

Warehouse Maintenance logs l

-

Deficiency and Disposition Reports i

i This investigation was conducted by one Investigator and, on occasion, the Resident Inspector participated. A total of 12 man-hours of investigative activity was conducted onsit O. ..

I-2 CONCLUSION The investigation revealed that of the two concerns, one (No. 1

-

above) was partially substantiated. That is, the concern had some substance in that some of the equipment was signed off as being inspected for damage and paint deterioration even though the inspection was not conducted. However, the action of the inspector who signed the document was not a deliberate or willful falsification of records. The other concern was unfounded. No violations or deviations were identifie MEETINGS WITH LICENSEE The licensee was informed on February 22, 1982, that an investigation had been initiated into several concerns expressed by the Resident-Inspector regarding improper maintenance inspection practice However, details of those concerns were not discusse The site manager was informed of the results at the conclusion of the investigation on February 23, 1982.