ML20140D037

Forwards Synopsis of Ofc of Investigation Rept 2-85-002 Re Chlorine Monitoring Sys.No Evidence of Willfulness or Intent on Part of Licensee or Contractor to Deceive or Mislead NRC by Submission of False Statement Identified

ML20140D037
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	01/22/1986
From:	Walker R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8601290067
Download: ML20140D037 (3)

Text

T

, W'llou)

/

JAN 2 21986 Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. E. E. Utley Senior Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

INVESTIGATION OF BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT: CHLORINE MONITORING SYSTEM - USNRC 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 2-85-002 Enclosed is the synopsis of the subject Report of Investigation which is being forwarded for your information. Feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding the matter.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

We appreciate your cooperation in the matter.

Sincerely, Roger D. Walker, Director Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

Synopsis of 01 Report 2-85-002 cc w/ encl:

P. W. Howe, Vice President Brunswick Nuclear Project C. R. Dietz, Plant General Manager bec w/ encl:

NRC Resident Inspector J. Vorse, 01:RII 67 ggog2oo324 0

Document Control Desk e601290 doc 6 PDR State of North Carolina PDR 0

RII RII Q

U c- GRJ ins FMbf M "/ PAf"M 86 1$[/86 f ; 2 [f4 I I fGol

i s

JAN221986 v SYN 0PSIS t

By memorandum dated December 28, 1984, the Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region II, requested that the Office of Investigations Field Office, Region II (01:RII) conduct an investigation into the submission of apparent material false statements by Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) to the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulations (NRR), on March 2, 1983.

The alleged false statements were contained in a report of a Habitability Study of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP)

Control Room, and are quoted as follows: (1) " Detection of high chlorine concentration at the tank car siding or in the control room air intake will alarm in and automatically isolate the control room,"

and (2) "... the installed equipment was inspected and the plant design features and layout were examined."

INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: These two statements are in distinctly separate sections of the report and are not directly related.

The report was prepared by NUS Corporation, as contracted by CP&L; dated February 1983; and submitted to NRR as an attachment to a CP&L cover letter dated March 2, 1983.

7 An October 15, through November 30, 1984 inspection of BSEP by

(. : Region II, NRC determined that the chlorine monitors at the chlorine tank car siding were not wired to isolate the control room upon detection of a high chlorine concentration.

The investigation revealed that also at the time of the submission of the alleged false statement on March 2, 1983, the monitors at the chlorine tank car were not wired to cause isolation of the control room upon detection of high chlorine concentration.

The investigation revealed that the 1983 NUS report was a revision of a 1980 NUS report on the same subject. The alleged false statements contained in the 1983 report were also contained in the 1980 report.

The sections of the 1983 report that contained the alleged false statements were not revised, and the statements were repeated from the 1980 report.

NUS personnel that participated in the actual conduct of the habitability study and in the writing of the 1980 report stated that the statement describing the functions of the chlorine monitors was taken, verbatim, from the BSEP FSAR, and that NUS had no reason to suspect that it was not an accurate description.

They stated that their physical inspection of installed equipment was primarily focused on the integrity of the HVAC system equipment; namely the ductwork, vents, fans, and filters; and, although they

, verified the existence and location of all the chlorine monitors, they did not do any testing of their operability, nor did they review the drawings that showed the wiring logic for these monitors.

~

1 2-85-002

7 JAN22 M They stated that they reviewed CP&L's test data that showed that the ,

two chlorine monitors at the contr_n] room air intake were functional, i.

and were satisfied that the BSEP control room could be adequately isolated by detection of chlorine at that location. They stated that when they submitted the report to CP&L in 1980, they had no reason to i believe that the system of chlorine monitors at BSEP did not function as stated in the FSAR, and they had absolutely no intention of _ _ ,,

deceiving the NRC or NRR by describing the system as such in their  :~

report of habitability study.

'The CP&L employee who signed the March 2,1983 letter from CP&L to NRR, which transmitted the 1983 NUS report, stated that both the cover letter and the report were reviewed for technical and legal accuracy by pertiuent CP&L staff members before he signed the cover letter. He stated that he had absolutely no knowledge that the system of chlorine monitors did not function as described in the report when he signed the letter of transmittal to NRR in 1983. He opined that since the portions of the 1983 NUS report that contained the alleged false .

statements were not indicated by NUS as being revised from the 1980 report, there was probably a more cursory review of those portions of the report by CP&L's staff, with more concentration on the sections that were shown by NUS as having been revised.

The investigation developed no evidence of any willfulness or intent on the part of either the licensee or its contractor to deceive or mislead NRR by submission of the alleged false statement. ,

a The status of this investigation is CLOSED.

9

(

2 2-85-002