ML052490295
| ML052490295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/2004 |
| From: | Wiggins J NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Mel Gray NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0314 | |
| Download: ML052490295 (3) | |
Text
'vdU OLU
- nm. Duoi _
From: James Wiggins l To: Mel Gray Date: 4/30/04 12:52PM
Subject:
Re: Call to Mel ....Good job...Thorough writeup....
Jim
>>> Mel Gray 04/30/04 11: I8AM >
Here is a synopsis of my meeting Wo days ago and my follow-up Inspection efforts through today.
ad hand written notes that Indicated the following:
An EDG at Hope Creek had problem with metal fiings or grit in lube oil orjacket water. This was causing lube oil orjacket water leaks. PS did a fix that was not the best.
Also, a shaft needed replacement, but was not because of cost.
I searched the notifications for something along these lines and Identified notificato on s a possible candidate. This notification was written on 4/26/03 by a maintenance Individual. The problem described was that, because Engineering did not listen to the Individual and flush the jacket water system, additional jacket water seal leaks developed. Here are the details of the problem description:
- 1. The jacket water pump seal on the C EDG leaked in 9102. Maintenance individual initiated a level 2 notification at that time (20112756). The individual asserted (in 9102) the seals are likely failing due to corrosion products in the jacket water system.
- 2. Notification 20112756 was closed to order 70026906, then to 70026865 for Engineering to evaluate.
Engineering did not agree with the maintenance Individual that the seal fafled due to corrosion products.
The jacket water seal faces were heavily worm. There was some debris Inthe soft side seal face, but this did not cause the seal failure. Engineering concluded the seal wore due to being Inservice for 6 years.
Threfore a jacket water system flush was not Identified as a corrective action.
- 3. The maintenance Individual asserted Inthe April 2003 notification that, because engineering did not flush the Jw system, there were additional seal failures. He cited notification 20128763 where the B EDG developed a jacket water leak. he cited notification 20141632 where the B EDG common pump shaft for jacket water and Intercooler pumps had grooves and required replacement.
- 4. Notification #20141625 was closed based on engineering response that debris was not cause of seal leaks.
Inspectors conclusions:
- a. The SRI Is familiar with the likely Individual (who no longer works at PSEG) who believed that grit was the cause of chronic EDG seal failures. He talked with the Individual In June 2003 when the A EDG intercooler seal leaked and HC began to shutdown per TS because of the problem. The individual believed that jacket water system had grit from sandcastings during inital fabrication, and grit embedded In seals and caused chronic leaks.
PSEG subsequently dissassembled the A EDG jw and intercooler pumps and shaft in July 2003 and found a seized thrust bearing. One result of the root cause evaluation done on this was that chronic seal leaks on EDGs may have been due to lack of design spec numbers Inseal repalcement procedure to check shaft thrust and bearing clearance. PSEG could not ensure jw and Intercooler pump seals were consistef1i1beingco C rorrectly wlo checking these parameters. This would look like wear out of inaccordance with the reedom of Information Act, exemptions
-'I A- _ _ _ __ _ _
u viavn- r~e:.i...aii to Page 21 a.&
seals prematurely. See IR 354/2003-004. It documents NCV finding for PSEG not having design specs in seal replacement procedure when Itwas avallabe Invendor document.
- b. Inspector confirmed the B EDG shaft (with grooves woom) was replaced In last refueling outage under work order 60035129.
This is tracked under notification 20183204. No other EDG engine flushes are planned. B EDG seals do not currently leak.
d.On Wednesd is ector had SOME of this information, but not all. He communicated what he had to
_t~~ that time. ..
- e. Inspector plans to ca 'with additional Information Monday and see of this satfiees their questions.. Inspector does not pan tosubmit an allegation form.
- f. Based on sparse information and adequate final resolution of likely candidate notification, Inspector does not see an allegation Is being made.
>.A. Randolph Blough 04129/04 05:08PM >>>
I1appreciate everyone's concern on this. We need to enforce our protocols and follow our processes.
In this particular case, I think the info has now been provided by th and, even thoug for some reason guarded, things are on-track now that thei s m et with our Inspec or -- as given us the Info,-has-not tried to assert the lead,-and,-further, the Info Is vague with no aliega on of a req't having been violated. So It's okay to handle as a form of "request for 11 ctlon" rather than aallegation. I had talked to Glenn earlier, and he confirmed that, In his call wi he had askedCIf there was any Immediate safety concern as a way of reinforcing the obgatlon to get that typef info to us promptly. I spoke with Mel gray just now, and he agrees With the points I've outlinede in bold above.
We will need to watch closely for cases In the future hwerv tries to over-step their bounds, but I think we're OK for now.
randy mady>>>.David Vito 04129/04 08:31AM >$>
I agree with Scott that it needs to be made clear that we have the lead on this...... and once we know what the issuersactually is (are), they should be tracked via the Allegation process. It Is my understanding tha is not allowed conceal issues f us that relate to NRC regulated activities. Glenn's Tof hi phone call w1!soundedlik as some Information tha s not willing to relinquish?
>>> Scott Barber 04126/04 04:42PM >>>
I think it is good to build cooperation wit and I know we tried to do that in the 95 - 98 Salem Restart era. However, I'm not sure Ifwe want to advertise tda I flo sstance to them. I am fairly ce there Is nothing Aqat in U f an NRC is eaingth regulated activity. I did talk to Mel and Me hasa clear
.- ':**'bu~ay.
Image hmave that theyr he thahe Is leading the information retrieval activity (i.e. the inspection), bu may think they have the lead to gather the Information. Do you think that we should clarify our respective roles or do you thin*
is clear on the matter?
>>> Glenp yer 04/23/04 02:06PM >>> Fog I reache is morning and we discusser Interest in following up on a concern on (Hope Creek)
.... .. a u diesel generators (EDGs). The alleger has provided information from a plant individual who wants to remain anonymous, and the information relates to EDG concerns raised within the PSEG work system which have not been addressed. We agreed to work together to determine the status of the concems.
I offered various options for the followup, butts reluctant to allow us to enter it as an r~ation and do PIR0 p, to provide a copy of the notifVon, or to give us the notification number. prefers that th rrange to visit Hope Creek within weeks and to work through the specifics witlthe residents, who can access the notification system. Iagreed with the approach and briefed Mel Gray, who is -
prepared to make the arrangements and proceed.
I view the effort as inspection assistance t nd given the likelihood that the concerns have already been addressed within our Inspection program, I do not currently plan to enter the concerns as an allegation.
Glenn
>>> Hubert J. Miller 04/21/04 11:33AM >>>
good Instincts on this we should keep safety related Issues within our program and use the established protocols with to give them the visibility they think they need on how the Issues are being handled.
this, of course, presumes that the diesel Issue Is being addressed within our process...
>>> Robert Bores 04116104 02:53PM >>>
I got a call at 1425hr on Friday (4/1f oa result of the meeting betweeawnd the Salem/Hope Creek whistle blower. dicated Ma interested in following up on one of the identified issues, that relating to the iesei generator. - ey were looking at developing a plan to do that In conjunction with the resident Inspectors.
Since we may already have worked this Issue, I suggested that a bett had the ie7if s proach might be to see Ifwe proes, anid havbtain the information from us, l Lo rather than to try and re-cover areas e already done. I suggestedat the Branch Chief, Glenn Meyer should be the prime contact on this. ggreed with this and asked that Glenn call on Monday to discuss.
b Ilable Mondav ing t6facilitate Ifdesired.
bob CC: A. Randolph Blough; Daniel Holody; Daniel Orr, David Vito; Ernest Wilson; Glenn Meyer, Hubert J. Miller, Leanne Harrison; Robert Bores; Scott Barber, Sharon Johnson