ML052490486

E-Mail from M. Gray of USNRC to R1 Allegations, Regarding Hope Creek Allegation

ML052490486
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	05/03/2004
From:	Mel Gray NRC Region 1
To:	NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314
Download: ML052490486 (5)

Text

e

-S i

St From:

Mel Gray I Z )-

To:

RlAllegation Date:

5/3104 3:04PM

Subject:

Hope Creek allegation Place:

RlAllegation Dave Vito, Attached per our discussion within the hour Is an allegation form to be processed.

Mel Gray Information in this record was delete in accordance with the Freedom of InformlViOQ Act, exemptions sissy5 TFOIA- -

I >

Mail Envelope Properties (409697B6.FAC: : 9948)

Subject:

Creation Date:

From:

Created By:

Hope Creek allegation 5/3/04 3:04PM Mel Gray MXG3 @nrc.eov Recipients kpl-po.KPDO RIAllegation (RIAllegation)

Action Delivered Forwarded Deleted Emptied Date & Time 05/03/04 03:04PM 05/03/04 03:04PM 05103/04 03:04PM 05/03/04 03:04PM Post Office kpl-po.KPpDO Delivered 05/03/04 03:04PM Date & Time 05/03/04 02:53PM 05/03/04 03:04PM Route Files Hope Creek EDG.wpd MESSAGE Optioii Auto Delete:

Expiration Date:

Notify Recipients:

Priority:

Reply Requested:

Return Notification:

Concealed

Subject:

Security:

To Be Delivered:

Status Tracking:

Size 19490 674 No None Yes Standard No None No Standard Immediate All Information

Mel L94pr y1:

Allegation Receipt Report Page -of _3_

(Use also for Staff Suspected Wrongdoing) a f

Date Received: April 28,2004 Allegation No.

I-A-

I Received via: [X] Telephone [X] In-person a Letter a Facstmile (leave blank),

Site visit on Wednesday 4/2812003 with request for Inspection. Initial fact rnding on 4/29-30Q12004.

Follow-up phone call on Monday, 513/2004.

1 Employee Receiving Allegation or suspecting wrongdoing (first two Initials and last name): Mel Gray Alleger Name: *unknown (See Note) Home Address:

• unknown Home Phone:

• unknown City/State/Zip:

• unknown Alleger's Employer

• unknown Alleger's Position/Title:* unknown Do not complete these sections for Issues of staff suspected wrongdoing.

tet: d

.oncerned Indivodua m _ e the fo n a n

_o during a meeting.

The assertions were made through the concerned Idividual by a second concerned Individual whose Identify was not Identified to th Facility, Hope Creek Docket No. or License No.: 50-354 Was alleger Informed of NRC Identity protection policy?

Yes _ No X If H&I was alleged, was alleger Informed of DOL rights?

Yes _ No__ N/A X If a licensee employee or contractor, did they raise the Issue to their management andlor ECP?

Yes _ No _ N/A X Does the alleger object to referral of Issues to the licensee?

Yes _ No _

Provide alleger's direct response to this question verbatim on the line below:

Unknown Was confidentiality requested?

Was confidentiality Initially granted?

Individual Granting Confidentiality: _N/A Yes - No X Yes _ No _ N/AX Criteria for determining whether the Issue Is an allegation:

Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy? Yes / No Is the impropriety or Inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities?

Yes / No Is the validity of the Issue unknown?

Yes /No If No to any of the above questions, the issue Is not an allegation and should be handled by other appropriate methods (e.g. as a request for information, public responsiveness matter, or an OSHA referral).

Allegation Summary or staff suspected wrongdoing: (Recipient of the allegation shall summarize each concern here - provide additional detail on reverse side of form, if necessary. If entering allegation electronically, highilght Allegation Summary In bold and use larger font size)

O ed the NRC's Bob Bores on April 16, 2004 to Indicate tha)had Thmet with a concerned individual.

Ihe concerned Individual described Issues with Hope Creek emergency diesel generators (EDGs) that a second concerned Individual (previously emoet P

had provided.

The name of the former PSEG concerned Individual was not provided to thOn April 28, j

2004, theI a

V I

led to the Hope Creek Station and met with the SRI, Mel Gray to describe the statements ofi corncem. He had hand written notes which he verbally stated made the following assertions:

1. A Hope Creek EDG had problem a with metal filings or grit In Its lube oil or jacket water system.

This was causing lube oil or jacket water leaks. PSEG did a fix that was not the best.

2. Also, a shaft needed replacement, but was not because of cost.

Initial Follow-up:

The SRI searched the notifications for something along these lines and Identified notificatio

-as a possible candidate. This notification was written on 4/26103 by a maintenance individual. The prob em described was that, because Engineering did not listen to the individual and flush the jacket water system, additional Jacket water seal leaks developed. The Inspector reviewed wit gthe initial response to the notification and both agreed it sounded similar to the statements of concern being made. The inspector toured all four EDGs wit to show him the jacket water and intercooler pumps and common shaft that was described ne notificaIon. Th Inspector also discussed with the system engineer (withl bservrig) any plans for jacket water flushing. The inspector determined that, based on perinuic Jacket water sampling, PSEG plans to flush B EDG jacket water system In April 2006. This Is tracked under notificatio~

No other EDG engine flushes are planned. B EDG pump seals do not currently leak.

The SRI communicated t at he had talked to an Individual In June 2003 who believed that.

grit was the cause of chroic M pump 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 sand castings during initial fabrication, and grit embedded In seals and caused chronic leaks.-

PSEG subsequently disassembled the A EDG jacket water 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 sped numbers in the PSEG seal replacement procedure to check shaft thrust and bearing clearance. PSEG could not ensure jacket water and Intercooler pump seals were consistently being shimmed correctly w/o checking these parameters. This would look like wear out of seals prematurely. The Inspector referenced IR 354/2003-004. It documents an NCV finding for PSEG not having design specifications in pump seal replacement procedure when It was available In a vendor document previously used in a B EDG work order.

left the resident office thereafter (to support an unrelated public meeting that evening). -

The inspector performed follow-up insp t n Thursday and Friday, April 29-30, 2004, and determined the following details regarding notification 1

In the notification description:

1. An Individual stated that the Jac ter pump seal on the C EDG leaked In 9/02. The Individual Initiated a level 2 notification at that time,.

The Individual asserted in 9/02 the seals were likely falling due to corrosion products In the jacket water system.

2. The Individual's notification NOwN1was closed to order 70026906, then to 70026865 for PSEG engineering personnel to evaluate. PSEG engineering did not agree with the individual that the C EDG jacket water pump seal failed due to corrosion products. Engineering asserted that the jacket water seal faces were heavily worm. There was some debris In the soft side seal face, but this did not cause the seal failure.

Engineering concluded the seal wore due to being Inservice for 6 years. Therefore Engineering did not Identify a jacket water system flush asaa cq 9.Yajaction.

3. The Individual asserted In notificatlo mat, because engineering did not ensure the Jacket water system was flushed, there were additional Jacket water or Intercooler pump seal failures. He cited notification 20128763 where the B EDG developed a Jacket water leak. He further cited notification 20141632 where the B EDG common pump shaft for jacket water and Intercooler pumps had grooves and required replacem6nt.

4. Notification waffilawag, 411!
M!111111 Nvas closed based on engineering response that debris was not cause of seal leaks.

Note:

The Inspector communicated the above four points t q

_p-n Monday, May 7.

3,2004 d

ndicited that his managern eYad additio al quetilos:

a. Who concluded that the soft material in the seal face could not cause the leak?

b. What was the basis for deferring the B EDG flush until April 2006?

c. What was the history of shaft replacement for all four EDGs?

d. What was the history of pump seal replacements for all four EDGs?

Functional Area (please check one box):

[]Academic [ ] Decommissioning Materials [] Decommissioning Reactor [] Exempt Distribution

[ General Ucensee [ ] Gun Sights [ ] Irradiators [ ] Medical [ ] Nuclear Gauges [] Nuclear Laundry

[ Nuclear Pharmacy [X] Power Reactor [ Radiography [ Research and Development (R&D)

[ Research/Test Reactor [ Safeguards [ SNM []Teletherapy []Transportation [] Vendor

[ Veterinary Non-human []Waste Disposal [ Well Logging [ Other:_

Discipline for each concern (place the concern no(s). (either 1, 2, 3, etc.) In the box provided):

[ ] Chemistry [ 3 Chilling Effect [ ] Civil/Structural [ 3 Construction [ X ] Corrective Action

[ 3 Discrimination [ l Electrical [ ] Emergency Preparedness [ 3 Employee Concerns Program

[ 3 Engineering [ Environmental [ ] Environmental. Qualification [ 3 Falsification [- ] Fire Protection

[

Fitness-for-Duty [ Health Physics [ 3 HVAC [ ] Industrial Safety [ 3 Inservice testing

[ ] Instrumentation and Control [ 3 Maintenance [ ] Mechanical [ 3 Misadministration [ ] NDE

[] Operations [ ] Procurement [ ] Quality Assurance [ ] Radwaste [ ] Safeguards [ ] Security

[] Source disconnect [ ] Startup testing [ ] Tralning/qualification [ ] Transportation [ ] Unsupervised Radiography [ 3 Wrongdoing [ 3 Other:_

Detailed Description of Allegation or staff suspected wrongdoing: (Do not state the alleger's name in this section - simply refer to the Individual as the alleger)

When taking the allegation, ask questions such as WHAT IS THE ALLEGATION?

WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENTNIOLATION?

WHERE IS IT LOCATED?

WHEN DID IT OCCUR?

WHO IS INVOLVED/WITNESSED?

HOW/WHY DID IT OCCUR?

WHAT EVIDENCE CAN BE EXAMINED?

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE LICENSEE'S ACTIONS?

How did the alleger find out about the concem(s); other Individuals NRC should contact for additional information; records NRC should review; whether the alleger raised the concerns with his or her management; alleger's preference for method and time of contact.

l