ML062220241
| ML062220241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/2004 |
| From: | Ted Wingfield NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Blough A, Cobey E, Ray Lorson, Vito D NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML062220241 (5) | |
Text
Mel Gray - Call Summary: Ted Wingfield to Dr. Harvin.(-l 0:1oam, Tues, 12/28/04)
Page 1I From:
Theodore Wingfield To:
Blough, A. Randolph; Cobey, Eugene; Lorson, Raymond; Vito, David Date:
12/28/04 2:17PM ot.
rvin 0
Subject:
Call Summary: Ted Wingfield tDr. Ha 10:10am, Tues, 12/28/04)
- FYI, I calle~d.
Harvi..o confirm receipt of her follow-up email to Gene I asked her to clarify one statement in her email (included below)... she clarified the "Theirs differs from the company..." statement to mean "[Flowserve's engineers' viewpoint] differs from the company [PSEG]
She inquired about the following:
- 1) With only 5 working days until the 1/5/05 meeting, will the NRC's review of the 'B' Recirc Pump and other issues be complete?
Ted - We are working toward completion of everything to support the 1/5/05 meeting. At the very least, the meeting will serve as the public exit meeting for the Special Inspection.
- 2) Will the NRC post documentation of its review results to the Salem/Hope Creek website prior to the 1/5/05 meeting?
Ted-Yes, it Is our intent to provide you tpr. Harvinj and other interested stakeholders with the written results of our review at least a day before the meeting in some way or multiple ways.
- 3) The PSEG mgt roll-out of the SIT results mentioned that there were at least 5 findings one of which may be greater than green, but that is "in dispute." Will that "dispute" be completed prior to the 1/5/05 meeting?
Ted - Yes, we intend to finalize our preliminary findings this week. (I should clarify this to Indicate that the "signifIcance/color" of the findings will take at least a few weeks to finalize.]
- 4) Is the HPCI Exhaust Line review complete?
Ted - No, we are still receiving information from the licensee and intend to be complete the HPCI review this week.
- 5) Exelon Management contract is an area of concern given the "fragile progress" in the SCWE area at the site. Is the NRC aware of a "several page" notification submitted a few days after the October 10th event detailing several "global nuclear safety issues" at the site? Is that manager in danger of "retribution" under the Exelon regime for "bravely bringing issues to light?"
Ted - I am not aware of the notification you reference. I will pulse the oranization to verify that we were aware of it and are responding accordingly. [I need to follow-up wit Dr. Harvinjto let her know that we were aware of the notification and are responding accordinagl.
A4
'12/27/04 02:45PM >>>
I sent you this information last week but am not sure it got to you. Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
As we discussed here is the Flowserve information:
Flowserve Corporation Pump Division 5215 N. O'Connor Blvd.
Suite 2300 IrinfrTtNRp this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions 2(
FOIA-
I Mel Gray - Call Summary: fed Wingfield to Dr. Harvin (-10:10am, Tues, 12/28/04)
Page 2 1 1 972 443 6500 The names of the people from Flowserve who evaluated the B recirc pump in 2003 are listed in the'Jagy)(
report" (aka the Level One Root Case Report).
As you can understand, it is a lose-lose situation for Flowserve to take a public position in favor of B recirc pump repairs (against PSEG and now Exelon). That does not mean, however, that the Flowserve engineers do not have a valuable viewpoint. Theirs differs from the company which is one reason they did not attend the 12/2/04 public meeting.
I appreciate the NRC team fully investigating this matter directly and not relying on PSEG/Exelon to represent Flowserve's analysis and recommendation.
Thank you.
an, K m"qrvin, Ph.D.
>>> Raymond Lorson 12/21(04 04:57PM >>>
FYI:
Based on Friday's meeting, I calle Iohn Nagl~elesterday and asked for PSEG to provide information or documentation from Flowserve thatTe current location for the vibration probe is acceptable and also that the current results are comparable to previous results.
I am not sure that the results are comparable since 1). the probe was moved in RF10 and 2). there have been maintenance activities during most of the outages that would be expected to affect the measured vibration levels. On a broader scale I think it Is more valid to look at the results over a given operating cycle and look for signs of degradation.
Ray
>>> Eugene Cobey 12/21104 04:38PM >>>
- Contains Sensitive Allegation Information - treat accordingly***
At 4:00 PM, Tuesday, December 21, 2004, during a call with one of the Cis associated with the Hope Creek recirculation pump issue, crediting a "very reliable source," the CI asserted that PSEG had not disclosed all available information on the issue. Specifically, the Cl asserted that Flowserve (recirculation pump vendor) made it very clear to PSEG that the previous movement of the vibration sensors caused the resultant vibration data to be unreliable and prevented Flowserve from being able to support PSEG's decision to operate the recirculation pump for another cycle. The Cl also asserted that Flowserve was reluctant to state their views publicly; hence, Flowserve did not participate in the December 17, 2004, public technical meeting between NRC and PSEG on the topic.
As a result, I asked the Cl to provide specific information that would enable us to follow-up on the assertion or to have the "reliable source" contact us directly. The Cl expressed dismay at "the NRC's inability to obtain this information on its own without relying on whistle blowers to provide it." The Cl indicated that they would contact me on my cell phone either this evening or tomorrow with specifics.rut the movement of the vibration pro Eugene W. Cobey, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects (610) 337-5171
I Mel Gray - Call Summary: Ted Wingfield to Dr., Harvin.(-1100am, Tues, 12/28/04).
Page 3 1 v
i CC:
Barber, Scott; Collins, Daniel; Harrison, Leanne; Holden, Cornelius; Holody, Daniel; Hope Creek; Johnson, Sharon; Salem; Tifft, Douglas; Walker, Tracy; Wiebe, Joel; Wingfield, Theodore
',-.\\fwnp\\GWI0000I.TMP TM P Page 1 Mail Envelope Properties (41D1B12D.776: 2 :35550)
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Created By:
Call Summary: Ted Wingfield t Harvin 10:10am, Tues, 12/28/04) 12/28/04 2:17PM 4.
Theodore Wingfield TVW@nrc.gov Recipients nrc.gov kpl-po.KPDO ARB (A. Randolph Blough)
DJH CC (Daniel Holody)
DJV (David Vito)
EWC (Eugene Cobey)
GJM2 CC (George Malone)
GSB CC (Scott Barber)
JDO CC (Daniel Off)
JSW4 CC (Joel Wiebe)
LMHI CC (Leanne Harrison)
MSF2 CC (Marc Ferdas)
RKL (Raymond Lorson)
SLJ CC (Sharon Johnson)
TEW CC (Tracy Walker)
TVW CC (Theodore Wingfield) nrc.gov owf4_po.OWFN_DO CFH CC (Cornelius Holden)
DXC1 CC (Daniel Collins)
Post Office kp lpo.KP_..DO owf4_po.OWFN_DO Route nrc.gov nrc.gov Files MESSAGE Options Expiration Date:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Size 8346 Date & Time 12/28/04 02:17PM None Standard No None
,,,emnp\\UWIUUUO1. MP pn no I P~2d-,~.~I Concealed
Subject:
Security:
No Standard