ML072670517

E-mail from E. Marinos, NRR to G. Cwalina, NRR and H. Berkow, NRR on Caldon Allegation

ML072670517
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	06/19/2003
From:	Marinos E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Berkow H, Cwalina G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2007-0255
Download: ML072670517 (1)

Text

Evangelos Marinos - Re: Caldon Allegation Page 1 2.

From: Evangelos Marinos To: Gregory Cwalina; Herbert Berkow Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2003 11:13 AM

Subject:

Re: Caldon Allegation As we have said to all of you before, if you want to make an independent assessment of our conclusions with regard to this issue, you should direct your reviewers to as a minimum review the pertinent documents thoroughly. We have no inclination or time to be chasing shadows. So far we have seen nothing credible come out of your present review or your staffs future plan.

>>> Gregory Cwalina 06/19/03 07:24AM >>>

The tech staff and allegation reviewers are talking. They have identified the *inaccurate" statements from discussions with Caldon. I&C agree that the reports make misleading statements about their competitior's capabilities. However, I&C also emphatically states those inaccurate statements were not used to make their technical determination. During the SONGS review, our staff identified a potential problem with the data and accuracy used to determine the correction factor in the W design. That issue is being discussed with the tech staff now, to see if it affects their conclusion. So I think we are on that path to closure. Our branch has had several discussions with the I&C people the last few days and will continue todo so until the matter is resolved, which we expect in about a month or so.

As far as the two companies throwing stones at each other, we intend to keep at arm's length. It did not affect our review and we will not get in the middle of their business dispute.

>>> Herbert Berkow 06/19/03 07:11AM >>>

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion about what we said or didn't say, what Caldon and W did or didn't say, whether or not there are inaccurate statements in either report and, if there are, so what, how we used the information provided in the reports to conclude what we concluded, and what Caldon's current concerns are. It seems to me that we aren't converging on a resolution. I suggest that the cognizant staff and management get together in one room to discuss the issues, to assure that everyone understands them, and to agree on a success path to closure.

Herb

>>> Stephen Alexander 06/18/03 04:52PM >>>

I&C strongly assert that the negative comments made by WEC against Caldon equipment in sWCAP 15689 did not influence their position that the WCAP and CENP-397 support the WEC claims of accuracy and insensitivity to flow velocity profile changes about which Caldon was concerned. They also point out that the SER on WCAP 15689 and ER-262'states that they concurr with Caldon with regard to the statements ion ER-262 regarding the performance of the Caldon equipment. Therefore, even though there may be incorrect and misleading statements in,WCAP 15689 about Caldon equipment, this did not in any way influence any conclusions expressed the SER. Furthermore, even if there are incorrect or misleading statements in;WCAP 15689 about WEC equipment, that did not influence the original approval because it was based on CENP-397.

>>> Drew Holland 06/18/03 04:29PM >>>

Herb has asked me to inform you that Caldon cousel has pointed out to us that one of their serious concerns has to do with negative comments that Westinghouse has made about Caldon's equipment in their topical. Herb has requested that you review those potential allegations as well. Please acknowledge.

CC: Dale Thatcher; Drew Holland; lqbal Ahmed; Joseph Petrosino; Stephen Alexander; Stephen Dembek; Theodore Quay