ML052490158

Allegation Receipt Report Regarding Facility: Hope Creek

ML052490158
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	08/31/2005
From:	NRC Region 1
To:	Mel Gray Public Service Enterprise Group
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314
Download: ML052490158 (3)

Text

Allegation Receipt Report Page 1 of 3_

(Use also for Staff Suspected Wrongdoing)

Date Received: Allegation No. RI- A-Received via: OTelephone D In-person [X] Letter E Facsimile (leave blank)

Employee Receiving Allegation or suspecting wrongdoing (first two Initials and last name): M. K. Gray Alleger Name' Home Phone:"

Home Address:

City/State/Zip:

i

. ~

I& -

Alleger's Employer:fPublic Service Electric and Gas:

• Do not complete these StA.LAD'S for Issues of staff suspected wrcnlrdolng.

Alleger's Position/Title: IIV -. -

Facility: Hope Creek Docket No. or License No.: 50-354 Was alleger informed of NRC Identity protection policy? Yes X No_

If H&l was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights? Yes No__ N/A X Ifa licensee employee or contractor, did they raise the issue to their management and/or ECP? Yes _ No X N/A.

Does the alleger object to referral of Issues to the licensee? f Yes _ No _

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

"Ido not obiect to the allegation being referred as long as my name, and other names are not.included.'

Was confidentiality requested? Yes _ No X Was confidentiality initially granted? Yes - No_ N/A X Individual Granting Confidentiality:

Criteria for determining whether the issue Is an allegation:

Is Ita declaration, statement, or assertion of Impropriety or inadequacy? Yes I No Is the Impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities? Yes I No Is the validity of the Issue unknown? Yes I 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). g Allegation Summary or staff suspected wrongdoing: (Recipient of the allegation shall summarize each J concern here - provide additional detail on reverse side of form, if necessary. If entering allegation electronically, highlight Allegation Summary In bold and use larger font size)

Background provided by SRI: On March 13, (Saturday) an equipment operator identified a banging noise E, coming from the a pipe penetration Into the drywell. The pipe Is the A shutdown cooling return line to the ajh& "

recirculation pump discharge pipe loop. PSEG formed a technical issues team and identified possible cau~s =

and next steps to investigate. One possible cause was recirculation pump speed may be causing excitation iW Cy the piping, causing the check valve Inthe drywell to pulse open and closed. The tech Issues document

• indicated plans were being considered to vary recirc pump speed and monitor the noise to see if it changed Z =

Additionally, on Tuesday, March 16, Hope Creek management announced a decision to shutdown the plarl c8 a Friday, March 19, for a forced maintenance outage. One reason was to Investigate the banging noise. P9,h

• were being made to walkdown the line after de-Inerting the d/w. S On March 16, NRC SRI indicated to PSEG management his observations that actions to eliminate the causes O) of the banging were not being pursued commensurate with the potential significance of the problems, that actions to Instrument the RHR line to better characterize the noise were not being pursued, that the loose part )

monitor system was not available for use as described in the SAR, and that the basis for operability was not documented. On Wednesday, March 17, the Inspector was advised by PSEG management that a specialist

vendor would be onsite at noon to Install instrumentation to better Identify and pinpoint the banging noise, that a plan to vary recirc speed and monitor the noise with this instrumentation was being developed, and that consultations with GE and BWR owners group specialist were underway. Additionally PSEG documented the basis for operability in notification 20181388.

Allegation on March 16:

The alleger was the ejolned the team on Monday, March 15. Prior to the team meeting, the alleger discussed w ith the progress made over the weekend. In this regard, the alleger stated that on Sunday, had suggested that the recirculation pump speed be varied to see if the noise went away. When suggested, he received significant "flashback" that Indicated to the alleger that It shoul e suggested again. (The alleger did not know what was stated or the person who responded to On Monday during a team meeting _ sked if RHR pipe Is banging, and they don't know what it Is,why are they operating? The alleger in icated the response from the Operations representative was that was that they have another loop of shutdown cooling (SDC). Alleger Indicated he believed this was unsatisfactory, but did not state so because he was concerned with being labeled a troublemaker and he may loose his job.

Ni On Tuesday March 16, alleger attended team meeting. Prior to meeting, It was announced that management intended to take plant offline Friday (March 19). Alieger stated this was made without recommendation from team as to cause of noise. Additionally actions such as recirculation pump speed variation to see if the noise was eliminated were not being pursued. Alleger believes that If PSEG does not know the cause of the banging noise In RHR piping, and has not taken all reasonable actions to eliminate noise, they should shutdown.

The alleger added the following on March 17, and reiterated his position: Alleger Indicated that Sr management _ aa previously not open to res qnses from the alleger. During a morning managem meeting that inciuIed an update from the alleger, questi ee items in regard to (1) why is the SLC discharge v,=a radiographed? (2) Why is th baind for RHR so ti ht? (3)Why is HPCI started in auto during When alleger tried to answer, he Indicated held up his hand and said he didn't want the answer there. The alleger's manager indicated they would be responded to via the corrective action program. However, the alleger did not Initiate notifications. Instead the response was forwarded by volcemail as to why these actions were necessary. No changes were made in this regard to th y the alleger. The alleger interpreted this asw as not approachable. He characterized him as a loose cannon. '

i

- Page 2 of Functional Area (please check one box):

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

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

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

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

[]Veterinary Non-human []Waste Disposal []Well Logging [ Other t h e r Discipline for each concern (place the concern no(s). (either 1, 2, 3, etc.) in the box provided):

[ Chemistry [ ] Chilling Effect [ 3Civil/Structural [ ] Construction [ 1Corrective Action

[ 3Discrimination [ ] Electrical [ ] Emergency Preparedness [ ] Employee Concems Program

[X ] Engineering [1 Environmental [ ] Environmental Qualification [ ] Falsification [ ] Fire Protection

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

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

[] Operations [ ] Procurement [ ] Quality Assurance [ ] Radwaste [ ] Safeguards [ 3Security

[ Source disconnect [ 3Startup testing [ 3Training/qualification [ 3Transportation [ ] Unsupervised Radiography [ ] Wrongdoing [ ] Othert h 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 ISTHE 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.