ML052490479
| ML052490479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/2004 |
| From: | Mel Gray NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Holody D NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0314 | |
| Download: ML052490479 (5) | |
Text
n e
y-'l4 u v'sL-Y.
J I t From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Mel Gray eCC Daniel Holody 5/3/04 2:14PM 410uestions on HC EDG Per our discussion.
Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Information act, exemptions -7 ZC FOIA--
~ tV L
/
/
J D v
t j
!Y
!. 1 Mail Envelope Properties (40968BEC.FDE: 4: 9948)
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Created By:
AMuestions on HC EDG SI04 2:14PM Mel Gray MXG3 @nrc.eov Recipients kpl-po.KP]?.DO DJH (Daniel Holody)
Action Delivered Opened Deleted Date & Time 05/03/04 02:14PM 05/03/04 02:15PM 07/30/04 03:02PM Post Office kpl-po.KPpDO Files Hope Creek EDG.wpd MESSAGE Options Auto Delete:
Expiration Date:
Notify Recipients:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
To Be Delivered:
Status Tracking:
Delivered 05/03/04 02:14PM Route Size 19948 464 Date & Time 05/03/04 02:12PM 05/03/04 02:14PM No None Yes Standard No None No Standard Inmmediate All Information
..... ... - I Allegation Receipt Report Page 1 of _3_
(Use also for Staff Suspected Wrongdoing)
Date Received: Monday, May 3, 2004 Allegation No. RI-A-
Received via: [X] Telephone [XI In-person a Letter ai Facsimile (leave blank)
Site visit on Wednesday 4128/2003 with request for Inspection. Initial fact finding on 4/29-3012004.
Follow-up phone call on Monday, 5/312004.
Employee Receiving Allegation or suspecting wrongdoing (first two initials and last name): Mel Gray Sourc fifrmto eae0c n
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.
Note:
Indicated that a concerned Individual macde the foll6wing assertions to during a meeting.
The assertions were made through the concerned Individual by a second concerned Individual whose Identify was not Identified to thz5 Facility: Hope Creek Docket No. or License No.: 50-354 Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy?
Yes _ No X If H&l 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 and'or 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?
Yes._ NoX Was confidentiality initially granted?
Yes_ No N/AX Individual Granting Confidentiality:
-WA.A.
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, highlight Allegation Summary In bold and use larger font size)
_le
'-'the NRC's Bob Bores on April 16, 2004 to indicate tha had met with a concerned individual. The concerned Individual described issues with Hope Creek emergcy diesel generators (EDGs) that a second concerned individual (previously employe a PSEG tad o
rovided.
The name of the former PSEG concerned individual was not provided to th"n April 28, 7L
l ctvv a;
2004, th traeled to the Hope Creek Station and met with the SRI, Mel Gray to describe the statements of concern. 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.
The SRI searched the notifications for something along these lines and Identified notificationWoas 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 lusi the acket water system, additional jacket water seal leaks developed. The Inspector reviewed with I
he initial response to the notification and both agree it sounded similar to the statements of concern being made. The inspector toured all four EDGs wit o show him the jacket water and intercooler pumps and commO shaft th t was described in the notification. Th inspector also discussed with the system engineer (with 4.
,abserving) any plans for jacket water flushing. The Inspector determined that, based on periodrc't jacket Wvater sam ing, 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 th that he had talked to an individual In June 2003 who believed that 3 grit was the cause of chronic EDG 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 spec 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).
271 The inspector performed follow-up inspectio on Thursday and Friday, April 29-30, 2004, and determined the following details regarding notificatio In the notification description:
- 1. An individual stated that the jacket water pump seal on the C EDG leaked In 9/02. The individual Initiated a level 2 notification at that tim ed The individual asserted in 9/02 the seals were likely failing due to corrosion products In the jacket water system.
- 2. The individual's notification as 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 as a corrective action.
- 3. The Individual asserted In notificationhat, because engineering did not ensure the jacket water system was flushed, there were additional jacket water or intercooler pump seal failures. He cited notification fv here the B EDG developed ajacket water leak. He further cited notification ere the B EDG common pump shaft for Jacket water and intercooler pumps had grooves and required replacement.
- 4. Notification Was closed based on engineering response that debris was not cause of seal leaks.
I *VIWI
-'1 I
TVP
- -'f9 ma I
I I..
The Inspector commu cated the above four points t Monday, May 3, 2004.
indicated that his e
ad these followup qUions:
- 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?
The meeting with the*
onApril 28 was viewed as a request for inspection, as was the 7(1 follow-up activity on ursday and Friday. Also the Issue was well known to the NRC and no new information was provided during the initial discussion. The decision was made by Branch 3 on Monday, May 3, 2004 to submit this as an allegation because of the uniqueness of the situation and to allow a panel to consider how best to address these assertions and additional follow-up questions from the 1_<
7Z(W Functional Area (please check one box):
[ Academic [ ] Decommissioning Materials [] Decommissioning Reactor [ Exempt Distribution
[]General Licensee ( ] Gun Sights [ ] Irradiators [ ] Medical [ 3 Nuclear Gauges [ ] Nuclear Laundry
[]Nuclear Pharmacy [X] Power Reactor [] Radiography [ ] Research and Development (R&D)
[ Research/Test Reactor i Safeguards [] SNM [ I Teletherapy [ I Transportation []Vendor
[]Veterinary Non-human [ ] Waste Disposal []Well Logging []Other t
Discipline for each concern (place the concern no(s). (either 1, 2, 3, etc.) in the box provided):
[ ] Chemistry [ ] Chilling Effect [ ] CiviVStructural [ ] Construction [ X ] Corrective Action
[ ] Discrimination [ ] Electrical [ J Emergency Preparedness [ ] Employee Concerns Program
[ ] Engineering [ ] Environmental [ ] Environmental Qualification [ ] Falsification [ ] Fire Protection
[ ] Fitness-for-Duty [ ] Health Physics [ ] HVAC [ ] Industrial Safety [ I Inservice testing
[ ] Instrumentation and Control [ ] Maintenance [ -Mechanical [ ] Misadministration [ ] NDE
[]Operations ( ] Procurement [ ] Quality Assurance [ ] Radwaste [ 3 Safeguards [ ] Security
[]Source disconnect [ ] Startup testing [ ] Training/qualification [ ] Transportation [ ] Unsupervised Radiography[ ) Wrongdoing [ ] 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?
WHO IS INVOLVED/WITNESSED?
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.