ML19250A348
| ML19250A348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1979 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Burstein S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910230102 | |
| Download: ML19250A348 (1) | |
Text
- g.s* *
- hq\\
UNITED STATES
[ $ s qy {
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 k
e October 4, 1979 Docket Nos. 50-266/301 Mr. Sol Surstein Executive Vice President Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Dear Mr. Burstf.in:
In conducting our review of your inservice inspection program for Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2, we have determined that we will need the additional information identified in the enclosure to continue ou review.
As you will see, some of this infomation has previously been requested and provided by you with respect to Unit No.1.~ As we discussed with your staff on September 26, 1979, we believe that our review of the inservice inspt:ction programs for both units could be expedited if they were combined. This would also simplify our review procedures so that amendme.ts to both licenses on this-subject could be issued at the same time, as you requested in your May 17, 1979 letter.
Therefore, we request that future correspondence related to our review of these programs be applied tc both units (both dockets),
with any program differences between units identified. Also, with resoect to previrm responses to requests pertaining to Unit 1, it weuld be helpful for you to tell us to what extent these responses apply to Unit 2.
In order for us to main'ain our review schedule, your response is requested within 60 days of your receipt of this letter. Three signed originals and forty copies are required.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.
Sincerely, kd&ck.y
./
A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infor ation cc w/ enclosure:
See next pace
~
1201 033 3 9io2so l 0 P
Mr. Sol Surstein Wisconsin Electric Power Company October 4,1979 cc:
Mr. Bruce Churchill, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1600 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
2003e Document Department University of Wisconsin Stevens Point Library Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54461 Mr. Glen Reed, Manager Nuclear Power Division Point Beach Nuclear Plant
'nisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 43201 1201 034
ENCLOSURE POINT BEACH UNIT 2 INSERVICE INSPECTICN PROGRAM REOUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORM.ATION A.
CLASS 1
- l.
Several categories were omitted.
Please include these categories in the submittal or exclain and justify their absence from it.
Bl.1 B-A B2.5 B-G-1 B3.4 B-G-1 Bl.2 B-B B2.6 B-G-1 B3.5 B-G-1 Bl.4 B-D B2.7 B-G-1 B3.6 B-G-1 Bl.6 B-F Bl.14 B-I-l B4.1 B-F B6.1 B-G-l 86.5 " K-2 31.15 B-N-1 B4.2 B-G-1 26.2 B-G-i B6.6 b.:-l Bl.16 B-N-2 B4.3 B-G-1 36.3 E-G-1 Bl.18 B-0 B4.4 B-G-1 B6.4 3-K-1 2.
23.7 B-H, Regenerative heat exchanger suoport tack weld; please provide drawings and more detail concerning accessibility for ultrasonic examinatior. in requesting relief frem volumetric examination.
3.
94.8 B-J, Socket welds larger than one inch; why has volunetric inspection been specified when only surface inspection is required?
4.
B5.4 B-K 1, B5.6 B-L-1, reactor coolant pump supoort and casing welds; is a surface examination, in addition to visual, practical to u'se in lieu of volumetric?
B.
CLASS 2
- l.
Please include or justify absence of all examinations idantified by Table IWC-2600 and IWC-2520.
C.
CLASS 3 1.
Please include or justify absence of all examinations required by Subsection IWD.
- Questions previously asked for Unit 1.
(Indicate if previou; responses accly to Unit 2).
1201 035
~ D.
APPARENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROGRAMS FOR UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 Reactor Vessel 1.
Unit 2 program requires 33-1/3". of flange-to-shell weld be examined during 3rd period. Unit 1 completed this exam during 2nd perlod.
2.
Unit 1:
S.I. safe end nozzles are not accessible from outside.
(Welds were UT'd from inside). Unit 2: does not mention the component or exam at all.
Pressurizer 1.
Unit 1: no mentien of safe end examination of the safety valve nozzle.
Requir;s UT exam of manway bolting.
(WE letter of October 6,1977 states that there is no bolting greater than 2" in diameter.) Unit 2: no mention of UT exam.
Requires visual inspection of bolting. Requires UT exam of safety valve nozzle safe end welds.
2.
Unit 1: completed visual exam requirements by end of 2nd period.
Unit 2: requires exam of cladding during 3rd period.
Steam Generators Unit li requires UT examination of r.his weld.
Unit 2:
no mention of tube-sheet-to-primary-head weld.
Picina Unit 1: completed the required UT exam for piping branch connections during 2nd period.
Unit 2:
requires this exam in 3rd period.
Reactor Coolant Pumos Unit 1: UT exam of ligaments.
Unit 2: visual exam (Code requires UT).
Your letter of May 17, 1979 states your desire to have identical technical specifications and periodic testing r+quirements for both units.
It apoears from the above that tne programs for both units are not identicci in all respects. To assist us in excediting and coordinating the review for both units, we request that all cifferences between programs (botn ISI and IST) be identified.
Alternatively, you may wish to amend your programs in areas where dif7erences now exist in order to eliminate (or minimize) these differences.
." 1201 036