ML20126J293

Authorizes Implementation of Proposed ASME Code Pump & Valve Inservice Testing Programs to Be Completed No Later than 850801,per 850328 Request for Relief from Requirements

ML20126J293
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	06/11/1985
From:	Butcher E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
References
TAC-60640, TAC-60641, NUDOCS 8506180580
Download: ML20126J293 (4)

Text

'

s l

s June 11, 1985

)lI gg Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301 Mr. C. W. Fay, Vice President Nuclear Power Department Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street, Room 308 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

Dear Mr. Fay:

By letter dated March 4,1985, and pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), we granted interim relief until February 28, 1986 from those ASME Code inservice testing requirements for which you requested relief in your letter dated January 16,1984 " Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 pump and valve inservice test programs". We had also specified that implementation of the inservice testing program should take place within 90 days of receipt of our March 4,1985 letter.

By letter dated March 28, 1985, you indicated that manpower constraints associated with the Unit I refueling outage and the need to modify your program to accommodate the interim relief (until related Technical Specification changes can be approved by the staff) will not allow you to implement your program in accordance with the staff's schedule. Therefore, you requested a delay for implementation of the inservice testing program until August 1, 1985. We have reviewed your request and find that based on your submittal, good cause exists for the delay. We, therefore, find the delay until August 1,1985 to be acceptable.

Your March 28 letter also contained an request for relief from the ASME Code inservice testing requirements whcih was in addition to_that requested on January 16, 1984. Specifically, you requested relief from the requirement that pump vibration monitoring be performed using displacement vibration amplitude (peak-to-peak composite) techniques for all pumps in the program. As an alternate test, you have indicated that at least one broadband vibration velocity (peak) measurement will be obtained using the vibration velocity test data allowable ranges for comparison.

Your basis for this relief request is that, since vibration severity and vibration velocity are-both functions of displacement and frequency, a measure of vibration velocity will yield a direct measure of vibration severity. Experience has indicated that this is true for frequencies between 600 and 60,000 cycles per minute.

i 8506180580 850611 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P

PDR

. Your additional request for relief remains under staff review. We intend to obtain additional data from your staff supporting the acceptability of your request.

Pending completion of staff review, you should meet the ASME Code requirement for pump testing relating to this relief request.

Therefore, you are authorized and should proceed to implement your proposed programs (except where your current Technical Specifications are more restrictive). Your program implementation shall be completed as soon as practical but in no case later than August 1, 1985. As stated in our March 4,1985 letter, during the period between now and the date we complete our detailed review of your submittals, you must comply with both your existing Technical Specifications and your proposed inservice inspection and testing programs.

In the event conflicting requirements arise for some components, you must comply with the more restrictive requirements (e.g., shorter inspection intervals, increased number of parameters measured).

In other words, the granting of relief in our March 4,1985 letter from ASME Code requirements should not be interpreted to give you relief from any of the requirements in your existing Technical Specifications.

When our detailed review of your January 16, 1984 submittal is complete,.we will:

(1) issue final approval of your programs (which may contain modifications resulting from the staff's review), (2) grant relief from any ASME Code requirements that are determined to be impractical for your facility for the duration of the inspection interval, and (3) issue Technical Specifications supporting the approved programs.

Sincerely, e

l/

Edward J. Butcher, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc: See next page P

Distribution:

Docket File NRC & L PDRs DELD HThompson PKreutzer TColburn FCherny ACRS-10 TColburn EJordan Glainas BGrimes Gray File Reading File

• See previous white for concurrence f

ORB #3:DL*

ORB #3:DL*

MEB*

ORS /f]bL' OELD*

AD:

DL PKreutzer TColburn FCherny Efutener WShields SC nas 6/11/85 6/11/85 6/11/85 _ 6 ////85 6/11/85 g/ /85 C

• l Your additional request for relief remains under staff review. We intend to obtain additional data from your staff supporting the acceptability of your request.

If the data acceptably supports your request, we will grant interim relief until the staff can complete its detailed review or until February 28, 1986, whichever occurs first.

Therefore, you are authorized and should proceed to implement your proposed programs (except where your current Technical Specifications are more restrictive). Your program implementation shall be completed as soon as practical but in no case later than August 1,1985. As stated in our i

March 4,1985 letter, during the period between now and the date we complete our detailed review of your submittals, you must comply with both your existing Technical Specifications and your proposed inservice inspection and testing programs.

In the event conflicting requirements arise for some components, you must comply with the more restrictive requirements (e.g., shorter inspection intervals, increased number of parameters measured).

In other words, the granting of relief in our March 4,1985 letter from ASME Code requirements should not be interpreted to give you relief from any of the requirements in your existing Technical Specifications.

When our detailed review of your January 16, 1984 submittal is complete, we will: (1) issue final approval of your programs (which may contain modifications resulting from the staff's review), (2) grant relief from any ASME Code requirements that are determined to be impractical for your. facility for the duration of the inspection interval, and (3) issue Technical Specifications supporting the approved programs.

Sincerely, 1

Edward J. Butcher, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc: See next page Distribution: Docket File NRC & L PDRs DELD HThompson PKreutzer TColburn FCherny ACRS 10 TColburn EJordan Glainas BGrimes Gray File Reading File Yy MEB[,(;. ORB #3:0L AD:0R:0L

[0 ORBf3:DL OR8f3:DL (44 i GClainas PKreutzer Tfolburn FCherny EButcher 6 /// /85 is /# /85 6 /// /85

/ /85 l

6 / O/85

/ /85 (I

Mr. C. W. Fay Point Beach Nucle ~ r Plant a

Wisconsin Electric Power Company Mr. Bruce Churchill, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 Mr. James J. Zach, Manager Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Mr. Gordon Blaha Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks Route 3 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hills Farms State Office Building Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III Office of Executive Director for Operations 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 U.S. NRC Resident Inspector's Office 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241