ML20149H065
| ML20149H065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1988 |
| From: | Wagner D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802190091 | |
| Download: ML20149H065 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - -
r 3
February 12, 1988 Docket Nos. 50-266 DISTRIBUT ON:
- and 50-301 toecter m les NRC & Local PDRs
'PDIII-3 r/f XPerkins GHolahan PKreutzer DWagner OGC-WF1 Mr. C. W. Fay, Vice President EJordan JPartlow
(
Nuclear Power Department ACRS(10)
PDIII-3 Gray File Wisconsin Electric Power Conpany 231 W. Michigan Street, Room 308 l
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Dear Mr. Fay:
SUBJECT:
BORAFLEX SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM In your letter dated February 11, 1987, you provided us with the results of a recent Boraflex examination and notified us of your intent to revise the Boraflex Surveillance Program for the 10-year inspection based on this examination.
In your letter, you noted that the full-length Boraflex inserts in the spent fuel racks are in excellent condition; however, the Boraflex samples in the surveillance program were degraded. You attributed the differences observed between the full length Boraflex inserts and the surveillance program samples to different methods of encapsulation, Boraflex geometry, and handling frequency.
l To monitor the condition of the Boraflex at Point Beach you proposed:
1.
Tennination of the Boraflex Surveillance Program proceduralized by procedure REl-25, "Spent Fuel Rack Neutron Absorbing Material Surveil-lance Specimen Program," for the 10-year inspection because the sanples do not appear representative of the full-length Boraflex sheets.
2.
Examinationofanotherfull-lengthBoraflexsheetin5 years (the 10-yearinspection).
You also comitted to follow the industry's development of Boraflex data.
We have reviewed your proposed modifications to the Boraflex Surveillance Program, and concur with you in your belief that the revised program would provide more valuable infonnation on the performance of full-length Eoraflex sheets; however, we believe that the examination of a single full-length Boraflex sheet is not an adequate basis to conclude that all full-length sheets have not degraded. Accordingly, we cannot approve the Boraflex l
Surveillance Program discussed in your February 11, 1987 letter.
8802190091 080212 PDR ADOCK 05000266 O
C. W. Fay-We recently issued a Safety Evaluation (SE) (dated December 21, 1987) on the Boraflex surveillance program to be enacted at Waterford 3.
In this SE, we indicate that the surveillance program should include non-destructive examine-tion of approximately ten representative full-length Boraflex sheets.
We urge you to consider similar actions in your Boraflex Surveillance Program.
Sincerely,
'()dginal Si@B David H. Wagner, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects cc: See next page i
I 1
F#/P&fk[-3 j
WC Office:
LA/PQIII-3 ECE PD/PDIII Surname:
PKre6tzer DWagner/tg CMcCracken KPerkins i
Date:
02/jg/88 02/10/88 02////88 02/l>/S8 i
[
9
.o Mr. C. W. Fay Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company Units 1 and 2 cc:
Mr Bruce C5urch111, Esq.
Shaw, Pittmwn, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Mr. James J. Zach, Manager Point Beach Nuclear Plant i
Wisconsin Electric Power Company 6610 Nuclear Roao Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Town Chairwan 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, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director for Operations 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Resident Inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 I
L B
l
_ - - -