ML20212N825
| ML20212N825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1987 |
| From: | Hehl C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703130169 | |
| Download: ML20212N825 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000266/1986021
Text
I., :
-
at a wi
Docket No. 50-266
Docket No. 50-301
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
ATTN: Mr. C. W. Fay
Vice President
Nuclear Power Departownt
231 West Michigan, Room 308
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Gentlemen:
This is in response to your letter dated February 4,1987, which addressed a
violation identified in Inspection Report No. 266/86021. We have completed
our review of your letter and have the following observations.
A review of violation 266/86021-02 does not support your contention that it is
based on the guidance provided in Section 3 of the report. Rather, the violation
is based solcly on the requirenents of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J Section III.A.3(b)
which have not changed since the 1984 test and your Technical Specifications.
Your response to the violation adequately addressed the hardware aspects of
the problem, but is not obvious what corrective actions you have or are
going to implement regarding the inappropriate approach to calculating the
difference between the Type A test data and the supplemental test data which
was inconsistant with your previous analysis and industry practice. The fact
that an NRC inspector erred in 1984, by agreeing to the inappropriate
calculation, does not relieve you of the responsibility to comply with the
regulations and has no bearing on the appropriateness of the violation.
For the above reasons, we do not agree with your position that the Unit 1
1904, CILRT was valid and the violation remains unchanged.
The infomation provided in Section 3 of the inspection report is intended to
be guidance for your use. The inforn.ation is not considered interpretations,
but is supplied so that licensee's will have a better understanding of how the
NRC reviews and evaluates test data. As a point of clarification, we assume
that your specific coninents on page 2 of your response are on Section 3.b(5? of
thereportandnotSection3.b(3)asreferenced. Additionally,Section3.b(5)
1
states that "The start of the CILRT must be noted in the test log at the tinee
the lictnsee determines that the containment stabilization has been
satisfactorily completed," which is in agreanent with what you were told by the
inspectors. Further,Section3.b(5)doesacknowledgethatre-initializationof
a test retrospectively is, at tires, justified ard lists three examples.
0703130169 070310
ADOCK 0D000266'
O
i
'
o
q:p
o
-
-
--
,
.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
2
Regarding your respense to the open items, we will examine those catters
during a subsequent inspection.
Sincerely,
wirinsT Sfcnoa D C. U M 1
C. W. Hehl, Chief
Operations Branch
J. J. Zach, Plant Manager
DCS/RSB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Managecent Branch
Resident Inspector, RIII
Virgil Kanable, Chief
Boiler Section
'
Nary Lou Munts, Chairperson
Wisconsin Public Service
Connission
ColletteBlum-Meister(SLO),
WI Div. of En.ergency Government
!
RI!!
R1
RDI
l
]WrYght/jlk
H 1
De a e c-
,
l
'
t