ML20204G813

Discusses Concerns Re 840706 Request for Relief from Requirements of ASME Code Section XI Second 10-yr Interval Inservice Insp Requirements.Evaluation of 830113 Requested Relief Re Insp of Unit 1 Safety Injection Encl

ML20204G813
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	09/10/1984
From:	John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20204G816	List: ML20204G813 ML20205H217
References
TAC-55500, TAC-55501, NUDOCS 8409260565
Download: ML20204G813 (3)

Text

.

x>*, " %

• d' k UNITED STATES hf0. bbb f 565 1  !

[ p, NUOLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION / 1 o j WASHINGTON, D. C 20655 '

..... SEP 101984 Docket Nos. 50-266 i and 50-301 l

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:

We have received your July 6, 1984 request for relief from the requirements of ASME Code Section XI 2nd ten year interval Inservice Inspection Require-ments for Point Beach Units 1 and 2. These requests are under review.

Your July 6 letter also mentioned several areas associated with previously granted relief for Point Beach Units 1 and 2 for which you requested clari-fication or correction. ,

The first item of your concern covers our March 29, 1984' relief from the ASME Code requirement to perform surface examinations on three piping-to-penetra-tion cap welds in the auxiliary coolant and safety injection systems. Relief was granted provided that the first weld in the process pipe outside contain-ment be subject to the recuired ASME Code examination. You have subsequently detennined that the buriec welds inside the penetration are shop welds and that  ;

only some of the first welds outside containment were shop welds while others were field welds. You have stated that the shop welds outside containment will more closely match the buried welds in terms of welding process and manufac- j turing conditions than would field welds; therefore, you feel that inspection i I

of of the the first first shop weld w(eld outsidefirst since some containment welds vould is more appropriate be field welds) andthan inspection intend to l meet the conditions of the granted relief ~ by inspecting the first shop weld out-side containment.

The NRC staff's )urpose in conditioning the granted relief was to provide assurance that t1e integrity of the inaccessible welds would be maintained to the extent practicable. The staff feels that inspection of the first weld out-side containment provides this assurance. Tho staff is more concer.1cd with the location of the weld than its type. Therefore, the staff disagrees with your position to inspect the first shop weld outside containment to meet the con-ditions of this granted relief.

Secondly, with regard to your January 13, 1983 requested relief RR-1-9 for inspection of Unit 1 safety injection reducer-to-safe end welds, failure to l include this relief in our March 29, 1984 letter was an oversight on our 4 part. The relief request and its evaluation are included as Enclosure 1 to this letter.

~

% l

__ __ i

Mr. C. W. Fay , With regard to the correct designator for the weld identified as AC-10-RHR-1006-25 in relief request RR-1-5 of August 20, 1982 for Point. Beach Unit 1, we have reviewed the associated isometric drawings included in the August 20, -

1982 relief request and agree that the correct designator for this weld is AC-10-RHR-1006-8. We consider this to be a typographical error not requiring further review.

Your interpretation of the visual inspection requirements for Point Beach Units 1 and 2 reactor vessel interior surfaces once every three years is correct.

That is, during a nonnal refueling only those areas which are accessible need be visually inspected. However, if, during an outage other than that nonnally scheduled for this inspection, the fuel is completely removed and other interior surfaces of the reactor vessel become accessible, we expect the visual examina-tion of the reactor vessel which had not been conducted during the previous in-spection to be performed.

Sincerely,

• p . ,w [/

James R. Miller, Chief Operating Reactors Branch f3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated r

~

Wisconsin Electric Power Company cc: .

Mr. Bruce Churchill, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts ar.d Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W. '

Washington, DC 20036 Mr. James J. Zach, Manager Nuclear Operations Wisconsin Electric Power Company Point Beach Nuclear Plant "

6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Mr. Gordon Blaha

• Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks Route 3 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Region V Office .

ATTN: Regional. Radiation Representative 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 .

Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hills Farns 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 Inspectors Office 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241

, _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _