ML20027D133

Application to Amend Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,changing Tech Specs Re Requirements for Periodic Leakage Rate Testing of Containment Airlock Doors.Class I & II Amend Fees Encl

ML20027D133
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	10/21/1982
From:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20027D134	List: ML20027D133 ML20027D138
References
TAC-49033, TAC-49034, NUDOCS 8210280295
Download: ML20027D133 (3)

Text

Msconsin Electnc mecowa 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 October 21, 1982 Mr. H. R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 APPENDIX J TESTING OF CONTAINMENT AIR LOCKS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO. 82 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.59, Wisconsin Electric (Licensee) hereby submits an application for amendments to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The purpose of these amendments is to obtain approval for changes to the Point Beach Technical Specifications concerning the requirements for periodic leakage rate testing of the containment air lock doors. These changes were requested by the NRC in Mr. T. G.

Colburn's letter dated June 25, 1982.

In our letter to your dated August 13, 1982, we advised that we were in the process of developing a containment air lock testing methodology utilizing the reduced pressure tests extrapolated to design pressure as suggested previously by the NRC Staff. We have completed a preliminary evaluation of this air lock door "O"-ring seal testing program and have found that the vacuum test proposed with this amendment application appears to be feasible for the present air lock system design.

In addition to those testing results reported in our fol7 August 13, 1982 letter, the following evaluations were conducted.

V' j,gh! Maintenance,consistingofminoradjustments,wasperformedon the four doors which initially had higher leakage to see if the condition could be improved. This was considered necessary in

//Lo0 0c) order to prove that all the doors are capable of being vacuum tested. The testing of the four doors showed a marked improvement after maintenance. The Unit 2 air locks were then subjected to a 60 psig full-pressure test and a number of opening / closing

~

-1~

8210280295 821021 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P PDR

_7

Mr. H. R. Denton October 21, 1982 cycles to determine if continued maintenance activity, in the form of repeated door latching mechanism adjustments, would be expected in normal use. Following these activities, the door seals.were successfully retested with no significant change in the sealing performance observed.

In order to more efficiently perform this increased frequency for air lock door seal testing, we are evaluating the installation of a permanent testing system at each of the' upper air lock doors. These air locks are the ones routinely used for the containment inspections, evaluation and maintenance access. A portable testing system will probably be fabricated for the lower air lock doors. Both systems will be capable of drawing a vacuum on the door seals and providing.the appropriate leakage rate information.

A modification request to develop these permanent and portable testing devices is being prepared. In view of the time required to finalize the system design, obtain the requisite approvals, procure the necessary hardware and install and preservice test this equipment, we anticipate full compliance with the Appendix J testing requirements for Point Beach containment air locks will not be achieved until after the respective unit refueling outages in 1983. On the attached pages we have proposed Technical Specification changes for the containment air lock door seal testing, including proposed acceptance criteria and testing frequencies.

In accordance with the schedule of fees for reactor facility license amendments, as listed in 10 CFR Section 170.22, Licensee has determined that this license amendment approval for Point Beach Unit 1 should be classified as a Class II amendment. This classification is based on the determination that these proposed revisions to the Technical Specification are administrative in nature in that they are responsive to an NRC request. The proposed method of testing has been previous 3;r approved by the NRC and was discussed in the Technical Evaluatian Report supporting the Safety Evaluation provided with Licenso Amendments 61 and 66 to DPR-24 and DPR-27,-respectively.

Accordingly, these revisions to the Specifications have no cafety or environmental significance which has not been previously considered and approved by the Commission Staff. The amendment application for Point Beach Unit 2 is a duplicate of the Unit 1 request and, therefore, can be classified as a Class I approval.

Accordingly, a check in the amount of $1,600 is enclosed as payment for the applicable Class I and II approval fees.

e Mr. H. R. Denton October 21, 1982 As further specified in the Commission's regulations, we enclose herewith three signed originals and forty copies of this license amendment application. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this submittal.

Very truly yours, p j' C. W. Fay Nd '/

Assistant Vice President Enclosure (Check No. 699258 )

Subscribed and sworn to before me This 21st day of October, 1982.

& Jy& - _ _

Notary Ptdrilic, State of Wisconsin My Commission expires '/,/ i 8 %

v Copy to NRC Resident Inspector i

i l

l I

i t

I

, ._ - . , - _ _ _ _ - - . - - .