ML20087L515

Forwards Addl Documentation of Acceptability of Clear & Bright Test Proposed in Tech Spec Change Submitted by .Demonstrations Revealed That Clear & Bright More Sensitive than Water & Sediment Test

ML20087L515
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	03/20/1984
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-53255, TAC-53256, NUDOCS 8403270243
Download: ML20087L515 (2)

Text

Q DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. Box 33180 CHARLOTrE, N.O. 28242 HALB. TUCKER TELEPHONE v.o. ,-.- March 20, 1984 po.o ara-4aan NUCLEAR Pa0DEMITION Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

/ Attention: Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Re: McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370

Dear Mr. Denton:

.The purpose of this letter is to provide additional documentation of the acceptability of the " clear and bright" test proposed in the technical specification change sub-mitted by my letter of November 18, 1983. Arrangements were made for a demonstration of the'effect of water on the " clear and bright" appearance of #2 diesel fuel oil at the U. S. Navy Fuel Laboratories, Norfolk, Virginia. The purpose of this demon-stration was to show that the " clear and bright" condition of fuel oil is altered at_ water concentration levels significantly below the maximum allowable per ASTM D975-81. The demonstration included numerous samples including " clear and bright",

in which-no water was present, to " dark and cloudy" which contained water at .02%

by volume and sediment at .01% by volume. These demonstrations were witnessed by both a Duke Power and a NRC representative.

As a result, both Duke and NRC representatives agreed that " clear and bright" was a more sensitive tect than " water and sediment" test per ASTM D1796. As further verification, Duke Power agreed to perform a series of comparative tests on several samples of fuel oil. The results of these tests are shown in Attachment 1.

Please advise if there are additional questions regarding this matter.

Very truly yours, Hal B. Tucker

/ Ifl GAC:glb Attachment cc: Mr. W. T. Orders Senior Residnet Inspector McGuire Nuclear ' Station Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

\

I 8403270243 840320 g PDR ADOCK 05000369PDR I p

l 9

t

~

• g ,

~

v

,,A n 4 ,,

h :h ., ~[ .

- l; _ .. . . .

" ATTACHMENT 1" 1A-COMPARATIVE STUDY

v. . CLEAR AND BRIGff TEST '(ASIM DdO57).

VS

- ?l l WATER AND SEDIMENT (ASIX D1796).--

e

.. Appearance Vol. % Water and Sediment Sample ' Clear and' Bright Test Result ASn1 D1796

[ Sample fran Dark brown color, haziness present.- No water detected

Norfolk, . Clear and bright test fails . 02% sediment detected (amount of

~

Lwater added unknown);

Fresh: '

Light brown color. _ .

sample from Passas Clear,and Bright test -No water detected

. etanker.

-. Fresh' Slight haziness' appeared.

~ -sample: Passes-Clear and Bright. test. No water detected

with .018% ~

- added water. _

Sample' appears hazy-

~

f. Fresh . .. .

aanple with Fails Clear and_ Bright' Test

~

.No water detected-

-.036% added iwater Fresh) Sample appears hazy.

sanple with ' Fails Clear and Bright test. No water detected

.072%.added water.- ,

. t Fresh . Sample appears hazy.

. - sample with Fails Clear and-Bright test. No water detected

,0.1% added ,

water- -

-Fresh ~ sanple . Sample appears hazy.' .03% water.

..with 0.2%- Fails Clear and'Brigh test. Accun-

~

added l ulation of water at the bottom of -

. water' the. test flask was~ noticed.

Fresh ._ Sample-appears hazy. . -

0.2% water

-. sample 'with Fails Clear and Bright test.

Accunulation ofcwater at the bottan pe, -O.3%ladded-j.j , (water' .of the test flask was noticed;

- SB/nen =

i03-15-84

.,a, r..__ _ - . . _ . - . . - . . . , . _ . _ . . ... ,._ ~.-. _ _ . _ - . . _ . . . . . _ . _ , . . _ _ - . . . _ . - . '