ML20112E945

Application for Amend to License NPF-7,changing Tech Specs to Delete Requirement to Obtain Sample of Fuel Oil from Diesel Generator Fuel Storage Tank Drain,Per ASTM D270-65. Fee Paid

ML20112E945
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	01/08/1985
From:	Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:	Harold Denton, John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20112E949	List: ML20112E945 ML20112E962
References
538, NUDOCS 8501150322
Download: ML20112E945 (3)

Text

b s l i

l VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND PownN COMPANY RICHMOND,VIHOINIA 20061 W.L. STEWART vic. Pan in==r NectaAm orsauto"" January 8, 1985 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Serial No. 538 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation N0/JHL:acm Attn: Mr. James R. Miller, Chief Docket No. 50-339 Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 License No. NPF-7 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNIT NO. 2 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, the Virginia Electric and Power Company requests an amendment, in the form of a change to the Technical Specifications, to Operating License NPF-7 for North Anna Power Station Unit No. 2.

The proposed change is to delete the requirement to obtain a sample of the fuel oil from the diesel generator fuel storage tank, from the location of the drain. This sample was to be in accordance with ASTM D270-65. The Station's practice is to obtain a fuel oil sample from the discharge of the transfer pumps which transfer fuel oil from the storage tanks to the emergency diesel engine day tanks. This is a valid sample point based on the as-built configuration of the station. .In addition, this is the same sample point that is used for Unit 1. The Unit 1 Technical Specifications do not specify that the sample must be taken at the drain of the diesel generator fuel oil storage tank.

The proposed Technical Specification change for North Anna Unit No. 2 is provided in Attachment 1. A discussion of the proposed Technical Specifica-tion change is provided in Attachment 2.

This-request has been reviewed and approved by the Station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee and the Safety Evaluation and Control Staff. It has been determined that this request does not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59.

It has been determined that this proposed change does not pose a significant hazards consideration as stated in the Federal Register dated April 6, 1983.

- Example (iii) of examples of amendments that are considered likely to involve a significant hazards consideration states, "A significant relaxation in 8501150322 850108 hDRADOCK 05000339 PDR

[I l I f $

. - - - .~ . . - --- _ . _- -

visoimiA ELECTRIC AND Powra COMPANY TO Harold R. Denton 4

limiting conditions for operation not accompanied by compensatory changes, conditions or actions that maintain a commensurate level of safety." The proposed change does not reduce a surveillance requirement but changes the fuel oil sample point location. As stated previously, the Station's practice is to obtain a fuel oil sample from the discharge of the transfer pumps which transfer fuel oil from the storage tanks to the emergency diesel engine day tanks. This is a valid sample point based on the as-built configuration of the plant.

Regulatory Guide 1.137 at C.2.c states that "The periodic sampling procedure for the fuel oil should be in accordance with ASTM D-270-1975." The sample point of the drain is not a specific requirement of the regulatory guide, therefore the station is in material compliance with ASTM D-270 but not literal compliance.

In addition, the proposed change would make the Unit 2 Technical Specifica-tions the same as the Unit 1 Technical Specifications. This would mean that the sample point from the discharge of the transfer pumps which transfer fuel oil from the storage tanks to the emergency diesel engine day tanks is a valid sample point. Therefore, Example (i) of examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration applies:

"A purely administrative change to the Technical Specifications: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications...".

Based on this information, we have determined that this change does not pose a significant hazards consideration.

We have reviewed this - request in accordance with the criteria in 10 CFR

. 170.12. A voucher check in the amount of'$150 is enclosed as an application fee.

Very truly yours, I, %d, W. L. Stewart Attachments l'. Proposed Technical Specification Change 2.- Discussion of Proposed Technical Specification Change

3. Voucher Check for $150 cc: Mr. James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator Region II

.) 'Mr. M. W. Branch NRC Resident Inspector North Anna Power Station

,Mr. Charles Price

-Department of Health 109 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219

P COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )

)

CITY OF RICHMOND )

The foregoing document was acknowledged before me, in and for the City and Commonwealth aforesaid, today by W. L. Stewart who is Vice President -

Nuclear Operations, of the Virginia Electric and Power Company. He is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing document in behalf of that Company, and the statements in the document are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

Acknowledged before me this ((A day of {\ % I 19 ? s.- .

O My Commission expires: A .2 6 . 19 Y s' .

O~C lh 'A Notary Public (SEAL) s/ col

4 .c>

s.

ATTACIDfENT 1