NOC-AE-17003520, 10CFR50.59 Summary Report of Changes, Tests and Experiment from October 2015 Through September 2017

10CFR50.59 Summary Report of Changes, Tests and Experiment from October 2015 Through September 2017

ML17268A049
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	09/25/2017
From:	Marc-Anthony Murray South Texas
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NOC-AE-17003520
Download: ML17268A049 (5)

Text

Nuclear Operating Company South Texas Pro/ect Electric Generating Station P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 September 25, 2017 NOC-AE-17003520 10CFR50.59 STI: 34543702 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 10CFR50.59 Summary Report Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.59, the attached report contains a brief description and summary of the 10CFR50.59 evaluations of changes, tests and experiments conducted at the South Texas Project from October 2015 through September 2017.

There are no commitments in this letter.

If there are any questions regarding this summary report, please contact K. A. Van Daalen at (361) 972-8030 or me at (361) 972-8164.

(

Michael P. Murray Manager, Regulatory Affairs kav

Attachment:

10CFR50.59 Evaluation Summaries October 2015 - September 2017

NOC-AE-17003520 Page 2 of 2 ec:

(paper copy) (electronic copy)

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Regional Administrator, Region IV Steve Frantz, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Paul Bessette 1600 East Lamar Boulevard Arlington, TX 76011-4511 D. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm iss io n Lisa M. Regner NRG South Texas LP Lisa M. Regner Mark Walker Senior Licensing Project Manager Jim von Suskil U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Skip Zahn One White Flint North (08H04) 11555RockvillePike CPS Energy Rockville, MD 20852 Kevin Polio Cris Eugster L. D. Blaylock NRC Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CjtyofAustin P. 0. Box 289, Mail Code: MN116 Elaina Ball Wadsworth,TX 77483 John Wester Texas Department of State Health Services Helen Watkins Robert Free

NOC-AE-17003520 Attachment Page 1 of 3 10CFR50.59 Evaluation Summaries October 2015 - September 2017 Summaries of the following 10CFR50.59 Evaluations are provided in this attachment:

No. Condition Report Subject Number

1. 14-8780-308 Apply In-Situ "Normalized" Calibration Values to Main Feedwater flow Transmitters

2. 16-2197-15 Manual Operator Load Shed of Additional Class 1E Battery Loads during Loss of All AC Power

3. 14-12285-20 Modify Use ofWRB-2M DNB Correlation in UFSAR Accident Analyses

NOC-AE-17003520 Attachment Page 2 of 3 14-8780-308: Apply In-Situ "Normalized" Calibration Values to Main Feedwater flow Transmitters

Description:

The subject of this Evaluation is the application of in-situ developed correction factors to the existing main feedwater flow transmitter scaling values initially based on the venturi flow element test laboratory results.

Summary: The proposed activity involves the application of a correction factor to the existing feedwater flow transmitter scaling values initially developed based on the venturi flow element test laboratory test results and replacing these scaling values with feedwater flow transmitter scaling values corrected to match the LEFM Cameron Caldon Check Plus system measured flow. Application of these in-situ obtained scaling values represents a change in methodology as originally established for the STP 1.4% Power Uprate by application of Westinghouse WCAP-15697 and approved by the NRC for plant operation where the ultrasonic flow measurement instrumentation is out of service for greater than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> resulting in feedwater flow measured by venturi flow element based instrumentation. This evaluation shows that the results of the revised methodology are the same as, or more conservative than, the methodology being replaced.

The evaluation determined that prior NRC approval was not required.

16-2197-15: Manual Operator Load Shed of Additional Class 1 E Battery Loads during Loss of All AC Power

==

Description:==

The subject of this Evaluation is to revise the procedure for loss of all AC power as a result of a revision to Electrical Calculation 13DJ006, "125 VDC Battery Four Hour Coping Analysis."

Summary: The proposed activity involves revising STP procedure OPOP05-EO-ECOO, "Loss of All AC Power," such that an STP operator manually sheds additional Class IE battery loads during a loss of all AC power event. Currently, the subject STP procedure requires an STP operator to manually load shed ESF Load SequencerA, B and C within 30 minutes of a loss of all AC power event. In addition to this procedure step, this change involves revising the subject procedure such that STP operators also manually load shed seven additional loads and ensure five other loads remain "ON" (not load shed) on DP1201 within 30 minutes of a loss of all AC power event. This procedure change is a result of a revision to Electrical Calculation 13DJ006, "125 VDC Battery Four Hour Coping Analysis."

The evaluation determined that prior NRC approval was not required.

NOC-AE-17003520 Attachment Page 3 of 3

3. 14-12285-20: Modify Use ofWRB-2M DNB Correlation in UFSAR Accident Analyses

Description:

The subject of this Evaluation is to modify the use of the WRB-2M DNB Correlation in UFSAR Accident Analyses.

Summary: The change applies a conservative penalty when using the WRB-2M correlation to determine the departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) in the fuel. The penalty is applied when the fluid conditions are calculated to be in the non-conservative steam quality region of the range of applicability of the WRB-2M correlation limit described in UFSAR Section 4.4.2.2.1. The use of the penalty does not impact the WRB-2M correlation or the approved range of applicability given in UFSAR Section 4.4.2.2.1. The methodology for this change is the same as that previously approved by the NRC. The penalty reduces the margin to the applicable safety analysis limits and so is conservative.

The evaluation determined that prior NRC approval was not required.