ST-HL-AE-5571, Submits Suppl Info Re STP Proposed Improved TS

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Submits Suppl Info Re STP Proposed Improved TS
ML20138K964
Person / Time
Site: South Texas  STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 02/11/1997
From: Martin L
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20138K969 List:
References
RTR-NUREG-1431 ST-HL-AE-5571, TAC-M95529, TAC-M95530, NUDOCS 9702190266
Download: ML20138K964 (19)
v • d • e


Text

_ . .

?

The Light '

cHouston o mpLighting a nySouth& Power Texas Project Electric Generating Station P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 February 11,1997 ST-HL-AE-5571 File No.:G20.01,

. G20.02 10 CFR 50.90 STI: 30176464 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 South Texas Project Unit I and Unit 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498 and 50-499 Supplementary Information re South Texas Proiect Proposed Improved Technical Specifications

Reference:

Letter dated November 27,1996 from William D. Beckner (NRC) to William T.

Cottle (HL&P) entitled " Staff Comments on the South Texas Application for Conversion to the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (TAC Nos.

M95529 and M95530)"

Representatives of the South Texas Project met with the Nuclear Regulatory ( 'ommission staff on December 12,1996 to discuss the review of the South Texas Project proposco Improved Technical Specifications. The meeting was successful in determining a plan for the South Texas Project to supplement the original submittal to facilitate the review and approval by the NRC i staff. Attached to this supplement are the following items, as discussed in the December 12 meeting:

A description of the STP philosophy for adapting the Standard Westinghouse 1.

Improved Technical Specifications (NUREG 1431) to the STP three train //

Engineered Safety Feature configuration.

2. A " pilot" revision of the STP Improved Technical Specifications Section 3.5, ECCS, showing changes to address the comments made by the NRC in the

[86/

referenced letter.

9702190266 970211 PDR ADOCK 05000498 P PDR c:\wp\nlinrc-wk\ misc.97\$571. doc Project Manager on Behalf of the Participants in the South Texas Project

t S T-HL-AE-5571 File No.:G20.01, G20.02 Page 2 In support of a planned implementation of the Improved Technical Specifications in the first quarter of 1998, the South Texas Project plans to submit a second, comprehensive supplement by June 30,1997. This comprehensive supplement will address NRC comments and issues identified in the referenced letter and this " pilot" supplement. It will also include the incorporation of amendments to the current technical specifications, a Relocation Matrix describing where information relocated from the technical specifications was placed, a disposition of proposed generic changes (TSTFs), and a list of pending and planned changes to l the STP Technical Specifications. i Following resolution of any remaining NRC comments, STP will submit a certified Proof and Review version of the Improved Technical Specifications targeted to support NRC approval of the proposed amendment by the end of 1997.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. A. W. Harrison at 512-972-7298 or Mr. M. A. McBurnett at 512-972-7206.

( W '

' Lawerence E. Marti W

General Manager, I

Nuclear Assurance and Licensing AWH/  !

Attachments:

1. South Texas Project Philosophy for Incorporating Three Train Design into Improved Technical Specifications
2. Proposed Revisions to STP Improved Technical Specifications Section 3.5, ECCS 4

c:\wpW\nrc.uk\ misc-975571. doc

Houston Lighting & Power Company ST-HL-AE-5571 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station File No.: G20.01 G20.02 Page 3 Leonard J. Callan Rufus S. Scott Regional Administrator, Region IV Associate General Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston Lighting & Power Company 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 61%7 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Houston, TX 77208 Thomas W. Alexion Institute of Nuclear Power Project Manager, Mail Code 13H3 Operations - Records Center U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 700 Galleria Parkway Washington, DC 20555-0001 Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 David P. Loveless Dr. Bertram Wolfe Sr. Resident Inspector 15453 Via Vaquero c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Monte Sereno, CA 95030 P. O. Box 910 Bay City, TX 77404-0910 Richard A. Ratliff Bureau of Radiation Control J. R. Newman, Esquire Texas Depanment of Health

. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1100 West 49th Street 1800 M Street, N.W. Austin, TX 78756-3189 Washington, DC 20036-5869 J. R. Egan, Esquire M. T. Hardt/W. C. Gunst Egan & Associates, P.C.

City Public Service 2300 N Street, N.W.

P. O. Box 1771 Washington, D.C. 20037 San Antonio, TX 78296 J. C. Lanier/M. B. Lee *U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission City of Austin . Attention: Document Control Desk Electric Utility Department Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 721 Banon Springs Road Austin, TX 78704 Central Power and Light Company J. W. Beck l ATTN: G. E. Vaughn/C. A. Johnson Little Harbor Consultants, Inc.

P. O. Box 289, Mail Code: N5012 44 Nichols Road Wadswonh, TX 77483 Cohassett, MA 02025-1166

  • Above copies distributed without Attachments, except as noted by asterisk.

l ST-HL-AE-5571 Attachment 1 j Page1 l South Texas Project Philosophy for Incorporating Three Train Design into Improved ,

Technical Specifications The Standard Improved Technical Specifications were written for standard plants with  !

two trains of Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) equipment. For such standard plant designs, the  !

I safety functions are degraded (loss of single failure protection) when a single train of an ESF function is inoperable, and there is a loss of safety function when two trains of an ESF function are inoperable. Consequently, there is generally no allowed outage tirre in the standard technical  ;

specifications for situations where two trains of an ESF function are inoperable.

l The South Texas Project has three trains of ESF equipment and ESF support equipment.

STP does not experience a complete loss of safety function when two of three trains of an ESF l function are inoperable. The three train design basis is predicated on each train being capable of mitigating a design basis accident assuming a loss of off-site power and single failure. In almost all cases, the safety systems powered from any one of the three available trains of onsite AC power are capable of mitigating the consequences of design basis events. For a very few cases,  !

proper and timely operator actions would be required to assure that selected safety systems  :

performed their function. In the event two of the three trains are unavailable, with no accident  ;

considerations, safe shutdown can be achieved with any single train. When two of three ESF l trains are operable, STP retains a high degree of redundancy which is substantially greater than  !

that which forms the basis for standard two train technical specifications for conditions where one of two ESF trains are available. Thus it is appropriate for STP to have a reasonable allowed )

outage time for conditions where two of three trains are inoperable in addition to the current allowances for when one of three trains is inoperable. The limitations of the STP three train design were more fully described in letters dated January 4,1996 and January 23,1996 in support of the STP application to amend the STP Technical Specifications to extend the allowed outage times for the Standby Diesel Generators and supporting systems. The amendment was approved by the NRC in Amendments 85 & 72 to the STP license.

1 Generally, the conversion of a two train Standard Improved Technical Specifications to Improved Technical Specifications suitable for a three train plant involves application of the three concepts described below. These concepts are generally applied throughout the South Texas ITS submittal with some adjustment for specific system designs and redundancies. In each case, the deterministic conclusion is tested with the Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) to account for integrated effects and to ensure there is appropriate probabilistic justification.

l l

ST-HL-AE-5571 Attachment 1 Page 2 Concepts for Converting Two Train Technical Specifications to Three Train Technical Specifications:

1. Two train specifications have action statements that cover the progression from all trains available to no trains available. To convert froia two train specifications to three train specifications, it is necessary to add action statements to cover the progression from three trains available to no trains available.
2. The three train plant has substantially more capability to mitigate design basis i events (including single failures) with one train out of service as compared to a i two train plant which has lost capability to mitigate design basis events with one l train out of service and a single failure. The allowed outage times (AOTs) associated with the loss of one train are increased based on the additional capability.
3. The three train plant has capability to mitigate most design basis events without a single failure if two trains are out of service where the two train plant has no capability with two trains out of service. This additional capability warrants provision of short AOTs in lieu ofimmediate shutdown requirements.

Consequently, AOTs are provided for two trains out of service.

STP has structured its application for Improved Technical Specifications to incorporate the three train design concepts described above. Table 1 below outlines the comparison between the philosophy of a typical two train plant and a three train plant such as STP. The time allowed to be in a condition with less than three trains operable is based on a reasonable time to restore operability and the capability of the remaining operable equipment. The proposed Improved Technical Specifications implicitly recognize the very low likelihood oflimiting events mentioned above in that the three train allowed outage time for most situations with one train i

operable is relatively short when compared to two train plants with one train operable (i.e. 24  !

hours vs. 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />). In addition, the STP Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) shows that the risk incurred is acceptable and consistent with guidance contained in the NEI PSA Application Guide. It is also important to note that two of three trains inoperable would be an unexpected, involuntary condition since STP would not plan to remove two trains from service. (A detailed discussion of the application of the STP PSA for establishing a technical basis for extended allowed outage times in the STP Improved Technical Specifications is provided in the Topical Report that accompanied the original STP application for the Improved Technical Specifications.)

l

, ST-HL-AE-5571 Attachment 1 Page 3 1

Table 1 No Operable Train One Operable Two Operable Three Operable Train Trains Trains Two No capability Loss of redundancy to Full Design Basis NA Train mitigate single failure Redundancy Plant Standard Tech. Spec.

(STSW 2 (typ. 72 TS 3.0.3 or hr.) ' Unlimited operation equivalent STP No capability Loss of redundancy to Redundancy for most Full Design Basis mitigate single failure design basis events Redundancy and loss of capability to mitigate cenain very low probability design basis events 7 days (typ. with some 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (typ. with exceptions; e.g.

l TS 3.0.3 or equivalent some exceptions) SDG I4 days) (Jnlimited Operation Table 2 below describes the changes to the alloweu v.itage times that are being proposed in the STP Improved Technical Specification submittal. The values in bolditalics denote proposed changes to the current technical specification requirements. The Auxiliary Feed Water System (AFW)is included for completeness, although it is a four train system at STP, The general philosophy is still applicable since AFW is usually a three train system at a " standard" plant. It can be seen that the philosophy described for Table I has been incorporated in the proposed changes. In some cases, the proposed changes are more restrictive than the current Technical Specifications, which reflects the incorporation of risk informed elements used to develop the technical basis for the proposed allowed outage times. (Note that Table 2 is for illustrative purposes and does not include all the detail of the requirements of the specifications.)

, ST-HL-AE-5571  ;

Attachment 1 l Page 4 1

Table 2 System / Condition Proposed STP Current STP Standard Two Three Train Three Train Train Specification Specification Specification l Safety injection (ITS 3.5.2) (CTf,3.5.2) (STS 3.5.2) l 0 Trains Operable TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0..'. TS 3.0.3 l

1 Train Operable 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> TS 3.0.3 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> i l 2 Trains Operaole 7 days 7 days unlimited I 3 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited NA 1 j Containment Spray (ITS 3.6.6) (CTS 3.6.2) f 3STS 3.6.6A) 0 Trains Operable TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.3 1 Train Operable 24 houn' TS 3.0.3 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 2 Trains Operable 28 days # 7 days unlimited 3 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited NA 4

RHR(not actually an ECCS at (ITS 3.5.2) (CTS 3.5.6) (STS 3.5.2, treated as STP) ECCS) 0 Trains Operable immediatel immediately TS 3.0.3 1 Train Operable 24 houn' y 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> l 2 Trains Operable 14 days # 7 days unlimited I 3 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited NA Reactor Containment Fan (ITS 3.6.6) (CTS 3.6.2.3) (STS 3.6.6A) l l Coolers 4

0 Trains Operable TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.3 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> t

1 Train Operable 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />' TS 3.0.3 7 days l 2 Trains Operable 28 days # 7 days unlimited 4 3 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited NA Component Cooling Water: (ITS 3.7.7) (CTS 3.7.3) (STS 3.7.7) 0 Traira Operable TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.'

s 1 Train Operable 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> TS 3.0.3 72 hou.a 2 Trains Operable 14 days # 7 days unlim!.ed 3 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited NA Essential Cooling Water: (ITS 3.7.8) (CTS 3.7.4) (STS 3.7.8) 0 Trains Operable TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.3 1 Train Operable 24 Aours TS 3.0.3 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 2 Trains Operable 7 days 7 days unlimited 3 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited NA

\

, ST-HL-AE-5571 Attachment 1 l l

Page 5  ;

l l

1 System / Condition Proposed STP Current STP Standard Two Three Train Three Train Train l Specification Specification Specification Essential Chilled Water: (ITS 3.7.10) (CTS 3.7.14) (STS no spec) 1 l

0 Trains Operable TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.3 j 1 Train Operable 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> TS 3.0.3 2 Trains Operable 7 days 7 days 3 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited Standby Diesel Generators: (ITS 3.8.1) (CTS 3.8.1) (STS 3.8.1) 0 Trains Operable 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 1 Train Operable 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 1 Train Inoperable with inoperable component on 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

  • 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> another train 2 Trains Operable 14 days
  • 14 days unlimited 3 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited NA
  • ITS submittal will be revised to reflect the new CTS time.

Control Room Envelope IIVAC (ITS 3.7.11) (CTS 3.7.7) (STS 3.7.10)

(MODE l-4) 0 Trains Operable TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.3 TS 3.0.3 1 Train Operable 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 7 days 2 Trains Operable 7 days 7 days unlimited 3 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited NA Auxiliary Feed Water (ITS 3.7.5) (CTS 3.7.1.2) (STS 3.7.5) 0 Trains Operable immediately immediately immediately 1 Train Operable 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> 2 Trains Operable 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />' 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />

  • 3 Trains Operable 7 days 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> unlimited 4 Trains Operable unlimited unlimited NA (no distinction between
  • 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> if the combination
  • 7 days if the steam supply motor driven and turbine includes the A train motor to the turbine driven train is driven trains) driven AFW inoperable Note 1: T he proposed S I P 11 S currently show 7 days for i tram operable, which is a risk-informed time. STP expects to change the proposed time to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> tc be consistent with the required actions of Specification 3.8.1 for one diesel inoperable with an inoperable component on another train. The planned change to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is for consistency and is not due to insights from a risk-informed review Note 2: These extended times for two operable trains reflect STP specific capabilities, redundancy. and PSA insig; hts.

. ST-HL-AE-5571 Attachment 1 Page 6 Staggered Test Basis:

The South Texas Project (STP) also requires adjustment in the intervals for staggered testing to accommodate the surveillance testing of three Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) trains instead of the standard two ESF trains. Two safety train plants can use a nine week rolling schedule to perform the required maintenance and testing. However, to manage the three safety train design, STP uses a rolling 12 week maintenance and testing program to facilitate safe and effective plant operation. The surveillance testing intervals specified in the Standard Improved

Technical Specifications were formulated for a two safety train design with a nine week rolling schedule; however an adjustment is necessary to accommodate the three safety train design, twelve week rolling schedule used at STP.

STP has three ESF trains (described here as Trains A, B, and C) and a " fourth train" (Train D) comprised of safety related components such as Reactor Protection System and

. Engineered Safety Feature actuation logics. The twelve week rolling schedule is the method STP uses to anow the performance of all preventive maintenance and surveillance testing. This

twelve week schedule is one of the primary administrative controls that prevents planned cross-train events and organizes work into a logical, planned configuration. Each week of the schedule is designated for a specific train, (e.g. week 1-Train A, week 2-Train B, week 3-Train C, week 4-Train D, week 5-Train A, week 6-Train B, etc). The table on the following page provides an i!!ustration of twelve week schedule being used to stagger the three component system. i i

The definition in the current Technical Specifications provides enough flexibility to adapt  !

to the three safety train design, while the definition in the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) does not provide that flexibility. The ISTS definition of A STAGGERED TEST BASIS states it shall consist of the testing of one of the systems, subsystems, channels, or

other designated components during the interval specified by the Surveillance Frequency, so that all systems, subsystems, channels, or other designated components are tested during n Surveillance Frequency intervals, where n is the total number of systems, subsystems, channels,  !

or other designated components in the associated function. While this definition coupled with  !

the surveillance intervals found in the Standard Improved Technical Specification will work for l a two safety train plant, the surveillance intervals found in the Standard Improved Technical Specification would require STP to perform surveillance testing on one train during the week another train is scheduled to be out of sersice for maintenance. Based on this design difference, STP will be requesting stagger intervals that differ from the Standard Improved Technical Specification stagger intervals to allow the testing of staggeted components within the normal scheduled train week and prevent any cross-train surveillance testing. The small change in the stagger interval will not impact the stagger testing benefit.

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

I*.

, ST-HL-AE-5571 Attachment 1 i Page 7 l As the table shows, a standard plant design typically has two safety trains (A and B), and a .nird " train" (C) of other components which must be tested. Surveillance testing is performed l for all components, (two, three or four trains) on a nine week nominal 28 day cycle between

! tests, thereby complying with a 31 day frequency used in ITS for any three train equipment that requires staggered testing. However, as the table also shows, the STP design of three safety train j plant requires performance of surveillance testing on a twelve week, nominal 35 day cycle l

between tests to accommodate the fourth train ofinstrumentation and equipment.

l STAGGERED TESTING FOR A TWO TRAIN PLANT WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 TRAIN A B C A B C A B C A B C A TEST X X X X l---- 28 DAYS ----l---- 28 DAYS ----l----28 DAYS ------l STAGGERED TESTING FOR A THREE TRAIN PLANT J WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 TRAIN A B C D A B C D A B C D A l l

l TEST X X X X l-------- 3 5 DAYS -------l----- 3 5 DAYS -------l-l 4 DAYS-l l l

(

l

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

1

[

ST-HL-AE-5571  !

ATTACHMENT 2 STP IMPROVED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SUPPLEMENT FOR SECTION 3.5, ECCS l The attached supplement for STP ITS Section 3.5 consists of the following information:  !

! 1. ITS SUPPLEMENT

SUMMARY

SHEET l l

Provides summary information about the changes made to the submittal. The data is listed i under headings that are self explanatory.

2. STP CTS /ITS CROSS REFERENCE Provides a cross reference between the current technical specification and the ITS. The data is listed under headings that are self explanatory.
3. ITS SUBMITTAL SUPPLEMENT The ITS submittal supplement consists of the following elements:
a. Improved Technical Specifications (ITS)
b. ITS Bases
c. CTS Markup and Discussion of Change (DOC)
d. No Significant Hazards Considerations
c. NUREG Markup (Speci,ications and Bases) and Justification for Deviations (JFDs)

Each of these elements are changed as necessary to implement NRC guidance. Each change is made to allow a quick review of only those elements that have changed. For ITS non-markup elements (a,b, & d), changes are provided in a strike through (e.g.,

di: $ ce;;h) and underline (e.g., underline) format. The strike through shows deletions from the submittal and underline shows additions to the submittal. Revision bars are provided to help reviewers in locating the changes as easily as possible.

For the markup elements (c & e) of the ITS submittal, changes are shown with bold markings and revision bars.

Furthermore pages with revision bars are pink for quick identification of changes.

This also allows the reviewer to place these pages into their submittal copy to assist in their previous review efforts.

l

. . -- .- -- . - _ - . . . - _ = _ . - - -_-. -.

l l

ITS SUPPLEMENT

SUMMARY

SHEET i

, SECTION:

3.5 l CHAMES T/' SPECIFICATIONS:

DESIGNATOR: ' CHANGE DESCRIPTION: , I SR 3.5.1.5 Changed pressure from 1000 to 2000 psig for verify power is removed l

'from accumulator isolation valve operator. )

;3.5.2 Actions' Removed requirement to enter LC0 3.0.3 to match requirements in 'CTSi

~

l E&F and NUREG. I SR 3.5.2.2 Changed SR Frequency frt 2 to 31 days to match CTS and NUREG.

iSR 3.5.3.1 'Added wofds to note-in SR to match NUREG.

SR 3.5.3.2 Changed s to < to match CTS for temperature requirements for HHSI pump breaker alignment in MODE 4.

CHAMES TO BASES:

i DESIGNATOR CHANGE DESCRIPTION-3.5.1 Changes made to incorporate changes to the specs.

3.5.2 Changes-inade to' correct wording problem with PSA description.

] ;0ther changes made to' incorporate changes ~to'the' specs'..

3.5.3 Alternate method provided in LC0 section for isolating a HHSI pump from the RCS when filling the accumulators. Other changes made to 4 incorporate changes to the specs.

3.5.4l Minor l changes GENERIC CHAMES INVOLVED
l TSTF 1 ' STATUS- ComENT 90 R.1 TSTF to revise Not incorporated i CHAMES TO CTS:

DOC COMENT' 4 3.5.1 Changes made to incorporate changes to the specs or to match the I specs.

3.5.2 - Changes.made
to incorporate changes _to the. specs.

3.5.3 Changes made to incorporate changes to the specs or to match the specs.

3.5.4 . Changes made'to. match the specs.

Page 1 of 2

ITS SUPPLEMENT SUMARY SHEET SECTIM:

i3.5:

CHAMES TO DCCs:

DOC . COMENT , ,

A.2,3,4,5,7,8, Modified 10,11,12,15 and 16

' A.6 - :Dsleted A.13 Deleted. Note deleted that allowed flexibility for RHR operating when needed for ECCS because it did not apply to STP design.

~' ~

LM.1L&l3l l lMo'dified ,,

M.2 Deleted

'Lil2i4,6,7,9,'Modifie'd'

~

110 & 11 L.8 Deleted i Li12.13,14;15b fNew- ,

~~ & :16 I LA.1,4,5,6,7 & Modified 8

LLA.2'& 3' Deleted ARC CMCERNS:

.NRC' CONCERN RESOLUTION

' Change in Note to SR 3.5.3.1 to This Note has been deleted due to; operations

-take credit for RHR HX for ECCS comment.

purposes when RHR is in RHR mode was not an A change since it was not in the CTS.

DOCS do not explain removing 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.iAdded more' description in D00 L.9' allowance infCTS for HHSI pump

' breaker' rack in.

BEnnt7 SC@E ISSUES:

iSee 3.5.2 Actions.E & F.above iSee SR'3.5'.2.2~above'

~;See SR 3.5.3.1 above Page 2 of 2

STP CTS /ITS CROSS REFERENCE' 31-Jan-97 CIS CTS TYPE CTS CTS COMMENTS ITS ITS TYPE ITS ITS COMMENTS ,

SECTION PAR SECTION PAR 3.5.1 ACTION a 3.5.1 CONDmON B 3.5.1 ACTION a 3.5.1 CONDmON C '

3.5.1 ACTION b 3.5.1 CONDmON B 3.5.1 ACTION b 3.5.1 CONDITION C ,

3.5.1 ACTION c 3.5.1 CONDmON A 3.5.1 ACTION c 3.5.1 CONDITION C.

3.5.1 LCO 3.5.1 LCO 3.5.1 LCO a 3.5.1.1 SR 3.5.1 LCO a 3.5.1.5 SR 3.5.1 LCO b 3.5.1.2 SR 3.5.1 LCO c 3.5.1.4 SR 3.5.1 LCO d 3.5.1.3 SR l

3.5.1 N/A N/A 3.5.1 CONDmON D 3.5.2 ACTION a 3.5.2 CONDmON E 3.5.2 ACTION a 3.5.2 CONDmON B 1 .

i

[

CTS CTS TYPE CIS CTS COMMENTS ITS ITS TYPE ITS TIS COMMENT 3 SECTION PAR SECTION PAR 3.5.2 ACTION a MOVED TO BASES 3.5.2 N/A N/A 3.5.2 ACTION b MOVED - 10 CFR 50.73 3.5 N/A N/A (aX2Xiv) 3.5.2 LCO 3.5.2 LCO 3.5.2 LCO a MOVED TO BASES 3.5 N/A N/A 3.5.2 LCO b MOVED TO BASES 3.5 N/A N/A 3.5.2 LCO c MOVED TO BASES 3.5.2 N/A N/A 3.5.2 LCO d MOVED TO BASES 3.5 N/A N/A 3.5.2 N/A N/A 3.5.2 CONDmON F 3.5.2 N/A N/A 3.5.2 CONDmON D 3.5.2 N/A N/A 3.5.2 CONDmON E 3.5.2 NOTE APP MODIFIED 3.5.2 NOTE APP 3.5.3.1 ACTION a 3.5.3 CONDmON C 3.5.3.1 ACTION a 3.5.3 CONDmON A 3.5.3.1 ACTION b 3.5.3 CONDmON C 3.5.3.1 ACTION b 3.5.3 CONDmON B 3.5.3.1 ACTION c MOVED - 10 CFR 50.73 3.5 N/A N/A (aX2Xiv) 2

t i

s C13 CTS TYPE Cb CTS COMMENTS ITS ITS TYPE ITS ITS COMMENTS SECTION PAR SECTION PAR i

3.53.1 LCO 3.53 LCO 1 3.53.1 LCO a MOVED'ID BASES 3.5 N/A N/A 3.53.1 LCO b MOVED TD BASES 3.5 N/A N/A 3.53.1 LCO c MOVED TO BASES 3.5 N/A N/A 3.53.1 LCO NOTE 3.53 LCO NOTE i

3.53.1 LCO NOTE 3.53 LCO NOTE ,

3.5.3.2 LCO MOVED TD SECTION 3.4 3.5.4 LCO NOT USED 3.5.5 ACTION 3.5.4 CONDITION C 3.5.5 ACTION 3.5.4 CONDITION B 3.5.5 LCO 3.5.4 LCO

.4.5.5 LCO a 3.5.4.1 SR 3.5.5 LCO b 3.5.4.2 SR 3.5.5 N/A N/A 3.5.4 CONDITION A ,

3.5.6 ACrlON a 3.5.2 CONDITION E

~

3.5.6 ACTION a 3.5.2 CONDITION A 3.5.6 ACTION b 3.5.2 CONDITION E

. - . . . = _ . _ - . _ . - . . - . . - . . . . .- .. - .

CTS CTS TYPE CTS CTS COMMENTS ITS ITS TYPE I13 15 COMMENTS SECTION PAR PAR SECTI.]i 3.5.6 ACTION b 3.5.2 CONDITION C 3.5.6 A CI'lO N c 3.5.2 CONDITION G 3.5.6 LCO 3.5.2 LCO 3.5.6 LCO a MOVED TO BASES 3.0.2 N/A N/A 3.5.6 LCO b MOVED TD BASES 3.5.2 N/A N/A 3.5.6 LCO c MOVED TD BASES 3.5.2 N/A N/A 3/4.5.1 LCO ACCUMULATORS 3.5.1 LCO Accumulators 3/4.5.2 SR ECCS SUBSYSTEMS - 3.5.2 LCO ECCS - Operating Tavg > OR EQUAL TO 350 i degrees F 3/4.5.3 LCO 3.5.3 LCO ECCS - Shutdown i 3/4.5.5 LCO REFUELING WATER 3.5.4 LCO Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST)

S1DRAGE TANK 4.5.1.1 SR a.1 35.1.3 SR 4.5.1.1 SR a.1 3.5.1.2 SR 4.5.1.1 SR a.2 3.5.1.1 SR 4.5.1.1 SR b 3.5.1.4 SR 4.5.1.1 SR c 3.5.1.5 SR  ;

4.5.1.1 SR d.1 DELEIED 3.5 N/A N/A  !

4 i

CTS- CIS TYPE CTS CTS COMMENu .ITS ITS TYPE ITS ITS COMMENU SECrlON PAR SECTION PAR 4.5.1.1 SR d.2 DELETED 3.5 N/A N/A 4.5.1.2 SR a DELETED 3.5 N/A N/A 4.5.1.2 SR b DELETED 3.5 N/A N/A 4.5.2 SR a DELETED 3.5 N/A N/A 4.5.2 SR b.I 3.5.2.2 SR 4.5.2 SR b.2 3.5.2.1 SR 4.5.2 SR c.1 DELETED 3.5 N/A N/A 4.5.2 SR c.2 DELETED 3.5 N/A N/A 4.5.2 SR d 3.5.2.6 SR 4.5.2 SR e.1 3.5.2.4 SR 4.5.2 SR e.2.a 3.5.2.5 SR 4.5.2 SR e.2.b 3.5.2.5 SR 4.5.2 SR f 3.5.2.3 SR 4.5.2 SR f.1 MOVED TO IST 3.5 N/A N/A PROGRAM  ;

4.5.2 SR f.2 MOVED TO IST 3.5 N/A N/A PROGRAM  ;

4.5.2 SR g.1 DELETIu> 3.5 N/A N/A ,

w 5

. . . ... . .- -.. ~..... -.. .-- .. - .- - .. - ..~ ..- - . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . - .. - . . . . - . - , - . ..

4 I r

CTS CTS TYPE CTS CTS COMMENTS ITS ITSTYPE ITS . I13 COMMENTS  !

SEC110N PAR SECTION PAR i

4.5.2 SR g.2 DELETED 3.5 N/A N/A '

4.53.1.1 SR 3.5.3.1 SR i

4.53.1.2 SR 3.53 LCO NOTE  ;

4.53.1.2 SR 3.5.3.2 SR 4.53.1.2 SR NOTE 3.53 LCO NOTE 433 SR a 33.4.1 SR  ;

1 4.5.5 SR b 3.5.4.2 SR 4.5.6.1 SR 3.5.23 SR 1

4.5.6.2 SR 3.4.15.2 SR i

i t

i 3

9 R

F 6

1 e

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

- , _ >:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ST-HL-AE-5571,_Submits_Suppl_Info_Re_STP_Proposed_Improved_TS&oldid=3453313"