ML20198E841

Rev 4 to 0PGP05-ZA-0002, 10CFR50.59 Evaluations

ML20198E841
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	05/22/1997
From:	Cox F HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20198E840	List: ML20198E841 ML20198E851 ST-HL-AE-5676, Submits Amended Response to Request for Addl Info Re 10CFR50,App R,Deviation Request for Fire Area 07.Entire Package Resubmitted W/Previously Missing Matl in Italics. Procedures Encl
References
0PGP05-ZA-0002, PGP5-ZA-2, NUDOCS 9708110029
Download: ML20198E841 (5)

Text

._ _ _ . _ __ ____ __ .-_ -

OFGP05-ZA-0002 Itcv,.1 14e 38 of 44 10CFRSO.59 Evaluations Fonni 10CFR$0.59 Screening Form (Sample) 14e I or i UNIT #1 "

O orSA" " O 'S*" C'*'

O "i'"

O uNrrr2 g oom ORIGifMUNG DOCUMENT NO. Suppdement to USQE 9G4046 REV.NO. 0 DESCRIPTION OF CIW4GE Make editorial manges to USQE 9G0040, added reviewers clarifcaton notes ( secton A1.ll eM the summt.ty) i PREUMitWlY SCRED41NG YES NO

1. Does the proposed change represent a change to the Plant Technical Spedfcatons?

g

2. Is an Unreviewed Safety Queston known to te assodated with the sut(ed change?

O O NOTE: if 'YES* to eitter questons 1 or 2 refer to OPGP0b7N4004.

I Does the proposed dange represent

3. A dange to only corred a typographk:& , editorial or drafung error?

g

4. A change wtuch is Wentcal to and addressed in its entirety t>y an existing approved 10CFR50.69 SaeonirgUSQE or NRC approved hcensing autmittat?

Wl 0

6. A spare or replacement part/ component change with an equkalent part/ component?

(See Secton 2.3 for a definNon of equNalent) O x

6. A configuraton change within exisung design spedfcatons?

x if all answers to the above questons are *NO" perform the final screening and mark ifA in th6 amroval bloc 6.s telow.

If the answer to any question (3) through (6)is 9ES* a final screening is not necessary.

Sion approval t4ocks below and discard pages 2 and 3.

Prov6de a justficaton and references if any of tems (3) through (6) is answered 'YES*.

This change danfes statemt:nts made in the orignal USOE, these changes are edaonal and does not change the basis of the onginal USQE and ts bounded by the ortginal 60 69 cvaluaton.

/ Onynator Date

• Y

_h A hh n Qualifed Revewer g

Date g

9708110029 970804 PDR ADOCK 05000498 F PDR

'g alti Plant Operations Review Consnittee --

l PORC REVIEW COVER SilEET Originating Document No. Us0E 96-0046 Revision No. -

0 TITLE _ Revise FMAR _ From Dual Train Protection To sinole Train Protection i

The PORO has reviewed this item and has determined that (check as appropriate)

It_ does_

/

does li2I involve an UHREV1BWED SAFETY QUESTION. ,  ;

J It does /oes d li2I adversely impact plant nuoloar saf ety,.

/does It _ does liQI adversely impact the health and safety of plant

. personnel or the public.

It does does liQI require further review by the Plant Mgr, the NSRB, or other individuals / groups. ,

M lant Hgr #NSRB other, specify below.

U1 / U3

. REMARKS 4

The PORC recommendo thio item for APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL OTHER PORC HELP 3NO NO. 96-dd?

Completed by [ DATE /0 2,) /

PORC SecWtary This form, when comp 30ted, SHALL be retained in accordance with the retention requiremonte of the originating document.

< I

4Gb Ol'Gl'05.ZA 0002 Hev. 5 l'8te of 10CFit$0.$9 thaluations Ibrm 2 Unreviewed Safety Question llY&luttlon Ibfm (S&mpf t) I' age l of 4 Untoviewod Safet/ Ooostion Evaluation # 900040 Rov. No. O Papo 1 of 0 OrlpinatinD Documont: CR 00 7092 Rev No.O NOTE: Attach 100FR50.69 Scrooning Form or Lloonso Complianoo Rovfow Form to this USOE. l 1PNS W.M6 System two lottor designator or structuro name J1!A UNIT 1 O UNIT 2 O DOTN O NTE: Uso additional t. hoots as nocessary to provido the bases. .

A.1

1. Doos the subjoet of this ovaluation Inoroaso the probability of -

ooourronoo of an oocident previously evaluated in tho Saloty Analysts Hoport?

O YES B 'NO Dasos: 800 attachod shoot.

11. Does the subjoet of this ovaluation Inoroaso tho consequenoos of an accident provlously ovaluated in tho Safety Analysis Report?

O YES S NO Dasos: Soo attachod shoot.

Ill. Does the sutJoct of this ovaluation increaso the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safoty previously ovaluated in the Safety Analysis Report?

O YES S NO Datos: 600 attached shoot.

IV. Does the subject of this ovaluation Inoroaso tho consequences of a malfunction of equipmont important to cafoty provlously evaluated in tho Safoty Analysis Roport?

O YES S NO Dasos: Soo attached chool.

i l

)

. I

, 'N ]

4 USQE 96 0044 REV 0. Page 2 of 5 j

A1.1(continued)

'_ The 6uta cat of this evaluelion does ret increcee the the FHA 4. The accident of conoom is a tre in any of occurrence of an econdent as evaluated in Fire which prevents theplaat from achieving 4

poet Are safe shutdown. The probabluty of a pierd le assumed tW the FHAR to be 1.0', so the '

probabluty of a tre in the pierd can not be Inoressed. Appendit R,5ecelon 111.0 requires that one trein of

, og capable of a$leving and maintelning post Are safe shutdown remain avallable, and this oment wlN continue to be met. Since the autqled of this oveidelion does not impelt the plant's abluty to

! achieve and maintain post Are safe shutdown, the probability of an accident ocouning whid win prevent the

plant from achieving poet are oefe shuidown is not inasened.

1

A 1.11 1

This evaluation shows no incrosse in the consequences of an sooident previously evalueled in the FHAR.

Post fire solo shutdown of the fient een be seleved for ese Fire Ares usino credited not affected by the tro. That is at least one poet tre este shutdown wilremain inaRtro i; arose. The previous esto shutdown aseeeement reached a simner ,

There wtB be noinsosesin I

public dose due a trein any Fire Area.

• l 'An updele to the STP PSA was performed on selected tre zones to determine the ofremoving Thermo4.ag on the postulated Fire induced Core Damage F (COF)and tie induced I.arge Early Release F (LERF). The update concluded that failures of Thermo4a i

! (will) have a impact on the risk of core demeGe and large earty release at STPOE8,p Therefore, barrier 6 j the consequences of a fire in any area are riot increased. ,

A.1.Ill(continued) d above, the sub ityof 1

As explained an mooident in item (1)d in the as evaluate andFHAR, thereforejectit does of notthisincrease evaluation the does ofnot incrosse the

- equipment malfunction. 'ihe equipment of conoom in this evaluation is that equipment comprising i the available to fire safe shutdown. Since one path remains available and free of l - fire damage, of fire induced equipment malfunction adversely affecting post Are j safe shutdown is notincrossed.

i .

L A1.IV(continued) 1 As explained in iteto (2) above, the subject of this evaluation does not increase the consequenoes i _of equipment malfunction. Post fire safe shutdown can be achieved for su fire areas. No -

- malfunction of the credited post fire safe shutdown pathway is postulated, f.ince it wlN remaTn free '

of fire damage. The potential adverse effects of fire induced malfunctions in the unprotected pathways have been considered in the safe shutdown analysis, and compensatory actions are taken when neces.sary. The plant's ability to achieve and maintain post fire safe shutdown is not adversely affected.

~

' Reviewers clarification noteI The original ProbabHistic Safety Analysis (PSA) did not model Thermo-lag protection. In 1994 A Fire Analysis Update (PSA for Selected Fire Zones) performed a sensitivity studiy to determine the maximum possible benefit that may be schieved by taking credit for existing Thermo-lag protection of raceways. The k

results of this analysis was that the use of Thomolag would have a negligible (decrease) impact on the risk of core dama e and la early release at South Texas Project. Therefore, the removal of, or damage l to the Thermo-la banier is unded by the original PSA results and the consequences of a fire in any area are notincreas .

/ .

i OPGP05 ZA.0002 lley. 5 h te of 10Cm$0.$9 baluations Form 2 Unreviewed Safety Question Hvaluation Form (Sample) hte 2 of 4 Untovlowod Gafoty Que5Uon EvalunUon er DO M O Rov,IJo. O Page 3 of 6 Originating Dooumont: Cfl007692 Rov.I10. 0 70

1. Doos the cuyoct of tho evaluaUon oroato the possit4lity of an aooldont of a difforont typo than any prodously ovalualod 10 the Safoly Analyt,ls Roport?

Dasos:

O YE0 O f10 Tho nrovious safe chutdown assessmont assumed all equipmont i.i a glvon tiro a:oa was lost as a tosult of tho ' maximum postulated firo", and demonstrated that post flro cafo t.hu Jown of the plant could be achtovod UUlldng oculpment unaffootod by the flro. Fost firo cafo shutdowri ts still assured for at eroas of the plant utilting og ont unafIotAod by the fire. Thorefore, the subjoot ol this ovaluauon does not croato the pos f an acoldont of a diffotont fype than any previously evalustod in the Safoty Anatysis Report Firo Hazards Analysis Report. ,

l

11. Does the suyoct of this ovaluaUon eroato the possibility of a d.fforent type of malfunction than any previously evaluated in the Saroty Analysis Report?

O YES B (JO Dasos: As explainod in A.2.1 chovo, the previous analysis assumod all equipmont in a glvon firo area was lost as a tosutt of the nnximum postulated firo. The analysts also locludod a review of all potential spurtous actuatiores whidi could advorsolv afloot post fire cafo shutdown. The sutdoet of tnis ovaluation considors thoso camo malfunctions, and thoroforo doos not oroato the possibility of a mal!Jaction not previously evaluatod.

~

A.3 I. Does tho subject of this ovaluation 10d000 the margin of safoty as dofinod in the basts for any Technical Specification?

Datas:

O YES Q f40 Firo protoction and post fire cafo r.hutdown are not spocificotty addressed in tho Technical Spootfications. Thoroforo, this ovaluation doos not roduce the mar 01n of t afoty as definod in the basis for any Technical SpoolfL.ation.

_._________.___...U