ML20235H879

Responds to 881017 & 1223 Ltrs from Util Requesting Change to Physical Security Plan for Facility.Proposed Change Reviewed Per 10CFR50.92 & Involves No Significant Hazards Consideration

ML20235H879
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	02/16/1989
From:	Randy Erickson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8902240092
Download: ML20235H879 (3)

Text

_ - __.

s.

• / $ 2' If Docket No. 50 344 FEB 161989 MEMORANDUM FOR: George Knighton, Director Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects FROM: Robert A. Erickson, Chief Reactor Safeguards Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards

SUBJECT:

10 CFR 50.90 SUBMITTAL - TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT This is in response to the October 7, 1988 and December 23,1988 letters from Portland General Electric Company, requesting a change to the Physical Security Plan for the Trojan Nuclear Plant. We have reviewed the proposed change, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, and conclude that it involves no significant.

hazards consideration. A statement of our analysis is enclosed for project management use in preparation of a "Sholly" notice.

By copy of this memorandum the Project Manager is requested to obtain a TACS number for this review. Our principal staff reviewer is Nancy Ervin, x20946.

Robert A. r son, Chief Reactor Safeguards. Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards

Enclosure:

As stated cc: w/ enclosure R. Bevan J. Lee Distribution R5GB r/f DRIS r/f  !

RErickson LBush NErvin CBuracker (2) .. '

Docket'. File:50 344L NRC PDR '

Local PDR Case File OFC :R5GB:HRR- :R5GB:liRR :R5GB:NRR :R5GB:NR  :  :

_.:.... g,. . ____:.. g .......:.....

......:.........[jp/pevitt NAME :CBuracker:b :LBusV - EricsorI

......:... ___ ......L.:..... ,.__ ....:.......... .__:........______:_.............:.............

DATE :2//// /89 :2/26/89

2//C /89 :2/( $ /89  :  ;,

,' ' f POh '

8902240092 890216 g)

PDR ADOCK0500g.44 P

.5 p'.

L' . , -

.; .- 3. Does the proposed license change involve a'significant reduction in a margin of safety?

The proposed changes do not involve a significant. reduction in a margin of safety since no. change is made to the Plant design or operating procedures.

l l

.1  !

U

7) ENCLOSURE' q

-l

l l

PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF-

.NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION i'

Dates' of Amendnent: . October 7,1988 and' December 23, 1988 Description of Amendment Request < '

The proposed amendment is necessary in order to accurately describe the construction characteristics of the control room floor penetrations as they have existed since the facility was first constructed. The licensee is also requesting use of. dedicated observers in lieu of security officers to compensate.

for safeguards degradations.

Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

{

l Based.on the three criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, the proposed change for the Trojan Nuclear Plant does not involve significant hazards based upon the following considerations:

1. Does the proposed license change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident?-

The proposed changes do not involve a significant incr' ease in the probability or consequences of an accident since there are not changes to any Plant systems or operating procedures. These changes only affect the stationing of compensatory security posts and the description of-the -

control room floor penetrations. The security post changes are consistent with' the provisions of Regulatory Guide 5.62, Revision 1, and NUREG-1045.

The expanded description of the control room floor only clarifies the existing features of this barrier.

2. Does the proposed license change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated since the Plant i

design and operating procedures remain unchanged. These changes only l aadress security practices and barriers.

I i

i a