ML19347C752
| ML19347C752 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1980 |
| From: | Delgeorge L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8101050415 | |
| Download: ML19347C752 (2) | |
Text
..
^
N Commonwzith Edison h on1r First National Plaza. rNeago. Illinois
]V 9 Accress Riply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago. Illinois 60690 On cember 24, 1980 Mr. James G. Keppler, Director Directorate of Inspection and Enfor cement - Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Subj e ct:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Suppression Pool Water Volume Thirty (30) Day Report - 10 CFR 50.55(e)
NRC Occket Nos. 50-373/374 e
u
-m O
7 s
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Commonwealth Edison notified your office on November 26, 1980, of a possible oeficiency resulting from the actual suppression pool water volume being less than the volume stated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
That notification was made in a ccordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
This letter fulfills the 30-day reporting requirement by that regulation.
This oeficiency occurred when, through a series of design changes to the suppression pool, the actual pool volume was As redu ced.
Until recently the volume had not been recalculated.
a result the water volume stated in the FSAR is incorrect and the pool temperature analysis was completed using an incorrect pool volume.
A review of LaSalle's Final Safety Analysis Report has
}
identified the sections where pool volume is referenced.
It is anticipated that Amendment #54 to the FSAR will correct all sections listing pool volume.
Amenoment #54 is scheduled to be submitted the end of January, 1981.
Reanalysis of the pool temperature transient analyses as reported in " Mark II Design Assessment Report" is required.
This conservative analysis was cased on very conservative assumptions and values for plant parameters were utilized.
We will reanalyze with l
revised, more accurate input assuming Mar,s Energy Subcommittee l
"Wnite Paper" assumptions.
Additionally, LaSalle will include The certain mechanistic assumptions such as feedwater coastdown.
NRC Lead Plant Acceptance Criteria (NUREG-0487) permits a bulk pool temperature of 1900F during SRV discnarge.
It is anticipated when the reanalysis is completeo, LaSalle will remain in
- that, conforman ce with NUREG-0487.
No cesign change is expected af ter}gg/f rearalysis.
3
/()
8103050 s.g y
.. Other utilities in the Mark II Owners Group presently have their analyses scheduled prior to LaSalle's reanalysis.
For this reason reanalysis is not seneduled to be completed until May, 1981.
We are attempting to improve on this schedule by having someone other than the NSSS contractor conduct the reanalysis.
We anticipate submitting a final 10 CFR 50.55(e) report by May 15, 1981.
This deficiency was caused by the fact that in the past no one group at Sargent & Lundy, the Arenitect Engineer, had the responsibility of calculating suppression pool volume.
Proj e ct Management Division, PMD, now has that responsibility.
Future changes to the suppression pool will require that PMD recalculate pool volume.
Please adoress any questions you may have in this regard to this of fice.
Very truly yours, wf t
[ L. O. DelGeorge Nuclear Licensing Administrator Director of Inspection #
cc:
and Enforcement Washington, '
RIII Inspe ct LaSalle l
0 i
9235A i
l
.