ML20127J300

Forwards Core Operating Limits Rept (COLR) for Reload 5, Cycle 6 & Informs of Review Re Cycle 6 Reload

ML20127J300
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	01/18/1993
From:	Shields J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20127J306	List: ML20127J300 ML20127J308
References
GL-88-16, IEB-90-002, IEB-90-2, TAC-M84150, NUDOCS 9301250097
Download: ML20127J300 (2)

Text

_ - _ . . - - _ . _ _ _ _. . _ . . ._. - . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _

Cemm:nwealth Edison g3 x) 15c0 Opus Piece January 18, 1993 j

Q Downers Grove. lHinofs s0515 i

l Dr. Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, DC 20555 i Attn: Document Control Desk

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Unit I Cycle 6 Reload and Core Oparating Limits Report ERC_Dorktt No. 50-373

References:

(a) J.H. Shields (CECO) letter to (USNRC),

dated July 27, 1992; "LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Fuel-Channel Evaluation for Unit 1 Cycle 6, NRC Docket No. 50-373" (b) B.L. Siegel (USNRC) letter to T.J. Kovach (CECO) dated September 29, 1992; " Evaluation of Response to NRC Bulletin 90-02 for LaSalle County Station, Unit 1" (TAC No. M84150)

Dr. Hurley, LaSalle Unit 1, which has recently completed its fifth cycle of operation, is currently preparing for Cycle 6 startup (estimated startu.n date is January 16, 1993). The purpose of this letter is to advise you of Commonwealth Edison's review of the Cycle 6 reload unde the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, and to transmit the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) for the upcoming cycle consistent with Generic Letter 88-16.

The LaSalle Unit I core, which consists of NRC-approved fuel designs, was designed to operate within approved fuel design criteria, Technical Specifications and related bases such that:

- core operating characteristics will be equive. lent to or less limiting than those previously reviewed and accepted; or reanalysis has been performed to demonstrate that the .

limiting pcstulated FSAR events which could be affected by the reload are within allowable limits.

Consistent with past reloads, the reload licensing analyses perforrrad for Cycle 6 utilized NRC-approved methodologies. The fresh fuel to be loaded in_ Cycle 6 consists of 72 bundles of fuel type GE9B with bundle average enrichment of 3.14% and 9 Gd rods, and 128 bundles of fuel type GE98 with bundle average enrichment of 3.13% and 9 Gd rods. The cycle-specific power distribution limits for Cycle 6 are presented in the-attached COLR. '

210070 9301,)0097 930119 -

l PDH ADOCK 05000373 / f I

P PDR

- - - - - - - - . n -,w,,,- ,y,--w- -n- c--- n.n._, .--,,,,,.r- , ,en ,,-,,

l

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 18, 1993 I

i Although Commonwealth Edison discontinued reuse of channels on

. fresh fuel per Bulletin 90-02, the LaSalle 1 Cycle 6 core will contain 156 assemblies with residual reused channels which were rechanneled prior to the iss>Jance of the Bulletin. All other Cycle 6 channels are on the same 1 assemblies on which they were originally installed, including the fresh I

fuel for this reload. Each of the 156 residual reused channels were only 1 Irradiated on a previous assembly for a single cycle (Cycle 1).

! Commonwealth Edison has performed an analysis that accounts fcr channel bow

effects by conservatively adjusting R-factors as a function of channel bow

(Reference 1). With these R-factor adjustments and the non-limiting 1

locations of these channels near the core periphery, it was concluded that

{ the reused channels in Cycle 6 do not present a challenge to either the MCPR Safety Limit or the LHGR Design Limit and do not represent an i unreviewed safety question. This analysis was approved by the NRC in Reference 2.

Commonwealth Edison has performed a detailed review of the relevant reload licensing documents, the associated bases, and references.

' Based on that review, a safety evaluation was prepared as required by 10

CFR 50.59 and approved by Ceco's On-Site and Off-Site Review functions.

i CECO has concluded that the reload presents no unreviewed safety questions, i

and that no revisions to the current Technical Specifications are required as a result of the reload.

1 Finally, further verification of the reload core design will be performed during startup testing. The startup tests will be consistent l

with Technical Specifications and testing recommended in Draft Regulatery j Guide Task SC 521-4. As in the past, a summary of the results of key

startup tests will be submitted within 90 days following the resumption of commercial operation.

Besed on the previous discussion, CECO has concluded that NRC

review and approval of the reload analyses is not required for resumption of operation with the Cycle 6 core.

I If there are any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this office.

{

Very truly yours,

)Y JoAnn Shields Nuclear Licensing Administrator i

Attachment - Core Operating Limits Report for LaSalle County Unit 1 Cycle 6 1

i cc: A. B. Davis - Regional Administrator, RIII B. Stransky - NRR, Project Manager-i D. L. Hills - Senior Resident Inspector-LSCS i

Office of Nuclear facility Safety - IDNS L. E. Phillip', - Reactor Systems Branch - NRR l A. C. Attard - Reactor Systems Branch - NRR ZNLD/862/75

. -