ML20237B401
| ML20237B401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237B395 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712160235 | |
| Download: ML20237B401 (3) | |
Text
t
!(pnuayjo UNITED STATES
' ('g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p,qj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- $c
%,**V SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 52 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-11 AND AMENDMENT NO. 34 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-18 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-373 AND 50-374
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Sy letter dated June 16, 1987, Commonwealth Edison Company (licensee) proposed a change to the La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating Licenses. The amendment requested will allow the storage of fuel from either unit in either fuel pool as originally intended with the connected fuel pool design.
Presently, only spent fuel from Unit 1 may be stored in the Unit I fuel pool and only Unit 2 f
spent fuel may be stored in the Unit 2 fuel pool. This is in accordance with section 2.8.5 of the present licenses which state, " Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility." The word " facility" is defined as the unit for which that license is applicable.
2.0 EVALUATION Spent fuel storage space at La Salle is supplied in the spent fuel pool for each unit, with each pool capable of storing 1120 fuel assemblies (Technical Specification 5.6.3).
The spent fuel pools are connected, via the transfer pools (canals) and the cask well vault, thus allowing underwater transfer of spent fuel from one pool to another with no significant safety consequence.
Presently, the fuel pool of each unit contains the discharged assemblies from Cycle 1 (i.e., 232 Unit 1 spent fuel assemblies in the Unit I fuel pool and 224 Unit 2 spent fuel assemblies in the Unit 2 fuel pool).
Due to the fact that La Salle will lose full core reserve capacity after the second refueling outage for each unit, Commonwealth Edison is planning to install high density spent fuel racks in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool in 1988. Commonwealth Edison also plans to perfonn a similar modification on the Unit 1 fuel pool sometime around 1992.
In order 8712160235 871208 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P
b 9 that personnel exposures for the Unit 2 rerack job be kept "As Low As Reasonable Achievable," La Salle mJst transfer the Unit 2 spent fuel from the Unit 2 fuel pool storage racks.
However, as worded, section 2.B.5 of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Operating Licenses would not allow the transfer of spent fuel assemblies between units.
The transfer of fuel assemblies from one fuel pool to the other is performed with the fuel handling platform utilizing the main fuel grapple or the auxiliary fuel hoist, and does not require defeating any fuel handling interlocks. The transfer of fuel assemblies from a fuel pool to the transfer canal and the cask well vault is discussed in the Updated FSAR, Subsection 9.1.2.
Also, potential fuel handling accidents are evaluated in the Updated FSAR, Section 15.7.
Therefore, the handling and transport of spent fuel between fuel pools are enveloped by previous analyses.
At the present time, the Unit 1 and Unit 2 fuel assemblies have essentially the same mechanical design, enrichments, and burnup histories. Consequently, the design bases, as described in the Updated FSAR Subsection 9.1.2 and Technical Specification Section 5.6, are not compromised by the storage of spent fuel from one unit in the spent fuel pool storage racks of the other unit.
For each future fuel design, the peak reactivity of the fuel assemblies will be evaluated prior to their placement in the spent fuel pool. Compati-bility of the fuel in both spent fuel pools will be verified at that time. This will ensure that the new fuel design will meet storage requirement design bases as described in the Updated FSAR and Technical Specifications.
The proposed Unit I and Unit 2 license amendments modify the following:
- Section 2.B.5 of Facility Operating License NPF-11 is proposed to be revised such that the word " facility" will be deleted and the words "La Salle County Station Units 1 and 2" be inserted.
- Section 2.B.5 of Facility Operating License NP 18 is proposed to be revised such that the word " facility" wil' be deleted and the words "La Salle County Station Units 1 and 2" be inserted.
We conclude that the proposed Unit I and Unit 2 license amendments are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve changes in the installation and use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in l
10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has I
determined that these amendments involve no significant increase in the l
amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission
)
a 4,
has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public corrcent
)
on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR31.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
l The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 32196) on August 26, 1987, and consulted with the state of Illinois. No public comments were received, and the state of Illinois did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
REFERENCE:
Letter from C. Allen Commonwealth Edison to USNRC dated June 16, 1987.
Principal Contributor:
Paul Shemanski, NRR, PDIII-2 Dated:
December 8,1987 I
--