ML20095C101

From kanterella
Revision as of 12:54, 2 May 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Core Operating Limits Rept for Unit 1,Reload (Cycle 5)
ML20095C101
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 04/14/1992
From:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20095C083 List:
References
NUDOCS 9204230266
Download: ML20095C101 (24)
v • d • e


Text

_ . . . - -. .

o os .

ATTACINENT A Core Operating Limits Report for LaSalle County Station Unit 1, Reload 4 (Cycle 5) l l

i I

I l

I l-t I

I l 9204230266 920414 PDR ADOCK 05000373

, P PDR l

4a s- ..

CORE OPERATIMG LIMITS REPORT ISSUANCE OF CHANCES StDe(ARY Affected Affected- Date Section Paoes Sumary of Changen All All Original Issue (Cycle.il 12/89 All. All Original Issue (Cycle 5) 4/91 References -111 References for new ECOS Analysis 3/92- l

-List of iv- Revised Title / Description for New 1/92 -l Figures EOOS Analysis l 2.0 2-2 . Revised MCPR Power Distribution 3/92 l Limits (all fuel types) for New l EOOS Analysis l 1

l.

l-(

l l

LaSalle County - Unit 1 i Cycle 5 l

l

g

  • i CORE OPERATING LIMITS BEPQ1'I TABLE or CCtfTENTS l Page REFERENCES . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 LIST OF TIGURES . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 1.0 AVERAGE PLANAR LINEAR HEAT GENERATION RATE ( 3/4.2.1). . . . . . 1-1 1.1 Tech Spec Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 2.0 MINIWUM CRITICAL POWER RATIO (3/4.2.3). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Tech Spec Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 3.0 LINEAR HEAT GENERATION RATE (3/t.2.4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 l 3.1 Tech Spec Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 4.0 CCNTROL ROD WITHDRAWAL . BLOCK INSTRUMENTATION (3/4.3. 6) . . . . . 4-1 J I

4.1 Tech Spec Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 l

.. 2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 l

l LaSalle County - Unit 1 11 Cycle 5 i

i

  • CQRE OPERAllHG LIMITS REPORT EEEEEENCES
1. Comonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-373, LaSalle County Station, Unit I racility Operating License, License No. NPT-11.
2. Letter from D. M. Crutchfield to All Power Reactor Licensees and Applicants, Generic Letter 88-16; Concerning the Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from Tech Specs, dSted October 4, 1988.
3. Supplemental Reload License Submittal f or LaSalle County Station, Unit 1, Peload 4 (Cycle 5), 23A6525, Rev. O, October 1990.
4. LaSalle County Station, Unit s 1 and 2, SAFER /CESTR LCCA Loss-of-Coolant- Accide nt Analys is , NEDC, 31510P (latest approved version).
5. General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (CETTAR),

NEDE-240ll-P-A (latest approved version).

6. Estended Operating Domain and Equipment Out-of-Service for LLSalle County l Station Units 1 and 2, NEDE-31455 (latest approved version). I I
7. Equipment Out-of-Service in the Increased Core Flow Domain for LaSalle l County Station Units 1 and 2, CE-NE-187-62-1191 (le ast approved version). l LaSaMe County - Unit 1 iii Cycle 5 i

- i 4 4

CORE _QPIRAIIMG LIMITS REPORT LIST OF FIGUEIS T ICURE _. TITLE /DESCRIPTIN FAGI 2.2-1 Power Distribution Limits, MCPR vs. Y at Increased Core 2-2 l Flow with final reedwater Ternperature Reduction l 2.2-2 Kf Tnctor vs. Core flow % 2-3 LaSalle County - Unit 1 iv Cycle 5 I

3

., 4

>4 .

CORE OPERATING' LIMITS REPORT LIST OF TABLEE-TABLL TITLE /DEiGLIPTION RAQg 1.2-1 . Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat. Generation Rate 1-2.

(KArLHGR) vs. Average Planar Exposure, for .,

ruel Type BPBCRB299L.

1.2-2 Maximum Average Planar Linear. Heat Generation Rate 1-3 (MAPLHGR) vs. Average, Planar Exposure for fuel Type BC301A.

1.2-3 Hazimum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate 1-4 (MAPLHGR) vs. Average Planar Exposure for Fuel Type BC320B.

1.2 4 Hazimum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate 1-5 l' (MAPLHGR) vs. Average Planar Exposure for Fuel Type NBC301G.

1.2-5 Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate 1-6

- (KAPLHGR) vs. Average Planar Exposure for fuel Type NBC325A.

1.2-6 Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate 1-7 (KAPLHGR) vs. Average Planar Exposure. for Tuol Type P8 CW D 3 0 3 -9GZ .

4.2-1 Control Rod Withdrawal Block Instrumentation Setpoints. 4-1 l

i-l-

f l-l i-l LaSalle County - Unit 1 v Cycle 5

CCRE OPERATING LililTS REEQ]LI 3

1S AY1 RAG E_ELAH AILLIN E AR HE AI__GnlERAIlf1LRATE i 3 / 4 JJ1 1.1 Igr u pte

REFERENCE:

Tech Spec 3.2.1.

1.2 DISCRIPTICH

The Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (HAPLHGR) versus Average Planar Exposure for fuel type BP8CRB299L is determined f rom Table 1.2-1.

The Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) versus Average Planar Exposure f or f uel type BC301A is determined from Table .2-2.

The Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Pate (MAPLHCR) versus Average Planar Exposure for fuel type BC320B is determined f rom Table 1.2-3.

The Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (HAPLHGR) versus Average Planar Exposure for fuel type NBC3OlG is determined f rom Table 1.2-4.

The Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (HAPLHGR) versus Average Planar Exposure for fuel type NBC325A is determined f rom Table 1.2-5.

The Maximum Average Planar Linest Heat Generation Rate ,

(HAPLHGR) versuc Average Planar Exposure for fuel type P8CWB303-9GZ is determined f rom Table 1.2-6.

LaSalle County - Unit 1 1-1 Cycle 5

MAXIMUM AVERAGE PLANAR LINEAR I! EAT GENERATICN RATE (KAPLhGR) VS.

AVERAGE PIJJtAR EXPOSURM POR FUEL TYPE BP8 CAB 299L (GE7B-P8CRB299-6G3.0)

CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT TABLE 1,2-1 CMC BUNDLE TYPE 5 Expnaur6I) ,

Lattice Specific MAPLHGR (kv/ft)

PBCILO71 P8CRL319

. _.Mu _iGLD 200 10.80 10.80 1000 11.00 11.00 5000 11.80 11.80 10000 12.30 12.30 15000 12.40 12.40 20000 12.30 12.30 25000 11.80 11.80 35000 10.70 10.70 45000 9.20 9.20 CMC LATTICE TYPE 25 8 LaSalle Cour.ty - Urit i 1-i Cycle 5 1

y e MAXIMUM AVERAGE PLANAR LINEAR HEAT GENERATICH RATE (MAPLHCR) VS.

AVERAGE PLANAR EXPOSURE FOR PUEL TYPE BC301A (GE88-P8 COB 301-80Z)

CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT TABLE 1.2-2 CMC BUNDLE TYPE 6 ExprJure (MWD /ST) Latt!ce Specific KAPLilGR (kw/ft)

P8COLO71 P8CQL319 PSCQL319 P8COLO71 NOG 6G3.0 2G4.0/6GJ22 __1GE O 12.44 11.77 11.32 12.44 200 12.36 - -

12.36 1000 12.15 - -

12.15 2000 12.09 12.33 11.93 12.08 3000 12.08 -

12.24 12.08 4000 12.10 12.91 12.56 12.10 5000 - 13.22 12.90 -

10000 12.25 13.45 13.40 12.25 12500 -

13.47 13.45 -

15000 -

13.18 - -

25000 10.15 - -

10.15 35000 8.60 10.71 10.69 8.60 45000 - 8.82 8.79 -

45600 5.09 - -

5.09 50000 - 6.65 6.55 -

CMC LATTICE TYPE 10 11 12 13 l

l

[

i l

LaSalle County - Unit 1 1-3 Cycle 5 l

HAXIMUM AVERAGE PLANAP LINEAR HEAT GENCRATI(M RATE (MAPLHGR) VS.

AVERAGE PLANAR EXPOSURE FOR TUEL TYPE BC3205 (CE88-P8CQB320-9G)

CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT TABLE 1.2-3 CMC BUNDLE 1YPE 7 Eagniure fMWD/ST) Lattice Specific MAPLHGR (kw/ft) ,

P8COLO71 P8 COL 340 P8CQL340 P8 COL 340 P8COLO71 NOG 7G4.0 7G3.0 1Gi.0/7G3.0 _ qGJ:_, l 1

0 12.44 11.57 11.62 11.20 12.44 j 200 12.36 - - -

12.36 '

1000 12.15 - - -

12.15 2000 12.08 - - -

12.08 3000 12.08 -

12.21 11.86 12.08 4000 12.10 12.23 12.41 12.09 12.10 6000 -

12.57 12.83 - -

7000 - - -

12.77 -

8000 -

12.94 13.06 11.90 -

10000 '2.25 13.11 -

13.08 12.25 12500 -

13.04 13.04 13.02 -

15000 -

12.72 12.73 - -

25000 10.15 - - -

10.15 35000 8.60 10.22 10.23 10.22 8.60 45000 -

8.59 8.64 8.55 -

45600 5.09 - - -

5.09 50000 - 6.08 6.13 6.04 -

CHC LATTICE TYPE 10 14 15 16 26 i'5alle County - Unit 1 1-4 Cycle 5

MAXIMUM AVERAGE PLANAR LINEAR HEAT GENERATICM RATE (MAPLHGR) V5.

AVERAGE PLANAR EXPOSURE POR TUEL TYPE NBC301G (CE9B-P8CWB301-11GZ)

CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT TABLE 1.2-4 CMC BUNDLE TYPE 8 ,

Elpsture (MWD /ST) Lattice Specific MAPLHGR (kw/f t)

P8CWLO71 P8CWL323 P8CWL323 P8CWL337 P8CWL337 P8CW1071 NOC 9G3.0 f,G4.0/403.0 ZG4.0/9G3.0 ,,,_,,9GL_Q ___,_,11GI O 12.74 12.11 12.05 10.93 11.37 12.74 200 12.67 12.19 12.13 11.03 11.46 12.67 1000 12.4s 12.39 12.31 11.24 11.67 12.48 2000 12.42 12.69 12.57 11.54 11.96 12.42 3000 12.41 13.02 12.87 11.86 12.26 12.41 4000 12.44 13.29 13.18 12.21 12.59 12.44 5000 12.46 13.36 13.32 12.58 12.90 12.46 6000 12.49 13.30 13.45 12.95 13.05 12.49 7000 12.51 13.44 13.57 13.10 13.18 12.51 8000 12.54 13.50 13.55 13.21 13.27 12.54 9000 12.55 13.54 13.53 13.29 13.32 12.55 10000 12.57 13.57 13.54 13.35 13.36 12.57 12500 12.41 13.59 13.57 13.30 13.31 12.41 15000 12.04 13.26 13.25 12.97 12.98 12.04 20000 11.27 12.57 12.57 12.33 12.34 11.27 25000 10.49 11.79 11.78 11.70 11.71 10.49 35000 8.95 10.33 10.32 10.41 10.42 8.95 45000 6.15 9.00 P.99 9.02 9.04 6.15 46900 5.21 - - - - 5.21 51200 - - - 5.90 - -

51300 - - - - 5.89 -

bl900 - 5.81 5.80 - - -

CMC LA77 ICE TYPE 1 3 4 5 9 7 LATTICE No. 733 843 840 842 841 844 l

LaSalle County - Unit 1 1-5 Cycle 5 1

l 1

_ . _ ~

g. ,

MAXIMUM AVERAGE PLANAR LINEAR HEAT GENERATICM RATE (MAPLJIGR) VS.

AVERAGE- PLANAR EXPOSURE FOR FUEL TYPE NBC325A (CE99-P8CWB325-12GZ)

CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT TABLE 1.2-5 CMC BUNDLE TYPE 9 EEF21ure (MND/ST)- Lattice Specific MAPLHGR (kw/ft)

P8CWLO71 P8CwL350 P8CWL365 P8CWL365 P8CWL350 P8CWLO71 7G5.0/ 4GS.0/ 6G5.0/ 4G5.0/

NOG 3G4.0 ,_iG L 604.0 ___6ay __ 12GI O 12.74 11.54 11.11 10.78 11.56 12.74 -

200 12.67 11.57 11.17 10.86 11.60 12.67

-1000 12.48 11.65 11.30 11.00 11.69 12.48 2000 12.42 11.83 11.46 11.20 11.88 12,42 3000 12.41 12.06- 11.67 11.39 12.12 12.41 4000 12.44 12.30 11.85 11.60 12.33 12.44 5000 12.46 12.50 12.04 11.77 12.54 12.46 6000 12.49 12.70 12.24 11.91 12.73 12.49 7000 12.51 12.90 12.37 12.05 12.86 12.51 8000 12.54 13.07 12.52 12.23 13.03 12.54 9000 12.55 13.23 12.70 12.47 13.26 12.55 10000 12.57 13.42 12.92 12.74 13.49 12.57 '

12500- 12.41 13.49 13.06 13.01 13.49 12.41 15000 12.04 13.14 12.80 12.79 13.14 12.04' 20000 11.27 12.46 12.18 1 2.17 12.46 11.27 25000 -10.49. 11.80 11.53- 11.52 11.80 10.49

. 35000 8.95 10.55 10.22 10.21 10.55 8.95 45000 6.15 9.13 8.65 . 8.54 9.14 6.15 46900 5.21 - - -- -

5.21 50300 - - - 5.87 - -

50600 - - 5.86 - - -

51700 -

5.86 - - 5.86 -

t CMC LATTICE TYPE 1 17 18 19 20 6 1

-LATTICE No. 733 829 830 831 832- 833

LaSalle County - Unit 1 1-6 Cycle 5 1

u -

MAXIMUM AVERAGE PLANAR LINEAR HEAT GENERATION RATE (MAPLHGR) vs. AVERAGE PLANAR EXPOSURE FOR TUEL TYPE P8CNB303-9GZ CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT TABLE 1.2-6 CMC BUNDLE TYPE 10 EXPJ21Et LATTICE SPECIFIC MAPLHCR fkw/ft)

(mwd /ST)

P8CWLO71 P8CWL327 P8CWL338 P8CWL327 P 8 CW',071 E L__ ._9H5.0 iG5.0/5G4.0 (Gidziqid 9CE 0.0 12.74 11.98 11.35 12.01 12.?4 200 12.67 12.05 11.39 12.08 12.67 1000 12.48 12.17 11.40 12.22 12.48 2000 12.42 12.37 11.67 12.43 12.42 3000 12.41 12.56 11.90 12.61 12.41 4000 12.44 12.69 12.16 12.78 12.44 5000 12.46 12.81 12.38 12.91 12.46 6000 12.49 12.92 12.56 13.03 12.49 7000 12.51 13.04 12.75 13.15 12.51 8000 12.54 13.16 12.94 13.27 12.54 9000 12.55 13.29 13.13 13.37 12.55 10000 12.57 13.41 13.29 13,47 12.57 12500 12.41 13.49 13.33 13.51 12.41 15000 12.04 13.18 13.05 13.20 12.04 20000 11.27 12.54 12.46 12.55 11.27 25000 10.49 11.84 11.87 11.84 10.49 35000 8.95 10.35 10.54 10.36 8.95 45000 6.15 9.02 9.14 9.02 6.15 46900 5.21 - - -

5.21 51300 - - 5.90 - -

51800 - 5.82 - 5.81 -

CHC LATTICE TYPE 1 21 22 23 24 LATTICE No. 733 884 885 886 887 LaSalle - Unit 1 17 Cycle 5

1 CQEE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT 2.0 tilNIMLH CRITICAL _EWEE_RAI]O ( 3/4. Lll 2.1 Itch Spec

REFERENCE:

Tech Spec 3.2.3.

2.2 DISCRIPT12

a. 51A911. ERElLCulation Lacp_ Cte r atian The MCPR limit when in Single Recirculation Loop Operation is determined from rigure 2.2-1 plus 0.01, times the Kf f actor determined f rom Figure 2.2-2.
b. Tw_c Encirculatinn Loop CTerati.on l

The MCPR limit when in Cual Recirculation Loop Operation is determined f rom Figure 2.2-1 times the Kf f actor dete rmined f rom rigure 2.2-2.

c. Two Recirculatinn_LQ.g? Doeration with Main Turbing Bypass Inoperable The MCPR limit when in Dual Recirculation Loop Operation with the Main Turbine Bypase Inoperable (per Tech Spec 3.7.10) is determined from Figure 2.2-1 times the Kf f actor determined from rigure 2.2-2.
d. Two Recirculation Loop Doeration with End-of-Cyclg Recirculation Pump Trip System Inoperable The MCPR limit when in Dual Recirculation Loop Operation with the End-of-Cycle Recirculation Pump Trip System (RPT) Inoperable (per Tech Spec 3.3.4.2) is determined from Figure 2.2-1 times the Kf f actor determined from rigure 2.2-2.

i i

I LaSalle County - Unit 1 2-1 Cycle 5 l

l l

l 1

. . . x.

4 r

m 3 . . . .

OWer s W isT1au=10n _1,ri1

i? MCPR l(all fuel types) c 1.38 . .

. . . . . 1

.a_ .

-+ .

.........y..............................g..............................,i..............,!...........g:...............:

... ....... RPTLOOS 1.36 .......... ....... ......

.c Q'  :  :  :

Q  :  :

M t.  ;  :  :

i 3 O ... . ...>........ . .

...................g.......... ....;..........

.:..............:...........p............. ......

'1 M E  :  :  :  :  :.  :  :

l.3A  : i  :

.! .- ------- - -- +. - --

. ---.----------+-----------------.---.i.- ------

- - ---.! ------ -- - + ---- ---

TBOOS -

RWE . 1 i.32 . . .

o ,

.687 .70 .72 i

{m .71 .76 .78 .80 .82 .81 .86 i

+

w MCPR versus Tau AT ICF WITH FFWTR t

I T

)

=igure 2.2 T

t

.l r

Kf TACTOR FIGURE 2.2-2

--Q

/

/

/ -

._ g W /

s v ,/ .

= ) l 8 8

a i ,

/

5 v /

m

-o /

c:: / R M / .

m '

5 l

.53 M

St 2 /

/ /wE- s>

La / 5 w

m e

/ g L~

W

/ 2 *

== 8

/ :o, av i m o

b

/ c:

/ =d

/ 8 e

/ m

/

/ /

/ -- E a i sea .- e_

,=

?)

Ltids :lf,1 l-!

CORI_0IIEATING LIMITS REPOEI 3.0 L11tIARJIIAI_GGIEARCN RATE (3/1111 3.1 Insh_SptLETERNCI Tech Spec 3.2.4.

3.2 RISEAlf210til

a. The LHGR limit is 13.4 kw/ft for fuel typet
1. BP8CRB299L
b. The LHGR limit is 14.4 kw/ft for fuel types:
1. BC301A
2. BC320B
3. NBC301G
4. NBC325A
5. P8CWB303-9C l

LaSalle Cour.ty Unit 1 3-1 Cycle 5

\

=

l 1

1

e CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT 4.0 CWIEOL._ RCD WITHDRAW.AL_BLOCE_IllEIRQitt(IAIICN ( 3/ 4 1dl 4.1 Ie ch . Sgttc_REIIRmCI Tech Spec Table 3.3.6-2.

4.2 DISCRIEIlotis

a. The Rod Block Monitor Upscale Instrumentation Setpoints are determined f rom the relationships shown in Table 4.2 1.

IABLE__th1 CONTEOL POD WIIliRRAWAL BLOCK IE' f>WRQti_SITEQll{IS TRI L ElllifIICti IRIP RETPOINT ALLQWE LE_yALUI 1.0 ERD _ALOCK MCHITOR A. UPSL' ALE

1. Two Recirculation 1 0.66 W + 41  %** 1 0.66 W + 44 s**

Loop Operation

2. Single Recirculation 1 0.66 W + 35.7%** 1 0.66 W + 38.7%**

Loop Operation l

l'

    • Clamped, with an allevable value not to exceed the allowable value for l recirculation loop flow 4) of 100%.

LaSalle County - Unit 1 4-1 Cycle 5 t

~

GE Nuclest Energy 1

. . . , : . -. u - w.

:,. : :. . ns:-

EBO 91 649 .' .:... .

lil .

December 30, 1991 Mr. J. W. Gieseker comonwealth Edison Company La Salle County Station RR fl Box 220 Marseilles, IL 61341

SUBJECT:

EQUIPMENT 005 IN ICF 00KAlH FINAL REPORT AHO 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALVATION LA SALLE COUNTY STATION

Enclosures:

1. GE Nuclear Energy Report No. GE-NE-187-62-Il91, dated December 1991.
2. 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation.

Reference:

Cfro Purchase Order No. 341144, 'E0C-RPT and Turbine Bypass Out of service Evaluations', dated September 6,1991.

Dear Mr. Gieseker:

Enclosed is GE Nuclear Engineering Report No. GE.NE-187-62-1191 supporting La Salle County Station operation with EOC Recirculation Pump Trip (RPT) and Turbine Bypass Out of-Service (005) in the Increased Core Flow (ICF) domain.

Also enclosed with the report is the 10CFR50.59 safety evaluation justifying these equipment 00S options. This transmittal fulfills GE's responsibilities as stated in the Reference Ceco Purchase Order.

GE thanks you for the opportunity to perfont this service and looks fontard to serving Ceco'r needs in the future.

Sincerel ,

W. . Arndt Senior Customer Service Engineer (708) 573-3798 cc: ECs GE J. M. Dolter J. C. Elliott E. A. McVey H. X. Hoang w/o att R. H. Mirochna J. E. Kusky W. F. Haughton File: 4.244.0 J. D. Williams Chron System

c...

10 CFR 50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION

Subject:

Equipnient Out of Service in the Increased Core Flow Domain for LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2.

Description of Change ne proposed change is to provide specific cycle independent values for Gie

, wncn th plant is Operating Limit Mmimum Critical Power Ratio (OLMCPR)ther operating in the Increased Core Flow (~ICF) domain with ei the Turbine Bypass (TBP) or end-of cycle Recirculation Pump Trip (RPT) out of service. Further OLMCPR adjustments are defm' ed- for sunultaneous operatic:: ;/.th finai teedwater iunp: :.:::: ::d:::!::.

De referenced r_eport, GE NE-187-621191, provides results of an analysis in support of the change. The established values for OLMCPR will be fully documented m the Core Operating Umits Report (COLR) for LaSalle 1 and 2.

Reason for Change The proposed change was developed to offer increased operational flexibility by allowing continued plant operation in the ICF domain with either the TBP or RPT out of service. The change represents an extension of existing practice relating to the TBP and RPT systems.

Initial SAR and Technical Specification Review

~(-

~~

Does the procedure, design change, modification, test or experiment, to which this -

review is applicable, represent any of the following:

1. A change to the plant as described in the SAR7 Yes ( ), No (X)

Thc proposed change does not involve any modification or design change to the plant.

2. A change to a procedure or an analytical model as desenbed in the SAR7 Yes ( ), No (X)

The proposed change provides new values of OLMCPR which have been shows to be commensurate with safe plant operation in the ICF domain while allowing either the TBP or RPT system to be out of service. De safety analysis supporting this mode of operation used the analytical models and methods described in the SAR for establishing all similar existing OLMCPR values. The proposed change requires no modification of procedures or analytical methods as described in the SAR.

3. A change to a test or experiment as described in the SAR? Yes ( ), No (X)

The proposed change does not involve any test or experiment.

1

4. A act system, major component, structure, test, experiment or procedure which could affect a safety related function or result in a new plant operating condition? Yes (X), No ( )

No new system, major component, structure, test or crperiment which could affect a safety related function or result in a new plant operating condition k involved in the proposed change. However, procedures associated with the change, while not affecting any safety.related function, could be considered to ,

result in a new operating condition. This situation anses when allowing the exis'.ing practice of TBP and RI'T out of service to be extended to the ICF domain and could be regarded as a new plant operating condition. I

5. A change to the existing plant, but not covered bv questions 1 through 4 above, which could affect a saferv related function or resn't in a new plant operating condition? Yes ( ), No (X) i As stated earlier, the proposed change does not involve any change to the plant.
6. A San;e to the Technical Specifications? Yes ( ), No (X)

The new values the COLR of OLMCPR for each unit. Therequired related Tedby the SpP3/4.2.3, tvsed chan['e h inimum are Critical identified in Power Ratio, references the COLR and hence no change to the Tech Specs is required.

U nr eview2LS Mety_Quulion_D.citiminatioD

's a result of the affirmative response to question 4 of the Initial SAR and Technical Specification Review, it is necessag to make an Unreviewed Safety Question Determination (USOD). This requires a response to the following quest ons:

1.

Will the probability),of increased? Yes ( No (X)an accident previously evaluated in the SAR be The evaluation of the design basis accidents in the SAR is unrelated to the operational behavior of the transient events associated with the proposed change. Consequently; the change will not impact ce probability of any design -

basis accident.

2. Will the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR be increased? Yes ( ), No (X)

For the reason given in the response to question 1 above the consecuences of any de ign basis accident evaluated in the SAR will not be increasec..

3, h' y the possibility of an accident which is different than any already evaluated in the SAR be created? Yes ( ), No (X) 2

___.l 1

De basis for the proposed change was established by the use of proven  !

calculational methods applied to u unchanged plant design. The change itself

- represems a minor c1 tension of existing practice to the ICF domairt. There is clearly no evidence to suggmt the possibtlity of an accident other than those i already evaluated in the 5AR being created.

4. Will the probalility of a malfunction of a safety.related *tructure, system or component previously evaluated in :he SAR ire increased? Yes ( ), No (X) the same reasoning givea in toe response to quesdon 3 above, there is no By,dence evi to suggest that the probabillry of a malfunction of any safety related struct2re, system or component previously evaluated in the SAR will be increased.
5. Will the consequences of a malfunction of a safety related structure, system or component previously evaluated in the SAR be increased? Yes ( ), ho (X)

The evaluation made to support the proposed change is essentially the same as that made oreviously in the SAR regarding the consequences of a malfunction of safety re ated structures, systems or componunts. For example, inoperability of one safety / relief valve (lowest opening setpoint) is assumed in evaluating the transients covered under the proposed change. There is no evidence to indicate that the consequences of a malfunction of any other safety related structure, system or component previously evaluated in the SAR would be increased as a result of the proposed change.

6. May the possibility of e aalfunction of a safety related structure, system or v

comp Yes ),(onent No (X) different than my already evaluated in the SAR be create ne proposed change represents only a relatively minor departure from existing operating practice, namely an extension of that practice into the ICF domain.

In view of this it is inconceivable that the malfunction of any safetv related structure, system or component not already evaluated in the SAR could be created.

7. Will the margin of safety as denned in the basis to any Technical Specification be reduced? Yes ( ), No (X)

For all anticiaated operations) occurrences evaluated for the proposed change,

!- the OLMCPf. is established such sat the MCPR Safety unut of 1.07 is not l exceeded. Consequently, the margin of safety defined m the associated l

Technical Specification basis is preserved.

.Conduilons References 1 and 2 contain all the essential data and information required to support j-the proposed change. If the practice of including the appropriate infonnation from these reference documents in a composite Appendix to the SAR is consistently followed, there would be no further requirement to update the SAR.

3- ,

i The proposed change represents only a minor departure from normal, established cperating practice. Effectively, it extends existing procedures and controts into the  ;

ICF domain and provides the appropriate OLMCPR limits. While no new ptem, major cornponent, structure, test or crperiment which could affect a safety re,ated function is involvsd, a new plant operating condition is identified. Consequently, it wu necessary to conduct an USQD. The resulu of this USOD (ndicate that no USQ remains when the proposed change is implemented.

References

1. Supplemeni Reload Ucensig Repon for LaSalle County Station Unit 2, Reload 4, Cycle s. 23A7135, Rev. 0
2. Equipment Out of Service in the Increased Core Flow Domain for LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2. GE NE 187 621191 P;wments Reviewed
1. LaSalle County Station UFSAR, Chapter 15.
2. LaSalle County S'ation Technical Specifications.

?. 10 CFR 50.59.

(

Prepared by: _7 M U ,

  • Dote: 12 - S'- 9 /

Engineering Review by: 4b#- ._m

  • Date: _ W u /ett t.icensing Review by: - U duu C w i h eu
  • Date: ~

J /u/W Approved by: ra 0 4 ~e, kt kn y t

  • Date: !difl O/
  • Print and sign ,

i

~

4 l

4 .

REGULATORY AND ANALYSIS SERVICES San Jose, CA PLANTIbfPROVEMENT ENGINEERING l

28 January IW2 TO: J. KUSKY.OE LASALLE STATION FROM: H. X. HOANO

SUBJECT:

REVISION 1 TO LASALLE EQUIPMENT OOS IN ICF DOMAIN REPORT -

OE NE.18742 Il91 Attached are two copies of the revised subject report (OE NE.18742 Il91, Revision 1) supporting LaSalle County Station operation with EOC Recirculation Pump Trip and Turbine Bypass Out of Senice in the Increased Core Flow domain. This ;cvised ser> ion includes comments from CECO following their review of the original report and has been accepted by Ceco as T:nal.

One copy is for your file and pletse forward the other co,y to Ed McVey (CECO) as soon is possible. I promised to Ed that a copy will be FedEx out to sim a the site in parallel to the normal distribution process through Oak Brook.

Please call me if you have any questions and thanks for your help.

(

n i WIW --

H. X. Hoang MC 763, Ext. 51346 1

_

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20095C101&oldid=2785388"