Impact on environmental qualification from a longer fuel cycle

There is a general trend in the nuclear industry towards longer fuel cycles because of the economic benefits. The economic benefits for increasing the fuel cycle from eighteen to twenty four months is estimated by the industry to be about $5.05 million per unit year based on a two week mid-cycle maintenance outage. Equipment with a unique characteristic may require maintenance and/or inspection more frequently than can be accommodated in a longer cycle. The maintenance and surveillance (M&S) requirements for these equipment need to be reviewed to accommodate a longer cycle and avoid any unplanned outage. ComEd's LaSaile Station is considering a move to a longer fuel cycle. A study was done to determine the impact of a longer fuel cycle on their current environmental qualification (EQ) program, and the feasibility of implementing changes to their program to accommodate a longer fuel cycle. This paper discusses (1) the impact, if any, the longer fuel cycle will have on the maintenance and surveillance requirements of the 50.49 or environmentally qualified equipment at LaSalle Station, (2) the various techniques, i.e., partial testing, performance based monitoring etc., employed to extend the existing maintenance and surveillance requirements, and (3) the estimated economic savings, if any, from the extended M&S interval.