ML14184A369
| ML14184A369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1983 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14184A370 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304060603 | |
| Download: ML14184A369 (3) | |
Text
DISTRIBUTION Docket VNoonan NRC"PDR Gray L PDR Docket No. 50-261 M 29 190 NSIC ORB#1 Rdg DEisenhut Mr. E. E. Utley, Executive Vice President OELD Power Supply and Engineering & Construction JMTaylor Carolina Power and Light Company ELlordan Post Office Box 1551 ACRS-10 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 CParrish GRequa
Dear Mr. Utley:
ORAB
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICALEEQUPMENT--:JJUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OPERATION FOR UNQUALIFIED EQUIPMENT AT H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO.
2 By letter dated January 5, 1983, we provided our Safety Evaluation, including our contractor's Technical Evaluation Report (TER) for the Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment for H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2. We requested that you either reaffirm or provide justification for continued operation for those items, identified In the TER, as Categories 1.3, II.A and II.B within thirty days of receipt of the Safety Evaluation.
Your letter dated February 11, 1983 responded to our request indicating that your previous submittals provided the necessary justification. However, during subsequent discussions with your staff, we concluded that the TER Appendix D conclusions were applicable only while the staff and its contractor were performffig-the evaluation and, therefore, may require a reassessment based on final conclusions and categorizations of specific items. Based on these discussions, you have reassessed the CategorfII.8 items 16 and 17 and provided justification for continued operation in your letter dated March 4, 1983.
We have reviewed the information provided for the Category 11.8 items in accordance withqguidelines of 10 CFR 50.49(1)
Based oncour review, we have concluded that Justification for continued'operation provides reasonable assurance that H. B. R6binson Unit No. 2 can be 6perated in a safe manner
. pending additional qualification documents, replacement, or other corrective actions. This equipment must be fully qualified in accordance with the schedule provided in 10 CFR 80.49ThpThecbnciledsi.-fetya, ationbpr t4vjidesethe details and basis for our conclusion.
Sincerely, OIGIRaE SIGD Steven.A. Varga, Chief 6304060603 630329?
Operating Reactors Branch #1 PDR ADOCK 05000261 Division of Licensing OR P
PDR DvsoSVarqa TI racloniclosure:
As stated
- PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES SEE NEXT PAGE 03IV83 OFCE CCW/encosue: See nex page ORR#1 :DL*
ORAB*
EQB*
TA/OR:PL GReaua:dm TIppolito Vroonan sURNAME DATEb.......................................
Q 3
TE.
3
- F.
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCMO0240 FFICIAL RILCORD COPY usGFo: 19s--eaS-see
DISTRIBUTION Docket NRC PDR LPDR NSIC Docket 50-261 ORB#1 Rdg DEisenhut OELD JMTaylor Mr. E. E. Ut ey, Executive Vice President ELJordan Power Supply a d Engineering A Construction ACRS-10 Carolina Power ad Light Company CParrish Post Office Box 1 1 GRequa Raleigh, North Caro na 27602 ORAB VNoonan
Dear Mr. Utley:
Gray
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL QU FICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT JUSTIFICATION FOR NTINUED OPERATION FOR UNQUALIFIED EQUIPMENT AT H. B. R INSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 By letter dated January 5, 1983, we ovided our Safety Evaluation, including our contractor's Technical Ev34uation port (TER) for the Environmental Qualification of-Electrical Equipment fo H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2. We requested that you either reaffirm or prov e justification for continued operation for those items, identified in the TER, as Categories 1.8, II.A and II.8 within thirty days of receipt of the afety Evaluation.
Your letter dated February 11, 1983 responded to r request indicating that your previous submittals provided the necessary jus ification. However, during subsequent discussions with your staff, we con luded that the TER Appendix D conclusions were applicable only while the aff and its contractor were performing the evaluation and, therefore, may requl a reassessment based on final conclusions and categorizations of specific items. Based on these discussions,.you have reassessed the Category II.B ite s 16 and 17 and provided justification for continued operation in your le er dated March 4, 1983.
We have reviewed the information provided for the Category II.B it in accordance with guidelines of 10 CFR 50.49(i). Based on our review, e have concluded that justification for continued operation provides reasonab assurance that H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2 can be operated in a safe manne pending additional qualification documents, replacement, or other correct e actions. The enclosed Safety Evaluation provides the details and basis for our concludion.
Sincerely, Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Licensing OFFICE Encl osur.e@:.... iS stated 0 -- A ORB#1:DL ORB#ln:DL OEOB SURNAME
.. a a..........
. V N o ono VNoo
.an T * * * * **
N F
M FI.CI REO D
NRC FORM -318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY*
USGPO: 1981-335-960
Mr. E. E. Utley Carolina Power and Light Company cc: G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington; D. C. 20036 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Route 5, Box 266-1A Hartsville, South Carolina 29550 James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator -
Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street - Suite 3100 Atlanta,. Georgia 30303