ML14184A528
| ML14184A528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1983 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Utley E Carolina Power & Light Co |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-49, REF-GTECI-RV, TASK-A-49, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8312190274 | |
| Download: ML14184A528 (3) | |
Text
a RIBUTION:
W~ke File NRC PDR L PDR ORB #1 Rdg D Eisenhut OELD DEC
- 5. 1983 NSIc E Jordan J Taylor ACRS-10 G Requa S Varga Gray File C Parrish G Vissing Docket No. 50-261 Mr. E. E. Utley, Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering & Construction Carolina Power and Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Utley:
SUBJECT:
PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK NEAR TERM FLUX REDUCTION PROGRAM H.B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT 2 We have met with your staff to discuss Carolina Power and Light Company's integrated program for insuring that the screening criteria for Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) for H.B. Robinson Unit 2 would not be exceeded. The NRC staff has concluded that the near term flux reduction plans are reasonable and practical.
The fuel loading selected for Cycle 9, which began operation in August 1982, was designed to reduce the flux to the critical weld by a factor of 2. Assuming an 80% load factor, the Cycle 9 configuration would delay the screening criterion to 1993. Your Cycle 10 configuration submitted by letter dated October 5, 1983, is designed to preclude the HBR-2 reactor vessel from reaching the screening criterion prior to the expiration of the operating license (April 2007).
Except for staff reviews necessary for low leakage.aspects of core reloads, we have concluded that further staff activity with regard to flux reduction measures will be in the context of our reviews of flux reduction analyses that the new PTS rule will require from all plants projected to exceed the screening criterion before end-of-license.
The staff is now in the process of auditing all eight reactors that appear to need flux reduction factors greater than a factor of two in order to evaluate and verify the flux reduction achieved by the licensees. In some cases the review is concurrent with the core reload reviews in progress.
Your fluence 8312190274 931205 PDR ADOCK 05000261 PDR
Mr. E. E. Utley, Executive Vice President
- 2.
Power Supplyand Engineering & Construction Carolina Power and Light Company reduction analysis for your Cycle 10 high flux reduction core reload was submitted by your letter dated September 30, 1983. The fluence reduction analysis for the partial-length shield assembly concept for the Cycle 10 core reload is under review by our staff.
Sincerely, Qriginal signed by
.A. Varga Steven A. C(kFg, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
See next page ORB-1 ORB ORB GRequ G
g ar 12/
/
/83 12//
/83
/83
na and Laght ComDany cc:
. 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 B. A. Matthews Hartsville Group P. 0 Box 1089 Harts ville, South Carolina 29550