ML051260200
| ML051260200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/2004 |
| From: | Scheide R Entergy Operations |
| To: | Holland D NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD4 |
| Holland D, NRR/DLPM, 415-1436 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML051600375 | List: |
| References | |
| TIA-20004-01 | |
| Download: ML051260200 (3) | |
Text
- CAW1ND0WS\\TEMP\\GW)00001.TMP Pager C
- WINDWTMPGIQO.TM
_PaciAd.._
el_ _.
Mail Envelope Properties (40B6318F.C2D: 10: 48173)
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Created By:
Requested Information 5/27/04 2:15PM "SCHEIDE, RICHARD H" <RSCHEID@entergy.corn>
RSCHEID@entergy.com Recipients nrc.gov owf4_po.0WFN_DO DGHI (Drew Holland)
Post Office owf4_po.0WFNDO Route nrc.gov Files MESSAGE Part.001 Battery Questions.doc Mime.822 Options Expiration Date:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
X~ C!,E' /
/
Size 106 797 37376 53795 Date & Time 05/27/04 02:15PM None Standard No None No Standard
'1/4VV
- 2-0
'*cP6
Date: May 28, 2004 NOTE TO FILE ON DOCKET 50-368 LICENSEE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM NRR TO ANO-2 MANAGEMENT REGARDING TIA-2004-01 REQUIREMENTS INTENDED TO CONTROL THE DEGRADATION OF CLASS 1 E BATTERIES DURING MAY 2004, Management at ANO-2 responded to a number of questions that Project Manager, Drew Holland asked the licensee on behalf of Matthew McConnell and Saba Saba of EEIB in the Division of Engineering. A partial response to the questions by the licensee is provided by the attachment to this note to file.
The questions asked were as follows:
- 1) When did the initial equalizing charge take place for the cell that replaced cell 41 in 2D1l1?
- 2) When did the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> float charge begin?
- 3) Provide a copy of the procedure used for discharge testing.
- 4) Does the procedure of 3) above cover pre-installation discharge testing?
- 5) Provide a copy of CR-ANO-2-2003-1882.
- 6) How were the four cells selected from 2D1 2 ? What was the acceptance criteria for the four cells?
- 7) Why were replacement cells not taken from the spare cell bank?
Docket No. 50-368
Battery Questions When did initial equalizer charge of the replacement cell for 2D11 take place?
Initial charge for the replacement cell following its discharge test was performed in support of installation. Charge began on 10/6/03, ended on 10/8/03.
Provide copy of CR 2-2003-1882 To be provided in separate e-mail Provide copy of discharge test procedure.
To be provided via separate e-mail How were potential replacement cells selected from 2D12 and why didn't ANO use cells from the spare bank?
A great deal of careful consideration and evaluation of alternatives went into the decision to use spare cells from 2D12 for 2D1 1. We had a number of options available, including new cells, cells of various ages purchased from other plants, and cells removed from 2D12. We applied the lessons learned from the 2D12 cell 40 replacement problems, where we found that a new cell in an old bank will have depressed voltage due to depolarizer depletion. We also found applicable literature cautioning against installing new cells in older banks. The best match in age was in cells from 2D12. They were one to two years "younger" than 2D1 1 and had performed above average in surveillance tests. Also, we were able to select a small group of the best cells from 2D1 2's 58 cells, based on physical appearance and test results, to use as spares for 2D1 1.
What Is the maximum allowable voltage of each cell and bank voltage?
Weekly Pilot Cell Surveillance and Quarterly Surveillance procedures (2307.016 & 2403.024) limit the maximum bank voltage to 2.25vpc/cell X 58 cells = 130.5V.