ML14184A828
| ML14184A828 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14184A827 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9105080310 | |
| Download: ML14184A828 (2) | |
Text
01 JkREG(
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE 1-HOUR STATION BATTERY DUTY CYCLE CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261 BACKGROUND In response to the staff's concern on the adequacy of 1-hour station battery duty cycle at H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBR2) Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) submitted the results of the station batter performance test by letter dated May 5, 1989. Since the performance tes detects change in the battery capacity and does not address concerns on the 1-hour duty cycle, the staffs requested the licensee to perform service test which determines the capability to satisfy the design requirement. However, the licensee's Technical Specification at the time did not require such a test.
By letter dated September 19, 1990, the licensee submitted a licensing amendment which incorporated the above service test for the station battery at every refueling interval and subsequently performed the service test during refueling outage No.13 (fall 1990).
EVALUATION By letter dated February 19, 1991, CP&L submitted the result of the service test which indicated:
Duration Tested Amperage (ampers)
(min)
A battery B battery 1
407 231 58 328 123 1
-2 The above amperage values represent a tested total ampere in each duration used for their service test. Those tested load profile values are derived from the licensee's engineering evaluation EE-107-CS-11, Revision 2, and includes design margins of 10 percent for battery A and 8 percent for battery B. Since each battery service test was conducted with the design load profile with additional design margins,-the licensee concluded that both batteries performed the test satisfactorily.
In addition, the results of the battery performance test which were submitted earlier by letter dated May 5, 1989, are the following:
Performed on Percent(%) on Capacity Refueling Outage A battery B battery 1988 103 102 1987 107 101 As indicated above, the battery capacity is greater than 90 percent minimum limit and the percent battery capability decrease from the average of the previous tests was less than the maximum 10 percent limit. On this basis, the licensee has concluded that the acceptable criteria for the performance test were met and the batteries are operable.
CONCLUSION Based on our review of the above test results, we concur with the licensee's conclusions that the station battery has enough battery capacity and capability for 1-hour duty cycle at HBR2.
Principal Contributor: P. Kang Date: