ML20206C408

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Addl Info on Station Batteries,Per NRC Request as Part of Review of Util 881024 Proposed License Change Request 17
ML20206C408
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley
Issue date: 11/03/1988
From: Sieber J
DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
NUDOCS 8811160264
Download: ML20206C408 (3)


Text

____ ___ ___ -_ __.

,t

~

N.Y

~

Shoprgocst PA15077&O4 l

i CO L,%

n en sas November 3, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

Attn:

Document Control Desk i

Washington, DC 20555

Reference:

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412, License No. NPF-73 i

Proposed Operating License Change Request No. 17 l

Gentlemen:

j Attached is additional information on the Beaver Valley Unit No.

2 station batteries that you have requested.

This infor:aation t

was requested as part of your review of our proposed operating i

license change reqv.est no. 17, dated October 24, 1988.

Should you have any additional questions on this matter, please contact my office.

very truly yours,

[

/ k-D. Sieber Vice President i'

Nuclear Group

?

i Attachment i

cc:

Mr. J.

Beall, Sr. Resident Inspector l

Mr. W. T. Russell, HRC Region I Administrator Mr.

P. Tam, Sr. Project Manager i

Director, Safety Evaluation & Control (VEPCO)

Mr. T. M. Gerusky, Director BRP/ DER Mr. R. Janati, BRP/ DER I

b YAUE0 8lfb8)!

\\

ro

a ATTACHMENT Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 Statien Battery No. 2-3 i

Response to Additional Information for Technical Specification Change Request No. 17 1

1.

Question How old is.the station battery's

Response

This battery was capacity tested at the factory in April, 1983 just prior to shipment.

2.

Question l

i j

When was the battery last tested?

l

Response

The 60 month performance discharge test per Technical Specification 4.8.2.3.2.e was performed on May 27, 1987.

A battery service test was not performed at that time since per l

9 specification 4.8.?.3.2.e once every 60 months the battery performance discharge test may be performed in lieu of the service test.

Approximately 3 1/2 months of the 25% allowable extension per specification 4.0.2 was used during this surveillance intervsl.

[

3.

ouestion l

What was the measured be.ttery capacity during this test?

l t

Resconse I

The results of this test indicated a battery capacity of 95%.

(

r j

4.

ouestion l

l When were the other 1E stction batteries last tested?

[

]

Response

j I

The last battery service and performance dischstge test date are h

as follows:

j Batterv No.

Service Test Performance Disch. Test 5/28/87

(

2-1

)

2-2 1/30/08 6/11/87 i

5/27/87 j

2-3 2-4 1/30/88 6/10/87

{

i i

j f

i i

]

i

  • o*

Attcch00nt P, age 2 i

5.

-ouestion Do you plan to test all 1E station batteries during the first

'f refueling outage?

o

Response

Yes, all four station batteries will have a battery service test performed per Technical Specification 4.8.2.3.2.d during the i

outage.

i 6.

Question What is the expected load vs. capacity of the No. 2-3 battery?

Response

t The load profile for the No. 2-3 battery is 77 amps for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> i

(include a 1".% margin).

This is stated in the Unit No. 2 FSAR in Table 8.3-9.

The capacity of the No.

2-3 battery is 1140 1

ampere-hours as described in section 8.3.2.1.3 of the FSAR.

?

l 4

I

(

i l

t a

l I

1 i

i j

t I

l

?

I 1

i i

I l

I 1

i i

f 1

l 1

1 i

l

.1 j