ML17195A782
| ML17195A782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1985 |
| From: | Gautam A, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17195A780 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-85-14, NUDOCS 8505080032 | |
| Download: ML17195A782 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1985014
Text
..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-237/85014(DRS)
Docket No. 50-237
License No. DPR-19
Licensee:
Commonwea 1th Edi so_n Company
P. 0. Box 767
Chicago, Illinois 60690
Faci 1 "ity Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station
Inspecti"on At: .Mo"rris, Illinois (March 20-23, 1985)
Glen Ellyn, lllinois (April 4, 1985)
1nspection Conduc~ed1 March 20-23 and April 4, 1985
\\_~~.
.
.
<FU . . fu"
Inspector:
A.
S~ Gautam
~t~
Approved By:
C. C. *Williams, Chief
Plant Systems Section
Inspection Summary
w~~ht*
Date
4/;;i#P
Date*
Inspection on March 20-23 and April 4 1 1985 (Report *No. 50-237/85014(DRS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspect ion by regiona 1 inspector of *
measures taken by licensee to replace an existing Unit 2 125V DC battery
.
power supply with l2~V DC power from the Unit 1 HPCI battery.
The inspect.ion
involved a total of 30 fospector-hours onsite and .3 *i.nspector-hours offsite
by o.ne NRC i nspe.ctor:
Results: *of the areas inspected, two i terns of noncompliance were i dent if.fed
(failure to have prescribed standards and procedures for accomplishing
Class lE cable field .splicing and cable -installation - Paragraphs 3.d(2) and
3. d(3); failure to take measures to assure .. that desi.gn basis .requirements are
trans 1 ated into spec Hi cat ions'; *drawings, procedures and i nslruct ions -
Paragraph 3.f(l)).
- .i.
,..
~ ,'
' .
/:
- -* .. ,.
- 1.
2.
DETAILS
Persciris Contacted
Commonwealth.Edison Coriipany (CECo)
~L. Q .. bel Ge~rge, Assistant Vice President
J. Wujciga, -Administrative Assistant Superintendent
- J. Brunner, Te.chnical Staff _Supervisor
- 0 R. Rybak, Nuclear Licensing Administrator
- E. Armstrbng, Techni~al Staff Supervisor
J. *Doyle,* QC Supervisor
M. Loma, QA Supervisor
_ .
.
J. Jurecki, Staff Assistant Engineer
- R. Deobler, Modification Group Engineer .
- J. O'Neal; 'Modification Group Engineer
F. Petrusich, QC Engineer
0 G*. L. Smith, T. s
~ . Gro_up te'a'der ~ Dresa~n * .
0 E. D. Eenigenburg, Maintenance Manager; CECo.NSD
-.~D. Farrafr Nuclear Licensing
- 0w. Worden, Opet'.'ations Manager, .BW.R
_,.. , .. *
0 D. k .. Wi_nche.steh Quality A'ssuranc*~,: Dresden . . ,: ;
~ *
. 0 M. S. Tucker;' Electrical Engfneer, SNED1. '.'.*. ":,
.. , ,
0 W. . B .. Gane her, Lead Engineer*, SNED
. .
. .
0 J. _E .. Hausman, Dresden/Quad ProJect Engineer, SNED
. 0 A.* P. B:ielaaski, Isham, Lincoln & _Beale, Attorne_y
Sargent and -Lundy
°F. W. Fi sher; Sehior El ectri ca l"Project Engi nee~
NRC
0J. Streeter, *Technical A§sfstant, DRS
.* -°C. 'C .. Williains, Chief, Plant Systems Section
- *0A. S. Gautam; Reactor Inspector*
0 R.
Landsman~ P~bject Manage~ .
0 T. Tongue, Senior Resident,_ Dresden
.
- ..
- Denotes those who .attended the interim e~it meeting on March 23! 1985.
0 Denotes those who attende~ the exit meeting on April 4, 19~S.
Review of Dresden Unit -2 Battery Replacement Submittal
During_thi Unit 2 refueling outage of October 5, 1984 through April 14,
- 1985, *commonwealth Edison (CECo) discovered a potentially significant
degradation of the Unit 2 125V DC battery, and made written notification
bf the problem via a Part 21 report dated March 4, .1Q85.
Pursuant to a
_March 13, 1985,- letter. to .Reg.i.on III, the 1 icens_ee initiated activ.iti~s.
for substituting the power .from the degraded Unit_-~ battery with power
2
from an existing 125V Gould FPS""'.23, 60 cell, Plante battery located in
the Unit 1 HPCI building.
The licensee plans to continue to use the
Uriit 2 battery chargers but switch the existing 125V DC supply from the
Unit 2*batteryto the Unit 1 batte.ry. This Unit 1 power source will be
connected to DC 1 oads by running twe*1 ve. new 600V, 500 KCMI L cab 1 es
and splicing them to two existing 3/C 5KV, 500 KCMIL cables.
The NRc* inspector reviewed the 1icensee 1s letter dated March .13, 1985,
describing the engineering evaluation and field.activities associated *
with .this temporary modification.
This review was performed at the
Region III *office prior to field review.
The licensee's submittal
was found acceptable as stated, and appeared to address all relevant
issues -0f this modiffcation.
3.
- Review of Field Activities Regarding Unit 2 125. DC Batter.y Replacement
The NRC* inspector reviewed the licensee's field modification instruc-
tions prescribed by Engineering Chang~ Notice (ECN) No. D-85E-Ol, dated.
February 28, 1985, and the implementation of the March 13, 1985, safety*
.*evaluation and 'ECN D-85P*Ol by Station Traveller Work Request (WR)
D42720, Rev. 0, approved March 19, 1985.
The scope of the. licensee's field modificatiOn activities primarily
included:.
- .
0
0 .
0
0
Installation of .conduit and supports in Unit 2
Testing *of Unit :l battery
.
.
.
Installation* of (12) *- *11c 500 KCMIL 600V cables
.
Splicing o.f ne_w 600V cables to existing (2) - 3/C 500 KCMIL
- 5KV cables *
Te~ting of.cables and splices
0 * *
. Placing Unit 1 battery into Unit 2 service*
The 1nspettorreviewed the status of the* above activities in the field
for the followi~g areas ..
a. * .Evaluatfon of Battery Loa.ds
th~ inspector reviewed sin~le line wiring and schematic drawings
12E-232281, *Rev. 8, 12E-1396, Rev. H, lZE-2322,* Rev. VJ 12E-1485D,
Rev. A, and 12E-2685A, Rev. AG, ~s referenced in ECN D-85E~o1, for
verification of. new and ~xisting wiring connections and loads to
the Unit 1 battery. * *
The Unit 1 battery currently feeds Unit 1 125V D"C .D:istribution
Panel No.- 5 through cables 11000 and 11001 that-*connecf to a 600
ampere circuit breaker in Unit 1 Compartment Cl.
The Unit 1. battery
loads.are to be removed by mafntaining the Compartment Cl 600A
.breaker,.*open.
The.existing 125V DC feeq,Jrom.the Unit 1 battery*
charger ~C t6 th_e* Unit 1 battery will be d,isco_nnected.
The Unit 1
battery *wi1'1 be connected to-Unit .2 oc* loads. via *new .cables 67662(.+)
3
- --
and 67663(~) that tap off the two input terminals of the Compart-
ment Cl breaker and are*spliced to one end of existing cables 11082
and 11083.
The other ends of ~xisting cables 11082 and 11083 are
spliced to new cables 67660{+) and 67661(-).
The new cables 67660
and 67661 are in the Unit 2 Turbine Building and are connected to
terminals L1 and L2 of a 400 Amp circuit breaker in Compartment 4
of the 125V DC Mai.n Bus Distribution .Panel 2A-1.
Review of ECN D-85E-.01 indicated no new loads.
The existing Unit 2
battery has a rated eight hour capacity of 498 ampere hours whereas
the Unit 1 battery has a .rated eight hour capacity of .913 amper.e
hours.
Unit 2 battery chargers wi 11 continue to be in service and
feed the Unit 1 battery.
During the inspector's review, the following ~bservations were made:
(1) Since there is no apparent change 1n the Unit 2 load profile,
the Unit 1 battery which has a 1 arger capacity wi 11 be adequate
- tor Unit 2 DC loads.
The.licensee's safety evaluation stated
the equalizing charge of the Unit 1 battery to be .27 MA for
100 ampere hours of capacity, and apparently the voltage drop
due to the new 1 ong Gab 1 e run wi 11 not a f feet the equa 1 iz i ng
charge.. The licensee reported that the Unit 1 battery wi 11
maintain the technical spec.ification charge limit at Bus 2A-l
for a longer time than the Unit 2 battery for the same load
p~tiffl~ and increased voltage drop ih the cable.
The licensee's
. evaluation for maintaining the technical specification limit
could not be verified during thi~ inspectioh.
An NRC *review of
the licensee's documented load pfofile evaluation is planned
for a subsequent inspection.
The 1 i censee *.agreed to review
the provisioMs of IEEE 450-1975 in regard to performing a
service test which determines if a battery can meet the de*sign
r~quirements of connected DC loads.
Pending furth~r review
this is .an open item (235/8~014:-01): * _ .
1.*
-
'.
.
.,__
_.
---
. (2) *The inspector informed 'the *1 i ce'nsee that the inadvertent
~losing of the*Unit.l 125 DC Panel 5, Compartment Cl, 600 Amp
.breaker could affect. the, Unit. 2 ESF -Division_ 1 emergency .DC
.: power* supply* from the Unit lb?ttery ... Tne. l.icen~ee ,was* re-.
'quested to establisn*a f:i'rm.phy'sical control such as a lockout
of this breaker to avoid any such accident .. The 1 i censee
- agreed to review a physical control, beyond a planned *out of
ser~ice
1 label on this breaker, to prevent the breake~ from
inadvertently being closed. However, with the Compartment Cl
.breaker locked open, there is a resultant potential problem
with the lack of circuit fault protection for the Unit 1
- .battery during any shorts in the 125V DC cab 1 e runs.
Pending
review of licensee actionJ the use of the Compartment Cl
breaker is an open item (235/85014-02).
4
.* '
b.
Conduit and Supports
ECN D-85~-0l, pages 14, 16, 21, 22 and 23 were reviewed for pre-
scribed size~ material, bends, length, routing and supports for
two Division 1 4
11 aluminum conduit runs at elevation 534' of the
Unit ~Turbine Bui)ding.
Conduits and supports h~d not been
installed at the time of inspection.
There appeared to be no
.potential for a separation conflict with the Division 2 raceway.
Severa 1 co.ndui ts without tags, reported by the 1 i censee to be
'Ba 1 ance of Pl ant' conduits, were .observed at the proposed 1 ocat ion *
of the new. 4
11 conduits.
It appeared an adequate (greater than 1
11 )
separation would be maintained between these conduits and the new
proposed Division 1 conduits .. Eight proposed hangers, WCN"".19
through 26, specified in ECN.D.;85E-Ol, Page 6, had been adequately
prescribed in terms of type and size of mempers; attachments,
1-0ading and seismic configuration.
c ... Unit 2 Battery Bank Mai'ntenance and Testing
The inspector reviewed the l~censee's special procedure SP85-3-25;
Rev. 0, for a battery acceptance t~st to verify battery capacity.
This procedure and associated acceptance test reports met the
general requirements of IEEE 450-:1975 which were referenced
in procedure.
The licensee *tested and documented,the Unit 1
HPCI battery to hav.e a C?pacity of 110 .. 4% of the manufacturer's ..
rated. 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, capacity o,f 913 ampere ho*urs.* The .test required .a:n
8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> rated discharge current of 114 Amps.
No deficiencies were
- found ..
.
.
.
.
- The inspector reviewed the Unit. 1. HPCI battery.cells, racks,
. enclosur'e*and.associated* b~t~ery Chargers*~ *This review* included**
.checking for* f.loat"voltage; cell, cracks; 'electrolyte' leakage:; plates
- .*.of C:ells for' buckling, cracks or plate gro.wth; ambient temperature
- -and ventil?t ion; cap at ity of two. ceJ ls, s~ 1 ected at random; and . .
terminals and. connectors' for* evidence of corrosion.. The .inspector
. m~de th,e. fall O\\ofi ng obs.erVat iori.S: .
, .. .-..
- ~: : ~ ..
- *
. . " - " *'
(1) The .fl .oat vo 1 tage on the 125V .DC HPCLbattery cell~ was
verified on the :battery chargers to be 130 *. 2VDC and the rated
when required per IEEE 450-1975).
Both voltages were. within
limits .
. (2) Selected Unit 1 battery *cells were. inspected and were apparently
undamaged, without cracks or electrolyte leakage, plate damage
or plate growth.
No sediment was visible at bottom of cells
and* there was no .evidence of corrosion on terminals .
5
(3) The inspector witnessed testing of voltage, specific gravity
(SG), temperature and electrolyte levels of cells 44 and 48.
The following results were observed:
Cell
44
48
1. 231
1.219
Temp.
69°F
68°F
Volt
2.22
2.22
Level
High
.High
In accordance with the li cen$ee Is spec:; al procedure SP85-J-25,
Rev.O, for an applied float voltage of '130.2V on the battery,
the flbat voltage per cell was required to be above 2.17V and
the no.rmal SG fo. be 1. 2+0 (IEEE 450-1975) at 77°F.
Applying
a <:,orrectio*n factor of{-) .. 001 for each 3°F variation beldw
77°f, the SGs o*f' both cells 44 and "48 were found to be wi tlii n
limits.
Electrolytes were at-acceptable levels.
(4) The i~spector revjewed the ventilation of the Unit 1 HPCI
battery room and observed .that no instrumentation was i nsta 11 ed
to measure air flow in the room. whereas the Unit 2 battery r.oom
was observed to have a fl ow switch 2-9441...;100 for monitoring
air flow, measured iri inches of water.
The inspector ques-
tioned this apparent lack of instrumentation for ensuring that
the .battery *area vent i 1 at ion was adequate and operable during
operation.
The licensee stated that an alarm existed for damper
position which* causes a control room typewriter alarm when the
- .damper closes ..
- .The tnspector alsp questioned if the power supply for the Unit 1
battery room ventilation was safety-related. The 1 i censee
. stated that hei ther the Unit 1 nor Unit 2 battery .room vent i-
. 1 at ion power supplies were safety-rel ~ted. * The Unit 2 battery
ventilation power.supply is not considered safety-related based
on an analysis in NUREG...;0823, Section 4-29.1, whith indicates
the maximum hydrogen buildup during a loss of ventilation to be
. below combustible limits.
Pending an NRC review of a similar
- .analysis by the licensee for the Unit 1 battery room ventilation,*
this is an unresolved item (235/85014-03);
(5) The inspector reviewed the seismic mounting of the battery racks
and cells. Station Traveller WR D42720, Rev. 0, page 8~r~l0,
Operation 28, defined activities regarding mounting of *rack and
- cells. *It was observed that no specification/standard or vendor
drawing .was specified on the tr~veller for verification of cell
rack requirements.
Activities described in the traveller did
not address spacing and material between cells. It was also
observed in various cases that cell spacing material was missing
in the field.
The licensee .. reported this. activity to be incom-
plete and that a standard existed and would be available* at* the
time of completion of this activity.
Pending review of completion
of this activity., this .is an open i.tem (235/85014-04).
6
d.
Installation of Class lE C~bles, Field Splices and Connections
The inspector reviewed installation activities ass6ciated with
the following DC .feeder cables to Unit 2 125V DC Distribution
Panel Main* Bus 2 in the Unit 2 Turbine Building:
Cables 67662 and 67663 - 600V, 3 l/C 500 KCMIL, 60 1 length, ESF
Division 1, EPR insulatidn, neoprene jacket. *
Routed from:* Splice ~f cables-11082 and 67662, and splice of
cables 11083 and 67663, in cable *tray sections 1541A and 1549A
located in Unit 1 HPCI Building; To:
Unit 1 125V Distribution
Panel 5, Compartment Cl.
Status:
New, installed March 20, 1985.
Cables 11082 and.11083.;. 5KV, 3jc 500 .KCMIL, 930 1 length.ESF
.Division 1, EPR insulatfon, CSPE jacket.
Routed from:
Splice of cables 67662 and*11082~ and splice of
.cables 67663 and 11083, .in Unit 1 HPCI Bui 1 ding tray 1541A and
1549A; To:
Splice bf cables 67660 and 11082," and splice of
cables 67661 and 11083 in Unit 2 Turbine Building tray 12E-2057.
Status:
Installed October 3, 1979.
Cables 67660 and 67661 - 600V, 3 l/C 500 KCMI L, 150 1 length, ESF *
Division 1, EPR in$ulation, .neoprene jacket.
Routed from:. Splii:e of cable~ 11082 an.d 67660, and _splice of
- cables* 11083 and 67661 in Unit _2 Turbine Building tray 12E-2057; ..
To:
Unit 2 Turbine Building 125V DC Distribution Panel *Main
Bus 2, cubicle BOl.
Status~ Not pulled as of March 23, 1985.
The following ireas w~r~ reviewed:
(1) The inspector examined cables for type, size, insulation,
markings on jacketJ ends sealed with heat shrink tubing,
(2)
. el~ctrical ch~racteristi~s, bend radi~s and manufacturer
- class lE-.qualiftcation testtng.
No defic,ie'ncies were 'found.
'
.~ -
.. * .
- Field. cable spl'ic.ing activities were 'reviewed 'on Station
Traveller WR 042720, Rev. o, Operations 9.,* 10 and 12.
Six
spli~e~ had 5een completed bh cabl~~.67662 and 11082~.~nd
cables* 67663 arid .11083. , The inspectbr r~~iewed* ECN o~85E~o1
- and=~WR*D42720 to *identify any specificatiOn or standard
.
pre~cribing instructioris for*perfor~ing the butt splices.
The. *licensee v.ie~ed the spliC:ing activity to be within craft
capabi 1 i ty and had. not i s*sued a speci fi cation or standard
for the six splices.
The lack of instructions or specifi-
.catioris for accomplishing the splicing of safety-related
cables is an example of a violation of* 10 CFR 50, Appendi~ Bi .*
Criterion V (2~5/85014-04a).
7
._.
. ...
(3) During review of cable installation activities, it was observed
that cables 67662 and 67663 .had been installed .on March 20,
1985, as confirmed .by Stat ion Traveller WR D42720, Ope rat ion 11.
There was no QC witness of this activity.
The inspector was
c*oncerned that proper procedures may not have been fo 11 owed
during installation.
On further review it was reported by the
licensee that no c~ble installation procedures had been pre-
scribed for cable installation .activities associated with this
modification.
The licensee was informed that the manufacturer's
Class lE qualification of these cables was maintained through
assurance that tt:ie Class lE integrity would not .be compromised
in the field during in~tallation. Adequate controls, outlined
in cable installation procedures, must therefore be maintained
to avoid any fie 1 d stresses o.r other damage to cable conductors,
insulation a~d jackets during installation of cable~ The
licensee was informed that failure to prescribe documented
instructions, procedures and controls for installation of
safety-related cables was an example of '.a violation of 10 CFR
50, Appendix B, Criterion V (235/85014-05b).
(4)
The inspector was concerned that since no specification/
standard or procedure currently prescri.bed instructions for
i nsta 1l i ng fie 1 d sp 1 ices and cab 1 es, the -1 i.censee** s craft and
i nspector.s may not be trained to-satisfactorily accomp 1 i_sh
these activities.* 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II requires
thE! licensee's Quality AsstJrance p~ogram to provide for.indoc"'
fri na'tj On'. an{! tra.i ning :Of personne 1 .. performing acti Vi t l es
~- affec,t~ng quality: :10 :CFR.50,_Appendix B~ *c,riterion.XVII,
"Quality Assurance Records~" requires licensees to maintain
records on qualifications of personnel; . Documented evidence
of such qualifications were not confirmed by the licensee*
during this inspection.
Pending further review this is an
unreso 1 ved i tern '(235/85014~_06).
e.
Testing of Cables
Tt was qetermined that the licensee plans* to perform megger and
- continuity tests oh completed lengths of tables, after .splicing,
, as identified in Sta ti on Trave 11 er WR D42720, Ope rat ions 13, 14,
15and1&.
The inspector ~as ~oncerned that since both.930' 5KV
cab 1 es . 11082 and 11083 had been i nsta 11 ep s i nee October 1979, and
sintefield splicing was being performed on these cables, megger
and continuity tests may not be adequate tests to verify the pe.r- *
formance of these cables.
The inspector review.ed the CECO 600V EPR Cable Standard EM-29105
dated January 30 ,* 1981, s_pecifyi ng qua 1 i fi cat ion testing for the
ins ta 11 ed 600V tab le.
Si nee the 5KV cab 1 es 11082 and 11083 a re
now being used for a 600V DC rated application, this standard was
considered adequate .for the 5KV cables for the present 600V DC
- application ..
8
' .......
'...
~.,-.
According to Standard EM-29105, Section 8.1, each length of cable
is to be subjected to a high voltage test prescribed in !CEA
S~68-516, which in turn refers to !CEA S-19-81, Paragraph 6.22,
for voltage tests on each length of completed cable.
s~19-81,
Paragraph 6.22.3, requires a DC voltage test of not greater than
3 times the rated AC voltage for 5 consecutive minutes.
IEEE 383-1974, Paragraph 1.3 and 2:2, requires qualification testing
to be done on a completed cable, which includes any field splices.
Since the.manufacturer's qualification did not include these splices,
the license~ ~as requested to review the adequacy of current planned
tests in view of the concerns identified above.
The NRC realizes
that this is a temporary modification and that in the event of a
loss of the Division I 125V DC battery, Division II emergency power
would be av.ail able. However, since the existing length of cable in
the duct run has been exposed to flooding in the past and since two
sets of splices are being made on the completed run ofthis safety
shutdown cab 1 e, it is necessary in accordance with 10 CFR 50,
Criterion XI that an appropriate test program be established to
assure that a.11 tes_ting required to demonstrate that these cables
will performsatisfactorily is *identified and perform~d. Pending
further*review this is an 6peri item (235/85014-07).
f. * Review of Cables Associated with Field Splic~s
.*'I
buring ~:p~iot mee~~ng with'th~-~egi~n, t~e liceniee ~a~ bee~
questioned concerning the acceptability of proposed cal:>le field
splicing.* During a review of the safety evaluation, th'~ inspector
observ~d that _the licensee had 9ddressed the regional question
regarding splicing in the evaluation by stating, " ... Splicing the
cables in the table pans is acceptable as all -0ther cables in these
pans .. are not in serv-i ce and wi 11 never be used.
11
.During review in.
the field, the inspector made the following findings~
(1) * The inspector observed that some cables* in cab 1 e trays
1541A and 1549A containing the cables having the six field
splices were entering Motor Control Center (MCC) 115 located
below the cable trays and were apparently feeding the main
bu~ of this MCC. * One compartment of th~ MCC had a lighted
pilot lamp which indic~ted power for the HPCI building
- 1ightfng and the* HPC~ Building lighting was on.
The inspector
informed the licensee that its Ma~ch 13, 1985, ~ubmittal tQ the
NRC:indicated that all cables installed in the same pan as
c'ables having sp 1 ices were de..;energi zed .. The licensee per-
formed a further r~view and identified a total Of 7 energized
cables.
These cables*were 10873, 10874, 10878, 10879, 10880,
10927 and 11348.
~he inspector rev1ewed ECN b-~5E-Ol and WR D42720 fbr
prescribed instructions and field activities associated
with this field modification, but found no requirement for
placing the above seven cables out of service .. The in~pector
informed the licensee that failure to take measures to assure
9
- ~~.:;>*
' .*
~**
~
_.,
. . ., ....
that design.basis requirements, as outlined in the March 13,
1985,_ safety evaluation were correctly translated into speci-
fications, drawings, procedures and instructions was in .
. v.i9lation of 10 CFR _50, App*endix. B, Criteribn Ill (235/85014-08).
(2)
Bas~d on.the in~pec~or's firiding (235/85014-67) described
- in Paragraph 3.f(l) above, the NRC informed the licensee
that the statement regarding cables tnstal1ed in the same
tray with field splices being 'out of service'* was cons1dered
a false statement.
The licensee stated in the April 4, 1985,
meeting that all cables currently in service and associated
with the splices would be placed out of service prior to
energizing the new 125V DC ~ables. The licensee also stated
cjuri ng the meeting that a 11 statements made in the SER were
intehded to reflect pl~rit ~onditions after the new cables
and splices were energiied; however, as discussed in
Paragraph 3. f (l) the 1 i censee did not have any documented.
evidence of .provisions t6 ~ssure the disconnection of the
subject cables prior to placing* the Unit 1 battery into
Unit 2 serv.i ce.
(3) The NRC identified- concerns regarding effects on splices due to
thermal degradatipn and maintenance:
The licensee issued*
restrictions orr .work in cab 1 e pans to avoid damage to sp 1 ices
during maintenance. *
4.
Open Items
Open i terns are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which
will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which* invo*lve some action
on the part of .the NRC or lic:erisee or both.* Open* items disc.losed during
. the tn~pection are discussed in Paragraphs ~.a(l), 3.a(2), 3.c(5) and
3.e.
5.
Unresolved Items
Un re so 1 ved i-tems are matters about which more i nformati.on is required
in order to ascertain whether they.are acceptable items, *items of non-
compliance, or deviations~ Unresolved items disclosed durihg the.
inspection are discussed in Paragraph 3.c(4) and 3.d(4).
6.
Exit Interview
The inspectors met with the 1 i censee .-s representatives.* (denoted under
- ~aragraph 1) on March 23 and Apri 1 4, 1985, and summarized the scope and
findings of th~ inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the statements
made by the inspectors and agreed to take corrective action on all of
- the outstanding items of concern.
The licensee did not identify-any
documents or processes in this inspectio.n as proprietary.
10