IR 05000348/1985030

Insp Repts 50-348/85-30 & 50-364/85-30 on 850710-12. Violation Noted:Failure to Follow Administrative Procedure FNP-0-AP-63, Conduct of Operation - Sys Performance Group, Requiring Surveillance Test Evaluations

ML20137G163
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	08/13/1985
From:	Belisle G, Michael Scott NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137G139	List: IR 05000348/1985030 ML20137G133 ML20137G154
References
50-348-85-30, 50-364-85-30, NUDOCS 8508270192
Download: ML20137G163 (7)

Text

,

UNITED STATES

, /f OtGu,]o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ n REGION 11 g'

• -

j 101 MARIETTA STREET, t ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

%

4.....$

Report No.: 50-348/85-30 and 50-364/85-30 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35291 Docket Nos.: 50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.: NPF-2 and NPF-8 Facility Name: Farley 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: July 10-12, 1985 Inspector: 'A1 8- 6//5 /8f M. A. Scott D&te Signed Approved L'y: IcR 1 .l[d 8!/3/86'

G. A. Belisle, Section Cyief Dhte Signed Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 14 inspector-hours on site in the areas of surveillance testing and calibration contro Results: One violation was identified - Failure to follo'.< administrative procedure FNP-0-AP-6 PDR ADOCK 05000349 G PDR

- . -- . . __ -- - .. -. _ _ - _ . _ _ _ - - . - -

.

.

,

4 REPORT DETAILS n

! Persons Contacted Licensee Employees T.Arute,l[ nit 1ControlRoomShiftSupervisor

• T. Cherry, Instrument and Control (I&C) Supervisor

• R. Coleman, System Performance Supervisor S. Fulner, Unit 2 Control Room Shift Supervisor i * Hill, Operations Supervisor

J. Isler, Unit Operator

! M. Lovett, Unit Operator

.

• J. McGowan, Manager, Safety Audit and Engineering Review (SAER) Staff

! * Morey, Assistant Plant Manager - Operations J. Odom, Unit Supervisor

• B. Vanlandingham, Unit Supervisor

• L. Ward, Maintenance Supervisor

• W. Ware, SAER Supervisor

• W. Warren, SAER Staff R. Wiggins, Sector Supervisor, Operations - Training

• L. Williams, Training Director

)

'

Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, and office personnel.

NRC Resident Inspector i

i

• Bradford

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview

'.

'

The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 12, 1985, with i those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the ,

, areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed l belo '

l Violation: Failure to Follow Administrative Procedure FNP-0-AP-63, i paragraph 4a .

Inspector Follow Item: Pump Vibration Testing, paragraph 4b.

The above inspector followup item had been identified to the licensee as a violation at the exit intervie Subsequent NRC management review

'

determined that a violation was not warranted; however, questions remain relating to some aspects of vibration measurements. The licensee was i

. _ - _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - _ , . - _ _ _ - - . - ._

-

.

informed of this determination during a telephone conversation conducted on August 9, 198 The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to

.or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspectio . Surveillance Testing and Calibration Control (61725)

References: (a) 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (b) Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation)

(c) ANSI N18.7-1972, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants (d) Technical Specifications, Section 4 (e) Inservice Testing Program, FNP-2-M-019, Revision 3 s (f) Inservice Plan for Pump and Valve Testing, FNP-2-M-008,

Revision 1 This inspection was a continuation of the inspection effort initiated with

-

Inspection Report 50-348/85-25 and 50-364/85-25 during June 3-7, 198 The inspector examined certain details of the surveillance test and inservice test progra The I&C laboratory had three types of portable vibration meters (Vitec Model 368, IRD Model 306, and IRD Model 320) available for use in testing. The inspector reviewed surveillance test packages on a number of safety-related pumps for identification of meter type; the type of meters used on the tests were the IRD Model 306 and 320. The inspector reviewed meter technical specifications and found the two models compatible. The unit operators have been instructed to use the IRD model The pump surveillance test data book for each unit contains the reference or baseline values indicated in Article IWP-3110 of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for pump differential pressure and vibra-tion. The data books are loose leaf binders kept in the control room When a surveillance test is performed, the surveillance procedure directs the tester to obtain the reference value from the data book prior to performing the test since individual procedures do not contain reference values. Although the process would be time consuming and, should it be s

.

necessary, test data packages could be retrieved from files which would contain reference value There are two sets of vibration reference values for the component cooling water (CCW) pump 2A in the surveillance test data book. The double set of values was due to pump system alignment with different trains in operation which caused variations in vibration levels in each mode. The set of values taken in the non-normal alignment was higher in level then the set.taken in the normal alignment. The inspector asked which set of values was used during performance of the surveillance test. Although the use of lower level values is not specifically documented, it was indicated that they were use The inspector reviewed selected CCW 2A pump test packages and verified that the lower level values were utilize Within this area, one violation and one inspector followup item were identified and are discussed in the following paragraph Failure to Follow Administrative Procedure FNP-0-AP-63-The licensee is committed to reference (c). Section 5.1.2 stated that procedures shall be followe Section 17.2.5 of the FSAR reiterates this requirement. FNP-0-AP-63, Conduct of Operations - System Performance Group, Revision 1, paragraph 4.2 requires that surveillance tests be reviewed and evaluated, a list of tests shall be maintained, and the review shall be documented by signature. The inspector reviewed the System Performance Group's list of components to be evaluate The inspector reviewed 165 test review sheets from completed tests and found that 35 of the tests had not been reviewed or evaluate This failure to review and evaluate completed surveillance tests is identified as violation 348, 3M/85-30-0 Pump Vibration Testing The licensee is committed to ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, requirements as indicated in references (d), (e) and (f).

Section 4.0.5 of reference (d) indicates that inservice testing of ASME Code pumps shall be performed in accordance with Section XI except where specific written relief has been grante References (e) and (f), which are approved by the NRC, do not provide relief from vibra-tion testing requirements for pumps. Section XI, articles IWP-3110, IWP-4115, and IWP-4520 require that instruments whose readings are position sensitive shall be eit.her permanently mounted or provision shall be made to duplicate position for each test and that for a portable-type vibration indicator, the probe or measurement reference point shall be clearly identified to permit subsequent duplication in both location and plane, i As indicated previously, the IRD models 306 and 320 vibration meters are used for pump testing. The probes have parallel magnetic bars i

which attach to the pump's bearing housing to provide sensory pick up.

f

__,

-

.

.

The parallel bars are approximately two inches in length, approximately one inch apart, and are flat at the point of housing contac The inspector observed CCW pumps and meter probe mounting location The mounting sites were areas where paint had been removed by the multiple applications of the probe The sites where the paint had been removed were approximately 3 inches x 3 inches with scars in the paint outside of the main denuded areas; the total area where the probe could be mounted was approximately 4 inches x 4 inches. The mounting locations were rough, nicked and slightly curved which would make proper probe attachment improbable. Some percentage of the probe's parallel bars would not make contact with the bearings housing. There were no clear markings present on the bearing housing where the probe could be positioned to duplicate measuremen Prior to this inspection, vibration meter training for licensee personnel performing surveillance tests had occurred during operator license training. The inspector reviewed the License Training Program Qualification Requirements, On-Shift Requirements of December 198 The operations employc<.s in training observed qualified personnel perform vibration measurements, they performed the measurement them-selves, and a licensed operator signed the completion of the trainee's o.1-the-job-trainin During the inspection, the inspector was informed that new, additional vibration meter training for operations personnel was taking plac The inspector reviewed the vibration course handout, dated July 198 The inspector was informed that there was no practical application section associated with the course where the trainee could learn or demonstrate a level of proficiency with the meters on actual pump configurations. The handout discussed vibration theory ano aspects of the IRD 306 and 320 meters. Attached to the handout was a copy of General Maintenance Procedure GMP-5.0, Vibration Measurement Using Hand Held Detector, Revision 2. The contents of GMP-5.0 were not addressed in the testable, course objectives listed in the handout, nor was the procedure referenced in the text of the handou GMP-5.0, which is used by Maintenance personnel, conflicted with the handout in that GMP-5.0, which dealt with the IRD 306 meter only, indicated that the probe should be firmly held during vibration measurement while the handout indicated that the probe may be hand held or mounted in position. Neither document made a distinction as to which probe type, straight or magnetic base, was to be used. GMP-5.0 addressed locating the probe as close as possible to the centerline of bearing and addressed the 90 degree planar orientation (horizontal and vertical) of the two measurement locations relative to the pump shaft centerline while the handout did not. The pump's bearing housing centerline does not always reflect the center line of the bearing within the housing and often the housing could be integral with a portion of the pump body or nonsymmetrical such that locating the bearing centerline would be difficul Neither the handout or GMP-5.0 addressed use of the meter's probe on a rough or curved surface, orientation of the magnetic bars of

v

-

.

the probe relative to the shaft's axis, or what to do should obstruc-tions around the pump make measurement difficult. Neither document addressed locating the probe on defined points or areas which could be duplicated in subsequent testin The inspector separately interviewed two unit operators who perform surveillance tests about aspects of vibration testing. Both operators had only used the magnetic base probe and neither had attended the vibration course nor was familiar with GMP-5.0. Points covered in the discussion were as follows:

-

The inspector asked whether or not their training had stressed the horizontal or vertical (planar) orientation of the prob One operator indicated yes while the other indicated n The inspector questioned if the specific area on a bearing housing for measurement was identified. Both personnel indicated that there was no identification. The inspector was told that no safety related pumps had markings on their bearing housings where vibration measurements were to be take The inspector asked whether or not the probe was hand held during measuremen One operator indicated that he did not hold the probe due to the fact that applying pressure dampened the levels of the output of the mete The other operator indicated that he did hand hold the probe in the horizontal plan Both operators indicated that stable measurements were difficult to achieve on some pumps due to surface roughness, paint buildup, and curvature of the bearing housing not allowing the probe to mount solidl The unit operators were asked which orientation they placed the parallel bars of the magnetic probe. One operator aligned the bars with the . shaft while the other aligned the bars cross shaf One ertployee said in some instances a diagonal orientation may be required due to bearing housing configuration and/or curvatur The personnel indicated that calculated averaging of multiple

-

readings was not performed as indicated in Article IWP-4114 -of Section XI of the ASME Cod The probe was moved around on the bearing housing until a stable reading was achieved. One operator indicated that he had seen a change of two mils (reading level)

at different locations in one plane while taking one measuremen The operators indicated that by test procedure requirement they would record the reference value from the test data book prior to performing a given tes Administrative Procedure FNP-0-AP-63, which was discussed previously, addresses trending of pump surveillance test data. The inspector

g

<

. .-

analyzed randomly selected vibration data on .CCW pump 2A which is displayed as follows:

.

Date of Test Horizontal Vertical Vibration Vibration In Mils In Mils 4-83 .6*

6-83 .3 9-83 .5 12-83 . 3 6-84 .2 9-84 .2 3-85 .8 Mean 1. 5 Standard Deviation 1 .6

• baseline reference value established The mean and standard deviation (SD) indicated above are the statistical averages and the associated deviation about the mean, respectively. The six sets of data which were statistically reduced were taken chronologically after the establishment of new reference values in April 1983; some data sets within the above indicated time span were not recorded although the tests were performed. The 50s are slightly less than one half the mean which would cause problems should SDs remain the same or increase proportionally as vibration levels approached alert or action range (i.e. , as the pump degrades) in that entry into these ranges may not be recognizable. The higher vibration levels in the above data sets do not occcur in the latest tests which makes trending pump degradation difficult. More vibration data for more pumps and different types of pumps will require analysis to resolve trending question Until vibration testing performed during pump surveillance testing can be demonstrated to meet ASME Code requirements, and the pump vibration data can be reviewed for adequate trending analysis, this item is identifed as Inspector Followup Item 348, 364/85-30-02.

L- _