__ _ ___ -______ ___ ___ ________ __ ___ _____-___ - _ _-____ _ ___-__ _ _ ___-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________ _ _____

,',

a . . .

VENDOR INSPECTION REPORT

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPNISSION :OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION IV

Report No. 99900317/81-01 Program No. 51300,

Company: Cooper Industries, Inc.Cooper Energy Services Division,C-B Reciprocating Products*

Grove City, PA :

InspectionConducted: June'l-5, 1981 ;

a

Inspectors: e M 2'

Ross L. Brown, Contractor Inspector DateComponents Section,Vendor Inspection Branch

,

Approved b 7 - 4/s.)/p/, ,. .

D.'E. Whitesell, Chief DateComponents Section,Vendor Inspection Branch

,

Summary

Inspection on June 1-5, 1981 (99900317/81-01)

Areas Inspected: Management meeting, implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,including internal audits, action on previous inspection findings and10 CFR Part 21 follow up. The inspection involveo 30 inspector hours onsite by one NRC inspector.

Results: No nonconformances or unresolved items were identified during thisinspection.

,

9108110062 010707PDR GA999 EMVCOIN99900317 PDR

. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - .___-____ _ _____ - - -____________- __-__ _ _______._-__ _

,

. . . .

DETAILS SECTION

A. Persons Contacted

C. C. Bemiller, Manager, Quality Control*C. H. Patterson, Senior Quality Control Engineer

* Attended Exit Meeting

B. Vendor Activities

Cooper Energy Services (CES), Grove City, Pennsylvania, management statedthat they presently have one contract for two diesel-generator sets thatce scheduled for completion during the fourth quarter of 1981.

C. Action on Previous Inspection Findings

1. (Closed) Deviation A and B (79-01). An inter-office memo listing therequired actions, commitment dates and persons responsible for theactivity to correct the NRC findings (79-01). The satisfactory com-pletion of the four deviations (79-01) as scheduled verified confor-mance with the CES letter of May 1, 1979.

2. (Closed) Deviation C (79-01). The Internal Corrective Action Master List,14 Corrective Action Requests, and two Internal Audit Reports of Correc-tive Action Controls indicate that reminder forms have been issued forall Corrective Action Request that have been delayed for thirty days inconformance with QCP-P0-4, Revision 1.

3. (Closed) Deviation D (79-01). The Revision 4 to QCP-10-5 that gives theQuality Control Department in each CES plant the authority to implementtheir internal audit program was approved and issued.

The Audit Status Reports for the first quarter of 1981, and the thirdand fourth quarters of 1980, indicates that the internal audits wereperfonned in conformance with the established Grove City audit schedules.

4. (Closed) Deviation E (79-01). The inter-office memo issued May 9,1979,which clarifies the meaning of the Record Code described in QCP-10-1,Documented Inspection Audit Report and three completed Inspection Plansindicate, conformance with commitment in the CES letter dated May 1, 1979.

5. (Closed) Deviation F (79-01). The new Standard Operating ProcedureQCP-1-065 describing the method by which QC procedures and QC InspectionPlans are revised, approved and issued was issued for use on June 25,1979.

Two audit reports, Audit Status Report for first quarter of 1981, andtwo QC Inspection Plans verified conformance with QCP-1-065.

_

._ ___ _ _ ______________ ___ __

.

. .. .

-2-

D. 10 CFR Part 21 Follow dp

1. Background Informationi

Cooper Energy Services reported to the NRC on November 3, 1978, of a,

deficiency found within a KSV Power Engine. This engine is partj

i of the emergency standby diesel-generator set supplied by CES forinstallation at the following facilities:

a. Nebraska Public Power, Cooper Station, two engines, SN's 7102 and7103.

b. Commonwealth Edison, Zion 1 & 2, five engines, SN's 7090, 7091, 7092,j 7093, and 7094.

| c. Pennsylvania Power & Light, Susquehanna 1 & 2, four engines, SN's7157, 7158, 7159, and 7160.'

[

d. Louisiana Power & Light, Waterford 3, two engines, SN's 7170 and 7171.,.

Carbon copies of the' letter of notification to the NRC were transmitted to'

the CES customer for the above facilities.

The extent of the deficiency was as follows: Each power cylinder hasone inlet and cae exhaust push rod assembly and two valve crossheadassemblies Psrt No. Z 25-1-2-10. This assembly contains: a crosshead,a roller pir, and a pin collar. It was found during performance testingthat some sub-assemblies showed abnormal wear on the surface of the rollerpin. No engine shutdown nor malfunction had been experienced, but CESmanagement felt that over a longer period of engine operation this abnormalwear could progress far enough-to cause the engine to malfunction.

i,2. Corrective Action

The corrective action taken by CES was as follows:!

a. Redesign Part No. Z 25-1-2-10 and change Part No. to Z 25-1-2-16.Inter-office memo dated November 8,1979, states KSV Diesel Engine

i Generator was fully tested with the new designed crosshead.

Each intake and exhaust crosshead assembly was visually inspected andno evidence was found which would cause any premature failure of,

these assemblies.4

| The results of this performance test are included in Report of Witne:sTest of KSV-20-T Engine Generator Set CES-S0-0420, SN 7196.

b. The engines which have had field running at the licensees site wereinspected by CES to determine if cam rollers have become sluggishand incipient cam scuffing is occuring.

.- - . - . - . - - .

, --

>,

**

|. .

| -3-

(1) CES Service Representative Report dated November 14, 1978,states the cam rollers in engines SN's 7102 and 7103 at CooperStation, were inspected and no rollers looked damagech Noreplacement was required.

(2) CES Service Representative Report dated December 2,1979, statesthat the crossheads in engines SN's 7090, 7091, 7092, 7093, and7094 at the Zion 1 & 2 sites were inspected and measured and foundacceptable. No replacements were required.

(3) CES letter to Pennsylvania Power & Light stated that the changeoutof crosshead assemblies had been supervised by CES Service Repre-sentatives in the following engines SN's 7157, 7158, 7159, and7160.

(4) CES Service Representative Report dated June 18, 1980, states thatthe changeout of crosshead assemblies in engines SN's 7170 and 7171at the Waterford 3 site had been completed.

This reported deficiency appears to have been handled in accordance withthe CES procedure QCP-10-14, Revision 1, dated December 10, 1980," Reporting of Deficiencies as Requirea by 10 CFR Part 21."

E. Internal Audits

1. Objectives

The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that thefollowing items were controlled in accordance with QA Manual and appli-cable NRC and ASME Code requirements:

a. A written system has been established to assure that audits are per-formed and controlled in accordance with applicable codes to verifycompliance with all auditable aspects of the QA program,

b. Planned and periodic audits are performed in accordance with writtenprocedures or checklists by qualified personnel not having directresponsibilities in the areas being audited.

c. Audit results are documented and reviewed by management having respon-sibility in the area audited.

d. Follow up action, including re-audit of deficient areas, is takenwhere indicated.

2. Method of Accomplishment

The preceding objectives were accomplished by:

a. Review of QAM - Section 2, Subsection 2.7 " Audit of the QualityAssurance Program.

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

.\

-. . ..

-4-

b. Review of five internal audit reports,

c. Review of procedure QCP-10-5, Revision 4, " Internal Audits."

d. Review of three follow up audit reports,

e. Review of six auditor qualification records,

f. Review of audit schedule for the years 1980 and 1981.

3. Findings

a. The i.,spector verified the following information:

(1) QAM Section requires an audit of each departnent to be con-ducted annually, as a minimum, by trained personnel usinga prepared check list.

The QAM Section also requires that copies of the completedaudit reports to be sent to the upper management and theyshall also be made available to the ANI for review.

(2) The qualification records identifies the applicable training ofeach auditor.

(3) The audit schedule indicates that all plant departments shallbe audited at least once, annually.

(4) The audit repcrts includes the audit check list signed by thelead auditor and QA Manager. The check list identifies thepertinent paragraph of the QAM Section to be audited, objec-tive evidence, compliance and any appropriate comments.

If deficiencies are identified, the appropriate correct actionand completion date is assigned: *

b. No deviation or unresolved items were identified in this area of theinspection.

F. Exit Interview

The inspectors conducted an exit meeting with the CES management representa-tives at the conclusion of the inspection. Those persons indicated by ansterisk in Paragraph A above were in attendance. In addition, the follow-ing were present:

S. P. Bigley, QC TechnicianG. Darcangelo, QC TechnicianB. W. Phillips, QC Technician

.

-. . ..

-5-

The inspector discussed the scope of .the inspection and the details of thefinding identified during the inspection.

The inspector also discussed the NRC method of reporting and informed thosepresent that they will receive a copy of the inspection report for theirreview for any proprietary information.

The CES management comments were generally for clarification.

.

!

i

I

i

|

I,

6