ML20011E318

Discusses Interview of Confidential Source in Feb 1983 Re Tdi,Alleging Alterations of Heat Numbers on Steel Used for Mfg of Diesel Engine Auxiliary Skids & Use of non-nuclear Grade of Fasteners for Attaching Components to Skid

ML20011E318
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/07/1983
From:	Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Herr R NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
Shared Package
ML20011E317	List: ML20011E316 ML20011E318 ML20011E320 ML20011E322
References
FOIA-89-192 NUDOCS 9002130209
Download: ML20011E318 (43)

Text

_

' p us%

d UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR RECULATCRY C MMISSION --

.P k

f RioloN IV k

/

$11 RYAN PLAZA oRivt. SulTE 1000 1

%'"**/

ARLINGTON. TEKAS 79M1

=

00T 0 71983 l

J l

1 MEMORANDUM FOR:

R. K. Herr, Director, Region IV Office of Investigations FROM:

John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV

SUBJECT:

REQUESTED INVESTIGATION OF TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED (TDI)

Reference:

Case Number 4-83-A-10/ Cross Reference Q4-83-02 1.

Background:

A confidential source was interviewed by RII:01 in Tebruary 1983 who made the following allegations:

(a) suspected alter-ation of heat numbers on steel used for manufacture of diesel engine auxiliary skids and use of nonnuclear grade steel in skid manufacture, and (b) suspected use of a nonnuclear grade of fasteners for attaching compo-nents to the skid. Specific information was not provided by the alleger that would support that these practices had occurred. Four individuals were interviewed by Rll:01 in March 1983 in regard to these allegations, with three (two fomer and one current QA/QC employee) indicating that the material control program was adequate at the f acility. The fourth individual, a former non-QC employee, expressed support for the allege-tions but again provided no specific basis for the viewpoint expressed.

This latte* individual also expressed concerns in regard to the control of ASME Code weldirg, adequary of engine testing practices, and improper f

bearing shell plating praettees. One additionai ellegation was made by two of the other individuait fatervitwed concerning both false certifi-cation by the QA Me.agtr that certair, employees had received aucitor-i training and that an intternal audit was falsely documented as having been performed.

l The Ril:01 Report of Inquiry (File No. Q2-83-008/Q4-83-002) was subsequertly turned over to the Vendor Program Branch (VPB) for followup by technical inspection, with the exclusion of the latter item concerning f alse certifi-cations of auditor training and an internal audit report.

1 9002130209 900200 PDR FOIA PDR ROLFEB9-192 EX, B, 4

3 f> ages l

5-84-0n9 g

\\ _ _ ct i

I

,/2 !,

A rif g

i

I;

[

I-

\\

Memo to Herr r -,

2.

Current A11ecation Inspection Status-a.

Report of Inquiry Allegations - Followup on the allegations was initiated during September 12-15, 1983, by the VpB. Significant time.

expenditure was encountered in obtaining information from TDI, primarily because the work force has been reduced to a point where only the QA Manager and, to a lesser extent, the Manager of Quality t

Engineering are capable of locating requested information. As a 7

result, followup was restricted in this inspection to the allegation

.concerning use of non-Code fasteners.

The inspection indicated that prior to 1982 there was no vendor identified on the Approved Supplier List for furnishing of NCA-3800 ASME Code fasteners. It was additionally established that non-ASME Code fasteners had been received and accepted for purchase orders which specified that ASME Code was applicable.

In that purchase orders were in archives and could not be retrieved during the inspection, further inspection is necessary and will be completed during October 11-14 at Cardinal Industrial Supply (f astener supplier) and October 17-21, 1983, at TDI. The remaining allegation items, with the exception of the falsification items, will be also addressed during the upcoming TDI inspection, b.

Additional Area; of Concern - During the VPB September 6-16, 1983, Insp'ection at TOT, additional subjects of concern were discovered I

which bring into question both the propriety of 101 past actions and the credibility of manufacturing records.

(1) Review of manuf acturing reuting sheets applicable to rework of San Onofre, Ur.it 1, piston head assemblies showed CC and manu-faritueing sign-off dates for routing operations as takirg pla e son weets af ter t.he rework asserdolies h:d been returned to San Onofre.

I t wou'Iri, thus, appear that either the routing sheets themselves were ger.erated after the fact, or, that the dates were added subsequent to completion and shipment of tN asse:nblies, l

It ac;ditionally appeared that the sign +off dates were in tre sarre handwriting, even though numerous different QC inspectors were identified by stamps on the routing sheets as performing the various inspections.

(2) Review of routing sheets applicable to " improved" cylinder heads purchased by Long Island Lighting Company for Shoreham identified anomalies With respect to nondestructive examination of seat hardfacing. The routing sheets showed in certain instances that the QC stamp of a qualified liquid penetrant examiner had been applied on the top of white out for the liquid penetrant seat vaaaneeeeees--

E Bli 4

as 3

rm cm o

m..,,

3

,7,

%4

' Memo to Herr,

inspection operation.

Examination of the routing sheets from the l

reverse side indicated that the inspection operations had been originally stamped off by unqualified personnel.

In that inter-views were not conducted by the VPB inspectors and no nondestruc-tive examination reports had been prepared for these inspection operations, the VPE, inspectors were unable to assess either if the inspection operations were performed or, if so, who had -

performed the inspections.

3.

Requested Investigation Activities:

In that numerous deficiencies have been identified by various licensees with respect to TDI diesel generators l

and VPB inspections are identifying inadequate QA/QC past practices, we are concerned about inspection findings which bring into basic question the credibility of inspection records.

Similarly, the Report of Inquiry statement and allegation concerning the actions of the current QA Manager pose further questions with respect to the assurance that available records provide regarding the adequacy of in place controls during manufacture of this vital equipment.

As a result of the potential impact on Shoreham and other Licensing Board hearings, we believe that it is irnperative that an investigation be expeditiously performed which suitably addresses the following areas:

a.

Credibility of sign offs of inspection operations by QC personnel and whether improper direction or after the fact changes have been made regarding this activity. Sufficient information is believed available to permit this activity to be performed immediately.

b.

Improper 0A manager ections with respect to false certification of auditor training and generation of a repurt for an internal audit.

that was no*. performed, c.

Followup, as required, in regard to fir. dings :s om VPB inspectiens made as a result of the Report of Inquiry. Those findirgs will be ma::e available immediately following conclusion of the October 17-21, 1983, inspection.

r

?

{

N ohn T. Collins I

Regional Administrator cc:

B. Hayes, 01 R. L. Bangart, RIV s an um g -

~,

n i n. s,,s e r.

w m.,

l E)NB T 4

3

- of _

h Pages p,7

j

,q ;og " l

>v T. m...-

g

' *FALceN TAME" cA:a a m u.

9 y gA f*ept 713 i

s M.0218 g

TrLas

)

ly

.(

" 25

FALCON CARRIERS, INC.

susTE 3330 Two ALLEN CENTER p,

,g 12o0 smtw statrT n.g p.

g Hovstow TtsAs 77eo2 i

Mgr. No.

j July 23, 1982 Levingston Shipbuilding Company P. O. Box 968 Orange, Texas 77630 Attnt-Mr. Joe Barrios, President l

Transamerica Delaval Inc.

P. O. Box 2161 oakland, California 94621 1

Attn:

Mr. Clint Matthews, General Manager i

F.c PRIDE OF TEXAS _ Encine Problems

[

Gentlemen:

In this letter I wish to express my extreme concern i

regarding the numerous and. serious engine failures suffered by the PRIDE. OF TEXAS.

The current statu1 of these failures is summarized in the letter from our a

operator, Titan Navigation, Inc., Attachment A hereto.

i The magnitude of these failures goes far beyond'the type of minor " growing pains" normally experienced on a new vessel, and raise serious questions as to the basic ability of the vessel to perform its intended function for any extended period.

Indeed, our insurance under-writers have become so concerned with the losses resulting from these failures that they have requested immediate assurance regarding proposed corrections as a precondition to continuing our insurance coverage (Attachment B hereto).

Needless to say, loss of insurance coverage on the vessel would preclude further operations, which would force us to revoke acceptance of the vessel i

and precipitate an economic disaster for all concerned.

t I

\\

c,- m

~*t

y

?

O*

s 4

g j

\\

Mr. Joe Barrios.

4 Mr. Clint Matthews July 23, 1982

)

Page Two j

Inasmuch as all of these failures involve matters covered under the applicable warranties for which l

Levingscon and/or Delaval are. responsible, we hereby request that Levingston and Delaval provide us with written assurances (1) confirming that the engine in its present condition is safe and seaworthy to continue in operation, (2) confirming your undertaking to correct the engine deficiencies, and (3) summarizing the proposed procedures for making such corrections and preventing future failures, so that we can provide these-assurances to our underwriters.

In addition, we wish to discuss with you in detail the implementation of these proppsed procedures.

We sincerely appreciate the manner in which Delaval has in most cases acknowledged its responsibility to correct the failures and cooperated in rushing personnel and parts to the scene of engine. breakdowns to minimize the impact of these breakdowns on our operations.

However, it is most distressing that even with the continued efforts of Delaval and Titan engineers, the engine failures on the PRIDE have to date resulted in more than 45 days downtime (see Attachment C), at a cost of more than $1,500,000 in lost voyage profits alone, without regard to repair and -

replacement costs.

Wo cann'ot continte to sustain losses of this magnitude without severe adverse financial conse-qusnces, and it is absolutely critical that you find and L

implement permanent solutions for these engine problems in the very near future.

Sincerely,

.//./ f

~

'b. C. Wei '

President l

g

Attachs, c:

Mr. Carl Giessel HFC Leasing, Inc.

Mr. James Vandervalk Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corporation Mr. Mitchell Lax Maritime Administration L

L

., v g

Mr. Joe Barrios r

Mr. Clint Matthews July.23, 1982 Page Three ct Mr. Harrison R. Glennon, Jr.

Titan Navigation, Inc.

Theodore Ulrich, Esq.

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft e

9 4

4 e

o P

B

IMb

- e. 74

{%^.gVQk e

t.

~

L,4W OFFICXs BOGLE & Gxrzs

,. c mu.

..- ome, n,.......

.....-o.

m. m.o,e-o o,..

= r,*,5, *,',at,,*a,r-a.. =c= v

.em

<=rr=v = >= >

.,u. meL,... w.

2. m :......,

copy,gg WA.EDtOTON, D. C. 20006 gg,,,,,,,m g,

7333y 3.LXIT331.L-49 9) 890 09 0 TEL32 :.D

• f 4&O g g,,,

bo AAD J.Dat?WWSB

.00 w..? F.,TW Av.W T'S PL.es. 33,LY TO va8538vf08I. D. C. 0,F1C.

sarcsotaos. aLA.ta 99004 5901 Ste east TEL&E:.00*.6*004 P112 3,0.r October 14, 1983

,l i

f' a

/F d*+,

f'r /* * /**

Michael S. Miller, Esq.

.c

.A Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill,

~

Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Dear Mikes Enclosed are copies of documents which you examined at the offices of Titan Navigation, Inc. last Friday, October 7, 1983, pursuant to the subpoena addressed to Titan.

Questions about the enclosed documents may be directed to me at the above address or telephone number.

Very truly yours, BOULE & GATES

)) k%

P Linda L. Martin Enclosures

.i f

6 A E 0 4' p 5;/3/7

/

c

---

1

p

-1 ITERSEnl0IIC8 an,ina.n. x,.n..c.,,,,. ei,2;.,

• t gg[gygl sie esin a venue P.O. Box 2141 Caklana, California 94621 (dis) s77 7400 1

i I

i September 30, 1983 I

\\

Titan Navigation

?

1000 Loulstana j

Suite 2900 Houston, Texas 77002 l

Attention Mr. J. Molina Subj ect:

DMRV-12-4 Cylinder Heads

?

Dear Joet j

It is my understanding that Titan Nav'igation is in receipt of a subpoena for certain records having to do with the operation of cylinder heads aboard the Texas Class vessels.

Transamerica Delaval has been compelled to inform counsel for LILCO, who then pass the inferr.ation on to the attornies for Shoreham County, of specific information on several cylinder head leaks we believe have been experienced with cylinder heads cast af ter mid 1978.

One of the cylinder heads has been identified as coming from your operation.

Our records show the Star of Texas returned a cylinder head to our factory, identified with Serial No. K71 and Heat No. 5420, which was found to have a small leak near the intake port.

Transvarica Delaval has given counsel for LILCO a complete list cf all cylinder head castin6s manufactured since 1978, however with the exception of huads char. have failed in a manner to permit water to leak into the combustion chamber, the identity of the cylinder head. owners has not been given.

Attached is a list of cylinder head castings manufactured since mid 1978 and which we believe are in the possession of the Texas Class ships, either as operating cylinder heads or as spares.

We believe the subpoena for records an.ks specifically for information concerning the head leaks which could resule in cooling water entering the combustion chamber and nothing more.

It is regrettable that the burden of supplying the information must f all on our good customers,,

however it is proper that we mutually supply information supporting the facts.

(continued)

+

6-/ To.

m---.

.. -.--. m

. - m

-~ ~

transamenoa

' Delaval r

. Titan Navigation - Joe Molina September 30, 1983 Page Two We trust the attachments will be of inter'est to you and assist you in deciding what records you have in your posession are gerr.ain to the subpoena.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Regards,

/

i G.E. Trussel.1 Manager, Engineering & Customer Service GET/wam Attachments

l

]

l o-s 043 614E 12/17/75

'.EV!h3670N MS

?!ED 7/5/79 LEVINGSTON - 76034 054 645E 12/21/79 POT 083 724E 1/16/60 POT H44 878W 10/14/78 POT - 76034 H46 876W 14/14/76 POT - 74024 H52 699W 10/30/78 POT - 78034 H56 91@W 11/1/74 POT - 78c34 J.9 137D 1&/28/78 POT - 78034 J87 217D 2/6/79 POT - 78434 K52 463D 3/9/79 POT - 78834 K69

!?2D 4/6/79 POT - 78034 K79 62ED 4/13/79 POT - 78024 K82 647D 4/19/79 POT - 78034 K83 667D 4/24/79 POT - 78034 K96 '

690D 4/20/79 POT - 76024 J26 1/11/79 POT - 76035 J67 273D 1/29/79 POT - 78035 K64 557D 3/29/79 POT - 76035 K65 581D 4/4/79 POT - 760J5 K74 613D 4/11/79 POT - 78035 K76 E26D 4/12/79 POT - 78?!5 694 671D 4/65/75 007 - 76025 K93 65sD 4/27/79 POT - 76025 K57 690D

• /20/75 0T - 78025 Li 6?5D 5/1/7?

POT - 76035 L10 710D 5/3/79 POT - 78035 Nk3 3673 1@/*/79 POT = SPAPE N67 415E 10/3;/79 POT - iPAAE C88 731E 1/17/60 SOT P5 759E 1/24/80 SOT P16 774E 1/26/80 SOT P27 813E 2/5/60 COT P45 850E 2/13/80 SOT P59 878E t/20/60 SOT K78 6&6D 4/13/79 SOT - 78035 J34 1/13/79 SOT - 7e026 K32 421D 2/28/79 SOT - 78026 K48 454D 3/7/79 SOT - 78026 K71 592D 4/6/79 SOT - 78036 L24 7490 5/14/79 SOT - 78026 L34 777D 5/18/79 SOT - 78036 L36 7PRD 5/21/79 SOT - 78036 L45 801D 5/24/79 SOT - 78036 L55 614D 5/30/79 SOT - 78826 J88 295D 2/1/79 SOT - 78037 K21 390D 2/22/79 SOT - 78037 K22 4000 2/23/79 SOT - 78037 K53 463D 3/9/79 SOT - 78037 K73 613D 4/11/79 SOT - 78037 L3 70!D 5/2/79 SOT - 76027 L14 7EED 5/7/79 SOT - 76027 i

L44 601D 5/44/79 SOT - 76027 L62 830D 6/4/79 SOT - 78037 L69 846D 6/7/79 SOT - 78037 L71 854D 6/8/79 SOT - 78037

i o

1 L67 900D L/19/79 SOT - 76037 Lt4 8200 C/4/79 SOT - 76026 K39 440D 3/5/79 SPOT - 7 COL 9 K26 (24D 3/2/79 SFOT - 76536 L41 793D 5/23/79 EPOT - 76026 L75 660D 6/11/79 EPOT - 76036 L82 890D 6/15/79 SPOT - 76036 L64 900D 6/19/79 SPOT - 76034 L97 921D E/E6/79 SPOT - 74036 M5 976D 7/6/79 SPOT - 78534 M7 904D 7/5/79 SPOT - 78034 M25 26E 7/17/79 SPOT - 78236 M54 7EE 7/30/79 SPOT - 78034 K49 667D 4/24/79 SPoi - 78039 L44 804D 5/25/79 SPOT - 73039 L84 690D 6/15/79 SPOT - 7E033 M9 981D 7/?/79 SPOT - 7E02)

M10 961D 7/5/79 SPOT - 7f039 M11 961D 7/9/79 SPOT - 76037 M19-991D 7/11/79 EPOT - 76029 M23 12E 7/10/79 SPOT - 7602) t 9

\\

4 L

?4a/adr,156Jarw V' 5G4 6,2K&tk y,yg y y,,,,,

v. u...

• .* ese.* * 'ne p p,7,.,,,, y 4,yppp

• • *' * n e ' ' M *

,. 6 e m ie. i.. e......

a.... a: 14Lil f..=4348 at.ca (313),...i.30 April 25, 1983 Joseph Molina, Esq.

Falcon Carriers, Inc.

Suite 3300 Two Allen Center Houston, Texas 77002 Re:

PRIDE OF TEXAS - Hr.ifa Engine Cas,ualty j

Intercooler failure - December 6, 1981

Dear Mr. Molina:

We enclose a copy of the comple. int recently filed in the United States District Court in Ecuston in the above matter together with.a letter from local counsel.

We will keep you advised of any and all developments.

Very truly yours,

} '~

.. v(j.n.

/

m.

WSB:jm enels.

cc:H.R. Wasson H.L. Meyerson

&/T6

• -

• h;'l7 '*.-......

RoysToN. RAvzon. Vicxzav & WILLIAMS E l*c2

1.. ;.;....

me. tv.., u.

h vt.t

.nics

'*{I..I*E*,*::$"

1. 1. co Tra.S Cowwt.Ct Towt.

ac. CD".a tat =

t 4

• .. c

..+o Houston.Tr.x.As noon wvesex tra n

Ttt. ::n*'

..t.:..t =.......

t;*. ".;

.P.

• g.;*,:' ;*.1.*.*t:"

,,,,' =.,, =,,,,

-a c...........-

,.si...........

ey,,

o,.

,,,g;;T;,

..s.t................

. :ar.t. ::t:......

u

. =.

1:'.',.,.*.*

4.::;.!r,":*"

April 21< 1983 ac o...m

i.,c =

+

m.

+

a

,y;s. ','lt y

r.'.7.!!! -***

*:ar:" "

.'.l'.t.,* '.' :!!!:"

William Busch, Esq.

Cadwalder, Wickersham & Taft One Wall Street New York, New York 10005 PRIDE OF TEXAS - Haifa Engine Casualty - Intercooler failure -

December 6, 1981 -

Cur File:

32,603 Dear Bills s

i Pursuant to your request, enclosed please find a copy of the Cemplaint filed in the United States District Court for the 32uthern District of Te:tas, Houston Division, against Ashland oil Inc., Levingston Ship Puilding Com' any and Transamerica Delaval, p

Inc.

For your information, the casa has been assigned to Judge Gabriel.'.e Mr-Donald who has a reputation as being somewhat slow in moving her docket.

. We have also taken the appropriate steps to serve the defendants through C.T. Corporation System in Houston and Dallas, which is' listed by the Texas Secretary of Stateas. registered agent for service of process for each of the three companies.

Yours truly,.

/

W Ja G.

Blain JGB:rk

• W/ Enclosure 6Y/

M

[

l f

i d.;i'.'7..

RoYsYoN. RAY 2oR. VICXZRY & WIU. TAMS

" **EII"I i

........c. ;"...

4,.e.~c..,....

mc

'e'"= u.

noe eca.. ca..c.e ee..

Not srox. Tuus noos o

1 = -.

1 n.cae:ee m u.> o vu

=.,.,

"'~.S.*

• a

,..YO"

,,acg*.,,, Nw I

c..a c... -e w.c.,-

.. a.........

n....,;,

,;,. 7;;-

. a..............

i

,. ". '........,.. ;,l l.' t".......

., e..=c e. m-

..c

~ tu

-a

.............. a..

7pril 21, 1N3

. a.. = w -->=

,. =

.o.

n,.. t.

..:;*;l, a,....

..a..u

.w

....... ~.....

1:1111am Secch, Esq.

Caducidor, Nickcrsham & Taft Cno '.'c11 Street

cu York, ficw York 10005 PP.IDE OF TEXI.S - Haife Engine O

Casualty - Intercooler failure -

tcccmber 6, 2001 -

Cuy,,_,i1e:

r 32,603 t

Dear Dill:

f Pursuant te your request, enclosed please f1*d a copy of the Comphint filed in the Unt'.oc States District Ce v.rt for the Souther:: Oistrict of Texat<, Hourton D!. virion, agt. inst Ashland 011 a#

Inct,, Lcvir.gsten Ship Buildir.g Cctr.pany and Transe.merica Delaval, inc.

For your infor:aation, the esoc has baen assigr.ed to Judge Cabrielle ?:cDenald who has a reputt. tion as being somewhr.t slow in moving hor _ docket.

11e have also taken the cppropriate steps to serve the defendants through C.T. Corperation System in Houston and Dallas, Y

which is listed by the Texas Secretary of Stateac registered egent for service of process for occh of the three compo.nier.-

Yours truly, 1

~

s'!.."10 f C.

01 C i."

J'GB t rh

• N/Encloeure

y

• D.

• o o, '

t IN TEI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

' i

+

FOR THE SOUTHERD DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTO!1 DIVISION l

1 EQUITY CARRIERS, I, INC. ',

Plaintiff 5

VS.

5 C. A. No. H M1h s

AS11 LAND OIL, INC., LIVINGSTON SHIPBUILDING CottPANY, and TRA!1SAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.,

Defendants 5

v ColtPLAINT

[

TO THE HONORADLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

i Plaintiff, by its attorneys, for its complaint alleges i

against defendants, upon inferriation and bslief as follows:

Juristtiction And Parties 1.

The jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon (a) the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

$ 1333, as hereinaf ter more fully appears, and within the neaning of Rule 9(h) cf the Federal-Rules of Civil Precedures and (b) pendent jurisdiction.

2.

Plaintiff Equity carriers I,

Inc.

(" Equity Carriers")

is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of I

the laws of the State of Delaware, with offices and a principal place of business in Houston, Texas, and was at all times perti-nent hereto, the bareboat charterer of the vessel PRIDE OF TEXAS (the "Vecsal").

Pursuant to an assignment betwe'en plaintif f and 5-17d '

o

)

)

i Hull 751-IPSC Partnership

(" Hull 751"), the owner of the Vessel, plaintif f acquired the right to any and all c?.sims with respect to the Vessel.

3.

Defendant Levingston Shipbuilding Company ("Levingston")

is,a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of i

the laws of the State of Delaware, with offices and a principal place of business in orange, Texas, and is subject to the juris-diction of this Court.

Levingston was at all times hereinafter.

mentiened the principal contractor and builder of the vessel c

pursuant to a certain construction contreet entered into between Levingston and Lsvingston Falcon I Shippi*ag Corapany ("Talcon") on October 3.

1978 (the

• Construction Contract.* t.

Tursuant to an ast.ignment And Lovation, each dated May 22, 1901, betw en ASCO-ralcon I Shipping Company (formerly Falcon) and HuU 7 M.,

ASCO-Falcon T. Shipping Company assigned to Hull 151 its ri; hts under various agreements, including the Construction Contract.

4.

Defendant Ashland oil, Inc. ("Ashland") is a corpora-tion organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kentucky, with offices and a principal place of business in Ashland, Kentucky, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

Pursuant to its guarantee dated October 1, 1978 (the "Ashinnd Guarantoe"), Ashland is the guarantor of the obligations of Levingston under the Construction contract, i

\\

l

l a

T l'

i 5.

Defendant Trancamerica DeLaval Inc.

("DeLaval") is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with offices and a principal place of business in Oakland, California, and is subject to the juiris-diction of this court.

DeLaval was the manufacturer and suppliar of the main prepulsion system of the vessel pursuant to a certain agreement between Levingston and DeLaval dated October 3, 1978 (the " Engine Agreement").

The Engine Agreement, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A, is incorporated herein with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

6.

On or about Octobe:

3, 1978,, Levingston entered into the Const..2ction Contract with I'alcon for the construction of the Vessel.

The Construction contract, a copy of which is canexe<1

[

hereto as Exhibit L, and p'. ens anc 4pecifications roferred to therein (the " Vessel Plansi and Specifications"), together with any addenda, additions or corrections, copies of which are in the posse.csion of plaintiff and defendants, are incorpo'ated harein with the same force and of f act as though fully set forth herein.

7.

Pursuant to the Engine Agreement between Levingston and DeLaval, DeLaval agreed to manufucture and supply the main propulsion system of the Vessel, including the installation and incorporation of the intercoolers.

Pursuant to the Construction Contract, Levingston assigned its rights under the Engine Agreement to Hull 751...

i 8.

The vessel is a United States Flag 36,000 DWT Dry Bulk 1

Carrier built by I4vingston at its shipyard in Orange, Texas.

\\

The Vossel was delivered on or about May 22, 1981 and payment. was made to Levingston in accordance with the Construction Contract.

9.

On or about December 6, 1981, while at anchorage in a laden condition at the Port of Haifa, Israel, during a start up of the engines, the forward outboard cylinder block of the starboard main engine of the vessel cracked.

10.

Due to the aforementioned crack in the forward outboard cylinder block of the starboard main engine, there was extensive damage to the cylinder block,

liner, pisten and related machinery, 11..

Tha forward outtos.rd cylinder block of t.hr starboard main engine of the vessel cracked d.ua to the entry of water from the coo. ling syscem into the air inta'ke system of the engine, pt.rmitting the entry of water into a cylinder during the compression cycle.

12.

The source of the coolant water was leakage from the jacket water cooling system into the combustion air intake system as a result of leaking tubes in the starboard outbank intercooler.

13.

Between December 9, 1981 and December 15, 1981, it was ascertained in Haifa that the starboard main engine block w'ould have to be replaced and that the Vessel would be required to return to the United States on one engine so that permanent repairs could be offected..

t-j j

14.

The vessel departed Haifa on December 16, 1981 and proceeded, at graatly reduced speed and by a longer but safer

-)

route in view of the vessel's loss of an engine, to Norfolh, j

Virginia for permanent repair.

15.

The vessel arrived in Norfolk, Virginia on or about i

January 18, 1982 and remained there, at the Norfolk Shipbuilding 6 Dry Dock Corporation, until on or about February 1, 1982, for replacement of the starboard main engine block and for other *-

repairs necessitated by the crack in the forward outboard cylinder block of the starboard main engine.

16.

On er about February 1, 1982, the vessel departed the derfolk Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Corporation in Norfolk, Virginia, and docked at a grain eleva*.o: in Norfolk, Virginia te 1 rad soy beans for a trip to Haifa, Israel.

17.

On or abcut Febduary 4,

1982, the Vassel underwent a final inspection prior to departura for Haifa, Israel.

The final inspectica revealed that the starboard main engine inboard intercooler and the intercoolers on the port main engine were eroded, thinned and needed to be replaced.

18.

A representative of DeLaval recommended that the vessel I

not leave the Port of Norfolk due to the condition of the intercoolers.

19.

Accordingly, the Vessel romained in Norfolk, Virginia frem on or about February 4, 1982 through February 8, 1932 for replacement of the aforesaid intercoolers..

w r

T, 4

i First Claim for Relief 20.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every J

allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 19 with the same J

force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

i 21.

Pursuant to the Construction Contract, Levingston expressly warranted, among other things, that (i) it would design and construct a complete and seaworthy ship in accordance with good shipbuilding practice; (ii) it would construct, launch, outfit, ter,t and deliver the vessel in strict ecmpliance with the Vessel Plans and Specificationst (iii) the Vessel would be ready for its intended serviens (iv) the materials for tho, vessel would i

be of commercial marine quality and sultable for the marine service intended; and (v) the vessel would Se frun from deficiencies,

failures, breakdowns or datorioration in installation, workmanship, material ce design.

22.

Pursuant to the Engine Ag*toemcat, DeLaval erpr2ssly warranted, among other things, that the main propulsion system supplied for the vessel would meet the requirements of the purchase specifications annexed thereto, would be free of defects of material, workmanship or design, and that materials for the main propulsion system would be of commercial quality and suitablo for marine ervice.

23.

Plaintiff is the direct and intended third-party beneficiary of the terms of the Engine Agreement and the Ashland Guarantee. ;

\\

i L

4 i

l 1

vessel was purchased in reliance on said warrantie 24.

The f

dants.

cnd the design and construction expertise of de en warranties to breached their express f

launched, 25; Defendants the vessel was not constructed, (i) with the plaintiff in that compliance tested and delivered in strict (ii) the Vessel is not a outfitted,

/

and Specifications; in Vessel Plans and' constructed and seaworthy ship designed i

t (iii) the vessel was complete accordance with good shipbuilding pract ce the materials for the (iv),

/

not ready for its intended service t l

for the vessel were not of ecuercial marine quality and suitab e carine service intendedt (v) the vessel wa4 not free f:cm la detterierations or breakdowns

failures, deficiencies, desiyar (vil tha main workmanship, material or installation, the regairements of prepulsien systers of the Ver41 did net :-w:the Engine Agreem annexed to i

specifications free from the purchaso Vessel was r.ot the main prepulsion system of the the materials (viii)

(vii) defects of material, workmanship or design; not of the Vessel were main. propulsion system of suitable for marine servicer and (ix) for the failures,'

, commercial quality orf ailed to correct or repair such def e defendants i

deficiencies, breakdowns and/or deteriorat ons.

of the breach of said 26.

Plaintiff had no knowledge vessel.

the time of acceptance of the warranties at defendants of the to timely notice 27, Plaintiff gave

. breach of said warranties.

e-

-. =...

-~

j i

t

-28.

As

a. consequence ~ of the breach of said warranties, plaintiff has sustained monetary damages, economic losses and expenses, including costs of berthing, repairs and additional expenses associated therewith, additional crew expenses, tury expenses, loss of profits, fuel costs, and additional personnel and travel expenses, in an amount to be proved at trial, but in excess of the sum of $1,600,000.00, exclusive of interest and Costs.

Second Claim for Relief

,2 9.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

j 30.

At all relevant times herein, defendants Levingston and l

7 DeLaval were merchants engaged in the manufacture, design, assembly or distribution of vessels or component parts thereof.

31.

Defendants impliedly warranted -to plaintif f that the vessel and/or component parts thereof were of a quality which would at least pass without objection in the trade, were at least fit for the ordinary purposes for which such vessels and component parts are used, and were in all respects of merchantable quality..

32.

Defendants knew that the purpose for which the vessel vas intended was the transport of dry bulk products in world-wide j

trade, and plaintiff relied upon defendants' skill, knowledge, expertise, and judgment to design, manufacture, fabricate, assemble, test, and deliver a vessel suitable for such purpose.

l

]..

4

't 33.

Defendants breached their implied. warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose owed to plaintiff in that the-Vessel and component parts thereof were defectively

designed, manufactured, fabricated, assembled, tested, and delivered, were not of a quality which would pass without objection in the trade, were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such a vessel and its component parts are used, were not of merchantable quality and were not fit for the -

purpose intended.

t 34.

By reason of the breach of said implied warranties, plaintiff has' sustained damages as previously described in an amount to be determined at trial, but in excess of the sum of

$1,600,000.00 exclusive.of interest and costs.

Third Claim of Relief 35.

Plaintiff repeat's and realleges each and every l

allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 34 with the same force and of fect as if fully set forth herein.

36.

At all relevant times, defendants Levingston and l

DeLaval held. themselves out as having knowledge, skill and expertise in the manufacture, design, assembly, fabrication or testing of vessels or component parts thereof.

37.

Defendants impliedly warranted to plaintiff the work-i manlihe, careful and skillful performance of their obligations in respect of manufacture, design, assembly, fabrication or testing of the Vessel and/or component parts thereof.

9

y

+.

,;.m 38.

Defendants breached their implied warranties of workmanlike performance: owed to plaintiff in that the-Vessel and component parts thereof were defectively designed, manufactured, fabricated, _ assembled, fabricated and tested as a result of the

' failure of the defendants to perform their obligations in a workmanlike, careful and skillful manner, f

39.

my reason of the breach of said implied warranties, plaintiff has sustained damages as previously described in, an '

amount to be determined at trial, but in excess of the sum of

$1,600,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

Fourth Claim of Relief 40.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every

. allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 39_ with the same force and'effect as if fully set forth herein.

41.

Defendants had a duty to plaintiff to design, manufacture, construct, a s semble, test and deliver a vessel and/or component parts thereof, which would be seaworthy, suitable for the intended service, and free of defects.

I 42.

Defendants were negligent and careless in manufacturing, designing, constructing, assembling,. testing and delivering the l

Vessel or component parts thereof.

43.

By reason of the negligence of defendants, the vessel L

and component parts thereof were manufactured, designed, con-l structed, a s s embled, tested and delivered in a defective and deficient manner. !

I*'-

J +] i

?,* ' -

44.

The defective manufacture, design,' construction, assembly, testing and delivery of the vessel and component parts theroof were the sole, proximate: and ~ producing cause o f - the damages to plaintiff.

45.

As a consequence of the negligence of the defendants, plaintiff has sustained dainages previously described in an amount to be determined at trial, but in excess of the sum of

$1,600,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, i

Fifth Claim for Relief 46.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 45, with the same for:e and effect as if fully u.i forth herein.

47.

Defendants design P,

'v afactured, assembled, tested and delivered the vessel knov,x>: unat the vessel would be utilized for the transport of dry bulk products in world-wide trade, i

48.

Defendants delivered the Vessel and/or component parts I

thereof in a defective, unreasonably dangerous, and unsafe p

condition.

l 49.

Despite the fact that plaintiff at all times used the L

Vessel for the intended purpose of transporting dry bulk products L

in world-wide trade, the defective design, manufacture, assembly and testing of the Vessel and component partr thereof resulted in the disabling of the vessel and other damages set forth herein.

50.

As a result, defendants are strictly liable in' tort to plaintiff for damages previously described in an amount to be l

~ ' '

7;.. f. '

determined at trial, but in excess of the sum of $1,600,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.

ImEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants,for damages in an amount to be proved at trial, but in excess of the sum of $1,600,000.00, together with reasonable attorneys' fees, interest and the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further' relief as this Court deems just and proper.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this day.of April, 1983.

4 Respectfully submitted, Ben L.

Reynolds Attorney in Charge 2200 Texas Commerce Tower Houston, Texas 77002 713/224-8380 Attorneys for Plaintiff OF COUNSEL:

ROYSTON, RAYZOR, VICKERY & WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL:

CADtiALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT

f ;;

.89;

~

% lgugl 1

4pjegGC j'

o' i

yg RywrPATRICE. LOCKRA.RT. #"

. CaudSTOPHER St PHILLIPS 4 P. -.

t..v.,A r e--

1900 M Srazar. N. W.

~l i

%surworow. D. C. sooos tus. arsons (ece) eaa.rooo ar rmuscasa casas sw as snapaamur.1-=* - 6 summasow vassa

=== n

.,,,,.ms, Deeember 21, 1983 202/452-7044 e-G f ~.'. J f' S

-i s*

e s v r vv v i.,,

Anthon'y F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

Hunton & Williams P.O.. Box 1535

'707 East Main Street

?.ichmond, Virginia 23212

':: ear Tony s.

In.accordance with our-telephone conversation last week and pursuant to your reques't of December 8, I am enclosing herewi-h all of the documents which the County obtained by virtue of its subpoena to U.S. Steel Corporation and to Titan Navigation, Inc.

Under cover of this letter, I am sending copies of the

'i r

enclosures directly to Ralph.Caruso of the NRC Staff.

Sincerely yours,.

Alan Roy Dynner ARD/dk Enclosures

.cc:

Ralph Caruso

.}

~

6-I4

,a

_cc

.n, m,

3 s

m x L:

y-f g

stLL $NEFFDLD, GOWRNOR A

k w,

p u

ha,

?.+

,,,t.y ro:

' DEPARTMENT OF LAW - /

O roar m AvEuut l

sulTE 200 ANCNonAGE. ALASKA N601 OFFICE OF THE A TTORNEY GENERAL PNoNE: (N7) 2164650 C tot NATIONAL CENTEn 100 CtAMMAN sT.

surrE e0 September 15, ^l983 FAinsANKs. ALASKA N7or.

PNoNE: (N7) est.16M b POUCH K STATE CAMTof.,

JtJVEA U. ALASKA N811 PHONE: (907)4N 4 N0 465-3603.

. Michael S. Miller i

Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill,

?

Christohper & Phillips

-1900 M' Street N.W.,

8th Floor 1

Washington, D.C.-

20036 Re:

The matter of Long Island Lighting Company The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docket No. 50-322 0.L.

Production of Documents 1

Dear Mr. Miller:

The documents enclosed are transmitted to you pursuant to.the' subpeona duces tecum. issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on August 24, 1983.and served on the state on September 1, 1983.

The documents were copied from the state's files 1ocated.in Seattle, Washington by state employees with your concurrence.

If you have any questions, please feel free.to contact me.

I will then endeavor the procure the clarification or expla-nation that you'need.

Please be advised I will be.on vacation from. September 19 through September 24 L

Sincerely, o

l NORMAN C. GORSUCH l

ATTORNEY GENERAL

[-

=

By: h William F. Cummings Assistant Attorney General WFC:ebc Enclosure h"

n.ca u

7

(

0 f

• 'u '"'"N " *"**

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES s~

WINTENAhCE ANO O*ERATIONS OMSION OF WAllVEHIGHHn YSYSTEh6 PHONE: 206) 623-6850 i

September 12, 1983 l

~

To whom it may concern:

WV COLUMBIA is a passenger vehicle Ferry Vessel owned and operated by the

(

State of Alaska, -Department of Transportation, Division of Marine Highway System.

'essel entered service in June 1974 It is propelled by two each model V

DMRV-16-4 Delaval Main Engines rated at 9200 HP each at 450 engine RPM's.

These are 16 cylinder Vee configuration engines,- otherwise identical to the R46 and R48 engines which are 6 and 8 cylinder inlino versions.

Vessel has been operating on #2 Diesel Fuel since approximately 1976.

Prior to that time, it -used PS-300 ? fuel oil for steaming and shif ted-to #2 Diesel fuel. for manuvering. PS-300 (Pacific Specification) is equal.to AS*M No. 5 i

fuel oil, Commercial Standard C2 12-48 Designation Grade No. 5.

4 The engines were operated at approximately 6000-_7000 HP nach until 1983 at which time the engines were derated from 9200 HP to approx. 6100 HP.

Vessel is currently operating using approximately 4500-5000 HP from each engine.

The derating dropped the BMEP from 213 to 158 psi.

-Prior to the deratin*g, and while burning #2. Diesel Fuel, average firing

- pressures were approximately 1100 psi with average cylinder exhaust temperatures of 9000 F.

This was associated with-the engines operating at 398-400' RPM,

maximum fuel rack of 30MM and approximately 12.5 psi of Manifold pressure.-

Af ter derating and resumption of service early 1983, average firing pressures -

0 were approximately 880 psi with average cylinder exhaust temperatures of 650 F.

This was associated with the engines operating at 385 RPM, maximum fuel rack of 23 MM and approximately 13 psi of Manifold pressure.

The vessel has had poor experience relative to the cylinder heads.

The major problems concern warpage and cracking. For a number of reasons, no proper accounting of cylinder heads by serial numbers, was maintained until recently.

l In 1981, 16 new cylinder heads were procured and installed along with 16 re-built cylinder heads.

l lz l

[.

4 712LH

• L

v;;

g..,.

l'. '

September 12,- 1983 I

Page II During the following two operating seasons, less than 5000 hours0.0579 days <br />1.389 hours <br />0.00827 weeks <br />0.0019 months <br />, had been

?

acc ummula ted.

During the 1982-1983 engine repair period, all 32 cylinder heads were shipped to TDI's repair facility in Oakland for rework. Of this group. 4 were reported as cracked, or did crack during repair procedures, and:

were scrapped.. A fif th head was scrapped because of a thin fire deck. During this repair period, the cylinder heads were all stress relieved and are so marked by an "SR".

By the 'end of this 1983 season we expect to have ac-cumulated approximately 2500. hours on these reconditioned cylinder heads..The-heads will be pulled for inspection during the forthcoming repair period, t

S inc erely,

l f,,

Mc

.x en Assis tan ort Engineer Division' of Marine Highway System Department of Transportation MEZ:c1p 9

k.

e 1

L.Y- % b '

. I d%.) '

A kk'W{.h/,'.l J,'

T4& l{ G.<.

Y N.I.V..*-'00,A & M t}/./2 0 ate bopi,;

'[ggpa)-

Port

' sRPM-T..-

JW Temn. Out 1M

.tani~folc h.n.Y Ma itt FueF Reck Manifold Press.

Engine Propeller Pite'n~~.., m Booster 63T""i' re.

-"l' Servo Luso Oil Tc::r,3 Port Exhaust Remarks Color of Exhads't, smoke,e

< in Eng.

Temo.

Firinn Pressure' CyY.~*l i b40 000 C.( l ik T

, - ~

.a.s oe o e cp C

~~~

. x'.. L.

1. ,3

'00 dCO C. t E A 't.

..a.d.,.~..-,-,<.-',

a ' ~~'

' I r r A ?, n

.1 r A %pv k.

.9 4

no

~~~~iT**-~'

- ;- o

= :s, -

t nR L'a h2O C 1 *p.2 i

• ~~'G"-

.., e A'rO

Lt.te e-_

o e

I

~

P10 1o 4 ~r 0 Ci2 aT)

.: 3 e c:' n iCLtA'

'~

r12

.:2 680

% w..

m.

e13

< > r.'

~7 9 5 C L E :.ra

~'

~

6\\o a w e.

s sia

~ ~ ~ '

/M' C i.e 0 AY/')

C f C. o.,q

/c l

'10 A i o

A

';: r we. t

'(

'. RPM qj.4 (QLu)JWTemp.Out

/ w. c7

~~

i e:~

STBD.

Main Fuel Rack

/1 %

( C' '

' Manifold Press.

f u.'C h Manifold Temo. s Fuel Te.n.

Booster Engine Propeller Piten u ea '

' Servo l F,'.

Lube Oil Temo.

3

~'hTSD.

Exnaust Main Ence.

Temn.

Firing Pressure Remarks. Color of Exhaust, seeks, r;

'Cyl #1 6so 9GO cu

1. 2

6. o o V. 6 s C.ric r2 e3 l-MD 9SO r r E.~ r.

e4

< ~. 'O 2u9 C G v 9 C. a,. 't s5

aO

..3 C

sso

'a ?

l

.A

. q f? !.

47 s

\\,-., s '?

e, "..

g8 1

/3 *, S

=

m i

i.cc -

,9 a

^

1. 10

~ ~. '.

I ss. O

(.

r_

~~

..G

.I r ', 0 i

(Eat all

..A o 6so C.tt u

'" #12

"~

al3 M

eCo C(cia n14 w

e.t O

,C tc_ n R

~

Ir*

I a=

l 570 C' UR v+%eeao.-wainnece-- Por t Starboard

/c l

Co I

- A' O d L E.C.R Remarks:

t i

' 5

. \\. !,

By

.s-

% b,i Engine k

s e

.o.

e

-"W W

..W$

v3.

+-

e, o c N,

t 4,

t 4

'[

EVALUATION OF THE OPERATIONAL AND l

. MAINTENANCE-HISTORY OF, AND RECENT MODIFICATIONS TO, THE MAIN ENGINES IN THE M.V. COLUMBIA t

J j

SES Report No. 123-01 l

h Prepared For:

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities State of Alaska Division of Marine Highway Systems P.O. Box 1467 Juneau, Alaska 99802

. Prepared By:

Seaworthy Engine Systems, Inc.

36 Main Street Essex, Connecticut 06426 April 1983 y

- ERRATA SHEET -

5

^

EVALUATION-OF THE OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE HISTORY OF, AND RECENT: MODI FICATIONS TO, THE MAIN ENGINES IN THE' M.V. COLUMBIA SES REPORT NO. 123-01, APRIL 1983 J

1.

Add:

Pg 2-2 (after'last item in 3.):

- The new C-17 turbochargers must be properly matched to the

J engine revised performance. ratings.

- The turbocharger installation shall include such modification-as necessary to maintain the waste heat recovery systems at present output level.

2.-

Add:

Pg 2-2:

Word " Carbon"

- combustion chamber carbon deposits 3.

Correct:

Pg 2-7 (Table 2.2):

Column Predicted By Fuel Rack (2)

Entry should' read:

28.3/6200 BHP 4

Correct:

Pg 2-12 (2nd paragraph, line 11):

Omit "the fact that" where repeated-5.-

Correct:

Pg 2-14 (Table 2.4):

Column 385/4680/135.2-Halter Marine _ Test Entry should read:

390/5521/147 6 '.

Correct:

Pg 2-16 (1st paragraph, line 13):

Sentence should read:

Racing of 5284 BHP /385 ERP.M 7.

Correct:

Pg 2-18 (lowest curve):

Entry should read:

3/25/83 Test Data, BHP By Rack, Figure 2.1, Fuel By Rack (Ref.~No. 3) 0.

Correct:

Pg 2-21 (1st paragraph, line 4):

Sentence should read:

........ Appendices F and-G:

.9.

Add:

Pg 2-24 (Table 2.7)

- Omitted - 'If,

- Vertical columns should read:

Left Bank TC Right Bank TC Average-[

TC 10.

Correct:

Pg 3-32 (1st paragraph, line 3):

Omit "ge.nerating time" Sentence should read:

(5)..........ginal planning records show that Ori for the five

P,,7 A

q

(,(*

i F

3..

TABLE OF CONTENTS-i Section' Pg

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

1-1

1.1 Background

1-1 1.2 Executive Summary 1-2 2.0:

ANALYSIS OF DE-RATED ENGINES AND NEW 2-1 TURBOCHARGERS 2.1 Engine Performance 2-5 2.2~-Turbocharger Performance 2-20 2.3 Post Trial Performance 28-3.0 HISTORICAL REVIEWS-AND ANALYSIS OF 3-1 COMPONENT FAILURES 3.1 Introduction 3-11 3.1.1 Data Sources 3-l' 3.1.2 Time Period 3-2 3.1.3 Chronological Methodology 3-2 3.2 Maintenance History Tabulations 2 3.3 Summary of Maintenance / Failure History 3-7 3.3.1 Cylinder Heads 3 3.3.2 Cylinder Liners 3-11 3.3.3 Pistons 3-15 3.3.4-Master and Link Connecting-Rods 3-16 3.3.5 Camshafts 3-20 3.3.6 Main Bearings 3-20

-3.3.7 Cylinder Block 3-21 t

3.3.8 Major Overhauls 3-29 3.3.9 Turbochargers 3-29 3.4 Summary of Findings-3-30 4.0 ESTIMATED POTENTIAL REDUCTION OF COMPONENT 4-1 FAILURES AFTER ENGINE DE-RATING 4.1 Introduction 4 4.2 Projected Corrective Maintenance and 4-1 and Expected Component Life 4.2.1 Cylinder Heads 4-1 4.2.2 Cylinder Liners 4-3 1

4.2.3 Pistons 4-4 4.2.4 Master Link and Connecting Rods 44 4.2.5 Camshafts-4-6 4.2.6 Main Bearings 4-6 4.2.7 Cylinder Block 4-6 4.2.8 Major Overhauls 4-8 4.2.9 Turbochargers 4-8 4.3 Additional Modifications and Corrections 4-9 of Problems Created by Engine De-Rating L

4.3.1 Lube Oil Systems 4-9 l

l.

1

7-d -.

'S.,f, r

0i.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

- y CONTINUED i

Seetion~

Page 4.3.2 Cooling. Water System 4-10 4.3.3 Turbochargers 4-10 4.3.4. Waste Heat Boiler 4-10 4.3.5 Engine Performance Optimization 4-11 5 '. 0 REaENGINING-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON Sei OF-HISTORICAL MAIN ENGINE OPERATING COSTS AND EXPECTED DE-RATED-ENGINE OPERATING COSTS 5.1 Historical Main Engine Related cost 5-1 Review and Development 5.2 Propulsion System Modifications Required 5-4 In Addition To Or As A Result of Main Engine De-Rating 5.3 Re-Engining Economic Trade-Off Analysis 5-5 5.'3.1 Cost Elements 5-5 5.3.2 Economic Analysis Methodology 5-r2 5.3.3 Sensitivity. Analysis 5-17 5.4 Discussion ef.Results 5-17

6.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1 APPENDICES

=-

APPENDIX A:

Trial Agenda, M.V. COLUMBIA, March 24, 19S3 APPENDIX B:

M.V.' COLUMBIA, March 24-25, Trial-Data APPENDIX C:

M.V.. COLUMBIA Shaft Horsepower Measurement, Sea Trials, March 24-25, 1983 APPENDIX D:

BMEP Formulae and Sample Calculations APPENDIX E:

Fuel Rate Calculations and Fuel Analysis Report APPENDIX F:

Turbo and Engine Air Exchange Data-and Sample Calculations 4

APPENDIX G:

Turbocharger Combined Efficiency Formulae and' Sample Calculations APPENDIX H:

M.V. COLUMBIA Main Engine Corrective Maintenance Tables in Chronological Sequence APPENDIX I:

Economic Analysis Computations 11 1

l

. c s

i t 1 e

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.

Pg 2.1 Fuel Rack vs Engine Speed DMRV-16-4 2 -

.With'C-17 Turbos 2.2 Plot of Trial vs Predicted SHP & SRPM 2-10 2.3 Comparison of Predicted & Trial Speed 2-11 Power Data 1

2.4

. Locked Rack. Test DMRV-16-4-72033 2-15 9,200 HP @ 450 RPM 2.5 Comparison of M.V. COLUMBIA Starboard 2-18 Engine.BSFC's, March 25, 1983 2.6 DE-C-17-123 Turbo Performance, M.V. COLUMBIA 2-22 March 25, 1983-2.7-Predicted and Observed ~ Air Flow and Manifold 2-26 Pressure vs ERPM 2.8 Propeller Law Power Curves With a Controllable 2-30

' Pitch Propeller 2.9 Compr'essor Matching With a Controllable 2-30 Pitch. Propeller 3

3.1-DMRV-16-4 High Corrective Maintenance Areas 3-6 h

3.2 DMRV-16-4 Cylinder Head & Valves 3-9

.3. 3 Permanent Liner Deformation, Bore Diameter 3 -

3.4 Bore-Diameter, Engine Blocks M.V. COLUMBIA 3-13 3.5 Master Rod & Connecting Rod Box Assembly 3-17 3.6 Upper Cylinder Liner & Block Section'

'3-22 3.7 Cylinder Configuration, Engine Block 3-23 3.8 Nondestructive Testing, Cylinder Block, 3-24 Shear Cracks, Counterbore Lip

.3. 9 Nondestructive Testing, Cylinder Block, 3-25 Delamination Cracks 3.10

-Nondestructive Testing, Port Main Engine 3-26 3.11 Nondestructive Testing, Starboard Main Engine 3-27 3.12 M.V. COLUMBIA, Operational & Maintenance 3-31 Periods 5.1 Impact of Varying Fuel Quality on Engine 5-11 Maintenance, Total Spares, Consumables and Labor e

W iii 4

.[<

i LIST'0F TABLES P_ age Table No.

a

.~

Scheduled vs Actual Engine Performance 2-4 2.1 Load Point Test Duration

~.

2.2 Comparison of Starboard Engine Power Out; 2-7 Predicted by Fuel Rack and ERPM vs Observed Fuel Rack and ERPM and As Measured At the Shaft By Torsionmeter 2.3 Computed BMEP's From Trial Results For 2-13 De-Rated Starboard Engine 2.4 Comparison of Various DMRV-16-4 Engine BMEP's 2-14 at Similar Loads 2.5

-Comparison of Smoke Test Results, July 1981 2-17 vs March 25, 1983

~

2.6 Turbo Air Flow Calculations Results 2-21 2.7 Comoarison of Computed and TDI Predicted 2-24 Combined Turbo / Compressor Efficiency 3.1A Summary of M.V. COLUMBIA Enterprise DM.RV-16-4 3-3 Maintenance / Failure History 3.13 Summary M.V. COLUMBIA Documented Component 3-4 Failure Modes f,!

5.1

. Summary of Estimated Annual Main Engine 5 Related M&R Cost, 1976 to 1982 5.2 Additional Propulsion System Modifications 5-6 Required for M.V. COLUMBIA After De-Rating As Of April 1, 1983 5.3 Fuel and Lube 011 Unit Costs

'5-13 5.4 Summary of Acquisition _and First Year Annual 5-13 Operating Cost Estimates 5.5 Definition of Economic Analysis Terminology 5-14 5.6 Economic Analysis In-Put Data and Assumptions 5-16 5.7 Summary of.Re-Engining Economic. Analysis 5-18 Results for New Engine Operation on MDO 5.8 Summary of Re-Engining Economic Analysis 5-19 Results for New Engine Operation on HF0 4 if

P U

?

1.0 INTRODUCTION

_AND EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

e 1.1-

Background

In ' support of a major engineering change for the power plant l'

in the passenger and vehicle

ferry, M.V.

COLUMBIA, i:onsisting l

of the installation of new turbochargers and the de-rating of the main _ propulsion engines, Seaworthy Engine Sysiems, Inc.,

retained by the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation-was and Public Facilities, Division of Marine Highway

Systems, j

t and tasked with a - review of the adequacy of the de-rating and evaluation of the post de-rating trial perform'ance of the' vessel's main propulsion engines.

As an additional (and related)

task, Seaworthy was 'also requested to review historical main engine

'i component

failures, and where available, associated costs to

-j provide further insight as to the ultimate adecuacy of the 1

engine de-rating in terms of anticipated improvements in reliabil-l ity, performance'and associated operating economics.

The M.V.

COLUMBIA was delivered as a

combination vehicle and passenger ferry by Lockheed Shipbuilding Company in 1974 for the Southeastern Alaska / Seattle, Washington service.

She is 418 feet long, overall, having,an 85.13 foot beam and a depth of 24 feet.

At a

full load displacement of 7745 Long Tons,

-the vessel has a

draft of 17.6 feet.

The ship is propelled by a

twin shaft medium speed diesel engine propulsion plant supported by three (3) 900 KW auxiliary diesel generators, a

combination waste heat recovered / oil-fired steam generating system and two (2) saltwater distillers.

Each main propulsion 1

4

3

' s. fitted with an i

Allis-Chalmers/Escher-Wyss controllable shaft

-and reversible pitch propeller capable ' of delivering a maximum of 9900 HP at. 250 SRPM, driven by a single engine through a 1.8:1-ratio single stage reduction gear.

d 4

The two (2) V-type turbocharged main engines are DeLaval-Enterprise 4

model DMRV-16-4' units (serial nos.

72034

Port, 72033 Stbd. ),

each capable of developing a maximum of 9200 BHP at 450 RPM (prior to de-rating).

1.2 Executive Summary Scope / Objective: To evaluate the historical' operation and mainte-nance and repair of, and the recent de-rating of, the main engine in the State-of Alaska

Vessel, M.V.

COLUMBIA, by the completion of the following tasks:

l l.-

Observation and evaluation of the ve s s e l's - sea trial after de-rating, held on March 24-25,.'1983.

l 2.

Review and summarize historical main engine component failures to date and related maintenance and repair records, including cost data, where available.

i 3.

Analyze and review the existing engine de-rating to identify and quantify, where possible:

Adequacy of the de-rating modifications Additional modifications required to ensure engine reliability Cost in time and dollars to make additional modifications Engine life expectancy once de-rating and additional 1-2

F required. modifications are completed Cost effectiveness of re-engining the M.V.

COLUMBIA

[

versus continued operation of the de-rated engines.

Supporting Documentation /Results: The method of approach, support-I ing documentation and data and results of the completion of the required scope of work are presented in detail in Seei: ions 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 and the Appendices of this report.

g Conclusions and Recommendations:

Supported and substantiated by data and-documentation contained in preceeding sections of the-report, the following pertinent conclusions and recommenda-tions have been extracted from Section 6.0.

Sea Trial Performance; 1.

The engines as de-rated by TDI failed to develop the l

required power outputs as specified in the work scope of the contract authorizing this work.

l 2.

The turbochargers, as indicated by surge problems observed l

during the trials and on subsequent

voyages, are not j

properly matched to the new de-rated engine operating l

l l

profile. Emperical data presented in Section 2.0 further 1

supports this conclusion.

'3.

Numerous other problems of a

smaller magnitude also identified in Section 2.0, have developed as a

result of the de-rating work and for the most part are unresolved.

4.

Adequate air flow appears to have been provided to the engines by the new turbochargers. Brake Mean Effecsive 1-3

'1 Pressures 'at the new-operating outputs are equal to, or less.than, those specified in the de-rating contract.

'3'r 5.

It is possible that some minor portion of the turbo-I charger surge problem is related to the difficulties if beit.g encountered with the pitch scheduling portion of the main engine control system. TDI should be. required to assist and work closely with--Mathers Controls' to I

establish responsibility for and correct this situation.

6.

Based on the above described performance, TDI should be put on notice that the de-rating work to date is i

unacceptable and payment withheld.

Adecuacy of the Engine De-Rating:-

1.

Based on a review of mai'n engine historical maintenance J

and repair data and a

comparison of engine component-

' failure frequency and mode with -the modification accom--

plished as a

result of the de-rating ef, fort, it-is anticipated that only minimal overall improvement in failure rates and time 'between failures or ovechauls will occur. The most significant portion of this improve-ment will occur for those components directly impacted by the improved combustion process which results from the increased availability of air blown for. combustion.

2.

It-is believed that for the remainder of the engine component failures identified in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, those not directly influenced by increased air

flow, little or no change in failure

rate, and probably no L

]p T

-(

~

.-a t

1. -

t more than would be obtained by simply.

running: the s

ori gina'l engines, a t a reduced output'withoutLofficially l

de-rating, will occur. These component ~ failures include:

.- Cylin. der heads - design and manufacturing. defects

- Cylinder liner distortion and wear - due to block,

distortion

- Piston ring distortion and' wear - due to block' distortion

- Cylinder blocks - distortion and cracking

- Connecting rod. bearings - design of articulated connect-ing rod. assembly

- Main bearings - premature wear, high loading

- Camshafts - premature wear i

3.

It is estimated that when equated to

dollars,

.the 3

reduction in main engine maintenance and repair histor-j ical average annual cost resulting from de-rating may approach twenty-five percent (25%).

4 The existing de-rated

engines, after incorporation of the additional- - modifications identified in this

report, can be kept running. almost ~ indefinitely.if AMSH is willing to continue to maintain them at the same expensive

rate, in terms of time and money.

Additional Modifications:

1.

Numerous additional modifications have been identified in Section 5.0 and should be incorporated to enhance L

the future reliable and efficient operation of the 1-5

')

'c.

?

de-rated engines. Some of ' the more important of these

-modifications are a

result of,_

and not in addition

• ffort.

The most significant of to, the de-rating e

these is the turbocharger mismatch which should be l

rectified ~by TDI'by installing new matched turbocharpers at no additional cost to the de-rating contract...

~

Economic Evaluation of Re-engining of the M/V COLUMBIA:

l 1.

Re-engining' of the COLUMBIA for ' operation on Marine Diesel Oil,.

MDO, depending on the acquisition cost i

estimate / remaining vessel life combination considered, can offer a significant economic advantage over continued

].

operation of the existing de-rated engines on MDO.

2.

Re-engining of the vessel' to operate on Heavy Fuel' I

Oil, 'HF0, is a clearly superior economic alternative i

compared-to both re-engining for NDO~ operation or continued operation of. the de-rated engines on MDO.,

j regardless of the acquisition cost / investment period combination considered in the economic analysis. presented in Section 5.0.

._ Ba s ed on the technical analysis and evaluation conducted and documented in this report and the results derived for the range of-estimated re-engining acquisition cost / remaining vessel

' life combinations considered as part of the economic analysis, it is recommended that the M/V COLUMBIA be re-engined for HF0 operation at the earliest opportunity.

1-6

.