ML20090H117
| ML20090H117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1984 |
| From: | Scheidt D KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8407260120 | |
| Download: ML20090H117 (111) | |
Text
_
h k.
RELATED CCP.iiE3PONDENCE, j
SUFFOLK COUNTY, TUury'24, 1984 uswu 84 JUL 25 P3:14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' Sin U :T nr Before _the Atomic Safety and Licensi'6g'iBhard bi In the Matter of
)
)
LONG JSLAND LIGHTING COMPAir.'
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
'(Shoreham' Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
SbFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL _THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Suffolk County hereby. moves the Presiding Officer of this Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(f), for an order compelling Long' Isiand Lighting Company ("LILCO") to produce the documents listed-below.
All'of the reouested documents are relevant and l
material to the' admitted contentions of the County.
As indi-cated below, LILCOhasnotobjectedtotheproductkonofmost
.of these documents, but they have not been produced to the County.
1.
' German-Design _ Criteria for Crankshafts During the deposition of Dr. Pischinger (Deposition tr.
303-104)-(Exhibit A) the County requested the production of the German design criteria'used by-Dr. Pischinger (F.E.V.) in his 8407260120 840724 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
PDR 1
?
j u
evaluation of the replacement crankshafts.
Dr. Pischinger testified in his deposition that his preliminary calculations shosed that the replacement crankshafts are "just on the lund-ary" of satisfying these criteria.
(Id. at 98-99.)
These criteria are the basis for one aspect of the County's conten-tion 1(a).
Counsel for LILCO responded to the request by stating that this design criteria is publicly available.
(Id. at 104.)
The County has attempted to obtain this information from sources other than LILCO but has not been able to do so.
2.
FaAA Calculations In' request. number I.A.l.3 of its February 29, 1984 discov-
-ery cequest, the County requested the production of documents showing calculations used for meeting ABS standards for the size of the replacement crankshaft.
In addition, during the deposition of Dr. Johnston (Deposition tr. 21) (Exhibit B-1),
the County soecifically requested LILCO to produce Dr.
Johnston's hand calculations under the ABS rules concerning the dimensions of the crank pins and journals and crankshaft webs.
This request was confirmed by letter dated June 4, 1984.
(Ex-hibit B-2.)
On July 18, LILCO refused to produce those calcu-lations claiming that they are preliminary and are covered by t 2
an FaAA report produced to the County.
(Exhibit B-3).
The County submits that the requested calculations are not covered in_any FaAA report produced to the County.
In fact, Dr.
Johnston specifically testified that these calculations were not contained in the FaAA crankrhaft report (Deposition tr. 21)
(Exhibit B-1.).
These calculations are directly relevant to the County's contention 1(a) that the replacement crenkshafts do not meet the ABS rules.
.3.
Crankshaft Forging Soecification The County requested forging specification D-4774 for the replacement crankshafts by telephone call to counsel for TDI on July _6.
(Exhibit C.)
The County became aware of this particu-lar specification on July 6 when the County received from TDI the purchase specifications for the replacement crankshafts.
.The County also had previously requested documents showing the manufacturing specifications for the forging of the replacement crankshafts in its February 29 discovery request.
The re-quested forging specification may contain information relevant to the County's calculations under Lloyd's and ABS rules, as those rules take into consideration the type of forging used to manufacture the replacement crankshafts, and this is relevant to the County's contention 1(a).
Counsel for TDI responded to s.
_______________._____________________________________________________._.____.__.____.______________.___._.________________________U
i this' request by stating that he would consider it.
Forging specification D-4774 has not been provided to the County.
4.
Documents Showing Heat Treatment Processes Sn the Replacement Crankshafts ____
During the deposition of Dr. Johnston (Deposition tr. 37)
(Exhibit D-1),.the County requested the production of documents showing the heat treatment processes for the replacement crank-
. shafts.- This request was confirmed by letter dated June 4, 1984 (Exhibit D-2), and is relevant for the same reasons as stated in item 3 above.
Counsel for LILCO responded to this request by letter dated July 18 by stating that the County
'vould haveoto obtain this'information from TDI and that LILCO
'has encouraged TDI to respond as quickly as possible.
(Exhibit
~ 9 - 3.- )
No such documents have been produced.
6.
Details of the Weight of _the Replacement Cylinder Block The County received a copy of the drawing of.the replace-ment cylinier block for EDG 103 from TDI in late June, even though.the County had requested drawings of all EDG components in its February 29 discovery request and specifically repeated the request as to the replacement block by letter dated June 7.
(Exhibit E-1.)
Upon receipt ~of this drawing, which did not
-provide any details as to the weight of the block, the County
. l
~,.
r
.Ii. ~
4-requested documents showing such details by letter dated July 2.
(Exhibit E-2.)
This information is relevant to the Coun-ty's contention 2, that the design of the replacement cylinder block is inadequate, as the additional weight of the replace-ment block may. exacerbate the tendency of the blocks to crack.
Counsel for LILCO responded to this request by stating that she had made telephone calls to TDI concerning this request.
(Ex-hib'it E-3.)
No responsive documents have been produced.
6.
Ma te r i,al,P,r,qoe,r, ties,o f,the _ Cylinder Blocks During the deposition of Mr. Museler (Deposition tr.
t 76-77) (Exhibit F-1), the County requested the production of documents concerning the material properties of the cylinder blocks.of all three EDGs.
By letters dated June 12 and July 9 (SxhibitG F-2 and F-3), the County repeated this request.
Counsel for LILCO stated that she had telephoned TDI concerning this request.
No documents have been produced pursuant to this request.
Similarly, by letter dated July 9 (Exhibit F-4), the Coun-ty requested certain foundry inspection reports and reports on chemical and physical properties of the original cylinder blocks that were referred to in, and at one time were attached to, a March 30, 1983 memorandum obtained by the County through <
P
- discovery.
Counsel for LILO3-has not responded to this request.
These' documents are relevant to the County's contention 2, as FaAA has indicated that the material properties of the blocks may contribute to the cracking of the blocks.
7.
'Glenallen,_ Alaska, Cylinder Block Documents During the deposition of Dr. Wells (Deposition tr. 42)
(Exhibit G), the County specifically requested the production of documents relating to problems with the TDI engines at Glenallen, Alaska, and relevant to the County's contention 2 on cylinder blocks.
The FaAA cylinder' block report relied on the continuous operation of these engines with known ligament
' cracksJas evidence that the cracks in the Shoreham cylinder blocks are unlikely to propagate.
The only Glenallen documents produced by LILCO in respons'e to tnis request do not relate to the cylinder blocks at Glenallen.
8.
M/V Gott Cylinder _ Block Documents By letter dated May 29 (Exhibit H), the County requested the production of correspondence between TDI and the ABS con-cerning.the cylinder block top fractures on the M/V Gott, including' copies of any response by ABS to two TDI letters,
l r
l f
i
[.
. dated October 28-and November 30.
TDI had requested the ABS to
[
concur in TDI's opinion that the M/V Gott would be suitable for r
continued service after TDI instituted various measures to pre-f vent existing fractures from propagating and new fractures from forming.
tio response letters f rom the ABS were in TDI's files when those files were made available to the County.
The Fa AA cylinder; block report relies on the operation of the M/V Gott with ligament cracks as evidence that cracks in the blocks at Shoreham will not propagate.
This matter is thus relevant to the County's contention 2.
Counsel for LILCO has not responded to this request.
9.
Professor Wallace Documents During the depositions of Edward Dobrec (Deposition tr.
^
105)'(Exhibit I-1) and G.
E. Trussell (Deposition tr. 34) (Ex-
_hibit I-2)), the County requested the production of documents written'by TDI's metallurgical consultant, Professor John Wallace, that con':lin his comments or analyses of the R-48 en-gines.
Professor Wallace's consulting work for TDI related mainly to the casting problems that TDI has had with cylinder
. heads, and also involved his views on whether shotpeening would significantly improve the fatigue strength of the replacement
, crankshafts.
Each of these areas is directly related to the.
M
County's contentions.
The County confirmed this request by letter dated June 4 (Exhibit D-2), and specifically indicated which such documents it had already received, either in their entirety or in part.
By letter dated July 3 (Exhibit I-3), TDI stated that it is continuing to search for documents responsive to this request.
No documents have been produced pursuant to this request.
10.
Determinations and Reviews by TDI's Material Review Board During the deposition of Clinton S.'Mathews (Deposition tr. 112) (Exhibit J-1), the County requested the production of documents showing determinations and reviews for the past 36 months by TDI's Material Review Board concerning ccmponents of
'the-TDI. series R-4* engines, including the AE piston skirts,
. cylinder heads and cylinder blocks.
These documents directly relate to the County's contentions 2, 3 and 4 that these EDG components were not satisfactorily manufactured.
This request was confirmed by letter dated June 4 (Exhibit J-2).
By letter dated July 3 (Exhibit I-3), TDI informed the County that it was continuing to search for documents responsive to this request.
Since that time no such documents have been produced.
11.
Camshaft Drawings By letter dated July 2 (Exhibit K), the County requested TDI to produce drawings of the camshafts for the R4 450 RPM en-gine (circa 1970-71), the R4 450 RPM, 185 BMEP engine (circa 1966-57), the R4.450 RPM, 240 BMEP engine, and the R3 375 RPM, 165 BMEP engine.
This request was based upon the County's re-e view of the camshaft drawing supplied to the County by TDI on June 29 pursuant to the County's June 7 request.
TDI may have increased the BMEP of the engines without adequately increasing the dimensions of the camshafts.
These inadequate dimensions may contribute to the cracking in the camshaft galley areas of the cylinder blocks.
TDI has not responded to this request.
12.
DRQR Phase II Reports on Cylinder Blocks, Cylinder Meads,
. C r a n k_ s h a f t_s a n d_ A E _ P i s t o n,s,_
On June 30, the County received the nine-volume set of DRQR Phase II reports.
After carefully reviewing those re-ports, the County determined that it needed the various refer-ences (support packages, d ificiency reports, engineering design and coordination reports, task evaluation reports, re-pair / rework requests and material test results) referred to in the DRQR Phase II reports on cylinder heads, cylinder head in-take and exhaust valves, pistons, piston rings, crankshafts and
-9
cylinder' blocks.
These documents provide the bases for some of the conclusions stated in FaAA's Phase I reports on cylinder blocks, cylinder heads, crankshafts and pistons.
The County identified most of the documents it sought from the phase II cylinder block report documents in a telephone call with counsel for LILCO on July 12 and, by letter dated July 17 :(Exhibit Li, confirmed that request in writing and spe-cifically identified the other Phase II report documents sought.
These documents are directly relevant to the County's contentions 1-4.
On July 23, counsel for LILCO informe,d the County that LILCO would produce the requested deficiency re-ports and engineering and design coordination reports, but did not provide a response as to the other documents requested.
13.
Deficiency Reports In its February 29 discovery request number I.15, the County requested the production of LILCO deficiency or non-conformance reports, and dispositions thereof, concerning the EDGs and their components.
Since LILCO's March 21 formal re-sponse to this request, in which LILCO stated that it had produced a number of responsive documents including all com--
pleted-deficiency reports, few responsive documents have been produced.
By letter dated July 9 (Exhibit F-2), the County _
~
repeated its request for such documents, particularly deficiency reports and dispositions as to the replacement crankshafts, AE pistons, cylinder heads and cylinder blocks.
On July 23,_coun. eel for LILCO responded that she thought that LILCO had produced most of these documents.
The County seeks o
to compel production only of those deficiency or nonconformance reports and disposition thereof pertinent to those four enumer-ated components.
14.
Museler_ Memo By letter dated May 2 (Exhibit M-1), the County requested LILCO to produce a memorandum written by William Museler of LILCO concerning an October 17 meeting among representatives of LILCO, TDI, Stone & Webster, and FaAA to discuss problems that had arisen with the Shoreham EDG.
By letter dated May 11 (Ex-hibit M-2), counsel for LILCO refused to produce this document, claiming that it was protected by the attorney-client privilege i
and the work product doctrine.
By letter dated June 12 (Exhib-it M-3), the County urged LILCO to reconsider its position and indicated that it would move to compel the production of this document.if it were not pcoduced.
By letter dated June 27 (Ex-hibit M-4), LTLCO again refused to produce this document. i-
b LILCO's previous claim that this document was privileged and work product was rejected by the New York State Public Ser-vice Commissio" ("PSC") and the administrative law judge pre-siding over the prudency hearings on Shoreham, PSC Case flo.
27563, In the Matter of Long Island L.ighting Company, Proceed-ing to Investigate the Cost of the Shoreham Nuclear Generating Facility -- Phase II.
(Exhibit M-5.)
In that proceeding, LILCO claimed that the memoranduin allegedly was prepared at the request of counsel and contains Mr. Museler's " analyses,
_ thoughts and impressions of the October 17, 1983 meeting; a
report of two October 11, 1983 telephone conversations between Nr. Museler and TDI personnel; information gathered by Mr.
'luseler independent of. the meeting; and Mr. Museler's thoughts
-ani suggestions on possible litigation strategy and additional prehearing investigations."
(Id. at 4).
LILCO argued that the document."was to be used solely to advise LILCO as to their rights and obligations with respect to the diesel generators in the ASLB Proceedings and other posslble litigation involving the diesel generators."
(Id.)
LILCO also claimed that the
' memorandum "was prepared at counsel's' direction and is a commu-nication made between counsel and a client in the course of professional employment... and has been kept confidential and the-privilege has not otherwise been waived."
(Id.) e-- -- - -
The presiding administrative law judge denied LILCO's as-sections of privilege and work product, and the PSC affirmed that decision.
In rejecting LILCO's claims, the administrative law judge held that "Mr. Museler was atteniing the meeting as Director of LILCO's Office of Nuclear, and in the regular course of his duties as a company employee.
He was not an out-side expert retained to advise Company counsel in pending liti-gation....
The meeting was held to consider the reasons for the alleged generator failures not to prepare for litigation."
(Exhibit M-5 at 2-3.')
The County agrees with the decision of the PSC and urges this Board to comoel the produ'ction of this memorandum.
As the Staff of the PSC argued, "Mr. Muscler's attendance at the meet-ing was..a routine part of his job."
(Exhibit M-5 at 5.)
Docu-ments prepared by Mr. Museler in the normal course of his ac-tivities are not protected from discovery.
Nor does the fact that the memorandum was sent to LILCO's attorneys transform it into privileged material, as a communication is not privileged simply because it is sent to an attorney.
15.
References Cited in FaAA Reports on Pistons, Crankshafts, Cylinder Blocks and Cylinder Heads In its March 30 discovery requests, the County requested the production of all ref arences cited in the FaAA reports on the EDG components.
Although LILCO produced some documents in resoonse to this request, LILCO objected to the production of any responsive documents that were publicly available.
Al-thoingh the County did not agree with LILCO's objection, the County attempted to obtain some of the requested documents through other sources.
Dy letter dated July 17 the County specified the following references that it has not been able to
'obtain:
references 1-1, 1-5 and 1-9 of the 5/84 cylinder head report, references 3-1, 3-2 and 4-2 of the 6/84 cylinder block report, references 2-3 of the 6/84 piston report on thermal d'istortion, reference 3-1 of the 5/23/84 AF and AE piston re-
~
port, and references 3-4 of the 4/19/84 crankshaft report.. On July 23, counsel for LILCO stated that LILCO would comply with this request.
The County will withdraw its motion to compel these documents upon their prompt receipt.
16.
FaAA Crack Standard PAO-C-1 and FaAA NDE Procedure 6.2 The County requested copies of these documents by letter dated July 2 (Exhibit E-2) after reviewing other AE piston -..
o e
documents received from LILCO on June 22 that referred to these documents.
These documents are directly relevant to the Coun-ty's contention 4 concerning the AE pistons, as they show how PaAA determines whether a ersck in a piston skirt is televant and the procedure used by FaAA to determine the existence and growth of cracks.
The County received no response to this re-quest until July 23 when counsel for LILCO stated that LILCO would pro 1uce these documents.
The County will withdraw its motion to compel as to these documents upon their prompt re-ceipt.
17 Photograohs of the 9hotpeening of the Replacement These photographs are directly relevant to the County's contention 1(b) that the.shotpeening of the replacement crank-shafts was not properly performed.
Franklin Research Center reviewed these photographs and reported that the surface tex-
-ture of.the shotpeened areas of the crankshaft looked more like grit blasting than-shotpeening.
The County originally requested these photographs from the MRC Staff.
In early July, the Staff notified the County that it did not possess copies of these photographs and suggested that the County request them from LILCO.
By letter dated July f
m_.
9, 1984, (Exhibit F-3), the County formally requested LILCO to produce copies of these photographs or, if extra copies were not available or could not be made quickly, permission from LILCO to inspect the copies in LILCO's possession (Exhibit A).
Counsel for LILCO responded to this request on July 23 by stating that LILCO would permit the County to inspect the copies in LILCO's possession only at LILCO.
When asked whether TDI had other shotpeening photographs, counsel for LILCO stated that TOI was checking to see whether it had any such photographs.
If such copies exist, the County seeks to compel
.their production.
Suffolk County respectfully requests the Presiding Officer of t6e Board to compel LILCO to produce copies of the documents listed above as soon as possible.
These documents are needed for analysis and possible use in connection with preparation of the County's pre-filei testimony, which is due on July 31.
The County's counsel has been attempting to coordinate discovery with LILCO's counsel on an efficient basis, and almost all dis-covery has been provided without recourse to the Board.
The exigencies of time now unfortunately require such recourse for the foregoing especially relevant and important documents.
.i.A'
y e
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
~
Herbert H.
Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Alan Roy Dynner Douglas J.
Scheidt MIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for suffolk County July 24, 1984 Q
. I
EXHIBIT A 9
8 o
C.-
I l
OFEC A1 ~ 1ANSCr?T PROCIEDENGS 3EFORI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
)
Unit 1) 0 Deposition of Franz F. Pischinger New York, New York Thursday, June 21, 1984 m
mu g
j ALD85CN PEFORiiNG 0
0
98 1
'fs e 1
A Yes.
Under the German code, do the Shoreham
?
Q r
af 3
diesel engines satisfy the requirements of the German 4
code?
5 A
It's just on the boundary.
If you ask me 6
th a t w ay, if I would design a crank shaft in Germany for 7
this angine, it would be a little thicker.
8 C
A little thicker?
9 A
Not only of this engine.
Of others, It is a fact that is known in the -- well, under 10 too.
engine manuf acturers, this is a more conservative cede.
11 12 Maybe it will be given up one day.
h I understand you think the German code is 13 C
14.
more conservative than any other code.
15 A
It's a fact.
16 0
Dr. Pischinger, with respect to your use 17 of the German code, was it just with respect to the r-18 crank shafts, the replacement crank shafts?
Well, this is one of the main topics.
19 A
20 0
I understand.
My question is a little 21 bro ade r.
I want to make cure we were on the same wave I asked if under the German code, the three 22 length.
4 9
i ALDERSON REPoMT1NG COMPANY,INC.
20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628 9300 u-
v -.
99 r
. 4 1
Shoreham diesel engines meet the requirements of that 2
code?
j 3
My question is not limited just to the 4
crank shaf t.
5 MR. STROUPEs Talking about the entire 6
engine.
7 THE WITNESS:
Well, there is no such 8
genersi code which covers all parts of the engine.
9 Q
When you nald to me that it's just on th e 10 boundary, were you referring to the crank shaf ts?
11 A
Crank shaft, yes.
12 0
Any other component?
- Q 13 A
No, the crank shaft.
I 14 A
When you sa,y 15 A
The bearing, for instance, just to give 16 you an example, the load on the bearing of the 17 connecting rod of the lower large bearing, this is agsin 18 a very conservative bearing.
19 The German bearing loads are higher g
20 u su all y.
So, engine practice is a little different, 21 according to experience.
But I am aware of it.
At the 22 moment, I am just beginning with a comparison of all the 9
ALDER $oN RFPoRTING COMPANY,INC.
20 F ST., N.W., W ASHINGToN D.C. 20001 (202) 828 9300
~ ~, _ _,
103 N
you have to make certain 1
A No.
We have to 2
assumptions because you need in-depth pressure 3
measurements in such engine.
If you do not have it, 4
you have to assume it.
5 0
Has that data ever been supplied to you?
6 A
I think this data, pressure measurement at 7
3900 rpm are not in my hands.
No.
8 Q
What measure rating did you assume in your 9
calculations at 3900 kw?
10 A
You mean peak pressure?
11 Q
Yes.
11 A
I do not know it by heart.
h 13 0
You don 't recall?
14 A
No.
15 0
Is it fair to say, Dr. Pischinger, that the 16 assump tions you made in your calculations at 3900 ku 17 were conservative estimate 2, in your opinion?
18 A
Yes.
19 MR. MILLEBs Mr. Stroupe, we would request a 20 copy o f the German design code that hac been ref erred 21 to by Dr. Pischinger?
MP. STROUPE:
F.r. Miller, you know our 22 D
ALDEPSch MEPoRTING COMPANY,1NC.
20 P ST., N.W., W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628 9300
r-104
- df 1
position on things that are a matter of public reccrd.
2 Dr. Pischinger has indicated it is published.
In that 3
situation, our responsible has always been, it is as 4
available to you as it is to us.
5 THE WITNESS:
That's true, you know.
8 ER. STROUPEs And Dr. Pischinger agrees with 7
that.
8 THE WITNESS:
I just wanted to -- it's nct i
9 even the newest literature.
It's about ten-te-fif teen 10 years ago.
If you take Japanese figures, they are much 11 more recent.
12 0
Xuch more what?
f"3
. 13.
A They are published -- well, a few years ago 14 only.
15 0
Japanese codes is mere recent?
18 A
Yes, more recent.
17 0
You didn't use the Japanese code, though, in 18 your ralculations, did you?
19 A
No.
But some of Japanese strength figures 20 have been for comparison used in the report cf FAA.
21 Also, gives good back-up of the position here.
MP. EILLER:
tir. Stroupe, we will also j
22 N
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
20 F ST., N W., W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628 9300
-i i
1-t 3
3-i n
g EXHIEIT B-1 i
h t
t
.q t
(
)
r h
n E
5 l
f r
f I
i s
f i
l l
t 1
1
)
i
^^#--
.fl'"= N,.::"p g[31 !!.r.,)F I"I"v A: M;,. s "
9 bwh a.
. =.
e-,h g,
'J BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
--oOo--
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
Unit 1)
)
)
l I
DEPOSITION OF PAUL R. JOHNSTON i
flay 9, 1984 VOLUME I - Aftornoon Session Reported by:
KEMBLE ANTZ, CSR 669 i
ToOMER & ANT 7 CtatIFIED SMost M AND mtmem 'an l
set osamatt etstri PREDERIC R. TOOMER sani emaascoco e. coe KEmet,g ANTE
.... u n e.
21 1
MS.'TARLETZ:
I cbjcet as boing ovorly broad.
Any 2
j calculations is very broad.
Dr. Johnston has made quito a ffewcalculations.
3 4
Could you be more specific?
5
!!R. SCHEIDT:
G Did you uso different peak firing 6
pressures for 110 percent load in any of the calculations 7
.that you performed concerning the replacement crankshafts?
8 A
I believe if you look at the repor*, you will seo 9
that the calculations that I made on the crankshaft were 10 made at 100 percent load, and that the 110 porcent condition 11 was considered by extrapolating from a tost measurement at 12
'R00 KW.
13 So that I would not have used a pressure monsuromont 14 at.110 percent load.
15 G
Was that approximately 103 porcont load?
16 A
108, 109, something like that.
110 porcont load 17 is not, it is not the right load.
I maan 3900 KW is not 18 110 percent of 3500.
You use 110 porcent in the loose senso.
19 It is ron11y I bellove 111.4 percent or something like that.
20 G
Okay.
Are the calculations that you modo concerning 21 whether the replacement crankshaft nicots the ABS design code 22 in writing?
23 A
They are not in the report.
I did do some hand 24 calculations to demonstrate that so they are in writing.
25 0
And how many pages would those calculations cover?
26 A
A couple.
27
!!R. SCHEIDT:
I would request thoso calculations 28 be mado available to the County.
p r..
b i
e f
i r
i l
EXHIBIT B-2 P
l l
e L
u 4
8 6
r-4 i
i i
r I
b b
r I
{
t
[
KzmurArms x, LocxMACT, HILL. Cx2teroruna Ca Px LLtra a r...
... i
.. A r
.... c..
1900 M Svanar, N. W.
W4musworow, D. C. aoose
-.o>...
.......n o..
't=lr,p'
- ~
m June 4, 1984 wanees
, maa 202/452-6774 i
i Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 109 r
BB&T Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Odes:
As you know, during some of the depositions that were taken in t'.a.is proceeding, Suffolk County req'iested the production of the following documents:
- 1..
Documents showing raAA procedure NDE 11.5 (see Itarris depcsi-ion at Tr. 67-68).
'2l
' Documents showing the inspection reports referred to on page 6-1 of the February 27, 1984 raAA report entitled "Investi-gation of Types Ar and At Piston Skists" (see liarris deposition i
at Tr. 67-68).
3.
The report prepared by Mr. Taylor regarding the piston replacement on the M/V Star of Texas (see Taylor deposition at
.Tr. *2).
4.
Iland calculations of Dr. Johnston under ABS rules concerning the replacement crankshafts (see Johnston deposition at "r. 21).
Documents showing the U.T.S. of the replacement crank-shaf s, and documents showing the heat treatment procchses for the replacement crankshafts (see M. at Tr. 37).
6.
Drawings depicting the location of the pressure transducer during EDG testing during January 1984 by Stone a Webster and raAA (see id at Tr. 54-$5).
7 Documents showing the results of Dr. Chen's llolter anal'jzis of the replacenent crankshafts (see Rogers deposition at Tr.
28).
KraxrArmex, LocxuAnt, HnLL, Cunzzrornza & PHILLIPS
, Odes L.
Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
June 4, 1984
.Page 2 S.-
Dr. Swanger's report on turbocharger thrust bearings (see Swanger deposition at Tr. 88).
9.
The support package under FaAA's QA for FaAA's report, Design Review of Connecting Rod Bearing Shells (see M. at Tr.
186-187).
10.
Documents showing draft agreements between FaAA and the TDI. Owners Group since January 1984 and documents showing any finalLagreement between FaAA and TDI (see Wells deposition at Tr.
10).
11.
Documents received by FaAA or LILCO relating to problems with the Glen Allen engines (see id. at Tr. 42).
- 12. 'All documents concerning the certification of the replacement' crankshafts by ABS, including correspondence and other documents showing communications with ABS concerning the ents showing calculations made repla:ement crankshaf ts, and do, under the standards of major classification societies concerning
.the adequacy of the replacement crankshafts (other than those calculations already provided to the County by TDI) (see id. at 165).-
Please respond to these requests as soon as possible.
Very truly yours, A13 Doug s J.
Scheidt cc:
Darla B.
Tarletz, Attorney Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
m=
'e l y
_y k
,u r
E 4
3
)
".4.
X
,:4
,,,, =
I.
'{
(
\\
3.
e e
?
EXHIBIT B-3
}~
V 3..
t
,e t -
I.'
h*
A R
)
I.
( -
I'
]
I i
. g.
T
!l' HUNTON Sc WILLIAMS 7o7 EAST MAIN STREET P. o. Bo x 153 5 aooo PENNSYLVANpA AVENUFw M W.
RtcuxoNo. VIRGINIA 23212 299 pama AvtNut p.o somreaso NEw voan. htw voan sos 7*
L was=iNovoN. o c toose TcLepNoNs ria-soo eroo
' tettraoNr mor essosoo Tets phon E 804 +788 8200 TELEX 75470s sta souves onAho avshuc TWX-7lO 956-OO61 e o a t suito.as = o. som ice uns aNortts, s.uronNia soots mattiene. NonTN camouNa a7602 tELEpwoNE 213.e:7-3o5a TELE *MoNC 989-828-9371 FinST TENNESSEE SANM SU4LoINo July 18, 1984
-No v.<tc.vc~~c..'
m o== a s
. res, v....N....N vowc a
. 37.oi
. o..o 3...
No#FoLM, Vs9at eA 23Ss4 TELEpwoNE 6*S 637-4 3 e 24566.3
,,L, o
8494
- o...c, o,.L FEDERAL EXPRESS l Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq.
Kirkpatrick,'Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
.8th Floor Washington,:D.C.
20036 Long Island Lighting Company Docket No. 50-322-OL Document Discovery Requests
Dear..Doug:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to some of the questions you raised in your July 9, 1984 letter to me.
June 4, 1984' Follow-up Document Discovery Request 1.
Item 4 - LILCO continues to object to production of preliminary hand calculations that are covered by a final report produced to the County.
The Board's February 22, 1984 Bench Order made it clear that this litigation is not to be conducted on the basis of preliminary calculations, but final reports.
2.
Item 5 - LILCO has encouraged TDI to respond as quickly as possible to the requests for documentu showing the heat. treatment process for the replacement crankshafts on the Shoreham EDG's.
3.
Item 10 - No documents exist responsive to this request.
- 4.
Item-ll - Enclosed you will find a document responsive to this requirement.
.~-
j II U NTO N 6c WILLI AMS i
LDouglas J.
Scheidt, Esq.
Page 2 July 18, 1984 1
June 12, 1984 Follow-up Document Discovery Request il.'
March ~30 Request No. I - As set forth in my letter
" dated May 22, 1984.to you, LILCO continues to object to the
. production.of documents that are available to the County.in the
~
.publicidomain.
In_your June 12,-1984 letter,.you indicated that~the County had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain several
.EPRI reports -(Request Nos.
I.A.,
13, 15 and B.10).
Enclosed you will find a' copy of the document responsive to Request No.
I.A.15.. As I indicated to you in our conversation by telephone
.onJThursday,; July 12, 1984, the'other two reports (Request Nos.
- I.A.13?and B.10.) are documents'available through Failure LAnaly, sis Associates for-a fee.
It is my understanding that
- FaAA would_ require a fee for this material'no-matter who requested it, including LILCO.
As I indicated, the fee is $100 for.the. manuals-responsive to those discovery requests and
$4200 if-the listing of.the computer program is included.
~LILC01 objects to. assuming the responsibility for these costs, L,
but'will facilitate production of the' documents if the County E=
Lagree.s to pay the nece.ssary fees.
2.
-Request'for production of minutes, etc. regarding the meating attended by Dr. Chen concerning the engine b]ocks - As I told you in our telephone conversation on July 12, 1984,_no documents. exist responsive to this request.
__y C
.3.
Request for a: copy of the table of loads and graphs referred to by Mr. Museler in his deposition - As I indicated to you in our telephone conversation on Ju.'y 12, the table of
>1 loads 1can.be found in the FSAR which has already been furnished
.to;the County.-
February 29 Documents Discovery Requests
'1.
Contention I.6 - This request asks fori" blueprints,
,,u specification sheets, operating histories, quality documenta-b tion _and test records,-provided by:TDI to the TDI Owners' Group.".
Your July 19, 1984 letter merely indicated that the tCounty'has never received a " satisfactory response" to this request.
LILCO.'s records show, howeJer, that the County has 1
received.-documents responsive to'this request including a copy ofHthe component tracking list, drawings'and other documents available'for the County's review at TDI's office.
4..
. Contention'I.21(a)
LILCO responded to this request
. by providing_the County with.a copy of the DRQR program component tracking list and all final TDI Owners Group reports.
LAs you pointed out, LILCO objected on March 2:1, 1984 to 1
D A
=k.-
IIUNTON & WILLI AMN Douglas J..Scheidt,~Esq.
Page 3 July 18, 1984 producing any other documents on the grounds that such production would be burdensome and oppressive.
In light of those objections, you are now defining a new request for documents.
LILCO objects tc this request because it is outside the time period allowed for discovery and does not qualify as a natural follow-up request from a deposition or document already provided to the County.
It the County did not agree with LILCO's March 21 objection, the County had. ample time to reformulate its request before the close of discovery.
Privileged Documents LILCO has not withheld any documents pursuant to a claim of either attorney client or work product privilege that would be responsive to any of the County's document discovery requests except as noted in the letter dated May 11, 1984 referenced on pages 2-3 of LILCO's May 31,-1984 Response to the
' County's March 30, 1984 Requests.
LILCO will contin,ue to respond to your inquiries as soon
- as' po'ssible.
Sincerely, MC@y M
Darla B. Tarletz 226/669 cc:
Mr. Bruce Germano m
~,, -
-,,-w,,,,
-c,<
,e
EXHIBIT C a
S
.9 4
g.
EEE9EAEEEE TO:
Suffolk County /Shoreham File FROM:
Douglas J.
Scheidt DATE:
July 6, 1984 RE:
Telecon with David Ross
~ 1.
(a) I referred Ross to my 6/7 letter requesting Ron..to confirm that the drawing of the replacement crankshafts that we received, 03-310-05-AC, was the same as the drawing to which the replacement crankshafts were manufactured,
-(b)' informed him that the ABS correspondence and the TDI purchasing department files on the replacement shafts indicated that the shafts approved by ABS and the manufacturing specifica-tions referred to drawing 03-310-05-AK.
Ross said he would check.into it.'-
2.
I also reminded Ross that we had requested everything sent to ABS, including the drawings, and that the ABS corre-spondence indicated that ABS returned approved / stamped drawings to TDI.
I requested that we be provided with such drawings unless we already had them.
- 3. I also requested forging specification D-4774
-(referred to in the purchasing department files).
m
'kll u
1 l-t ai s.
EXHIBIT D-1 a
l i
?
L-o
's i
. % ' m. %,_
m.o...
%=fim e c u [o b i: = sh U
ub. c I,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j
--oOo--
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
Unit 1)
)
)
DEPOSITION OF PAUL R. JOHNSTON May 9, 1984 VOLUME I - Afternoon Session Reported by:
KEMBLE ANTZ, CSR 669 t
TOOKER & ANT 7 CERT tFIED SHORT M AND REPOR 'RS se neanutT stutt?
FREDERIC R. TOOKER SAN rnamosco ssios KEMBLE ANTZ 44958 3020sto
37 o
1 A
Not to my knowledgn.
2 G
Do you know whether the chemical composition of the 3
replacement crankshafts is the same?
4 A
I don't know.
Ne didn't, as I understand, I don't 5
know that we did any testing of the chemical composition.
6 The parameter that we were interested in is the 7
ultimate tensile strength which is in fact dependent upon the 8
chemical content, but to measure the ultimate tensile strength 9
one goes directly to the parameter that is of interest for 10 your analysis.
11 Ultimate tensile strengths were measured from all 12 three of the crankshafts and those measurements were the 13 measurements that I had available.
-14 Whether additional chemical content analysis was 15 done or not, I don't know that it was.
I would not have 16 any recommendation that it would need to be done.
17 MR. SCHEIDT:
Like to make a request at this time 18 for documents that show the ultimate tensile strengths of 19 the replacement crankshafts as well as documents showing the 20 heat treatment processes for the replacement crankshafts, 21 as well as documents showing the methods of forging of~the 22 replacement crankshafts or the. type of forging.
23 MS. TARLETZ:
Counsel, to the extent that they have 24 not already been produced or do not fall within the Board's 25 exemption from production of calculations.and workpapers, 26 if the results are not incorporated in the final report, we 27 will take it under advisement.
28 MR. SCliEIDT:
G Do you know whether the crankshafts
t' EXHIBIT D-2
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PMOFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1900 M STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 s4me BRICKELL AVENCE TELEPHONE:(SOS) 482-7000 3500 OLTYER BUILDINO M8Auz. Prom 1DA S3 sal PITTEBUROH. PENNSYLVANIA 18999 (005; M4 *M (439) 865*6600 June 4, 1954 w mm. n:RBCT DIAz. NUMBER 202/452-6774
- Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
David E.-Ross, Esq.
Guggenheimer.& Untermyer 80 Pine Street New York, New York 10005 Re:
EDG Discovery Gentlemen:
During.the deposition of Maurice Lowrey on May 10, Mr.
Lowrey referred to cracking that occurred in cylinder blocks on engines on the Bhiel "irader, the Bhiel Traveller, the Aleutian Developer, and engines at Glen Allen, Alaska, and at Johnston Island.(see Lowrey deposition at Tr. 16-18).
Suffolk County
'hereby' requests that it be provided with copies of documents addressing or referring to the cylinder block cracking on these engines.
~During the depositions of various other TDI employees, the County also requested that it be provided with the following:
1.
Documents showing determinations and reviews for the past 36 months by TDI's Material Review Board concerning com-ponents of TDI series R-4 engines (see Mathews deposition at Tr.
112).
- 2..
Documents listing the safety-related components of the Shoreham diesel engines (see Wilson deposition at Tr. 50).
3.
Documents showing the number of cylinder heads that
~have.been-in the field and then repaired by TDI either at the Stockton or Oakland facility over the past three years (M. at
-34).
4.
Documents from TDI's Purchasing Department relating to the three' replacement crankshafts at Shoreham (M. at 24).
S.
Documents establishing or setting forth the acceptance standard for magnetic particle testing of cylinder heads at TDI (see Dobrec deposition at Tr. 48-49).
--..~
s
'wg ExmxPATRICE, T A RT,. B r:1,ICumzzroruza & Puxnares
- Robert
- E. S'mith,fEsq.
s 2
- David E.J Ross,-Esq.-
- June 14, 1984
-Pagej2 NW 6'... D'ocuments' tihat update Dobrec Exhibit No. 1, "4 Valve N
^
Steel: Head-03-360-030-OF"'(id. at Tr. 80).
L7.
Documents written by Professor _Wallace to TDI con-
- tainingcomments?oranalyses3oftheTDI. series _R-48diesg)
. engines (id.'at Tr. 105; Trussell deposition at Tr. 34).-
8.
Documents showing the results of test bed tests
- performed.by TDI on the replacement.cranksh'afts,tand. documents m
showing the.results_of tests of'the AE. piston on the TDI R-5-V12
- diesel engineL(see Trussel deposition at Tr. 67-70, 122).'
9.-
Documents showing calculations performed by Mr.
2 U..
' ';Beshouri.regarding the replacement crankshafts (see Beshouri
-depositioniat Tr.c41).
TDI1on AE pistons'-(see Yang deposition ~at Tr. 72).gy performed by 310. : Documents showing stress test calculatio k.
111./, Calculations.peiformed by TDI on R-4' cylinder heads e '
c -
1 manufactured byLTDI_-(see Yang: deposition at-Tr.-81-83).
~
J12. ; Documents 1 showing calculations-performed by TDI on side
__ forces exerted'byf_the_ piston on a liner in series.R-4 engines, f'
. allegedly' proving.thatsuchforcesaresoinsitnifican.tthgp
~tegting isinot' required.(see Lowrey depositio it Tr. 61).-
11/~
LILCO.and TDI previously provided the. County with. letters written:by.. Professor Wallace to-TDI dated 9/26/77, 4/15/83, 11/5/79,.5/19/82, 3/11/82, 9/12/83,.and portions of letters dated c,s s l/12/79, 3/14/79, 4/1/80, 7/15/80, 12/14/31, 10/20/82, and 71/17/83: (first.2 pages cnly).
Please provide: complete copies of those letters-which-were provided only.in part, and copies of-any
~ other letters from-ProfessorEWallace, in addition to those al-
. ready-provided to the County.
'2/
The County already has'been provided with one document by M.
R..Lowrey, dated 1/21/82, entitled "R 8.RV Pistons Using 13
" Washers Per? Bolt - Ref.-2/18/81 Cales."
3/:
The County has already been provided with~a four-page_ set of
. engine _ calculations'by P.. Leach of-TDI, dated 1-28-81, entitled
- " Comparison of? Restraining Force on Top Range of Cyl. Liner with
- Side Thrust Exerted by' Piston."
.1
_,_..--...__...-._.._,.__,_.u-...._._
1 EtrxPArmcx, IecunAR, HILL, CnR12Toruza & PurLLres
. Robert. E. - Sinith,' Esq.
- David E. Ross, Esq.-
.' June 4, 1984 Page'3 -
l P.
- Please respond to these requests.as soon as possible.
Very truly yours, (er<3 o,u,.~
- c!.L. w.Z
, s -
Dougla's J. 5cheidt
~
cc:-' Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
Odes-L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
._ Darla.B. Tarletz, Attorney p
h e
l \\.
?
m.
W f
p L
(
L M
w
W-
)
I I
4 1
1 EXHIBIT E-1 k
4 f.'
i-i
,__._._---m-
- ~ ' ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ' " -
d' Y
Kingiurnicx, LocuirAur, HIIJo, CunisToi>iten & PiiiLLii>s A PARTN ERMHIP INCLLDING A PROFEhNION AL 4 0Ma'utLtTtuN 1900 M STREET, N. W.
EstIINoTox, D. C. coo:x, 1428 BRICKELL AVENt'E TELEPIIONE: (202) L52-7000 1300 OLIVER Bt;ILDING M1AMI, FIDRIDA 33131 PITT!iBtTGII, PENNSYLVANIA 13222 (308) 374-8112 (412) 353-6500 WRITERh DIRECT DIAL Nt*MBER (202) 452-6774 June 7, 1984 Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
David E.
Ross, Esq.
Guggenheimer & Untermyer 80 Pine Street New York, New York 10005 Gentlemen:
This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with David Ross this morning.
As you know, pursuant to request number I.9(j) of Suffolk. County's February 29 document discovery requests, the County requested the production of "[b]lueprints and material and manufacturing specifications and toler-ances
" of the camshaft for the TDI EDGs at Shoreham.
The camshaft drawing provided to the County by TDI does not contain sufficient dimensional data.
Please provide the dimensional or manufacturing drawing or blueprint drawing of the camshaft.
Pursuant to request number I.9(f), the County also requested the production of drawings of the cylinder block for the TDI EDGs at Shoreham.
As you know, since TDI provided the County with the drawing of the R-4 cylinder block, Lilco has decided to re-place the cylinder block of EDG 103 with a different design of cylinder. block.
Please provide the. drawing (s) requested in request number I.9(f) for the new cylinder block.
The 12-inch crankshaft drawing received by the County is drawing number 03-310-05,-Revision C.
Technical data received by-the County shows that the replacement crankshafts at Shoreham may have been manufactured to a different revision of that draw-ing.
Please confirm to me the drawing number and revision to which the replacement crankshafts were manufactured and, if that drawing differs from the drawing received by the County, please provide a copy of that drawing as soon as possible.
c-
t Rob rt E.-Smith, Esq.
Juna 7, 1984 Pags Two As we discussed today concerning the County's deposition of Harold V.
Schilling, TDI will not oppose the subpoena ordering the deposition, and your firm will accept service of the subpoena for Mr. Schilling if and when you are retained.
You mentioned, however, that the time period for the deposition that is indicated in the subpoena (i.e., June 6-12) is not 90c0 for you but that the week of June 18 is better.
I believe that week may be sat-isfactory for the County and will get back to you to confirm a particular date.
And, as you discussed with Alan Dynner, if Mr. Schilling insists on California as the location of the deposi-tion, the County may also seek to complete the deposition of Mr. Trussell at that time.
If Mr. Schilling will come to Washington for the deposition, the County will pay his transportation ex-penses and will consider not pursuing the Trussell deposition further.
Finally, I informed you that the County was attempting to arrange an inspection of the EDGs at Shoreham tomorrow or Saturday.
I will contact you when I know when the inspection will take place.
Very truly yours, Douglas J.
Scheidt cc:
Darla B. Tarletz, Attorney Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
7-..
i g
EXHIDIT E-2 t
r-L
r i'.
L KingiuTurex, LocKnAnr, IIILL, CunisTornen & PnILLIPs A PANTNEMststr INCLrpINO A PeorEmmIONAL CORPOHATION 1900 M Srazer, N. W.
%sitisc.rox, D. C. :200m>
1428 BRICE2LL AVENI!E TELEPIIONE: (202) 432-7000 1300 OLIVER Bl?ILI)!NG I'
I ^
II TELEX: 440209 IIIPII 13 (303) 374-8112 (412) 333-6500 WRITERh DIRECT DIAL Nt"MBER (202) 452-6774 July 2, 1984 Darla Tarletz, Attorney Hunton'& Williams-707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Re: 'EDG Discovery Dear Darla By letter to me dated June 22, 1984, you provided Suffolk County with a copy of FaAA Procedure NDE-ll.5.
That document
. refers.to the reference crack standard PAO-C-1.
Please provide the County with.a copy o'f this crack standard.
In addition, provide a copy of NED-6.2 which is referred to in the February 17, 1984 memorandum from Donald O. Johnson to Mike Milligan and Bill Judge concerning his trip to Kodiak Electric Association (Document No. A12758 et seq. ).
We also recently received'from TDI a copy of the drawing of the new cylinder block on EDG 103, but have no information as to the weight of the new block.
Please provide the County with details as to the weight of the new block.
Very truly yours, l
~
q,.c :. t j. -
Douglas J.
Scheidt DJS/ss cc:
Richard J.
Goddard, Esq.
Odeo L.
Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
EXHIBIT E-3 L._
C
-KraxeArarcx, LoCxHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS A PARTNSBBMIF INCLUS so A Peormessonia. ComponArsow 1900 M Srazur, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20o36 use ---~=> avswas.
Tatzenoxz:(sona) 4ss-rooo sooo otrvan sv Ln No wsAuf,FAAR19A senet Prr7s3UnoM, FENNSYLV&MIA sense 9g g,
(SOS) 974 maB (413) 858*GSOO
. wn:Tsn's armact n AL wemman -
-(202) 452-6774 July 17, 1984 Darla B. Tarletz, Attorney Hunton &' Williams 707 East Main Street (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS)
P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Darla:
This will confirm portions of our telephone conversation today in which you informed me that no documents exist showing draft-or final agreements between FaAA.and the TDI Owners Group.
You also stated that you could not provide me at this time with any information (other than that you had telephone calls outs.tanding to'LILCO and TDI) concerning the County's request to
' view'the photographs of the shotpeened crankshafts, or the County's requests for documents showing the weight of the ylinder blocks, the material properties of the cylinder blocks, c
'FaAA's crack standard reference PAO-C-1 and FaAA's NDE procedure 6.2.
We also discussed the County's March 30 request number I for all references cited in the FaAA reports.
Although the County does not agree with LILCO's position.on this request, I am listing below some of the non-publicly available references that the County has not been able to obtain:
1.
5/84 cylinder head report - references 1-1, 1-5 and E
1-9 (specifically listed in my June 12 letter to Odes Stroupe);
2.
6/841 cylinder block report -- references 3-1, 3-2 and 4-2; 3.
6/84 piston report on thermal distortion - reference 2-3; 4.
~5/23/84 AF and AE piston report - references 3-1 and 6-14; and r
^
i
1
~ EraxFATRICK,14CMMART, Hir.x., Canzaroenna & Purs.r.rrs Darla B./Tarletz JJuly 17, 1984 Page Two 5'.
. 4/19/84 crankshaft report - reference 3-4.
j Please provide these references as soon as possible.
You informed me today that you will provide the County with EPRI' Report NP-81-8-LD, which is reference 6-14 of the 15/23/84; piston report and which was requested by the County in its Marche 30 request' number I.A.15.
In addition, you informed me on : July 12 that EPRI Report NP-1830-CCM ("BIGIF Fracture Mechanics Code") '(March 30 discovery request number I. A.13) was:available to-the County for a fee of $100 for the three manuals.and either $4,200 or $5,000 for the listing of the computer program..-You'also stated that the three manuals listed in'the' March.30 request number I.B.10 were earlier versions of
.the manuals: included in request number I.A.13.
The County hereby agrees to pay the $100 for the later version of the
- three manuals.
Please promptly provide the County with copies of these manuals.-
Very truly yours, M1).
Dougl J.
Scheidt s
DJS/ss 1
'cc:
Richard J.~. Go'ddard, Esq.
David.E. Ross, Esq.
?.
~E.
Milton Farley, Esq.
.)-
[5 e
0
+
4 g
e v
-,,,,r ww-,,--r--we-
,-n,-m, nn,
-e--
,e,,,,,,,,-,,-n,--w,4-~,4,-,-v-m, wen ~m--v-nn,
,,-e---,,--,rwo,,-,a
g-EXHIBIT F-1 t
A e
L_._
O::L: C"AL T1ANSCRI?.
R PROCIEDENGS BEFORI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t
In the Matter of:
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
)
Unit 1)
)
I DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM J. MUSELER
(
j ll 1
l.'
Hauppauge,.New York Tuesday, May 22, 1984 l
t
- i r
t$
l, 3
1 lI' gggg h
M _ EEE Q j
ALDERSON P&VRiiNG do21628-9300
76 LJ 1
other components where appropriate.
j 2
For example, cylinder heads, because K) 3 cylinder head studs certainly affect the p3acement cf 4
the cylinder heads.
5 MR. STROUPE:
M r. Dynner, could you give 6
us som e indication of how m uch longer you may be?
I 7-think Mr. Museler has to be somewhere at a certain 8
time.
If he's going to go much past 5, he has to make a 4
9 phone call at 5 o' clock.
10 ER. GODDARD The staff has a few 11 questions also.
12 MR. DYNNER:
I think that I have abcut 13 anothe r hour.
Maybe if you want to take a break now and 14 make y cur phone call, we can de it now.
15 THE WITNESS Bruce, can I ask you?
16 ER. DYNNER:
Let's break.
17 (Whereupon, from 4:59 p.m.
to 5:05 p.m.,
18 a rece ss was taken. )
19 BR. DY N NER :
Mr. Stroupe, before I 20 f orget, I'd like to request that you produce the 21 documents ccacerning the material properties of the 22 three cylinder blocks on the Shoreham engines to which iO-Y m
i ALDEASON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, DA 20001 (202) 528 9300
_. -. _ _ _ _.. _ _. _ _ _ _,. - ~... _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. -. _ _.. _ _
i 77 1
Mr. Hu seler testified earlier.
t 2
C Br. Museler, why did you retire f rom you r fs I 'U.
3 position with the TDI Owners Group?
4 ER. STRCUPE:
Objection to the use cf the 5
word, "re t[ir e. "
There is ne fcundation.
It's not in 6
eviden ce.
It's an inccrrect characterizaticn cf his 7
prior testimony.
8 You may answer the question if you'd lik e 9
to.
10 A
I think I indicated that I was given a 11 new po sition within. the lighting company, cutside cf the 12 nuclea r area.
!O V
13 C
Are there other LILCO employees who also 14 lef t their positions with the TDI Owners Group ' program 15 at apprcximately the same time you did?
16 A
Yes, one other gentleman.
17 Q
Who was that?
1s A
That was Mr. Millikin.
19 Q-Mr. Millikin?
20 A
That's correct.
21 C
Why did he leave the Owners Group prcoram?
2:
A Same reason, although he 's still in the O
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
20 P ST., N.W., WASHWGToN, D.C. 20001 (202) 828 9300
g I-3..
r.
E k
r EXHIBIT F-2 I
-t
- e
_m
KinKPArnicx, LocxuAnT, IIILL, CunisTorunn & PnILLIPs A Phartmansasar sunrosso A emortantonal romenmattom 19o0 M Stacci, N. W.
WAsuixoTox, D. C. 200a0 8488 BRICEELL AVENUE TELEPilONE: (202) 432 =7000 1800 OLIVER Pt.tLDING MIAM1, FIPo'9A 33131 PITTallt30t!. PENNSYLVANIA 83229 (303) 37.*8819 (412) 385 6800 WRITERb DIRECT DIAL Nt'MBEll (202) 452-6774 June 12, 1984 Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
Hunton & Wil)iams BB&T Building P.O. Box 109 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Re EDG Discovery
Dear Odes:
.At the May 24 Owners Group meeting, the participants discussed ABS certification of the replacement crankshaft at Shoreham.
In response to a question by Mr. Laity, Mr. Seaman of LILCO stated that "LILCO did not submit anything y_et [to e
classification societies concerning the replacement crcnkshaft)
(Emphasis added)."
See Tr. 117.
Does LILCO intend to make, or has it since made, any such submission?
If so, Suffolk County requests that it be provided with copies of all related correspondence and other documents concerning any meetings or discussions with the classification societies.
See February 29 document discovery request number I.A.l.3.
In request number I of its March 30 discovery requests, the County requested LILCO to produce copies of the references cited in the FaAA reports concerning the components of the Shoreham EDGs.
Although LILCO has produced some of the references cited in the FaAA reports on AF and AE piston skirts (2/27/84), connecting rod bearing shells (3/12/84), crankshafts (10/31/83), and rocker arm hold down capscrews (2/27/84),
there are additional references cited in other FaAA reports, such as the reports on AF and AE piston skirts (5/84), push rods (4/84), turbochargers (5/84), connecting rods (4/84),
cylinder heads (5/84), crankshafts (4/19/84), and engine base and bearing caps, copies of which have not been provided to the
- County, e.g.,
references 1-1, 1-5 and 1-9 of the FaAA report on cylinder heads.
please provide the County with these references as soon as possible, and the references in any other FaAA
m
~
?I j(I]
^
^
,_a - --
,o
,1
.?
.-g_
j q
u s
j.
~ ~
. LAXPATRICE, loLKHART, Hiz.r., Cuar67arw._t & Part.Ta Odes L._Stroupe,'Jr.,. Esq.}_
^
June 12,'1984 Page-Two m
reports. (e.g., FaAK report on cylinder _ blocks and liners) as soon as they aretavailable.
~
In addition the' County has attempted, unsuccessfully, to
.obtaintflom EPRl'copiesiof:the'EPRI' reports listed as references
~~in the'vdrious3FaAA reports,Lincluding those sought by the County ls March 30 discovery request nos. I.A.13 and 15 and I.B.10.
Please provide these references to the County immediately as they are essential to the County's evaluation of the FaAA s
reports in~which they'are ciped.
In item-10 of my June 4 letter to you concerning various document requests'made during depositions at TDI, I incorrectly
- stated'that the County requested." documents showing any final
~
That portion of' item 10 agreement betwe,en FaAA and TDI.-
.should read as follows:
"documento chowing any final agreement
-between FaAA and the TDI Owners Gro'up."
Finally, in addition
'tofthe document request's noted in my June 4 letter to you, the County also requested the production of any minutes, memoranda, notes or other documents regarding the meeting attended by Ihc. - Chen concerning the engine ' blocks at Shoreham and documents
. showing calculations and,commentsimade by Dr. Chen concerning the Shofeham EDGs and their components.
(See Chen deposition at-tr.185-86, 147)._ And, during the deposition of Mr. Museler, the. County requested copies ofithe table of loads and the graph referred to by Mr. Museler that; illustrated the loading on the Shoreham EDGs during an accident scenario (see tr. 20-22),
written comments by FEV concerning any Owners Group reports (see id. at 39-40), and documents concerning the material properties of the new cylinder block on EDG 103 (see id. at 76-77).
Please provide the County with copies of any documents in response.to these requests as soon as possible.
Very truly yours, Dougl J.
Scheidt DJS/ss cc:
Richard J.
Goddard, Esq.
Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
Darla B. Tarletz, Attorney e
g n
EXHIBIT F-3 f
4
KIRKPATRICK, LocxHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS A PAmTwamouse IncLearmo A Poormesson4L Couron* TION 19o0 M Srazzr, N. W.
WAsaxworow, D. C. 20006 Sean BRICEB1J. AVENUE TELEPHONE:(SOe) 469-7000 asco OLiven egnLogiro MIAMI, MDA 98883 PITTSBURoH, PENNSYLVANIA 35999
. =o )er -e==
c4 S;.. oo 9 July 1984 weiram. nr cr a Ar. Nc====
(202) 452-6774 Darla B. Tarletz, Attorney Hunton & Williams 707 East' Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Darla:
Enclosed, as promised, are copies of the photographs taken by the County's representatives during their June 8th inspection of the EDGs.
A number of discovery matters remain open, most impor-tantly'the matters addres~ sed in my letter to you dated July 2, and my letters to Odes Stroupe dated June 4 (items 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11) and June 12.
Your June 22 letter indicated that documents responsive to items 5, 10 and 11 would be produced during the week of June 25 but no such documents have been provided yet.
The County also
' disagrees with your response to item 4.
The report submitted to ABS for certification of the crankshaft contains TDI's calcula-tions under the ABS rules.
The County has reason to believe that FaAA's calculations, including those of Dr. Johnston, differ from TDI's.
In addition, the County wishes to compare Dr. Johnston's hand calculations against the FaAA report.
Please produce these calculations immediately.
Your response to item 5' (documents showing heat treat-ment processes for replacement crankshafts) is not satisfactory as Lilco is ultimately responsible for production of all documents in response to the County's requests.
As the County has pointed out in the past, if a request is made directly to Lilco, Lilco should produce any documents in its possession and ensure the production of documents in TDI's possession without the necessity of the County requesting the information directly from TDI.
In fact, counsel for TDI received a copy of my June 4' letter and is aware of the request.
Please ensure that TDI responds to this request as soon as possible.
KIREPATRICK, IDCEMART, HII.L, CHRISTOPHza & ParLI,rrs 4 Lilco also has not responded to most of the items listed in my_ June 12 letter, particulary the EPRI reports and documents concerning the material properties of the cylinder blocks.
As the County already has informed you, this informa-tion is essential to the County's evaluation of the FaAA reports, and Lilco has provided no' explanation as to why these reports could not have been produced immediately.
Although Lilco is required to specify the documents itLis not producing under L claim of privilege (see February 29
' request at page 2 and March 30 request at page 1) Lilco has not done so, despite a number of reminders by the County, even though Lilco has indicated that it is withholding some allegedly privil-eged documents (see, e.g.,
Lilco's March 21 response at page 3).
-Please provide 1the County with the required details as to any
-withheld documents as soon as possible.
The following matters relate to the County's February 29 requests:
Reugest I.5 seeks." documents showing the results of failure analyses with respect to the components of the TDI EDGs at Shoreham.".Lilco's March 21 response indicated that it would produce "all final TDI failure analyses in its possession."
Please produce.any non-TDI failure analyses of components of the Shoreham EDGs_-in Lilco's possession that'have not'been produce,d to the County..
The County never has received a satisfactory response to_ Request No. I.6 for documents provided by TDI to the TDI' Owners' Group.-
Request No..I.15 requested the production of deficiency or non-conformance reports, and dispositions thereof, concerning the~EDGs and their components. _In its March 21 response, Lilco stated that it_had produced a number of responsive documents, including all completed LDRs.
Since that time, however, the County has received very few documents, particularly LDRs, respon-sivelto this request.
Most significant are deficiency reports concerning the' replacement crankshafts, AE pistons, cylinder heads
+
and cylinder blocks..Please' produce documents responsive to this request.-
Request No. I.19 requested the production of management reports setting forth the status and adequacy of the design and
-manufacture of the Shoreham EDGs.
Thir request would include summary reports to management (such as to the companies' presidents,
' board of-directors or QA managers) concerning the adequacy of the design and manufacturing of the Shoreham EDGs and their components.
- Such. reports might address general patterns, if any, discovered L
KIREPATRICK, tOCMMART, Hir.r., Cunistornza & Punt.r.res through testing and. operation.
The DRQR reports do not provide the County with the type of information sought by this request.
Please respond.
Request No. 20 requested Lilco to produce design verifications, etc., relied upon to verify the adequacy of the design and design changes of the Shoreham EDGs.
Lilco's response to this request was to produce completed DRQR reports.
Is Lilco relying on other design verifications?
If so, please produce any such documents.
Request I. 21 (a )
sought the production of documents regarding the DRQR review of EDG components conducted to determine their function and potential contribution to engine reliability.
In light of_Lilco's March 21 objections, please provide documents regarding the review of the replacement crankshafts, AE pistons, cylinder heads and blocks that show internal disagreements (among
_Lilco, S&W or LilcO's other subcontructors) concerning the function and potential contribution of these components to engine relia-bility.
With respect to Requests No. I.A.3.4 and 8 in particular, please confirm as soon as possible that all documents showing testing results and the operating experience of the AE piston have been produced to the County, as well as documents showing the changes'made to the corebox in which the mold for the piston skirt interior is formed, and procedures, hold points and specifications for AE' piston tinning (plating).
As always, provide responsive documents to the County immediately as they become available.
As the County's deadline for preparing testimony fast approaches, we expect that Lilco will comply with its discover obligations promptly.
Very truly yours, 6
1 Af L. /c & 4 J-t; Douglas J.
Scheidt DJS/ecf Enclosures cc:
Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
Richard J.
Goddard, Esq.
Odes L.
- Stroupe, Jr.,
Esq.
W a:r
'f.
Yy
-[
l h
{;.'
EXHIBIT F-4 4
I E
i.
s-
?..
t j,
y.
s.-
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS A PamTwammuur IncLensma A Peormeeronat Conromarios f
1900 M Srmazr, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
- same anscamu. Avumen Tatarnown:(son) 4as rooo isoo ouvan mostDino
[
MIAur, FIDREDA 88881 PETTSBL*EoH. PENNSYLVANIA teBSS (306) 974-eats (4aa)ase.eaoo July 9, 1984 WERTEN'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
'(202) 452-6774 Darla B. Tarletz, Attorney Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia David E.
Ross, Esq.
Guggenheimer & Untermyer 80 Pine Street New York, New York 10005
Dear David and Darla:
The enclosed memorandum describes a meeting among Lilco, TDI and Stone &. Webster representatives on March 31, 1983 concerning whether casting. problems exist with respect to the cylinder blocks on the Shoreham EDGs.
Although the memo-randum refers to "foundary [ sic] inspection reports and reports on chemical and physical properties", copies of which apparently were' attached to the memo at one time, none of these reports have been obtained by the County through discovery either at TDI or through Lilco.
Please provide the County with copies of these reportcs.
In addition, the County recently was informed by the NRC staff that Lilco is in possession of the photographs of the shotpeening of the replacement crankshafts referred to in the Franklin report.
The County wishes to inspect these photo-graphs, as well as any other photographs of the shotpeening.
If duplicate copies of these photographs are available, please provide them to the County.
If no duplicates are available, please have copies made for the County in order to avoid the unnecessary expenses that would be incurred in travelling to
-New York to inspect the photographs.
Very truly you.rs, tdL, L. f' L * 0F CONTEF.D.;,E 11600.02 i v/;i:,.-'.Ol; 0F "if ESEL ERCIKJ BIAOK A!C i'E:' ult ?Er. CITEkATO ENGINi:EltINC ITEMS ri.e.r;e:1.*! NLCLtri; PC*.T.E STATION t.%
DL/1 T ICr:TIf;0 COMPANY
.c held in th7 Ser.urity k:ilding Conference Room Present for-
- .! or. 'sc. n !;e c le:
Power Statior.
- e:.-i. 11, 19 C 1 Long Island ui-h. it.t. Cer,n r,
i.C-R. D. Jac.ct ~ (.. ':dalt sr t L'. Judge W. J. Muscle.
M. Schuster C. K. Scar.:n D. D. Te.riy E. J. L:.u ; l.'..
A. Zeuther:
Tran se.eri::e 'e
>.. I:.: rn. U al'.
R. B.)ycr L. I;cHugh R. Prat:
Stone G Uuat ce C.~ r n. ' ::':F C )
h*. Bsrsn:. e#
L. J<
E r s t::.t...
W. Cook J. C. Kaza ycr T. Paulanto.ie A. P. Stsbuti
.! *.'2 " 0 3 E
'I b is ;iarpose of thst conference was to determine if a prob 1cn
-).!
t,..:'
the castings for the emergency diesel generator blocks, and ;.*a:
c, cimr se of action based on this determination.
Secondary functiei vu t m
- tatus the remaining diesel generator upon engineering i t t r s.
DISCUM f D Mr. R. Seycr (f;C Manager) and Mr. R. Pratt (Ciu.t o.i.r Ser.v i ce !!.s:.a.
8 opener; the discussion with a geresentation on the ASTM A-l.6, C!r2.,
' cast i r.>a bl sti;, detailed drawings were revicu. il.slon:: 'ri t h f
.r. :
inspec'i.a, r e g o r t.
- and reports on ch*nic.el ar l physiell pr ig ert b (C-W7 s
e,, '
th Schuster dis,ussed CN field inspectionc perfurned pt ior to tlw meetin;; and the results of the non-destructive testir.g perforr.cd t -., i d in TDi's evaluation of the castinEf*.
Mr. I'r a t t disclosed that prior to leaving the TDI plant, inspections of block castings in house were conductt d and similiar surf ace indications as those evident on Shorehan's diesels ver0 found.
The surface indica r ic n.
were described by Mr. Boyer as "non-ectallic inclusions as a result of the manufacturing process," and he enplained that the) resulted from une.vta cooling of the casting due to transicions in wall thickness.
In no regard did TDI consider these indicetion: os " defects" that requirc.:
corrective actttra.
In addition, Mr. Pratt explained that due to the engine design, the cidting remaics in ec=pressive loading, and therefore eveti subsurface linear icpcefections could not be injurious to diesel operation.
Te support TDI's design calculations, TDI will instru=ent an en;;ine in
'the factory and perform strain g:uge testing to support their calculctic..r..
A discussion ensued oc the need for future inspections of the cactinr.
Mr. Boyer reiterated that these cerfa:e "inperfections" arc not a rcasan for concern; however, to assure the=selves, LILCO should sc1cet! cely map out these areas as to nucher, location, and length of indicaticr.:;
for reinspection at the first refuelin;: cutage.
The rocker are shaf t bolt failure was discu: sed.
Mr. Pratt statcJ th.t El has incorrectly identified the fai?cd belt en a previous site visit. The bolts supplied with the engine are a cor=screial graA 3A,
~
120,000 lb. yield strength bolt and the failure ir ettributed te ar. initisi caterial. def ect that propagated due tc fatigue loading.
Mr. Z:'utnerr.
expressed his concern over this cisinfor: nation, and subsequent c onvc: sa t i en resulted that D1 will supply a complete set of rocker arci bolts, designed for long fatigue life in a higher capacity engine. The nee desi'n g
bolts are machined from ASW. A-193, B7 stock, by TDI.
Cylinder head replacement was discussed and TDI resolved to supply a
recc=sendation and schedule for head replacement, or refurbishiu;,
as options, to Mr. Youngling.
ACTICN RE0l' IRED TD1 (1) Provide trip report with reference to calculatad ble:L design loads, and results of inspections of Shord.cm's diesel blocks.
To be submitted by April 8, 190.
i TD1/LILCO (2) Determine the necessary scope and perform,selec:ive mapping or each diesel block, for use in futurc inspections.
' 70!
(3) Perf are factory strain gauge testing, report te tall.v.
(Subsequent to meeting, it was decided th.-t !. l i. '
and SWEC will inspect a diesel in the TI)I C np na
,1M l.
witness the ter. ting 1 1 orceast crepletc ty Art. !
1
3 oo TD*
O.' Trovide new shaft bolts; in addition, 52.
M'. He g h to provide e letter detailing thc_ design ar.o q :lt acaric o of the new shaft bolts by April 7, 1963.
TDI (5) Cylinder head repliEEment and refurbishing schcduls submitted to LILc0 by April 1, 19G3.
End Notes of Conference
.m, cc:
Attccdect M. ii. Milligan P. J. P.c1Jen S. k'. k'ake field
- 3. Andersen E. S.1jech (cnclosure)
L. Fesegni C. Luckley A. huller R. J. Jaccinte
!!.- M. Rudinef t SR2 (en lost.re)
JC!*/m=d 9
9 I
e 9
i--
t.
g EXHIBIT G k'
2 i
k-
.i
r~..
OF ICIAL T:1ANSCll:?T P10CIEDINCiS 3EFO:1E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
t I
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
)
i Unit 1)
)
DEPOSITION OF CLIFFORD H. WELLS Washington, D. C.
Monday, May 14, 1984
$gM[Illr%E ALDERSCN REFORTNC, (202) 628-9300
\\\\
i 42 i
I, I
i I
I 1
MR. DYNNER:
Mr. Stroupe, we vill request 2
produc ticn cf any and all documents received by FAA cr in connection with the Glen Allen engines and l
3 II1CO 4
their problems, assuming that such documents have net 5
alr ead y been supplied te the Ccunty.
6 MR. STROUPE:
I will certainly take that under i
I quite f rankly do not kncu 7
ad vise m en t, Mr. Dynner.
or whether the list 8
whethe r any such documents exist l
ur. Wells spoke of was committed te writing er 9
that 10 not.
But I will certainly check into that and let 11 12 you kn cv about, A, whether it exists, and B, whether we i
i 13 vill t urn it over to the County.
14 ER. DYNNER:
Thank ycu.
l' r
BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 15 Now, Dr. Wells, in ccnnection with the 16 0
i 17 inf orm ation concerning the cperating or service histcry i
i that you received of Eelaval engines which ycu testified 18 inf ormation supplied to you in f
19 f rom D elaval, was that 20 v ritin g ?
Some of the information has been provided in 21 A
I None of it has the fo rm of f ailure analysis reports.
22
,i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.lNC.
20 F ST. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (200 639300 mE h-o
EXHIBIT H t
p-
. l t.
r Ek M
h KiRKl% TRICK, LOCKHART, llILL, CHRISTOl'1IER 8c PIIILLII'S A l'ANTNhN>lllP INCLUDtMG A Pptortphju.%AL t GJHfHat%TH3N 2900 M Srnerr, N. W.
WsnixoTox, D. C. 20o36 1420 BRICEILL AVENUE ~
TELEPHONE:(202) 452-7000 1500 OLIVER DUILDING F1 Wit, I'1DRIDA 33131 A
P2TTMBUNGII, PENNSYL*.ANIA 13222
.- f303) 074*6112 f412) Met 2500 May-29, 1984 iWRITERb DIAECT DIAL NUMBER 202/452-6774
' David Ross,.Esq.
'Guggenheimer & Untermyer
- 80 Fine Street 4
EDG Ciscovery
Dear David:
Or.. April'28, I informed you that the following documents had been identified and requested by the County during its inspection of.TDI-files in Oakland:
x 1.
TDI service department correspondence files for November.1983'-January 1984, and' July-August 1983; 2.-
TDI failure analyses Nos. 100, 118, 127, 142,.148, 150, 151, and 159; 3.
TDI~ interoffice correspondence files (by subject matter) Nos. 330 (Fly Wheel), 331 (Guard),'445, 450 (Fuel Boost, Pump Headers),.620 (Fu'el Day Tank), 621' (Fuel), and 700-(Stand Pipe);.
4.
DE. file 8T; and 5..
DE Calculatiens 5-2 and 3-2.
Although you notified me shortly thereafter that you had
>made. copies of these' documents and would send them to me promptly (see my letter to you dated May 2), the County has not yet received copies of these documents despite my reminder to ycu during the week of May 7 in Oakland.
Please provide the County with these documents without further delay.
During the week of May 7, I believe that you also stated that TDI'does not have in its possession or control any (i) pressure vs. crank angic diagrams (at 75%, 100% and 110% loads) for the TDI R-48 diesel engines, or (ii) documents showing tem-perature distribution through cylinder heads, piston crown and
m_
f KrREPATRICK, LOCEnART. Hrt.L. CaRraTorur:a & Purttrea
. David-Ross, Esq.
MayL29,. 1984 Page 2
'>=
upper /part'of the cylinder liner.
Please notify me immediately in. writing if my understanding is not correct.
In addition,.you have not responded to other matters raised in my' April 9. letter to you and Mr. Smith.
In that letter, the LCounty requested that you confirm in writing (i) whether TDI has inLfactidisposed of' design drawings of previous designs of EDG
. components,=as you had indicated orally, and (ii) that TDI does
-net.have copies of such previous-designs.. The County also re-
. quested.that you identify any documents withheld under a claim of privilege.
Please respond to.those matters as soon as possible.
Finally, the County.obtained'through discovery copies of two T
' letters',Jdated October 28-and November 30, 1983 (copier of which
- <are attached), from M.
H'. Lowery of TDI to the American Bureau of Shipping
(" ABS") concerning block top fractures on the M/V Edwin H. Gott.
In'those letters, TDI-specifically requested that AES ccncur in.TDI's opinion that the M/V Gott will be suitable for continued service after TDI instituted various measures to pre-Vent 7 existing fractures from propagating and new fractures from forming'.
TheiTDI files reyiewed by the County did not contain anyJ res'pon'se (s )._by~AES toLthese letters.
Please confirm-whether
'suchl responses' exist and,'if so, provide the County with copies of ;all. correspondence between ABS and TDI concerning the block top fractures on-the M/V Gott.
-Very truly yours,
,J wc.&&r c
Dougl s J. Scheidt
~
Enclosures
.- cc :
Odes'L..Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
' Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.
Darla'B. Tarletz,;Esq.
g A
3 1
,e EXHIBIT I-l s
(LM C
-m I
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2
---o 0o --
3 In the matter of
)
)
4 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO!?ANY 1
)
'3 (Shorcham Nuclear Power Station, )
DOCK ET NO. 50-322-OL Unit 1) 6 h
__________________________________)
7 8
9 10 11 DEPOSITION OF EDWARD S. DOBREC 12 May 9,1984 13 VOLUl:E II - Afternoon Session 14 15 16 17 18 REPORTED BY 19 MARION G. KOLB, CSR NO. 4381 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TOOKER & AMT2 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 27 601 MARKET STRECT, SUITE 925 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 p _..
20 415/392-0650
,,yf v. y,,,,,;A.
'ifth*b
.pt h
^
1 exemple, by a rsport?
-2 A.
He writes reports on what be has found, what I 3
can do, equipment that can be purchased.
4 Q.
Mr. Dobrec, when you request P rof essor Wallace 5
to perform a task in the foundry, do you provide him with 6
a purchase order describing that task?
7 A.
No.
8 Q.
What is the process; do you pick up the 9
telephone and call him?
10 A.
I pick up the telephone call Jack and I say, 11 gee, Jack, we have had an armor heat and we are having 12 trouble with sharp _ies, and what do you think is wrong?
13 From that point Jack will start looking at the 14 chemicals, what we have done in heat treat, what we have
~
15 done in mciting.
That's the type of help that we are 16 looking for when we bring Jack out here.
17 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Smith, we would request any 18 written documentation -- f or example, reports that' have 19 been produced Dy Profesror Wallace -- that relate to or 20 concern the R-48 T.D.I. diesel engine.
21 HR. SMITH:
I will take your request under 22 advicement and I would not be surprised if you have 23 already been furnished with any such reports.
24 MR. MILLER:
Q.
Mr. Dobroc, has T.D.I.
experienced problems with exhaust poured bridges cracking 25 26 in cylinder heads in the past?
27 A.
I am familiar with that, yes.
28 Q.
Can you generally tell me whether in your a
TOUdEn & AH'.'t 681 Market Street San Francibco 94105 415/392-065
p.---
EXHIBIT I-2
.f, n
4 3
%w~
1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
2
---o0o---
3 In the matter of
)
)
4 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
5-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
DOCKET NO. 5 0-3 2 2-OL Unit 1)
)
6
)
__________________________________)
7 0
9 10 DEPOSITION OF GERALD EDGAR TRUSSELL 11 May 7, 1984 VOLUME I - Morning Session 13 14 15 16 17 18 REPORTED BY :
MARION G. KOLB, CSR NO. 4381 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOOKER & ANTZ 26 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 681 MARKET STREET, SUITE 925 27 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 415/392-0650 28 FREDERIC R. TOOK ER KEMBLE ANTZ
I l
e 1
Q.
What wac not;d at Shorchnm that you cro 2
referring to?
3 A.
That there were indications in bushings that 4
had run for some period of time in an engine or engines 5
and that they explained that the indications reported to 6
be found in new bushings that had not been installed in 7
connecting rods.
8 MR. DYNNER:
Counsel, if P rofessor Wallace's 9
report is in writing, we request that we have a copy of 10 that produced, 11 MR. SMITH:
I will take your request under 12 advisement, and I also want to note that it's entirely 13 possible that it has already been produced to you.
14 MR. DYNNER:
All right.
15 Q.
Now, Mr. Trussell, is that particular 16 consultation the 'only one that you can recall that took 17 place with Professor Wallace during 1984?
18 A.
Yes.
19 Q.
What consultations took place with P rofessor 20 Wallace during 19837 21 A.
I really don't recall.
22 Q.
Are there any consultations currently ongoing 23 with P rofessor Wallace?
24 A.
Not to the best of my knowledge.
' 25 O.
Are there any failure analyses currently being 26 performed or in process by or on behalf of Delaval in 27 connection with any Delaval diesel engines or components 23 therefrom?
TOOKER & ANTZ 6 81 Market S treet San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
EXHIBIT I-3
c:
4 GUGGENHEIMER & UNTERMYER So PINE STREET,New YoRn N Y. looos e==6 aooans
==6 e-ca ucw von ta6am taea7e Twn 7so set.arte TELCDMONC (2t2) 344-204o ocz.4aoo TELEcopv ta12) D43 3453 July 3, 1984 FEDERAL EXPRESS Douglas J..Scheidt,.Esq.
- Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher a Phillips 1900'M Street,-N.W.
- Washington, D.C.
20036
Dear-Doug:
With respect to Suffolk County's ("SC's") outstanding document requests to Transamerica Delaval Inc. ("TDI") as detailed
- below, TDI. responds as follows:
1.
. Attachment A to March 30, 1984 Request Item IX.
Enclosed is a sales brochure entitled, "The Modern Technology of Diesel Engines."
. Item X.
Enclosed are copies of TDI correspondence with the American Bureau of Shipping.
These documents'are also responsive.to SC's request of May 31, 1984.
Item XI.
Enclosed are organizational charts for TDI's Engine and Compressor Division.
Item XV.
Such documents were produced to SC on March 22 and March 23, 1984.
Item XVIII'C.
TDI has no such documents in its possession.
Item XVIII E.
Enclosed is test bed data for Engine Item XVIII F.
TDI has no such documents in its possession.
7
'2.
Request of June 4, 1984
-Documents responsive to the first paragraph of that
- letter.were produced'to SC on March 22 and March 23, 1984.
Point 2.
TDI has no documents listing the safety-related components of the engines at Shoreham.
2 m
=--c-
(??
=
. Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq. July 3, 1984 Point 3.
TDI has no documents which cumulate the unumber of cylinder heads repaired by TDI after operation in the field.
Point 4.
Enclosed are documents from TDI's Purchasing Department concerning the replacement crankshafts at Shoreham.-
Point 5.
Enclosed is a copy of TDI's " Magnetic Particle (MT) Procedures And Standards For Nuclear Plant Standby Diesel Engine R-Series Cast Steel Cylinder Heads".
Point 6.
Enclosed is the update to "4 Valve Steel Head 360-03-0F"..
Point 8.
TDI has no documents showing the results of any test bed. tests of the replacement crankshafts at Shoreham.
Point 9.
In addition to documents produced to SC on-March 22 and March 23, 1984, enclosed are calculations performed by Mr. Beshouri regarding the replacement crankshaf ts.
Point 10.
Enclosed are "F.S. Calculations".
Point 11.
TDI has no such documents in its possession.
Point 12.
TDI has previously produced all.such documents to'SC.
TDI is continuing to search for documents responsive to Points 1 and 7 of your letter of June 4.
Sincerely,
({
,p
, ' /'
\\W DERtegc DavTd E. Ro s s ' % ----
~
~ ~.. ~
.Encls.
EXHIBIT J-l I.,
1
)
1
+
B! iP.C
- 'llt AT3.'.!! C S Al'CTY li!;D ;,I CENS I:;<' BO/,:ib J
i
- - o ')o - -
In the r.atter of
)
LONG ISLA::D LIGilTI::G Cu!1PANY
)
)
(Shorehara Nuclear Power
)
Docket ;c. 50-333 r.L Station, Unit 1)
)
)
4 l
DEPOSITIO OF CLINTO; S. l4/iTill:llS ItAY 0, 1934 VOLU".C I*
- Afternoon Soncion i
I I
Reported by:
KCitBLC A:;T', CSR 669 2
TCOKCR & ANTZ ca n'et etc tacet
.=c me son,gan toi u.a.goe egg +
sr pr ogmic M. T OOK gm tanees=< ste ssi6g ggggggggyg X
l 8
3 0
!as the "atoria1 14 vies uoard over revivwud the issuo j
of indacations or cracks in ::ylinder blocks of Dolaval I
C n aj a n V S */
i, 4
A.
I don't know.
l 0
lias the !!storial Review Board over reviewed or rade 6
dotorminations concerning indications or crachs in cylindor 7
heads produced by Delaval?
I I
8 A.
I don't know.
g
!!D. DY'llltR :
Counsol, we aro roquesting production of 10 the doeuruntation of datornination and reviews by the Maturial 11 Review !!oard corcorning com9onents of thu R-4 serios Dulaval 12 engines for the past 30 nonths.
13 I' P. S"I't.1:
I take your rerjuust undur advisununt.
14
!!H. DY!!.?C D :
Thank you.
15 MR. RMICE :
Would you road bach the ro,lucct so I 16 got it.
17 (Record read.)
18
!!R. DY!1:4LR Mr. Mathows, I havo only a fuw moro 19 questions and then I will be finished.
20 MR. SMITil That is what you said the lant t i rr.u.
21 ltR. DY!1:ll!R:
Yes. ' 110 had somo rather long and intor-22 ccting annworn, didn't wo,
",r.
Smith.
23 MR. SMITl;:
- won't charactorizu the answorn.
1lhy 24 don't wo tako a broah.
2$
(Rucess f ron 5: 06 p.ra. to 5:10 p.m.)
i 26 MR. DY;1NER:
0 All right, Mr. Matthews, aro you 27 f amiliar with thu raAA report concorning the pictons in thu l
i 28 Shoreham onginos?
f 2
e
___m
5
? Ew
[
r s
h.
EXHIBIT K s
h r
L
h
((IltKl'ATitICK, I A)CKII AltT, IllLL C II M ISTOl'II E lf & l'lIII.LII'S A P AN T M E use H I P IMi l t DI M(i A Pede>FF emmION AL ( O M Pt >ttATid >N 1900 31 STHEET.N. W.
WAstIINGTON, D. f. 2OO:H>
1428 HRICEELL AVENt'E T El.E PilON E '202) 452-7000 1500 < > LIV L H lit ILDING M1AMI, FIDHIDA Til31 PITT%III~NGil. PE NhYlXAN I A 13222
'303 ; 374-Mil 2 WRITERk DIRECT DIAL Nt miler (202) 452-6774 July 2, 1984 David E.
Ross, Esq.
Guggenheimer & Untermyer 80 Pine Street New York, New York 10005 Re:
EDG Discovery
Dear David:
During discovery, Suffolk County obtained from TDI a document entitled "Transamerica Delaval-Nuclear Plant Emergency Standby Diesel Generator Users' Group Meeting of November 30, 1983."
This document also was attached to a December 15, 1983 letter from Mr.
C.
S.
Mathews of TDI to Mr.
C.
W.
Angle of Mississippi Power and Light Company.
On page 34 of that docu-ment (a copy of which is enclosed) is a drawing (figure 5) of what purports to be an AE piston skirt, but the drawing shows only five spaces for piston rings instead of the six spaces shown in the drawing of the AE piston skirt that TDI provided to the County, piston assembly drawing number 03-341-7319.
Is figure 5 incorrect, or does the AE piston skirt only have five spaces for piston rings instead of the six shown on drawing number 03-341-7319?
By letter to me dated June 28, 1984, you provided the County with the drawing entitled " Camshaft, 8 Cylinder Right Hand, 03-350-06 AA."
The County's consultants recently reviewed this drawing and, based upon this review, the County requests that you provide it with similar camshaft drawings for the R3, 375 RPM, 165 BMEP engine, the R4, 400 RPM, 185 BMEP engines (circa 1966-67), the R4, 450 RPM engine (circa 1970-71) and the R4 450 RPM, 240 BMEP engine.
In addition, the County requests that you confirm that the cylinder head drawing preriously provided to the County by
ExameATRicx, LOCMMART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS David E.
Ross, Esq.
July 2, 1984 Page Two 1
i TDI is the drawing to which the cylinder heads currently on the Shoreham engines were manufactured.
If not, please provide the appropriate drawing.
Very truly yours,
%'b [.
Douglas J. Scheidt DJS/ss Enclosure cc:- Oder L.
Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
Darla B. Tarletz, Attorney Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
l O
r,
_ I.4 l
a i
5
+
,1 l
b,I y
)
=
~
N N
1 FULL STA C K_
SKIRT BELL VILLE STYL E 93,34 g. cg. AM
( HEW $7YL E - M A D E MM
-o3 3 4f.o4 -As c4 STING).
FIGURE Li e
k 5.4 g
2.4 7/
(
\\
./g
%w 7/
7 N
N s
N
/ j g) b
~//[yN\\\\\\
s x
\\
d5
~~
[
/ (.
gD
--L
{
'It STACK S XIRT B EL LVIL L E S TYL E 03-34I A E FIGURE 5
- .n 3
. v wry;x m
{'.
b N
M E
i EXHIBIT L P
at '
f p
r 9"
[. -
I
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKIIART, HILL, CIIRIsTorIIER 6e PIIILLIPS A PARTFERSMIP INCLUDINO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1900 M Srazer, N. W.
WASIIINGTON, D. C. 20o36 1488 BRICMELL AVENt*E TELEPHONE:(202) 452-7000 1500 OLIVER BUILDING MIAw!, maIDA 33138 TELEX:440209 HIPH UI (305) 374-8112 (412) 335-6500 wRSTERh DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
.(202) 452-6774 July 17, 1984
~Darla B. Tarletz, Attorney Hunton & Williams (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) 707, East Main Street P'.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Re:
EDG' Discovery
Dear Darla:
This will confirm portions of our telephone conversation on July-12 in which, pursuant to Discovery Request I.22, I requested LILCO to produce the LDRs and E&DCR cited in the DRQR'. Phase..II report-on the cylinder block, specifically LDRs 1224, 2262, 2289, 2083, 2322, 2321, 2197, 2207, 2212, 2218, 2385, and 2384, and E&DCR F-46505, and the results of the material' test of EDG 103, cited ~on page 3 of 3 of the Phase II
-report, which was scheduled to be completed by June 29.
The County also requests the Support Packages referred to in the
-report, SP-84-5-4 and SP-84-6-68.
In addition, I reiterated a long-standing request for LILCO to produce, at the very least, the non-publicly available references cited in the FaAA reports, and I specifically mentioned References'3-1, 3-2 and 4-2 of the cylinder block report by FaAA.
We also discussed the nature of the TERs that are listed in the Phase.II-report on cylinder blocks.
Since that time I
'have reviewed TERs concerning connecting rod wrist pin bushings that already were provided to the County by letter dated May 25, 1984, and have determined that TERs in general appear to-contain information that is of significant importance to the County's~ review of the DRQR and the diesel engine design contentions.' The County hereby requests the production of the TERs cited in the Phase II report on cylinder blocks.
In order to adequately analyze the other Phase II reports, the County also requests the production of the Support Packages t.
F.
KrmuPATusex, LOCKHACT, HILL, CHRIETOPHER & PHILLres Darla B.'Tarletz July 17,- 1984 Page Two
-referred to on page 4 of 4 of the Phase II report on pistons, SP-84-2-14 and SP-84-5-18, and the TERs and LDRs cited on pages B4 of 6 and B5 of 6, specifically LDRs 2266, 2275, 1818, 1838, 1839, 2147, 2081, 2332, 1822, 2198, and 2407, and TERs Q-326, Q-335, 0-338, 0-310,.Q-41, 0-82, 0-83, 0-109, Q-38, DR-182, 0-393, Q-412, Q-413, Q-419, 0-422, 0-159, 0-194, 0-203, and Q-500.
Similarly the County requests the production of the following documents referred to in the Phase II reports on cylinder heads:
TERs 0-315, 0-399, Q-401, 0-240, 0-180, O.-244, Q-155, Q-142, and Q-164, and LDRs 2315, 2193, 2209, 2226, and 2189; crankshafts':
LDRs 2203 and 2199, TERs 0-173, Q-215, Q-160,-DR-178, and Repair / Rework Requests 1098, 1290, 1316, and 804; piston rings:
LDR 2277, TERs Q-330, 0-331, Q-426,
'Q-427, 0-193, 0-185, and Repair / Rework Request 1662 Supplement 1; cylinder head intake and exhaust valves:
LDRs 2273, 2274, 2285, 2287, 2102,.2162, 2201, 2394, and 2214, TERs Q-324, 0-350, Q-325, 0-362, 0-358, 0-86, 0-196, 0-161, 0-487, 0-190, 0-166, and Q-229.
As'.these documents are needed by the County to prepare its testimony, please provide them as soon as possible.
If the County does not receive the documents shortly, we will ask the
-Board for permission to file supplemental testimony.
Very truly yours, f'Y'W J_e Dougl s J.
Scheidt DJS/ss cc:
Richard J.
Goddard, Esq.
David E. Ross, Esq.
E. Milton Farley, Esq.
- y. -
7.
e EXHIBIT M-1 i-r if L
l-l-
f-l-
l I
h-L j
162
KInxrATRicx, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPH.ER Se PIrrLL1rs A PAsmrummarry IncLunswo A PaormessonAL ComponATson 1900 M Suu:nt, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 TELEPHONE (B09) 43a =F000 IN FTFTEBUEIGH CABLE:HIPit]
EIREPATRIG.1dMIBART,dOFND0x & EC1CIL150K TELEX 440909 IITFH C1 1800 012TER BCIIbINO WRITER S DIRECT DIAL NT3GER FITT5BCBGs0 FENNETLVANIA ISESS (202)452-6774 May 2, 1984 Anthony F.
Earley, Jr., Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 Eas: Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Re:
EDC-Discovery Request
Dear To..y:
Suffolk County recently has let.rned of the existence of two relevant documents not produced by LILCO pursuant to the County's EDG discovery requests.
The County requests that LILCO produce copies of tnese documents immediately.
The two documents consist of handwritten notes and a report, both written by William J. Museler of LILCO, con-cerning a meeting held on October 17, 1983, to discuss problems that had arisen with the Shoreham EDGs.
The meeting was attended by representatives of TDI, LILCO, Stone & Webster and FaA...
The County learned of the existence of these documents upon receipt of copies of (i) the April 27, 1984 motion for a protective order filed by LILCO concerning these documents in the PSC hearings and (ii) the March 23, 1984 order denying LILCO's interlocutory appeal to the PSC from the rul ng of the administrative law judge denying LILCO's asserti:n of privilege with respect to these documents.
The documents have been referred to in the PSC hearings as LILCD Document Nos. 2510A and 2510B.
As you know, the County's discovery requests specifically call for LILCO to identify all documents being withheld under a claim of privilege and, for each document, the "date, author, addressee or recipient, persons to whom copies were furnished, subject matter, [and] the privilege which is claimed.
LILCO has provided the County with no such information concerning these Museler documents, nor has it previously notified the County of the existence of these and
EIRKPATRICE, tOCEMART, HII.I. CunIzTOPHER & PHII.I,IP3 Anthony.F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
May 2, 1984
~
Page Two other relevant documents withheld by LILCO.
In addition, any claim of privilege by LILCO appears to have been waived by LILCO's disclosure of these Museler documents to the PSC.
These documents clearly are relevant to the diesel litigation and the County requests that LILCO produce them immediately, whether pursuant to the County's previous discovery requests or in response to this request as specifically permitted by the Board's April 20 order (see order at p. 4).
Very truly yours, Doug
,s J.
Scheidt DJS/ss y;
t_
cc:
Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
f Richcra J.
Goddard, Esq.
t Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.
k
-Robert E.
Smith, Es.q.
i l.
t-L e
~
q EXHIBIT M-2 k.
2--
m w
MM.
H UNTON Oc WILLIAM S 707 East MAIN STREET P.O. Box 1535 rooo pawnsvovawia avenut. w w Rxc n M oNo. VI*tOIN E A 23212 peo pann avcNut p.o somesaso wtw vonn. wtw vonn eoive wasw:wovow. o c. aoose TELt>=ows aia-seo eaoo TELapwows aoa ess.esoo TE L E PH O N E 804 788-8200 telex 7s*70s asssoutwomanoavewut TWX - 7s O - 9 5 6 0061 e o a T evitoiwo = o.somios Los awoc6cs. cauromwia soove maLtioM. NORTw CAmouNa 27eoa Trutewows ass-eit sosa Trurawows mes-eas o3vi r>=sT TE==Esset onwn eviLoiwo rimst vimoisia sawa Towen p o som oss e o son 3ese
==onvitte. TENNESSet 37 eon woarota, venoiwia assia vttspwows sis.e37 43ie May 11, 1984 24566.3 n't No TE cm, se,e oi scT oi L wo so. vn.8 3 61 Douglas J.
Scheidt, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
=
8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 Diesel Discovery
Dear Doug:
In response to your May 2 letter, we are willing to provide you with a copy of Bill Museler's handwritten notes from the October 17, 1983, meeting with TDI under a confiden-tiality agreement.
As you know, the notes were disclosed to the PSC Staff under such an agreement, and LILCO is seeking a protective order in that case to maintain the confidential nature of the document.
Thus, we ask for similar procedures in this case.
We object to the production of the second document you requested.
It is a memorandum from Mr. Museler to Tim Ellis and me concerning the October 17 meeting and others matters relating to the TDI diesels.
That memorandum was prepared by Mr. Museler for us at our express request.
It contains Mr. Museler's impressions and opinions which we requested to assist us in preparing for ASLB licensing hearings, New York State Public Service Commission hearings and other potential litigation concerning the TDI diesels.
The document is both an attorney-client communication and a trial preparation docu-ment.
/
Sincerely, N
7h w%
~
Iv Anth ;y F.
Ear ey, Jr.
221/765
. EXHIBIT M-3
[.
I e
KUtEPATIUCE, LocKHAIrr, llILL, CIHUSTOPIIEIt b PIHLLIPS A P ART N E MMUI P INCLUDIMO A PROFEtatitON AL C O R PO RATI O N 1900 M STREET,N. W.
hsu1NOTos, D. C. 20036 1428 BRICKELL AVENUE TELEPHONE '202) 452-7000 1500 OLIVER B t*ILDI N G M LAMI,1 Plt)RIDA 33131 FITTSDtTGH, PENNSYLVA.N AA 15222 (305) 374-8112 (412) 355-6500 WITERh DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (202) 452-6774 June 12, 1984 Anthony F.
- Earley, Jr.,
Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Re:
EDG Discovery
Dear Tony:
Pursuant to your May 11 letter, please provide the County with a copy of Mr. Museler's handwritten notes from the October 17 meeting with TDI.
(LILCO Document No. 2510A in the PSC case).
The County will agree to be governed by confidentiality procedures similar to those stated in the April 4, 1984 letter from William Dean Johnson of Hunton & Williams to James Brew of the Department of Public Service, a copy of which is attached.
The County also requests that you reconsider your refusal to produce the memorandum written by Mr. Museler concerning the October 17 meeting (LILCO Document No. 2510B).
As you know, the Public Service has denied LILCO's appeal from the admini-strative law judge's rejection of LILCO's claim of privilege as to this document and, in any event, LILCO's production of this document to the PSC constitutes a waiver of any claim of privi-lege LILCO may have had.
The County will agree to accept this document under a confidentiality agreement as above.
Should you persist in your refusal, the County intends to move to compel the production of the document.
I await your response.
Very truly yours, t
Dougla J.
Scheidt DJS/ss cc:
Richard J.
Goddard, Esq.
Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
Darla B.
Talretz, Attorney unumtamummm*
IIcxTow & WILLIAMS O D,& T Duttoiso P.O. Box 809
,:,'s..,... eTacst:
RALzzon, NonTn CAnox. rwa 27002
- * 's p r a a s 6va n ia avt a u r. a. =.
v
. F. $. C D s e.3 9
..o.so......
WA5MiNC10m. D. C. 2 003 e
' ReitsasOND, ve888"I" 888'8 TEL C DMON t 959=SE8-9378 C3e Foe =es00 -
a ca = 3 2 3.e e n o F6707 vemotNaA S.Nm TOWCR F
FILC N O.
c.3.Comsaae on Fa..,........ a s s..
ess-cam se 0 April 4, 1984
-Mr. Jame's Brew',' Esquire
' Department.of_Public Service 2 Empire State Plaza Albany,.New York 12223
Dear Mr.' Brew:
1
-Please find enclosed a copy of Documents Nos. 2510 A and 2510 E.
These documents are being produced in accordance with the
.Public Service Commission's March 23, 1984 Order Denying Inter-locutory Appeal and in accordance with the confidentiality agreement you and I have achieved.
As we aereed today, I dm providine the' documents on the condition ~that vou sil> xeeu the cocuments strictly cMfitrential; you wl.L1 reveal the documents solely to those people e$ciyec ny the Public Service Commission who have need to see the documents-in connection with case 27563.
If you determine that you
- nee'd to make disclosure to other persons, or that you need to make the documents public or a part of the record in Case 27563, y0u will first notify-me and give'me adequate time before disclosure to seek
.a protective. order.
I. appreciate your willingness to resolve'this issue voluntari-ly, at least at this stage.
Please sign a copy of this letter and return it to me for record keeping purposes.
With best regards, I am
.8 Very truly yours, William D a.
Johnson
~
'Seen and agreed to:
James Brew, Esq.
355/777.
Enclosures
.cc:
-Hon. William Levy John E. Reil'ly, Esq.
m 9 %
e
..y,__.,w
.,.ww.,--rs-
+y-
+-rw-a--er
""---e--'" " ' ' * - * " ' - -" ' - ~ ' ~ - ' ' ' - - " ' -
9 EXHIBIT M-4 i:!.
).
F m
T: v HUNTow & WILLLa.x s 707 East MAIN STREET P.o. Box 1535 sooo pawusvkvania avenut. m w Racaswown, Vino 1:rzA 23212 a
paan avtwuc w"E at wasee novo. c.sooms e to eaoo v 6comows ace. ass tsoo Tgggs* Mohs 804 788 5200 vtLE=vs47os
. !EO soutw omano avewut TWX 7tO 956 0061 e e a v mue6oiwo *. o non ios LOG anothes. cauromwea soots mattion. wowvw camotewa ateoa v 6t> Mows ass est.sosa TcLee.ione see eas s37 rimst venwtsste mann muitoews o mSees ut!s' t 37eos e
uwoxve6 vt a
wooroon, venoiwsa assee vtLEpwoNE els e37 43H
**;I",*, *g,7,*o* ' * * *'
rest wo. 24566.3 June 27, 1984 os.cer osam wo..,.. 8 3 6 1
' Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill,
-Christopher & Phillips
-1900 M Street, N.W.
'8th' Floor
- Washington, D.C.
20036 Emergency Diesel Generator Discovery
Dear Doug:
Please find enclosed a copy of William J. Museler's handwritten notes from the October 17 meeting with TDI (LILCO Document No. 2510A in the'PSC case).
As you agreed in your letter of June 12, 1984, I am providing the document on the condition'that you will keep the document strictly confidential; you'will-reveal the document solely to-those people employed by
.Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips or consul-tants to Kirkpatrick Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips whochave need to see the document in connection with the emer-gency diesel generator proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
If you determine that you need to make disclosure to other persons, or that you need to make the document public or a part of the record in ASLB Docket No. 50-322-OL,'you will first notify me and give me adequate time before disclosure to seek a protective order.
With respect to the memorandum written by William J.
Museler concerning the~ October 17 meeting (LILCO Document No.
2510B), LILCO maintains that the memorandum is privileged under both the work product and attorney-client privileges.
On both of those bases, we are withholding LILCO Document No. 2510B.
---,-.---n-ew..,
me, vn-w-,,,--gvym.,.w---.,r---y-m,,--
e-
,-e,--
-e
-w
c HuxTos & WILLI AMS Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq.
June 27, 1984
.Page 2 Please sign a copy of this letter as your formal consent to the confidentiality agreement covering LILCO Document No. 2510A, Please return a signed copy of the letter to me for record keeping purposes.
Sincerely,
'u. A w
Ant ny F.
Ea
, Jr.
Seen and Agreed to:
Douglas J. Scheidt 221/765 Enclosure cc:
Robert E. Smith, Esq. (w/o enc.)
Fabian G.. Palomino, Esq. (w/o enc.)
Bruce Germano (w/o enc.)
=-
m
-.1 t:
y-F h
s-
?
r e-l i
EXHIBIT M-5 e
't
STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of New York on March 14, 1984 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Paul L. Gioia, Chairman Edward P. Larkin Carmel Carrington Marr Earold A. Jerry, Jr.
Anne F. Mead CASE 27563 - LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY - Shoreham Costs ORDER DENYING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL (Issued March 23, 1984)
BY THE COMMISSION:
Sy. order issued January 17, 1984, we denied Long Island Lighting Company's three appeals from variou.s rulings in which Administrative Law Judge William C. Levy directed it to disclose to staff a total of 39 documents that the company considered to be privileged.
That denial, however, was subject to our " understanding that [the Judge) is reconsidering his rulings once again in light of the arguments raised and information presented by the company on appeal."1/
Soon after, Judge Levy issued a ruling in whi'ch, upon reconsideration, he upheld the company's assertion of privilege with regard to 38 of the 39 documents at issue.2/
1/ Case 27563, Order Denying Interlocutory Appeals (issued January 17, 1984) (the " January 17 Order"), mimeo p. 4.
2/ Case 27563, Ruling Following Interlocutory Appeals (issued January 26, 1984).
e
% g o
CASE 27563 As to the 39th document, No. 2510, the Judge on reconsider-ation reaffirmed his previous denial of privilege.1/'
Ey motion dated February 1,1984, the company appeals the Judge's continued denial of privilege with respect to Document No. 2510.
Staff has responded in opposition to the appeal.
Document No. 2510 consists of handwritten notes (referred to by the company as Document No. 2510A) and a report (referred to as Document No. 2510B) written by William J. Museler, LILCO's Director of the Office of Nuclear.
The notes and report pertain to a meeting. held on October 17, 1983 to discuss the problems that had arisen concerning Shoreham's diesel generators.
The meeting was attended by representatives of the company, Transamerica DeLava1' Incorporated ("TDI") (the manufacturer of the generators), and Failure Analysis Associates (a consultant retained by LILCO's counsel in the. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) operating license proceedings to assist them in those proceedings and in other potential litigation on the diesel generators).
In his ruling on reconsideration, Judge Levy held as follows:
LILCO argues that both parts of Document No.
2510, notes and the report, were crucial in preparation for litigation and hence are protected from disclosure.
On reconsideration the claim of privilege is denied.
Mr. Museler was attending the meeting on the alleged 1/ Document No. 2510 was the subject of the company's December 22, 1983 appeal, referred to in the January 17
~
Order as " Appeal III."
The appeal had-been taken from the Judge's Supplemental Discovery Ruling XII (issued December 8, 1983).
4 CASE 27563 failure of the diesel generators as Director of LILCO's Office of Nuclear, and in the regular course of his duties as a company employee.
He was not an outside expert
.. retained to advise Coupany counsel in pending litigation.
The Commission and its 3taff, in the discharge of their regulatory and investigative responsibilities regarding the alleged failure of the Shoreham diesel generators are entitled to inspect relevant reports of LILCO employees.
The meeting was held to consider the reasons for the alleged generator failures not to prepare for litigation.
Staff is in no position to make a de novo examination of the generators and is entitled to see relevant reports of Company personnel.
For the reasons indic~ated in my December 8, 1983 Supplemental Discovery Ruling XII, the claim of privilege is denied on reconsideration.1/
In its present appeal, LILCO continues to maintain that both parts of the document are. privileged because they are material created in preparation for litigation and that the memorandum, in addition, is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
It asserts that the notes were taken at the direction of its attorneys in the ASLB proceeding, who would not attend the meeting themselves and who instructed Mr. Museler on the.. types of information he should record.
ad It, points to an affidavit by one of those attorneys, attesting that the notes were prepared at his request and were to be used by him and other attorneys " solely to prepare for the ASLB Proceeding and to advise LILCO as to the desirability and feasibility of potential litigation involving the diesel generators."2/
1/ Case 27563, Ruling Following Interlocutory Appeals (issued January 26, 1984), pp.
6-7.
2/ Affidavit of Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Exhibit 5 to LILCO's Appeal, 12.
L
-3
i e
.. CASE 27563 As'for the memorandum, the company maintains that it, too, was pr,epared at counsel's request and that it goes beyond merely recounting the material in the notes.
According to the co'mpany, the memorandum contains Mr. Muselers
" analyses, thoughts, and impressions of the October 17, 1983 meeting;.
.a report of two October 11, 1983 telephone conversations between Mr. Museler and TDI personnel;.
'information gathered by Mr. Museler independent of the meeting; and.
.Mr. Museler's thoughts and suggestions on possible litigation strategy and additional prehearing investigations."b[
In addition, LILCO's counsel's affidavit attests that the memorandum from Mr. Museler "has b'ecn treated'as confidential material" and "was to be used solely to advise LILCO as to their rights and obligations with respect to_the diesel generators in the ASLB Proceedings and other possible litigation involving the diesel generators."2/
On the basis of these facts, the company insists that both documents constitute material prepared for litigation.
Inasmuch as staff has not alleged that the material can no longer be duplicated or that withholding the document would result in injustice or undue hardship,.the company. asserts that-the ' conditions set in CPLR 53101(d) for the. disclosure of. litigation material have not been satisfied, and that the document should be regarded as immune from disclosure.
.,?
Further, the company claims that the memorandum (Document No. 2510B) "was prepared at counsel's direction and is a communication made between counsel and a client in the course of professional employment. It has been kept con-fidential and the privilege has not otherwise been waived."3/
1/LILCO's Appeal, p. 7..
See also Earley. Affidavit, 14.
_2/Earley Affidavit, 115-6.
3/LILCO's Appeal, pp. 8-9.
p
,.nu,-mn..
e--.-.-...---,-
~,,
,,,____,n,,m,--,,.,,,a n,,,.,.,-,,,,,~,,e,,.
,,,nn
,m,y,,-
.,,p--,,,,..,.r.,,-g
p CASE 27563
.As such, the company' concludes, the memorandum is an attorney-client communication and therefore privileged.
The company adds that,the Administrative Law Judge did not address the merits of this claim.
Staff responds that Mr. Museler's attendance at the meeting.was a routine part of his job, and that materials prepared by him in the normal course of his activities are not immune from disclosure.
That the notes were sent to
. LILCO's attorneys, staff continues, does not transform them '
into privileged material, and a communication is not privileged simply because it is made by or to an att.orney.
Staff adds that Judge Levy's determination, after twice reviewing and rejecting the company's arguments, is entitled to. considerable deference.
In our January 17 order, we were concerned the.t some.of the 39 documents at issue might be of the sort properly ~ protected from disclosure.
We therefore denied the company's appeal only. on the understanding that the Judge
~
was reconsidering his rulings in light of the arguments first posed by the company in its appeal.
As noted, his reconsideration led the Judge to uphold the claim of privilege with respect to 38 of the 39 documents.
As for the present document,-however, the Judge saw no need to reverse his earlier ruling, and the arguments. presented by the company
- j..
on ' appeal--including the claim' of attorney-client. privilege- -
- are the same as those before the Judge on reconsideration.
The Judge has now reviewed the document twice, and he has had.an opportunity to consider all of %e company's arguments in. support of' its claim of pri.vilege in light of our express concern that documents properly immune from disclosure be
. Protected.
He~ nevertheless has found no basis for withholding 9 %
..g-.....
r.-
... n
r-CASE 27563 l
the document from staff, and we are not persuaded that his finding was in error.
Accordingly, the appeal is denied.b[
s.
The Commission orders:
1.
Long Island Lighting Company's interlocutory appeal, dated February 1, 1984, is denied.
2.
This proceeding is continued.
By the Commission, (SIGNED)
JOHN J. KELLIHER Secretary
. 1/Though we are denying the appeal, we recognize the possibility that the document may be of the sort whose disclosure to third parties could weaken LILCO's position in potential litigation concerning the diesel generators.
If, upon a request and showing by LILCO, the Judge finds that to be the case, he.may impose suitable protective conditions on staff's use of the document.
e 99 Of.
O
r e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g.0t K E T F~
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UMc Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Baard JUL 25 P3:14 04
)
In the Matter of.
)
[i0CJ3ingssh
)
3 RANCH
'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
~
)
(Shoreham NuclearfPower Station,
)
- Unit 1)-
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
- I hereby' certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, dated July 24, 1984, have been served to the following~this 24th day of July, 1984 by U.S.
~
- . mail ~, first. class, by hand when indicated by one asterisk and
~by: Federal Express when indicated by two asterisks.
Lawrence J.
- Brenner, Esq.'*
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office
' Administrative Judge Agency Building 2 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board
. U.' S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Empire State-Plaza
' Washington, D.C.
20555 Albany, New York 12223 Dr.'GeorgelA. Ferguson
- l James B..Dougherty, Esq.
Administrative Judge 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
'Atoimic Safety and Licensing' Board Washington, D.C.
20008-
~~
. School of~ Engineering Howard. University.
Edward M.'
Barrett, Esq.
.2300.6th' Street, N.W.
General Counsel 1 Washington, D.C.
20059 Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road-Dr.. Peter A. Morris'*
Mineola,.New York 11501 2
Administrative Judge
-Atomic Safety ~and Licensing Board Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
TU.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Twomey, Latham & Shea 1 Washington,<D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Mr.< Brian McCaffrey Riverhead, New York 11901 Longl Island Lighting Company
,e
,Shoreham Nuclear; Power Company
.P.O.-. Box 618 (North Country Road
' Wading River, New York 11792 gz s
"4 t-
f Joel-Blau, Esq.
MHB Technical Associates New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The Govern 6'" Nelson A.
Rockefeller Suite K r
Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany,-New York 12223 Hon. Peter F.
Cohalan Suffolk County Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Board H.
Lee Dennison Building Panel Veterans Memorial Highway U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hauppauge, New Yock 11788 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Appeal Board
- Office of the Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Richard J. Goddard, Esq.*
Staff Counsel Edwin Reis, Esq.
New York State Public U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Service Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Stuart Diamond Business / Financial Robert E.
Smith, Esq. *
- New York Times Guggenheimer & Untermycr 229 W.
43rd Street 80 Pine Street New York, New York 10036 New York, New York 10005 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare Regional Counsel Suffolk County Attorney Federal Emergency Management H.
Lee Dennison Building Agency Veterans Memorial Highway
- Fabian Palomino, Esq.
Darla B.
Tarletz, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Hunton & Williams Executive Chamber 707 East Main Street State Capitol, Room 229 P.O. Box 1535 Albany, New York 12224 Richmond, Virginia 23212
. e
{l Odes L.
Stroup, Jr.,
Esq.**
E. Milton.Farley, III, Esq.*
Counsel for LILCO Counsel for LILCO Hunton & Williams Hunton & Williams BBET Building P.O. Box 19230
- 333 Fayetteville Street 2000 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.
P.O.' Box 109 Washington, D.C.
20036 Raleigh, North Carolina.27602 l
~
,vj.inj A ' A ) L. f.t-lc<.d ?
Douglas J.
Scheidt KIRKPATRICK, DOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATE:
July 24, 1984 1
i
- - -, - - - - - -