ML20091P388
Text
G..
'j,Q r.^& i i
Dr
}
p., %
)
- c, UNITED STATES nETARIAT RECORD i
[yg *; g * [9 j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\; -
/
- ='
FEB /3 1981 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Ahearne g
THRU:
William J. Dircks, Executive. Director for Operations FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr., Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
POSSIBLE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION IN MIDLAND In-response to your memorandum dated January 14, 1981, the following background information is provided. Mr. Keppler reported in the. enclosed memorandum to me dated August 14, 1980 that on July 30-August 1,1980 Mr. Gibbon, legal Assistant to Commissioner Bradford, visited the Region III Office. He accom-panied Region III inspectors on an inspection at the Perry site and met with M:. Keppler and other members of the Region III principal staff to discuss a number of issues confronting NRC and Region III.
OneofthesubhectsbroughtupbyMr.GibbonwastheNRCConstructionInspec-tion Program.
Mr. Gibbon's interest in construction inspection was directed
,toward the role the Commissioners might play to improve NRC enforcement capa-bilities that would result in better licensee performance in the construction of nuclear power plants. The potential ex parte contact that was recently brought to the attention of the Midland ASLB and involved parties represented only a few minutes in the overall discussions with Mr. Gibbon, which lasted the better part of the morning..
The recommendation that was discussed with Mr. Gibbon, which resulted in th'e j(
mention of Midland, was that NRC should consider stopping a specific construc -
tion activity in a timely manner, as a matter of policy, when a significant safety-related problem has been identified and when NRC is unable to support the licensee's proposed corrective actions. The focus of this recommendation was a,imed at NRC policy for future cases, not at reopening the Midland issue.
+
{
Mr. Keppler has stated that the reasoning behind this recommendation was obviously based on NRC experiences at Midland.
In March 1979, Region III i
notified Headquarters in writing of the initial concerns on the need to I
resolve this issue.
Specifically, Region III questioned continuation of
{
construction activities wFen the cause of the settlement problem had not been determined and suggested consideration of an NRR directive or show f'
cause order which would expedite evaluations of the safety significance of g
the problem.
It was Headquarters view, at that time, that a more appropriate action was for NRR to issue a 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter.
Subsequently, NRR g
issued a 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter to the licensee to resolve the issue, but it was not until November 1979 that NRC attention was again focused on the
~
adequacy of th'e basic design as affected by " random fill" soil. At that time h45e40517 RICE 84-96 ppq
~~
18
r.
l
[
}
e Chairman Ahearne rEE /3 iggj i
j Region'III recommended that enforcement action in the form of a civil penalty be taken to resolve that concern.
I considered such action to be inadequate and, upon my personal initiative, an Order was issued jointly by the Directors of IE and NRR requiring the licensee to show cause why it should not be required i
to seek an Amendment regarding remedial actions associated with the soils foundation problem or stop further safety-related work in this area.
Since the Order was not made immediately effective, the licensee challenged the Order, the Order was stayed, and the licensee has continued to work.
Even today, the staff is still not in a position to agree or disagree with the licensee.
]
j The personal vi'ew of Mr'. Keppler on this subject is; that, although construction problems rarely pose a safety-related concern requiring imm.ediate cessation of work, it is not in the best interest of NRC or the licensee to allow question-
~
able work to continue for a long period of time.
I differ with this view.
I believe that it may be in the best interests of the NRC, the licensee,.and the public, especially the ratepayer, to allow construction to continue when, as i
in the Midland case, the NRC staff most expert in the' technical disciplines involved are of the opinion that continued construction will not prohibit an acceptable level of safety being achieved prior to operation. Mr. Keppler also believes that, from a practical standpoint, the degree of construction completion is seemingly bound to influence regulatory action in that reduced, yet acceptable, safety margins may be approved by the staff. My view in this matter is that a lesser margin of safety shown to exist by more rigorous and detailed analytical analysis than that used to justify a larger numerical i
margin, is often more conservative and is routinely used in the licensing process to assure adherence to requirements.
There are some legal constraints on the Commission's authority to summarily suspend activities under a construction permit.
Immediately effective suspen-sions are lawful.only in cases of willfulness or those in which the public 4
l health, interest, or safety require such action.
In an appropriate case a l
. valid finding to support an immediately effective suspension of work during construction can be made. See, for example, the order to show cause issued to j
Consumers Power Company immediately suspending Cadwelding activities at the company's Midland construction site.. However, language in the United States 4
Supreme Court's PRDC decision should be carefully considered in determining whether a particular circumstance warrants an immediately effective suspension at the construction permit stage. There, noting that the licensee, PROC, had "been on notice long since that it proceeds with construction at its own risk, and that all 'its funds may go for naughtc the Court rejected the notion that :
"the Commission cannot be counted on, when the time comes -[at the OL stage) to make a definitive safety finding, wholly to exclude the consideration that PRDC will have made an enormous investment".
367 U.S. at 415.
It is my position that required regulatory actions will be taken as necessary at the operating license stage.
4 Within the context of the above, your specific questions are addressed as follows:
l k
O I
g
.-,e en
,n-r e,
- -. -, - t vw,
ej..
O*
3 Chairman Ahearne FEB /3 1981 I
l Ouestion 1 - What is your position concerning the need to stop construction at j
Midland effective immediately?
Resoonse - I do not believe there is a need to stop construction at Midland effective immediately. This was my view at the time the show cause Order was' issued jointly with NRR in November 1979, and remains my position at this time.
Furthermore, NRR was and is the lead Office for evaluation of design acceptability, and I have been informed by NRR that it was in November 1979, and currently is, of the opinion that constructipn at the Midland site need not be halted.
Question 2 - Wh'at are Mr. Keppler's concerns and how have they been addressed?
Response - Mr. Keppler has stated that his fundamental concern is that permitting
?
construction to continue may result in safety-related problems ' associated with subsequently installed systems and equipment (e.g., excessive pipe stresses and questionable seismic response).
In addition, he. believes that permitting construction to continue after a major unanswered safety question is identified may lead to the natural tendency to " engineer away" expensive modifications by accepting reduced, yet acceptable, safety margins.
His concerns will be addressed in the staff analyses and testimony being prepared for the forth-coming hearing.
Ouestion 3 - If you now believe construction should be stopped effective immeciately, what steps are you taking to do so and what is the bases for your change in position?
Response - As rtated in the response to question 1, it is my position that construction need not be stopped effective immediately.
I hope that these responses are sufficient for your inquiry.
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
/
./
M Victor Stello, Jr.
j Director j
Office of Inspection
,nd Enforcement a
Enclosure:
Memo, Keppler to Stello dated 8/14/80 cc:
Commissioner Gilinsky i
Commissioner Hendrie ommissioner Bradford GC SECY PE 1
f
,me m
w T'
~#
m\\ -
JE.
I
^ 3
/,...m'o UNITED STATES
.[ h '~k NUOLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ECI.057ET.1 e6 c
REClON lit
,E 779 ROOSEVELT ROAD
?,
/
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINott 63137 August 14. 1980
,t i
N RAEDUM POR: Victor Stello, Jr., Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcenent FROM:
Js:nes C. Keppler,, Director EU3 JECT.
VISIT TO EECION III 31 THOMAS CI33CN On July 30, 1980 The=as Cibbon (Co issioner Bradferd's Lege.1 Assistant) visited the Region III Office.
He then acco=penied our insp'ectors on a construction inspection at the Perry facility on.luly 31 and August 1,1980.
While in Region III, Mr. Gibbon mat.with tiba Regional Director and ne=bers of the principal staff and discussed a nu=bar of problem arena confrenting the NEO and Region III. Areas of prf.=.ary interest discussed wers as fol'Icnts:
1.
WRc's cons:iruction Inseeetiem Procram - of particular intarost bas our perceived lack of timaliness in identi.fying problems sud what role the Co ' scion should play in improving the C--
4ssion's enforcement capabilities to achieve quality in the construction area. Mr. Cibbon requested Region III to provide recommendations to him regarding our thoughts is this matter. Our connents will be coordinated with JLtI.
=
2.
Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment - Mr. Cibbon 1sdicated that C,Jsioner Bradford viewed this as a major problen and was interestad in our impressions of the affectiveness of tha regional industry meetings. Wa told hi= that the Region III meeting vent.well and that a foreaful message had been delivered to the industry that the NRC vill. net tolerate further delays in dealing with this problem.
3.
Radioactive Material in the Public Do=ain - in response to Mr. Cibbon's inquiry into our major problan areas, our experiences vich radinactive materials in the public donain in general were discussed.
It was pointed out that the number of instances where radioactivity was being found in the public sector was large, the Regions were expending considerabia manpower on these problems, and no real progress has been i
achieved primarily due to lack of policy in this area. The case of l
West Chicago was discussed specifically and Mr. Cibbon requested details concerning that case.
The trans=1ctal of this information vill.
l be coordinated with YFMSI.,
i 1
\\
1 i.
l I
/.
E-
.)
$8 ' *.
]
2-
$/14/BD Victor Stello, Jr.
f 4.
Loss of personnal - Our concerns for the loss of key inspection perse a1 vare also discussed.
In particular, it was pointed out that se:na of these lossas resultad from the inability to pIy specialist type inspectors and their suparvisors at a rate equivalent to proj ect perse=nsi (both reactor and nonreactor positions).
It was enphasized that IE r.susgement was very
=uch concerned about this disparity and was actively pursuing the mattar vit.h che Office of Administration.
Mr. Cordell Williams, who was with Mr. Gibbon on the inspectics accompa=ime=t, believes Mr. Gibbon van' impressed with both the scope and depth of our inspection affer:.
During his acco=paniment ha raised questicus in connection with the inspection progra=~, management support and interface with NER.
I
=%hf James C. Kapplar v Director cc:
P.. C. DeYoung, IE E. D. Thornburg, IE J. H. Snizzak, IE 4
- I I
3 1
l r
t l
4 9
O i
6 l
go,
. --4 Mj; r n:_-
9
)
gg
,f "*"'*
UNITED STATES JRM W Al 0'
ew NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (MA i /dM=[
{. i ' C' !
WASHINGTON. O. C. 20555 f/PA h,-
9 $ ~.
a ygg
'r. 3 ;
4
% '[,'
DEC 2 91983 sh is on tb
-crA
/
- ga
..: t 1
DF l
, File l" W I
Docket flos. 50-329/330 Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road l
Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Cook:
Subject:
Reouest for Additional Information Regarding Transamerica Delaval Emergency Diesel Generators - Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 The enclosed letter from Mr. T. M. Novak to Mr. J. P. McGaugby contains a series of questions that the staff has developed regarding Emergency Diesel Generators manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI). Notwithstanding the attention being directed by the TDI owners group to these questions, we request that you ensure that they are answered specifically for your TDI diesel engines. This may be done by reference to an owners group report or by a plant-specific report.
i If you have any questions, please contact the Licensing Project Manager,
{
Darl Hood, at (301) 492-8474 t
Sincerely, j
^
<d s/
d' *:tn
'd t./8.4. u~ -
Elinor G. Adensam, Branch Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page t
i JAN.6 1994 L,.:fq' lla,uio k 6 1 8 4\\ '
n
l'.
g
.w.
wee - w =*
l MIDLAND i
Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Division of Radiological Health l
Alan S. Farnell, Esc.
Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P. O. Box 33035
!~
Three First National Plaza, Lansing, Michigan 48909
~
Sist floor Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue i
James E. Brunner, Esq.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regula* cry Comission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspector's Office Route 7 Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Micnigan 48640 5711 Sumerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Stewart H. Freeman Freeland, Michigan 48623 Assistant Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Protection Division Consumers Power Company 720 Law Building 212 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson, Michigan 49201 J
3 Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. Walt Apley Route 10 c/o Mr. Max Clausen Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Mr. R. B. Borsum Battelle Blvd.
Nuclear Power Generation Division SIGMA IV Building Babcock & Wilcox Richland, Washington 99352 l
7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 i
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. I. Charak, Manager NRC Assistance Pro,iect Cherry & Flynn Argonne National Laboratory Suite 3700 9700 South Cass Avenue Three First National Plaza.
Argonne, Illinois 60439 Chicago, Illinois 60602 James G. Keppler, Regional Admin.
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Comission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen El.1yn, Illinois 60137 m
/..~
}
\\
i I
Mr. J. W. Cook,
cc: Mr. Ron Callen Michigan Public Service Comission 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Ms. Jul'ie Morris'on Midland Daily News 124 Mcdonald Street l
Midland, Michigan 48640 Billie Pirner Garde Director, Citizens Clinic i
for Accountable Government Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Kashington, D. C.
20009 Mr. Howard Levin, Project Manager TERA Corporation 7101 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda,' Maryland 20814 Ms. Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project 19010 Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 t
a f
9 1
1 i,~.
. '. 4
3------
l.
- p s* nca,,,'o.
UNITED STATES
}
[ ',*
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
wAsMiNoTom. o. c. 20sse s\\
f DEC 2 7 1983 Cocket Nos. 50-416/417 i
Mr. J. P. McGaughy Vice President Nuclear Production Mississippi Power & Light Company i
P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Dear Mr. McGaughy:
Subject:
Delaval Diesel Owners Group Activities Based en my discussion with you on December 22, 1983, in your capacity as chaiman of the owners group for providing a unified response to concerns that have arisen regarding Transamerica Delaval emergency diesel generators, I am enclosing a list of NRC' staff questions concerning Delaval diesels. We would expect that the majority of these questions address generic conce ns 4
which the Owners Group could most efficiently answer. Plant-specific questions should be addressed by individual applicants. Copies of these questions will also be sent to all affected utilities for their response.
Sincerely, 3
I,
' f h.
,,- s.+ u.'} ~
ft:.T. M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page W
s
['
=. -
w
,y
.. - ~.
I Grand Gulf l
Mr. J. P. McG aughy l
Vi ce President Nucler Production Mississippi Power & Light Company P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 cc: Robert B. McGehee. Esquire Wise, Carter. Child. Steen and Caraway P. O. Box 651 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 f
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Conner and Wetterhahn 5
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. N. W.
Washington D. C. 20006 Mr. J. F. Fager Senio Vice President Mtddle South Energy. Inc.
225 Baronne Street P. O. Box 6100 New Orleans. Louisiana 10161 Mr. Larry Dal'e Mississippi Power & Light Company P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205' Mr. R. W. Jackson Project Engineer Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Bechtel Power Corporation Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760 Mr. Alan G. Wagner Resident Inspector Rout 2 Box 150 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 e
I l
l
c' ENCLDSURE 1 REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DELAVAL,IESEL GENERATOR EVALUATION 1.
Provide a copy of the procurement specifications to which the' standby diesel generators (DG) were ordered.
2.
Provide the performance specification and inspections performed upon receiving the DGs to show that the procurement specifications were met.
i 3.
Identify the materials used it' the design of the DGs at your plant l
(specifically limiting components such ss crankshafts, camshafts, i
pistons rocker arms, bearing materials, cylinder blocks, cylinder heads pumps, turbocharg'ers, etc.). Discuss how you assured yourself that design materials usedin the manufacture of your DGs were as stated and in accordance with materials described inthe TDI proposal, ourchase specifications, and conformance to industry standards.
4 Does TDI have a program where parts / components, etc., are modified (such that design margins are reduced) in order to improve opera-bility and DG reliability.7 Does this apply to any DG parts at yourpl, anti Provide a list of product improvements made by TDI on your model DG and identify and justify which of these were not i
incorporated on your diesels.
5 If.oplicable, provide responses to all NRC open items on standby DGs at your plant.
~
6.
Identify each of your DGs by model number and rating (continuo'us duty and short time overload) as purchased and discuss all tests (including torsional and other design proof tests) performed on the DGs that were observed (also those not observed) by you at the i
manufacturer's facilities.
7 In addition to qual.ifications tests that were performed in accordance with regulatory guides 1.9 and 1.108, and IEEE Std. 387, describe all other onsite tests perfomed or) your DGs.
8.
In addition to any deficiency reports already provided to the NRC, summarize and describe problems encountered and resolved during installation and preliminary operation of the DGs. During this period, were any unusual or. abnormal operations observed such as excessive vibration, noise, etc., and how were these conditions corrected.7 Provide a detailed sumary of the complete operating histories of your DGs.
h 4
,,,a
= =. - * -
2
--.-.a
O
... ~....,
-. - - -. - - ~
~-
-2 l
9.
Tabulate, compare and discuss differences in present actual DG loading to estimated loads included in the procurement specifications.
t I
Identify the magnitude of the increased load (if any) on the DGs and describe how the increased loading affects the DG capability with regard to reserve margin.
10.
If DG loading has increased from that specified in the procurement specifications, has it been necessary to upgrade the standby DGs to meet the new load requirenentsi If DG upgrading has been performed, provide.a detailed description of the upgrading L
accomplished on your DGsY 'lhat is the revised manufacturer's rating
{
for each upgraded unit for normal continuous duty and short time overiced conditions? IS the DG built-in design margin (after, l
upgrading) still within the recommendations of IEEE Std. 387: What n
is the reserve load carrying capability (margin) of your upgraded DGs.
11.
In light of the probic:as that have been identified to date with Delaval diesels, discuss your plans to perform an internal visual inspection of each standby DG with regard to potential crankshaft and/or web cracks as identified at the Shoreham Station and pro-vide a detailed discussion of your plans to perform any non-destruct-ive testing (NDT) such as dye penetrant testing, etc., as deemed appropriate to assure absence of cracks at these locations or at any other locations where cracks may have beer. observed.
Discuss schedules for such testing.
12.
Justify thAt the standby DGs at your olant are sufficiently reliable that there will be reasonable assuraNe that the facility can operate without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Your justification should include, but not be limited to the following:
(1) quality assurance program conducted by you during procurement, manufacturing and receipt of your DGs,-(2) your assessment of the TDI manufacturing process, inspection, and quality assurance program con-ducteo during manufacture of your DGs, (3) your assessment of TDI rssponsiveness to problems that have occurred with your engines during installation and prelirinary operation including assessment of TDI performance, (4) comparison of your DGs with all other TDI emergency.
DE models now in uss or to be used in other nuclear generating sta-tions (and other non-nuclear facilities) to show that the conditions
.and/or failure modes present at Shoreham will not occur at your plant and at other nuclear plants; provide any supporting information
. that may be obtained from non-nuclear installations, (5) independent review or verification of any TDI design calculations for critical j
components of your-DGs, and/or other means used to assure that your DGs j
are designed to DEMA standards and applicable industry codes and standards, and'(6) your overall assessment of the DGs at your plant with regard to TDI system design, operating experience to' date, and system m
4 s.
.w
=
..w e==. e e
n 3'
dependability ' availability and reliability to warrant operation of your plant.
13.
Peovide a tabulation of the number of times ( including each date of occurrence) voltage was lost at the energency bus (es) re-quiring operation of the DG(s) including a brief description of each incident.
In the above tabulation, also identify the loss of emergency bus voltage due to loss of offsite power.
~
i 14 Shoreham has identified connecting rod bearing material's are not in accordance with design specifications on their engines. This condition may also exist on all other TDI diesels. Provide assurance that correct bearing design and materials have been used in your engines. Should you find that improper bearings have been used in 1
your diesels, state how and when you propose to correct this pecalem.
15.
Most of the piston skirts in the Shoreham diesels were cracked.
Because of a common cylinder design for all TDI diesels, it is presumed that this condition potentially exists on all other TDI diesels. Discuss your plans, including internal inspection or other means to determine the potential or actual existence of such cracking.
In your response, indicate whether the design and materials are identical to those in the Shoreham units; if not identify differences.
Identify any corrective actions you have taken to date or plan to take.
1 The staff understands that TDI has a piston design modification to correct the above problem. Are you aware of this and has TDI transmitted j
this service information to yout 16.
What maintenance and/or operating practices have you developed to assure optimum reliability of your diesel generators st your plant?
I 17 What surveillance practices in addition to those required by plant
)
technical specifications have you instituted to assyre optimum reliability of your diesel generators at your plant.
e e
t
.f'
}
~3 wM DIESEL GENERATOR
SUMMARY
FACILITY DIESEL GENERATOR PACKAGE / SUPPLIER Big Rock Point Caterpillar Electric Machinery Mfg.
Ca terpilla r Breidwood Cooper Bessemer Portec, Inc.
Cooper Bessemer Electric Products Div.
Byron Cooper Bessemer Portec, Inc.
Cooper Bessemer Electric Products Div.
.,%)
Callaway Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse.
Clinton Electro-Motive Division Ideal Electric Co.
Stewart & Stevenson of General Motors Electro-Motive Division Ideal Electric Co.
Stewart & Stevenson, of General Motors Electro-Motive Division Beloit Power System
.Stevart & Stevenson of General Motors
'D. C. Cook Worthington General Electric Co.
Worthington D;vis-Besse Electro-Motive Division Electro-Motive Division Morrison-Knudsen Co.
of General Motors of General Motors fucisden Electro-Motive Division Electro-Motive Division Stewart & Stevenson of General Motors of General Motors Dunne Arnold Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse Fa rmi Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse Kewaunee Electro-Motive Division Electro-Motive Division Western Engine of General Motors of General Motors i-Lacrosse 1A Allis Chalmer Allis Chalmer
\\
Allis Chalmer IB Caterpillar Electric Machinery Mfg.
Caterpillar
. g:
.---._.----l-
- - - -~~
- ~ _ ~ -
- - ~ ~ - - - - - --
\\
LaSalle Electro-Motive Division Ideal Electric Co.
Stewart & Stevenson of General Motors Marble Hill Colt /Fairbanks-Morse Beloit Power System Colt Midland' TransAmerica Delaval Portec, Inc.
TransAmerica Delaval Electric Products Divivision Molticello' Electro-Motive Division Electro-Motive Division Electro-Motive Division of General Motors of General Motors of General Motors Pglisades ALCO Electric Machinery Mfg.
ALCO I)
~
P!rry TransAmerica Delaval GE On-Site P: int Beach Electro-Motive Division Electro-Motive Division-Electro-Motive Division of General Motors of General Motors of General Motors Prairie' Island Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse Quad-Cities.
Electro-Motive Division Electro-Motive Division Western Engir.e
'of General Motors of General Motors
-Jimmer Electro-Motive Division Ideal Electric Co.
Stewart & Stevenson of General Motors Zirn
' Cooper Bessemer Ideal Electric Co.
Cooper Bessemer T
e
.