ML20091Q618
| ML20091Q618 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1984 |
| From: | Scheidt D KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20091Q620 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8406140111 | |
| Download: ML20091Q618 (55) | |
Text
h'y )
qY_
3; 000 0
us 6/ /84
'84 ,99; g3 p; _53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '^
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION ,
ii '
Before.the Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board
- .' )
Infthe Matter of )
)
'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY- - ) Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
--(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) -)
-)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S FILING CONCERNING LITIGATION OF EMFRGENCY DIESEL GENERA _ TOR CONTENTIONS I.: INTRODUCTION On February'22, 1984, this Board admitted into controversy
-the first paragraph of each of,Suffolk County's Supplemental
'EDG' Contentions _I, II, and III (filed January 27, 1984) and
' ordered the County to submit - this filing. :See Tr. 21,611 el In compliance with the February 22 bench order, as seg.
modified by this Board's orders _of April 20 and May 4, 1984, this filing addresses the following matters: Part II restates and consolidates the admitted portions of Contentions I, II, and III (as_ suggested,-but not required, by the Board) and identifies the items or instances which the County will rely upon to support the EDG' Contentions, showing their applicabil-
'ity'to the Shoreham EDGs and whether they evidence inadequate design,-inadequate manufacturing, an undersized, over-rated 8406140111 840611 DR ADOCK 05000 Z)30) )
p~ ,
,. ~
~ ,d .
"4 : -;_ l engine,%cr a: combination:thereof; Part III addresses the T
elements of the DROR relating to Shoreham Which should be added to,the;Iitigation; and-Part IV specifies information Which the County will-seek tolobtain by subpoena from owner / operators of:
TDIfdiesels,'which'could not be obtained 'roluntarily.
~
I.'; RESTATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS; LISTING OF' ITEMS AND INSTANCES-SUPPORTING CONTENTIONS
, Irr accordance with this - Board 's suggestion (see-Tr.
.21 636), . Suf folk- County proposes -to consolidate and restate the Ladmitted' portions of EDG' Contentions I, II, and III as follows.
EDG' Contention. Contrary:to the requirements of GDC 17, the'edergency.' diesel generators at Shoreham ("EDGs")
. i manufactured . by Transamerica . Delaval, Inc. ("TDI").willJnot op-erate reliably'and adequately perform their required functions-because the-EDGs are over-rated and undersized, improperly.
designed, . and not satis'factorily manufactured.< There can be no reasonable: assurance'that the EDGs will perform satisfactorily.
<in service and that such operation willz not~ result in failures of other.. parts or components 1of the EDGs, due to the l .over-rating or insufficient size of the EDGs or design or J
~
- manufacturingLdeficiencies.: The EDGs.must therefore be sreplaced with engines of-greater' size and capacity not idesigned-or-manufactured by TDI.
J
ru ,
e
' ~~
The itemsfor. instances listed below are' relied upon by
[ Suffolk County to support the EDG Contention. Their applica-bility.to the Shoreham EDGs is indicated by the notation "Shoreham" if the particular item or instance specifically occurred with respect'to one-or more of the Shoreham EDGs, and by;the notat' ion " Common" if it occurred with respect to a part-or component common to-the Shoreham EDGs and the other specified TDI diesel engines. In each such case the commonality of parts or components has been established by the DROR or the sworn testimony in depositions of representatives of TDI or Failure Analysis Associates ("FaAA"). Any other ap-
.plicability or, nexus to the EDGs is explained in the text. Fi-nally,. whether a particular ' item or instance is evidence of the-
,EDG being over-rated and_ undersized, of a design deficiency, or of a manufacturing defect,'is indicated by the symbols "O",
" D " , - a n d " M , _respectively.
l '. Crankshafts
'A. Shoreham. .The original crankshafts in the EDGs were improperly designed, as accepted by LILCO and FaAA. D, O. Be-yondLthis issue, the County;does not intend to litigate the cause'of the failures of the original crankshafts.
3
)
i i
i
' B(1 ) . Shoreham. ' 1&ie replacement crankshafts are not ade- <
l cquately desianed for operating at overload (3,900 kW) as l required;by FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.5 and their design is marginal.
for1 operation at full' load (3,500 kW). Moreover, the replace-ment crankshaf'ts -will._ adversely affect and be affected by other
~
engine' systems, such'.as' bearings and piston pressures. D, 0.
'The shot-peening ~.of the replacement crankshafts may be detri-mental. M.
.B(2). Common. Rafha Electricity Corp. , DSR-48, SN 79003.
Inadequate. crankshaft oil passage plugs on a replacement design y crankshaft damaged pistons. D, M.
- 2. Cylinder Blocks A. Shoreh'am. Cracks have occurred in the cylinder liner landing area of all'EDGs, and a large crack propagated through
~
the front of EDG 103. O, D, .M. . Cracks have also been observed
- ' D, M. The re-fin the camshaft galley area of the blocks. O, placement _' cylinder block'for EDG 103 is a new design which is
-unproven in DSR-48 diesels and has been inadequately test-L ed . - D.
- M -yg-s.-. e s- ,-c---,p w --
9, me.es-- y ,*-s.v-y..sg,-m- w.. g - %ein p -
^
K lfi 3c .ry n;
/
t y. .[- pt i i f*7 ;
_-q c, s
[ # ~. B . - ' Cylinder block cracki.ig similar to-that in the
+ : e 7,; .; , .
i
., Shoreha,m EDGs,has occurred on the following 15 cylinder blocks.
.r:ih- ! , ; --
}f ~
'.., _ (1) .-
~
Unite'd States Steel Corp., DMRV-16-4,.SN 75039 and
- !j i
-75040$(M.V. Edwin H. Gott). O,, D, M.
.(2). State 1of Alaska, DMRV-16 -4, SN 72033 and 72034 (M.V.
Columbia). !O, D, . M . ,
4 4. -(3)LTCordova Municipal Utility, DSR-46, SN 73028 or 70034.
W:1; t
'0,
. D, M.
-j}, -tl Gj ',.
(4) . Kodiak. Electric Association, DSRV-12-4, SN 74083 and a J .t ' 7 SN 74084. O, D, M.
i< <,
(5)-}Sce^coGizan'(SaudiArabia),DSRV-16-4,SN77036. O_ ,
- 4. - 4
_ E*< U * -
u 0
(6)- City of Homestead, DSRV-20-4, SN 73029 and 73030. O_,
\-
E, E-Qf rN.s e n .,
H a
tt ys,-- .c( 1 . g\
\f a; '(7). Biehl Offshore Su ply Co., QMR-46, SN 75013 or 75014 i,
< (M.V. Biohl Trader) and' SN-75015 or 75016 (M.V.
MM Blahl Traveler). O, D,-M.
t~
be e,- , , e r
{
l'f ..
's ,
_ , h. ' ' '
- j
'/
A( v t
'[(
(
t if \ - ,
( -, , ,
'\ f1 ti. (
JO ,
(
s ,
I t r e ,Y -
,, r $, *
- m. -
(8) Copper. Valley Electric Association, DSR-46, SN 75011 or 75012. O, D, M.
Elf ~ ( 9 )-- Falcon Shipping Group, DMRV-12-4, SN 78034 (M.V.
a- y
!br{ Pride of Texas) 0, D, M.
,,lO),SURALCO
( Moengo Powerhouse (Surinam), DSR-46, SN 69026. ' O_, -
D, M_ .
~
Mr. Mathews of TDI testified that cylinder blocks in the DSR-46 "have similar, if not identical,_ wall thicknesses, material f sections, material properties and so forth" to'the EDG
' blocks.. The cylinder blocks in the RV-12 and RV-16 engines are "in'many respects'. . . identical or near identical" to the EDG blocks, but are "far from being a common part since the V engines'use a Arankcase or center frame in addition to the two cylinder blocks to make an: equivalent piece to the cylinder block of the in-line: engines." Deposition'of Clinton S.
- Mathews,'May 8, 1984, at.37-38.
T i.
-S-A w->-- , .,. . __ _ ,
O
- 3. Cylinder Heads A. Shoreham. 'Three original cylinder heads were found to-be' cracked and leaking. O, D, M. All EDG cylinder heads were replaced with heads of the same basic design but allegedly better quality which FaAA claims exists in heads produced by TDI af t'er 1980. ' To the extent LILCO and FaAA accept the inade-quate design and/or manufacturing of the pre-1981 cylinder heads, those matters will not be litigated. Otherwise, very-numerous instances of cracking of pre-1981 heads, not detailed herein, will be introduced.
The replacement cylinder heads are of. inadequate-design and manufacturing. quality to' withstand satisfactorily thermal and mechanical loads during EDG
' operation. O,, . D , M.
B. Common. Cylinder heads produced since 1980 by TDI have experienced very high rejection rates in the factory prior to' shipment, due to casting and other manufacturing defects.
D- M-C. Common. Cylinder heads in the following engines have experienced crackinglor other defects after-1980. O, D, M.
The County-has been unable to ascertain which of these cylinder
= heads were manufactured after 1980.
- 7 ' --
. a n , - - - - - , , , ,
~
(1)~ Falcon Shipping Group, SN 78036. One head cracked at inlet' valve bridge and was unusable, and three heads had
- cracked exhaust, valve seats.' Ca. November, 1982. SN 78034.
.One. head cracked between exhaust valves. Ca. December, 1983.
- ( 2 )- U.S. Steel (M.V. Gott), SN 75039 and 75040. Three heads-needed repair. Ca. August, 1983.
l-(3) City of Falls City, SN 71013. "Many cylinder head fa'ilures," attributed by TDI to operators. Ca. December, 1981.
(4)' CityLof Carro1 ton, SN 71015.
~
~
All 16 cylinder heads were repaired atuleast once, and some were repaired twice. Ca.
December,,1981.
-( 5 ) ' City of Belleville,ESN 70041. Twenty heads have
_ failed in service, with cracks in fire deck area, valve seat area,Jor; exhaust-port area.- ' Failures were discovered when
.?,
water.;found in'cylindersEduring blow-out of engine-before
-starting.- Ca. December, 1981.- '
~
f(6) . State of Alaska, SN 72033 or_72034 (M.V. Columbia).
16' cylinder heads were defective. Ca.-1982.
/
w
~
t v
4
'O ^
m (7) Marine Transport. Lines (Sealift Mediterranean), SN 72002. . 6. heads were cracked in intake or exhaust seats. Ca.
October 1982.
- (8) Ra fha . Electricity Corp. , ' SN 79002. A cylinder head
'was cracked on top.- Ca. July, 1981.
'(9) 'Sceco Gizan, SN 77036 andf77041. Three heads found
-to;1eakSunder hydrostatic test. Ca. October, 1981.
- 4. Pistons A. Shbreham. Twenty-three TDI model AF piston skirts in
-all EDGs~were found to be cracked. Oj D, M. To the extent LILCO concurs:that the-model AF piston skirts were inadequately c ' designe'd and/or manufactured, .these mat.ters will not be liti-
~ gated by the County. Otherwise, the County will present.
! numerous other' instances of failures of and problems with
, models AF and AN-piston skirts,-not detailed herein.
"B.. Shoreham. All AF piston skirts in the EDGs were-replaced.with1TDI model.AE piston skirts. 'nte replacement AE' pistons are:of,' inadequate design'and manufacturing quality to satisfactorilycwithstand operating conditions. D, M. Further,
- the' design of the model AE pistons in the EDGs was altered l
[-
...9-N
' ~ ~
y ,
!i i .j ,
~
- prior to installation without compliance with the requirements of?10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
The model AE piston has been
-inadequately.' tested and.is. unproven.
-C. Common. Apex' Marine, SN 79023 (M.V. Baltimore). -Oil
' leaked' from a hole in 'the AE piston crown on the vessel's mildes~ voyage.- TDI concluded that there were three holes in the: crown, one of which passed throu'h g the wall and was a
~
c shrinkage. hole. The crown was scrapped. M.
1.
- D '. - Commora . - U.S. Fteel, SN-75039 or 75040 (M.V.oGott).
4
' Crack was found . in piston crown two inches up' the side of the crownito the. top and oneLinch across the top. M.
I5. Lother Components. The numberzand significance of
' design .and manufac' t uring . defects .that have occurred in the EDGs
, ~ and theiricomponents, and~in identiical or similar TDI diesels and components common to the EDGs,.is so extensive and perva-siveithat,utaking"into consideration the changes'in components and parts of the.EDGs and the'DROR. program as to Shoreham,
.there'can beino confidence that additional defects and failures-will- not occur and: that the EDGs as modified will reliably per-form their-functions.-LIn-support of this proposition, the-
. County will'_ refer not only'to manufacturing processes and-
'y
^
i
fi
~
' controls at TDI, :but also to failures of, and to design deficiencies and manufacturing defects in, components of the EDGs and those-common to other TDI diesels, as disclosed in
~
' Board Notifications, the TDI Owners' Group Program reports and documents ~and NRC' Morning Reports and Inspection Reports. The County will also refer to the following instances concerning
.Shoreham and non-nuclear TDI diesels:
A. Connecting Rod Bearing Shells (1) Shoreham. Four upper connecting rod bearings cracked (original 11"-diameter connecting rods). D, M. la addition,~one bearing on EDG 101 was1 fractured completely through. D, M. Casting discontinuities were found on 14 new
,12"Jdiameter bearings, resulting in rejection of 7 bearings as
~
non-usable and in limiting use of 7 others for lower bearings-only. .M.,
(2) Common. State of Alaska, SN 72033 or 72034 (M.V. Columbia). : Numerous cracked and excessively' worn Lbearings. Eg M.
~
(3) Common. Perusahaan Umum Listrik Negara-(Indonesia), SN 74004. Three bearing fa'ilures. M.
- 11~-
l
- . - . = _ ._- --
1 (4) Common.
. City of Homestead, SN 73029 and 73030.
Over ten' cracked, eroded or-broken connecting rod bearings. D, M.'
(5) ' Common.- Copper Valley Electric Assn., SN 75012.
PiecerofJbearing shell broken off. D, M.
i ..
B.- Engine Bases
, (1) U.~S. Coast Guar'd, DSR-46, SN 72023'. Failure of s
engine. base ~at No. 5? main bearing saddle. O, D, M. Base is Laimilar to'that of EDG.
i-
-( 2 ) - Anamex Mining Co. , DSRV-16-4, SN 73038. Failure
-~
'andicracks in base. O,,. M. Base is somewhat similar to that of
- E DG .
L -
.(3)- Common. . Rafha Electicity Corp. , . DSR-48i SN
~
79003 1 ; Extensive cracking of engine. base. O, D ,~ M. .
'C. Cylinder-Liners (1)' Shoreh'am. ~ Cracks.and pihting have been found in cylinder liners.~ O_ i . D , M.
, s f( . ,
i
,1 - - , . ,e . , - . -,,,v.- ,,,n., , ,-,a , .,-~. . ._. , _ _ _
(2) Common. U.S. Steel, DMRV-16-4, SN 75039 and
..[
75040 (M.V.'Gott). Extensive wear patterns of liners required
. modifications in liners. Liners were.out of round.- O, D, M.
-(3) Common. . City of Princetor,, DGSRV-16-4, SN 73042.. ' Cracked liner from thermal stress.- O, D, M.
(4) Common. City of St. Cloud, DGSRV-16-4, SN 77005. -Liners-disintegrated circumferentially. O, - D, . M.-
(5) Common. . Falcon Shipping Group, DMRV-12-4, SN 78034 (M.V. Pride of' Texas).. Cracks and scufting were found in cylinder' liners.
j' .D. -Connecting Rods a
_ .(1)J-Common.- .(11" eyo). Copper Valley Electical J . Ass'n., DSR-46,.SN 75011. Rod split down the center. O, D, M.
E. Cylinder Head Studs J .
(1)' Shoreham. Crackedistuds. - D, M .'
.(2) Common. City of Homestead, DSRV-20-4, SN 73029'
~
and-73030. Broken studs in both engines.
c D, M.
l- .
ji <
J' _
V '
_ I F. . Turbo $hargers1(Elliott G-90)
~
(1): Shoreham. Defective design of lubricating oil
[
system required m'odificati';n. .D. Turbocharger thrust bearings Lfailed; or were'.near J failure -in all 'EDas. D..
( 2 )l Common.- , TSiwan'.' Power Co. (Kuosheng), DSR-48, l - rSN 75005,f75006; 75007, 7.5008. ~ Turbochargers failed in three i
- engines.' jo, 'D.
- '6. [Over-rating and Undersizing of-EDGs. In addition to Jtheiforegoing, - the -County will trace the ' development of the design ofLtheiEDGs.to demonstrate?that'they are over-rated and ,
~ Lundersized, and.the DSR-48fengines were not sufficiently tested
- i. .
"asfprototypes:on the test stand at TDI before being_ delivered;
~ *
~.to ~ LILCO. _Moreover,+with their-current' modifications and
' ~ 3 changes : in: components',-J the EDGs :are . effectively new prototypes
.which have been 'iriadequatelyl tested and.: inspected.
L M III. . ; TDIiDIESEL GENERATORS ' OWNERS' GROUP PROGRAM PLAN fA broad: pattern;of' deficiencies'in critical engine compo
, _ h <nents has become-evident:at:Shoreham andat other. nuclear;and
.a J non-nuclear? facilitiesiemplOying TDI ~EDGs. These deficiencies n "stemEfromfinadequacies-in design, manufacuure'and quality-
. lcontrol'iby TDI..l./- As- airesult, there dan :be no confidence s
L a
{[/:,"Ord'er'R'equiringDieselGeneratorInspection," Grand' Gulf (In'
? Nuclear Station',: Docket No. _50-416, May 22, 1984.
.particular,jsee. Attachment 4 thereto).-
E6
- 14 ' --
p: -
e L , v .,.~._.;m
,,, ,_,,.,.,_r -
r-regarding the reliability of the Shoreham EDGs.
In response to these broad deficiencies, LILCO initiated
.the-Shoreham Diesel Generator _ Recovery Program ("SDGRP"). This
. program,_ when completed, was intended to provide reasonable as-
~
surance that the Shoreham EDGs will perform reliably. The fol-lowiEg were the four main elements of the SDGRP:
- 1. Disassembly / Inspection / Repair /Research of the Shoreham EDGs;
- 2. ' Failure Analyses and Corrective Actions for Crank-shaft Failures and Other Identified EDG Problems;
- 3. Overall Design Review and Quality Revalidation (DROR) cyf the Shoreham Diesel Generators;
- 4. Expanded Pre-operational Test Program.
Central to the SDGRP effort was the DROR. The Shoreham DROR was intended to address plant specific and generic concerns regarding the TDI:EDGs and was aimed at-_ establishing the reliability of:the Shoreham EDGs through; design analyses, in-spections and. additional corrective measures._2/
-2/
"~
Letter, McCaffrey of:LILCO to Denton.of NRC, January 6, 1984, "Shoreham. Diesel Generator Recovery Program Summa-ry."
{ .:
.R
- . m;
, $ Subsequently,tthe.TDI Diesel Generators Owners' Group Pro-gramEPlan (." Owners'! Group Program")3/ was issued by eleven U.S.
nuclear. utility owners, including-LILCO, in order to address
-operational and1 regulatory 11ssues relative to TDI EDGs. The 9
Owners' Group' Program,Lwhich apparently subsumed the SDGRP, has been. instituted to assess the adequacy of the various TDI EDG-configurations lto perform:their intended safety-related func-
- tions. i.The~ Owners'= Group Program embodies three major-efforts
+ ..
1.: .
Resolution of 16' Known Generic Problem Areas (Phase I
, ~ Program);=
.=
- 2. ' Design Review of Important Engine: Components and
- 'Ouality Revalidation-("DROR") of..Important Attributes N for. Selected EngineiComponents i(" Phase II Program");
s 13k
/Expanied Engine Testing and Inspection.
L +. : .
The' Owners' -Group has designated lead engines for each of.the
~
types - of1TDI1 engines, ~ withL Shoreham designated as the lead e x.
~
3/f :BoardtNotification184-051,' March 12, 1984,- "TDI Diesel-3
' Generators Owners'1 Group-Program Plan," dated-March 2,
-1984.
P J- ~16 -
y I
~
- z. .Em
~ e (t -
.g An effectively functioning OA/OC. program would normally provide assurance that the design and manufacture of the EDGs
.is in.conformance with the criteria and commitments set forth in.an-applicant's PSAR and FSAR.
z In the case of the Shoreham EDGs, however, confidence has been seriously eroded by the ex-iste.n,ce.of a1 broad pattern of significant design and manufacturing deficiencies. Hence, there can be no confidence that the: Shoreham EDGs . were designed and manufactured in accor-dance with stated. criteria and commitments.
The after-the-fact investigation of the Shoreham EDGs conducted by LILCO and-its subcontractors, including Failure
? Analysis Associates, as embodied.in-the Owners' Group Program, failsJto provide an equivalent level of assurance as would have
~
~been achieved if TDI originally. designed and manufactured the Shoreham EDGs adequately and under an effective OA/QC program.
Th'us,fcontrary to'the requirements of GDC 17, there can be no
-confidence.that the EDGs will' operate-reliably and with suffi-
- cient capacity.and capability to adequately perform their-required functions ~and that' additional parts and components.of-
.the-EDGs.will not' fail.
The Owners' Group-Program iails to
- demonstrate that- the Shoreham EDGs are correctly designed and manufactured, as follows:
a 1
d
A. Deficiencies in Scope and Implementation of Owners' Group Program
- 1. . Phases-I and II~ address the design of individual com-
.p'onents only, and'not the interactions-of components and isystems 'iri the engine as' a whole. There is no analysis or Jreportiof" total engine design. Also, no systematic methodology for She: classification of the safety: significance of EDG compo-n'ents - (such as by a' failure modes and effects analysis) .was employed by-the Owners' Group.-
.2.- Phase I and II design reviews are incomplete in that
.the Phase :I? final- reports in many cases do not demonstrate that Lthe designcreviews have: considered all functional attributes and Levaluations' identified Jina the Task Descriptions, nor that
~, , fall { potential Erequirements have in fact been determined. In
.particular:
' ~
.(a): The Task- Descriptions address' only the particular.
c form of past failures.
(b) -The Task. Descriptions do not address the evolution of c'omponent' designs, thereby' inadequately' assessing
_ design changes.
,;r
'\ .
F' .;3 e
,m.,, q , ,,y- y
w y
(c) Some functional' attributes and evaluations listed on
-the Task Descriptions are not even discussed in the LReports.
- 3. . . Deficiencies in engine components experienced at non-
- nuclearffacilities were not systematically obtained and assessed:during-Phase I and II reviews. Thus, the broad
. pattern of: deficiencies in.TDI engine components was not evalu-a ted .
4.- The individual inspections were inadequate to establish-the quality of components in that:
(a).. The inspection commitments in the Owners' Group Pro-gram were poorly defined and acceptance criteria were often lacking.
(b)- The' Owners Group. Program commitments do not ade-quately~ define the precise inspection scope and in-spection techniques to be performed..
'(c) In the formulation of inspection procedures, the
~'
Owners' Group reviews have not taken into account manufacturing' process deficiencies of TDI and its.
suppliers.
19 -
l
~
i
)
?
o-- c(d) The inspections specified are not adequate to dis-close latent defects.
(e) Document' reviews based on suspect and incomplete TDI records have been relied upon to substitute for actual physical inspections.
(f) Inspections to be conducted at plant sites (Shoreham) after engine test and subsequent to continuing compo-nent failures have been-inadequately specified in the Program Plan.
(g). Inspections fail to utilize appropriate NDE tech-niques (for example,.on cylinder head 3), but instead rely heavily on simple visual inspection.
(h) Inspection commitments are not-assured for spare and
' maintenance parts, thereby providing the potential for quality _ degradation.in the future.
5 .' . 9Dur Owners ' Group Program has not: developed nor iden-tified the need for precise criteria or standards for accept-ability, reliability or operability in that:
20 -
(a)' It does.-not require demonstration that the engine.and
. components will meet the FSAR or procurement load specification.
.(b) It does not consider lifetime performance require-ments at full engine rating.
(c) It does not document the possible use of special maintenance and inspection requirements as a substitute for acceptance standards.
(d) .The safety significance of TDI design and 1
manufacturing product improvements which were deferred were not included in'the assessment.
- 6. Sampling inspections relied upon in the owners' Group Program were not appropriate, because the pattern of OA/OC deficiencies indicates there may be significant differences in the as-manufactured quality of EDG components. Further, even if' sample. inspections were appropriate, the Owners' Group Pro-
~
gram failed to document 'or justify its sampling plan criteria.
-7. The testing conducted was inadequate to establish the quality of the engine in that:
L
- 4.
L .
w d,' ~
(a) The Program does not satisfy the start-up qualifica-
. . tion requirement of'IEEE-387, which is necessary-since the 1976 tests are no longer valid.
1(b) The duration and duty cycle (including definition of 1 test load levels) of the testing program is inade-
'- quate to establish engine reliability.
'(c) -The effects of ambient temperature and humidity vari-ations-were not adequately addressed'by the Owners' Groupitesting program.
(d) The-owners' Group Program failed to demonstrate envi-ronmental:and seismic qualification as-required by GDCL4, IEEE-323.and IEEE-344.
8.. In the-formulation of inspection procedures,.the iOwners Group-Program' reviews have not taken into account the 7 pattern of' inspection deficiencies identified.by the NRC's Ven- .
dor Inspection Program.
~
B.- Lack of Independence The. Owners' Group Program is not independent and has been conducted under: extensive conflicts of interest. It has been
_.22 -
b i -
l" A
_.)
-- e b
.; g o
e-
' performed ~under-the direction and control of LILCO, with the
/ pervasive involvement of LILCO personnel, and with LILCO's paid
- consultants, . Wholare advocating-the licensing of Shoreham with TDIEdiesels before.-the-Board at the same time they are Ldirecting and performing the purportedly " independent" review.4/ .Mur design and quality review participants, as well
- . - as the. review; procedure protocol, are not.sufficiently indepen-Ldentifrom cost and schedule' pressures in that:
F o --
- 4f The NRCl, Staff has indicated that the basis for. its approv-alLof TDI' diesels is the successful; completion of'a specified - program proposed to be carried. out by tdue .TDI
- Owners' Group._ On' February 2, 1984, Dr . . Carl-H.
, , Berlinger of the NRC Staff wrote to Mr. J. P. McGaughy, chairman.of the Owners' Group, setting forth the Staff's understanding of the Owners' Group Program to be:
(' 1 ) 'An independent design verification .. . .; [and]
.(2).'An independent verification:of the as- manufactured quality of.these parts-for'each' engine . ...
(Emphasis added).
p d Subsequently,--after Suffolk. County complaineto the Staff
-that:the Owners' Group Program was not " independent," Mr . -
-Harold .Denton. explained that the . Staff requirement only meant that the DROR was " separate from any--previous TDI
- quality-assurance program." Letter dated April.3, 1984, f rom Mr. ' Denton to. counsel for Suffolk County. Also see
. Criterion I of Appendix B regarding the requirements for
-independence from cost'and; schedule pressures.
-^ -
- 1. The Owners' Group Program is being performed by orga-nizations which have a direct and immediate financial interest
.in the outcome of the program: the very utilities (and their paid consultants) which have purchased and/or installed TDI diesels at their- nuclear plants. These utilities stand to lose tens of millions of dollars if defects and safety problems are found in'the TDI diesels. LILCO has stated in its latest Annual Report that it may face bankruptcy if the EDGs are not found qualified ifor service at Shoreham. Thus LILCO and the other utilities in the owners' Group confront an absolute conflict of interest which compromises public safety and any meaningful standard of-independence.
-2i In the review of the R-48 engines installed at
. Shor eham , LILCO has taken the principal role in carrying out the Owners' Group-Program. Much of-the analysis and testing in
[
the' Program was performed on LILCO's own TDI diesels and at the s
Shoreham plant, ' and the directors and principal managers of the Program have been'LILCO employees and LILCO paid consultants.
For example
. (a) The : Technical Program Director for the Owners' Group DROR was LILCO's Mr. William Museler, Director of the
7 L -
- . company's Office of Nuclear, who has testified for-LILCO in the NRC licensing proceedings and advocated the operation of Shoreham.
(b)- ;r. M Museler's Assistant Director for overall supervi-sion of the DROR was LILCO's Mr. M. Milligan.
(c) _The-Program Manager of the DROR was LILCO's Mr. C. K.
~
Seaman.-
. (d) The Design Group Chairman of the DROR was LILCO's paid consultant, Mr. G.'W. Rogers of Failure Analysis.
Associates _("FaAA"). FaAA is LILCO's chief consul-tant on TDI diesel matters in the ASLB licensing pro-ceeding.,
. (e)_ The Component Sele'etion Chairman of the DROR was
~
LILCO's paid consultant, John C.;Kammeyer, an employ-
.ee of LILCO's engineering contractor, Stone & Webster
~
Engineering Corporation.~ Mr. Kammeyer had advocated.
- LILCO's position in the ASLB licensing proceedings.
(f).'The-Quality Group Chairman of the DROR-was LILCO's paid consultant, R. J.'Najuch, also of LILCO's con-tractor, Stone & Webster.
v - , - . - - . , .- _ ._ , . . , -
. gr a,
(g): All'of the Task Leaders of the DROR were employees of e ,
- LILCO's paid' consultants,cStone & Webster or FaAA. A
-chart,. prepared by the Owners' Group itself and sub-mitted as Figures 1 and 2 of' Appendix 2 to Board No-4 ?tification.84-051, demonstrates that for all intents cand purposes the entire Owners' Group Program has been' dominated and executed =by LILCO and its own paid consultants.
-3. A key FaAA engineer was formerly employed in the man-agement of TDI.
^+ [4 '. The protocol for information-exchange between LILCO andJthe Owners' Group reviewers resulted in inscrutable infor-mationyexchanges'due.to the lack'of organizational indepen-
'dence.5/
15 / . 1The. Licensing Board in:LBP-83-81: (' Comanche Peak' Station,.
~
Units l'and 2,-Docket No. 50-445 and 50-446, December 28, 1983)Jurged in~part!that an: independent design' review be-conducted with [ the following characteristic regarding.or :
Lganizational independence:
JDuring.the conduct'of the review c there should:be no
- undocumented oral discussions between applicant and the reviewing' organization concerning findings. See, e.g., Teledyne Engineering Services,nTechnical? Report
. Tr-5633, Executive Summary of Final-Report: Indepen-it dent-Design ~ Review for the.Shoreham Nuclear Power
~
' Station (June 30,-1983) at 2. The reviewing organi--
za tionishould obtain all its information from:
observations of. documents or hardwarer. written ,
e (Footnote cont'd next page) 26 -
b u
c
~
5.- The,NRCLStaff, directly'and/or through its contrac-tors, . is: currently ' reviewing the scope and substance of the
' Owners' Group' Program. - Such a - Staff review, even if it were to include carefully. monitoring-the Program'and evaluating its iresults, does not cure the pervasive conflict of interest of LILCO, the other. utilities in.the TDI. Owners' Group, and the
' individuals who are directing and carrying out the Owners' Group; Program.
In-summary, any. Program,for analyzing the design and qual-ity of.the TDI EDGs must be controlled, directed, and performed
- by:aftruly independent organization'and by neutral,~ objective
.personnelLwho have neither a real nor apparent stake in the-outcome. The Shoreham review fails to satisfy the preceding-independence criteria.
c a
C. .
Key Elements of Program Are Incomplete-
~
The-Owners' Group Program is incomplete =for Sh'oreham in a l~ number of significant aspects, Land thus, the Program is pres-U ently not1available for evaluation and assessment by the NRC,
'z i(Footnote cont'd from previous page) answers to' written questions; or. transcribed - confer-ences'open to all parties.
l t: ' -
27 -
l
- c. -
L-b rw wy-+e- w ,,9, --
.,9, ,, ..,.wg, e--wee - * ,, , ,w,m.s ew+=*_.__e
e
..O' LNew York State,lor? the County. . Accordingly, it is premature to commence?the. litigation <of.the EDG contention until these crit-
.t - ical' matters are completed.and reviewed by.all parties and
- theirl consultants. .Important areas unavailable for review include the 7following:-
s
~1 . 'NotJall Phase I' activities have been completed in
~thats:
(a)'. Cylinder block and' liner reportLis not issued.-
'(b) Existing reports do not fully address all issues in
' Task Descriptions.
'(c) NRC review, and that of its consultants, is ongoing.
and!-is incomplete. Indeed, .at the May~-24, 1984 Owners Group meeting, the NRC ProgramLManager prom-ised that a draft would not-be furnished ~until mid-June documenting the NRC: consultants' comments'on
.the adequacy of-the scope (not the results) of the LPhase I program.-
(d) As of May '33,c 1984, the Staff ha'd no preliminary or other views regarding.the' adequacy of-the DROR or of-
~
, , TDI - EDGs : based upon the Owners Group Program. -
V.
9
1 2._ The. Owners'; Group Program has not issued reports for Phase II regarding the DROR and is not. scheduled to do so until Lthe-first'of. July. Thus, documentation of the design and qual-
- ity of-important EDG components is not yet available for evalu-
- ation.
13 . Shoreham engine testing and inspection have not yet been1 completed in'that:
(a): Post-operational inspectic.7s are incomplete.
(b) New cylinder 1 block' testing-program is not defined.
- 4. . Procedures for-increased'special~ engine maintenance, inspection, and surveillance activities, including-crack indi-
- cations monitoring - relied upon by the
- Owners ' Group, have not yet been issued.
- IV. - ' ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
-In its February.22-bench order, the Board prohibited the
, . County : from conducting _ formal: discovery from customers of TDI,
- > although11nformal reques'ts for voluntary information werc
' allowed. Tr. 21,623-24. . The-County chose not to. attempt to
~
(contact.TDI customers until it completed its review of the some t S l',
~
i e~ <- + - . ., . . - . . .-,,--....,,-,--s .--y - ,-- , ,,.. ~ - - -
- s E 30,000.plus documents obtained from TDI, many regarding customer service records. This review was continuing in early May 1984. In the process of this review, the County obtained a iistLof all ovners of TDI R-4 and RV-4 diesels.
-on-May;8, 1984, the County learned in the deposition of
' Cline 6n-S. Mathews, vice president and general manager of TDI's Engine and Compressor Division, that TDI had written "to the
" owners of R-4 and RV-4 series engines and told them they might
-be contacted by attorneys. " Mathews Deposition =at 101. Mr.
Mathews did not recall what else the letters said. On May 11, during the deposition of Maurice H. Lowrey of TDI, counsel for the County requested immediate production of those letters.6/
TDI refused to produce them immed'iately, and the County's
' counsel requested the NRC Sta ff to obtain such letters and fur-
- nish-themLto'the County. .The Staff made 'such a request, but did not agree to supply copies of such letters to the County.
See Lowrey Deposition at'90-92 (Attachment'l hereto). :The
-6/ -Counsel.for Suffolk County stated, in part, that "we believe that there.may be a potential effect'which would
-chill or dissuade.TDI diesel owners from communicating po-tentially important safety information concerning the die-sels to Suffolk County _or.to the-Nuclear Regulatory Commission." -Lowrey-Deposition at 91.
'O
' ~
' County ^has to date-not received copies of the letters TDI sent to itsicustomers.
' Subsequently, the State of New York, in coordination with
'Suffolk County, requested information on TDI diesel problems
.from TDI diesel owners in non-nuclear. applications. To date responses have been-received from only four of the over 70 owners to whom the request was sent. Counsel for the County.
~
. hastalso. telephoned or~ attempted unsuccessfully to telephone
-the'TDI diesel owners in1the United States listed in sections 2.B(l')-(4) and (6)-(8), section 3'.C(1)-(7), and sections 4.C and D. of Part II above, to ascertain whether such owners will
, voluntarily supply information as to those matters. For the
- most part,-these responses have been inconclusive; they have
.rangedJfrom a willingness to furnish some information (but- not necessarilyla willingness to be deposed) to a. reluctance to get involved, to no' decision yet.
A j
Accordingly, depending upon further developments and,
. informal discussions,-Suffolk County may want to subpoena R fd'ocuments and take depositions from the following:
' 1. As to the nature and-extent and details of cylinder block cracking similar-to'that'in the Shoreham EDGs, the owners
. listed in section:2.B(1)-(4) and (6)-(8) of Part II.
i-
.e 1 . -
- 2. As to the possible cracking of cylinder heads manufactured after 1980, the owners listed in section
- 3.C(2)-(7) of Part TI.
- 3. As to defects.'in piston crowns, the owners listed in
- sect' ions '4.C and D of Part II.
nformation on these particular matters goes directly to the specific instances listed in Part-II with respect to three ma'jor: components of'the EDGs, an
- is not merely cumulative. in t
.value. The County.is not seeking to subpoena information on
~ other TDI' diesel components, as set forth in section 5 of Part s II,_because the purpose of section_5, inter alia', is to demon-strat.e the. pervasive nature of deficiencies in design and qual-ity, such that more information would be cumulative of that al-ready obtained. f r
If and t'o the extent responses from the TDI diesel' owners \
contacted by New York State disclose inportant matters with l respect.to the. replacement crankshafts, cylinder block <ye y
~
cracking, cylinder heads, AE pistons, - or 'the over-rating of- the ;s:
7y Shoreham EDGs,-the. County will promptly bring such matters'to u', -
r( ,
lthe attention of the Board and parties to add to the iteNs o <
list'ed in Part II. .( j
{, i j,. ,,'* c -
! f \ ,\
s.
k,
/ *
. .c ,
I r _{
\
f f J-g
? , 't b.
/j , .
/ '
> , t /
, ', s
,u j
'1: i, s'
> {.
l I
L. '!
/[ r._ Ii 'i
i o
.g-A.special problem exists with respect to obtaining addi-L!
i {tiorpil'[information on the replacement crankshaf ts and cylinder heads fror[ Rafha tElectricity Corp. in Saudi Arabia, on cylinder
= '
blocks from SURALCO in Surinam, and on cylinder blocks and cyl-b inder heads from Sceco Gizan in Saudi Arabia. The County may i e' seek.to subpoena such information, but the force and effect of 1: ,
'~
2 a Board subpoena in Saudi Arabia or Surinem questionable.
/
A y ,iar easier and probably more effective approach would be for
. .- 7.
" .i m _
Ith'e NRC Staffsto request this informatio'n.
6 '
I' '
j
[ $ t
. _, ,; , ~ Suffol'k County is surprised at the modest effort made by 1( ac t Vt he Staff to' secure information on the operating history of TDI y iV C ,
p ' diesels. The Staff did not request to refriew TDI's customer '
service files, did'not participate (though invited) in the i Cnunty's review of such TDI files in Oakland to identify rele-l vant documents, and has not reviewed the TDI documents <obtained e
by the Countys (though i vited to do so by the County) .7 s Moir ?-
Dr. . Berlinger of the , Staff stated in his deposik o.n ont
_" over,
~
ej !,/,May 22, 1984, , tliat the' Staff'did not intend to seek operating
+
( a p
/
history informaticn from TDI owners of diesels in non-nuclear
- 7/ See M tter dated April 16, 1984, from counsel for Suffolk
- '. County to counsel' for the Staf f ( Attachment 2 hereto) .
, , ,' 'The Staff never responded to this letter.
I. s' p
Of -
i . .
-
t
.. { :
, ,r r p- 4' .- - \
Q': .
>y e , .' ,
b n
W - ~ - - - - _ - _ - _ __ _ _ - _ _ _ _____ _
y .r-e
~-
. installations.. Dr. .Berlinger believed that records for non-nuclear stationary TDI diesels would probably be too
. sketchy to[be useful, but he admitted-that he had not requested any?such records.8/- The Staff's' consultants testified in a deposition on May 23 that marine diesel experience would be
~
us e'ful information, but that Pacific Northwest Laboratory - (the Staff's contractor) is not directly-obtaining information on
.TDI diesel problems in marine and other non-nuclear applica-
.t[ons.9/
On May 30,'1984,- Suffolk County formally requested ' the Staff'to request TDI owners to supply operating history infor-mation on.TDI~ diesels,.and especially on the.16 significant-component problems.- See Attachment-5 hereto. The County has
' ~
-received no reply.to-that request..
V. CONCLUSION
~ . Suffolk County- hereby requests this Board to (i) accept i ;the consolidation and. restatement of the EDG contentions, as-set- forthlin Part:II hereof, (ii) accept-the-particularization l
8/: See Berlinger Deposition at.64-71 (Attachment 3' hereto).
-9/ ' 'See deposition of Henriken, Kirkwood, Laity and Louzecky at 98-100!(Attachment 4 hereto).
^
i:- -
offmatters,._as set forth in.Part.II hereof, (iii) add to the EDG litigation the matters concerning the TDI Owners' Group Program, as detailed.in Part III hereof, (iv) defer the filing of testimony and commencement of EDG litigation until comple-tion'andlan. opportunity for review of the matters specified in section C of Part III hereof, and (v) permit the County to obtain additional information, and encourage-the Staff to Lob'tain additionalcinformation,fas discussed in Part IV hereof.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppaug e ,~ -New York 11788 KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS AK ?1 h '
Alan qyy Dynder Lawrence Coe Lanpher Douglas J. Scheidt l'
1900 M Street, N.W.
. Washington, D.C. 20036-
-Junef11,-1984 Attorneys'for Suffolk County k . . . - . . __ .. . _ _ . _ _ . . . .. . ._
. e- 1 ATTACHMENT 1
'3EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AMD LICEMSING BOARD 2
- ---o00---
'3 In the matter of )
LOliG IOLAliD LIGilTII2C COMPATE, )
4 (Shorchac Nuclear Power
) DOCKET !;O. 50-332-OL
'5 )
S ta tion, U nit 1)' )
s )
7 O l
9
, 10 -
i.
DEPOSITION OF MAURICE !!. LOliREY 11 Ma y .10 , 190 4 12 -
13 14 lb lo
'17 18 19 -REPORTED BY:
20 JOAN 1ARIE COLUMBINI, CSR NO. 5435 21 22 23 24 25 26 '
i
- TOOKER & ANTZ 27- CERTIFIED S!!ORTHAND REPORTERS 681 MAPSET STREET, SUITE 9 25 28 SAN FRA!iCISCO, CALIPOR!!I A 94105 415/392-0650 PREDERIC R. TOCKER l KEF.3LE ANT 2
v -
y y
'I am not abusing the uitness.
- e. '. MR.-DYN!!ERs
- 2
. 2' Ycu :hcVe arrased tne counsel today.
- - I MR. - SMITII:
I am sorry you feel that way.
' 3-4 don'r- nink I'have.
fir .
Lo. trey are'you still the TDI tiR. Di'N!JER :
a' -
6
~ 11 acon- representative in the DRaR?
I am.
A.
'To the best of my knoaledge, 7 _
intend to return to the Shoreham site in i
~
Q. Do you 8
taer capacity?
~
9-10 h. -I.do, sir.
Do you know hos long you will continue nerving 11 'Q.
-- 12 lin.that capacity?
- A.
No, I do not knoa.
'13- i 14; -Q. :Darin. _he time that you 'have. served in th s l val?
15
. capacity, are you being paid . by; De a
.h. Yes.-
L 6::
'Is ,D elaval ' receiving any: remuner ation f rom .the 17: Q.. i in TDI owner s Group -in connection. with its participat onc
~
~ 18 the' DRQR, to your knowledge?
^13f 20 A. I don't know.
Mr. -Lo. rey, . are you aware of a narbor of
- 21- Q.
to its customers' of R4 and RV4 22 letter s which Delaval 'sent ible atte.T. pts of
. series engines concerning the poss
- .23 l diesci 24 Suf folk County to gain information about Delava l25 enginos3-
'A.
P lease ca/ again, 'zir.
12 G :
Read the qacstion again, plcace?
MR. :DYt!NER:
.27 :
~28 (Record read. )
~Y" I
'~
4 t , ,- - - + w h .-- m -. , . ,e-,+ -w ---,,--w r- - mes
, r l THE .IT"ESS: No, sir. I c= nc; sware cf acer
,. :1
-2 letters.
-e 3- :iR. D'Im12R : Q. :!r. Lowrcy, have yc; re:J the 4 ceposition transcript of Mr. Clint Mathcus that .<cc taken 5 e ar lie r tr.i s *.;c s k ?
5 -A. I ha ve 91 caced at it, sir. I ha ve nc studied 7 i t.
- 3. .
MR. DYNNCn: Counsel, Mr. Smith, I r. going to 9 ' ret est the: jcu provare int.e'liately copie: sf ;11 of the 13 letters which Mr. Msthews stated during hic deposition 11 that Delaval sent to the oaners Hof R4 a n d R'/
- series 12: engines concer ning possible cttempts that they -ight de 13 contacted by attorneys for Sof folk Cocnty witn respect to 14 tr.e-Delaval diesel engines.
lb MR. SMITH: I will take your recuest ander 15 cdvise m;n t. I don't cee any rescon why they chould be 17 produced immediately or in f act at all. 'Jhat pessible 15 cearing do tney have on the CDG contention.
19' MR. DYNNER: I am asking f or immediate 20 production of those documents because whatever the extent 21 of those letter s =ay ha ve been, and Mr. Mathews stated he 22 didn't recall what the letters said, we believe that 23 there may be a potential ef fect which would chill'or 24 dissuade TDI diesel owners f rom cormunicating pctentially 25- important safety information .oncerning the diesels to
- 26 Suffolk County or to the Nuclear negalatory Cortission.
27 As you nay know, in ser.1c cases it is very v 28 likely that Oclaval is the supplier of spare parrc to its
, 1 cuctenors or other services, and we belie ve regardless of 2
shate ver tne intent may have been for those letters that 3
tney may well ha ve that chilling ef fect.
4 MR. SMITH: With that explanation I think it is 5
clear they are completely irrelevant. I vill take your 6 request under advisement. I will certainly not prodoce
.7 them immeJiately.
8' "-
MR. DYNNER: In the rocr. I see prerent M r.
9
- Ricnarc God:ard, ..no is an attorney for tne staff of the 10 Nuclear Regulatory Cor aission. Mr. Goddard, I am going 11 t0 formally request that the Nuclear Regulatory 12 Coccission request tnat those letters ime made a vailacle 13 fortqsith to the NRC and that copies of them be furnished 14 to Suffolk County.
15 MR. GODD ARD:
With reference to your request,
' l' 6 '
Mr. Dynner, the NRC-Staff will now on the record request 17 all cuch letters,-together with any records of telephone 18 conversations or other communications between Mr. Mathews 13 or any other employee of TDI and TDI: customers with 20 regard'to communications with attorneys or other 21 information regarding R series engines to Suffolk County, 22 to tn2 NR0 or to other interested parties.
23 NRC staf f will not comacnt at this tire ss to 24 uhother or not we will make such documents available to 25 Suf f olk County. Tney will be :sade available to the 26 office'of in vestiga tions of 'NRC.
27 MR. DYNNER: Q. Mr. L o.e r cy , I ha ve only a few 2b- dore questions.
w (;
w J. UC ATTACHMENT 2
~ 'W s , 3IRKPATRICK[ LOCKHART. HrLL.. CHRISTOPHER Se PnILLIPs'
'3; 9J r 1, -
y '
G-. ,"A Parrwsmearer 1pcz.cosso A Paoraessomat Conromarson -
[A ,
- 190031 STREET, N. W.
U@
. _i
~
.:WAsu.INGTox, D. C. 20036.
. p
- iW ^ * . .. .~;
f: ymarmoyz naca; aca.tooo f rir yrrraseman 5 cAar.alWusss ~ <
nas,armaca.unzmant.Josseos a seremson 7 mas anomoo aren er . . .
o.oo on.rvsa sec.aceo
- -warram e ornaar naar. m=== :
AprilH16, 1984 rrr==c==. rzmmana ====
~ '
T2 C 2/4 5 2-7.04 4, t' . k ,
c ?(3YSTELECOPIER),
.,3 ,
4'
-h#
'g . . . +.
- Eirna'-'a i v - 1:ordenickbEsq. -
E.5:. cN6clearf Regulatoryg Commission
, 18:M F1oor.',f Room 2 67 04 T-7,735iOl'd Georgetown Road,
~~
' (LethesdaJaaryland-
+ -d .
20814 Dear /BernieL
[. _
t refer"to yourlietteriof'. April-12, 1954Lrequesting.thatL
. _ ' .. iSuf folk '. County forward to Lyou on behalf of" the ' NRC Staf f ?" copies - .
E 1 (ofJallycalcula:tionst and; analyses', test. data, andlany other inform-y _:iat'icn or' documents lconcerning'variouslcomponents of thefTDI1 diesel-
~
, '. generators not? heretofore provided^tonthe NRC staff byithe)Coun '
- lty".1"' !You .f urther" note : that ;you(are s especiallyfinterested Lin L
- ldocumentslandJealculationsiwhich-form theibasesTof the County's- -
tsupplementalLEDG? contentions'which were admitted:into controversy.. -
.injthisicasecon3Februaryf22;y1984.
~' , D 'JPleasesnote that,the cal'culations:and:otheridocuments'which~
support;and formithei j bas'es' forJthei County's EDG contentions are .
tset-forthfin?Suffolk County's1 Response to!LILCO's Request for Pro-
- Eduction;ofJDocuments,EMarch 20,.19,84,fwhichiwas file'd1with the
~
M 3cardcand6 served!on the7.NRCzStaff. .'An updateloffthe document: dis-
,?ceveryjsitdationssis) included-in.theLJoint Objections'of'Suffolk-nCcunty1and"the(StcteiofJNew York to" Board':s10ralLOrder of Febrdary
,< (22,319_84,fand;Requertffor Revision-Thereof ( ." Joint L Obj ections " ) ,-
lfiled with the Board enEApr.t1110~,11984Eand' served upon the NRC~
, Q..gfStaff?by1. hand delivery. ' '
m VThefJointLObjections(states:
~
- The:Countyis con _sultants-have.not.been W y -able to reviaw:and: analyze.thelrelevant Q< > '
Sdocuments;and' drawings necessaryffor them .
. to reachEfinal' conclusions on the? issues
. u, .
Li n~ controversy.1 The County has. committed
. 1to1LILCO's(counsel;to notify them.when
~
isuch:conclusionscare" reached, soithat;
,, .LILCOimay meaningfullyL depose the.Coun-
'ty'sjconsultants. .,However, because
- I
[,.m +5 +
4 T 4
. .. .. . . .. _ .. _- ._. - .~ ._
m, '
i
- .; tv 1 _~.
U*" Ktarexrmicx. LocxxAar. Exu. Cantsroruza Sc PxInrPB ,
isernard M. Bordenick,cEsq.
'i 2 April 216, 19BC
]Page2'
, s i
, literally.-thousands of documents. remain i, - ,
to 4 beireceived and analyzed', we cannot J. , _ , . fyet' predictDwhen this will-~ occur.
M LJointMObjections at'7-8.' It :should therefore -be obvious that the ,
<m ? County'sJconsultants haveDnot prepared'any final reports,-analyses ~ hose
, :ricalc.:laticnsmuith respect to.:their preliminary cpiniens.
- 7 pre' iminary ~ opiniens have not ?yet . been reduced to written reports ,
n- analysesforfcalculations except i to.the1 extent referred to in
~
Suffolk County.s-! '
' Response to'LILCO'.s Request for1 Production of
< UDoeume'nts'.
q .x ~
^
TAsV I[indicat'ed to you on the telephone, the Ccunty-has -
- receivedfa':large. number.ofl documents from LILCO, although such a?? documents constitute a partial response to the County's request
_ for! discovery. ;It woulduseem appropriate for the Staff-to request
- SILCOcto; furnish tc the Staff whatever documents-I,ILCO has sup-m; plied tojthe County, rather.than-make your document request.to the
~
z ~
,' 2 County'.<L"evertheless, we will-be prepared to permitLrepresenta--
itives' of- the' Staff:. tonreview documents obtained during discovery
~
'1'iby'theJCounty,;at a mutually convenient time in o'url offices. You zwill; recall.that1previously;we have had NRC. Staff representatives
- =ccmelto--our-officesito.reviewtother; documents obtained by the:
1 County? i nithewdiscoveryfprocess in this case.
. .~ 1As:notedLin?thefJointfObjections,fhowever, there remain many.
sthousandsTofydocumentsJwhich the: County identified,as relevant at;
- -:~ ; ,i TDI', Land which ' ha've ' not yet: been provided to the County. ' Last
- EFridayJwefreceived;anfinitial,-relatively small? number of docu-s ~
' " - iments f rom /TDI . ? As': youiknow, Jfive lawyers . and 'Econsultants .of lSuffolk" County spent:MarchL220and123.at TDI'sifacilityJin; Oakland,-
~
~
- Californiafgoing _through~ 'many ' files' andiidentiifying < thousands of f documents" relevant'to this! case.. The-NRC' Staff had been notified-f N of/this visitiandiwasLin'vited to. participate, but declined
- to do m
1 iso.' 2OnDFriday) morning,3 March ~23, while"in California,--ITwas J% (returned)h_is ; notified thatiCarl Berlinger-had' Etelephoned me. I-immediately.
w
- call -During that telephone.-conversation _I told Mr.
.., i Berlingert thatJin Ethec course of: our- reviewcof 'the TDI files made
' Davailable, we :were : finding very large. numbers of relevant docu-4 ments fincluding? material-information on~the firing pressure in Lthe! cylinders lfof TDI diesels, and case histories.cf cracked V com-3cnents Jin similar TDI' diesels .
LIlstrongly(suggested to'Mr.. Berlinger that ha-and/or members cofitheSSRCEStaff immediately make arrangements to' review the TDI
. ~
Efiles,spointing out-to.him that'the. Staff should not rely on the V . fdocuments) selected by the County. 'Specifically, I told Mr. Ber-
, o e
s b '_
y.
- = -
- .n - , , __,,_ ,_. , ,,
y ,_ _ ,m ;- - - -
r (m 1
- -. -(
. ,' EINEPATRICK,10CKMARTJ Hitt.. CuarzTOPHER & Part.r.rra
- Bernard M.fBordenick, Esq.
C April --16, - -19 84 -
^ 1Page13 .
p
- linger : thati there :- seemed.- to ib.: important~information concerning
< TDITV-16:dieselsewhich',Ewhile not:.necessarily relevant tv the
> ShorehamJease.(where common components may..not be involved), would i b:e 1 r e ) e v a n t .:- t o t h e: Staff's: review _of' diesel: adequacy.at other.
snuclear e installations'. 'Mr.6Berlinger answered that he did not
~
- have the:ttme.to,part:.ctpate :.n'this discovery.
Whilec it1does~'seem to.me a rather circuitous route for the
- Staff
- to'~take~in proceeding lwith discovery, we wi'_1. invite the-g -Staff l.sfrepresentativesfte review,and inspect copies of the TDI LdecumentsLwhen'welrece'ive them. .I, have - no-- doubt that the Staff
- sillifind the many.. thousands of documents which we~ identified at-i
'TDIfto'bejextremely1 relevant and perhaps critical to the determin-
' MtionJof- the -issues fset forth-in..thetCounty's EDG contentions.
- Please1 telephone melif you'.are
- interested in. pursuing this L atter. 'To the' extent that the~ Staff reviews TDI documents at our
~
- cf fices(at 'a : mutually convenient time, and determines that it.
0J . desires %copie 6 ofTdocuments',: 'weimust" insist that any copyin.g.musti notfinterf ere :with the: County's review of documents and. prepara-tion'oflits case forLthe: hearing. Of course, any charges.in. con--
p nection:with copying ref documents wil1 beYto the account of'the NRC4 Staff.
- Sincerely' .yours, Alan.RoyjDynner-ARD/dk icc: Richard:J.JGcddard,1Esq. -
J T.'S...Ellis,/Esq.
~ Fabian Palomino, Esq.
'z
- Ca. rl ? Berlin. 9er
~ Ralph:Caruso:
t w
e e
?
- 6 4
-9' V
F o , -
r..e ,_ ,-,,,e. . - ~ . . --..w , , , .. n m. .- , , , . . - - , . , . ,
I '
, . .- ATTACHMENT 3
_ _ 3..
4 b b b dn 4W 4 ei a i b d J
~310GID NGS 32: ORI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD LIn-the Matter of: ) .
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )- . Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) .
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station )
)
Uniti1)' )
DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM E. FOSTER, P.E.,
and CARL H. BERLINGER ll Hauppauge, New York Tuesday, May 22, 1984
- 1 AR ALDE 5ON CEK?RiiNG (202) 628-9300 A An clocT CTo r
- T M W.
L [ ;
m; -
- J o.
l tu n,
s 1
maybe :I ought to get on the next plane and come out and 2
go thr o ugh the reccrds, because you were finding cut a 3 lot ._ of . ver y -in tere sting inf crma tion.
4 When I asked what that specific.
- 5. . , 1nfcrmation might-be that would-be of great interest to 6
me, yo u really couldn't: identify anything ever the 7- phcre.
Eut I--have been -- I have been a-'very busy man 8
- since I've~ been assigned this task, and I.-really have
'9
.not ha d the time tc go cut to TDI to go through their 10 en tire record.
11' .C Dr. Berlinger, have you, other than your.
12 communicaticn with.P.r. P.o l i n a , have you requested any 131 inform ation concerning the operating histcry of = Delaval 14 - 1 Engine s f rom ' any other evne'rs of Delaval Engines in l
15 non-nu clear service? .
- 16-WITNESS BE1 LINGER
- We have received som e I 17 infcrmation frcm the. state _of Alaska, but specifically, 18 I-have not and -I do not intend to request information in 19 the ma rine ' area of application , primarily on the basis 20 '-
of the recommendation by the diesel consultants -whc I
- _21 have retained.
i .,
22
- The y feel tha t. aany of the problems ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
20 F ST., N.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 f?fm A?m.own
1 l
Y .
55 1 a ss cci a te d with =arine application were these diesels, 2 or any other diesels, are very closely related to the 3 t'ype o f service that is seen in marine ap plicat ion ,
4 whi ch is different f rom nuclear service and also is 5 . dif fer ent on the basis of the type of fuel that's ussi.
6- And primarily based en their 7 r ecomm endation , I am not going out and soliciting 8 o pe ra t i n g experience data of any -- to any great extent 9 with r egard to marine applications. ,
10 0 How about nuclear stationary applications?
11 WITNESS BERLINGER. Some of that l 12 infctm ation has been obtained, but a limited amcunt cf l
13- inf crm a tion . I have net specifically gene cut and i i
i 14 reques ted it.
15 0 Do you know how many Delaval Engines 16 there are in non-nuclear stationary a'p plica tions ? I 17 WITNESS BERLINGER: In simple terms, 18 many. I have requested the informa tion, or information 19 pertaining to non-nuclear station installations of TEI 20 Engine s f rom TDI. That infcrmatien has still nct teen 21 r ec eiv e d .
22 One of the explanations I got for it i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
[- 20 F $7 N.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202)628 9300
a
- r f 6-
- g:
- 1 taking. sc long in identifying the particular engines ard 2- Ltheir specific. locations is the fact that some of these 3- engine s vere shipped overseas.
4- One example cited was to Saudi Arabia. I
,i
, ,5; thi nk --t he re night have been several hundred that were 6 sold t o ' Saudi A rabia . I'm'not sure of the exact numbers.
77- But after they are received, TDI doesn't 8' . kno w w here. .they are in stalled, so they really can't give 9' .
me a lot of information about them. , They 're havino 10 dif fic ulty trying to put this information t eg e th e r . But 11 I vculd ' have expected to have received it by now.
12 Why are-you relying sc heavily on Celaval Cl 13 to obt ain :this inf orma tion? -
-14 WITNESS BERLINGER : The type of
- 15 .- 11'nf erm ation I: requested was the class :of engine in wha t' 16 . is' called the 4 series, the series 4 line, and their
=17 specific location.
-18 In other words, the rating and-the 19 locaticn.
20T 'C I have ' a l document which I will give ycu
- 21 llater on which contains inf ormation --
22 RITNESS ' BERLING ER. Can I leck at t ha t?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,1NC.
20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 628 9300 C- _- _ . _
- -- y 4 %
5o 3 y.- Ei i./ ,
'1 O Sure.-
2-WITNESS ~BER1INGER: 'I kncv-I'm not 3
s
.alleve d1to ask Equestions, :but .where did you get it?
4 i '
As you know, Dr. Berlinger, I told ycc've
- - 5. ..
received. many- thousands of- documents in the course of
.6 'discov ery f rem Delaval. Ve 're in -the' process 'of geing P
'7. th rcug h > those .- d ocum ents.
This is one that we obtained.
8'
.We! wil'1' ma ke. a copy- available~ to you - af ter the
, 9- d e p csi tien .
, 10' WITNESS BERLINGER: Very good.
.' 11
-Cne of the -- one of the points I think 12 should he brought out with regard to~-- call it 13-
- non-nu clear .TDI applications -- is the fact that much 'o f s
14 the in fermation? pertinent to the opera tion of th ose
. 15 e ngine s jus.t is no t . av ailable , especially with regard to 16
-- er if you' compare -it to the - type of info rmation 17 tha t's required to - be k ept 1 for nuclear service 18: ' a splic a tio ns .
' 19 .
f For instance,Iif I'found out that there
- 20. 'was an engine located 'in Oshkosh, if it was a
. 21; i non-nuclear installatien, the chances are that much cf .
22 the op erating:, experience information -- there are no t
-I
\
4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 P ST., N.W.,wa =wmrtTN n r* ** '**** *** * * * *
/
e EE 1 reccrd s kept. And the conditiens for which that e n g in e 2 are operated are net closely centro 11ed.
3 Se, it's difficulty, if not pointless in 4 mest c ases , to look into f ailures f or which there is an 5., inadeq uate data base describing the circumstances under 6 w hi ch these failures occurred, because 1: really dces
-7 not give you enough inf crmation to evaluate the cause of 8 some of these problems. And it does give you more 9 inf orm ation and more paper to look at, but the value of 10 that inf crmation is questicnable.
11 C Dr. Berlinger, I'm confused. how can 12 you , on what basis can you say that the data vould be 13- inadeq ua te when you haven't even attempted te cbtain 14 that d ata?
-15 WITNESS BERLINGEF: What I said was that 16 the inf orma tion or the records that I would be 17 intere sted in finding cut or learning of are not 18 rou tin ely kept by any industry other than the nuclear 19 indust ry.
20 C let me take an example. If a crank shaf t 21 were to break at a sta tionary non-nuclear power plan t, 22 are you suggesting that there would not be useful data
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
20 F ST., N.W., W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300
" ~
f ,
- :i.
x 69 ,
2- !
1 l
.1 concer ning .the conditions u nder which that crank shaft- l
.2i -br e ke ? -
^
'I
-3 WITNESS BERLINGER: Most likely, that is.
4 true. But I:--
5- C Most ifkely,-what is true? I'm scrry --
l
-_6 WITNESS SERLINGER: It is true that the 7 data would not be su'fficient for me to de te rmine wha t
'8 caused - the f ailure.
- 9. C What data would you need to determine
- 10 what caused the f ailure? .
11 ER. S'IB C UPE : - Ctjection.to-the form cf 12 the qu estion.
13 WITNESS BERLINGER: Net being an expert 14 in cra nk shaf t - analysis, I can't tell-you specifically 15 ' what d a ta wo uld be necessary.- But I can characterize
-16 the ~f act that if an engine is installed.somewhere in the-
.17 desert in Saudi Arabia, I dcn't.really know whether er
(
.18 not it is covered or in a building or susceptible tc 19 enviro nment al conditions or using heavy oil or diesel
'20 . oil.
21- This is the type of information which you
'22 might te able te cet te give ycu a partial indicaticn s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,1NC.
96847 N W.Wa4WN(tTON O C. 20001(2n2 A2m.own _
?
7C 1 in som e cases as te what may have led te a failure. Bu t 2 l e t 's say the measurements taken at scre cf these 3 installations a re .no t the type of measurements that 4' -would be taken at a nuclear plant.
-5, For example, many of these i nstalla ticns ,
-6 they t urn on the engine and they leave and there is nc 7 one on-site specifically monitcring the operation cf 8 that e ngine unless it shuts down for some reason.
9 It's the type of operation that I 'm 10 lookin g -- that I'm trying to characterize fcr you which 11 is not specifically identifiable by me.
12 I can't tell you exactly what inf orm a tio n 13 is er is not readily a vailable , but I can characterize 14 it fro r -- nct from my perscnal experience but from wh a t 15 I have gathered from discussions with people who have 16 been all over the world looking into diesel problems --
17 - tha t i t 's very-difficult scretimes te determine the root 18 cause of problems because of insufficient information.
19 C So you don't kncv, f cr example, what kind 20 of rerords on Delaval Engine f ailures or defects are 21 kept by the Rafha Electricity Corporation in Saudi 22 Arabia , do you ?
ALDER.ScN REPORTING COMPANY,1NC, 20 F ST., N.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628 9300
c, 1 1,-
71 a
1 WITNESS EERLINGIB: No.
.2 C Dr. Berlinger, who told you that usef ul 3; data is generally unavailable from stationary 4 ncn-nuclear plants ?
- 5. . , WITNESS BERLINGER: I can' t give you a 6 spe cif ic .ame Of ' an in divid ual . It f ti s t care u; during 7 dis cus sions with people at NRC and at our contracter 8 sher a nd their consultants. I can't give ycu a spe cifi c 9- .name.
- 10 Q What contractor do you mean? Pacific 11 N crthw est?
12- WITNESS BERLINGER: Yes. Pacific 13 Nor thw est.
1
-14 To give you a clearer indication -- and. I 15 think you'll have an opportunity tomorrev, in 16 -discussion s with our censultants. -- I think you will 17 find.f rom their comments that they do not f eel that
'18 marine application is necessarily applicable in the 19 assessmentL of nuclear application problems. There is-20 not ne cess arily a one-to-one relationship as far as 21 those operating-experiences are concerned.
Et- But I'll let them' address it.
s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC
,. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001(202) 628 9300
ATTACHMENT 4
].
c O: :':CLA:_. - 1ANSCI?~- :
?lOCTED::NGS 3E:ORI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD In the' Matter of: )
)
c- LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station )
)
Wit 1) )
DEPOSITION OF ADAM HENRIKSEN, B. J. KIRKWOOD, WALTER LAITY and PAUL J. LOUZECKY Hauppauge, New York Wednesday, May 23, 1984
-(202) 628-9300
_ aan rinsT STREET. bl.W. ,
w
- g' 98 1 captain knows what he's doing he won't tu v to do that.
2- It's only if he has made a little error in judgment he 3' .may ap ply the full power awful fast. Yestly they try to
'4- - -go a little more gently on it.
5 .C When you said it takes a little mor e tim e
- 6~ te get up tc.the-start--
7 WITNESS HENF1KSEN: Deliberately take a 8 little 'more time to go up.
'9~ Q Are you-talking about terms of 30 recends 10 acre or ' ten minutes more?
11 WITNESS HENRIK0EN Well, I have under
'*2 test precedures' at' sea trials, I have been required to 13: do it 'in the shortest possible ' time , which would 14 L approximate wha t you 're doing en a fast start. But th a t 15- might be a - large requirement. ' You don 't normally do th e
( -16 because you 'almost.- t' ear the engine right of f the 17 f cunda tien .if you. have a powerful engine.
I 18 Q Does anyone.else have any comments on
'19 that issue?
20 (No response.)
! ; 21 .Q In considering the adequacy of the design 22 - and operability and reliability - cf the telaval diesel l
ALDEASCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
20 F ST, N.W. WASNINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628 9300
? /
i 99 u.
b 1
engines for nuclear service, de you believe that it is 2 releva n t te cbtain crerating histcry experience frcr 3 m ar ine application Delaval diesels that use No. 2 diesel 4 f uel?
5 WITNESS HENRIKSEN. Not necessarily.
6 C Under what ccnditiens de ycu think it 7 would te relevant?
8 WITNESS HENRIKSEN: If they were running 9 at th e same speed at full lead, which would mean, in to m arin e application, full lead--it would be applicatie.
11 But if they are running at red uced lead--which alsc 12 would be~ reduced speed, reduced BMEP--it would not be 13 a p plic a tie , because if you run at reduced Icad in a 14 nuclea r, you would s till b e a t the same speed. Sc ycu 1@ vould be talking about totally different conditions.
16 C If a marine engine were running at a
'17 lower load but nevertheless suffered cracks in certain 18 com pon e n ts , would that be usef ul informaticn f er ycu to 19 ha ve?
20 WITNESS HENRIKSEN: Yes.
21 Q Is PNL doing anything to assure that it 22 is kep t apprised of component experience; that is te ALDER $oN REPORDNQ CCMPANY,INC.
20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.c. 20001 (202) 628 9300
V
.]~
F-s' c
. 100
. y.
- 1. sai,. cracking er other damage er defects that have been
- 2 occurring. in Delaval -engines on an onocing basis?
3' WITNESS LAITY: We are kept apprised on 4- an eng cing basis f or the :Delaval engines in nuclear 5, s er vic e . .We don't have a direct line of informa tion On 6 D el ava l enginer in-general.
7 So, if an engine suffers a problem, fcr
-8 e x a mpl e , at set or in a sta tionary application, we dcn ' t 9
necess arily get th a t information sent tc us directly.
10 0 For example, has PNL heen made aware cf
- 11~ the difficulty experienced in.two of-the shcreham 12 engines in getting up to 3000 kw during testing?
- - 13. WITNESS LAITY: Yes.
14 C Have you been asked to analyze or find 15 the.cause of that problem?
16 EITEESS LAITYa- No, we haven't.
s 17 Do you expect te have to reviev somebcdy
~
C.
18 'else's verk in determining the cause of that problem?
19 WITNESS LAITY: If we're asked to. At
. 20 this time, ve have not been.
21 C Has<PNL or any cf its consultants had any t 22 dirc:t contact with Delaval concerning th e Dela val L.
I I'.
1.
[
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I 20 F ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.c. 20001002) 628 9300
_ _ . . . . . . , . . . . . . , _ . - - - -- - _ __