ML20092H109
| ML20092H109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1984 |
| From: | Farley E HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8406250355 | |
| Download: ML20092H109 (200) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:1 LILCO, June 21, 1984 00CKETED i
, USEC
~j~-) '
'84 JT 25 f10:56 i
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S FILING CONCERNING LITIGATION OF EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR CONTENTIONS [/}
\_
I. INTRODUCTION LILCO objects to the County's Filing and moves the Board to strike the County's Supplemental Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Contentions I, II and III. LILCO reiterates that it would not object to properly supported and particularized diesel generator contentions. The Contentions the County has proposed, however, are vague and ensupported. l'hc County's Filing totally ignores the Board's Bench Order of February 22, 1984, as extended by the Board's Orcers of April 20 and May 4, 1984. It is frivolous and vexatious; it frustrates the narrowing of issues; and it is entirely evasive. Justice requires that the unnecessary delay and needless increase in the cost of this litigation cease. 8406250355 840621 ^ PDR ADOCK 05000322 9 PDR D()
O The introduction of the County's Filing incorrectly and incompletely characterizes the Board's Bench Order of February 22, 1984. The Board did initially find "that the introductory paragraph, at least Contentions ,1, 2 and 3 are admissible as issues in controversy before us and that they meet the standards for reopening the record to admit a new contention." Transcript of February 22, 1984 (Tr.), at 21,611-12. But the Board specified: (1) that the parties and it were entitled to " informed litigation" (Tr. at 21,616); (2) that "a specification of the instances which the County would depend on to prove its Contentions 1, 2 and 3 would have to be s provided after discovery, and prior to the time for preparation of testimony, so the parties.are not surprised as to what items will be addressed in. testimony" (Tr. at 21,617-18); (3) that it "would prefer . . . a listing of-the instances, a statement by i the County in support of why.it thinks each instance has a , nexus to Shoreham" (Tr. at 21,620); (4) that, in some j l instances, the County would have to make "a separate, more f detailed, showing" of some problem that " reflects so adversely on TDI's abilities and. quality and so on,- that in the interest l of a proper litigation we should consider that item as evidence of TDI's lack of confidence" (Tr. at 21,622); (5) that the County include in:its Filing "whate [ sic) elements.of the DRQR should be added to the litigation, which might not already be [\
>~ d included under Contentions 1, 2 and:3" (Tr. at 21,620)'; and (6)
\
F fi d that "the contentions as we had stated them in our June, 1983 order are superseded and subsumed within the present approach" (Tr. at 21,628). The County's Filing fails in three major regards. First, despite massive discovery, the County has failed to set forth with any more specificity than in its January Motion to Admit Supplemental Diesel Generator Contentions (Supplemental Contentions) the bases for its EDG Contentions. NRC regulations and the case law make clear that the basis of a contention must be set forth with reasonable specificity. See 10 CFR S 2.714(b); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station,
) Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-16, 15 NRC 566 (1982). Thus, a contention must include "a reasonably specific articulation of its rationale . . . , " Catawba at 15 NRC 570. There must be "either a reasonable explanation or plausible authority for factual essertions." Cleveland-Illuminatino Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175, 184-(1981).
The purpose of the specificity requirerent is to put the
- Applicant on notice as to what it must defend against or oppose, Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Botter.: Atonic Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974), and to enable the Applicant to "make an intelligent response." l i
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2), l LBP-81-53, 14 NRC 912, 916 (1981). !
- /~T l
%,Y 1
e
g. O -4_ i Despite the time the County has had to refine its contentions, and despite the mere than 50,000 pages of discovery 1/ it has amassed, the County still fails to meet the specificity requirement in its latest Filing, depriving LILCO of the notice to which it is entitled and of the ability to make a meaningful response. The County's Filing in addition flouts Judge Brenner's admonition to provide "a specification of the instances which the County would depend on to prove its contentions 1, 2, and 3 . . , , (Tr. at 21,617-18), so that "everybody'knows what points the proof has to be addressed to." (Tr. at 21,635). Second, the County fails.to provide the necessary nexus to Shoreham for the. items it lists in support of its contentions. See (Tr. at 21,620; 21,621; 21,622; 21,623.) Once again, the County focuses on diesel generators in marine . and industrial use without regard to dissimilarities to Shoreham in design, construction, maintenance and operation. ; The Ccunty merely repeats its indiscriminate lists of , j occurrences or incidents involving engines.different from those ( at-Shoreham. There is no' good faith effort to demonstrate whether these matters relate in any way to the Shoreham EDGs l l 1/ This tabulation does not include information available to j the County such as the TDI Owners Group reports and-l ~ correspondence and meeting transcripts and NRC Morning and' Inspection Reports.
O and to the pertinent issues of this proceeding. Moreover, the County ignores instances in which LILCO has made physical changes to improve the engines and fails to show how the engines it lists have anything in common with LILCO's modified engines. The County also ignores improved QA/QC procedures
- that ensure the reliability of the engines. Litigation of the occurences cited by the County in its contentions would result
- in trying many other collateral cases within the Shoreham diesel lit.gation.
Third, rather than delineating specific problems with regard to the Design Review Quality Revalidation (DRQR) program () that relate to Shoreham, the County inappropriately attempts to litigate generalized and vague allegations pertaining to the i' Owners' Group program. One.ccmes away from the County's Filing with~the - inescapable conclusica that it is yet another attempt to deley i these proceedings in ordar to prevent Shoreham's opening rather i
- than an attempt to litigate whether there'is reasonable-l assurance that the Shoreham EDGs are' reliable. Instead of 4
specifics, the' County offers sweeping generalizations.- Instead ^ of properly focused contentions pertaining to whether th'e_- . present_ equipment-i;s capable and reliable, thelCounty raises irrelevant issues aof: whether the old components were ' improperly . designed, and irrelevant matters pertaining to diesel. generator l () performance in-marine and industrial applications. This u - _,7.. y ,,y_...s_.m ., y . _ . . ,. -,,c . ,. , , , ~ . ,%,,. .,,
F i l transparent attempt to delay these proceedings should not be countenanced by the Board. i Safety and reliability issues would not, of course, go unreviewed if the Board were to strike the County's contentions. That is the Staff's role. The role of the intervenor, on the other hand, is merely to provide a check and balance to the safety review process. In so providing, the intervenor in NRC licensing proceedings has a basic obligation to " structure [its] participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to (its] position and contentions." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. National Resources ()* Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). the Matter of Pennsylvania Power & Licht Co. and' Allegheny See also, In Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, The Coun'ty has
~
Units 1 and 2), ALAB-693, 16 NRC 952 (1982). patently failed to meet this obligation. The County's consultants have had the benefit of a picthora of discovery materials f or racnths. Notwithstanding this, their cor.sultants hsve been unaole or unwilling'to formulate opinions on much of anything. This is evidenced by 1 testimony given in the depositions taken as recer.tly as May. For example, in his deposition, the County's metallurgist, Robert N. Anderson formed no opinion as to whether or not the metallurgy of the AE piston skirts was correct, Anderson A) t
\_/
Deposition-at 98 (Attachment'l); as to whether or not diesels
e 2 at Shoreham are capable and reliable for fuel loading and low power testing (Id. at 139); or as to any of the four categories he was to study (Id. at 104). He indicates in his deposition that other than some purely mechanical calculations he made for J Lloyd's Rules, he had done almost no other calculations. (Yet, f in the affidavit filed with County's Supplemental Contentions, he offered numerous opinions on the adequacy of components based on stresses they will suffer.) Dennis Eley, in his l deposition, preliminarily concluded that the brankshaft was overrated but needed additional data before finalizing that ! opinion. Eley Deposition at 119 (Attachment 2). He indicated '( no final opinion on any individual components. Id. He was not prepared to state that shot peening was inadequate on replacement crankshafts. Id. at 143, 146-49. Aneesh Bakshi only broadly commented based upon what he had heard,.but had no opinion in component-by-component questioning. Bakshi Deposition at 69-75 (Attachment 3). l This charade is hardly " meaningful participation." Not only does the County's pleading fail because it is unsupported, the County's. challenge of.the Shoreham EDJs fai'Is
- because it has no basis in fact. Such dilatory _ tactics subvert l
the. entire. adjudicatory process. They would be subject to ! sanctions in federal court litigation and should not be , condoned in this proceeding. 1
O , l 1 In sharp contrast, LILCO has in good faith undertaken l an overwhelming program to ensure the reliabili.ty of its diesel generators. It has rebuilt its engines with components that have undergone engineering analyses and that have been certified to be suitable for operation for their intended purpose. It has run expanded pre-operational tests to ensure that the entire system and its components will perform in accordance with their intended functions. It has reviewed operating experience at other utilities and operating experience in non-utility settings to ensure that similar problems do not uxist with its engines. It has conducted
) extensive analyses and inspections in addition to the.
preoperational testing to ensure the reliability of any seemingly questionable components. The County has had the results of LILCO's efforts, yet has failed, not only to provide ' its own results, but even to criticize specifically what LILCO i has done. -
'Under Part II of its Filing, the County claims to consolidate and restate'the admitted portions of EDG Contentions I,-II and III.- Al's o , the County-represents that it will list the. items or instances relied on. LILCO will
' demonstrate that'none of this results in " informed litigation,"
tells anyone what items "will be addressed in testimony," or shows a " nexus to Shoreham." l ~/ x ,
r O _g_ For the foregoing reasons, LILCO asks that the County's proposed contentions be stricken. If, however, the Board finds such relief to be inappropriate, the Board might adopt a procedure used previously for Contention SC-FOC 7B. Because of the vagueness of that proposed contention, the Board required the County to file its testimony and undergo cross-examination prior to the filing of testimony by LILCO and the Staff. This procedure was designed to provide notice to LILCO and the Staff of the precise issues to be litigated, an element sorely lacking to date in this proceeding.
-II. SPEC 1FIC RESPONSE EDG Contention.- The County continues to assert that the EDGs are unreliable. LILCO has recognized problems'with the EDGs and has addressed them. Extensive Evidence of engineering evaluation,' engine testing and inspections, however, demonstrates that those problems have been addressed.
The County has been furnished with this evidence.A/ Fevertheless,-the County'ignorerd the evidence in the items-listed in support of its Contention.- LILCO believes that adequate and reasonable assurance exists that the Shoreham'DGs L ^ ' 1/ In addition to depositions, OwnersiGroup documents, and- , the NRC reports mentioned above that have.been furnished to the County, LILCO also provided to the County in discovery the , preoperational test results, repair / rework requests and ! deficiency reportsiwhich show specific results of testing and I. ' _) evaluation. y-f* _ , - _ , - . . --~.._,..-,e -,,-r , .) ',,,, .4 $ I., r MM - --,, .6 -- ,--.[,.--m,- ,- /,m.__.m_- --mbe ,
[ . O will-perform satisfactorily, but objects to litigating the issue based on the unparticularized, and in many cases erroneous, items listed by-the County. The injection by the County at this late date of such unspecific issues is solely for the purpose of harassment, unnecessary delay and needless increase in the cost of litigation.
- 1. Crankshafts A. .ghoreham, LILCO objects to any litigation by the county of the original 11" x 13" crankshafts in the EDGs. Their design, rating or size is relevant only as they relate to an evaluation of the adequacy of the replacement 12" x 13" crankshafts. This alleged specification should be stricken.
B. (1) Shoreham. Based on the specification in the Filing, LILCO objects to litigation by the County of the-replacement crankshafts in the EDGs. This' attempted specification should be stricken.
.Despite ample opportunity'and repeate'd direction.by i .the Board, the_ County totally falls to specify the particulars
! for its claim of inadequate design for operation'at overload'or i j full load. LILCO has,had numerous analyses performed that show the replacement crankshaft meets the stress standards of the Diesel Engines Manufacturers Association (DEMA) as required in f~
,the crankshaft specification.1/ In addition, the American L
;b/.~ . Failure Analysis Associates (FaAA) and Dr. Simon K..Chen-concluded that'the crankshafts meet DEMA. . Egg Evaluation of L_--- -
r O Bureau of Shipping (ABS) has certified the crankshaft. See Attachment 4. The County has not furnished LILCO or the Board , with any calculations to show the crankshafts are unacceptable. Instead, the County continues to make aimless and unsubstantiated allegations regarding the crankshafts in the same manner as it did in its January Supplemental Contentions. The County also fails to support its conclusory allegation that the replacement crankshafts "will acversely affect and be affected by other engine systems, such as i ', bearings and piston pressures." (Emphasis added.) A broad, i vague statement of the issue followed only by an exemplary ~
"such as" is inadequate. Board Order Relating to Stipulation by the NRC Staff and Shoreham Coalition,-June 24, 1980, at 2 (regarding words "such as").
Moreover, there is no basis for the County's claims. The analysis performed by FaAA takes into consideration the affect of other relevant engine characteristics,'such as piston i pressures, on the crankshaft. Specifically, FaAA considered-the stresses due to gas. pressure loading. Owners Group Report On Shoreham Replacement Crankshaft at 3-7. LII-CO also showed ! s. l (footnote continued) Emergency Diesel Generator Crankshafts at Shoreham and Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Stations prepared by Failure Analysis-
-Associates for the TDI DieselLGenerator Owners Group (April 19, p)(,
1984) (Owners' Group Report On Shoreham Replacement' Crankshaft) Land Chen Deposition at 89-107, respectively. l i. n . l Y
-r
V) in its Response to the County's Supplemental Contentions that the replacement crankshaft will not affect the main bearings. As pointed out, the new crankshaft weighs only slightly more than the original crankshaft which had not indicated any excessive bearing wear. Furthermore, the weight of the crankshaft is insignificant in comparison to the weight exerted by the piston pressures, which were considered by FaAA. The County's speculation regarding the replacement crankshaft is emphasized by its suggestion that " shot-peening of the replacement crankshafts may be detrimental." Shot peening is a commonly accepted industry method to accomplish () the beneficial result of relieving tensile stresses. B. (2) Common. LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of the incident involving Rafha Electricity Corp. in Saudi Arabia. This item recites an occurrence relating to the
" crankshaft oil passage plugs on a replacement design crankshaft." Contrdry to the February 22, 1984 Bench order, the County has not offered any nexus between this occurence and i Shoreham. In fact, there is none. The Rafha instance involved l
l oil passage plugs of a different design from Shoreham. LILCO-has not experienced any " inadequate crankshaft oil passage plugs" or " damaged pistons" from its replacement crankshafts.
.The County failed to note the true, relevant common occurrences.- The County was furnished with a document listing
' ' gO) 30.TDI engine experiences with the 12" x 13" crankshaft.
I 4 4 Twenty-nine of those engines with the 12" x 13" crankshafts and similar ratings have operated since their production in 1975 , with no crankshaft failures. Of these 29 engines, five have experienced more the 20,000 hours'and 17 have experienced more that 10,000 hours. One of the crankshafts (at Rafha) was replaced, because of damage from an overspeed accident and not because of a design or manufacturing deficiency. ! - In conclusion, the structural integrity of the replacement 12" by 13" diameter crankshafts installed in the ! EDGs at Shoreham has been extensively evaluated by testing and analyses. As stated,'the crankshaft meets the DEMA requirements and'has:been certified by ABS. The crankshafts i have a. factor of safety of 1.48 without taking into account-any j benefit of shot peening the crank pin fillets. The unrefuted fact at the present time is that the replacement crankshafts are suitable.for unlimited operation in'the EDGs-at Shoreham. See Owners Group Report On Shoreham Replacement Crankshaft.
- 2. - Cylinder Blocks j A. .Shoreham. LILCO; objects to litigation by the County ofLthe cylinder' blocks-in the EDGscas the issue is.
framed"in this Filing.- The County:st'ates that-" cracks have-occurred in the1cyl'inder linerilanding arealaf'all EDGs"$/ and 1/. Despite a'recent. inspection of;the original EDG 103 (f}: block, j the County incorrectly; characterizes where these cracks (footnote continued)'
^ . + ' , - ,a---'
, , w + s-- - , e,-, e -
~
O
~
"in the camshaft galley area of the blocks." Despite ample opportunity and repeated direction by the Board, the County totally fails to specify the significance, if any, of these cracks.
The reference to a large crack propagating through the front of EDG 103 is irrelevant and immaterial since this cylinder block has concededly been replaced. The County alleges that the new design is " unproven" and "has been inadequately tested." This reference is abstract, hypothetical and lacks the specificity to allow LILCO to avoid surprise as to the items to be addressed in litigation. T*.te new block is, ( in fact, a proven design and has undergone extensive testing, including tensile and chemical analysis of block test. specimens, metallography and eddy current inspection. Furthermore, a block with heavier upper sections similar to the new EDG 103 block first appeared in the R-5 prototype engine at TDI in 1979.E/ The R-5 engine has accumulated 5,622 hours, with most operation far above-the 611 horsepower per cylinder rating of the Shoreham EDGs. In fact, the R-5 is rated at 850 (footnote continued) occurred. In all three engines, initiation of cracks occurred-between stud hole and liner counterbore. On the EDG 103 the cracks also extended from between the stud holes. 5/ The new block on Shoreham EDG 103 are basically the saae l g'"g as the R-5 engine. l v) t
p I l l
- V horsepower per cylinder. It has accumulated more than 1,070 hours at or above 935 horsepower per cylinder and more than 4,980 hours above the Shoreham rating. The heavy upper section blocks have also been in the field since 1981 and have had no reported problems in more than 12,000 hours of operation.
The County fails to give any explanation as to how the block crack on EDGs 101 and 102 will affect their reliability. The cracks were tested by liquid dye penetrant and eddy current before and after being run at full load for l 100 hours. The EDG 102 was also cycled through 100 starts and reinspected.' The cracks showed no evidence of propagation.
) Furthermore, the indications of minor cracks in the camshaft galley area of the blocks were present prior to the original crankshaft failure and have also not propagated. Ralph Caruso, ; the NRC Shoreham Project Manager, also testified that the Staff's consultants do not consider those cracks to be-significant. Caruso Deposition at 49. (Attachment 6).
The presence of cracks does not preclude an engine
- from performing reliably. As Clinton S. Mathews, Vice
-President and General Manager of the Engine.and Compressor Division of TDI, testified, experience'shows that engines can operate safely with cracks or indications. Mathews Deposition at 95-97 (Attachment 7).
B. Common. LILCO objects to any litigation by A j () the County _of alleged cylinder block cracking in the 15 l l i
l 1 O i cylinder blocks located on other TDI engines. The County's i Filing is totally devoid of any required specification of these alleged cylinder block cracking incidents and their comparability to the Shoreham EDG. components. More importantly, none of the R-4 and RV-4 blocks manufactured since ] 1968 have had cracks that have caused block failures or have l necessitated replacement.5/ i
- 3. Cylinder Heads.
A. Shoreham. LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of the original cylinder heads. Their design or i
. manufacture is-irrelevant and immaterial.
LILCO can defend the adequacy of the' design and manufacture of the replacement cylinder heads based on sufficiently particularized issues.- LILCO objects however, to l going forward' based on the broad claims made by the County.-
; Once again, despite ample opportunity and repeated direction by the Board,:the County totally fails to specify its claim about the " inadequate design and manufacturing quality" of1the-replacement cylinder heads to withstand " satisfactorily thermal
. and mechanical loads ~during EDG operation."
This specification should be stricken. i i e - 1/ The M.V. Pride of Texas required: replacement.of:one of<its' L (f *)j , two blocks for reasons. unrelated to-block top cracking. i f gT T wyiy'-F'-*tt--y ,r--Mt.e- yWv7-" u-Nyg y- $ 'tu e y- y-g g 9 vw& Jm+r yd6 g 99e -ve'#' e W- 4Me %-+ - "
!~ 3 I LO Furthermore, the evidence clearly shows that the current cylinder heads at Shoreham have been properly designed I and manufactured and will perform satisfactorily in service. i The cylinder heads at Shoreham were produced after 1980. Due to improved casting process and QA/QC procedures implemented by 4 TDI after 1978, these replacement heads at Shoreham, as well as i 4 elsewhere, have demonstrated very high quality. Moreover, l Shoreham also has in place a rigid QA/QC procedure to protect i against the receipt of any inadequate heads. LILCO's program . includes hydrostatic and liquid dye penetrant inspection of the heads before they are installed. In addition, the field performance of TDI heads produced since 1978 has-been excellent. See Evaluation of Cylinder Heads of Transamerica Delaval Inc. Series R-4 Diesel Encines prepared by Failure Analysis Associates for TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group.(May 1984)(Owners Group Report On Cylinder Heads). B. Common. LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of alleged " rejection rates" in the factory prior to [
~ shipment. Such an issue is irrelevant and immaterial.to i showing the cylinder heads are. unreliable. In fact, the claim i
( 'shows that TDI has an improved QA/QC procedure in place to prevent inadequate cylinder heads from being shipped to its customers. i l
- 12. Common. LILCO objects to any litigation by !
l l Js_)j the County of cylinder heads it lists as "similar"'to-Shoreham. "
< r .y ,,a -y. y-----n ,c..- .-- r - .. - , , , - , , -.--.,e +e
O . By its own admission, the County states that it has been unable to ascertain whether those cylinder heads were manufactured after 1980 and, therefore, whether they are similar to the cylinder heads at Shoreham. On its face, this issue fails to comply with the Board's requirement that a nexus be shown to Shoreham. Furthermore, the additional QA/QC procedures LILCO I employed to ensure installation of acceptable heads makes j LILCO's situation dissimilar from others. In summary, all-of the cylinder heads at Shoreham have been replaced with heads manufactured after.1980. The fire decks of a number of these heads have been inspected [( for casting defects, welding defects and thickness after approximately 300 hours of operation, including 100 hours-at full load. No relevant indications or deviations were l' reported, and these heads are suitable for unlimited operation. (Owners Group Report On Cylinder Heads). Furthermore, LILCO l has initiated a barring over procedure recommended by the NRC to detect leaks in the unlikely event a head were to leak. The County has presented no specification to refute that the l extraordinary and conservative measures to assure the reliability and' safety of thelheads have been unsuccessful. l U) l
-g m w % y -. ...q *y 9- y. &a**. -
m e
- 4. Pistons A. Shoreham. LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of AF or AN piston skirts. Their design. rating, size or manufacture is irrelevant and immaterial because the Shoreham EDGs have type AE piston skirts. This specification a
should be stricken. B. Shoreham. Based on this vague specification, LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of the AE piston skirts. Despite ample opportunity and repeated direction by the Board, the County totally fails to specify the particulars of its claims as to the " inadequate design and
's ,, manufacturing quality" of the AE piston skirts "to satisfactorily withstand operating conditions"; the alleged i
alteration prior to installation; and the alleged inadequate testing or unproven nature of the AE pistons. This alleged specification should be stricken. The type AE piston skirt is an improved skirt-design. The AE skirt provides additional material for support of the loads in the stud boss area and improved. stiffness and strength over the AF design originally on the EDGs at Shoreham.1/ See Owners Group Piston Report. 2/ The AF type piston skirt evidenced linear. indications in the crown-to-skirt stud attachment bosses. The Investication of Tvoes AF and AE-Piston Skirts prepared by Failure Analysis Associates for TDI Diesel Generator' Owners Group (May 23, 1984
> wners Group Piston Report), however, concluded that those indications would not have propogated.
1
O The AE skirts have already demonstrated satisfactory operating experience. They have operated over 300 hours in one of the Shoreham_EDGs, including 100 hours at full power operation. The skirts were disassembled and reinspected using eddy current and no defects were found. The replacement AE pistons have also proven to be adequate in laboratory operation and other. field experience. Strain gage testing of the AE
- pistons demonstrated the stresses to be within acceptable
! limits. The R-5 prototype engine at TDI operated 622 hours at 935 horsepower per cylinder, or 2,000 psi firing pressures, using two AE pistons.E/ A 16-cylinder engine in Kodiak, Alaska, has been operating with a full complement of AE pistons since mid-1982, and has accumulated more that 11,400 hours to date with no AE piston problems.E/ Two marine 16-cylinder engines equipped with AE pistons have accumulated approximately
^
1,500 hours with these pistons and have reported.no problems.
' Lastly, the assertion by the County that the type AE-piston skirts were altered prior to installation at l Shoreham contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR Part'50, Appendix B is incorrect. Prior to shipment from the factory, l
l- 8/ The piston skirts at Shoreham'are not subjected to stress levels this high. .The-firing pressures of the Shoreham EDGs are 1,650: psi. i 9/ The Shoreham EDGs will see far less service than these. p skirts which are operating satisfactorily. O 4 y .v- en-. - 4g- -e - +m a y
O fins or excess material from the casting process were identified around the inner rim of the piston skirts. Fins are a normal product of the casting process and are no indication of a design or manufacturing deficiency. The fins were ground out prior to shipment from the factory according to normal practice in order to avoid the possibility that this extra material could act as a stress riser. This process, however, was not an unauthorized alteration of the piston skirts contrary to Appendix B. It was performed by qualified personnel. The piston skirt was inspected prior to shipment and accepted by LILCO in accordance with authorized Appendix B () procedure. Furthermore, Mr. Caruso testified that the Staff's consultants thought the process was "an acceptable" and "right thing to do." Caruso Deposition at 41. (Attachment 6). i In conclusion, the County has given no adequate i basis for showing that the type AE piston skirt in the Shoreham EDGs should be-litigated. Moreover, the Owners Group Report On Piston Skirts concluded, based upon the results of inspections of engine-operated AE skirts and upon the results of stress analysis that the AE skirts are adequate for unlimited life. The County has not set forth any specific showing that contradicts this conclusion. C. Common. LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of Apex Marine or U.S. Steel incidents. They ( involve piston crowns, not piston skirts, which are the subject [ of the County's specification.
l
,[~h l (m,/ '
- 5. Other Components LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of theoretical and hypothetical "other components." Despite ample 4
opportunity and repeated directions by the Board, the County totally fails to specify any "other component." Their injection into this proceeding is solely for the purpose of i harassment and unnecessary delay. No one could reasonably be 1 i expected to' reply to the references to " components" disclosed i in " Board Notifications, the TDI Owners Group program reports I and documents and the NRC Morning Reports and Inspection I l Reports." This universe more than likely includes every'EDG () component. The Board and LILCO clearly are not " informed" by this sort of open-ended issue. This issue lacP.o " specification of the instance," and demonstrates that the County is not engaging in a good faith effort to litigate the reliability of i the Shoreham EDGs. Accordingly, the specification should be stricken.
- The County should be allowed-to. litigate only.
4 claims regarding. specific problems with specific components.
- The County lists. components that it "will also refer to" in support of its' contention. The County must, at the very least,
~
- be limited to such a-specific list. The Board has previously.
indicated that a broad statement followed by such indications _of "not limited to" cnd "etc.".are not. acceptable.- Prehearing O) s v Conference Transcript of October 11, 1977, at.63-64. ( v a - , . _ . . ~ . - -,.%.- . - -, c . . _ . . ,
. n . - . - . . . - -.- . - . . .~ - _ - - . . ~ . _ _ _ - - _ ~ _ - . . -
a
~
, l
- ' I i- i I A. Connectina Rod Bearina Shells (1) Shoreham. LILCO objects to any' litigation Eby the County of incidents involving the prior connecting rod-I bearing shells or rejections of some new 12" diameter bearings and limitation of use of others. The original bearings have been replaced with a different design, and the rejections l
- evidence a procedure in place to guarantee acceptable bearings.
This alleged specification should be stricken. l The old bearing shells experienced stress fractures r e caused by the relationship of the bearing size to the 11" j Journal, bearing overhang and casting discontinuities above an i () acceptable criteria. A change in the diameter of the replacement crankshaft from 11" to 12" changed the relationship i' l between the bearing and the journal, creating a larger surface l area to support the bearing and modified the edges of the i bearing shell to correct the overhang condition. Both changes reduced the pressure'on the bearing. Based on fracture j mechanics analysis, an acceptance criteria for discontinuities
- j. was developed and radiographics testing was and is performed on f' all new bearings 1E/ to. assure complicance with-the acceptance
,. criteria. Egg Desian Review of Connectina Rod Bearina Shells I 12/ .The Owners Group report recommended radiographic j inspection on a sampling plan. LILCO, however, is inspecting f: 100% of the bearings. The County states that--14.of the new 12" bearings were rejected'orLlimited, but fails to note it:was the i' / % l result of this' detailed, extensive inspection procedure. t . Gi o I I L
For Transamerica Delaval Enterorise Encines prepared by Failure Analysis Associates for TDI Diesel Generator Owners Gro'p u (March 12, 1984)(Owners Group Report On Connectino Rod Bearina Shells). All bearings were replaced under this acceptance criteria. Thic procedure precludes the possibility of unacceptable bearings being installed at Shoreham. The County provides no basis for contradicting the fact that this particular problem has been remedied. (2) Common The County cannot establish a relationship between any other occurrence and Shoreham. LILCO's radiographic inspection is unparalleled'in nonnuclear applications of the TDI engine and, as described,' precludes any similar bearing problems. In conclusion, the design review shows that the new 12". diameter connecting rod bearing shells recently installed in the DSR-48 diesel generators are predicted to have a' fatigue life of 38,000 hours at full' load. This far exceeds the' hours that are required during the 40-year service life-of a nuclear power statioli. Thus, it has'been concluded that-the connecting rod bearing shells.will function reliably in nuclear' standby. applications. QY.BS.E3_GLQ.un'Reoort on Connectina Rod Bearina Shells. The County has specifIN no issue to contradict this conclusion.
I l B. Encine Bases The County lists no occurrence at Shoreham to support this specification. LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of incidents elsewhere. This purported specification should be stricken. The County has evidently abandoned its Supplemental Contention that indications and cracks found in the base plates of EDGs 102 and 103 were a design deficiency. Therefore, the County should not be allowed to continue litigating this issue merely based on three instances unrelated to Shoreham. The County evidently agrees with the conclusions of the Owners () Group report that the cracking of the engine bases at Shoreham resulted from maintenance problems and the EDG 102 crankshaft failure (not design or operation) and that the identified cracks have not propagated. See Desion Review of Encine Base and Bearino Caps For Transamerica Delaval Diesel Encines prepared by Failure Analysis Associates for TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group (April 1984)(Owners Group Report On Encine Base). Again, the County's Filing fails to specify the causes of the problems cited on other TDI engines and their applicability or nexus to Shoreham. All three of the occurrences listed by the County have no relationship to the contentions of overrating or undersizing, design deficiency or ( ) manufacturing deficiency at Shoreham. Approximately five years
~ . ,
1 1 Lo D i 26-l ago, the engine base of U.S. Coast Guard DSR-4 S/N 77020/27 j e i
- (incorrectly reported as 72033), cracked as a result of I
- inadequate torquing of main bearing caps. Repairs were made ;
i . I and adequate torque was apyLied. The repaired parts are still f in service. The cause and type of base failure at Anamex is ' t 4 unrelated to the base cracking at Shoreham. Furthermore, the i j design and loadings of the two bases'are not similar. The j 1 t i cracking of the Rafha base occurred as the result of an ; j ., overspeed accident mentioned above. A new crankshaft was ! installed in the existing base, and it is still in operation ! ! after more than 10,000 additional hours. ; () In summary, structural analysis has been carried out on the base assemblies of DSR-48 EDGs at Shoreham. Adequate i f 1 margins of safety for ultimate and fatigue loading were found i . in all cases. Owners Group Report On Encin's Base. i i
- c. cylinder Liners i
{
- (1) Shoreham. LILco objects to any litigation 1 by the County of cylinder liners based'on the present specification, which is lacking in sufficient detail to permit
~
j i t informed litigation. It should be stricken. ' The County merely reiterates from its i supplemental. contentions that cracks and pitting have been
~
found in the cylinder liners at shoreham. - Without.further evidence in the instant Filing, however,-the County is claiming y
\_
A
-)
2
$ rie e.--yg*:!wtm.*--yp--sy-mM gh -+ywp te + #gy. ,re e g.br I:: 3.+W--.a.- g y 4wes 9
= ?g 9 peem -- y .. wa-y'.pe=-tware- Y Mew ~- -e.ang we.-.y7L7- T
N that this evidences not just a design deficiency, as it earlier alleged, but also overrating and undersizing and a manufacturing deficiency. i LILCO continues to object to this issue because the County still provides inadequate bases to support its contention. First, only one crack has been found in the cylinder liners at Shoreham and that was determined ~to be the result of an isolated manufacturing defect. Second, pitting has occurred on the cylinder liners of'all three EDGs, but there is no basis to support the contention that it is a result of overrating and undersizing, a design deficiency or a () manufacturing deficiency. Furthermore, pitting in the cylinder liners has not adversely impacted the operation of the EDGs
- throughout the factory test runs or site preoperational test I-
) program. Finally, LILCO elected to replace the affected j cylinder liners which is a normal maintenance procedure. See 1
Affidavit of John C. Kammeyer attached to LILCO's Response to Countys Supplemental Contentions filed January 27, 1984. (2) Common. Two of the " common" cylinder liner occurrences listed by the County involve marine applications. As stated, the nuclear and marine applications of the TDI~ engines are significantly different. Therefore, a special , showing of nexus is required. One of the most noteworthy
- i. differences is_the number of service hours expected in nuclear.
( applications versus-the service actually experienced.in marine >
l l l l i b- applications. For instance, almost all M. V. Gott cylinder liners remained in service after five complete seasons totalling more than 20,000 operating hours. Nuclear EDGs will never experience that type of operation. As to the other occurrences, they appear to be isolated. Out of more than 3,500 cylinders of R-4 and RV-4 engines, cylinder liner cracking is almost unheard of and detrimental scuffing is rare. D. Connectino Rods (1) Common. LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of the Copper Valley Electrical Association s incident. The County makes no effort to show a nexus to i Shoreham. Also, Shoreham has never experienced any problems with connecting rods. This contention should be stricken. The Copper Valley instance represents one known rod failure out of the more than seven hundred in-line R-4 connecting rods manufactured with identical or near identical upper end design since 1968. It shou',d be noted that the RV-4s have the same upper end and-have never suffered a similar , failure. This means that-the' failure is one out of more than three thousand five hundred upper ends. Further, the design remains virtually unchanged sinsa 1954. Since that time, five hundred engines (six thousand upper rod ends) have~been manufactured with the Copper Valley failure as one of a 5.ind. It insults LILCO and the Board to list such a " common" O' instance.
Moreover, FaAA evaluated eight of the replacement connecting rods at Shoreham and found no discontinuities. They concluded that there is no substantial risk of fatigue failure on the in-line connecting rods in place at Shoreham. See Desian Review of Connectino Rods of Transamerica Delaval Inline DSR-48 Emergency Diesel Generators prepared by Failure Analysis Associates for TDI Diesel Genrator Owners Group (April 1984). E. Cylinder Head Studs (1) Shoreham. LILCO objects to any litigation by the County of cracked studs. Contrary to the County's specification, no studs cracked at Shoreham. This \ specification should be stricken. (2) Common. The County cites as a common instance broken studs in two DSR V-20-4 engines at the City of Homestead. Once again, the County has failed to show a nexus between this occurrence and Shoreham. Furthermore, no cylinder head stud failures are known to have occurred in any nuclear EDGs, including Shoreham. Also, when LILCO replaced the heads, a new, improved stud design was incorporated. The Owners Group concluded that both the new and old stud designs were' adequate for given service conditions and that the failures associated with the old head stud design in nonnuclear service were most likely attributable to insufficient preload appilcation, not design or. manufacturing. See Emercency Diesel Generator v
-Cylinder Head Stud Stress Analysis prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. for TDI Owners Group (March 1984). LILCO has in place adequate preload procedures using calibrated torque wrenches to insure proper pr.eload.11/ These procedures distinguish Shoreham from any non-nuclear experience where no assurance necessarily exists that the studs are properly preloaded.
F. Turbocharcers 4 i (1) Shoreham. LILCO objects to any litigation l by the County of the old prelubrication system on the Shoreham i EDG turbochargers. The design of the original lubricating oil C]s system is irrelevant and immaterial. LILCO stated in its Response to the County's Supplemental Contentions, shortly
, after the thrust bearing failure, that it did not object to litigating the prelubrication system for the turbocharger thrust bearings. At that time, however, LILCO had not had an opportunity to investigate this matter. Over the last several months, LILCO has identified the problem with the prelubrication oil system and has taken steps to resolve it.
As LILCO pointed out in its earlier Response, the purpose of preoperational testing is to identify and correct such 11/ The procedures and documentation to ensure proper torquing 1 are found in the LILCO repair rework requests, which were fs furnished to the County.during discovery. 1
\
f , s~ >) l I l l
l problems. LILCO is currently using free flow prelubrication of the bearings during testing in order to avoid excessive wear. LILCO objects, at this time, to litigation of an issue that has been adequately remedied. This alleged specification should be stricken. (2) Common. The County cites as a common instance the failure of three turbochargers at Kuosheng. The County fails to show, however, whether these failures were due to a lubricating oil system problem similar to Shoreham. The County has failed to provide the appropriate nexus, and LILCO continues to object to the use of such " common" instances. () In summary, FaAA concluded that the Elliott Model 90G thrust bearings are adequate for nuclear standby service, including preoperational testing and up to 40 automatic fast starts without the benefit of any prelubrication. To assure adequate service, FaAA made certain recommendations that have been adopted by LILCO. Egg Desian Review of Elliott Model 90G Turbocharcer Used On Transamerica j Delaval DSR-48 and D9RV-16 Emeraency Diesel Generator Sets prepared by Failure Analysis Associates for TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group (May 1984). The County provides no evidence and offers no explanation contradicting the adequacy of the new procedures to avoid turbocharger thrust bearing ! failure. O v l
'l
- 6. Overratino and Undersizino of EDGs The County claims that it will trace the development of the engines to show that they are overrated and undersized j and not sufficiently tested. LILCO objects to this contention j because it is overly broad and irrelevant to the reliability and adequacy of the EDGs currently installed at Shoreham. The County appears merely to be reiterating its general contention without further specific proof. Furthermore, as the Board indica *.ed in its February 22, 1984 Bench Order, litigation of l such broad issues will be sufficiently included in the i litigation of specific contentions and would not likely change the result to be reached under those contentions. Tr. at
- ' 21,613-614.
, The County has given no bases as to why that i
rationale does not apply here. i The County goes on to claim that the Shoreham i EDGs "are offectively new prototypes which have been j inadequately tested and inspected." The County does not specify what tests or inspections it considers inadequate and l
; gives no basis for this sweeping generalization. The Shoreham EDGs have undergone 1000 hours of extensive and expanded preoperational testing and post-operational disassembly inspections to verify that nothing had been missed during preoperational testing.U / In addition, the EDGs have M/ The expanded preoperational testing program is outlined in L U the Diesel Recovery Program, Section VI, which has been made available to the County. Egg SNRC-1003, January 6, 1984.
I i Ee
O C' undergone analyses and inspection by the DRQR. The actual tests and inspections performed are too numerous to reiterate here, but are listed and described in each Owners Group report made available to the County. The testing, analyses and inspection performed on the Shoreham EDGs far exceed any NRC requirement.
. The County has had access to preoperational test
)' results and Owners Group documents but has not even attempted to particularize anywhere the bases for its contentions that the engines are not adequately tested and inspected. The actual testing and inspection performed on the Shoreham EDGs i have been too extensive to expect LILCO to divine what particular aspects the County.is allegedly criticizing. Allowing the County to continue with such broad allegations is truly litigation by surprise and is totally unnecessary. If the County ever intended to go forward in good faith with this litigation, it has had ample discovery and ample time to
! formulate more specific issues of concern. This alleged i
specification should be stricken.
!!!. TDI DIESEL GENERATOR OWNERS GROUP PROGRAM PLAN LILCO objects to Part III of the County's Filing and moves that it be stricken. Rather than presenting evidence of specific problems about the review of any particular' component, the County suggests that the overall scope and implementation
4 l of the TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group Program Plan (Owners Group Program) be added as an issue to this litigation. The County's contentions concerning the Owners Group Program are vague, excessively broad and unrelated to the question of engine reliability. The County does not even attempt to link any of its contentions regarding the Owners Group Program to problems with the diesels. Rather, the County seeks broad, unfocused litigation of the entire Owners Group Program. These contentions should not be admitted. The issue in this proceeding is the reliability of the Shoreham EDGs to perform their intended functions. The ( Owners Group program provides a framework for analyzing the
- reliability of the engines. The Owners Group Program itself, i-however, should not be an issue in this litigation.
The entire focus of the County's contentions about the Owners Group program is misplaced. The County should set forth specific concerns it has about those components and
; specifically identify the relationship between alleged deficiencies in the Owners Group Program and the problem with the components. LILCO strongly opposes unfocused litigation about the overall scope of the Owners Group Program, because such litigation will not resolve questions about the reliability of the EDGs. Such litigation will merely delay these proceedings.
h v
l r i \ "V In addition, to the extent the County seeks to raise questions about the procedures followed by the Owners Group Program, the County has not raised these issues in a timely manner. LILCO first informed the County of its intention to conduct a design review of the diesels on November 3, 1983. 4 Over the next several months LILCO gave the County information i on review procedures and test programs that would be followed. In early January 1984, the County was provided copies of the DRQR program description, copies of DRQR procedures and a list l of the components to be reviewed. If the County wanted to raise broad questions about the procedures to be followed by , ) the Owners Group program, it should have raised them in its Motion to Admit Supplemental Diesel Generator Contentions, filed January 27, 1984, rather than waiting until now. The County's Filing is untimely and should be~ stricken for that reason alone. In any event, LILCO does not believe it is appropriate to litigate the Owners Group Program procedures in the abstract. The County's contentions are excessively vague and do not give LILCO notice of what facts the County intends to prove to support its contentions. If the County has any specific evidence that a problem exists with any components 4 reviewed by the' Owners Group Program,'the-County should present i that evidence to the Board. In the absence, however, of some r~s.- ( ) v nexus between alleged deficiencies in the Owners Group Program t
l i em L V and established problems with components of the diesels, an , l unfocused litigation concerning the adequacy of the Program itself will serve o_nly to delay and confuse these proceedings. 4 Alleged Deficiencies in Scope and Implementation
~
A. of Owners Group Procram No response is required to those areas of Part III describing the Shoreham Diesel Generator Recovery Program, the DRQR and the Owners Group Program. Suffice it to say that all of these efforts, when coupled with the pre-operational testing program and post-testing inspections, have confirmed that the Shoreham EDGs are capable and reliable to adequately perform () their required functions.
- 1. The County alleges the Owners Group Program addresses the design of individual components only and not the interaction of components and systems in the engine as a whole.
There is no basis for thic claim. Component interaction is an integral part of the Owners Group Program analysis. The Owners Group Program does not analyze each component in a vacuum. Rather, the Owners Group Program analyzes how each component functions in the engine and how other portions of the engine interact with the component. In addition, overall engine reliability is guaranteed by the pre-operational testing program. The test program guarantees that the engine as a whole will operate properly.
- O
- x_-
O
\s / This issue was specifically addressed at the February 10, 1984 meeting between the NRC Staff and the Owners Group.
The Owners Group representatives explained at that meeting that the analysis of the engine was designed to consider system interactions. See Transcript of February 10, 1984, Meeting Between NRC Staff and TDI Owners Group, at 32-36. (Attachment 8). A representative of the County attended this meeting The County also alleges that no systematic methodology for the classification of safety significance of engine components was employed by the Owners Group. There is no basis for this claim. The entire engine is a QA Category I O (m,/ item. In addition, each component was classified in one of the following categories: Class Sianificance of Component Failure A Failure can result in'immediate shutdown of engine or prevent startup under emergency conditions. B Failure can result in reduced capacity of engine or result in eventual failure of a Class A component if not detected. C Failure does not significantly impact the ability of the engine to meet its load requirements. The classification system is explicitly stated in the Owners Group Program Plan, which was provided to the County months ago. Egg TDI Diesel Generators Owners Group Procram rN Plan DG-2 at 4 (Attachment 9). Therefore, contrary to the ()
c . V l County's assertion, a systematic methodology for classification of components was used by the Owners Group. Furthermore, the County was aware of what components were being analyzed in January, 1984. If the County objected to the component i selection, that objection should have been raised in the County's Supplemental Contentions. 2(a). The County alleges the Phase I design reviews are incomplete in that the task descriptions address only the - particular form of past failures. LILCO objects to this contention on the grounds that it is irrelevant. Phase I reports were not designed to consider all functional attributes l of the engine. Phase I reports were designed to address known problems with the engines. The Owners Group Program Plan specifically states: the first major program element of the TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group is the resolution of generic known problems. 311 TDI Diesel Generators Owners Group Prooram Plan Section !!!.A. at 1. Furthermore, the County has failed to specify any potential forms of failure that should have been considered. In the absence of any specificity, there is no substance to the County's contention. 2(b). The County alleges that the task descriptions do not address the evolution of component designs, thereby inadequately annessing design changes. LILCO objects to this 1 contention on the grounds that it is irrelevant to any issue in _____m___
O O , i this proceeding. The issue in this proceeding is whether the TDI emergency diesel generators, as designed and currently installed, are capable of performing their jobs. The issue to be determined is whether the present design of a component is adequate, not the evolution of the component design. Furthermore, there is no basis for the-County's claim. Many of the reports address design evolution in great detail. For example, the piston skirt report discusses the evolution of the design of the current AE piston skirt from the original AF piston skirt design. See Owners Group Report On Piston Skirts. 2(c). The County alleges that some functional attributes and evaluations in the task descriptions are not discussed in the Phase I reports. LILCO objects to this contention because it is excessively. vague. The task descriptions listed in the Owners Group Program Plan were preliminary descriptions that were developed prior to full-scale review of the engine. -The analysis of the engine was not limited to the attributes listed.in-the task descriptions. As representatives of the Owners Group explained in the February-10, 1984 meeting with the NRC Staff, the attributes listed in the task descriptions-were merely
~
preliminary.and were expected to change as actual analysis of the engine progressed. All necessary attributes associated with known generic problems were reviewed and discussed in the i l- y ,j. Phase I reports. See. Transcript of February 10, 1984' Meeting i
= =- - . -. - - .-
! Between NRC Staff and TDI Owners Group, at 25-32. (Attachment i
8). In addition, the County has not specified a single instance in which the analysis of a Phase I component is inadequate.
- 3. The County alleges that deficiencies in engine components experienced at non-nuclear facilities were not systematically obtained and assessed during the Owners Group Program reviews. LILCO objects to this contention. The County does not even attempt to show how this contention impacts on the adequacy of the review of LILCO's diesels. In addition, there is no basis for the County's allegations. The Owners Group Program obtained all nuclear and non-nuclea,r experience that was'available and reviewed this exper";nce. This information was systematically analyzed.t* 'part of.the owners 4
Group Program. A computerized component tracking list (which is not attached as an exhibit because it.is'approximately 500 pages long, but which has been provided to the County)
. documents all available component. experience, whether nuclear or non-nuclear.
Further, as Dr. Carl Berlinger noted in.his deposition, and as the County pointed out in its Filing, the records kept about? engines'in non-nuclear service'are frequently inadequate to make information about those engines meaningful. Without proper ??cumentation, information about
~fD x,_f diesels in non-nuclear service-is of extremely limited value.,
Berlinger Deposition at 64-71. (Attachment 10).:
M+ (./ 4(a). The County alleges that inspection commitments in the Owners Group Program were poorly defined and acceptance criteria were often lacking. LILCO objects to the excessive vagueness of this contention. Inspection and acceptance criteria are addressed in individual Owners Group Program reports. The Owners Group Program Plan did not, nor could it, detail specific inspection and acceptance criteria for each component. These criteria are discussed in individual component task descriptions. Acceptance criteria did not previously exist for certain components and had to be developed by the Owners Group Program. Details concerning_ inspection and acceptance criteria for individual components are provided in individual Owners Group reports. For example, conservative acceptance criteria for porosity, or voids, in cast aluminum bearing shells were developed by the Owners Group Program in the course of the review of the connecting red bearing shells. See Owners Group Report on Connectino Rod Bearino Shells, Section 5.3 (Attachment 11). In addition, the County has cited no instance where alleged poorly defined inspection or acceptance criteria.has caused a problem with-a component. 4(b). The County alleges the Owners Group Program ! commitments do not adequately define precise inspection scope and inspection techniques. This contention has no merit. The Owners Group Program Plan is a general document describing the n () scope of work to be performed. Details concerning-_ inspections
- 0 are contained in the Owners Group reports and in the component task descriptions. The reports contain details of how the component was inspected and the criteria applied to determine whether the component was acceptable. i 4(c). The County alleges the Owners Group has not
{
; taken into account manufacturing deficiencies of TDI in the formulation of inspection procedures. LILCO objects to this contention because it is excessively vague. There is also no basis for the County's contention. Inspection procedures developed by the Owners Group specifically take into account i,
- TDI's maufacturing deficiencies. For. example, cracks have been
() discovered in the valve seats of many cylinder heads manufactured by TDI prior'to 1980. This cracking has been attributed to problems'with TDI's manufacturing process. See Owners Group Report on Cylinder Heads. The cylinder head 1 l report specifically provides_inspectionLprocedures that are 1
. designed to detect any defective cylinderLheads. Specifically, -
the report-recommends that all heads manufactured prior to 1980 should.be: inspected by liquid penetrant and/or magnetic. < particle testing,'and fire deck thickness should be
. ultrasonically. measured._ In addition .the heads should'be' regularly checked for leaks. 'For' heads manufactured after 1980, sample inspections'of all heads by the methods described.
~a bove'is recommended. 'See Owners-Group Report on Cylinder
~
() Heads, Section 4. '(Attachment-12). t' i , h-A
~
---.~~1.; , , , +r . o,- ., -m'.? -2 ~1 ,7.~- -%-
I s 4(d). The County alleges that the inspections specified are not adequate to disclose latent defects. LILCO objects to this contention. The County has not specified how or why LILCO's inspection procedures are inadequate, nor has the County suggested any component that has a latent defect LILCO has failed to discover. LILCO has employed a wide range of state of the art inspections designed to discover all possible defects. The pre-operational test program is designed to identify defects that may have been missed by original inspections. Post-testing inspections provide further assurance that all defects have been discovered. The cylinder-
-( ,/ head inspection procedures discussed in Paragraph 4(c) above, are but one example of LILCO's efforts in this regard. The County's allegation is excessively vague and not linked to any identifiable problem at Shoreham.
4(e). The County alleges that document reviews based on suspect and incomplete TDI records have been relied upon to substitute for actual physical inspection of components. LILCO objects to this contention on the' grounds that it is l excessively vague. The County points to.no specific instances l i to supports its contention. This contention.is also refuted by ! the Owners Group Program Plan itself. -In Section~IV,'page 1, the Plan describes the extent of the reliance on TDI 1. _information.
~
- x>
4
\_
It is significant to note, that, while TDI drawings and certain TDI information is being used as input to the DR/QR Program, the actual technical evaluations are being performed independent of TDI thereby providing an independent verificaton. TDI will be kept in the review and comment cycle in order to take into account their engine and component specific expertise. The County provides no evidence to support its contention. 4(f). The County contends that the inspections , conducted at Shoreham after engine testing have been inadequately specified in the Program Plan. LILCO objects to this contention on the grounds that it is excessively vague and repetitive of earlier, unsupported contentions. In addition, there is no basis for this content, ion. As previously noted, the Owners Group Program Plan is a summarylof the program to review the adequacy of the diesels. It'was never contemplated that the Program Plan itself would contain every detail concerning inspection procedures. As stated in response to Paragraph 4(b) above, details of inspection techniques are contained in component task ~ descriptions. 4(g). The County alleges LILCO failed to utilize t appropriate non-destructive examination techniques, but instead i
- relied heavily on simple visual inspection. -LILCO objects to this contention on the grounds that it is excessively vague and
, is not related to any particular component of the engine. In l addition, there is no basis for this contention. LILCO did not rely solely on visual inspections. LILCO relied heavily on-f's3
' (.)
e
O ; appropriate non-destructive examination techniques, including ultrasonic testing, liquid dye penetrant testing, eddy current [ testing and other forms of non-destructive examination. For example, cylinder heads are inspected by ultrasonic measurement of fire deck thickness, liquid penetrant and/or magnetic particle inspection, and hydrostatic testing. Details of inspections are provided in the report on each component. See, i e.g., Owners Group Report on Cylinder Heads, Section 4 (Attachment 12); Owners Group Report on Connectino Rod Bearing Shells, Section 2 (Attachment 11). 4(h). The County alleges inspection commitments are not assured for spares and maintenance parts, thereby providing the potential for quality degradation in the future. There is no basis'for this allegation. LILCO is committed to the continued inspection of replacement parts. Spare parts for all critical engine components that have experienced problems in the past will continue to undergo inspections specififed by the Owners Group to ensure continued quality. See, e.a., Owners Group Report on Connectino Rod Bearino Shells, at 6-2 :(March 12, 1984) (Attachment 11).
.5(a). The County alleges the Owners Group Program i does not require demonstration that the engine and components will meet the FSAR or. procurement load specification. There is The. expanded pre-operational
~
i no basis for this contention. _ testing program for the Shoreham diesels demonstrates the F b-, _a-m.,., - ,#, . - , -- y ~
= . . . .
1 l 1
, engines are capable of meeting the load conditions described in the FSAR. All components have been tested to meet operational conditions and the engines have been subjected to, and passed, 1 integrated electrical-tests, mechanical tests and qualification tests. The expanded pre-operational test procedures were submitted to the NRC before testing began. The county has been furnished the results, including the specific test details, of the pre-operational test program. Despite this fact, the County does not specify a single instance in which a test was allegedly deficient.
5(b). The County alleges the Owners Group Program () does not consider lifetime performance requirements at full l engine rating. There is no basis for this allegation. The i j Owners Group reports specifically address the question of 4
- component life.- All components are assessed for their ability to meet their lifetime performance requirements. The actual service life of the Shoreham diesels is anticipated to be -
approximately 4,600' hours. See Affidavit of John C. Kammeyer (Attachment-13).
~
i
- Component reliability-for expected service is specifically discussed in each report. For example, the report-on connecting rod bearing shells antimates that the bearing shells have an expected service life of 38,000 hours, which is well in excess of-the expected-hours of operation of the l l
diesels. See Owners Group ReDort on Connectino Rod Bearino-Shells, Report'atiiv (Attachment 11). In1 addition, the County (
)
r . , y e v _ --- e -c- y e -m 4 - .c_* dg_ ump --g e., . y y 4
I l l has provided absolutely no basis for concluding that any component will not operate reliably for the expected life of the engines. 5(c). The County alleges the Owners Group Program does not document the possible use of maintenance and inspection requirements as a substitute for acceptance standards. LILCO objects to this contention. The contention is so vague that LILCO is unable to formulate a response. 5(d). The County alleges that the safety significance of TDI design and manufacturing product improvements which were deferred were not included in the_ assessment of engine () reliability. LILCO objects to this contention on the grounds that it is excessively vague and does not inform LILCO of the facts the County intends to prove. All TDI product improvements were assessed by LILCO, and LILCO implemented all product improvements that were necessary to ensure engine operability and reliability. -The issue in this proceeding is the condition of the engines as they now exist. -The County
.does not specify a single deferred improvement about which it has particular concern, nor does the County provide a basis to conclude that any deferred improvement will affect engine operability.
- 6. The County alleges.that sample inspections relied' upon in the Owners Group Program were not appropriate-because
[J) L the pattern of QA/QC deficiencies indicates there may be
'Y
O/
'As significant differences in the as-manufactured quality of EDG components. LILCO objects to this contention because the County does not even attempt to specify the components to which it refers. In addition there is no basis for this contention.
LILCO conducted 100% inspections of critical components where necessary. One hundred percent inspections were performed on all connecting rod bearing shells, cylinder heads (hydrostatic tests), push rods, fuel oil injection tubing, cylinder head stud torques, rocker arm capscrew torques, airstart valve capscrew torques, crankshafts, viring and terminations and cylinder blocks. In the absence of any specific details by the () County, LILCO is unable to resp 6nd in more detail to this contention. 7(a). The County contends testing was inadequate to establish the quality of the engine because the program does not satisfy the start-up qualification requirement of IEEE-387. LILCO is unable to respond to this contention because it is so vague that LILCO has no idea what the County means nor what facts the County would prove to support the contention. 7(b). The County alleges the duration and duty cycle of the testing program is inadequate to establish engine reliability. LILCO objects to the-excessive vagueness of this l contention. The testing program _ specifies exactly what loads and cycles the engines are subjected to during operation. The f'\ . l (J) tests conducted establish-that the engines are capable.of l
k-s _49-meeting these conditions. In addition, the ter' ing program meets the requirements of IEEE-383 and NRC Reg. Guide 1.108. The details of the pre-operational electrical and mechanical test have been provided to the County previously. To the extent the County has specific objections about the tests, those objections should have been raised. Vague objections such as those raised here provide no notice to anyone of what the County wants to litigate. 7(c). The County contends the effects of ambient temperature and humidity variations were not adequately addressed by the Owners Group testing program. There is no () I basis for this contention. Pre-operational test criteria specifically address ambient temperature and humidity. The results of these tests are contained in the pre-operational test reports that have been provided to the County. 7(d). The County alleges the Owners Group Program failed to demonstrate environmental and seismic qualifications of the engines as required by GDC-4, IEEE-323 and IEEE-344. LILCO objects to this contention on the grounds that it is irrelevant. There has been no contention'that the engines failed to meet environmental or seismic qualifications. This
-issue was not addressed in the Owners Group Program because' these issues do.not relate to engine reliability. The County has not alleged, nor is it able to allege, that the engines do
'T not meet the environmental and seismic qualifications required
['Y by GDC-4, IEEE-323 and IEEE-344.
l-t i-
- 8. The County alleges that the Owners Group Program reviews have not taken into account the inspection deficiencies identified by the NRC's vendor inspection program. LILCO objects to this contention on the grounds that it is excessively vague. In addition, there is no basis for the County's contention. The inspection deficiencies noted by the NRC have been placed on the Owners Group Program component tracking list and evaluated by the Owners Group.
Summary. The County has launched a broad based, entirely non-specific, attack on the Owners Group program. The county has made no attempt to link any of its vague allegations () to specific problems with the Shoreham diesels. 'Rather, the County has simply attacked wholesale the Owners Group Program. LILCO respectfully requests that no portion of Part III, Section A be admitted as an issue in this litigation. The County's allegations are so vague that meaningful litigation is impossible. They should be stricken. - l B. Alleced Lack of Independence The County argues that the results of the Owners Group Program cannot be-relied upon because LILCO and FaAA personnel were involved in the-Program, and much-of the analysis and. testing vas performed on LILCO's EDGs at'Shoreham. This argument is totally frivolous and is typical of the-County's attempt to bog down this proceeding with false issues.- The O_
- . - . - - . __.. - - - . -. - .- .. . . .. = - . - . - - - - - .. -
l l l i l County suggests, by implication, that a review like that I conducted by the Owners Group Program must be " independent" from the utility whose engines are being reviewed. There is, however, no regulatory requirement that such a review be { conducted by a party not. affiliated with the utility. The procedures followed here were completely appropriate. The involvement of LILCO and FaAA personnel in the Owners Group Program has been a matter of public record from the beginning of the Owners Group program. To-suggest that the utilities owning TDI diesels should not be involved in the program to review the design and quality of the diesels is
) absurd. LILCO has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safe operation of Shoreham. Indeed, utility' companies routinely build.their own nuclear power plants and assume .
responsibility for'their safe operation.- There is nothing unusual about LILCO's involvement in a program to review the adequacy of a component of its' plant. As the County itself notes, the NRC Staff requirement of independent review means only that the DRQR_must be " separate from any previous TDI
~
quality. assurance program." The County'has made.no attempt to show that the~ Owners Group Program is not separate from TDI's l
-1 quality assurance program. -Indeed, it cannot.
Furthermore, there is nothing to litigate concerning the alleged lack of-independence of the Owners Group program, f) LThere is-. no dispute'- about who was : involved _inothe Program .and
= . = =
._ . - _ _ _ . ._ _ _ _ _ - - _ . ~ _ _- . ._. . .
4 O , what engines were tested. This Board can take those facts into consideration in evaluating the evidence presented at the hearings. It would be absurd, however, to waste everyone's time litigating the obvious. LILCO and FaAA personnel were involved in the Owners Group Program, and their involvement was entirely appropriate. The County's assertion that LILCO should not be involved in the evaluation of its own diesels, particularly when a large portion of the evaluation depends on the stccessful completion of engine testing, is simply not i ! credible. The " independence" of the Owners Group Program is t '. not an appropriate issue for litigation in this case. O C. Key Elements of Program Are Complete The County contends in Section C of Part III that key elements of the Owners Group Program are incomplete and that this proceeding should be delayed until these matters have been
- completed and the County has had an opportunity to review and evaluate them. There is no foundation for the County's request
- for additional delay of these proceedings. LILCO's response to each of the County's specific contentions is listed below.
- 1. Not all Phase I activities have been completed in that:
(a) ' Cylinder. block and liner-report is not issued.
i Response: The cylinder block and liner report will be issued in the near future. In addition, the County already has received extensive information on the cylinder blocks. A preliminary cylinder block report was issued on April 30, 1984. The County has inspected the engines on two separate occasions within the last two months. The County also deposed three of LILCO's consultants who have-done work on the cylinder block, 4 l Messrs. Chen, Wells and Taylor. (b) Existing reports do not fully address all i j issues in Task Descriptions. r Response: See response to Part III Section A, Paragraph 2(c). i (c)- NRC review, and that of its consultants, is ongoing and is incomplete. Indeed, at the May 24, 1984 Owners Group meeting, the NRC Program Manager promised 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 Phase I program. Response: This comment has no bearing on the completeness of the Owners Group program. (d) As of May- 31, 1984, the Staff had no preliminary or other views regarding the adequacy of the DRQR l 1 L or of TDI EDGs based upon the Owners Group program. Response: This comment has no bearing on the D) ( completeness of the Owners Group program. 1 ij' ' L ! I l
- 2. The Owners Group program has not issued reports for Phase II regarding the DRQR and is not scheduled to do so until the first of July. Thus, documentation of the design and
, ?
, quality of important EDG components is not yet available for i
evaluation.
- Response
- LILCO objects to this contention on the j grounds that it is not relevant. Completion of Phase II is not 4
I a prerequisite to licensing. Completion of Phase I, together with testing and inspections, provide the assurance necessary
- for licensing. Phase II is merely confirmatory. All i
I components with known generic problems were reviewed in Phase
;O 1.
The NRC also agrees that completion of Phase II is not a prerequisite for licensing. On April 25,.1984, Darrell G. Eisenhut of the Division of: Licensing wrote Mississippi Power &
- Light Company. indicating that completion of Phase I activities f was sufficient for licensing. That' letter, with enclosures is Attachment 14.
- 3. -Shoreham engine testing and' inspection have not l'
l yet been completed in that: (a) Post-operational inspections.are incomplete. i Response: Testing and inspection of~EDG.101 and EDG 102-are complete. Testing and inspection.of EDG 103 is not' complete because the block in that' engine has been replaced.. However, this proceeding does not have-to be delayed until
t
' (#%)
sJ l testing of EDG 103 is complete. Testing of EDG 103 vill not change the extensive design and quality analyses that have already been performed on the engines. The County has had more than enough time to amass the information it needs to start this litigation. LILCO does not dispute that EDG 103 must successfully complete the pre-operational test program and post-testing inspections before an operating license may be issued. There is, however, no reason to delay the start of these proceedings. (b) New cylinder block testing program is not defined. () replaced. Response: The cylinder block in EDG 103 has been EDG 103 will repeat the entire start-up test program. After the start-up program has been completed,.the engine will be disassembled and inspected.
- 4. ~ Procedures for increased engine maintenance, inspection, and surveillance activities, including crack I
Indications monitoring relied upon by the Owners Group, have not yet been issued. Response: See the response to Part III Section A, , Paragraph 4(a) - (h). The County has known for months what components were being evaluated by the Owners Group Program. The task descriptions,l test procedures, component tracking. list, and other information have been available for months . The County (} l l
l (Vb ! should not be heard now to request additional delay or additional discovery. The County had every opportunity during the discovery period to depose the key LILCO and Stone and Webster personnel involved in the Owners Group Program. Rather than focus on these people, the County chose to depose primarily FaAA and TDI employees. The County also chose to focus on the sixteen Phase I generic components in discovery. The County should not be permitted to reopen discovery to seek additional information about the remaining components covered by Phase II. The County has known for months what components were reviewed by the Owners Group Program. No additional delay or discovery is (} warranted. IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LILCO objects to Part IV of the County's filing in its entirety. In Part IV, the County attempts to lay the foundation for prolonging this litigation by indicating that it may seek authority to obtain documents and take depositions from owners of TDI engines in marine and non-nuclear stationary l applications. This Board should not allow such discovery, which is both. cumulative and of questionable relevance.
- The County states that it needs additional information l
l from TDI owners in-three areas -- block cracking, cylinder head cracking and piston crown cracking. The. County argues it has O V
1 i l
? l 1
-s been prevented from acquiring this information because the i Board, in its February 22, 1984 Bench Order, prohibited formal discovery from TDI customers, and that it therefore needs subpoenas to obtain the information as well as a period of time 1
for taking depositions of these TDI owners.12/ For the County to be entitled to obtain discovery of ; TDI customers under the Board's ruling of February 22, 1984, it must make a special showing that there is some information particularly in the possession of TDI owners that warrants further discovery and depositions. Tr. at 21,624. The Board indicated that it would require a special showing because the-() information from TDI customers would, on the whole, probably be cumulative to that already obtained by the County or the NRC Staff. The information sought by the County is clearly cumulative. The County obtained all the customer service 11/ The County makes much of the fact that TDI apparently sent. a letter to its customers informing them of the fact that they t might be contacted by Suffolk County. The County alleges that this "might" have had a chilling effect on these customers so that'it "may"-be difficult, if not impossible, for the County to obtain the information it desires. The County further i states that-it and the State of New York are in the process of contacting TDI' owners to obtain'certain.information but that
! -the results have been inconclusive. LILCO' contends that the I fact TDI sent a letter to its customers with regard to l . potential contacts by Suffolk County has absolutely no L relevance to this proceeding, nor does the general nebulous indication from the County that most of the TDI owners contacted did not want-to get involved in this litigation.
(e~ 1 O l
- -. .= - ..
1 [\
}%,) ' records and operating histories from TDI at least two months f
ago. Yet, conspicuously absent from the County's request is a showing of any special circumstances or particular information , in the possession of the TDI owners which would, under the i
~
Board's Bench Order, permit the County to obtain additional discovery from the TDI owners. The County simply recites that l t it needs more information in three areas and lists the owners [ involved for each area without any sort of specification or particularization as to how this information will add anything i to the information already available.
- i. What the Filing does show is that the majority of
,() instances involved relate to marine applications of TDI' diesels. But the County's own experts, Aneesh Bakshi, Dennis Eley and Stanley Christensen, have all stated in their l depositions that the operating conditions and the stresses operating upon marine diesels are much different from those i
operating in nuclear standby _ application. See Bakshi -
- t l_
Deposition at 89 and 100'( Attachment 3); Christensen ! . Deposition.at 78-79 (Attachment 15). Furthermore, the County's assertion that piston crown cracking is an area thatishould be added to.its_ contentions'and
- in which discovery should be' conducted ignores the Board's
- j. Shoreham specific requirement. There is no evidence in this:
i proceeding that any piston crowns in the Shoreham EDGs have cracked. The'information the. County "may" be seeking in these ( L
- . ~ _ . . _ _ ._. - _. - . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . -
three areas is precisely what this Board sought to guard against when it earlier determined not to allow discovery of cumulative information of questionable relevance. The County also indicates that it "probably" needs to obtain operating history data from Rafha Electricity Corp. in Saudi Arabia on the replacement crankshafts and cylinder heads, from Suralco in Surinam, on cylinder blocks, and from Sceco Gizon in Saudi Arabia on cylinder heads and blocks. Again, the County does not specify why it is important to obtain , additional information on crankshafts, cylinder heads, and ; blocks. As with the instances discussed above,_the County has-made' absolutely no attempt to show that there are any special l- circumstances that exist with regard to these TDI owners which j would entitle the County to obtain information or take I depositions.- This information is nothing more than cumulative information with no particular relevance to Shoreham, i } Finally, in a desperate attempt to buttress its-alleged need for TDI owner information, the County criticizes i ) the Staff and its consultants for not attempting to obtain=all the operating history and data from TDI diesel owners, and asks the Board to encourage the' Staff to do so. It is clear from the evidence in this proceeding and in_particular from the deposition of Dr. Carl _Berlinger,-the NRC project leader.for the ..RC_ Owners Group, that the Staff believes: (1) there is abundant operating data and history already available'in this l
. . . . , _ . . , , _...._;.__._.._,__,.__,2,_ _._ _ ,._ ..._ _ ..__._., _ ._._. _ ._. _.._ ,_ _ ., _ .
_ _ . . _ - -, _.._ __ . . ~ . _ _ . _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ , l 4 1 1 l l . I proceeding; and (2) most of the non-nuclear TDI data will not be informative because the records kept by marine owners and
!- non-nuclear owners are not nearly as detailed as the records i required to be kept in the nuclear context. Berlinger Deposition at 67-71 (Attachment 10). Thus, as Dr. Berlinger 4
confirmed in his deposition, the relevance of particular i i component failures or problems is questionable without knowing the operating conditions to which they were subjected. Id. In l addition, most, if not all, of the marine and non-nuclear a applications subject the engines to such dif f erent condition's f i
- . that their relevancy is suspect. As the County's experts have admitted, engines are subjected to different stresses in marine applications than in nuclear standby operations. .Similarly, I
engines operate continuously at municipal water or sewage ~ plants and when used primarily for the generation of-l j electricity. _ Operation of the Shoreham EDGs will not be continuous because they are standby units. l LILCO objects to the County's request:that the Board i f encourage the NRC Staff to obtain the information. requested by ! the County. The information is cumulative and is sought for no
, . purpose other than delay.
4 i V. CONCLUSION ! In its February 22, 1984 Bench Order, the Board [ L directed the County make the'following showings in its' June'll, 1984' Filing: l C w ,w, ,y- ,y - na.-s - w a r .,,wm-,,-m-,---w ,,,,,-,~~,+w, -.,ne.-es-e-ew,,-e,,en,--e,,~e,- e,,-, av,,,,,., e- e - , - , ~ v n . s v- ~ m,- n,w -: w,
i
. k, / (1) a listing of specific instances it would depend on to support its three general Contentions, and (2) a statement as to the elements of the DRQR that should be added to the litigation.
The County has complied with neither directive. The Board directed the County to file, after discovery, a specification of issues "so the parties are not surprised as to what items will be addressed in testimony." Tr. at 21, 617-18. The Board also required the County to establish a " nexus" between the instances cited and the three 4 specific contentions regarding the Shoreham EDGs, i.e., , \. overrating and undersizing, design deficiency and manufacturing deficiency. The Board required a showing of nexus for occurrences both at Shoreham and other TDI' diesel engines. The Board stated that this showing of nexus for occurrences at Shoreham could be brief, but nevertheless indicated that a mere occurrence without some showing that it had a relationship to
.the three contentions was. inadequate. The Board stated that a
~
nexus would have to.be shown in regard to occurrences involving other TDI diesels by a showing that the particular concern
. i arising from the particular occurrence would be relevant to the !
Shoreham EDGs. For any.other occurrence, the Board required the County to show there was a basis for believing that the j occurrence was so significant and so adverse thatiit should be
/]T
\
'~
considered in litigation.
In Part II of its Filing, the County has chosen to provide nothing more than it provided in its January Supplemental Contentions.11/ The County has listed some occurrences at Shoreham, but has failed to provide even a brief explanation as to how they prove their broad contentions. The County has listed additional " common" occurrences at other TDI diesel engines with no explanation, much less with any supporting affidavits, as the Board suggested, showing how the particular occurrence is relevant to Shoreham or how the occurrence is so significant and so adverse as to be the subject of proper litigation. It is incredulous for the County to characterize Part II of its Filing as "the particularization (} of matters." It should be rejected. With similar lack of specificity, the County included in Part III of its Filing a general discussion of the Owners Group Program. As an update of the Owners Group Program, LILCO appends as Attachment 16 a list of the reports issued.to date. All but one of the Phase I reports have been issued.lE/ The j County.has been furnished with copies of these reports as well as all related correspondence and transcripts ofLOwners Group I l 14/ In fact, the County has abandoned some of the bases cited in its supplemental contentions. To the extent they are not reitarated, LILCO considers that they will not be an issue _in this litigation. l}/ As indicated above,-the last Phase I report, will be ('] issued shortly. V
\ ,
. meetings. In addition, representatives of the County attended l
most of the Owners Group meetings. With this information and the assistance of consultants that have been in their employ for some time, the County had every reasonable opportunity to l designate "the elements of the DRQR [that] should be added to the litigation" pursuant to the February 22, 1984 Bench Order. Ignoring the Bench Order dictates the rejection.of Part III of the County's Filing. LILCO also points out that the State did not file any separate specifications on June 11. In its Bench Order, the Board invited the State to provide its own specifications that might vary from the County's. Tr. at 21,628. LILCO considers the State's failure to file separate' specifications as a joinder in the County's Filing. The County's request to " defer the filing of testimony and commencement of EDG litigation" and its request "to obtain additional information, and encourage the Staff to.obtain additional information".is completely without basis. The-County has received'two extensions of the. discovery _ deadlines established on February 22, 1984. The County.has had.every opportunity to avail itself of Board assistance and procedures prior to June 11, 1984. LILCO must be. protected from this unreasonable annoyance, oppression, harassment-and frivolous conduct. A schedule for filing testimony and the evidentiary hearing-should be scheduled on July'5,l1984~as: ordered by the
;s,()V u
~
Board, i
+ , , . - - - -- , . - - , , ,-
i LILCO requests the Board: (1) to strike the County's
, supplemental Emergency Diesel Generator Contentions I, II and III or, in the alternative, to enter an order establishing a
[ procedure similar to that used for Contention SC-FOC 7B; (2) to refd~se to admit to litigation the matters concerning the TDI Owners Group Program in Part III of the County's Filing; (3) to deny any delay in the filing of testimony and commencement of litigation based on the matters specified in Section C of Part III of the County's Filing; and (4) to deny the County's request in Part IX to obtain additional information or to encourage the Staff to seek additional information. O . k . Respectfully submitted, LONG ISr.AND LIGHTING COMPANY
' AA&e- 0 E. Milton Farley, III Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 19230 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
- Washington, D.C. 20036 W. Taylor Reveley, III Robert M. Rolfe i
Anthony F. Earley, Jr. Darla B. Tarletz Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 d- ,L)
i a l l r ! i
; Odes L. Stroupe, Jr.
i- David Dreifus !' Hunton'& Williams t l- BB&T Building l l P. O. Box 109 - ! ( Raleigh, North Carolina 27602- - l z $ i - DATED: June 21, 1984 ! I i t i usk { i 4
?
8 ! [ l i
+ 1 I
J . {- 1 e i i 9 i 4
.f }~
/ f 7 ,
~
4
.j - (
7
.i ,.
4 I s ;;. L
,. ;~ p ;-- [
' L 1.
y - 4 1
/- t.
l t ,e L 4^ , o
-i
-w--yw,w-, ,*w-ev.--p rw--p.+w _ w ww s w-ew w wm w w- w e*, , -=ss e- . -,,we+ w w e +w w w w w. <e- w w w- w =w ww -- ve-w_ wwnh-e
,rr ^', <*-_
W, E.y 9- -~ ~gy. ys .
~ , s.
; 9,, JC 1
-.m&> n .*.mu r ; s
, .. M F;P. ..%.,%'I' . f M-riw =+,[, + :65 W,9 #h '
,., .. 4 E k 14fS E!E' ATTACHMENT12.". %.*'
iga.am.n.+$1difETRANSCRIPT m u -y
- *F
'. !'; ~.**
z. y y -
'. OCEEDEGS BE: ORE 4-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of: I
! )
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station )
'j.
Unit 1) 3
)
g - i
- ., pn .-5S
~w.
@,h r*
- % y,-
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT N. ANDERSON
.i. f,4. y# ,C.-
,an . " . -. -s?, :
%.'wr. '. . _.
r
- . ' ty: Mic <
- 4. ....se r r $ d !' .
. Washington, D. C.
j< i . Wednesday, May 16, 1984 S h 9, ' W. s .s ' * *
,,e b *%m + 9 M E':
~
4 s ) *.].
; y.- .
. -" . . ~
(101) 628-9300 i 9 440 FIRST STREET. N.W
l l l 1 (~% 98 1 A The rprus -- you'd be pouring the metal into 2 the sp rue, so it's essentially going d o wn to the side cf { 3 the mold, through a runner, inte a cate, and into my 4 meld. 5 Q Do ycu have any opinion toda y , prelimina rily 6 or cth erwise, as to whether or not the retalurcy 7 invcived in the AE piston skirts was ccrrect and there 8 is not hino wrong with it? l l 9 A Nc, I have nc cpinien. 10 0 Can you determine whether or not the metalurg y ) 11 of the AE pisten skirts is ccrrect and there's nothing 12 wrong with it from an anc ysis independent of knowing 13 any heat treatrent information? 14 A Well, if we are just talking r.etalurgy, then I 15 have to think of chemistry and structure and hea t 16 tre atm e nt as going tc address many features. Th e he at 17 treating creration would be inportant to determine 18 whathe r it 's metalurgically sound. 19 Dc ycu knew whether er ee tr e analysis 0 20 condurted by F.aA of the AE pt.'- e: rts was done 21 ind epe nden t cf knowing any hest tre at ment informatien? Z2 A I don't recall. l V ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
. - -- .. .. . g. ..s em. n e m m an.m
)
l 1 104 (~
\s- .
1 be a DECE procedura. 2 2 It is your understanding that you expect te 3 give expert testimony en behalf of Suffelk County in 4 connec tion with the licensing proceedings for these 5 diesel generators? 6 A Yes. I'm looking forward to it. 7 0 And the subject m atter on which you are 8 expected tc testify will be the f cur matters you 9 enumer a ted to me this morning? 10 A That's been given to me with the date. 11 Something may be added to that or taken away from that, 12 but th a t is what I expect right now to testify to.
, % And the substance cf your testimeny en ary of 13 0 14 those four items or cateocries, you are not prepared to 15 give me any preliminary.or cther views er conclusiens or 18 opinio ns tod ay, is that right?
17 A No, I haven't formed epinions. I'm going to 18 work that up as socn as I return'to Califernia. 19 Q And you do nct have in existence today any 20 analyses, computations, or any cther -- or tests er 21 anythi ng in connection with these f our categories? 22 A .No. I have materials back in my office in 1
~
- \_/
- ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
' 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (204 828 9300
105 (
\w I ha ve 1 Calif o rnia which I will look at when I re tu rn .
2 nothing else. You have seen everythinq ! have with me. 3 0 This is the material you will use to make an 4 analysis and computaticns, if any, and to perform any 5 tests that ycu consider necessary ? 6 A Yes. 7 0 Are you a member cf the American Foundry 8 society? 9 A yo, I'm not. 10 0 Have you ever attempted to jcin? ! 11 A No. 12 C Are you a member cf the S tee,1 Foundry Society 13 of Ame rica? 14 A No, I'm not. 15 0 Have you ever attempted to join that? 16 A No, I haven't. 17 0 Describe for me, if you will, the process at 18 TDI fo r making a pattern of a cast part. 19 A Oh, I would want to refer to my notes. As I 20 - recall, the pattern shes was r.cre or less 'in the center 21 of the buildinc , not p rotec ted by any walls or that. 22 They h ad the various items there, either out of- wocd or - l_ (A) w ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.lNC. - 20 F ST., N.W., WASNINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202 828 9300
1 l 1'9 v 1 indica t ion . It would depend a lot on his age, his 2 experience , and the light. And I cculd certainly 3 expres s that op inio r. . 4 0 Dc ycu have an cpinion today, based on a 5 reason able degree of engineering certainty, as to 6 whethe r er not the diesel generators at Shoreham are 7 capable and reliable fer fuel load and low pcwer 8 tes tin g ? 9 A No, sir, I de not. 4 to MR. FABLEY: That's all. 11 (4hereupen, at 2:50 p.m., the taking of the 12 instan t deposition was concluded.) 2 13 * *
- 14 _= --
15 Signature of the Witness 16 SIGNED AND SWCRN TO bef cre se this ______ day cf 17 _, 19 , 18 _, _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 19 Notary Public i 20 . My com sissicn expires ___ __.
- 21 22 I %/
ALDEROoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 828-9300
- - - _ _ _ - - - . - - - -.-= - . . . _ _ . - . . . . . ._. ...
- l ATTACHMENT 2 1 IANNO
- ROUGH S H O R ER A t 5J 3-, 1 I
l ? UNITED STATES OF Aff E P I C a l ? NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIF SAFETY AND LICENGING 90ARD 5 -------------------- ---------------------x 6 In the Matter"of : O o c '< e t "o. 7 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY - 50-322 0.". I
}
, 8 (SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATIO?!, U 5!I T 1) -
1 i
,- l 9 __________________________________________x 10 i
11 Daposition of DENNIS ELEY, held at i I? the Shoreham Nuclear Power P1,nt, Wading d 13 River, New York, on the 3r? day of May, l'o?, ! I
- 14 at 9
- 50 o' clock a.m., before Thomas R. j 1
1 i 15 Nichols and John Ianno, Jr., Notaries Puhlic 16 of the State of New York. 17 l 18 i 19 20 21 Walter Holden. C.S.R. 22 President Esquire """ 23 Reporting "" l Company 41 East 42 St. Inc. } New York 24 10017
"" New York 25 .
w 212 687-8010 l
LILCO, June 21, 1984 O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Decket No. 50-322 (OL) I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Response to Suffolk County's Filing Concerning Litigation of Emergency Die-sel Generator Contentions were served this date upon the fol-lowing by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by hand, as in-dicated by as asterisk: Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission f\ s_/ 3 Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing < 4350 East-West Highway Appeal Board Panel Fourth Floor (North Tower) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory _ Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris
- Administrative' Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
'4350 East-West Highway Fourth Floor (North Tower) Robert E. Smith, Esq.
l Bethesda,. Maryland 20814 Guggenheimer & Untermyer , 80 Pine' Street i Dr. George A. Ferguson* New York, Newl York 10005 Administrative Judge School of Engineering- Martin Bardley Ashare, Esq. Howard University. Attn:- Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq. l 2300 6th Street, N.W. County Attorney ' Washington, D.C. 20059 Suffolk" County Department of Law Veterans Memorial: Highway; l Hauppauge, New York 11787 l
\%
l
l l i l (s_'/l Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.* Stephen B. Latham, Esq. David A. Repka, Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea Richard J. Goddard, Esq. 33 West Second Street i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 398
- Commission Riverhead, New York 11901
- Maryland National Bank aadg.
7735 Old Georgetown Road Ralph Shapiro, Esq. Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Cammer and Shapiro, P.C. 9 East 40th Street Herbert H. Brown, Esq.* New York, New York 10016 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Alan R. Dynner, Esq. James Dougherty, Esq. Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 3045 Porter Street Christopher & Phillips Washington, D.C. 20008 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, D.C. 20036 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Empire State Plaza Energy Research Group Albany, New York 12223 4001 Totten Pond Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. New York State j MHB Technical Associates Department of Public Service
- 1723 Hamilton Avenue Three Empire State Plaza Suite K Albany, New York 12223 San Jose, California 95125 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Howard L. Blau 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 i /$ &s. - Y E. Milton Farley, III Hunton & Williams 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P. O. Box 19230 ! Washington, D.C. 20036 DATED: June 21, 1984 m
4 IANNO
- ROUCH SHOREHAM S/3 119 1
2 will render an opinion on everything except the 3 cylinder heads, that we have gone over? When I say you, I'm referring to you 4 5 ind iv id ua ll y, and not ocean fleet. 6 A. I believe in the time constraints that 7 we are in at present, my ability to do so will be i
,' g impaired.
9 Q. Do you have any plans to ask others at
'10 Ocean Fleets to assist you in rendering opinions 11 on these com po ne n t s ?
12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Are those firm in your mind at this 14 point in t im e ? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you reached conclusions or l 17 opinions on any of these components? 18 A. Not final conclusions, no. 19 Q. Have you reached p r el im i n a r y 20 conclusions on any of these com po ne n t s . My 21 preliminary conclusions on the crankshaft is that 22 it is overrated. It is undersized with regards to 23 Lloyd's Rules and Reg ula t i on s , but I still have i
; 24 additional data to get before I can finalize that 25 conclusion. - . . . - . _ - - __ ~ . _ _ , . _-_ .___ ___ __ _____ __. _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
I -- 1 IANNO
- ROUGH SHOREHAM 5/3 143 ;
1 2 A. I d o n' t recollect the name. 3 Q. Did that person occupy any particular 4 position at ABS? 5 A. Yes, I was he was in the design 6 department. 7 Q. Do you have any opinion, sir, 9 satisfactory to yourself, regardless of what TEq's 9 position is, whether or not shot peening of the 10 fill either has any effect on the strength of the 11 crankshaft? i l 12 A. I think it can be problematic. I do 13 believe that the depth of the shot peening is i 14 inadequate to create any positive effects and I do 15 believe, also, that it can have deleterious 16 effects if not done correctly. 17 0. Le t's take each one of those things at 18 a time, if we may. 19 What do you know the deoth of the shot 20 peen to be? ! 21 A. I can't recollect offhand. It is a 22 matter of thousandths. 23 Q. Thousandths of an inch, is that what 24 you are refetring to? , 1 25 A. Yes. . l \ l
146 , 1 IANNO
- ROUGH 9HOREHAM 5/3 !
2 Q. Oid you say it was your opinion that l 3 the shotgeening was inadequate, before I told you -- 4 A. Little Company had the shotpeening done 5 twice. If it was adequate the first time, uhy 6 have it done twice? If 7 If it wa s n' t inadequate the first time, 3 why -- 9 Q. Are you prepared to tell me today that 10 the shotpeening on the replacement crankshafts is 11 inadequate? MR. MILLER: That was just asked and 12 13 answered. You just asked him the same question. MR. STROUPE: I want the answered again. 14 MR. MILLER: I object. 15 16 Q. You may answer the question. ; l l 17 A. In my view, I don't believe the l 18 shotpeening would give any credit with reg a rd to a 19 classification society's requirement. 20 Q. That's not what I asked you. l 21 A. Would you repeat the question? Yes, I'd be haopy to. Is it your 22 Q. 23 opinion, today, based on what you know, that the 24 shotpeening, as it presently exists, on the 25 reolacement crankshaft, is inadequate? 1 l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ , _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
g IANNO
- ROUGH SHOREHAM 5/3 147 1
2 A. I can't make a judgment on that issue 3 at the moment. 4 Q. You don ' t have an opinion at this time? 5 A. I don't have an opinion at this time. l 6 6** Q. The second thing I wanted to discuss 7 with you that you mentioned a moment ago, was that i ! 8 shotpeening can be -- how did you phrase it, 9 deleterious? 10 A. Yes. I 11 Q. What did you mean by that? 12 A. If it isn' t -- I have again read a j 13 report which says that it must be done under 14 strict, very strict conditions, and if these i 15 conditions are not met, it may produce some i , 16 surface disparity which would be deleterious. 17 Q. Do you know what the co nd i t io n s were 19 under which the replacement crankshafts were l 19 shotpeened? 20 A. No. 21 Q. So, you are certainly not prepared to 22 offer any opinion today, are you, sir, that any 23 shotpeening that was done on the crankshafts could 24 be deleterious? 25 A. I have not cited the crankshafts, nor
1 148 1 IANNO
- ROUGH SHOREHAM 5/3 2 have I information?
3 A. I have not s ig hted the crankshafts, nor 4 have I information on the shotpeening process that 5 was per fo rm ed . 6 Q. So to say again, you are not in a 7 position to render an opinion on that? 9 A. Not today, no. 9 Q. Did you consider or do you consider in 10 your calculations, Mr . Eley, the effect of the 11 change in the design of the filets on the 12 crankshaft? 13 A. The dimensional chang es that the filets 14 do change some of the formula. 15 Q. What about the curvature?
.6 4. With the drawing, that I have had made 7 available to me, in -- by TDI, I have used that 19 data in the formulae. I am unaware as to whether ,
19 those filet radii have changed from that drawing. 20 Q. Do you have any information, Mr. Eley, 21 as to why the filet rad ius has been ch a ng ed on the 22 renlacement crankshafts? 23 A. ?!o t that I'm aware. 24 Q. Would that im pa c t upon er sffect any 25 opinions or conclusions you m ig ht have as to the (
s , 149 1 IAMMO
- ROUGH 9HOREHAM 5/3 2 adequacy of the crankshaft?
3 A. Are you talking now about the changing ~~ 4 filet radii between the new shaft and old shaft? 5 Q. Yes. e 6 A. I am aware that there is a change there. 7 I thought you were talking about a change in the 9 filet rad ii from the drawing on the new shaft to 9 the actual manufacture of that shaft, if you understand what I mean. Has there been any change 10 11 on the filet radii? 12 (D i sc us s i o n off the record.) ( 13 Q. I was referring to the change in the l 14 filet radii, between the 13x12 crankshaft and Does that e l im ina te the confusion now? 15 13x11.
.6 A. Yes. I recollect there has been som e
.7 change to that filet radii.
L8 Q.- Did you, in any way, consider that, or 19 did that, in any way, impact upon your conclusions 20 with regard to the adequacy of this crankshaft? 21 A. Mot that I can recollect.
'1 22 Q. So, as far as you can recollect --
21 A. I haven't made any changes to my 24 f o rm ula as of yet. 25 Q. Do.you intend to make any changes to
._ _ _. ._ _ _ _ __._____.w._ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ ._. . ._ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ .
i I ATTACHMENT 3 ( l 1 I
! 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A TID LICENSING BOARD !
- i
,' 5 - -----------------------------------------x i ' t 6 In the Matter of : Docket No.! 7 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : 50-322 0 . C:. )
; 8 (SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1) : .
! 9 - - ----------------------------------------x i 10 11 Deposition of ANEESHI BAKSHI, held at ;
; 12 the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, Shoreham, l
l 13 New York, on the 2nd day of May, 1984, ; l
; 14 at 10:05 o' clock a.m., before Thomas R.
l j 15 Nichols, a No ta r y Public of the State of New 16 York. i ! 17 .
, I l
La l l 19 ! ' 20 ! 21 ! 22 23 1 24 l 25 ; I I ywy-w
1 Bakshi 69 2 who? I 3 A. I don't recall who did that or who. 4 Maybe TDI. But these eng in e s were r a ted for a , 5 different rating. I remember naving read that. 6 And the rating was increased, sort of test bed 7 procedures were carried out, as far as I can , 8 remember, when all the components were fitted , 9 together again. They were put at random off and 10 on. Maybe part of it, what I have sa id , is what I i 11 heard. But a pa r t of what I sa id I have read. i i 12 Q. Have you had occasion, Mr. Bakshi, to ) i 13 review or to have access to the various l 14 pr eo pera tional tast reports for the emergency i
,f 15 diesel generators that have been conducted 1 I 16 subsequent to the time the cylinder heads were 17 replaced?
18 A. Not at this stage, no. 19 Q. Are those reports that you wo u ld be 20 interested in? 21 A. Probably would be. 22 Q. Those reports could have some data, I 23 take it, that would be very valuable in assessing j l l 24 cylinder heads, because it would give you l 25 o pe r a t i ng experience, would it not? l
q l l l 1 Bakshi 70 1 2 A. I would probably like to go i~ n t o the 3 design aspects of the cylinder head. 4 Q. But you're not interested in o per a t i ng 5 experience? 6 A. Oh, yes, that's very crucial also, sure. 7 Q. At this point in time you have not had i 8 access to tha t operating experience. 9 A. Oper a t i ng experience da ta I think I 10 have not had a look at that, yes. 11 Q. Other than the report that you site in , l 12 this memorandum, have you had access to a n y, d e s i g n l I j 13 da ta with r eg a rd to the cylinder heads? l 14 A. No. I would like to get ahold of that, j 15 if possible. 16 Q. Would it be fair to say, Mr. Bakshi, 17 that the da ta that you're o per a t i ng on right now ; 18 with regard to the cylinder head is either data i 19 that Mr. Eley has furnished you or da ta that you 20 extracted from this report referred to in your 21 memoranda? 22 A. I have been through a lot of documents, 23 like the component tracking system, you know, a i l l I 24 lot of other documents, trying to sift material 25 off this thing, which he may have just g iv en , said l
1 Bakshi 71 l ) 2 "Go through this." There are so many documents. 3 He said, "Just go through them, see if you can l 4 find anything on cylinder heads. I would like you , { 5 to focus on the cylinder heads," so that's what I l 6 was doing. 7 Q. What I am asking you is with regard to I ; I 8 assessing the present cylinder heads that are on j 9 the diesel generators at Shoreham, the only data 10 that you have is the da ta that you have been 11 furnished by Mr. Eley or the d a ta you extracted 12 from this report, is it not? O k_ 13 A. I may have read more on cylinder heads
, 14 from the da ta which I took from the experience. l i
15 Q. You can't recall at this point in time w 9 16 or tell me what those reports were. 17 A. No, just a glance going through the l 18 documents, trying to get them to one side and at a 19 later date to review them. I haven't had a chance
+
20 to do that yet. ; i 1 21 MR. MILLER: Maybe this will help in i 22 clarifying your questions. During the last week , j
- I !
23 or so Mr. Bakshi along with other consultants for ! 24 the county has reviewed a lot of documents. A lot (']J u , 25 of those documents have been supplied by TDI, '
l -. .- i Bakshi 72 1 2 LILCO. A lot of documents have been r ev ie wed . 3 The documents number, I guess, in the l l 1 4 tens of thousands. It's not a few hundred. It is i
! 5 a lot. That being the case -- I can make these 6 points la ter if you want, but I think it would 1
7 help for you to understand that Mr. Bakshi has l 8 seen a lot of documents. L
, 9 I think what he is saying is that he 10 can't recall where he has seen certain things, t 11 which is understandable in the light of' the number l
12 of documents b e i ng reviewed, but he has seen a O 13 number of documents prepared by a number of f 14 different people, pr im ar ily TDI, but also LILCo. j 15 Q. Let me move on for a moment to other ! 16 areas. I 17 Let me ask you this. Other than the 18 calculations that you d id for Mr. Eley on the 19 crankshaft and other than the cylinder head work i . 20 that you d id , have you had occasion to form any j 21 opinions or conclusions or render any opinions or l , 22 conclusions with regard to any of the other
. 23 components of the Shoreham emergency diesel j i
24 generators? 25 A. 'Since I have not had an opportunity to ! i i
i i 1 Bakshi 73 1 o 2 review the other components, you know, but from ! l 3 what I have heard and where I have glanced at !
- 4 various documents, I have made some kind of a 5 preliminary opinion about the generators as a 6 whole.
j 7 Q. Just as a whole? 8 A. Generally, yes. 9 Q. Let me backtrack for just a second. i 10 In doing that d id you form any 11 pr el im in a r y opinions or conclusions about any of I , 12 the components of the diesel genera to r s? l 13 A. Nothing in particular, because I !' 14 haven't really gone into depth with any of the 15 particular components. 16 Q. How about the cylinder heads? 17 A. I still have to do a lot of study on i la the cylinder heads be fo re I can say de fini te this 19 is X, this is Y, this is my results, and I still - i 20 have to do that kind of thing. 21 Q. So you haven't formed even a 22 preliminary opinion on cylinder heads? 23 A. No , not as such. No t on cylinder heads 24 as such. ( 25 Q. If I might take a moment, let me run ; i l
1 l 1 Bakshi 74 2 through a few of the components and ask you the 3 same questions. 1 i 4 Have you looked at pistons? ' i 5 A. No. ' 6 Q. Have you looked at the jacket wa te r I l 7 pump? i
! i t 8 A. No.
9 Q. Have you looked at cylinder head studs? I 10 A. No . ! 11 Q. Connecting rod bearings? 12 A. No . I 13 Q. Rocker arm cap screws? i 14 A. No. l 15 Q. Air start valve cap screws? l i 16 A. No . 17 Q. Fuel lines? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Turbocharger? ; 20 A. You're asking me if I formed any l l 21 opinion on that? ! 22 Q. Yes. .
, 23 A. I d id read a document while going i 24 through the component tracking system r eg a rd i ng i 25 that there were a lot of failures on the - - - - . _ . - _ . . . .._ . .-.- -.--- _ _-- --._- _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - - - . , _ _ - . . _ ~ _ _ _ - . - . .
1 Bakshi 75 2 turbocharger. They had problems with their j 3 lubricating system, so they put such kind of a i I , 4 component, even if it was of an outside vendor, ! 5 without having really done any test bed procedures ! i , l l 6 prior to putting it on. This is the opinion I i ! i ; ! 7 have formed on that particular component, but l 8 nothing else. ! l 9 Q. Well, do you know for a fact that there 10 were no test bed procedures with r eg a rd to the j 11 turbocharger? i i 12 A. I haven't had access to them yet. i i l 13 There may have been some de fini tely. l 14 Q. So when you say you could not believe , I j 15 they had done this without test bed -- l c I ' j 16 A. Correct test procedures. 1 ' l 17 Q. You don't know what the tests were, if 1
'i . .
18 in f ac t there were -- l i
- 19 A. I feel if they had been done correctly I
\ j 20 this kind of a problem would not have existed. i 21 What do you know about Elliott I
- Q. j 22 turbochargers?
) Have you ever heard of them before? ! l 23 A. Yes, I have, i 24 Q. Wo u ld it be f a ir to say that they are a ; 25 major turbocharger manufacturer? ' l
1 9akshi 89 2 A. A number of things -- the pins, crank 3 pins, if have crankshaft fractures. The l 4 crankshaft has twisted, on the webs. There have 5 been complete crankshaft failures that have broken , 6 to a couple of pieces. 7 So there's a range of failures which ! 8 have occurred. 9 Q. Are most, if not all, marine j 10 applica tion d ie sels , at least as far as propulsion 11 s ys ter s g o , Mr. Bakshi, variable speed eng in e s ? 12 A. No. Fixed speed.
~
13 Q. They are all fixed speed? , 14 A. The generators are all fixed speed. 15 Q. I am talking about the main propulsion 16 system, not the auxiliaries. 17 A. Not all of them. 75 to 80 cercent of 18 them are variable speed, and the r ema in i ng are 19 fixed speed. , 20 Q. Would you agree with me that marine 21 applica tion diesels are subjected to heavy service ; 22 requirements, heavy loading requirements? 23 A. Yes and no, both, yes. Depends on what (m) s 24 kind of load and what size of the vessel it is, 25 things like that. i
T l
/^N / )
Bakshi 100
'\_/ 1 l
2 same thing. 3 A. Yes. I 4 Q. You don't mean to im pl y , do you, that ; 5 marine application diesels and stationary diesels 6 are subjected to the same sort of stresses? j 7 A. I am not talking about stresses or , 8 anything. Just talking as a diesel engine, l 9 principle of diesel engine. And the components ! 10 which are on a diesel engine on a ship or on a 11 nuclear plant basically are the same. These may 12 require in certain aspects more stringent ! 13 regulations. Diesel may require more in certain f 14 other aspects. I 15 Q. The fact that a diesel engine is moving 16 with a ship brings c er ta in other problems into , 17 play, does it not? 18 A. May bring. Not necessarily. I l 19 (Luncheon recess: 12:30 p.m.) l 20 21 l l 22 I l 23 l l (~'
'\_/ 24 .
I 25 j
ATTACHMENT 4 D ) O f.
- t. ~ /N d7/rf/// - ']J//7/Y//f .0 '} Y}/l/ ////f Ly;h~ US--:~n Jn. %d,J.9 me N5A RTW:ml l 3 May 1984 Sil5YT8-3 l Transamerica Delaval DSR-48 Diesel Engine / Generator '
for Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Plant Report on Crankshaf t Torsional Stresses. Transamerica Delaval Inc. Engine & Compressor Division 550 85th Avenue P. O. Box 2161 Oakland, CA 94621 Attention: Mr. Roland T. M. Yang
- Manager Applied Mechanics.
Gentlemen: We have your letter of 3 April 1984 submitting copies of the above subject report for our review, and with regard thereto have to advise as follows: p We note from the submitted report that the torsional vibration stress in the crank-shaf t for the first mode Sh order critical speed (422 RPM) was expected to approach Q
~
or exceed that permitted by the Rules for the submitted crankshaf t material. We further note from the submitted report that tests were conducted to determine the
- actual stresses in the crankshaft, and that these tests indicated a substantial mar-gin of safety against fatigue failure due to torsional vibration.
Based on the submitted test data, and on submitted service experience with similar-engines having similar torsional critical speed arrangements, we advise that we would have no objection to the submitted torsional critical speed arrangement for use on diesel generator sets on an ocean going vessel, insofar as our classification require-ments for marine service are concerned. Three (3) copyies of the subject. report, stamped to indicate our review, are being re-turned. very truly yours, I,E r. A. n. g y, g, c,
. R. 7. Y. C. R. C.
ft I C E I Y t D . AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING i W. M. HANNAN TICKLta MAY 071984 UPDATE f Vice President ENGWEEMNG
). CIRC. FORWARD CTY
- SEE ME cc: LILCO. (E. Montgomery) by:, ('/
Accounting Dept. w/ enclosure Robert A. Giuffrgj j- Legal Dept. (M. Adams) Principal Surveyor - Machinery Subject File 460
'- 7tttPMCNt.282 edC 02C Callt Aotstss at:os ' ?wa* 7t0141 1079 't' t n it? d21966 aCA 2]!099 wul 620153
l l l ATTACHMENT 3 1 1 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD . I 5 ------------------------------------------x 6 In the Matter of : Docket No.i i 7 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : 50-322 0 . C:. 8 (SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1) : } 9 ------------------------------------------x I i 10 11 Deposition of ANEESHI BAKSHI, held at ; i q 12 the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, Shoreham, 13 New York, on the 2nd day of May, 1984, f 14 at 10:05 o' clock a.m., before Thomas R. 15 Nichols, a Notary Public of the State of New r 16 York. 17 i 18 l 19 I i e 20 l 21 ! 22 23 , i 25
1 Bakshi 69 2 who? , 3 A. I don't recall who did that or who. l i 4 Maybe TDI. But these engines were ra ted for a f l I remember having read that. l 5 different rating. 6 And the rating was increased, sort of test bed ' l
- I 7 procedures were carried out, as far as I can ,
9 remember, when all the components were fitted 9 tog e the r again. They were put at random off and 10 on. Maybe part of it, what I have sa id , is what I , l I 11 heard. But a part of what I said I have read. ! l 12 Q. Have you had occasion, Mr. Bakshi, to
)
13 review or to have access to the various l i 14 preoperational test reports for the emergency f diesel generators that have been conducted 'f 15 1 16 subsequent to the time the c yl i nd er heads were 17 replaced? 18 A. Not at this stage, no. 19 Q. Are those reports that you would be 20 interested in? 21 A. Probably wo u ld be. 22 Q. Those reports could have some data, I l 23 take it, that would be very valuable in assessing j I I 24 cylinder heads, because it would give you 25 o pe r a t i ng experience, would it no t? .
l 70 1 Bakshi 2 A. I would probably like to go into the 3 design aspects of the cylinder head. 4 Q. But you're not interested in o per a t i ng 5 experience? 6 A. Oh, yes, that's very crucial also, sure. 7 Q. At this point in time you have not had t 8 access to that operating experience. 9 A. Ope r a t i ng experience da ta I think I l 10 have not had a look at that, yes. 11 Q. Other than the report that you site in , I 12 this memorandum, have you had access to any design ; i i 13 da ta with r eg a rd to the c yl ind er heads? f 14 A. No. I would like to getJahold of that, , 15 if possible. I 16 Q. Would it be f a ir to say, Mr. Bakshi, 17 that the da ta that you're o per a t i ng on right now j 18 with regard to the cylinder head is either d e. t a 19 that Mr. Eley has furnished you or da ta that you l 20 extracted from this report referred to in your l 21 memoranda? 22 A. I have been through a lot c't d oc umen t s , 23 like the component tracking system, you know, a ,t l l I 24 lot of other documents, tryirg to sift material . 25 off this thing, which he.may have just g iv en , sa id l
1 Bakshi 71 2 "Go through this." There are so many documents. 3 He said, "Just go through them, see if you can 4 find anything on cylinder heads. I wo u ld like you 5 to focus on the cylinder heads," so tha t's what I 6 was doing. 7 Q. What I am asking you is with regard to 8 assessing the present c yl i nd er heads that are on I l 9 the diesel g ener a to r s at Shoreham, the only data 10 that you have is the data that you have been 11 furnished by Mr. Eley or the data you e x tr ac ted 12 from this report, is it not? 13 A. I may have read more on cylinder he ad s l 14 from the da ta which I took from the experience. l 15 Q. You can ' t recall at this point in time l t, 7 16 or tell me what those reports were. 17 A. No, just a glance going through the l 18 documents, trying to get them to one side and at a l 19 later date to review them. I haven't had a chance 20 to do that yet. I 21 MR. MILLER: Maybe this will help in 22 clarifying your questions. During the last week ; I l i 23 or so Mr. Bakshi along with other consultants for i ; 24 the county has reviewed a lot o f d ocumen ts. A lot l \ [/') y_ I' I 25 of those documents have been supplied by TDI,
l_ l i
^
l I
~> ;'
Ac+7:lh?g)-;;,u ,. T :.Q , ~ ' 'j ~ ,'.4 5 rqg,yQh
,. . h.D ' '^
l f E O M D H. k,R. '
.hk ErS3EFORE;;% 1 .,.D
.y<in .
- - - E*y . *f..'L*T.,W.O-i i
~$r[.h.. ~.cW&A'D1..;..- -
- E r'.h !~ - U $'
~
.n.n Q Y. ,
x . Se, .a.A ,
. 'd -{'. ',.. .i
<f- . v.
*1s<.ek. W w r*4* R f ,M. h&+., ... . ..y .
a e: . : ,-; . y ,, r. y, r,
-y .
1 .m ..T . .w M.h W' ~:"'& 4CO.. w.y% L.t c v. *'.,.~.
~~?'
;.i
' ~Pl- - :."e'n.f.'g-J%, ' %it;,y% ' .
[m.a r , 44NUEERM6ET'.CO8eEISSION7*t4Qa.' >=my h;u n . c:aw ~ .cRr q:,r,wut:,c , N 5.7.y#IG q % % i.@ D Jt b,q ~ W M M:n y . q#
- W .7. W 4 177 AND' LICENSING. BOARD
%%r t!
7'Y.NW.pdy.I;..'BEFORE n.. THE ASTREIC" a ,. .v w. , : . m.. a. , .u . p.~. .
- .1 .
'.c~-
' w. mm.4.x,.r@;:p,.:.+.c- A:x.,
~: .y .
c.; y ,:2 . . N G. W Gi W &g +; J .<:b; W.,'&.., ? h m;;.gy-; n
- . m M . u:m &QUVE p*y,~2.:.m&.m?
..my.w:W.sn,:' '.w,* s Q- w,t %':. ',.. :
-n J.
' Q ~3% S h4 % .as h,. pt ....x:-- c % .s ff 'tG y Q'f'M>M~.*Y'j % ~~lt i.h.
7,.k! :e W-tW y 4 W ?
' >[ _
, 06 Ins htWEstter of:.- 4: M'KAhw . x ~. -iGV;L N-g:. N 'C
" - - % uh,. n f.-
m a . . ?:, . - ~e :
.. ,.$'~IN%+f&wr*d b. u. . 4- 4 p-
.4
*.
- a i .. -
N. .,@. 4-mhp.w..q.:Doche,g,%%+d.55 f22O.2, i
.d "C S U **',P.'
- s. -WM n ., , &. A$.ggfewh[QGHTINUCdME g - 5 , w +m se a . M e- ; y m -g nEM
.r**% m:' -
- M' -
A
- ,. - ?gNN P $'.I. ! '
4QW&
~
.~ .'Ttm h Jim,.f. m she;. ,s. { -
1 i,Q, QW'VN' ( $,.,,p,
. . f ,T**a.f, 3.%
*,.C a.-- ..t.f. - *-
. ,t.&)r.y,p,e,r;,s..q, s
a
'hs"-i..&.Q.'
,r~.- N x- . c Q ._sw.im .,
.. .fvp; 7 . F '..f M , ..
. 1 ,-
g;@UIL.N~*M.M*.gk. '^ . . .ep , . sf3fl **'- w
,V,34 ;-e -44 y .
g G-$.; : N:..;; ~WAk[d.Y '%E& @3 . .~ ^*)ge .. q%.
* ~ ~' :
* %. ,r.gi'a ! ...s m . w
. ll,MQ
~ *.R .t..,D_W;$.ur.,p$.? $ $l ,!pb:c;..
r ki 'h,r ~. . ' Os .k. h, I
.& v ,, y,,;.y *&k n - ~-
- s. r. Vr 3 h $$ i w' YM bN 'N. .f.
- y +bi*h ,
W'L**M$%dQ* fay'h wC'ig[M ' N* k *?n ""hib; f W',h
^ j,,h'p% .
%> M rrh.y-f .f? < ' Dgyth$4*mm'. ,
9
=W l 4.c.:#..a. (
. : mv . . c. ,w. . m c, _v.a~ e.~ 3.4,v&
M e i Mn. V. . ~ c % %vz 4.,t'i*'ff,,,,+_
.. %....w='-
l
.h.a " &hf;aW.f,I..l..
h ....-.
. I' Y f.y:. ' $. - .u
.&.e.
,.. Y. .o,y:f,; . Q:*.:.Cl-
. . ;.m, m
. . .. Gd!.$&* m. ...- , s. _,.. : ~lT
.' ^'g & .s m ,, 4 y..
..... t ,, .% .~ .3,. :. .e. A -
-~.',k.. m
. , , , . . ~ -
.r ,swes# y u.,,,. m, qs.1.s
. .~
E+s%y
. gy Q: _,g.;) .r < , ' ,f, ,'w -
s b -
; - s ',f:js, .ml,. r
. . .-l l- rh. a ;f...rb yg
",.y.
t .
. ,. . h.y .. . ..
' 3'.: ;Y,;h,,d Q, ' ,g A'*"Na .
l Yi%*pih jW*Wy;' 3. t 3,.W.s ~ b .sh
~
. ea.y! 1
.~ . s.4 s v ?
+ C a. n~.: . m: s c -
.. c
.w.thq; c.a y c. .
,h ,%%w.. +.. j,,a..,, _- -.' _
3 ak -
'.Y;. g. rv. u. = - .
2 w. H , 1984.c.
.a - ,,
. at .- ;,K
*a.4.x'e : 7 ,<, n, .v .
-. -\.~.m, . .-
c w.<;,y;n,A.r= , m ). . p m # '.
,. e,,
%. . kr m. %*Mv-e . . ..v q'
._rn.- , 5 s," - >-
7"
' . , :ca. h,n.y r.4 9 .-
~z%w- p/. M. 'l ?.
? . <.
f
-ti~ . '- - ~.-4
' :" =4?**,N,y ~ . n; Aund,,h, m ie ..
gk;hc'~ 1
- i
,,'u.
* ' * * ~ ' ' '
'r&'*W %G %f'M. , 'L.~.h.,&~.C W ^
GS 4.T.W gg5. WW~Q~, %.m..n"%S.m.m... ww A . l'd. ;M. < .. - .. 9..m%*T c .. . -
..< y tv.n .. ? .s
;s I0 p, y*y~.%,u.a.y g +s.+: 3., . . n. **.3m .t:f g}g ,%n;.
T,f*.ya, - g3 . -[r t,Y
%* . T"".YQ ; "' * ',*
S ~ ^ 79,.{ ';jf. ,
..~...,.... . ., - ..
4 7 ?(a',*ak- .: w .. ,*N+,0,
> '9", w *',, ,,s pg'[
*o'=N .e ob .' **a s h. g , .
a, * . ,e.. (( .g.s',,.,,,,, , , , p [* . * . <
-t .
D*'f*%
,h hY
&c p .5 $ ' @ 4 t p' W.'I', W 'acT - 7:..
G'D % .
.F
~
g:$ W. -- - - N. ..,Nh e m; I ' d',"hM[tN g p<.E
,.;_- i. ,
.;-[ [=-
m g.- u. . . . mp..y,, ;w._y.- .f .
.y .
s ? f.?ty. , s ....
. w,.. - ag g.A. , , . <ga*.~h e.
- r. 4 V . - , ,,
$, ' d? ?fh;iY &,,,, w;... I <
4
,.g m.p. *r
.m
r E9 ( 1 cr ank for the Shoreham unit. At that t im e I relieve the 2 11-inch crsnk had already shown cracks and things like 3 that. . 4 So they said well, please come tc the side and 5 tell m e whether LILCO has done th e rig h t thing in 6 replacing the crank and so forth. Tha t was October cf 7 last y ear. . 8 2 Th ere were three? 9 A That was the first part of it. 4 to Q There were three replacement crankshaf ts, 11 correct? 12 A I believe yes. They are all replaced. All 13 have b een replaced. All three crankshafts have been 14 rep 3ac ed . 15 Q And the de sign of the replacement crankshafts to enccmp assed a crank pin of approximately 12 inches in 17 diameter; is that correct? 18 A The nominal size of the replacement crank sin 18 is 12 - in ch . 20 Q And you say- you did some calculations about 21 the re placement crankshaf ts, right? 22 -A Yes, sir.
'd ALDE140N REPOMUNG COMPANY iNC.
N F ST., N.W., WASNONGTON, D.C. 20001 (308 430-3300
P 90 \vh 1 0 What were these calculatiens? 2 A Those were primarily dealing with the 3 torsional calculations , whe ther they would survive under 4 the load conditions given and as well as whether they 5 were -- satisfied DEMA-suogested or reccmmended stress 6 levels. 7 0 What were the load conditions given to ycu to 8 measure these calculations against? 9 A The horsepower was given to me, was rated'at to 3 , 5 00 KW and there are 225, plus or minus a few -- i t 's 11 225 BMEP per cylinder at 450 rpm. 12 0 And these calcula tions to see.whether the 13 torsional vibra tion at. that load level would be a 14 proble m ? 15 A Well, the calculation is a fairly common 16 indust rial acce.pted precedure in predicting or analyzing 17 the suitability of crankshaft for that particular 18 a p plic a tio n . 19 0 Against what sta ndard ?. Was the're some kind o f 20 s ta nd a rd ? 21 A Oh, the standards basically -- there are all 22 kinds of standards invcived ,- but .as f ar as to talit a bou t
\
U ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC. 20 F St N.W WAGNINGToN, D.C. 20001 (202 828-9300
I 91 1 stress cutput it's a stress limit. Last Ncvember er 2 Octobe r I used the DEM A standard because that is the 3 only applicable standard for this application. ' 4 0 Why do you say the DFF A is the only applicable 5 standa rd? 6 A It is, 7 0 Where did yo u ge t tha t information? 8 A It.s in the contract. It's cited in the 9 contra ct. 10 3 Is there a DEMA standard for torsional 11 vib ra t io n? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 3 How is that expressed? 14 A It is expressed tc be, ch, I hate to say 15 this. I cannot recall the exact term, but -- although I 16 was the technical chairran cf the ccamittee-who prepared 17 the doggene thing some years ago. It says that for 18 sin gle order, the torsional stress, noninal torsional 19 stress should not exceed 5,C00 pounds, and for some 20 order should not exceed 7,000 psi at the ratin7, 21 intend ed rating . 22 And it says_something lik e -- that's f or the ALDEMoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASMINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202 428 9300
- w-
I 92 1 I s ta tio n a ry . I think we're talkinc about ststicnary. 2 0 Now before you performed this calcula tien hith 3 respect to the DEM A standard, how did you fix the baric 4 stresses on the crankshaf t? 5 MR. STROUPEs Objection to the form of the 6 que sti e n . 7 THE WITNESSs How do you fix ? 8 EY MB. DYNNER (Resumino) 9 0 How did you determine the basic stresses en to the crsnkshaft if you did? We're talking 11 A Please define " basic stres.". abcut calculating tersional stress.
) 12 l
13 g I'm talking about stresses other than the 14 t o r sio n al. Did you calculate bending stress, for 15 ex a mpl e ? 16 I did estimate bending stress. I think if you A 17 will g o back, sir, to the f ctmulaticns cf these limits , 18 why DE M A used 5,000 pound s, why ABS used~5,000 pounds, 19 if you ao to the history of the calculations you will 20 find out that these nominal stresses are very lov compared to what the crankshaf t can really do. They 21
'22 vers d esigned very conservatively tc take into I
) 1 G
--n,.e co v. c.
30 P ST., N.W., WASHeteGioN, oA 20001 (2003 425 9300 .
93 1 acccun t -- pardon? 2 0 Go ahead. 3 A To take into account other stress when the 4 cranks haf t is designed by a qualified designer. 5 0 Did ycu de-the calculation for the 11-inch 6 cranks haf t? 7 A Yes, I did. 8 0 And what were the results of that 9 calculatio n ? to A It should f ail on the f curth crder tersicnal 11 stress , including the bending to stress. (O,j 12 Q Did you take inte consideration the type of 13 material of the 11-inch cra nkshaf t when you made that 14 c alcul a tio n? 15 A At that time I wculd just use the material 16 strength of the 11-inch given to me by LILCO enginee rs. 17 I have forgotten who I was given the material strengths 18 of tho se sha f t, which were called 11-inch shaft. 19 Eleven-inch is really talking about the pin. The main 20 journal is 13-inch . The crankrin is 11-inch. 21 0 Did you later le&rn whether or not the 22 material specificatiens given te you- by the IILCC i
\ -)
ALDeRSON MPORTING COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST., N.W, WAsNtNGToN, D.C. 20001 CJ02) 828 9300
I
!"% 9a
( ) 1 engineers were correct or net? 2 A I believe they are ccrrect. Actually, these 3 figure s are in line with the -- in line with the 4 indust rial practice of a forged shaft, and they are 5 inferict to some o f the other f orged shafts that I h av e 6 worked with, and I am sure that information was either 7 in the dra wing er in scme s;ecificatien of the shaft. 8 And I looked at these data and considered th e m 9 to be very, very reasonable figures. They are not very to high. 11 Q Nov when you did the calculations regarding the DEM A standards f or the replacement crankshaft did
) 12 13 you have a pressure / time diagram to fix various values 14 required in the torsional calculations?
15 A I used a pressure / time diagram or used the 16 T . I used th e A tangential effort, figures, N 17 tabula ticn that is what I culled from reliable 18 in f orm a tion . 19 0 What was the source of this reliable N inf crm ation? 21 A Okay. Let me go back to the 11 -inch shaft. I D 5 The T used by -- in a TDI report that I have looked b G ALDER 6oN PEPoRDNG COMPANY. INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (202 628-9300 l
A 05 f 1 V N 1 at he aT ccrrespondino te what I call maybe 165, 2 175 BM EP engino. Then, if I used a commonly acce;tsbie N
't of thoco 3 T from a reliable source then the T 4 11-inch shaf t should have been much hiober.
5 A reliable source I am talking about happened 6 to be frem the Lloyd R egist er -- Lloyd ta ble shown in 7 the Lloyd Register. I did have te extrapolate linearly 8 about ten, 20 P!'EP or so of that data because Lloyd is 9 not an up-to-date code, so they only oc up tc 200 2MEP. 10 They d on't go over 200 BMEP. So I have to extrapolate 11 f rom 200 BHEP to 225 BP.EP linearly, which I consider n 12 very conservative. 13 In other words, Lloyd came out and'said if you 14 don't have any good tire / pressure diagram ycu use this N 15 T , wh ich i= the case. I did not have good 16 tim e/p ressure diagram. I have requested good 17 time /p ressure diagrar. I did not ~have it at tha t time. 18 Q Do you have one now?
- 19 A I do not have one, nc. I used the T fect N
N Lloyd and compared that with- some other T figures for 21 other engines. - I find that L1cyd figures a re 22 r ea so n able . L l {'. t (/ F ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 20 P ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (20m 438 9300
. - -~
96
.("~)
x s/ Have ycu see n what ycu consider tc be a q LJ 1 0 2 pressu re/ time diagram? 3 A I do it all the time when I work on engines. 4 0 N o , no -- fo r this engine. 5 MR. STROUPE: You mean for this engine? 6 BY MR. DYNNEE. (Resuming) 7 Ycu said ycu don't have one. Now I ask if you 0 8 have seen one or if you know whether anyone else has ' 9 one. 10 A I did not see a gcod, reliabla pressure / time i 11 diagra m from the TDI engine.
) 12 Q Do you knew-whether any exists?
13 A Well, it's referred to in some of their 14 repCrt s , yes. 15 Q Some of the FAA reports? N 16 A Yes, sir. I might' add that those T are 17 used f or the 12-inch shaft and ccmpares very close N tlB within a f ew percent with these-T. figures shown in N 18 the FA A report, as vell as those T figures shown by N: the to rsional calculation report made by IDI for the 21 12-inch shaf t. Zt Q What was the date of the Lloyd's code you N ALDER 0oN REPoMTING COMPANY,INC. 30 F ST, N.W, WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 Geel 03 9300
'i.
( 97 1 used? 2 A I don't remember the dates. I can go back and 3 find the copies and give you a copy of it. 4 Q Do you think it was the most recent Lloyd's 5 cod 67 6 A I don 't know the dates. It's a Lloyd's 7 regist er that happens to be in my possession, and I 8 believ e it is fairly decent, a fairly recent book. 9 2 Now in making your calculations concerning the 10 re plac e me n t of crankshafts hcw did you consider the 11 condition when resonance would occur, if you did ? () 12 13 A The commcnly-acce ptable methcds , which is the Hoser calculations, so in my possessions I have 14 comput erized Hoser calcula ticns. So ycu put the thing 15 in. Ycu get the. natural frequencies in very sho rt 16 term -- first mole, second mole, third mo le . 5 17 0 Did you calculate your own ? , suff N fer 18 the pu rposes of these calculatiens? N 19 A I believe I have answered the T I used, M which I relied on, was the Lloyd figures. _And I 21 compared these figures with the TDI figures I believe by 22 Er. Rollingen and the figures b y Pa ul Johnston and- Dave l (O ALDERSoN REPoMTING COMPANY. INC, 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (2021828-9300
i I 90
/ h V
1 Check within ten, fifteen percent, which is abcut as 2 accura te as you can get for the re kind s of figures. l 3 Q Dr. Chen, do you kncv what T suff N means? 4 A I don 't know what -- 5 2 That is T , s -u-f -f , N -- T , suf fix, N. 6 A I dcn't knew. 7 0 What were the results of your calculaticns on 8 the re placem ent crankshaf ts with respect to the EEMA standa rd ? 9 10 A I believe I stated that it satisfied the DEMA 11 standa rds. I did more than that. I also believed that () 12 13 the crank is good for its intended service. 0 What standards did ycu use fer establishing 14 its in tended service? 15 A I have calculated the torsional stress. I 16 have checked the overall design and I even gc beyen' 17 that and check against my own software about how a 18 crankshaf t should be designed. 19 0 What are the standards for its intended 20 ser vic e ? 21 A It gces beyond its intended service. Fcr 22 ins ta n ce , I checked against ABS standards. ALDEFWoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (202 538-9300
99 1 O What is its intended service? 2 A For the ABS? 3 2 For the replacement crankshafts? 4 A For the stationary diesal engine, based en the 5 DEM A s tandard, which is an engine, if its rating is 6 3,5CO KW it should run, shculd be capable cf runnirq two 7 hou rs out of 24 hours at overload, 110 percent FMEF 8 con dit ion . 9 0 What were the sum cf the crders you calculated 10 f or th e replacement crankshaf t? 11 A Sum of orders you have to define. Sum of 12 orders , again you have to go back to history. - What do s 13 you mean by " sum of orders"? 1-4 Q Well, you just tcld te that the DEMA standard i 15 was that the. sum of orders must not exceed 7,000 psi, 16 didn't you? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 3 What were the sum of orders you calculated? d 19 A Sum of orders specified in DEMA. You have go 20 ' to back to history. That DEMA handbock was written in 21 the 19 60s, I believe. It's revised, The latest 22 revisien is 1972 or '73, somewhere around there, an d th e p 5,,,_, t l l ALDDISON REPORTING COnePANY,INC. El F ST, N.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 828-9300
l l 1 sum of crders at that time is the sum cf orders, the 2 term u sed by the industry a t that time. If you ask me 3 what I think of sum of orders at that time, I would say 4 that based on the instrumentation and the calculatice a t 5 that t ime, usino f orce vibr ation type of calcula tion and 6 u si ng , censidering first lead, censidering six er eicht 7 orders of vibration and you add those orders up 8 vector ally and that is a very conservative sum of crders 9 calcula tion . 10 But the industry at that time would use ether 11 calculations to get the sum cf ceders, so it is nct so. any time when you talk Q o 12 som eth ing that you can -- 13 abcut those figures you have to talk about the motheds 14 used, sir. 15 Dr. Chen, my question is a simple one. Ycu 2 16 have testified that under DEEA standards the sum of 17 orders are not to exceed 7,000 psi. I.'s asking you 18 under ycur calculations you did what were the. sum of 18 orders? Did it exceed 7,000 psi? 20 A- No, it did not. 21 .8. 5 STPOUPE: Objecticn. He already answered 22 that question. m ALDEM0cN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 30 P ST, N.W.WASHINotoN, D.C. 20001 (30s 838 0300
101 1 THE WITNESS It's under the EEMA standards, 2 a cc crd ing to my very 3 MR. STROUPEa Simon, give me a chance to 4 object. Go ahead, sir. 5 BY FR. DYNNER: (Resuming) 6 C Dr. Chen, do you recall if the number for th e 7 sum of crders that you calculated did net exceed 7,000 8 psi? Do you recall what the psi number was? 9 A Okay. My best recollection is I made seve'ral to calcul ations . I made sum of orders for four significant ' 11 orders . I made calculations f er six significant 12 orders. I made calculations f or 12 significan t o rd e rs. (} 13 The re ascn I gc to 12 is because Failure Analysis 14 used -- I think th e y used 21. 15 So I have to use more crders to see whether my 18 figures get closer te what they have, and it was the 12 17 orders , which takes quite a bit more computer time. It, 18 I believe, is 65, 6600 psi. 19 0 What was the number using six orders? 20 A 63, 64, semewhere around there. 21 0 And with fcur orders? 22 A 61. This is-based on my memory, but I
)
l Nudl t .
- ALDeRSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
20 P ST., N.W, WASHINGTON, DA 20001 (200 838 9300
I 1 rememb er tha t I have gone beyond the routine 2 calculations to get to the 12 orders, because the 3 indust ry does not use.that many orders. l 4 0 Did you say FAA used 21 o rde rs? 5 A Much biccer figures. The'y have a much bigger 6 co m put e r. They are much more conservative, so they used 7 many o rders. 8 0 Did you take half ceders? 9 A What do you mean " half orders"?
- i 10 0 Half orders.
11 A .5 order? g 12 0 Yes.
\
13 A Yes, I censidered .5. 14 C Did you take all the half orders in making 15 your c alculations of 127 16 A Okay. Let me tell you, okay? -Maybe if I tell 17 you th at I used -- usually the T!RVAP calculations use 18 six orders. I run them twice te get the 12 crders. 19 TOPVAP stands for torsional vibration program, which is 20 a -- 21 0 Go ahead. Go ahead.. 22 A You asked me a question. I would like to talk 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, DA 20001 (202) 828-9300
--. ., . - . - - - - . . . - - .- . - . _ ,, . , . . , . . . - , - - - . , ~ . , , , . . .
l 103 1 to you sc you cannet de twc things at ene time. 'he 2 TORVAP I make more than one calculation, but the 3 calculations en TOFVAP is based on the Lloyd -- based on 4 the Ba ssara calculations which also incalculates the 5 L1c yd requirements and is a cormon domain tersional 6 vibra tion calculations published by CAD Comgany, United 7 Kingdo m and it 's used under license by -- tcday by the 8 SCRC g rcup and aise th e COM SHARE group , the COMSHAFE 9 comput er company. 10 COMSHARE means -- it's a name. 11 C-0-M- S-H- A-R-E co mpa n y , which is a sof tware firm which 12 supplies the commen domain crankshaf t calculations. 13 The reason I did not go back to my filing use 14 and ch ange calculation is because it's proprietary 15 calcul a tio n . So I used the commonly-acceptable 16 calculations, developed, f rankly, by a very good-17 organizaticn that I have some respect cf, which is 18 accept ed by Lloyd's, so f ar as I know. Th'ey use L1c yd 19 figure s . 20 0 Did you make any calculations concerning the 21 repla c e ment crankshafts under Lloyd's code? 22 A I did not use the Llcyd code. I used the {-} s_ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST., N.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) SE9300
104 ['T U 1 method s they recommended. Let's put it this way. 2 Q Why didn't ycu use the L1cyd code? 3 A Why would you want to use the Lloyd code? 4 0 My question is why didn 't you use the L1cyd 5 code? 6 A The Lloyd code has no relevancy on this 7 a pp lic a tio n . The lloyd -- 8 0 Go ahead. 9 MR. STROUPE: Go ahead and explain your to a ns wer . l 11 THE WITN ESS: In my life I don't use the Lloyd 12 code because I'm a USA company, number one. If I want , f-13 toL apply that engine tc a ship , I use American ecde, the 14 most u p-to-date code , the AES ccde. In my life I have 15 never been asked to use the L1cyd code because all the 16 owners are very happy with the ABS code. I use ether 17 codes, but not the Lloyd code. 18 BY MR. DYNNE5s (Fesuming) 18 0 What is the basis;for your statement that the 20 ABS codes 'are more up-te-date than Lloyd's?
~
21 A The late st code is published .this year. .Yeu 22 have revisions in there. I Ch i 4 ALDemoN MPoRT1NG COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST., N.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 QO2 828 9300
105 1 Q What are the revisions concerning crankshaft 2 dim ens ion ? 3 A Crankshaft calculations? There's a few pages 4 of it. I don't remember the detail, but it goes thrcuch 5 that and you find cut that they will take care cf the 6 latest design of the crankshaf t. 7 Q Cid you do calculations on the replacement 8 cranks haf ts to see if they complied with the ABS cede? 9 A I did. 10 Q And what were your results? ! 11 A My results would say th at this engine has no 12 problem for stationary applications. It's unqualified
/-wg 4 \j 13 approval under the ABS rules for stationary pumping --
14 if it's for stationary pumping, let's put it that way, 15 f or ge nerator sets , f or exa mple, on. shipbca rd. 16 Q Did your calculations take into consideration
. 17 operation of the crankshaft in engines cperating at 18 3 ,900 KW7 19 A I did calculations. I think my calculations 20 shows that all that's required to do fer the ABS and ABS 21 reques ts you to do only ratings at the continuous l
22 rating , so I de it for continuous rating, but they de ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l 2C
- ST, N.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202 028 9300
106 s
) .J 1 requir e you to check against other speeds, because it's 2 b a sica lly fcr a marine engine, se they ask ycu tc check
- 3 oversp eed conditions a nd und erspeed conditions. I did 4 check that, sir. l l
5 0 What was the maximum pressure, firing 6 pressu re, in the cylinder that you used in your 7 calcul ations ? 8 A I believe I answered th a t . I used the Lloyd N 9 figures, the T listed in the Lloyd register 10 calculations, the chapter that deals with the crankshaf t 11 c alcul a tio ns . 12 0 Do you know what the maximum firing pressure 13 in the cylinder that you used in psis to do your 14 calcula tion ? 15 A If you go back to Llo yd , Lloyd does not 16 specif y maximum firing pressure because they are 17 con se r va tive . They used a BEEP figures. I believe I 18 mentio ned that. If you have firina pressures, then use 19 the firing pressure indicated diagram. If you dcn't 20 have in indicated diagram,- then one will go to use the 21 Llc yd figures. It is.a commen acceptable practice by 22 the Lloyd group. l l [ U AL.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, DA 20001 (208 428 9300
& _ 4 107 dp 1 Q Are there ABS figures comparable tc the IIcyd 1
2 figures that you used? 3 A Nc. I used the L1cyd figures fer AES 4 calcul a tio ns . 5 2 I understand, but my question is are there AP S 6 figure s comparable to the Llcyd figures that ycu used? 7 A There is no tabulation as such in the ABS and 8 the AB S will say that the ccmpany shculd generate its 9 own pr essure / time diag ram. 10 0 Did you have any discussions with any 11 pe rson n el from ABS ccncerning your findings? s 12 A No, I have no discussion with them, but I 13 attend ed one of the meetings tcgether with P.r. Yen and 14 Mr. Mo ntgomery. I have attended one ABS meeting 15 togeth er with Mr. Soland Yen of TDI and Gene Montgomery 16 of LILCO, as well as Paul Jchnston of Failure Analysis, 17 and th e date I don 't remember. It was sometime in 18 March, I believe. 19 0 What was the purpcse of that meeting? 20 A LILCC managerent wants to he sure that I knov 21 wha t I 'm talking about. I don ' t know. They say, well, 22 you re ally know th e - new rules? I said,well, I think I t ALDER 0oN REPORDNQ COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASNINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202143 9300
-e
'OFFICIADiTRANSCRIPT ~ ~ '+mm%:.
~
~
~
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
) . 's In the Matter of:
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
~
) Docket No. 50-322-OL
) _.
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
Unit 1) ) l Deposition of RALPH CARUSO 4 Washington, D. C. l l Thursdr.y, May 31, 1984 ,, l (202) 628-9300 440 FIRST STREET. bl.W. ,
0 38 O l-
)
1 submit ted to us , which you have a copy of, and which the 2 staff is currently evaluating. l y / 3 g Now, with regard to the AE pistons, is it you r 4 unders tanding that that is a new design different frca 5 the AF piston? 6 A In the sense that it is the same diameter, it 7 fits the same cylinder, it fits the same connecting the compression is the 8 rods, the crowns are the same, 9 same, the stroke is the same, it is not radically to dif fer ent, but it is different in the sense of a bciting 11 of the crown to the piston in the area -- excuse me 12 it is diff erent in the area where the bciting attaches 13 the crown to the piston. The metal distribution has 14 been changed. 15 0 I think you said it is not radically 16 dif ferent. Would you consider the dif ferences between 17 the AE and the AF piston design tc be significant? 18 A I think it would depend upon the application. 19 0 Well, the application being te run those l l engines. 20 pistons and piston skirts in the Shoreham 21 A I'm not an expert on piston design, but I 22 would say it is not radical. U) f ALDeMON MePoRnNGCoMPANY,INc. 31! F ST, N.W, WASHWeGTON, D.c. 25101 (38tl 830 8300
39 ; 1 Q Is it significant? Is the difference 2 signif ican t ?
}
3 A I couldn't say. 4 Q Are you aware of matters concerning the st res s 5 concen tration in the crown of the AE piston? 6 A No. 7 0 Tou have never expressed any concern abcut the 8 str ess concentrations on the crown? 9 A Nc, not that I know of. 10 Q Are you aware of alterations that were 11 performed on the AE pistons prior to the time they were l 12 installed in the Shoreham engines?
>O ,>
13 MS. T ABLETZ Objection to the form of the 14 question, if that is a hypothetical. I don 't think the 15 recced has established that there were any alterations 16 befcre the piston was installed. 17 THE WITNESS: The only alteration that I know 18 of involved the fact that in the area where the bolt 19 holes were machined, a small lip of metal had been lef t I 20 on som e pistons right in that area, and there was scre 21 concern that might act as a stress riser, and those 22 small lips of metal have been ground off. That is the Y O
>t V
ALDGeoM REPoRnMG CoedPANY,INC. N P ST, N.W, WASP 4NGToN, D.C. 20001 (334 42 9300
\ 40
) .
1' only change that I am aware of.
$ 2 BY MR. DYNNERs (Resuming) 3 Q Do you know whether those lips of metal appear 4 in the design drawings for the AE pisten?
5 A I'm not certain whether they do or not. 6 0 If they did appear in the design drawings and 7 had been ground off, as you stated, would that precedure 8 have complied with Appendix B requirements? 9 A You're asking me a complete hypothetical. I to mean I don't know whether those lips are required, and 11 it is entirely possible that removing then could be done 12 in a manner which was consistent with Appendix B.
\ 13 0 Do you know'whether it was done in a manner 14 consis tent with Appendix B?
15 A No, I am not familiar with the details of that 16 r em ova l . 17 0 Dc you have any opinion as te whether that 18 altera tion might affect the operability or reliability 19 of those pistons? 20 A No, I do not have any opinion on that. 21 Q Is that matter being reviewed or investigated 22 by the NRC staf f or its consultants? l lO ALDWWoM REPofmMG COMPANY.20C. 3 F ST, N.W, WASHNeSfoN, D.C. Bett (NMI GN 9MO
41 0 1 A The staff is cognizant of it, and I understand 2 tha t some cf our censultants thought that that was what 3 should be done; that that was an acceptable -- indeed, 4 they thought it was the right thing to do, because I 5 unders tood that the lip was just there because in the 6 precess cf machining just a thin -- this is my 7 u nd er s t andin g , and I don 't know this from firsthand 8 knowledge -- but when you cast a part, the casting 9 surfaces are not always exact. 10 There is always some tolerance on how much I 11 metal ycu have in a certain area. When you machine it, 12 you machine it to certain specifications, and it is
) 13 possible that if ycu have mere metal in a certain area, 14 when y ou machine it you might leave a little fin, for 15 example, a fin of metal in a certain area, because the 16 m achining process is much scre precise than the casting 17 proces s.
18 And in some applicaticns it sight be critical 19 to rem ove that fin. In other applications you might 20 vant to remo re it for personnel safety point of view 21 because somebody has to stick their hand in there, and 22 they m ay get cut on the fin. In other cases, you might O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 20 F ST, N.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 820 sl00
t i O 1 not ca re at all whether it was there. 2 And in this case I understood that our 3 consultants though t that it would be a good idea te , 4 remove that fin because it might act as a stress riser. 5 0 Do I understand ycur answer to mean that no 6 further review or investigation is being conducted cf 7' that alteration? 8 A The staff is reviewing the piston rescrt w hic h 9 was su bmitted by the Owners Group. 10 Q And the piston report doesn't say anythino l 11 about grinding off this fin, dces it? 12 A I do not know whether it does or not. 13 0 Have you read the piston report? 14 A Not entirely, no. i 15 Q Has the staff reached any preliminary views 16 concer ning this AE piston report? 17- A Not that I know of. i
- 18 Q You haven't discussed it with anyone?
19 A The staff had a number of questions about a 20 preliminary piston repcrt which was issued during the 21 win ter , and they -vere discussed a t meetings which we re 22 held on Long Island, which I think -you attended. e l '% ALDER 0oN REPoRn808 CoeAPANY,NIC. 3 F ST. M.W WASNINGToN, D.C. 2001 (200185 0000
, 43 l
Om 1 Q I'm talking about th e M ay piston report, the 2 la t est one. 3 A We just received it last Thursday, and as far j 4 as I k now, no one has any comments. 5 HR. GODDARD: Off the reccrd. 6 (Discussion off the record.) j 7 MB. DINNEB s Let's take a five-minute break. 8 (Becess.) 9 BY MB. DINNEEs (Fesuming) 10 0 Mr. Caruso, has the NRC staff had any 11 communication with the American Bureau cf Shipping 12 concer ning the replacement crankshaf ts in the Shoreham 13 engin e s ? 14 A Not that I kncv cf. 15 0 Have you reached any preliminary opinions a 16 concer ning the reliability cf the Shcreham diesels? , 8 17 A I think the staf f' expre ssed its vosition back 18 on Feb ruary 22nd at the Licencing Board hearing on this , 19 matter, and I don't think that position,has changed 20 since then, because the staff has not- yet completed its 21 review cf all 16 of the significant prchlem reports by l 22 the Owners Group and has not yet received the DRQR I
~
j l'
. I i
t l \ ALDefWON REPoRn*B COMPANY,INC. ,# j 20 P ST, N.W. WA8MINGToN, Q.f. 20001 CIOQ SERIOD
')
/
t:. _ . --
48 m 1 (Discussicn cff the reccrd.) 2 Mh. DYNNER: I have no further questions. 3 EX AMINATICN BY COUNSEL FOR LILCO 4 BY MS. TARLETZs
~
5 Q Mr. Caruso, my name is Darla Tarletz f rom lon g 6 Island Lighting Company. 7 Mr. Dynner asked ycu a few questions abcut 6 indica tions in the area of the cam galley . How long 9 have y cu been aware of those, the existence of those 10 indica tion s? 11 MR. DYNNER s Objection. I never used the word 12 "in dic a tio ns . " I used the word " crack s." 13 MR. GODDARDs Staff joins in the objection to 14 the question as asked. 15 THE WITNESS: Cracks, indications -- since the 16 fall o f last year. 17 BY MS. TARLETZ: (Resuming) 18 0 And has the NGC s taf f bee n wcrking with IIICO 19 in a p rogram of monitoring those indications? , 20 A Not that I know of specifically. Not that.I ! I understand, though, that our 21 know o f firsthand. l 22 consul tants don't think that these cracks cr indications i ALDERSON REPORnNG CoedPANY.INC. 30 F ST., N.W., WASNINGToN. 0.C. 20001 (3581 OM eISO
ug r f N 1 are si gnifican t . I'm not familiar with any monitcring 2 progra m that might have been instituted, that might hav e 3 been started by the resident inspector. But I'm net 4 f amiliar with any specific program that he is invcived 5 with. _ 6 Q And Mr. Dynner also asked you several 7 questions about the cracke in the block and the 8 standa rds that you may have developed to review the - 9 cracks in the bicek. Uculd you agree with me that any 10 criteria is developed on a case-b y-ca se 'a nalysis a s the 11 inf crm ation is made ava11able .f or your. reYiew ? 12 A I don 't know that Y vould necessarily put it V 13 quite that way. I think n'y staterents to Mr. Dynner ar e 14 p re tty clear; that the sstaff has not iet received ; it s -- 15 a copy of a report evaluati'nq those cdacksJ. And the 16 staff will revieu-any ;xplanations .that are put forward sN t it t . 17 by LILCO or the Owners Group regardine th,e cause-of ( 18 these cracks, and will review any suggested' corrective
' i' 19 action if any is needed, and will review any '
) N' q '
3 20 justification for not taking anp action?*if that is , s J 21 pro po s e d .
~
22 And t'ne staf f has hired some 'esinent ' 6 i . ,-
') . :
, is \
'F d' .s
\
I h . e, $ V) ( '
~7 7.e.
l '
.- !4
- R l
l t r ! u.nenson nerome.co, -i
- w
., v,=c.
! .;p 1 I m r sr, m.w,waeninetow. o.c. noes aimo ems.seen - ;
<- q
, .s... -
3
. %,~ .; h{a ,:j
50 O) 1 I consultants, and we will rely tc a great extent en their 2 expertise in helping us to determine whether the 3 argume nts put f orth by the Cuners Group and LILCC l ? 4 satisf y us. 5 Q And in order for you to formulate an opinion 6 as to whether that infcrmation satisfies ycu, is it 7 necessary for you at this time to have a pre-established s-8 or set criteria or standard by which ycu review that s 9 in f orm ation ? 10 A No, I don't think so. Sort of by definition 11 when y ou're exploring the unkncun, you don't knew what 12 you ex pect to find.
% 13 Q And is it porsible, either in the hypothetical 14 or with your experience in the industry tha t a componen t 15 or a machine can be licensed, even with the presence of 16 a crack in a certain ccaponent?
. 17 MR. GODDARD: Objection. I think that is too 18 vague to answer. If you would like to rela te that tc 19 the sp ecific cracks we 're talking about, do so.
. 20 THE WITNESS Cculd ycu repeat the questien 21 again ?
s 22 BY ES. TARLETZ: (Resuming)
\
i
\-
o K _& \ l' 'F i --+ g mgggyg I
- 3 F ST, N.W, WASHINGTON, D.c. 20001 M 93 8100
.4
51 f
.(
s i 1 Q Yes. Either in the hypothetical or based en l 2 your experience in the industry, is it possible af ter a 3 review of, for instance, in this case the cause of a 4- c ra ck , that an engine er a particular component cocid be 5 determ ined to be reliable, and an engine licensed even 6 with the presence of a crack? 7 HR. GODDARD: Same objection. What cracks are f 8 ve talking about? 9 THE WITNESS 4- I think I can answer the 10 q u e sti e n. Ycu are asking me generally cracks. I mean 11 certainly if we had a crack in the nameplate, I don't l
- 12 think we would necessarily object to licensing the 13 plant. It would depend upon an evaluation cf the 14 situat ion , although there might be some areas where we 15 might cateocrically redect a cespenent. I'm thinking 16 abo ut a crack in a crankshaf t, and it is very possible 17 that ve might categorically reject a crack in a 18 cranks haf t , no matter where it was or how deep it was or 19 what it was.
20 MS. TARLETZ4 I have no further questions. 21 HR. GODDARD: I have .just a-few questions. 22 EXAHINATION BY CCUNSEL FOR NRC STAFF l bt U Aa.nensoN neromweecomensey,sec. . m F ST N.W,WAeHsNGTON, D.C.2M01 A em
~
s, ATTACHMENT 7 CO Y l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
--oCo--
In the matter of ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power ) Docket No. 50-332-OL Station, Unit 1) )
)
DEPOSITION OF'CLINTON S. MAT!!EWS MAY 8, 1934 1 , j VOLUME II.- Afternoon Session Reported by: KEMBLE ANTZ, CSR 669 i' , TOOKER'& ANTZ j CtateFIED smont maseo menonttal - l es e usammtv smt? ' l frREDgRic R. TOOMER ' sa= reamscisco oaios ggmat,g ANTE
*a e se sea osso e
r h $ -e P - tP me +r * -% =P*--
4. 95 A If he finds something specific that he is troubled On 1 x_.) 2 with or pleased with, he may re.2 ort. But he doesn't report l 3 j on a daily basis. i : 4l % Now, Mr. Matthews, in your prior testimony, you.in- l i 5 dicated that the types of indications you observed on the l 6 . cylinder block of the Shoreham engine you examined were 7 ' common, was the word you used. In what way do you believe 8 [ those indications are common' i l 9 1 In a general sense, a fatrly common occurrence to i i I 10 diesel engine, diesel engines of our manufacture and others. 11 And most of that or all of that experience on other engines 12 is what I have heard from others. 13 1 do know that it is not unusual to find that kind 14 i-of crack in engines that we have manufactured that may have (~5 (_, 15 thousar.ds and thousands of ~ hours o f operation and = even decades l 16 of service behind them. 17 G- llave you ascertained approximately how many Delaval 18 R-4 series engines in the field have' indications in the-j 19 cylinder block.similar to those you observed on the Shoreham 20 engine? I 21 A' No. 22 % Uhat is the basis for your testimony that 'there -are i f i 23 - many such engines with similar indications?. 9-24 A I.know of.a number ofLthem.that have such-indications. 25 % Please identify those. A :The motor vessel 1EDWIN GOTT ownedEby United States-26 . l S teel. Corporation - has Ltwo : RV-16 27 i engines. The best of my (f }j ' 28 knowledge, both engines have that kind-of. indication ~inc each' s _. , 1
, -= -
, )
s. 96
.p_
1 of the blocks. s- 2 There are two oilfield work boats known as the Motor 3 Vessel TRADER and Motor Vessel TRAVELER, each having two 4 engines, and to the best of my knowledge, there are indica-5- tions in each of the blocks. 6 The riotor Vessel. COLUMBIA owned by the Alaska Marine 7 liighway Department has two RV-16 engines and each of the 8 engines had indications in each of the blocks. 9 I am reasonably sure there are more, but those are the 10 ones that come to mind. 11 O What type of engines are on the MV TRADER and the 12 MV TRAVELER? 13 A Those are R-46 engines. 14 G Is the cylinder block in the RV-16 engine the same
/"'N l;
( ,/ 15 ' as the cylinder block,in the DSR-43 engine?
.16 A No, it isn't. The upper entablature of1the cylinder 17 block of the V engine is very.much-like the equivalent upper-18 entablature of the in-line engine in. design philosophy, 19 l materials of - construction 'and dimensionally. It is not 20 identical.
21 G. .Is the cylinder block"in the R-46 engine identical' 22- to the cylinder-block in the DSR-48_ engine?
'23 .A Speaking'of an.R-46 engineaor~the TRADER-TRAVELER?.
. 24 ' G .We can be' speaking-then about'the TRADER and TRAVELER 25 as compared to the cylinderLblock at Shoreham.
26 LA .They-certainly'a're not identical. The six-cylinder 27 -engine has-a length suitable forfsix-cylinder'engi.ne'and p)- 28 six liner boards. 'And the eight has eight' cylinders with-t: a
s. 97
'/N 1 eight liner boards. But they use the same cores and there-( ) '~' fore are very similar.
2-
.r j 3 0 What is the relevance of the indications in the ;
l i 4 engines on the GOTT, the TR.iVELER, the TRADER, and the j 5 , COLUMBIA to the indications experienced in the cylinder block 1 I l 6 ; of the Shoreham engine?- t 7 I A They appear to be sinilar indications and I guess the i 8 relevance is that those other vessels or the other engines 9 other than Shoreham operate either full-time or most of the l to l time of.their operating season and have accumulated thousands 11 and thousands of operating hours. 12 G Is it your testimony that none of the indications 13 or cracks on the vessels, the cylinder heads on the vessels
~s 14 you have identified have propagated or grown?- \-) 15 I
A You said cylinder heads. Did you mean blocks?. l I t 16 O I'm sorry. I meant cylinder blocks. Thank you. 17 A If these are fatigue cracks, a special form of ! 18 indication, then they start life, start their existence as t
' Then-certainly to get i 19 microscopic-crack initiation sites.
20 long enough to be. visible.or-to progress.to'a point where 21- they -are aL half-inch- long or 5/8ths of an inch long, they I 22 did in fact propagate. The significance'offeiting the= experience with.these f 23s l
~
24 - - blocks is that the cracks didn'.t progress toicause-any~other. 25 ' failure or to' require'the blocks to be replaced. G: .Are the: operating conditions withfrespect toEthese
~
26 .- f E g 27 marine application enginesit'he same.as the-operating condi-
/ Y
(_) '28 tions-to which-the Shoreham engines willibe-subjected?
-_l; i
e 1
98
,, 1 A The rated power level is similar. The other engines
.-) 2 don't have the rapid start load requirement of the emergency 3 standby for nuclear power use. l 4 G Is the MV COLUMBIA operated at full load, full rated 5 load?
6 A Some of the time, but not all of the time. 7 0 How much of the time is it operated at full rated 8 load? 9 A I recall the number 75 percent of.its operating time 10 as maneuvering time and out of the locks, into loading and 11 unloading docks and things like that, shallow water where 12- it has to operate at less than full power. 13 G And during what period of time, starting now and 14 going backwards, has the MV COLU"BIA operated at full load b)
\, 15 for approximately 75 percent of the time?
16 A Its. operating season is typically as I_ recall about 17 5,000 hours.a year. It has completed between five and seven 18 years of operation, I'm not sure, seasons of operation. 'I 19 couldn't accurately tell you how many operating hours or how
- 2u -many of them were at full power.
21 0 .Do you know whether the owners or_ operators of the 22 MV COLUMBIA have ever derated the engines on board? 23 A. They have either derated them or given us .a contract .3 24 to. perform work of rerating them. And I' don't really. recall 25 what the contract language said,;whetherlit said'to'derate 26 - or to'rerate. But the outcome of it_is~an engine =that runs 27 . at consid'e rably less power. than the original nameplate ' states. Le-ms- l ( ; . 28 G Do you.know-how much~less power?
%./ .
L
# ATTACHMENT 8 q by
(' g UNITED STATIS
' . j(
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N RECEIVED _ ' I NOSD 3 I waanimeTON. O. C. 3sses BRM ( 3* g h February 27. 1984 JPM PS-N***** j,I ! LF6 . 0p tg/-{c'sT.usTi gggg)4Ay gg
,y
/ F g !'_2 e - ,,7 1 g
_L $&'g, ') Docket Nos: See Enclosure 1;i'I,,_,,d,P.Cn,[..M
. . J v. . _J _.L EB,c~t 57.33 -
Cs Jn APPLICANTt See Enclosure h T.Tl. ( I FACILITY: See Enclosure L REPORT OF FEBRUARY 10,198a MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF
SUBJECT:
THE TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC. (TDI) EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR OWNERS GROUP On February 10, 1984, members of the NRC Staff met with representatives of the TDI Owners Group to discuss problems related to Emergency Diesel Generators manufactured by TDI. Enclosure 2 contains a transcript of the Enclosure 3 contains TDI Owners Group meeting which includes handouts at the meeting. attendees. Enclosure 4 contains staff coments on the TDI Owners Group Program Plan which was discussed at the meeting. Ra ph
%jectManager aruso, Pro Licen ing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated 1934 Received _._.__ N .U cc w/ enclosures: See next page E S. K ... ...mtsagni SHOREHAM
, PROJECT MAR 0 7 584 l
l 25 l 1 excluded. t . g' MR. CARUSO: Others of them might not be obvious. 3 I think an example Bill brought out during his presentation 4 in January was, for example, a platform. He said the platform 5 'was not included in the question. But suppose the thing 6 falls over? What will it fall on top of? We are not asking 7 you to do an analysis of that but we are asking you to just a explain why you don't think you need to do an analysis. 9 I was wondering if you were going to do that for things like 10 that. 11 MR. MUSELER: I think what we would probably 12 request -- we certainly could do that. What we would like, 13 since the Staff is nou going to start reviewing things in v ' 14 detai1, is when you review the first listing of items that are excluded from the' design Feview ir quality revalfdation", 'tTat 15 16 if based upon your reivew of that, you determine that there is a need' for us to docunient sfeTifically for each item excluded
~
17 la why it was excluded, we would do that; but we would ask you to 19 take a look at the first list first and see whether it needs 30 to be done, and if you determine that you think it does need 21 to be done, we will do it. 22 MR. BERLINGER: Okay. { 23 MR. MUSELER: The second question. Gary, can you 24 () :paraphase that question also? 26 MR. ROGERS: Question 2 relates to the attributes
~
26 I and how it is that the attributes for the various components 2 are determined. I would like to explain that process, if I s,, . 3 might. As' John Kammeyer identified, the initial component 4 selection committee meeting goes through and identifies 5 particular components based upon the combined knowledge of 6 the functions of those components, and then there are some 7 basic attributes identified. 8 From that point, then, there are individual 9 specialists assigned to each component to conduct an
- 10 engineering investigation of those components, and he takes f
. 11 that information which has been provided by the Selection 12 Committee into consideration and begins the process of going
)
13 through and establishing to the best of his ability at that v 14 point what needs to be examined: how should an engineering
~
investigation'ba conducted on these particGYai components? "
~
~~ ~ 15 ' '
16 once his review is done and there is an initial
~
~~~11 ~ outline or scope of work with regard to that' investigation --
UB and the task descriptions are basically that, a scope of J8 , work -- that scope of work then goes into the design review 20 organization. It is then reviewed by me, it is ruviewed by 21 other individuals within the design review organization, it 22 is reviewed by the diesel engine specialists that we have 23 brought in to assist us; and at that point we would approve () 34 this scope of work. , 28 However, even at that point that does not limit
e
- 27 ov8 1 the extent of the analysis. The analyst would then begin his 3 review of the component, and as part of his analysis, if he a finds additional things he needs, as one would expect, as part 4 of a detailed engineering analysis, that likewise would be 5 incorporated into the investigation. So these task descrip-a tions should be considered a scope of work, and the attributes 7 that are included in here are those attributes established by a several reviews of people, up to recognized specialists in s the world for these individual components.
10 That is the process by which the design review and 11 the attributes are established. The quality attributes, on 12 the other hand, are intended to be a verification of those 13 properties for the components that are necessary to guarantee v 14 the engineering organization that in fact the component as we
, _ _ _ _15 . . have analyzed it is out there. - -- - - ~ ~ ~ ~
is Therefore, during the initial component selection 17 meeting we would identify some preliminary sets of 14 quality attributes that should be verified. However, as part is of the design review process, if there are additional things, to if we do an analysis and we find there becomes one dimension 21 that is critical', we then would incorporate into the program 22 an investigation to determine whether or not that particular 23 dimension has been achieved. Depending upon the safety asso-24 ciated with the investigation, that may.be done on a sample 26 basis or on a complete, engine inspection, so the quality l l
. 28 .
i O syg 1 attributes are those things that we believe are necessary to i \ s,, 2 assure ourselves that the components out there being analyzed 3 by the specialists in the engineering organization have the ! 4 4 appropriate qualities. 5 MR. CARUSO: Let me just make a comment. Any Staff e member who wants to join in, sing out. 9 7 MR. D9ET MURPHY: I think the question really relates to i 8 how you go about considering the completeness of your review. 8 Do you go in and look at a component and ask yourselves, we k N have a problems where is the problem most likely to occur; 11 where are you coming from in a different direction? You have 12 a litany of various items to be checked for all components, f 13 and you go through item by item to determine that you have
- N--
! 14 met each of the pressure limits, that you don't have a
- ~ ' ~
! 2 vibrasfon problem, that you don't have smaller clearances j to than you assumed in the design analysis; that essentially you
~
have addressed'all'the " attributes that shou'id"b'e addressed,
~
! 17 i I W not just the obvious ones but ones perhaps you would not have l W thought of in your initial assessment of which are the most se important attributes. 'How do you go about assuri*ng the Il completeness? , EB MR. ROGERS: I would have to say that because of se the encompassing scope of*the investigation, in which we are () **' 34 analyzing components r,anging from pipi'ng to electrical wiring . l se it's rather difficult to go in and establish a list of
29 (jny10 1 attributes for all components that should be examined. s I believe that the completeness of attributes is a combination N_- 8 of the engineering experience of all of the individuals 4 involved in the review process, coupled with field inspection 5 . service histories. All of the information, both nuclear and
'~
8 non-nuclear, that we have been able to assemble is the way in 7 which we assess the complete nature of looking at the compon-a ent. 9 I think that as part of the engineering understandin g 10 of the component and the service-induced parameters, that it 11 must withstand vibration temperature, pressure, structural 12 types of loadings. That is the purpose'of going.in and O 13
" establishing the functions of the component. Then it is the
\-' 14
' analyst's responsibility and the responsibility of all of the
.___ .15 reviewers in the process to guarantee'tha't.a51 of the attri-
~
! 18 butes that the engineering community that encompasses those 17 l
individuals that are being used~in this investigation from to their experience and from an engineering mechanics and W mechanical engineering understanding of these components dic-SB tates what those attributes need to be. Il MR. MUSELER: Let me perhaps mention a couple of Et examples Gary can collaborate on. If you consider the 33 bearing situation for a aqment, the task leader for the bear-84 ings is a gentleman from FAA who used to be in charge of R&D s., 85 for Imperial Cleavite, a major bearing manufacturer. So his i
4 g a
- 30
- (- all 1 input into what needeel to be looked at came from a lot of ;
y 2 experience in designing and trouble shooting bearing problems. ! 3 FAA, on the other hand, the other gentlemen in FAA had added 4 a slightly dif ferent dimension to it in that they identified I 5 a need to look at what potential flaw initiation points or e failure initiation points and got into a more detailed
- 7 finite element analysis and fracture mechanics analysis of a the bearing, which is beyond what a bearing manufacturer i
9 would normally do. . ! 10 I think what we are trying to convey is that the 11 assurance, or at least we believe with a high degree of ! 12 confidence that all of the attributes that need to be looked 18 at on these components do get looked at because the people
,v 14 who were choosing those attributes are people who are
^ '
is - speciali^sts l~n those~ particYilar areas, and the FTV -- these are 18 the German diesel specialists -- review all of them to ensure-l l 17 that, based upon tiheir experience in designing and building 18 engines, that that experience is factored in to looking at 18 the right attributes. . 80 So we cannot, frankly, show you a chec)t sheet that 21 shows you for each component here is a list of all of the 23 attributes that were considered because we think, based upon 88 the v&riety of componantal that would probably be an endless 84 list. But again, we think - h you see the task descrigions, V 25' I am sure you will have questions on them -- but we think O I
, . .~ ,_ . __ - - - , , , - -
e 31 O 1 that that will give you confidence that the right attributes O;0y12 C 2 are being looked at an4 that the attribute selection is 3 pretty comprehensive. 4 e 5 . 4 7 8 9 10 11 .__. . . _ . _ . - - - - - -- 12 13 14 15 - 16 17 - 6 18 19 21 22 SS r 34 26 O I ..
32 r 4-1 1 MR. ROGERS: I guess if you were to attempt to
\~
2 put together a list of attributes, those lists would be v 8 put together by the same people who are responsible for 4 conducting the investigations, and the attributes, as we 8 have shown here from a task description and scope of work 8 point of view, are not the only thing that would'be T analyzed. 8 As I mentioned earlier, as part of this 8 investigation, as we get into an investigation, there 10 certainly may be additional things that we find from that 11 analysis need to be examined, and that, again, is an 12 additional means of expanding the scope and assuring ourselves , 18 to the best of our ability, that we have considered all of ! v I' i those things. We could then go beyond that into an ! - - "I8 ~ ~
' aggressive testing program and an aggressive inspecti n 18 i program for things that -- for a combination of engineering
~
II analysis, engindering testing and inspectio~n is the way in which we are assuring ourselves that all of the attributes of these components are being considered. - " MR.'CARUSO: - All right. '* k 21 i MR. MUSELERr The third question is Craig's. . j MR. SEAMAN: The third questions deals with a
. concern about considering individual components instead of considering a systems type review.
v In response to that, then, there are several I
33 l 1 age 4-2 1 examples cited. I guess what I would like to say is, we 2 are considering a systems review. It may not be apparent, L 8 because we have been talking about components all of the 4 time, but, in fact,.if you look at the design attributes 6 culled out on the task de,scriptions for individual components , 6 you will see that we are taking a systems type approach to 7 the components, 'and maybe the best thing to do would be, 8 use two examples cited'in tha question here - pneumatic control system, for one. 10 We have specified a systems and systems logic II type review by an I&C engineer for the pneumatic control 12 system on the engine. So that is one of the attributes that 18 g has to be verified 'for the pneumatic system. V I4 Another example that I guess I would like to use 16 is this cranking system, i.e. pistons,.ronnecting-r'ods,
. . _ _ _ 16 bearings, crankshaft. If you were to look at the task II descriptions for these individual components -- pistons, 18 con rods, bearings - you will see that there are references I'
to each of these components in this mechanical system, this mechanical interaction system, that requires input for the 31 piston review, for example, from con rods and vice-versa. So that type of approach is being utilized. 23 I don't know if, Gary would have anything to add.
, He has certainly elaborated on the task description system SS in some detail.
34 o 4-3 1 MR. ROGERS: .I think another example, if I use g 2 that example it will lay the groundwork for several other v i 8 questions put forth here, in our examination of the jacket 4 water pump failures at particularly the Shoreham plant , a not only do we understand the function of the jacket water l 4 pump and the steady-state requirements for load and i 7 temperature and lubrication and those kinds of things, but i e by understanding that the jacket water pump is in a coraplete 8 mechanical system that initially gets its power from coming , to out of the pistons and goes through the crankshaf t and is f 11 driven of f a gear assembly in the front of the engine, we, 12 as part of our review of the jacket water pump, are interested { la .not o'nly in the main service torgques going into the jacket w 14
! water pumps, but also the fatigue critical aspects of the .
18 And by knowing this is being' driven off j jacket water pump. Is a gear set, we.have to consider not only torque. requirements f; _. . . . ._ .. IT 'for the jacket water pump, but any torsional oscillations 18 and fluctuations that may be put into the system as it'is
~
18 drive off the front and of the crankshaf t. 8 So in the eWamination of the jacket watrer pump, l 21' we not only look'at the jacket water pump, but the gearing i
" in front of the jacket water pump and the torsional response 8 that is exciting that gearing as part of an overall systems
" approach to looking at'the jacket water pump.
v ,
" That also_goes into the intermediate assembly,
l 35 a t 4-4 1 let's say the gear assembly itself as part of the investiga-2 tion of the gear assembly. s-3 We also must have information with regard to the 4 requirements of the jacket water pump and the oscillations 5 .that may be coming off the drive gear on the front of the e crankshaft. And included in the evaluation portion of the 7 scopes of work 'and the information required, portions of a the scopes of work, we attempt to identify not only those 9 dimensiona'l and materials requirements we need, but also 10 the results of analyses that may be conducted by other 11 specialists that require the input again from an engineering (} 12 analysis point of view for the investigation of this 13 particular component. But absolutely, we are considering N" 14 the interaction of all of these pieces, and they set the; ,.
~~ ~ ~~ ~ - "18 stage for that information required for the analysis of -
18 individual components. -
~
'17 MR. BERLINGER: How do you interact with your is operating experi.ence data base in making these judgments?
19 MR. SEAMAN: In answer to that question, again 30 there is almost two phases that are important to design 31 review, explained in some detail how we define a primary , 22 function or component, and that is one aspect of the as review. But also associated with the review is a review 94 of each individual site experience piece of data and
- s. E industry data by the design review task leader to determine
~.
. 36 d 4-5 I whether that is partiqpnt to our engine, and if so, what v
I impact that has on design considerations. So everyone of 1 3 those things will be reviewed. Every piece of operating data we have in our data base gets reviewed as part of the 4 8 - design review process. 8 MP. ROGERS: But those are not to be considered 7 the only focus of our investigation. Those are the minimum 8 j of the investigations, t
' So it is a two-phase approach.
, MR. SEAMAN: Right.
I* f MR. MUSELER: Three and four were really the same 11 - general question, I think. 12 1 , MR. DYNNER: I have a question. f 13 i MR. MUSELER: Excuse me. In terms of -- is that
" okay with you? ,They both, deal with component interaction _,,
is and the like. 14 MR. ROGERS: I would like to make one comment with 4 regard to 4. That is, with regard to input we may be getting fIom Delaval and TDI. 19 . To the extent that we require those engine 21 operating parameters to conduct our investigation, our i 22 first attempt to get those parameters is by contact with the manufacturer and trying to obtain information he may , have in the form of engineering testing that they may have done, let's say' mounting thermocouplers on pylinder
N um i ' l ATTACIGENT 9
/
f DIESEL GmlNERATOR COMPONENT SELECTION PROCEDURE DG - 2
~
. Component Selection -
( ; Chairperson Date Quality Group chairperson Date . . , , ., Design Group Chairperson Date Program Manager Date e 9 \O-
. . . == j
{
purpo** This procedure provides the methodology for the classifica-tion of diesel generator components and the selection process for the components which will be subjected to design review and quality revalid'ation. 2.0 Scope The scope of this procedure is to identify the procedural requirements for each of the five steps involved in selecting and documenting the components to be included in ()i. ') the design review and quality revalidations a . . . . o Generation of Component Data Base (CDB) o Classification of components o Determination of components operating experience (Site Specific and Industry wide). o Selection of components o Completion of input to the CDB using the computer data sheet 3.0 Instructions l l The methodology and guidelines for selecting diesel
),, generator components for design review and quality revalidation are provided below.
l 1 DG
O
,g,portant to note that steps may be performed simul-te ponents. For example, the 3.ousiY en the various com classification and experience data gathering may proceed simultaneously.
3,1 Component Data Base Generation 3.1.1 The Component Data Base (CDB) is a computer summary listing of the selected diesel generator components. This listing is generated by using the "TDI Parts Manual', which is the base document for the Diesel Generator Design Review and Quality Revalidation Program. 1 (~' 3.1.2 A separate CDB is developed for each utility in the owners' Group, using the Shoreham CDB and the plant-specific "TDI Parts Manual" as the basis. The CDB for each plant - is updated to reflect site specific differences including the substitution of specific site experiences for Shoreham's site experience, and to include the input of site attribute sheets. 3.2 Component Classification 3.2.1 Components are classified either type.A, B or C. These classifications are based on the effect of the component's failure on the diesel generator performance. The defini-tions of these classifications are as follows: f ,,. I 1 DG l
O fype A Component - A component, based on the judgement and experience of the Component Selection Group, whose failure would result in immediate diesel generator shutdown or prevent startup under emergency conditions. Type B Component - A component, based on the judgement and experience of the Component Selection Group, whose failure j would result in reduced capacity of the diesel generator or i the eventual failure of a Type A component if not detected. l Type C Component - A component, based on the judgement and j experience of the Component Selection Group, whose failure i has little bearing on the effective use or operation of the I
, diesel generator.
m. 3.2.2 In most instances, the classification for each plants' : components shall be based on corresponding shoreham parts if applicable to other engine types. If no corresponding Shoreham part exists, a classification shall be . assigned based on the definitions in 3.2.1. 3.2.3 Record classification type on Selection Committee Component Input Data Sheet (see Appendix 5.1 of this procedure) . 3.3 Component Experience (, The experience of the specific components or similar type components is gathered and reviewed by the Component Selection Group. This review will be divided into four DG
h .O ! Shoreham specific experience, Nuclear Industry ions:
,gperience, Non-Nuclear Industry experience and other l utility site specific experience. This data will be used to aid in the decision making process to determine if a design review or quality revalidation is required.
j l 3.3.1 Shoreham Specific Experience Shoreham specific experience for components shall be gathered and input into the Component Data Base to assist the Component Selection Group in its review. Sources of information include but are not limited to:
Engineering & Design Change Request (E&DCRs)
Repair / Rework Requests (RRRs) LILCO Deficiency Reports (LDRs) Diesel Generator Disass'embly Inspection Results l (DGDIRs) Non-Conformance & Disposition Reports (N&Ds) . l A summary of each " experience" is provided and appropriate references are recorded on the Shoreham-Based Component Event Data Sheet (see Appendix 5.2 of this procedure) .
/ .
4 0 DG'
. .. ....s . * * # e *v ***M ,, , ,,
l (' i elear Industry Experience 1 1 The industry experience of each component (grouped by IDI l and other manufacturers) shall be gathered and entered into j the Component Data Base to assist the Component Selection l Group in its review .. Sources of information include but are not limited to:
#' Licensee Events Roports (LERs)
Significant Event Reports (SE3s) INPO Significant Operating Event Repo-t.j (SOERs) 10CFR50. 55 (el reports , , 10CFR21 reports , 1 O Nuclear Plant Reliability Data'Syst?m 8NPRDS)
, - t EPRI reports i I&Ebulletins,,noticek,icircu.Lars ;
TDI Service Information Memos (SDis) i s i [ ,~ s e , A summary of each experience is provided'en',dtappropriate , I references are recorded on the 2n'dustry' 3ased A Cent,sonant' Event Data sheet (seeAppendixh.3ofthispro'cedsre). t ;', t t )
/
\ ,
e > t , 3.3.3 Non-Nuclear Industry Experience s o, q\ The non-nuclear industry experience (eg. , marine and/or stationary chariance) of the componen:, is gath'ered and A- ,~ ,; l entered intoihhe Component Data Base to assist k.ne: O ' '. > t t, , i,, f
'y -s ,
- CG i 1 / -
( ./ *'
, g
O i onent Selection Group in its review. This information Sources of p,11 be limited to engines manufactured by TDI. information shall include, but are not limited to ( TDI Stationary / Marine Engine Experience Correspondence betwesn TDI and purchasers l Ships Logs l Engine Inspection Reports A summary of each experience and the appropriate references is provided on the Non-Nuclear Baird Component tvent Input Data Sheet (see Appendix 5.5 attached). O 3.3.4 other Utility Site Specific Experience Each utility in the Owners' Group shall gather site specific experience for components. This is entered into the Component Data Base to assist the domponent Selection Group in its review. Sources of information include, but are not limited to: Design Change Documents Repair / Rework Documentation Deficiency Reports Inspection Reports b b Maintenance Logs DG
l
- N' l '
ary of each experience is provided and appropriate
,,terences are recorded on the site specific component event sheet, which is similar to Appendix 5.2.
data Component Selection <
,g The Component Selec' tion Group shall select the components to be subjected to a design review and/or quality revalidation. Selection shall be based on component criti-cality and past Shoreham, industry, or other sita experience as inputted into.the Component Data Base, and the engineering judgement and experience offthe Cosponent i
Selection Group. Absense of adverse experience does not necessarily exclude a component frem review. The following shall be used as a guideline for selection: N' ' t Type A Components - Design Review and/or Quality 1 Revalidation normally roqu& red '\ Type B Components - Component Selection Group determines . if Design Review and/or'-Quality Revalidation is required. 3 ,
, i sE .
Type C Components - Design Review and QualityLRev&lidation not required
.c
[ i s The results of this review and any ccmments are recorded on 1 i s the Selection Committes Component' Input Data Sheet (see
-. Appendix 5.1 of th'.s proce,dur 1.>t ,
s-I . l
- DG
..h/
( '3 5
- g. ,- <
t* , % 4 ,f j _- .i ,g .
L s l 9 j components Selected for Design Review once a component is selected for design review, the Component Selection Group provides minimum review requirements. These requirements shall then be used by the ' Component Design Review Group to generate a task description. The task description shall detail the methodology to be used ( for the design review. It shall be approved by the Design Review Group Chairperson and the Program Manager. Any unique problems encountered by the Design Review Group ('N du' ring the implamentation of the design review shall be documented with recommendations (including recommendations to perform a quality revalidation) on a Component Task Evaluation Report (see Appendix 5.4 of this procedure) and 0 returned to the Program Manager through the Design Review Group Chairperson for disposition. 3.6 Components Selected for Quality Revalidation once a component is selected for quality revalidation, the . Component Selection Group shall provide minimum revalidation requirements (ref. Appendix 5.1) . These requirements are i h used by the Component Quality Revalidation Group to generate l a task description. ! t l O DG
F . 10 The task description shall detail the methodology to be used ! for the quality revalidation. It shall be approved by the Quality Review Group Chairperson and the Program Manager. Any unique problems encountered by the Quality Revalidation Group shall be documented with recommendations on a Component Task Evaluation Report (see Appendix 5.4 of this
/ procedure) and returned to the Program Manager through the Quality Revalidation Group Chairperson for disposition.
4.0 References , 4.1 Diesel Generator Design and Quality Revalidation Program O'~ l 4.2 Transamerica Delaval Parts Manual L-5.0 Appendices - 5.1 Selection Committee Component Input Data Sheet 5.2 Shoreham-based Component Event Data Sheet l 5.3 Industry-based Component Event Data Sheet 5.4 Component Task Evaluation Report (TER) l 5.5 ,Non-Nuclear Based Component Event Data Input Sheet O . .. DG l 1 1
g .I ... s ATTACHMENT 10 J . . . . .
.s.
8b
.b b db o.. db ab ib b ab dM > 8
'?10EED::NGS 3:E:OIE UNITID STATIS OF AMIRICA NUCLIAR RIGULATORY COMMISSION SIFORI THE ATOMIC SAFITY AND LICINSING 30A.C
)
In the Matter of: ) LONG ISLAND LIGE NG COMPANY ) Decke: No . 5 0- 3 2 2-OL-3
) .
)
(Sherehar. Nuclear Power Station
)
l
)
Uni: 1) . I DIPOSITION OF WILLIAM I. FOSTER, P.I., and
- l l
CARL H. BIRLINGIR Hauppauge, New York Tuesday, May 22, 1984
1 l l du . J b 1 m a y be I cucht to get on the next plane and come cut and 2 go thr ough the recc:ds, because you were finding cut a l i 3 lot of ver y in te re sting inf erma tion. l 4 When I asked what that specific 5 1nf erm ation might te that would be of g re a t in te re s t to 6 me , yo u really cculdn't identify anything eve the 7 phc:e. Eut I have been -- I have been a very busy ran 8 sin ce I've been assigned this task, and I really h av e 9 not had the time te go cut to TDI to go thrcuch their 10 entire record. 11 0 Dr. Berlinger, have you, other than your
,.s 5 12 ccm:unicaticn with Mr. Molina, have you requested any 13 inf orm ation concerning the c;erating histcry of Delaval 14 Incine s f:ct any other evne'rs of Delaval Incines in 15 non -nu clear service ?
16 UITNISS BERLINGER: We havs received som e 17 inf c:m a tion f:ca the state of Alaska, but s p ecif ically , 18 I have not and I do not intend to request informaticn in 19 the sa:ine a:ea of applicatien, ;rimarily en the basis 20 of th e reccamendatien by the diesel censultants whc I 21 have r etained. 22 The y feel tha t many of the ;:oblems ( v' l
l se ( . 1 a ss cci a ted with marine a;;11catica were these diesels, j 2 or any other diesels, are very closely related te tne 3 ty;< o f service that is seen in marine a;;11 cation, 4 w hi ch is different f rom nuclear service and also is 5 dif fer ent on the basis of the type cf f uel that 's us ed . i .i 6 And ;:iaarily ba sed en thei: 7 reccmmendation, I am not going out anf soliciting 8 ove rat ing experience data of any -- te any great e xt en t 9 with r egard to marine a;;11 cations. 10 Q How about nuclear stationary a;;11 cations? 11 EITNESS BEELINGER. Some of that 12 inf ers ation has been obtained, but a limited amount cf 13 inf c:m a tion . I have net s;ecifically gene cut and 14 reques ted it. 15 Q Do you know how many Delaval Engines 16 there are in non-nuclear stationary a;;11 cations ? 17 WITNESS BERLINGE3: In st=;1e to:ms , 18 many. I have requested the inf orma tion , c: inic:mati:n 19 p ertai ning to non-nuclear station installations of !!!
. 2 Engine s f rom TDI. That inf ermatien has s till net . t e en 21 r ec eiv ed .
Zt. One of the explanaticas I'get fe it. l-s q 4.=s. -* y ,.u... .u.g..,
l 4 s e. s -
] 9 1 ta k ing se long in identifying the ;articula: engines and 2 thei: specific locations is the fact that some of t h es e 3 engine s were shipped overseas.
4 One example cited was to Saudi Arabia. I 5 thick there might have been several hundred that were 6 sold t o Saudi Arabia. I'm nct sure cf th e exact nu r te: s . 7 But after they are :eceived, IO! doesn't 8 kno w w here they are installed, so they :eally can't give 9 r.e a l e t of inf ormation about them. , They're havinc 10 dif fic ul ty ::ying to put this inf ormatien tcgeth er. But 11 I v eul d have expected to have received it by now. l [ 12 0 Why are you :alying se heavily en Calaval 13 to cht ain this inf erma tion? 14 WIT N ESS SIRIINGEE: The type of 15 inf c:mation ! requested was the class cf engine in what 16 is called the a series , the series u line, and thei: 17 spe cif ic location. 18 In other words, the rating and the 19 loc ati e n . 20 C I have a document which ! will give ycu 21 later en which contains infermation -- 22 VITKISS BEEl:NGER: Can ! leck at that?
'\
ALDER $oN REmomTING COMP 4NY,INC. I l I
f i i a, .. J 1 Q Sure. 2 FITNESS BERLINGER: I kncv I*m not 3 alleve d to ask questions, but where did you get it? 4 Q As you know, Dr. Berlinger, I told yee we 5 r ec eiv e d many thousands cf documents 1. the course of 6 dis cov e ry f:cm Oelaval. Ve're in the process of geing 7 th r cu; h those d ocuments. This is one that we chtained. 8 We vill make a copy available to you after the 9 d e;csi ticn . 10 WITNESS SERLINGER: Very good. 11 Cne of the -- one of the peints I think . 12 shc.ld be brought out with regard to -- call it 13 cen -nu clea: *0I applications -- is the fact that much of 14 the inic mation pertinent to the operation of th ese 15 e ngine s u s.: is.not available, especially - with rega:d to 16 -- c: if you cospare it to the type of in f e rnation
- 17 tha t's required to be kept for nuclear service 18 ap;11 cations.
i 19 Tor instance, if I f cund ou ~ that the:e 20 was an engine located ~1n Oshkosh, if it was a 21 non-nuclear installatien, the chances are that much cf 22 the op erating experience information -- there are no I k f _ . , . ,-,a m -= + *- e" ' " "
l l
' 62 Q \.) i And the conditiens fe which that e nc in e 1 record s kept.
2 are operated are net closely centrolled. 1 I 3 Se, it's difficulty, if net ;cintless in 4 most c ases , to look into f ailures f or which the re is an 5 inadequate data base describin; the circumstances under 6 w hich thes e f ailures o ccur:ed , beca use it really dcas 7 not give you encuch inic:mation to evaluate the cause cf scme 'of these ; chleas. And it does give you more 8 at, but the value of 9 inf erm ation and more paper to look to that inf ermatien is questiccable. 11 C D:. Berlinge:, I'm confused. how can C you,on what basis can you say that .the data would be 12 v 13 inadeq ua te when you ha ven't even attem;ted te cbtair. 14 that data? 15 WIT 3ESS SER1INGIP What I said was that 16 the inf e:mation or the records that I veuld be 17 intere sted in finding cut or learning of are not 18 rou tin ely kept by any indust:y other than the nuclea: 19 indust ry. ist me take an exa:;1e. If a crank shaft 20 C 21 were to break at a stationary non-nuclea: ;over plan t, 22 are yo u suggesting that there vould not be useful data x_ noemson mepontimo couramy,ime.
i l l I
- s. o. ..
y ;. 1 concer ning the conditions u nde which tha t crank shaft 2 b cke? VITNESS BER1INGE34 Most lik el y , that is 3 4 true. But I -- Most likely, what is trus? :'m se::y -- 5 C 6 WITNESS BIE11NGE?. It is true that the 7 data vculd nct be sufficient fc: me to de te rmine wha t 8 caused the failure. 9 C What data wo uld you need to determine ! 10 what caused the f ailure? . s 11 MR. STPCUPE: Ctjecticn to the ferm cf 12 the qu estion. 13 WITNESS BEE 1INGIK: Net being an ex;e:- 14 in cra nk shaf t analysis, I can't tell ycu specifically 15 " what d a ta wo uld be necessary. But I can charact eriz e 16 the f act that if an engine is installed somewhere in the 17 desert in Saudi Arabia, I dcn't really know whether c: 18 not it is covered or in a building c: susceptible te , 19 envi:e nmental conditions or using hea vy cil c: diesel i i l a cil. 21 This is the type of information which you 22 micht te able'tc ces te give ycu a partial indicatic: l V
- .-y ,
f . l
' TC
( Bu t 1 in some cases as to vM4: may have led te a failure. 2 le t 's say the measurements taken at sore cf these 3 installations a re not the ty;e of seasurements that 4 would to taken at a nuclear slant. 5 For exam;1e, many of these installatiens, 6 they turn on the engine and they leave and there is nc 7 one on-site specifically monitcring the operation cf 8 that engine unless it shuts down for some reason. 9 It's the type of operation that I'm 10 loo kin g -- that I'm trying to characterire fer you which 11 is not specifically identifiable by me. 12
! can't tell you exactly what inf orm atio n 13 is er is not readily a vailable , but I can characterize 14 it irer -- net from my perscnal experience but f rom wha t 15 I have gathered f ca discussions with people who have 16 been all over the world looking into diesel problems --
17 tha t i t 's very dif ficult screcimes te determine the rec t 18 cause of problems because of insufficient information. 19 C So ycu den't kncv, f er exas;1e, what kind l 20 of rerords- on Delaval Engine f ailures or defects are i 21 kept by the Rafha Electricity Ccrporation in Saudi 22 Arabia , do you? , O ALDeRSoN AePoMTIP*GcoMPANY,INC.
/
i 2 71 1 WITNESS BEE 1INGIR: No. 2 C Dr. Berlinger, who told you that usef ul 3 data is generally unavailable from stationary 4 ncn-nuclear plants ? 5 WITNESS BEF1INGI?: I can' t give you a 6 s;e cific name c f a n in divid ual . I fus- care c; du:1..- 7 dis cus sions with people at 8 NRC and at our contractor sher a nd their consultants. I can't give ycu a specific 9 name. i
- 10 Q What contractor do you mean? . s Pacific 11 N e rthw est ?
12 WITNESS 3ERLINGER: Yes. Pacific 13 N or thw est. 14 To give you a clearer indication -- and I 15 think you 'll ha ve an opport unity tome rev, in 16 discussion s with our censultan ts -- I think ycu will 17 find f rom their comments that they do not f eel .tha t . 18 marine application is necessarily applicable in the 19 assessment of nuclea applicatica problem s. a There is not n e cess arily a one-to-on e rela tionship as 5ar-as 21 those cre:ating experiences are concerned. 22 But I'll let them address it. ALoSptgem esame%e ee..a**- -
Failure O sessaeet==c ase estauvasca consusta=vs ATTACIE1ENT 11 3p5 test gavsmong a040 PC SDs SH70 Dat0 410 CAtdCassen as3c3 eeis emtaco itti testi6 Fa AA.M.3 1 PAft 7396/L AS.MT-3 A DESIGN REVIEW W CONNECTING R00 SEARING SHELLS FOR TRANSAERICA DELAVAL ENTERPRISE ENGINES THIS REPORT IS FINAL PE W ING CONFIRMATORY REVIEWS RE001 RED BY FaAA's SIALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES 1 Prepared by Failure Analysis Associates Palo Alto, California v.? 2 Prepared for TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group l March 12. 1984 1 N Vv paso ato . Las asesas . nousto= . Suosia . nevaan . ses 3
- - - - , . - , , - , , . - . - , _ . - - - - - -sm.-,,__,.,,.-.r-.. ,,.,--,,_-,,r,---,. ---,,....%-_,.-,w.,-m_,-,,.,--..n,..,__.,-,,.w,,,, , . - . - _ . - .
l l ( . . O Shoreham OSR 48 engines revealed voids about 0.025 inch in diameter that appeared to be the initiation sites for the fatigue crack. Such voids are not unconnon for aluminum castings of the type used in connecting red bearing shells. The replacement 12-in:h bearing shells and connecting rods installed
- with the new crankshafts in the SNPS standby diesel generators are of a di f ferent design than the original components. The design modi fication addresses each of the conditions identified as contributing causes of the cracking. First, the geometry of the connecting rods and the bearing shells was changed to provide complete support to the bearing shell ends. Second, the increase in diameter to 12 inches reduced the peak oil film pressure.
- Third, although the edge loading was not affected, the two previous changes reduce the stress caused by the edge loading to an allowable level for' the bearing shell materi al . The effect of this improvement was quantified by finite element stress analysis of the 11- and 12-inch bearing shells, using the results of journal orbit analysis to determine the detailed loading of the bearing shells. The maximum tensile stress found in the 11-inch bearing was reduced by about 50% in the 12-inch configuration.
Two analyses were performed to determine the effect of the stress reduction on tne fatigue resistance of the new 12-inch bearing shells. A stress vs. number of cycles equation predicted that, based on the observed life of the 11-inch diameter bearing shells, the 12- and 13-inch shell fatigue life should be approximately 38,000 hours at full load, which is over ten times the usage expected over the di1-year service if fe of the nuclear standby diesel generators. An alternative analysis demonstrated that the decrease in the stress range is sufficient to prevent fatigue cracks, which indicates an infinite fatigue life for tne bearing shells. Based on fracture mecnanics l analysis, an acceptance criterion for discontinuities in the aluminum was established. - Voids up to 0.050 inch in diame:er will not compromise the fatigue performance of the 12-inch and 13-inch ccnnecting red bearing shells in OSR 48 or OSRV-16 4 standby diesel generators. In addition to the standard', j C1], a ., manufacturer's recommended periodic bearing shall inspections l radiographic NOE of the bearing - shells, on a sampling plan,- will be recommended to assure compliance with the acceptance criterion. J 1 , r - ]. , .f v. 1
-.. - ... -- - -_a-. w _. - .- . .-..- .. .-. . . - - - - --_. .- - ..
O 3 2.0 EXAMINATION W BEARING SHELLS y) .. - Visual examination of connecting rod bearing shells from the original 11-inch diameter configuration of the SNPS DSR-48 TDI diesel engines showed that, except for the four bearing shells containing fatigue cracks, the remaining bearings were generally in serviceable condition. The contact patterns in the babbitt overlay revealed significant edge loading of some of the bearing shells. Contact patterns on the back of the bearing shells revealed that the ends were not supported by the bores of the connecting rods. Replacement SNPS 12-inch bearing shells installed with the 12-inch crankpin crankshaft, showed similar edge loading in the babbitt contact patterns. In addition, the No. 2 upper connecting rod hearing from Dr,102 showed a babbitt removal pattern which was found to be due to reduced adhesion of the babbitt to, the aluminum substrate. Analysis, presented in later i sections, demonstrates neither condition is expected to adversely impact the i expected life of the bearing. Visual inspection of 13-inch connecting rod bearing shells from the g Grand Gulf Nuclear Station OSRV-16 4 engines showed some edge loading effects on the bearings and some areas of overlay cavitation, neither of which is a significant factor in the predicted bearing life. Scanning electron microscopy of the fracture surface of one of the cracked SNPS 11-inch connecting rod bearing shells showed that the fracture probably originated at surface pores approximately 0.020 inch to 0.030 inch in diameter. An acceptance -criteria is presented in Section 5.0 to detect unacceptably large voids in any new bearing shells. The tensile properties of specimens taken from the cracked SNDS 11-inch bearings shells showed that the ultimate tensile strength of the material met current TDI [2-1] specifications. However, since only subsized tensile specimens could be obtained from the actual bearing shells, it is difficult to determine whether or not ductility specifications were met with the material from the cracked bearings. 2-1
- P -
-t- w -
O 2.1 Nondestructive Examination Og - Connecting rod bearing shells from three different sources were examined visually. The first group of shells were the original connecting rod bearing shells from the SNPS OSR 4R diesels with 11 inch crankpin crankshafts. The second group were bearing shells from SNPS DSR 48 diesels with the replacement 12-inch crankpin crankshafts. The last source of bearing shells was Grand Gulf Nuclear Station operated by Mississippi Power & Light; four pairs of connecting rod bearing shells from the DSRV-16 4 engine with a 13-inch crankpin crankshaft were examined. i The original 11-inch SNPS bearings, with the exception of the cracked shells, appeared to be in serviceable condition, showing the expected polishing of the babbitt overl ay. The polishing had occurred in the most highly loaded areas of the bearing. The amount of scoring of the bearing surface resulting from circulating solid particles in the lubricant was minimal, indicating that the engines were internally clean. There was no evidence of any chemical attack of the babbitt overl'ay, indicating that the lubricating oil had remained nonacidic and was uncontaminated by acidic combustion products or by coolant leaks into the oil system. The majority of these bearings showed a polishing pattern in the - babbitt that was wider at the ends of the bearings, covering almost 90' of arc, than it was in the middle where it covered less than 45' of arc. Also the intensity of the wear was higher at the edges of the bearing than in the ~ center of the bearing. This pattern is indicative of edge loading which results when the journal axis is not perfectly parallel with the bearing surface. This causes the journal to approach the bearing more closely at the bearing ends, increasing the proportion of the firing pressure carried on the bearing ends. This asymmetry is considered and assumed in the life prediction of the new 12-inch bearings, and acceptable bearing life is found even in its presence. Visual examination of the backs of the original 11-inch SNPS bearings showed that the ends of the bearing were. not supported by the bores of the connecting rods. This was a consequence of the large 1/4-inch chamfers on the OJ 2-2'
l l l O l connecting rod bores. Figure 3a shows a cross-sectional representation of the
*j ' contact between the connecting rod and the connecting rod bearing and indicates the unsupported ends of the bearings with the original 11-inch crankpin crankshaft. This large chamfer has been reduced to 1/16 inch in the new 12-inch connecting rod design.
The three cracked 11-inch bearings which had not completely fractured had cracks approximately four inches in length near one end of the bearing. A crack was apparent on both the I.D. and the 0.0. of the bearing shell; these two indications appeared to coincide and thus to represent one through-crack in the bearing shell. Dye penetrant testing of these bearing shells indicated that these visual features were cracks. Radiography of one of the 11. inch bearing shells containing this indication, the No. 4 upper connecting rod bearing shell from DG102, also indicated the presence of a discontinuity or crack in the bearing material. The second category of bearings to be visually inspected consisted of O the replacement connecting rod bearing shells which were installed at SNPS with the new 12. inch diameter crankpin crankshafts. After 100 hours of testing at full load, DG102 was partially disassembled for inspection. At that time several of the connecting rod 12-inch bearing shells were removed for visual inspection, dye penetrant inspection, and measurement _ of wall thickness. The contact patterns on the 1.0. of the bearing were evaluated to determine load distribution across the length of the bearing., A number cf the bearing shells showed clear indications of edge loading in the polishing pattern on the babbitt, but not to a degree that would indicate impaired bearing performance during the life of the diesel generator unit. In addition, the No. 2 upper connecting rod bearing from Or,102 showed a pattern of babbitt removal at one end. Examination of.this region by optical microscopy at 40X magnification showed that the babbitt removal was occurring in very localized regions and that the bahbitt which remained on the surface between the localized regions of removal had no sign of babbitt fatigue or l 2 O _ cracking. In addition, at the bottom of the pits left by babbitt remov31, the q,Y machining marks on the I.D. of the aluminum bearing material were clearly l visible. On the remainder of the babbitt surface of this bearing shell there is a pattern of very small blisters in the babbitt. The mode of removal was delamination in areas of weak adhesion of the babbitt overlay, to the underlying aluminum substrate. This condition is not significant as far as the performence of the connecting rod bearings in the engine is concerned, but is primarily a cosmetic surface condition. Over the normal wear life of the connecting rod bearings, the babbitt layer, which is at most 0.002-inch thick, will be worn completely away in the highly loaded regions. Also, up to 0.003 inch of the underlying aluminum material can be worn away, for a total reduction in thickness of 0.005 inch [2-2]. The contact pattern on the back of this bearing shows that, with the change to the new connecting rods with a small 1/16-inch chamfer (see Figure 3b), full support of the bearing back has been achieved. The third category of bearings to be visually inspected was from the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station DSRV-16-4 diesel engines. These bearings are
" reported by Grand Gulf to have experienced abo'ut 1200 hours of total engine operating time, of which approximately 315 hours was at or above 100" load.
The bearings in the uppe, position showed normal babbitt contact patterns in the most highly loaded regions. In some cases there was evidence of edge loading of the bearings but, in those examples examined, even less than fo-the 11-inch or 12-inch SNpS bearings. The bearings from Grand Gulf did show light to moderate scoring of the overlay. In addition, there were a f ew isolated areas of overlay removal. These areas were, however, not.in the most highly loaded region of the bearing and probably represent areas of cavitation. This apparent cavitation is confined to the babbitt overlay and shows no evidence of progressing into the underlying aluminum substrate. It had no effect on the function of the bearings. The contact pattern on the back of the DSRV-16-4 connecting rod bearing i shells from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station shows that the connecting rod bore is providing essentially full support of the bearing shell 0.0.. j ( 4 V ,,_ 2-4 l l l
l O 1 1 2.2 Destructive Examination l d Destructive examination was confined to the original 11-inch diameter bearing shells from SNPS. Two of the bearing shells which had cracked but not separated were destructively analyzed to expose the fracture surfaces for detailed examination. At the FaAA Palo Alto laboratory, the No. 4 upper connecting rod bearing shell from DG103 (containing a crack approximately four inches long) was subjected to destructive examination. Two axial-radial cuts through tne fracture surface were made from the end of the bearing containino the crack. This freed the major portion of the fracture surface for separation and examination. The fracture extended from the I.D of the bearing completely through to the 0.0.. The No. 3 upper connecting rod bearing shell from DG103 was initially examined by TOI in Oakland. Sufficient force was applied to the cracked bearing to complete fracture to the bearing edge, freeing the fracture surface O ;,- for examination. Again the crack was shown to' be a through-crack from the V !.D. of the bearing shell to the 0.n.. In addition, the shape of the crack fronts at both ends of the crack showed that the I.D. edge of the crack was leading the 0.0. edge of the crack, suggesting that the crack had initiated at the 1.0. of the bearing shell. 2.3 Electron Microscopy A portion of the fracture surface which was removed from the No. A upper connecting rod- 11 A .c. w aring from DG103 was examined by scanning electron microscopy. This examination revealed significant near-surf ace pores
~
which are the probable initiation sites for the cracking. These pores are approximately 0.020 inch to 0.030 inch in diameter. Examples of these pores on the fracture surface are shown in Figure 4 The brittle character of -the RR50 aluminum alloy prevents ' it from. yielding very much information about the nature of the cracking process. However . the orientation of the Crack relative to the ports that were Os- 2-5 i
l l discovered is consistent with those pores being the initiation sites for the
- .\
- f atigue crack. The internal surface of the pores, being rounded and showing (J
signs of dendritic structures, indicates that their most likely origin is from shrinkage associated with solidification of the castings from which the bearing shells are made. This shrinkage may also be assisted by dissolution of gases, such as hydrogen, from the liquid aluminum during solidification. I As such, the pores would be a normal effect of the manufacturing process by which the castings were made. 2.4 Chemical Composition To confirm that the 11-inch connecting rod bearings are made from t specified material, Alcoa B850, a sample of aluminum material from the No. 4 ; 1 upper connecting rod bearing from DG103 was submitted to Metallurgical Testing Corporation for chemical analysis. The results of the chemical analysis, as I well as the specification for alloy 8850 [2-3], are given in Table 1. The results indicate that the specified alloy was used in the manufacture of theseJ p bea ri ngs. i 2.5 Tensile Properties Mechanical properties samples were cut from the end of the subject 11-inch bearings containing the cracks, between each parting line and the fracture surface. The specimens were 1/4-inch gage diameter, 1 inch gage length per ASTM B-557-81 [2 4], the largest that could be obtained from the finished bearing, and they were oriented parallel to the axis of the bearing perpendicular to the plane of the fracture. Ten specimens were prepared and tested according to ASTM Standarrs . Eight of the specimens were from the No. 4 upper connecting rod bearing shell of DG103 and two of the mechanical properties test specimens were from the No. 3 upper connecting rod bearing shell of OG103. The results are listed in Table 2. Ultimate tensile strength ranged from 23.7 ksi to 28.1 ksi with elongations ranging from 0.40". to 0.88%. Only one of the ten test specimens met the apparent original design requirement. [2-1] for tensile strength and [v w y 2-6
1 O none met the elongation requirement. When compared with Tn!'s current
%2 specification requirements [21], all ten samples met the tensile strength criterion, but again, none met the elongation requirement.
The samples were the largest that could be taken from finished bearings, but were one-half the size of samples that would be taken fro-unfinished castings for quality assurance. ASTM Standard B.557 81 states that elongation values obtained from smaller specimens may be less than those obtained from larger specimens. _The ultimate tensile strenath results indicate that the bulk cast aluminum bearino mat e ri al is enitable for ite intended aoolication. The reported ductility values are not significant, since they were measured on sub-size specimens. If full-size spec' mens could have been used, it is expected that the ductility would have been satisfactory.
- s Qh -
l l 27
l
> 5ection 2 References s'.S ,
2 1. C. Matthews and G. King (Transamerica Delaval Inc., Engine and l Compressor Division), private consnunication with L. A. Swanger (Fa AA), l October 4, 1983. 2-2. TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL INSTRUCTION MANUAL, Model DSR 48 Diesel Engine, 74012 - 2606, Transamerica Serial Mos. 74010 - 2604, 74011 - 2605, Delav'al Inc., Engine and Compressor Division. 2-3. Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa Aluminum nesign nata, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1977. 24 ASTM Standard B-557, " Tension Testing Wrought and Cast Aluminum and Magnesium Alloy Products," ASTM,1981.
~# - .
I I l g l
. _ . . .. -- - -- . ..- -_ _. . . . . . .- . -- .. . .. . . _ _ . = -
1 1
% "J' <.
TABLE 1 CHEMISTRY OF DG103, No. 4 UPPER CONNECTING R00 BEARING
- Results 8850 Nominal Composition of Analyses
( *-) ( *. ) i. A1 90.0 balance f Sn 6.0 5.26 Cu 1.0 1.86 Ni 2.0 1.38 Mg 1.0 .77 Fe -- .36
% Si -- .25 af -
.12 Ti --
1
-' l d? . 29
-,-r-- - --v,, y, sw, -..v.,,. e _ +-s,-- - -me- -
O TABLE 2 d TENSION TEST RESULTS FOR DG103 CONNECTING ROD BEARING SHELLS Test No. Position U.T.S. Elongation (kst) (percent) 1 No. 3 Upper 25.7 0.81 2 No. 3 Upper 23.7 0.40 3 No. 4 Upper 25.2 0.70 4 No. 4 Upper 25.7 0.76 5 No. 4 Upper 26.5 0.76 6 No. 4 Upper 26.1 n.56 7 No. 4 Upper 26.7 0.72 8 No. 4 Upper 26.4 0.54 9 No. 4 Upper 28.1 0.88 10 No. 4 Upper 26.1 0.68 Specification (1976) [2-13 27.0 2.00 Specification (1983) [2-13 , 23.0 2.00 Note: Results are from 1/4-inch diameter test specimens. Specifications are for 1/2-inch diameter test specimens. The sr' tall er test specimens result in lower elongation results, but the tensile strength results are unaffected by this difference in size. I I D 2-10
O N . NOTE: drawing at .74 et c;4siasi
!///l '
/ ,/ /
/
8
/
/l' e u, ,., g ,' / /' I / . I' .' ' //e-.,,ae/.e/ l ! /,)
we 4 cena.ctine res n ring en.mi.e i , L I il ina.,. ,,... : j C funsuppontso ano (d Figure 3a. Bearing: Connecting rod and bearing configuration original 11-inch journals
/ /
/ T/ /
/ ! ' cena.etiae ,.e [ .'
f j/ // / / - ^, m e. _/ / / / / _/ ,/ / // , s en.me.< v g
\ ceaa.:iaeres n..nas a
\
._/ A l , - -
v omnar:Lv sue,onno suo . Figure 3b. bearing: Connecting rod and bearing with ! replacement 12-inch journals.
,j v.S 2 F e A A-s4-3-1
1 l l
,.,-.'.w.,:.. ,. v ;
,%, ~-
.; . . .y . * ;.;,., . . , .,
l
.. y ' L. %
' ' , . ~ . . ~C:
O
-: 4 . 4
. . .- - - ,,/w.
. . .> ;w .k.- t y. _,,; ,
n_ . , .. l . , .; - :;U.N ,. .,' 1 >-
, d. " % _f:,i.'. . , -
. ;, V ' _'
" . ' sc
;;, .,!; , .i l'..
s,4 . [.;t .- '. ;' ~ . .. .; ';. .
.e.. , ,
.. . f. .,5c . ,'L .A ', -; - 2^. g,,n eq
' _ . ;;. ;:: c
.-,4. -[.
, a , . g't
~
Y
- ,,g.
46
- w. ._ .
.o ...
-5
;- f( -ro .. e.;. ,. w. y 8 ..
. , . a .. . .
7:. '. ~.
, e ' ai
-f .*. ,
m' . ~- f e 4 g.r i.Jf ;Q }.y'%- ty -gcfw t
^ ?' .
y x 26x
.,^g,%q , . >p s 4,,..u Ag..g..~t..-. 4,,-
i- Q . pWj ..
.. . , . - .- Q ' ; .. 9
.'i" n. . k_ . . ?.: x..
- T; wL c t.p' ,W.. '. .= . qu
-'-[ f ,'
; .g ..
gM -- ' J f 4.h
+ . .
l g.
.a * &. . ,;
%. -'y a
V,. . f_.,,
; . p e - n.
W,..., ..Y . }; h; Tm. y.l.h.: y' ;Wgg,. ,. S '
,s .' .
~
g, i .......,.4.,).....,-v,,
-f;( ~ .; .; ,g. - g_ __ _ 7.
;- ~,s.
; y;>_.;y- J.., ._ ._ ( __5
- pa,,. _._.
N - - f c,, : '.
;:., _ ;l kg jw y, M yg & g. :.
.~....... . .
., y ,' 4g ,
l l , }.\ f .p ~; ' :
.;f ' ,
T 3 l.E , : :.,.g
., - ;r . . . . y4
-5.%J W .x..V k-f )'? .f.*.feY[-..
.- g..
J ,-
;. 36x
,.c#.
~ z. s
. -:/ ;
gay .;;n, : .L~
+ . 2,.,;,.y ; y :. % ...
t d b
. -.#;J .. . a u a c"g., '..'
.a AS.'t- *: y.-
; :n . , .
*.. $. . ' ,. gm. . . j Jn :
.. M, y^ p % $
Mkk(3,MNIM Figure 4. Scanning electron microscope fractographs of DG103 No. 4. Voids are approximately 0.020-inch to 0.030-inch. OJ PsAA-84-3-1 2- 12
> , , s l t
. - s .i i .k ' l 5.3 Acceptance Criteria for Connecting Rod' Bearings Compared to the original configuration talled in the DSR 48 engines, there is a factor ,of 152 increase in the expec,ted fatigue life of the bearing j
shells, and a 50". decrease in the stress htehsity factor range. Because of the significant reduction in the tensile strets in the connecting rod bearing l shells of the current configuration, the siret of voids which can be tolerated, > is larger than would have been accaptable ip'the original bearings. Using4the N ' BIGIF fr:cture mechanics code to ; calculate the stress intensity factor range approximate threshold value 'cf AK, that wculd remain below the 2.0 ksi ancnes , yields an accep' table void size of 0.050 inch in t$e highly stressed araas of the uoper connecting rod bearings. The BIGIF analysis used to generate this acceotance criterion is conservative in ,that thi voids actually seen in :ne bearing material are essentially spherical wit'h Vounded interior surf aces. The BIGIF analysis assumes that the voidbre Anar:-edged and benave like snaro cracks from t*e onsat of f at fiue. This is consa'rvative s in :nat no credit is taken for the iner' eased stress recuired to initiate ,a snare fatigue cract from a typical casting void. r e
- t The cri:f cal zore of th4' :ennecting rod bearings, *.o wnica :ne 3.350-inen maxi mam discontinuity adcaptance criterion aco)ies, was :etermined by Me_. ,
region of the connecting rod bearing snell in which ine . ensile stress exceeds one-hal f of :ne maximum tensile stress in 'the bearing. By examining tne ^ 3 outputs from tne ANSYS finite element models ' of /the ' 0SR 48 anc OSRV-15 4 / connecting rod bearing pShells, it ' aas determined the: nis critical :ene encompasses a band on eacn and of the oearing beginning 0.4 inch fecm tne , bearing end, extencing inward toward the oil groeve to, a point _l.4 inenas ,from the bearing end. This critical zone is also cantared 'etrcumferentiapy on the bearing shell,- extending circumferentially on ' ti,ther side of the center
^
2.5 inches. Outside of this critical :ene,andffn:5elowerconnectingrod bearing shells wnich are much less highl/ loaded than the upper bearing
- shells, the acceptable void size is a calddlatehbd50 inch.
l t O ' - 5 4, ?< , x
<- f
-\ ,
a 4 \ i Y j,
- g t . '
4 \ g
! i i .
................................**..***.........s**e.......****.e.....**..$
4 t 4 c , The report js firsl, pending confimatory' reviews required by FaAA's QA > operating procedures. m
/ )
- I Prepared by ,
Failure Analysis Associates -i Palo Mto California - ge
.. , , s I.
i
. Prepared for
- l TDI Diesef Generator Owners Group
- l t
t , ( P 5 1 May 1984- .V3 U/'
< ha) '
I ,.,/I' .,9; Y p
> 'g . / -
.]
~
y- f .
'e l
} 1 ,
.1 -\:
, p ,, , ,
+,p n s
"~ ~ * - ~ , ,,,
l O 4.0 C01CLU510NS Als llECGeOSATIone . However, 1.- The cylinder heads are adequate for their intended service. there is a potential for cracks to propagate from pre-existing flaws in The potencial for the the head leading to leaks into the cylinders. f pre-existing flaws in Group !!! heads is significantly less than for Group I and II heads.
- 2. For Group 1 and II heads, the following preventative measures are recommended:
. Inspection of all heads by liquid penetrant and/or magnetic particle methods and ultrasonic measurement of the fire deck l
thickness.
. Perform the "barring-over" procedore to check for water leakage immediately prior to manual startups and at appro-I priate intervals after shutdown.
- 3. For Group III heads, FaAA reconnends a sample inspection of all the heads by liquid penetrant and/or magnetic particle methods and ultra-sonic measurement of the fire deck thickness.
4 If the "barring-over" procedure reveals leakage, it is recommended that the head be replaced. O 41 4 - -. .. ._ . .. _ - ~ . ,.
I Attachment 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board In the Matter of: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) Unit 1) ) AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN C. KAMMEYER John C. Kammeyer, being duly swotn, deposes and states as follows:
- 1. My name is John C. Kammeyer. I am employed by the l
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. My current job title is DRQR Program Manager. Among other things, my responsibilities include engineering matters related to the Shoreham diesel generators. A copy of my resume is attached.
- 2. The purpose of this affidavit-is to provide information concerning the expected hoursaaf operation of the emergency diesel generators at LILCO's Shoreham Nuclear Power i
l Station. l
- 3. The expected life of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is 40 years. The emergency diesel generators at
~
Shoreham are each expected to operate for an approximate total. of 4,500. hours. , n v
O 4. Each diesel generator is expected to operate for approximately 1,300 hours during pre-operational testing.
- 5. Surveillance test runs will be performed pursuant to NRC Reg. Guide 1.108 5 C.2.c. These tests will be conducted during the intervals between refueling cycles. A conservative estimate for test run hours for each engine to be performed within each 18 month refueling cycle is 65 hours. Therefore, it is anticipated over the 40 year life of the plant, each engine could operate for a total of approximately 1,733 hours l
during the surveillance test runs. l l l 6. Twenty-seven hours of periodic operational testing of () the diesel generators could be required between each refueling cycle pursuant to NRC Reg. Guide 1.108 5 C.2.a. Based on an expected 40 year life of plant, and on an 18 month refueling cycle, each engine is expected to operate for approximately 720 hours during periodic testing.
- 7. The Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station estimates a loss of offsite power event to occur once each 13 years or approximately 4 times over the.
40 year life of the plant. Based on.a conservative estimate of seven days of continuous diesel _ engine operation for each LOOP e v e.n t , each engine should see approximately 672 hours of operation in LOOP events. ('~') m l
l l l i 8. -The total number of hours of operation for each i emergency diesel generator at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is anticipated to be approximately 4,500 hours over the 40 year life of the plant. John C. Kammeyer State of New York County of Suffolk [ Subscribed and sworn to before me this___ day of June, 1984. My commission expires: 1 Notary Public i e i r l' i I i l l l t _ , . . _ . . _ . ., . - - _ . . . . = . . . _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . - _ . . _ , _ . ._ .._.c._. c
l , PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS l l JOHN C. KAMMEYER Head, Engineer - Power Division / Assistant Site Engineering Office STONE _& WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION _ Education I Mechanical Ohio State University - Bachelor of Science, Eng ineer ing 1979. Appointments _ 1981 Division - February, 1979 Enginear, Power Engineer, Power Division - June, Career Devalopment Long Island Lientin: Comcany, Shoreham Nucl_ ear P_ower Station, (Nov. 1979 to Present) assigned to the Site As ENGINEER ( Aug . 1982 to Present)in the capacity of Power Engineer and for the Power Engineer ing Of fice (SEO) responsible to the Head-SEOdirecting engineers Assistant Head-SEO, Responsible for Division ef f or t. d e s ig ne r s in the resolution of construction and testingfluid system problems dealing with and equipment such as piping, valves, mechanical equipment,in the absence Office. of the Head-SE In addition, i erection. responsible for the operation of the Site Engineer ng assigned to the Site As ENGINEER (May 1981 - July 1982), responsible i for resolving variouslly w Engineering Office, engineering related construction problems, princ par In addition, piping and mechanical components,the construction schedule. ization to solution to supportworking directly with the client's start-up organ resolve system operation deficiencies. 1979 - b for As ENGINEER and April 1982) CAREER DEVELOPMENT ENGIN flow diagrams, Engineer, spent four months preparing sections. reactor plantAs a Career Developmentresponsibilities inclu at the Site Engineering Of fice, g -) maintainability study of the 850 MWe power plant. U k
(D
\ I 4, Virginia Electric and \~# North Anna Power Station - Units 3 &
Power comoany (June 1979 - November 1979) As CAREER DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER, assigned to the Nuclear ficw Engineering Group responsible for preparing reactor plant diagrams, specifications and FSAR sections. I l U.S. NAVY (September 1969 - July 1975) I USS James K. Polk, SSBN 645 (April 1972 - June 1975) reactor Responsibilities instrumentationincluded reactor operator, supervision of division training; maintenance, honorable discharge with ETR-2(SS) rating, commendation from Commander Submarine Squadron Sixteen. Professional Affiliations American Society of Mechanical Engineers - Associare Member. G
]
1 I v
/g"% %, UNITED STATES
[ $, ,. r je NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION msmuorew. o. c. rossa N . 7. . /, e m 2 5 ss4 ATTACID1ENT 14 Docket No. 50 416 Mr. J. P. McGaughy Vice President Nuclear Production Mississippi Power anc Light Company Post Office Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Oear Mr. McGaughy:
SUBJECT:
NRC Sl>P EVALUATION OF THE TDI DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY FOR POWER OPERATION AT GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 As a basis for operation of Grand Gulf Unit I at full power, Mississipoi Power
& Light (MP&L) submitted reports dated February 20 and April 17, 1984, concerning the MP&L program to verify and enhance the reliability of the TDI diesel generators at Grand Gulf Unit 1.
These submittals were in resconse to the NPC O ouestions on the TDI issue and are supplemental to other MP&L resconses to the NRC reouests contained in letters to J. P. McGaughy dated October 31, 1983 and December 27, 1983. Additional actions taken by MP&L to verify and ennance the reliability of onsite/offsite AC power systems were documented bv t e er dated February 25,198A. MP&L met with the NRC staff and its consultants # rem Pacific Northwes* Laboratcry (PNL) on April 13, 1984, and again with the NRC staff en Acr41 18, 1984, to discuss TDI diesel generator reliability issues, inclucino issues raisec earlier by the sta'* and its PNL consultants in a letter datec a ce'! -11, '994 (E. Adensam to J. P. McGaughy). In addition, at the meeting en loril 13, 1984, the staff had its expert diesel consultants available tc ciscuss ta ete detailed views concerning further efforts to ensure reliability o# the '0* diesels. As we previously discussed at the April 13, 1984 meeting, and in severai subsecuent discussions based on 'a review of the infcematicn orovided by "0$L, the NRC staff has been unable to conclude that the prooosed MP&L crogra.m 'cr ensuring adeouate diesel generator reliability is suf#icient to succort operation of Grard Gulf Unit 1 at power levels in excess of 5'; of 'u11 cowe*. We have concluded that ycur submittals to date do not adecuately accres,s existing technical concerns without further inspection #ce defeci ve ccrocre C! d in at least one diesel ergine, additional preomrational testdro, arc' establishment of enhanced maintenance, inspection, arc surveillarce clans. O O l
= . .
' J. P. McGaughy -2 EN 2 5 End s
Our detailed findings are attached as Enclosure 1. In addition, several back-ground documents from our consultants at PNL are attached (Enclosures 2, 3, and 4) for reference. if you have Questions or alternative proposals, we'are prepared to discuss them with you at your ccnvenience. The staff will need to review your resconse to this position, or receive an adequate alternate proposal from MP&L, prior to authorizing plant operation in excess of 5% of full power. We lock forward to your prompt reply to this recuest. Sincerely, Or.j.i;3! 3:i"fd 3A Darrell G. Eisenhut, Ofrector Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure: See next page i n v
, - . ~ -,, -., , . , - - - ,
i GRAND GULF Mr. J. P. McGaughy Vice President Nuclear Production Mississippi Power & Light Company
- P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Robert B. McGehee, Escuire Wise, Carter, Child, Steen and Caraway P. O. Bex 651 Jackson, Misi.ssippi 39205 Troy 8. Conner, Jr. , Escuire Conner and Wetternahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 Mr. Ralph T. Lally Manager of Ouality Micdle South Energy. Inc. 225 Baronne Street O' P. O. Box 61000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 Mr. Larry Dale "1ssissicci Power & Lignt Cercany P. O. Sox 1640 Jackscn, Mississicci 39205 "r. R. W. Jackson, Pro.iect Engineer Granc Gul' .'!uclear Station 3echtel Power Cor: ora *. ion Gaithersburo Maryland 20760 "r Alan G. Waoner Resident Inspector Deute 2, Box 150 c ort Gibson, Mississippi 39150. Mr. Walt Laity Dacific Northwest Laboratory Aatte11e Blvd. Ricnlanc, Washinnten 99352 - Mr. tehn Schreeder Transamerica Delaval, Inc. 2131 Professional Place Suite 116 , s Larvover, Marylano 20785
ENCLOSURE 1_ l p
\
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO ENSURE ACE 00 ATE RELIABILITY OF 70! O!ESEL ENGINES AT GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1
- 1.0 Intreduction The procosed MP&L program to ensure adeouate reliability o# the TDI diesel generators at Grand Gulf Unit 1 has been provided to the staf' in re'erences 1 through 5. Based on a review of the Mississicci Power & Light (MP&L) program, the NRC staff and its consultants ' rom Paci#ic Northwest Lacoratory (PNL) have been unable to conclude that the MPSL crogram is suf#4cdea?
- :
succort operation of Grand Gulf Unit 1 at power levels in excess c' 55 o' full power. One acceptable basis to succort full oower oceration c' Grand Gulf Unit 1 is discussed herein and involves acciticnal actions addressing the following areas.
- Engine disassembly and inspection Pre-ocerational testing following engine disassembly and inspection
- Engine maintenance, inspection and survei' lance.
2.0 Assumatiens The staff's position that the additional actions describet herein. w ll be i sufficient to succort full power operatien at Grand Gulf Unit 1 is su:;ect to the 'ollowing assumotions: a) Findings stemming ' rom the staff review of the TDI Owners Gecue resolution of TDI engine issues will be satis #actorily inclema ac at Grand Gulf Unit 1 orior to restart ' con the 'f rst re' net 'ne :u 2:e. b) Imolementation of an acceptable onsite/o#' site AC ocwee eaaa ce ea-and verification program. The procosed MP%L crocran '2c'eraa:e : is under review by the NRC staf'. c) Appropriate actions will be taken as necessar.v 'r resconse :: aew :r unexcected occurrences a"ectino the Grand Gulf Uni t i ne r- ar similar TDI engines and findings 'enm the Owners Grouc :rea-s wnd:- l are of an urgent nature. d) Engines will not be operated in excess of ESF maximum icacs ' - T* :' full rated power). . l
. - , - ~ . - , .
e ,-,
3.0 Additional Actions to Ensure TDI Diesel Enc'ne Geliabi!'ty 3.1 Encine Disassembly and Inscection The Division I engine (which has accumulated the most operating hours *o date) should be disassembled for inspection of key components (identified below). Action to be taken on the Division II engine would be contingent uoan the results of the inspectinns conducted on the Division I engine. I' no de'ective carts are found on the Division I engine, disassembly and inspection o' tae Division I engine would not be necessary proviced MP&L can demonstrate througa a review of the manufacturer's OA records that the two engines are essen-tially identical. This would involve verifying that the key engine ermconents have been #abricated and installed to the same material (including heat treatment) and manufacturing specifications and similarly inspected are installed (including same bolt torques). I' inspection of the Division I engine reveals defective parts, or 4' the two engines contain dissimilarities, these would need to be evaluated as a basis for establishing inspection requirements #0r the Division II encine. All defective parts found should be replaced. Dossibly, the block and engine case could be exceptec if cracking is not severe or in critical areas. i The types of inspections to be per#crmed should be similar 'n those corcuctec it Shorenam anc Catawba (e.g., dye Denetrant, eddy current, ultrasonic, end'o-graphy, etc.) as accroariate for each comoorent basec on *he kinds of or-cle's (e.g., cracks, abnormal wear or other distress, inadecuate assemoly n" --*cu' c' whicn have previnusly been excerdenced on these ecmoonents at Grarc Go "a**
- or other TDI engines.
Umcorents to be irspected should include all (IT*3 C # *"e #-1'rw'ac: ! - Pisten skirts, crewns and fasteners
- Cylinder heads
- Connecting rods. Connecting red 'asterees snould te ; necked for torque .
- Connecting rod bearings per criteria in Cwners Gecuo e= rect on this component. Bearings should also be evaluatec 'or accor ai wear patterns which may be indicative of crarksna'; c1 saligr e'it 4
l - Wrist pin bushings i k
1
/N b Push rods - main and connecting Crankshaft (including het and cold deflection test)
I
- Cylinder liners
- Crankcase capscrews for toroue
- Cylinder block
- Engine base Head studs 'or toroue
- Air start valve capscrews Rocker arm caoscrews per Owners Group findings Turbocharger mountings, including all bolts and welds 4
A description of the inscections per#crmed and the results snould be suomitted for NRC staff review prior to plant coeration above 5" ocwer. O This recort should address all 'ndications found and the engineering basis for acceptance or rejection of the subjec* comconents. 2.2 8"ecceratienal Testine Subsecuent to Enoire Disassembiv are inseecte e-Deeccerational . testing must be cer#crmed on the Division I engf re 'n170w'ag its disassembly, inspection and reassemoly. Ir addition to acheedno te tre manufacturer's preoperational test rec 0mrendatinns, this chase of tes?'ac snould include the element listed below. :f the manufacturer's aec:Preaca-ti:ns already include these elements, it is not necessary to ee:ea tre . 10 modi #ied starts to 40*, load 2 #ast starts to 70" load i - 124-hour run at 70", load i ! A mccified start is defined as a start includinc a creiuoe cerdad as reccmmended by the manufacturer,and a 3 to 5 minute inacing to t*e soecified load level and run 'or a minimum of one heur. *be 'ast starts are " black starts" conducted 'com the control room cc simulat ce o' an d ESF signal with the engine on ready standby status. The eagine sbcu': be leaded to 70% and run 'or 4 hours at this load on each 'ast start-test. The 24-hour cer#ormance run is suggested to de ect abrorma' . terceratures and/or tercerature excursions that mignt incicate eactre cistress. Either a modified or 'ast start may be utiid:ec. i [ .-
\~ /
1 l 1
i r
.4.
V These 13 tests must be per#ormed satisfactorily at the 'f rst at*. emet, d.e., the 10 modified starts should be performed successively with no #ailure. A failure is defined as an inability of the engine to start, or an abnormal condition duringtothe from continuing resoective run which would ultimately pracluce tne engine operate. If the creocerational tests are not satis #ac crdij completed in the first attempt, the NRC staff will review the need #ar addi-tional testing requirements. 3.3 Mainteaance. Inscection anc Surveillance Detailed maintenance, inspection, and surveillance recuiremaats shoulc be established in conjunction with the engine manufacturer's recommeaca-t'ans and snculd include all maintenance, inscection, anc surveillance identi#iec by MP&L in Re#erences 4, 5, and 6. In addition, soecial attention should be given to selec'.ed comoonents as described belew. I# defects are noted, the parts should be replaced. The nature of the ce#ect will determine if this is all that is recuired. A. Cylinder heads - Following engine shutdown, the engine snculd be rolled over with air pressure after four hours (during c:olecwn) with the indicator cocks open. Subsecuent to coolcown, engines snould be air rolled every 24 hours. Any cylinder heads discovered leakinc must be replaced. MP&L should confirm that the written
')
d :rocedures are adequate to ensure that the cocks are closed felicwdng each air roll. 3. Engine block and base - inscect *.he engine block and base every month or 24 hcurs of Operation, whichever comes #irst.
~5e inscec-' a sneuld be an external visual inscection recuirdag en disassecoly. Ne other special maintenance is recuired i# any de#ects #cund ar* " ace-critical." Non-critical indications are de#d nec 3s not causing a'l Or water leakace; not procagating; and rot acversely a##aci ac ef cer d
liners er stud holes. C.
+
Cnnrecting rods - After each interval o# 25 starts, in 9 curs h# creration or 6 months, whicnever occurs #irst, al' ::rrec-iag recs should be visually inscected and all connec-ine -cc toits sncui: 'e retoroued and the results recorded, r l 0. Lube oil checks - The ' lube oil should be checkee # r water #ctinw'ac preccerational testing and then weekly ard & #ter mach 24 hcurs c# ODeration, whichever ccmes #irst. It shculd also be checked ca a monthly basis for particulates and chemical c:ntaminants assted**cc i w'th wear of bushings and bearines. Also at inter"afs o' cre, crin, e ! samole should be collected # rem the bott:m c# the sure tr *eck #:r water. L All filters and strainers snculd also be eneckec mea.-aiy. (J I l l
5 s E. Cylinder head studs, rocker arm caoscrews, air start valve caoscrews - Each month 25% of the caoscrews snould be spot creckec for torque. F. Push rods - Following precoerational testing and then subsecuently after each 24 hours of operation, cams, taonets, pusn rods, etc. should be visually checked. This can be done one at a time with the engine shutdown but without affecting its availability for service. Items A through F above acoly to both engines. For the engine (s) wndch are disassemoled and inscected in accorcance with Secticn 3.1 above, the starting coint for implementing items A thecugh F should be ucen engine reassembly; therefore, subsecuent ore-ocerational testing srould be included in the accrocriate maintenance, inscection, and surveii'ance intervals above. Should it not be necessary to disassemble and irscect the Division II engine in accordance with Section 3.1, items A througn F above should be implemented. One hour of engine operation at any load is considered to be one hour of engine operation in detemining inscection intervals. 3.4 additional Survefilance O Ouring standby, the lube oil filter cressure droo should be checkec caily rather than monthly as suggested by MP&L. Hot and cold de#lection tests of the cranksnaft should be perfomed every 6 months with the hot ce#i ec-d tien test cee crmed within 15 minutes of engine shutdewn. ' During engine aceration, the exhaust teFoeeature for each cyi'arer saru
- be monitored continuously by the operator and recorded or a 'cg at acur yt intervals, as shculd the ternceratures entering and exit re he urNeca4rcer.
d Other temperature and oressure readings for which the enciae s 'as u e- ec shculd also be monitored continuously, anc recorded neur'v, er c e # ecue-C if specified by the manufacturer. These should at leas- 'ac'uce 'u:e - '. 4acket water, intercooler temperature, anc air cressura. Se eac ae s ecuicced with an accelerometer on the rain bearings anc ur:ccaa-cas. - ese shculd also be monitored continuously and recorded at 'trur'v inte-"='s. the engine is not ecuicoed with an accelerometer at these ced ts, ma'a :ea 4-c oil temoecature should be monitored continuously and recce ec acurN. a'sc. lube oil filter pressure should be monitored daily durdng eqg'ae ce-t- ca. O
i
- 6-1 De#erences
- 1. MP&L letter dated February 20, 1984, " Diesel Generators, Cererehensive Reliability Report."
- 2. MP&L letter dated February 26, 1984, "Onsite/Offsite AC Pcwer Reliabili t y."
- 3. MP&L letter dated April 17, 1984, "Uodated Reco-t, Diesel Generat:rs."
4 MP&L letter dated April 17, 1984, "TDI Diesel Engine, Su:clemental Info rma tion. "
- 5. Meeting Passcut, April 13, 1984, "GGNS Maintenance / Testing Program."
- 6. Meeting Passcut, April 18, 1984, "GGNS 0-G w a intenance Testing Pengram."
I i l I
- - - . , <_-.v--- -:---.- - , ~ g- -r -,m.- ...n, < , - , , , . - - , - - ,, , . , .,.,,-~n
' 60
*.rr. g.,g., 1-i *%A 1.-L .'AL.e. 13
[ B t.: v R.p. ,, 1:.,. . . o4 n f M I .*. d A.7 g= ==.
. ..s..D
,.., .. r g.m I .g.ov," D~ A .L" i
l 3 l, - 4 i s.
' t ' s ,
i
, s 4
.. ., l
... .. i.
4 er I 4 s ... .. .. . : 1, I l i l i I I i I J l . . .. 4 j .. 2 . j .? 1 . ,- I i < i
. .e i
l I l
\
4 i 1 5 y.
. . ~. . , ...
. . .3. I :fd .\ L *.S , S R .
l 1 , l e
.. i i
i
. 3
. 4 1
i ,
.c i 1 i
, . 1
. .. n . . . .
. < . . . . -n i .. . . -.. . . .
;a ;-2 COUPL TERIZED t
1 TR.OSCRIP T l * -- i
22 === - 78 s i We also na ve to deal s itn sc ismic -- o r se ismic ; j , s_sl
; I don't knos the ,)conunciation -- se h3ve to take i a. t o acceanc tne effec of a callicion an : r. e calp anc . c. a t 3
4 scala nipi,en in the dwacceleration ,. e r io d af a 001.1::: . , 3 :ta. OTRJJPZ: g. Is 0.at .ita r23ard .>r.1/ o t .t a .a a l . . troellsian systes? 7 .s. Utnerall/ i r. t a c .3a la* , r J: 21dlOn 3'f5 9% Jec3.lt 3 0. ;;J ;Jda. i
) . . I nink . . . , 3;e3tIOns ~33 unif in r e g .i t 4 a - -
2 Sala fra...ASion 3 y S te C.
;i ao jou tale t'r. a t int accoant s t e.. tha
.. 2ui...r, c..g tac ?
l I
. i ;ue aa. 3 ver; aar;; a:<ilisti en;:9 . .:
.: l i
'4
. , .i. : ; s 2:i s e r s n i ,; , taen foa scali t2<o it ir t eng;aes are
.3 !
;a...- c ; a ;;e s v. .e . :. .;c s e aux a . ;2 r,
.. .arj2r t ..a n 0;.0 ~.3in JrCpalS10n .r.it3 On 1 3S311 03r3' 6 .5 2.1,. . .'..e.. 's sOJEC Ce t d '. c 1 1.i t O J c u C J r. t .
.a it sould -le;en on the uvsi cenes; a f t -s L> .aa c r. : n e r i .
Are there any ect.;c:enta :. . e r t r. a c. tqe i Ji :sanaation of the dJX111 dry die 3el eijlats On J6r: 3 .". 1, 22 nat w as. _e a f f -;c t e ' c/ cne force ;; a 2 vu a-:- t ar ? , Joalc I na ve that queat'.an re.; .ac<, '. n a g e .' 23 A.
.4 (3ecard reas). t, l I ta T.L
. al.,Ne
. aS: te .
26 T a e.- fat;s tull Je3 .:O s e ; it stressea .. . : .t'; 27 2.: ect to atruss, and tnerei0re it nas att. In 09 ::.
' iu ThJ J*rainJ dai?n a Enty LJ tJD)eC e' *) 'J J r .' 9 e.a m e . .ea. . ;3 ..es., e o c .. . 4 .1 a ? r 3 n r. 4 e ,--* 4411; 41 4 i i 1 f. :
I _ - ~ _ . . . . . . 3 0 /
;;ite a c a vy , ooth from the point of view of the seather l
, and f r o a1 ene loading. A nd Onese things s:11 af fect tic 3
J i i f n."te n t of t .". t* C r a : A S 'la f t , t ". 0 CranX Snaft Of *ne 4 C .; .1
- 1 *. 3 JeJr Jnd a W.'C'.e '1 J 5 0 O! C ' i "! f : Ce31de3 ' '
- I .: O ,J n -. -..s l
- g. .a-.,.9
. .h ., ., c. ., ,
.ss.-
,4
{ . 5..a . .s
.... ..3... g a. ,. , n n
,. ..iy g .2 - 35., .. ....
a . . . 33.. .. ..
... .13 i .a. ,.e . r. -, 'a. ."
i
.s. .. .
. . . .' e C *. .
j l >
. .1 .
a,,J... .
.... .1 .. .a.
. . . . ..e.....
t... . . .. ... -. .A. . . . - .
. .a eA.
.s. ,... . . ..g 3 . ...a
.3 3.....f e3 7s..w.
i . . . . . . . f o ggg. .
.s
.- u _.
i 1 . a ,4 .t..
. . .i.. . . ... .. -.ej. .
. ... ,... ...s... .. ....a...
i
.N 1 ,
.. .*... . . . . ,..s- ....- .
a . .. z ..
. . . . a,...,
u... ..
.s .
.. .. .gq.,
.i a .. .. . .. .. . .. .
1
.3 4. ... .s.4 . . . , .,. ,, ,. ,. .. , . c.2 . . . ,
... ....st.. .. , ; .. .3. ... , . ..-
. .2
.. ) ,. .. . . . , .
...a.
. .. . . ., c J . . . ..
,s.. .. .,. .. . . .: ; . 1 ") .. ., .. .. . ..: : ,r.
...i. t ..
- T C r , a r t 5 .
. .. JJuda't it a l .iO --
Str'<e t c.10 . i
.sn t it a.;a a.:.;?;te .
, ; t .; a c : c. .
41 t Te sea . virtae of :ne fa:t tnat a r7;eller an- a M .rNeller ; aft can exteni . . t; tge t c. e :ce a.. ;
.s A. tem, it 13.
24 2 Jii a ll t..e vc.jtnes a .- 2r: ; .,
.- ;;2 :
6 ( >-a .i . c. s e e . ; c. , .e r 2 eitn rejarj to tac .:.a t - j r t. u 2 : 2.- 10 e ny l n e t c..s t .ere tne eiesela .c t .e , .2 3 Train f;.et --
et.cratu on nea., favi cat ; .- ,. a r t ?
28 A. .i c ae Ontpa dic, sne saips : :dn't, I
\
l \ 1 i 700K CA & ANT: 6 31 :tarke t 3treet San francisco 94105 415/ 3 9 2 -0 6 h' i I
l 1 78 O)
\,, 1 We also have to deal with seismic -- or seismic; 2
1 don't know the pronunciation -- we have to take into
' accoant the effect of a collision on the ship and shat 3
4 sould happen in the deaccelerat' ton period of a collision. MR. STROUPE: Q. Is tnat with regard only to ; 6 the aain propulsion system?
. 7 A. Generally in tne main propulsion system because f
8 of its 43Ss. 9 y. I think my questions was only in regard to the t 10 main propulsion system. 11 Do you take that into account with the 12 auxiliary engine? 13 A. If you had a very large auxiliary engine such g 14 as in a pasaenger ship, then you would take it into 15 accoant cecaase so.uc of those auxiliary engines are 16 larger taan the main propulsion units on a small cargo 17 ship. Tnun it sould be taken lato account. 18 It would depend on the massiveness of the 19 macninery. 20 Q. Are there any components otner than the 21 founaation of the auxiliary diesel engines on board ship 22 that can be af fected by tne force of wave action? 23 A. C oulo I ha ve that question read back, please? l 24 (Record read). 1 25 Tile WITNESS: Yes. 26 The ships hull does move; it stresses and it's subject to stress, and therefore it has strain on it.
%d
} 27 28 The atrains which a ship is subjected to can be
--a..-- . . . . ras ........ ...... e.. v ..e4,rn 04164 A14/117-n4%O
. -- = _ - - -. . . . .
i
-Attachment 16 O Status of Shoreham Technical Review by TDI Owners Group Owners Group Date
- File No, Submitted Title i
TDI-l February 28, 1984 Task Descriptions TDI-2 February 27, 1984 Investigation of Types - AF and AE Piston Skirts by FaAA
, TDI-3 March 2, 1984 TDI Owners Group Program Plan ! TDI-4 March 3, 1984 Design Review Report on f the Connecting Rod Bearing' Shells for the
- Shoreham and Grand Gulf
- Diesel Generators by FaAA
- ( TDI-5 March 13, 1984 Rocker Arm-Capscrew Stress Analysis Report
; by Stone & Webster l
TDI-6 March 23, 1984 TDI Diesel Generator Air Start Valve Capscrew by 4 FaAA TDI-8 March 30, 1984 TDI Diesel Generator , Cylinder Head Stud Stress Analysis Report by Stone & Webster i TDI-9 April 11, 1984 Rocker Arm Capscrew Stress Analysis by FaAA TDI-14 April 16, 1984 Supplement to the Cylin-der Head Stud Stress l Analysis and Supplement to.the Air Start Valve Capscrew Dimension and Stress Analysis by Stone
& Webster b
i d u l [ , . . . - . . , - , -. . , .-
Owners Group Date File No. Submitted Title I TDI-15 April 16, 1984 Engine Driven Jacket > Water Pump Design Review by Stone & Webster TDI-16 April 19, 1984 Design Review of Push Rods for Transamerica Delaval Diesel Genera-tors by FaAA TDI-17 April 20, 1984 Evaluation of Emergency i Diesel Generator Crank-shafts at Shoreham and Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Stations by FaAA s TDI-18 April 24, 1984 Emergency Diesel Genera-tor Engine and Auxiliary Module Wiring Termina-tion to IEEE-383-1974 by Stone & Webster TDI-19 April 25, 1984 TDI Diesel Generator Supplement to the Rocker Arm Capscrew Stress Analysis by Stone & ( Webster i TDI-20 April 27, 1984 TDI Engine Instruction Manuals For All TDI Own-ers Group Diesel En-gines, Except River Bend OGTP-06 . April 27, 1984 TDI Owners Group Current Engine Inspection Sched-ule OGTP-08 April 27, 1984 Emergency Diesel Genera-tor Fuel _ Oil Injection Tubing by Stone &. Webster i OGTP-09 April 27, 1984 Design Review of Con-necting Rods of Transamerica Delaval-1, Inline QSR-48 Emergency Diesel' Generators by FaAA O
\_,t
Owners Group Date File No. Submitted Title b V OGTP-10 April 27, 1984 Design Review of Engine Base and Bearing Caps for Transamerica Delaval Diesel Engines by FaAA OGTP-13 April 30, 1984 Interim Reports on e Turbochargers, Cylinder Heads and Cylinder Blocks / Cylinder Liners by FaAA OGTP-25 April 14, 1984 Evaluation of Cylinder Heads of Transamerica Delaval Inc. Series R-4 4 Diesel Engines by FaAA OGTP-26 May 14, 1984 Design Review of Elliot Model 906 Turbocharger Used on Transamerica Delaval DSR-48 and DSRV-16 Emergency Diesel l Generator Sets by FaAA OGTP-39 May 24, 1984 Evaluation of Emergency O
' Diesel Generator Crank-shafts at Shoreham and Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Stations by FaAA OGTP-40 May 24, 1984 Design Review of Con- ; necting Rods for Transamerica Delaval
, DSRV-4 Series Diesel En-gines by FaAA i OGTP-41 May 24, 1984 Investigation of Types AF and AE Piston Skirts l by FaAA (supersedes the February 27, 1984 piston skirt report) OGTP-50 May 30, 1984 Design Review of Con- ! necting Rods for Delaval DSRV-4 Series DGs - Er-rata i ' O 'O '
I Owners Group Date File No. Submitted Title OGTP-72 June 19, 1984 The Influence of Thermal Distortion on the Fa-tigue Performance of AF ' and AE Piston Skirts by FaAA 1 0 - 1 1 i I t_}}