Text

Suffolk County & State of Ny Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Tdi Emergency Diesel Generators (Replacement Crankshafts).Certificate of Svc Encl
	ML20099D216
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/15/1984
From:	Palomino F, Scheidt D; KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	;
References
	CON-#484-187 OL, NUDOCS 8411200254
	Download: ML20099D216 (84)
	v • d • e

- %N43 hkEO Novemb'ed 16e 984

- All:07 hl-h[7)l{5jcg UNITED STATES.OF AMERICA g,,pl.g,

~ NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION

. gg Bg ore 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)

)

).

SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS (REPLACEMENT CRANKSHAFTS)

Fabian G.

Palomino, Esq.

KIRKIATRICK & LOCKHART Executive Chamber, Room 229 1900 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 800~

Capitol Building Washing'on, D.C.

20036 Albany, New York 12224 Special Counsel to the Governor Attorneys for Suffolk-County of the State of New York i

l 4

) SOS

c,,. ; r,_

4,_

3

v m-

+

k.7; -,

.- y r.7 f

~

, ~.. c

- +. - -

..,m

-= s.

pgfiDWC 4

'~

yL y

m

! E

- X

- ty >

j

' g.-

y

_~

-^

i

~

. SUFFOLK: COUNTY-AND~ STATE.-OF>NEWJYORK PROPOSED..

J

. ~_ 4 4

,y

FINDINGS :OF : FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1 OF ' LAW ON L x

]

iEMERGENCY~ DIESEL: GENERATORS?(REPLACEMENT ~ CRANKSHAFTS):

~'

TABLE OFECONTENTS:

a Page'

?I.f INTRODUCTION

.'............_.............'...'..............!1

.A.-

! Background'and Summary of Conclusionsf...........f..il a.

1.

-Statement'oflContention;and'Scopej 4

of. Partial: Initial Decision

~

l' 2.

BackgroundJtolLitigationcof--

Crankshaft-Adequacy:............'......'..

..E3s i

3..

Summary;of Decision

.........'.................?6 II..

DISCUSSIONj............~................................Il4-A.'

The' Replacement Crankshafts'do'notD I

Comply with the~ Classification

~

' Societies' Rules _...........'......................-14'

~

1.

The-Classification Societies'. Rules 2

are' Relevant in Evaluating the Replacement Crankshafts

.........~...... 14

2.-

.The Replacement Crankshafts do not F

Comply with-the. Classification Societies' Rules.'......................... 21 a.

The Replacement Crankshafts'do-not Comply with Lloyd's' Rules.~........... 22 b.

The Replacement Crankshafts d'o noti 1-Comply with the IACS Rules _...........'25 c.

The Replacement Crankshafts do not-Comply with the ABS Rules'on Torsional' Vibration.................. 28 i

i..

g

^ I~G,

_..._,.~,-~.,--....,.%-,,-.--..,.,w-

..--,x.,-~,.,~.,r......,

r-#.

,. + -

m.

n

\\

,$) g g -

y

[

3

' Qy-

~

s_

m p4 _ p w

s ~

+

1 t

v 5

7' N

w.

~

4"

[

(i,

N

+

.The County andLStaff:

L

- N

[

l' ~

JCalculationsiShow that-

'+

-the. Torsional l Stresses-

'in.theMRepla' cement

^

Crankshafts 1 Exceed ~ ABS

Limit s -....f.. ~............. '....

2 8 1 ii.. ;ThefABS'sl Approval of the iTorsional: Critical Speed ~

--Arrangementhof the EDGsi

' s' Entitled to'No Weight'e....J30~

i

~

Ld.-

Thel Replacement 7 Crankshafts do~not

' Comply:withlthe'APSl Rules;on fCrankshaft Web.Dimensionsi.........<../36

-e.

The ReplacementL Crankshafts: are Inadequately: Designed;for.

Operating.: at Overload ' and Ttheir:

' Design.-is Marginal' for Operating' at Full Load even!under the: German-Design Criteria.Used By F.E.V.m....... lB;-

LILCO Cannot' Rely.on: Alleged Compliance with,the'DEMA' Recommendations-to Prove the Adequacy.of the-ReplacementLCrankshafts.......................... 45 1.

The DEMA Recommendations are not

-a Reasonable Standard by which to-Judge the Adequacy of the Replacement Crankshafts

................... 46

2..

. The Replacement Crankshafts'do not Comply with the DEMA Recommended Limits on Torsional Vibration.............. 56 C.

FaAA's~ Calculated Safety Factor.is Insufficient Proof that thecReplacement Crankshafts are Adequate

......................... 64 i

.i D.

Any Increase in the Fatigue Endurance-Limit of'the. Replacement Crankshafts

'j from'Shotpeening is not 0,antifiable............. 72' III. CONCLUSION............................................ 80 1

ii--

U.

Mcy %qQ,, ^,(

^

di l'y y,4 b

+

' ~

..g' '

q

_n lf.* {gtgf

, y.g7

.r j.

g~

w

}'s[;'

- (c - -

$3.b ( '

' -h N

}*'

'bL ~

~

gwl

~

z m_

-s.

. E y

{

l l

l: r '

y., ' '

~ '

- ~,, _

_t l

f jy 1

- 4

^-..,

+-

-f1

~

W, g

{

. I,.; JINTRODUCTION.

~

p-

~3

.Backhroun'd andLSummary ofJConcibs' ions b

VA.>

3.;

u c n

~

Statement of Contention'and"ScopeCof?. ^

bl.3 L

Partial Initial--Decision.c

.4 4

t l 1 L' This T Partial 7 In'itiali DecisionD addEesses : the~ Suffolk s_

./.

/ CountyJaridithe? State ofl NewlYorkicontenkion that"the replace-:

n; 3;

mentLcrankshaftsLon_.the1Shorehamlemergency diesel generators _

L("EDGs")[are notIndequa'tef or operating. at fullsload (3'5'00 kW) f 4

s C

.or? overload:(3900(kW). JThe'Intervenors thusiurge this Board to' find).that'the'EDGs' fail}to? satisfy (General;-Design Criteriono

("GDC")';1'7.

'k, 2..

.The 'first paragraph of"the EDG Contention satates:

Contrary to-the requirements of GDC 17, thel emergency. diesel generators,atlShoreham.

'("EDGs") manufadtured'by Transamerica

- Delaval', Inc. ( "TDI" )' ~ will. not -: operate reliably.and adequatelyfperform-their' required fun'ctions because the EDGs:are overrated'and undersized;-improperly designed, and not satisfactorily manufactured.

There can be-no reasonable assurance that the'EDGs"will perform satis-factorily in service and that such operation will not result ~in failures of other^ parts or. components of the 2DGs due to the. overrating.and insufficient' size of the EDGs or< design or manufacturing deficiencies.

The EDGs must'therefore be

. replaced with engines of greater size ~and capacity, not designed or manufactured by TDI.

/

y% _. s L aj;3 -_-~ ~

-z g-t-t

~

r 2.,

u

~

7 W.

.. Anderson', etial., ff.:Tr.c 23;826.,1at"11L

+,

~

3.

Witti respectJto? the Shoreham~ crankshafts,:the EDG#

p' l Contention' alleges;thitiltsLfirst'paragrcph!is supported.be :

icause:K (a) :The~replacementEcrankshafts at::

LShoreham'arefnot: adequately designediforL

-operating at' full ~ load (3500 kW)1or over-load.. (3900 kW),..as required 1 by FSAR 'Section

~8.3.1.1.5, because they do'notTmeet.the

. standards of the American ' Bureau-of ( Ship.

ping,..Lloydfs, Register of Shippi'ng,;or the International Association:of Classification

. Societies.;-In1 addition,:the' replacement 1.

-crankshafts are;not.adequat'ely designed for?

operating;at overload, and their design.is-marginal-for operating at full fload, under the German criteria used by F.E.V.1 (b)

The shotpeening of;the, replacement

~

crankshafts was not properly-'done as set-forth.by:the Franklin ~Research Institute report; Evaluation of. Diesel Generator Failure at Shoreham Unit'l; Aprili6,-1984,~

and-the shotpeening may have caused stress nucleation sites.

The presence-of nuclea-tion sites may not be ascertainable due to the-second shotpeening of the crankshafts.

3 Ij}. at 106.

4.

This Partial. Initial Decision addresses only'the p

foregoing crankshaft-related-portions of the ~ EDG Contention.

.The Board will' address the remaining portions of the contention (chiefly concerning the adequacy of the EDG cylinder blocks) in' a subsequent decision.1/

1/.

In the context o'f this Partial Initial Decision, the par-l ties have sponsored the following testimony and witnesses:-

(Footnote cont'd next page) 2-

.. -. -, _ - ~ -

=--

c

.=

c

_h$b, - k ~ l

~

W-

'S

', ;y;f.a MY u

~

o

~[

k

~

,w -

"L l+@ ' g, g' 41s -

7Q

, :y:: '

,17

^ ~

2-c e.-

ln,

,c

.y J.

4 f '

fgy ly

~;

l T' f 3

v

~

f

^

37 4 3

~

s

~

r 2

,j '%'

- Afequacy--

\\

,v

>Jf+

4

,....;s 3 b,

- y 42.

fBackeroundito Litigationiof~ Crankshaft 1 m

~

i ; _

.y'.

y

~

Y 3 "...

r 1 -

The-ShorehamyEDGs!arehTransamericaiDelavaibInc..-

~,

, p[t ~

q 5 '. E a

a

~

". A ai

~. -

,:,s f.

i ~

g(."TDI". ) L model; DSR-48 "diesellenginesi with 8 - cylinders 'in line, t s

3' M

~

Ihaving\\ a(17'-irichIbore. an'd 21'--inchS s'troke.-- iThe hiDGsjconstItute j

~

y, theionsit'e ~ electsical power system for{theSShoreliamiplant.

Thel

~

t.

. a EDGsPare. intended to provideireliable:onsite: emergency power!to!

lthe Shoreham plantlinL conformityL with '10 : C.F.11. J Part 50,fAppen -

~

n s4 b-r S

dix ~A,; GDC 17.-

Hubbard-andlBridenbaugh',Eff. Mr.q23,826; fate 12,1 x

-14.2/..

~ '

(Footnote (cont'd;from' previous palge).

LILCO.presentedLtestimony'on the adequacy'o'f,theyrep ace- --

r' 2

~

ment crankshafts-by Drs'.~-Pischi~nger, Chen,LJohnston!and' McCarthy,.and Messrs. Montgomery _and.;Younglingf and:on/the shotpeening'ofjthefreplacement:' crankshafts by Drs.-Wells,

- Johnson'-'and Wachob,' and Messrs.. Cimino;/ Seaman and

. Burrell.

This-testimony'follows..pages 22,~610 Land'23;122:

of the transcript; respectively.

Suffolk.Countyjpresented-

~

testimony'on the adequacy of the replacement! crankshafts-and shotpeening by Dr. Anderson, Professori Christensen 'and '

Messrs.=Eley,:Bridenbaugh'and Hubbard.- This testimony

. follows page 23,826'of'the transcript.. The Staff'

. presented' testimony on the adequacy of the, replacement-crankshafts by Professor Sarsten' and. Mr. Henriks.eni"and on-the' fabrication process'of the' replacement crankshafts and.

'shotpeening by'Dr.-Bush This testimony follows page 23,126 of thectranscript.

2j In pertinent-part, GDC 17 specifies that in the assumed absence of the offsite. electrical power system, the EDGs must:

J provide sufficient capacity and capability

~

to assure that (1) specified acceptable (Footnote cont'd next page) 4 '

'a t

.1,.

J

[b w g ; r[ ^ ~

J ),

'l" b

= -. -

P y

- f e

gg o MP G 4

~- y,s _ -

,.4:

)

u,,

1 1:

W:

3 x ;c 2

- w

~

r

-~.

y[

O I' 5"

V 9

1 e

m

,v

> + 'c

+ w eq.

~

, ' 76.i (Thk-adequa[ysof$theTShoreham replacement crarikshafts-1 fis~ talsignificant-issuelin'this proceedingLbecause1the: original:

x a;

w.,

t

':EDG crankshaftsifailed during' testing'.L :TheU EDGs now-- have re-:

+

s...

. ? placement crankshafts-with::13ainch diameter main bearing jour

4 nals,J12--inch (nominal)f diameter : ciank) pins, i and 3/4-inch crank =

I i

c ipinffilletiradii. ~Thef original ; crankshafts had ;11--inc((nomis

~

nal): diameter crank pinsLandil/2-inch crank p'in fillet

radii.=

The replacement. crankshafts were installedJafter the original; crankshaft 3on EDG;102Lfractured intojtwo pieces"during anlen--

gine test run.'on: August12;.-1983. - LSubsequenti ; inspections 'i' den- ~

tified cracks-in the-crankshafts of EDG1101'and EDG1103 as-well.

LILCO's consultant,. Failure Analysis' Associates:

.("FaAA"),'later concluded that=the original crankshaftstwere-

-inadequatelyfdesigned and failed due to high7 cycle torsional-r fatigue.-

Anderson, et al.,.'ff. Tr. 23,826, at;106-07; Johnston' 2

l

'and McCarthy,'ff. Tr. 22,610, at 7-8, E

'(Footnote cont'd from previous page).

fuel: design limits.'and design conditions of F

the reactor coolant pressure boundary.are

- e not exceeded as a: result'of'anticipatedLop-erational' occurrences and-(2) the' core is

~

- cooled and containment ^ integrity and other-vital'. functions are maintained in the event 2

of postulated ~ accidents.

10 C.F.R.-Part 50, Appendix A, GDC-'17.

P 4

4-1 i

L

.n v

, wwN w-es v

,,--s er w

-ve,,,+-,-~

,=,o

<wsw-vs-w,-.,-

o w w-w w-w w eer,.-w r,.e,e..w,nre,w-wr-w

- e r ~,- w w w wa wvssm evsne-w-+ & sew,

a-ww ~w s tw w

--w-w m wer wr,"

w

- w

~

j

~,

?g l

+

._n;.

,a g

g; r

n..

'3,, '

s s

3.;.

t.h i The[Sb" oreham ' FSARj ' specifies ; thatIthe' EDGs. must have

.- l G

u g.

suffi$ient?l'oad carrying capability [to{satisfyja continuousland n

. p.

foverload] performance. rating.s. Section ' 8. 3.1. l'.' 5j of : the FSAR :;re-'-

fquires) e'ach EDG) to :' be - rahed to - operateicontiinuouslyj( 8,760.'

4 thours,/or:one year)?at-full! load'of 3500 kWi.(withimaintenance:

!1ntervalsLas required by'the. manufacturer) andifor: 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months s:per:

everyf24 hours;atioverload of 3900 kW:(withoutireducingfthe.-

1 L maintanance interval - established (for the _ continuous ; rating).?

Hubbard ' and.'Bridenbaugh,; ff.y Tr. 23,826;'atf14-16; FSAR $

< 8._3.1.1.' 5.

i 8.

The'; purpose _.of the? rating:requirementi or-the EDGs is-f to providefnecessary conservatism and Tconfidence that':the maxi-mum actual power demands will reliably be met and.that,-accord-J

~

ingly, the requirements.of GDC 17 will be fulfilled'. -There -

- fore,: the proper criterion for whether-. the' EDGs ' and1their. com-

ponents can satisfactor.ily withstand' operating conditions is whether-they can be expected to operate at the~ rated levels without experiencing failures or incipient failures. ~Hubbard' and Bridenbaugh, ff. Tr. 23,826, at 16., Thus, in judging.- the adequacy of the.. replacement crankshafts, this Board;has.consid-ered whether the crankshafts can operate reliably ' at the

3500/3900 kw load levels cpecified;in the FSAR.

5-py3=

Wq--3.e-gry n4 g5-r w

4-.wm 3

$v*'-'e-g-

t'-w-y

yN-r'*gw

+-W F yv +-4r-m ye.d--ysyy=-d%pq.-yw4 y n g myy y.w-gu-w-

'rvgu-y9-*4--

71 psgwety-er"g>-y ey ww =fy,g* g vy gr e9-+ee-U g r 9 -' ge'7nPMaP

%;fLN%l Lj&.-

' h

...',.m,5 S

4, x..

w

- J:.'

4

~ 5 4

RR g.

-. 3 n<_,

yyp l ~ :L *Y '

/

gg i y

3

.m

-e g

. (e w

q o

_ 4_

m; 4

4 f,,

yh*

g4 ( N 7g 5

~

w-w,

.. m. -. -

r p.,

,, y.y

, i 1

y

?3.

/ Summary"of1 Decision?,

w

~

7

~

l

\\

.R a

k

1.. -

.LILColhasi d

0 a9(

ThisHBoard hasJcarefully, considered whether:

~

S

-i e s'tabl1shed 3 by? a j preponderance j of ' the l ' evidence [thaU the E re-;

~'V

~

plachmentjerankshaft' stare adequately [ des'igneddforioperating dn;

thejEDG'7at.fulliload4and overload...Forireasons s.et' forth; s

below,?we hbld)that'LILCOIhas[fa'iledito'meetiLit'siburdenland?

i

^

ithus < we 1 rule fin favor of f th'e J Intervenors z on { th'aj replacementi w:

~

- crankshaftiissue.

4

[10.- ?In reaching thi decision [theLBoard ha's been con-3

~'

p.

. fronted byfa' difficult problem of. attempting to, identify-a standard.or standards against which the adequact ofithe5re-

placement 1crankshaftsishould be measured..GDC 1711s not pre'-

"scriptive~-1 e lit;does not-: set forth'a definitive,-

a quantifiable standard by which to judge the adequacy ofia

/.

[

crankshaft. : In the. absence-of such a~ definitive standardTin.

l the regulations, the parties have suggested a' number.of means-t for assessing the ' adequacy of the replacement crankshsfts.1 For 7

4 I'

3/

Once a prima: facie case is establishedL(as clearly has been-done--in this instance), LILCO must. establish by a preponderance!of the evidence that the replacement. crank-shafts are-adequate.

See Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant,-Units _1A, 2A, 1B, and 2B),.

ALAB-463, 7-NRC 341,'360 (1978);. Louisiana Power & Light Co.= (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit-3), ALAB-732, W NRC 1076, 1093-(1983).

3=

1

-[

4 i

.i

.j4 s

y m

N er wr-v

=rWw w + s

A we 4

-.%+,---er-r-+w=e-*w4 er w

- - 4rd-tvw e-w

-w

---' e v Pw w* r-4p*e ev +v-We g ar* W e es

4#*-*--99e4'er wwtw e ** gr-u=-T-e verm i--=

w w-4 e'+t wawe i**i-ve**gs'""*N-l

mym mo., _ _,

g g, -

.+

+-

y

,.s y y

^

+

y

_,, = E.

e

~-

\\

,4

~

e 3

t

[' T

exampik,fSuffolk/ County has1 suggested that'the rulesiof' I

'"classificationIsocieties1(such1asLloyd's[ Register.ofShipping; 7

"Lloyd's"),f the! American. Bureau Jof E Shipping j(" ABS"_),. and. the ;

LInternational? Association -'of ClassificationiSocieties. ("IACS".))..

~

r 3have appropriateLcriterialagainst M ich to-judge (the~Shoreham'

~

l crankshafts.: 'LILCO urges thative-: ignore: thei classification 'so-7 cieties and rely-instead on the r~ commendations'of9the Diesel e

, iEngine.~ Manufacturer, Association 4 ("DEMA") and :on -engineering fa-

~

4 tigue ' analyses.. ;The NRC' Staff ~ has igeneral'ly urged! that: we ; rely.

~

i

on DEMA :ecommendations'.and that theTadequacy;ofDthe. crank '-

.sh'afts can also:be measured <by; operating:thetEDGs(at full:ratedL load ~for approximately '740 hours0.00856 days 0.206 hours 0.00122 weeks 2.8157e-4 months ..

I 11.

We'do not completely; accept'any o'f.these: suggestions..

1

['

First,:we do not adopt the classification? society rules as park

'ticular' standards which must necessarily be1 satisfied in_ order to comply with GDC 17.

However, we-do find that assessment of LILCO's compliance with these rules is relevant.in' reaching an

[

overall judgment on-the.4dequacy.of the Shoreham crankshafts.

_ In particular, these rules represent years.of accumulated expe-rience on crankshaft adequacy.

Although the classification rules pertain primarily to-diesels in marine service, the evi-dance indicates that marine diesel generators and nuclear plant

! diesel _ generators;are subjected to basically the same stresses.

i 7-i.

i i

e

~

,s.-,-;

u,

a,,.

,.s

,,~-..,-w.,~,

m,

.,,..-,a.-,

-ne...n---,-

we.--,.-r,-.

e. -- n 6

,--w-.+,nn.-.-,:...

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

(g > 1:p e

~

y,,

3.

5

~

, 2

~ ' '

s w...

~

..c

-,a.

=

c y

's r

.e t

1

),Q C

^

c u

s

_s

~ _

^

k-

~

3.-

r, i,

L e.- would ibe. remiss',.<.therefore,7 if Lwe ignoredidaitairegaIrding -

- W

_m O

1whether theiShoreham: crankshafts ^wouldLeomply:with'any offthese?

. rules; 212.

The evidence:is clear?that?the:Shoreham replacement;

crankshafts. comply with/few,.7 if any,'of the-: rules;ofJth'e'clas-1

~

sification'sodieties.. In?most cases,;the. noncompliance;is un -

disputed.: l InL a'-few cinstances,-- the" status of compliance ~ islun-:

~

3 clear;:at best,-tNefcomplia'nceiwould.be marginal', which~is.

hardly the leveliof conservatiive ' design ;one1 would seek }for;a

. diesel in nuclear. service.- : While marine diesel generatods - vary.

~

=in a.ome! details from diesel generators used.ininuclear: service,;

wetfind that.a diesel generator-to beLused'in a' nuclear = power plant generally should be required to meetiat-least'a's strin-

~

gent requirements.as marine diesel generators.

Therefore,.the.

fact that the. replacement crankshafte, fail.to satisfy classifi-cation society rules constitutes strong support for our view that LILCO has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that t'. e replacement crankshafts are : satisfactory for nuclear service.

13.

Second,-' based on the evidence of record, we cannot i

find that the replacement crankshafts comply with'the DEMA rec-ommendations.- LILCO's proof was seriously deficient in'this-

~

j 8-

'+.

6 4

L_-.

I

'Y f.' ?

,k

+

3

,.m t>

r

~ -> ; -

yg

' [h j

_y

~

y W'-

~

m y:

e, Jr;

_n.

_1

,j 4

-k

regarde.fForL example,; theirecorMis confused regarding' whether-L w

.4 the'2DEMA recommendati~ons areLup-to-date, whether the DEMA rec ~.

~. '

~

ommendations Jeven ~. con'stitute L an ' appropriate sta'ndardi for:

~

~ !judgingcrabshaft, adequacy; land:howtheDEMArecommendations.

,g

~

are.:to be-interpreted.

On this record, t the f Board cannot - find -

even"thatlthe'DEMA recommendatAons;areLappropriate3to be coni?

.sidered.'.InTadditioni even assuming-rirquendo that:it is'appro-2 i.priatelto attempt to_ judge;the Shoreham replacement crankshaftsi_

agains't the DEMA recommendations, we find that,f at --best,, the

? evidence is in sharp con'flict asfto whether,the r'eplacement.

crankshafts comply;with the_DEMA recommendations, with the LILCO and. Staff' experts taking opposite positions.: =We' find-that the? Staff's interpretation'of the:DEMA recommendations 11s-logical: and more ' reliable than LILCO's and thus findi basedi on'-

the Staff testimony, that-the replacement: crankshafts'do.not-satisfy.DEMA.

Therefore, this evidence cannot support a find-i ing that the replacement crankshafts are adequate.

i i

14.

Third, LILCO also has urged that a fatigue analysis performed by FaAA provides: sufficient assurance of the adequacy _

of the replacement crankshafts.

On the basis of this fatique analysis,:FaAA testified that the replacement crankshafts had a-1.48= safety factor which it claims would be sufficient to sup-port operation _of the EDGs with the replacement crankshafts.

F 4

+

9-

l 7lll C f q:l

. Y~'

~

,~ ' :

/

L u.

---.a Q_ --v q..

vw

n -

- < % g;,f ' " *.

4 g

_ ev A, '

S.c

. +

~

er;

^

i=

z

^

+

w?

p-(

~~

n w

~ U m~ ~

J i<..

~

., - [ $ '.

..my 3

~....,

t

.c 4,.

g

=.

We ' note j that%the ^. Staff Tdoes :;not L support L' ILCO Loni this; point e i

,1

( argtiingk that more ? than Gust 3 ajfatigue : analysis Jis J required ':in i'

. ?

.a..

+...

^

forderftof

- x+

~

demonstrate' thatithe cranksha'fts are adequate.1'We

[

. ag' reeiwith :the Staff M (The )FaM7 analysis fisihha~vily]ba'sedbupon)

... s 1the--:1 failure ;of ; th' ; originalJcrankshafts and ; thus irepresents-e 4 -

m s

Tonlyl;a single:pointloftreference,-rathertthaniaTwidespreadj ep

-analysisibased\\onTextensive operating data.. ThE analysis also jinadequately' considers the.effect1of' thelfabricationf process onf J

D the.materialTproperties-iof;the replacementi. crankshafts'.

Final :

p L

ly, some of the= input? data used'in(the Fa n analysis, appears?.to be inconsistent with and substantially lessiconservative than'-

similar data / prepared"by other LILCO consultants, making itJim-'

-.l possible Lto assess the ' accuracy of the FaM safety ifactor ' cal-1 1

culation. : We therefore ' find that the, FaMifatigue analysis lis

~not. sufficient-to demonstrate the. adequacy of the-replacement-crankshafts.

15. - Fourth, ' LILCO has also urged -us to find - that the 're -

. placement' crankshafts-are adequate because they have-been-shotpeened -- a - technique. for increasing the fatigue strength of metals.- We' decline-to.give weight to this evidence, partic '

ularly because there is no-reliable expert testimony on how

- much, if _ at all, 'the shotpeening process increases the strength of-the crankshaft material.

Indeed, LILCO's lead consultant.

10 -

u +.,

h,__

..:',f.

_.m.,,-y

-y

'y.,aw.g-w, y

,.,,,.,g,

,_y%,g.n,.,em,,,,,,%.J.,,w.,g,,..,.,.g.p.c.4,.9.--

.m,4, wy,,,p..,cm

,,3..,,wpyp.,

-yg,,.p,w_,m,m.,.

9.g.,-y-,

7

,7..

7

s --

y?}y j

~

c

+

g F

k

-d 4

b

^

r

~

m.

s a

gfspecifi'cally declined 5tol quantify ~the amount!offinereased.

0

- 1

. ' strength? attributable'to the[shotpoeningLofetheXreplacement -

~i;

, 9/ '

- ferankshafts.-iWithout.tany; reliable lquantification,7we cannot' O

1 find:thatLshotpeening1hasiresulted in anyJsignificant increase iinttheDeapability.of the replacement l crankshafts.-

~

16 k. Finally,4there is0no evidence to supportia? finding s

that the adequacy of the: replacement; crankshafts has:been

'. established'byftesting-foria sufficient number of hours at.. full'~

rated load and-overload.

.In contrast to the 750 h'ours.of-3 operation at ~ full load-suggested byl the Staff :(Sarsten, ff.. Tr.-

23,1264:at~17); none of:the' replacement crankshafts;has oper-ated-for more than-205 hours-at or above 3500 kW..

LILCO:Ex.

C-7;. Montgomery and Chen, ff. Tr. 22,610, at 13.. Nor'is there-any evidence of' sufficient testing of-the same design crank-

~

shaft at full rated load and overload at other installations.

Therefore, LILCO has~again failed to-meet:its-burden of-demonstrating a basis for' finding the crankshafts to be-ade-quate.

17.

The detailed bases for o'ur decision are set forth-below. -We deem it appropriate at the outset, however, toiex-press concern about the November 5 proposed findings filed by l-

[

.LILCO.. We directed the parties to file findings that did not !

i l'

i

9e ST'c

+

- 1:

- c

$. %, gx'n << m?%, /w b",

- c;O l,

' ~+

~

' ~

c m

5'

- J

~Je

+

4

- +

t s-4 f

g.

2-w.

t r r %_:._

2 g

- : L.

,a

' '.w;;L -7

- n~, :

. s. '

1^ -ma..

3 x-n M *_. ' lp

~

39 J *.wy,

n

'ty s

[. 3 n.-

v

+.

p, J,g g;

jV E : merely3epeat"dir'ectite stiimony(butkrather s ?which : dealtiwith ;

~

d.k u..

2 I I.

_ L p_ gf[. f allEsides of each ; issue.'4_/-~. LILCO'sLproposed?findingsjdidjnoti _

M W

1 s:

~.-

q A

.w z

s + /G y

, :i ' scomplyafully.with the: Board's order.3 In!1arge[part NLILCO's- '

i

"t, _

p.... L

+

m f"WW 4 fIndi_ngs..'are.merely# extracted, from:ite [ direct testimony with -

4

.A

1ittle; discussion 3 oft thextestimony'ofJthe(witnesses forsthe?

9, s

,[Countyjandithe?StEfforIhescross-exaniination!oflLILCO's' wit-~

J

+

nesse's. yMoreover,=LILCO frequently [ fails toisthteLand9jbstify[

p g

,F.

whyjitisL proposed findingsj should be.; adopted :whed~ there ;is -

J 4

g

~

4/ ' "In ' our August 1h-19841 order, :this ' Board. direct'ed Jthe ; par-

ties;to file propose.dJfindings of; fact land conclusions;of

law l consistent _ with the ? format iestablished-by, the

Laurenson Board :in Seetions iI througtp VII 'of; the "Memoran-dum and OrderfEstablishing Format land Schedule;of~ Proposed l Findings #of-Fact and

Conclusions:

of' Law," (Emergency-Plan--

ning Proceeding),' slip op.latL1-6i(July l27,H1984).= 'InL pertinentipart,- that Memorandum. and ' orderL directed :

[T]he; findings :and Econclu'sions.should be concise,: fair and well-reasoned. ' Proposed-findings which are complete', accurate, bal--

anced and' supported by the evidentiary record have the best' chance of-being relied' upon by-the Board.: Proposed findings which are extracted'from one party's1 written tes-timony, with little or nofdiscussion.or evaluation of-'other testimony-'and the-cross-examination,'are_unlikely to be com-plete and balanced.

Indeed, we expect the-parties to s' tate and justify their reasons:

for a proposed finding that a particular fact ~should be adopted rather than a' con-trary fact proposed.by another party,.-

Id. at 1-2.

I i

4

WlWyl' '

~ -( -Ee% +

,W ',2b I& l

' ~

~'

x,??fxl N

w

,sv w

,c

+

M'( j..~

$0 1

.w -

I 3 ?iRQ [ ^ 4:3 g,

'l s

y wp

= ~

[~

~'

%s

_ ~ ); }g.i. ;__'

QFl-6l -

e

- +

m 1x j m,

~

.~

v _ <

w

.[

.h

\\~,-

-9.

n

'~

~

Jconflictingitestimony Lofdthel,countyfand/ orc the' ?Stafffonj,the ' ; v. '

isame.[subjecIsl5_hTh's,jthisiBoardfhas'[bbeniorcedLto-lca u

f ass e,.. O L.....

.c W

's c

(theirecord inDdetai191tselfL

..'2~

+

~

. i

=

1

- i.. ',,

yn 1

s vg 3;

.y

~

f ~

s, s

'l--

+

t

^"

g

'1 A~

i

..y 1

- a

+.

5 l

-5/

For example, LILCO's Proposed Finding number 15: states _

~

l that "[t]he rul'estof the classification? societies are for engines designed'to operate'in marine'applicationsL 'Ma-rine engines are exposed to conditions far'different from' s

those of standby engines at nuclear power plants."

LILCO Findings at'6-7..--In proposing this; finding,'LILCO.com -

pletely ignores the County's testimony that the rules of.

the classification-societies also are used.to' evaluate ~the.-

adequacy of land-based diesel generators (Tr. 23,979 (Christensen and Eley)), that there are no major design'-

differences between land-based and marine diesel genera '

tors'(Tr. 24,207-09, 24,211-12 (Christensen', Eley)), and-that marine diesel generators (as' opposed to main propul--

sion systems) are subjected to essentially-the same--

stresses as' land-based diesel generators..Tr. 23,981-98 (Christensen, Eley).

See also discussion in Section

~

II.A.1, infra.

LILCO M ars-no' justification why this Board should choose its propored finding over contrary ev -

idence in the record.

~

+w4*w-eew-+=w-we.-*

.. =..

~. -m

%, M.p a

-w 1~.

+

Jil :'*

A, c

~

nl, a:".

e-w.m e

o s

t

~

,24:

y-y

'~\\-'

2

~

_A__..,

w f,-

s

.U 3

g

,4 d-

'T -

,I

.gy

.^*-

+

t xJ 1

- L'!

G-

II. :DISCUSSIONi

. m

~

r c

9 g

~;'

. 18. dwe have~-been; presented.with fourirelated4theoriesi

' [;' ', r~egarding-how to;jud_ge theladequacyLof)LILCO's: replacement!,

z

=. _

. crank' shafts :..the;classificatio'n societies rulesspDEMA'recom "

,g s.-

1

y

!:{

mer dati6ns; fatigue < an lyses; aridjsh'otpoening.1 f Aslnoted above,

after 1 review of :the:: evidence,vwe hol'd' that' LILCO has fa'iledf to?

^ ;

-establish;by:a preponderance:ofithe evidenceithat'the' replace-s g-

? ^'

~~

v

.s

--J-ment crankshafts are adequ' ate.-:We'addressLb'elow the bases fore H

-c

^thisidecision.

~

A.

'The Replacement' Crankshafts do'not' Comply-

-with the Classification Societies' Rules

- 1. -

1The Classification Societies' Rules are

' Relevant in" Evaluating the Replacement:

. Crankshafts.-

-19.

Classification societies,-such-as Lloyd's'and ABS, and.other organizations.such,as the IACS, haveDformulated de-sign rules,for diesel engines in marine service.- These: rules represent the experience of each organization on the de-sign / analysis procedures, materials, fabrication. techniques,.

a'nd-testing methods that would produce an adequat'e engine de-sign.

These rules have evolved over-time as new design tech-hiques,.materialsi and fabrication methods has dereloped.

'Henriksen and Sarsten, ff. Tr. 23,126, at 9-10; Tr. 22,689

'(Chen); 24,270 (Christensen).

I 1

14 -

. i i

-\\

, 4

-m I

h+

4 4

s

~,

.s 20.

The 'partiesidisagree.aboutLthe=relevancyjof,the--clas-

-sificationisocieties' rules to anJevaluationfofxthr adequacy ofs Jthe; replacement. crankshafts.. The County-. urged ; that. the cl'assi-

~

cfication' society.-.standar'ds"should :be ' applied to determine - the -

Ladequacy andLreliab'ility of the-replacement crankshafts.,l The TCounty's witnesses stated that these standards' embody.the only comprehensive collection;of meaningful guidelines controlling crankshaft design in-die ~sel engines that are'used in app.ica-tions'where reliability is a significant-evaluation. factor.

Christensen-and.Eley,iff. Tr. 23,826,x atl111.

Thus, aluiough the County. witnesses did not suggest-that this-Board should'

' adopt ~the rules of any particular classificationisociety-asithe, ideal standard to. evaluate the1 adequacy of.the_ replacement crankshafts, the County argued that the classification soci't-'

^

e les' rules do provide pertinent guidance for' applications such' as at Shoreham where reliability is a significant' evaluation-factor.

Id. at 109, 133-14.

21.

The staff's position'is that it is generally not nec-essary "for good design practice" that the EDGs. comply with.the.

rules of the classification ~ societies.

Henriksen and Sarsten, ff. Tr.'23,126, at LO.

According to the. Staff, the classifica--

tion societies' rules apply to engines designed to operate in marine applications, and marine engines are exposed to I

L

Fc,...,

n

- w:

r ' n > MD J L,w -

- ~< = + :-M " - & v m ~ ' '*

~-

~

m v

y g-lb, "

^

_~_ a; jf.

~ r

~

-w

~

}

9.s sp

+ :"

1-

- r 3

7 w

1

~

n m

m

}h&

'? Q 1

2d[fferenticonditionsithhn1 standby diese11 engines;atinuclear'.

.M

.~

.1

~ '.

~

Power plantst J.fatfil.;lNonetheless,qthejStaffragrees}that.

L

- [

he'rul'es? represent:aLlarge3 amount:hf. data;and? experience;witi

-crankshaftsin' diesel ~ engines ~.C Id.jat.10;?Sarsten,*ff. Tr.

..23',1261at16hl.7;fTr.[23,467,723,525)(Sarsten).: : Moreover;1al -,

E c_

F

.c

- i

?

{

thoughIthe Staff believes'that thecultimateLtestiof theiadequa'--

cyjof anyfcrankshaftyisitesting2for approximately 740 hour0.00856 days 0.206 hours 0.00122 weeks 2.8157e-4 months sfat4

~

.- f u l l u l o a d, the Staff:prefersitofassessithe adequacy,of3theire-4 2

l placement crankshafts.under the cl'assification} societies'-rules-

.rather than relylng on FaAA's fatiguebanalysis and calculat'ionE z

'of a< factor'o[ safety ^(discussed.further in SectionlII C, infra);e JSarsten,. ff.iTr.-23',126 Eat l36-17; Tr. 23,479'-

(Henriksen, Sar' sten).J

^

22.

LILCO's witness' agreed that; compliance withithe rules;

{;

-of a classification society generally provides' assurance'of the adequacy of a crankshaft', but argued that noncompliance is not-significant if there is assurance of adequacy from other sources, such as-testing or detailed' engineering analysis.

In o

the LILCO witness also argued that classification so-

[

addition, ciety. rules for marine diesels are more stringent than.the

- 1 rules for stationary' land-based engines because operating con-

=ditions at sea are more severe.

Thus, LILCO argued that a sta-tionary engine may fail to comply with a classification society,

. 2

's r

F

^

,we,-

--o--e-

+ - l mmy w-ry my g;emms ;g

i.

=O mv

~

=w Q.]

^@, QF y 3 :;

n, c

u-x

~ 11 2/!

+

^

" +

~

+

m s

~

+.

w:

, ' -~

a.~

W

?;;

,;sg, ' th L ".

s

-e y

sn[ n

_ s 4, ;

.m

~

M

'[

z rille : but i still ;be 1 adequate % for itsiintended inucle'ar) service.

U m

n..

+

,u nChen;1. ff.. Tr.122; 610, --e at 15 -16..

+

.m d.

~

g 5 '.

~~ 423. 'se). find ' that' the lclassificationc societliesf rules l are:

~

rel'evant to.anievaluation'of the~ade.quacyJof the'replacementh.

-crankshafts.

Theirules?of the} classification 1 societies land the.

4 LIACS~are b'asedEupon many"yearsJof practica1Lexperien'cefwith al-llowable' stress levels.for crank' shafts'and-upon a-ry'large-I

' data 1 base of crankshaftEfailures.: Tr./ 23,467,j23,5253 (Shrsten). 6_/:.. In ' reUlewing' crankshafts," th' / classification ' so-e 4

cieties take.into' cons'ideration many significant factors,

'includingfthe actual' stresses imposedjon'the crankshafts,-1the J

+

strengths of the material, and the forging process, tand levalu-

= ate ' that information in light-of the" years ofL experience with J -

successful andcfailed. crankshafts. ITr.-23,526, 23;528-(Sarsten).

The-rules are based on the premise that crankshafts a

.that-comply with the rules.will, exhibit infiniteLfatigue life and operate safely below their.-fatigue limit's.even when:aberra '

tion's that may occur are taken into consideration.. Tr.

23,526-27 (Sarsten). - We thus agree with the County that-6f For: example, the IACS rules are based on an extensive

- evaluation of:the stress' levels, conditionsiof failure and other' aspects of the failure of one hundred crankshafts.

. Tr.'23,467-(Sarsten).

17 -

Ir i

g

-t-a y

-- g n.

-v s

g.

s #

s e

. v, p....

s.,.

x.

v s.

~

yw n

m 1.x s

e g,j~2

("~-

+

?

,[..

t 4

s' s;

y' E ';,,

A' k

x

~,.,

a

~*

. v

.. e

compliance with: the rules lofLthe major classificationDsocieties

, _ m, g

s 5

,.E-l generally;provides? assurance-thatitheEcrankshaftsLin diesel ^en-1 9

s Lginesiare[ design'ed adequatelp.-fconverse

,fif aIcrankshaft in--

S a^dieselfge'nerator atfa+ nuclear'plantidoes7not comply'with'such.

~.

c x

rules,fthis.is< persuasive; evidence?that1the crankshaft *does.-not isatisfy?theistringent? requirements embodiedfin3the NRC5regula-^

tions.

m.

24. LWei recognize'.that. the classification - societ'y rules.

s generally; relate - to - diesel Eeng'ine's] in Emarine '. applications.

.l;

?However, they-also.are used'for evaluating:the~ adequacy oE die,

.k sel, engines in' stationary: applications.'= Tr. 323,979-80'(Chris '

I ensen,1 Eley). - We find.that the differences'betweenl marine <and$.

.t c

stationary dieselsnare notrsignifican't;in thisl context,Epartic -

ularly since there"are no~ major. design differences between-Jdie--

~

sel engines for marine or stationary u~se..

Tr.:24,207-09, 24,211-12 (Christensenf Eley)ri,23,991 (Eley);'24',095-961(Chris-j.

' tensen).

+

25.

A further-issue inIdeciding the relevancy:of the' a

-classification society rules is the suggestion-that. marine; die-

.sel' generators are subjected to more severe operating condi-

- tions than land-based standby diesel generators and, thus,'thatt the rules are not necessarily applicable to our consideration:

i r

r 18 -

b i

i 1

r i

+

1 2

y-+

e 1.-

+

-e re s-r e e,-,,, * +..

-.+-dwr

- M-N =a e -- r tv--+-e=i++'-zt-m M*si+=m--es--*w-wer++++,r*,eew-sWMvet-s.--'ce--e-m+Tv---&-e. s-v

mere -r -+ =

-e-ew e rt=maa--e-=*e'

7..

Q

s;

~

("

^ ~

Q d:

of,the Shoreham EDGs.- We agree with the County, however,~.that-Ldiffering operating conditions are not a' basis.upon yhich to reject thel application:of theiclassification society rules.

.Tr. 23l981~-98 -(Chr'istensen, Eloy)..

g

+.

26. -Generally, main propulsionidiesell engines.on ships

.~are subjected to more. severe operating conditions thanJiand-

' based' diesel generators.

However,Tunlike'mkin.propulsionen--

.gines, marine diesel generators are not connected to the ships' propellors, do not normally use low-quality. fuel,-are mounted on much stiffer foundations and-generally have -much shorter u

crankshaft-lengths.

Tr. 23,981-82 (Christensen).

Because of' these differences, marine diesel generators are not subjected to the more severe operating conditions of the main propulsion diesel engines.. Indeed, marine diesel generators are not subjected to any significantly different operating conditions than land-besed diesel generators.

Tr. 23,981-98 (Christensen, Eley).

27.

Although Lloyd's, the IACS and the ABS rules make

~

some distinctions between main propulsion engines and engines used for electrical generation, the rules are virtually the 4

same with respect to evaluating the adequacy of crankshafts.

Tr. 23,987 (Christensen, Eley); 24,239 (Eley); County Ex. 38.

_,_.2_,.-#.

..y.-ywy-yw-,-,,

.,-y.

-._----m..,,,.-...

~

g

. f

=

e g,_,

~

'W'>+@'

g w w;? ' M, n- ',

~

-+

[Mbe

' ~ E C a s, ' '

.m,w+ p pi w ; y

+

n T

~,

a

.:n.

4

~=.y4 -_

.+:

e m,

..z;-

1..o t

l e

s A

4

, ~

e 1 +,

mv (h, s.

~,

1

~..

m y 1c -

s.; p

. 7

. 13

~-

1, e aJAccordingly)isin'ce marineidiese1~ generator,cranksha'ftsfare t

q

m:,,; '

1subjectjtosthe classificationisociety rulesTandisince marine

.e

~

^'

<~

/diese1Lgenerators do not-vary'signficantlyfin design ' stress -

-, o 7f corfoperatingiconditionsjfrom? land-ba' sed dieseisf weHare per-

.. +, -

Tsuaded.that^it^is'rilevantito asse'esEWhether:the Shorehamfre--

E

.. +

placement: crankshafts; comply with these. rules.: 'Similarly,Lwe 1

6 i-inote thatithe DEMA, recommendations relating [to1 crankshafts-im -

a re n. -

i ~

poseTthe1same: limits on torsional 1 vibration 1evelstfor marine'

,and statilonary,applibations.

Tr. 22,7051(Chen);122,709;: {

~

w 1

(Pischinger); J 24,212 f(Christens'en)'. ' We l find, ; there fore, ! that-4 5

'theistandards:for, evaluating the(adequacy of the design;of

~

s crankshafts-inEstandbyEdiesel.generatorssin nuclearipowerf plants should.befatDienstfasfconservative^as theistandasds"for' Levaluating. crankshafts.used in marine dies,el_' generators.'

Tr..

'I'(

~.

24,035 (Christensen).

Indeed,fitHseems contrary to sound'de'-'

g.

sign principles to suggest that the jaargin 'of' safety;de:nanded

~

of'a-diesel generator aboard.a. ship should'be higherfthan that~

demandedi or one serving-- the. vital role of.providingf emergency f

o.

T power.to a nuclear power plant..

i

.v h

5 20 -

4 s

N

+

't'tr m*ge-g**

Twwn---

uw.,'

O

+&

m..:--

pr

~ '{1ltp " Sg; B @fr

<!^ C

? @Q, * - ** Sw,( -

1 N

+

Li 3

s

G

_ s s-

' d s

u. _.

y.

a 2.a 9

.3 x

~

s r..

-y 1;

o q

4.,

.!.M %:

9.)..

3 Il j) m, g<

A

~

^

~

E i

-t

+

-o v

+

c w.

~

y.

99, y:e

-e

~

1-

, <: y

,y:

g

+

s, e: -

n# ;' ~C i d

+

'b

-4

[/.*

~Q

+i

.s s.

y

~

i?

~

? 2.'.

The Replacement Crankshafts dolnot Comply-W

, 5l:

fwith-the Classification Societies'(Rules.

+

s 2,

<3%

'j-,

r 41.s' c

.e S ;

Q -

A

?28. [:As jdescribedfin! greaterkdatailibel'ow,' Lloyd 's,q the

}4 1

d g

JABS;andj,he3IACSTeach" evaluate;th'Lacequacyofqcrankshaftscin; e

.,e v

.different' manners.;(Lloydfs1 calculates),the maximum < allowable;'

W-

~

. ~.

J

. 8 e

o s

t y

horsepowerethat a;crankshaftccan safely withstand'i for reliable operation.-:The* ABS calculates -

~

..,4'.

7 L

a-2(i)1the. minimum dimensions.of-L jy j

~ crankshaft webs :to. withstand - ben'dingi stresses,1 (ii) the, maximum

^

? permissible love 1;of_torsionali(twisting)jstresses11mposed-on.a.

i m.

r

---, R r

crankshaft,, and :(iii). When'the calculated : torsional stresses -

-exceed'the' ABS 111mits,Ethe ABS.also ~ calculate'sLWhether[the s

crankshaft ha's aLaufficient' margin.of; strength-over..and above that Which is' neededito withstandcthe= stresses to'WhichLthe-

+

Jerankshaft i. subje tad (safety factor calculations).1 L

The IACS also performs safetyefactor: calculations:in evaluating.the ade '

I

.quacy of crankshafts.

The' replacement. crankshafts, however,

are no better than marginal' under any of these rules :and fail-

' l to comply with the rules in,a number of.significant respects..

'The inadequacy'.of the replacement crankshafts under these rules

~

ils: strong evidence that they are inadequate for use in the EDGs

=at Shoreham.

I

+

9

-p i

21 -

4 9'

4 8

+

'^

mw ee s, ~..

mqf my y mn s

w.j W

s yq m

y^-' M L - i, -

L

,+

y 3

/'

J,-

"r

's 3

9 y

Y

4 P

n; f'

~

}a

~

s g,

m

~

^

i

. ('a ) -- :

The~ Replacemerit' Crankshafts.do' e

not. Comply with Lloyd's Rules.

1 4

2'91 ; The County's.'witn' esses' addressed inLdirect! testimony _

,x, e

+

A,..g whether thelreplacementa crankshaftsisatisfy.Lloyd's. rules ~.

4

.-(

'o M m Neither.:LILCO norIthe Staff contested the. accuracy or' validity i

.ofithe County's calculations'under-Lloyd',s: rules.

The County's

- calculations show,: and we findh that; the?repline'ement crank '

shafts do'notEcomply with Lloyd's rules forLaaximum allowable'-

i horsepower;at-full load and.; overload.

30. : Lloyd's rules are the most commonly used - criteria for.

designing the [ initial dimensions of crankshafts.

Tr. 24,'001

~

(Eley, Christensen). 'Lloyd's evaluates the adequacy'of the de-sign of a' crankshaft.by' calculating the maximum allowable-

. horsepower that can be-developed: safely-and reliably in_an;en-gine.

Christensen'and'Eley, ff.2Tr. 23,826,-at 112.1/

7/.

Lloyd's rule on allowable horsepower originated.in-the 1920's and has been continuously updated'since that time, based on, among other things,~the'results.of experimental work,= including fatigue testing'of full-scale and model ;

t crankshafts, and field failures.

Tr. 24,203-04, 24,269-70' (Christensen).: The Lloyd's calculation' takes into'consid-eration 26 inputs, including the manufacturing or forging process of the crankshaft, the strength of the-crankshaft.

material, and the existence of fillet radii.

Christensen and Eley, ff. Tr. 23,826, at 112.

t t

g 7,

4m

,n;q+,.

y, 3

= =. -

c A J.

g. cq <, (gy

E. gy p

A

-w n

-f

.., m ec w,.

z--e -

e n,

m

' n 3

-3 4 ;;f.

gy,

n a _t. +

-q,

';;u n

'r

' Y ;l-U

, g?L

.w l

.y

.g.

[p?1 j

+

y, p.-

s 7

xa, 0n s-r

=

+

p ~,,,

4 3,

(

y g

; =q L <

~l R. ',.

_N f

.e (;

.,, 1

~~3

' h ;'

~

q;;,31.; Professor /Christensen's" calculations (County?Ex.[36).

c

-3,

[ ;e *-

iunder;LloYd's':.ruies [forf maximum l allowable ho'rsepower 'show$ that) j w

M

.e m

fn(.

s the, replacement; crankshafts ;do not-! comply.with Lloyd 's rul'es l at" i _,..

)j T JL

=

.n 11680: psi', theipeak ; firing..pressureiassumed by (FaAA in fits:-

-7^

i 1 studies =atEfulliloadi(3500 kW).;1Athl680 psi ~,$the allowable

' ~

. ~

n; -

.; horsepower ( permitted Junder. Lloyd 's i rules -is ljustf under)4621 "HPM

' i

?

At'the actual measured? peak firingipressure of.172'0Lpsi at full'- _,

4

~

load,jthe allowable horsepower underLLloyd',s:rulesfis'4496-HP. '

'At'1800-psi, the peak. measured' firing pressure.at-overload.

l

.(3900 kW),Ethe allowable 5 horsepower under Lloyd's rules l'sIjust'-

t iunder14252 HPd/f Shorehiun's' horsepower rating of:4890 HP ati full'l'oad andi5379'HP at overload substantially, exceeds the al -

lowables2for horsepower under:Lloyd'.s; rules.

Christensen) ff.

Tr. 23,826,.atill4 Tr. 24,273 (Christensen).- '

u

~/

Lloyd'r rules and the other classification rules discussed 8

herein 'all use the maximum firing pressure in ~ the 'cylin-ders as'an input.

See, e.g.,

County Ex. 38, at-2 (IACS rules)r LILCO Ex. C W, at 2.(Lloyd's rules).

The peak reported' firing pressure'in the. EDGs-is 1720 psi'at full-l load and 1800 psi at ove.rload.

Christensen,.et al.,

ff.

~

j~

Tr. 23,826, at 30-31;~ County Ex. 46, at 80, 95t.LILCO Ex.

P-9, at 6.

These firing pressures.are appropriately and j

conservatively used in the County's' calculations under the classification societies' rules.

In contrast, the lower c

cylinder pressure measurements taken from EDG 103 with piezoelectric transducers'should~not be"used in these cal-culations.

Those measurements'do not: purport to be maxi-mum firing pressures but in" fact'are average pressures.

n

{

Tr. 22,867, 22,869 (Johnston); LILCO Exs. P-5, P-35.

i-l 23 -

(

' 4-r

f% +

~

=

~

(

+9

o!

3,,

j

~

p; Ja

(

32'..

Mr.lEley.also; performed' calculations.under Lloyd'_s; f

.1)

rules.for maximum all'cwable;h$rsepower for: the replacement, "

' crank'sha f ts. ; County;Ex.x37.- Those-calculations confirm'that'

~

-the' replacement-crankshafts; fail'to comply with:Lloyd's-rules.;

Mr.=Eley'sLcalculations,Lwhich vary slightly from(Professor

^

Christensen's due1to.diffarent' computational' methods,--_show>that.

at.1680 psi,~th'eiallowable horsepower;under Lloyd'.s;rulen'is just under'4636 HP; at 1800 psi,,the allowable = horsepower?isi

'just under.4269.HP.

Eley, ff. Tr. 23,826,Kat'.ll5.9/

3 3. - Thus, the County has demonstrated that the Shoreham.

EDGs are required to operat'e at a higher horsepower rating than-would be considered acceptable under Lloyd's-rules.

The fail-ure of the Shoreham EDGs to comply with the allowable horsepow-erlimitationsunderLloyd'srules.h.s. evidence'thattheEDGs.

cannot be operated safely and reliably at their rated power.

Christensen and Eley, ff. Tr. 23,826, at 116.

j 9_/

hahr.1cally, Lloyd 's requires the EDGs to comply with -its -

allowable horsepower rule at their overload condition.

i.

Lloyd's rules require that an engine be capable of operating at a 10% overload condition for-15 minutes.

Tr.

24,006'(Eley).

Because.under the FSAR the EDGs.are required to be capable of operating in a 10 percent over-i load condition for longer than the 15 minutes contemplated by Lloyd's (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months of every 24-hour period of continuous operation at full load), Lloyd's would require that the EDGs comply with its maximum horsepower rule at 3900 kW.

l Tr. 24,006 (Eley)r 24,012 (Christensen).

l. -

l 1

}

t l

el

' _Q '

j -.,~

1 v ?

(( t,) - The Replacement' Crankshafts do-not

~

Comply-with-the IACS Rules.~

34; The-County also> asserts.thatithe replacement. crank ~

I shafts. do' not comply with the IACS : rules : as shown by calcula-tions performed byrTDI...LILCO disagrees, asserting that calcu.

^

?lations performed'by the' ABS show compliance. -For the reasons:

stated below, we agree withithe County.

35.

The IACS'is an-organization ~ consisting of three minor n

tand nine major classification societies, including'Lloyd's and ABS.

Christensen and'Eley, ff. Tr. 23,826,~Lt

6.

The IACS.

has published draft rules (County Ex.-38) to evaluate:the ade-quacy of crankshafts based:on the assumption that the most highly stressed areas are the filletLtransitions between the crank pin and the web as well as betweenTthe journal and the-

~

web.10/

Rather-than calculating the adequacy of crankshaft 10/ 'These rules are based upon a proposal by an international organization of engineers, CIMAC, entitled " Rules on Cal-culation of Crankshafts for Diesel Engines (4. Draft)"

which is still.under discussion among IACS members and oe,

tween IACS and CIMAC.

Portions of these' rules are being used by_the various classification societies.

Christensen and Eley, ff. Tr. 23,826, at 116-17.

The IACS rules are based on the conservative' assumption that the maximum al-ternating bending stress and maximum alternating torsional stresses within a crankshaft occur simultaneously and at the same point (County Ex. 38, at 14), although generally:

these stresses do not occur simultaneously or at the same location in all diesel crankshafts.

Tr. 24,109 (Chris-tensen, Eley).

i l

?-

l_'

['

I-E

]

p ii., TM,, -j

[--

0 o

e :;

io 3

O, i

^'*

s y3 %

~

4 g

x y

)3

~

6,

..E dimensions: or torsionallvibrations", ' the - IACS rules calculate La'.

q

.j

,factoriof' safety;bgsed: upon toraional'and ' bending stres'ses; and.

" '^

' stress - concentratilon ~= fastors. - /Christensen u and' Eley,' ffi Tr.,

~

[2 3,826, i at.'113.. Alcrankshaft? complies"with[the IACS rule's; Ewhere the. ratio offits fatigue'strengt( to1its?comparativeJal-Pternating stress is f greater - than:or ~ eaualr to ia - fa'cter, of. ' safety'. -

i of'1.15.: Id..at-117.:

- 1'

-(36'.

.TDI-l performed.. calculations-for[the' replacement-crank-Eshafts under th'e IACS' rules. ' County Ex.:39..-The? County's re

~

f'

. view of : these.. calculations showsF that f the rep 1aceinent crank --

~

shaftsJdoinot comply with the'IACSl rules.- Christensen and'

Eley, ff.'.Tr.

23,826, at118.

The1calculatedisafety,.factorLof?

X....

the replacement crankshafts at fulloloadiisconly 1.0422, which is less than*the required 1.15.. County'Ex.(39, atci, 6.r : Fur-thermore,.those-calculations were performed by.TDI using 1650 4

i _

psi'as the maximum firing pressure.

When the; actual maximum firing pressure of11720 psi in.the Shoreham EDGs.at full load.

is taken.into consideration, the~ replacement crankshafts fail

~

s.

to comply with the IACS: rules.by,an-even greater' margin.:

~

Christensen1and Eley, ff. Tr.(23,826, at'118.

^

37.

LILCO'did.not' perform any IACS. calculations to at

~

itempt'.to-rebut the County's-s$owing.

LILCO, however, claims g/..-

s w"l e.,

m

, g C

1'

,_;a.,

- a.,,

_. _. _ _ _ - _ ; ; -,,.... :n m..2..n

5

- -(

1 y.

that the ABS performe'd a'calculationIthat. allegedly _'showc'that 7

the replacement cranksh'afts comply with the IACS rules.

~In:

s

, rupport oU this. assertion', LILCO; cites.onlyLone'page from-an Fexhibit'to the deposition of ABS. employees.

County Ex. 43'at

-29; see LILCO Findings at-5..

-38.~ We find th't-there is-insufficientr evidence.'to sup-a port LILCO's propose'd finding..'Neither LILCO!nor the' Staff' offered testimony identifying or.explainingJthis ABS-calcula-

tion.

The only evidence concerning the calculation is'the oral testimony of the County's witnesses who had not previously-i i' reviewed the calculation.

They test f ed that the calculation-appeared-to be~.one under the.IACS rules, but that it also ap-

-'peared'to be based on a computer-program-that:was.not made available for the Coun'ty.to review.- Tr. 24,136-37.'(Chris-

.tensen, Eley).

Thus, there is no reliable evidence whether E

this~ calculation is under the IACS rules, what the inputs were, how it was calculated or what its significance is.

Lacking' such a foundation, we' reject LILCO's proposed finding and con-clude that the most relia'ble' evidence indicates that the re-

~

4 placement crankshafts do not comply with the IACS rules.

27 -

~

y

,5.

y-.

,,#.e e

,w-,,,

iw p

yy-e

,-9.

-- e-me..-7-.,.

w.

v-p;,

^

M - 'y

?l41 L,

[n s

.fel w

}_,

j,. -

~

. a 1 _~

' Mg' l

.4

~

1 m

4-J'

'M W

4

~

(c) iTheeReplacement CrankshEfts do'not Comply; with the-ABS Rules-on Torsional Vibration.

H--

A

)

}

p

39. 'Both:the.Coudcyz and.thejStaff" contend that thle re.

y;,

a-yq placement crankshafts doinot" comply with'the(ABS rules:on; tor.

g

^

sionalhibratilon'.'.We Lagree. ' Furth'ef,g although ; LILCO -argues -

^

that' ABS has':apprcvedLthe torsional =criticall.speedfarrangement; of' the EDGs 'and 1that this is dispositive.Of? th'e tissue, J.weifind th'atEthe ABS' approval was basedfon' inaccurate'.information'sub--

.m...

mitted by:TDITto the' ABS.-

Thus,Ewetgive;the ABS approval:no-f Lweight.

-We? explain theibases for;our; holding:below.

'( i )" The> County and Staff Calculations-Show-that the' Torsional Stresses A.

in = the - Replacement Crankshafts Exceed l iABS Limits.

T m'

40.. The; County evaluated the: adequacy of,the. design of{

ithe replacement crankshafts under Section'34.47-of the' ABS' rules concerningDtorsional vibratory stress.

TherCounty calcu-

~

lated-the ABS'. maximum allowable stress' level for the replac'e-i ment crankshafts,and compared that limit.with FaAA's calculated-stress le' vel for-the replacement crankshafts.'

The County's

-evaluation shows that the torsional vibratory stress imposed on s

.the replacement, crankshafts, exceeds the maximum stressgpermis-l

.sible under the ABS rules.- Christensen and Eley, ff. Tr.

L23,286,'at 122-23; Tr. 24,170-71 (Eley); LILCO Ex. C-17 at

~

3-15;.Tr. 22,888 (Johnston).11/

j -

1 I'

11/

In~its prefiled testimony, the. County-compared the maximum allowable' stress levels under the ABS rules to:FaAA's

~-

(Footnote cont'd next page)

- 1

+.

l

.,._,-_.u~

._,-.--_..__.._._:a..._...m...2_..

R ;l;74 y-,.

g x

A.

s MJ ps ~ Q,

^

~

ll L.,

s 1

4 y

2

!41. :Thel Staff performeddaisimilar analysis:and Riike{the?.

County,'found that the$ replacement l crankshafts ['doLnot comply.

~

g v.

dith thelABS_. rules concerning' torsional'Lvibratory stress.-

i; 2Thus, the Staff's-calculationsEshow'that-lthe"stressS ivels-.in s

l

?

~

ithe. replacement cranksha'fts L(3608 psif for^a ? singleL order ^ arid ~ -

~

! 7096 ' psi f for ' total:. vibratory skress), ~ exceed the ABS ' limits l(33571 psi and 5035 psi,..respecitively,Tasccalculated by TDI)'.1 -

2'3,,289-90 (Sarsten);-Staff'

Sarsten, ff. Tr.123,~126,Dat:15;-Tr.

~ '

Ex. - 4' ' at - 4.12_/,.

~

4 4

)

.(Footnote' cont'd from previousspa'ge).

October'31, 1983 analysis of the-torsional, vibratory?

stresses. -That analys'is,Twhich. utilized' theoretical;har-monic' coefficients', or Tn values, calculated the' maximum t

7 stresses to be_5,640 psi'-for the replacement crankshafts.-

m Those calculated / stresses exceededJthe~ ABS allowable stress level"by more than 10%.-_(Eley).

.Christensen7and"Eley,-ff.

Tr. 23,826, at 123 Tr. 24,170 When FaAA -

1 performed its analysis using'Tn valuesjderived from' actual' f.

cylinder pressure measurements from EDG 103, FaAA calcu-lated the maximum stresses to.be 7006-psi for the replace--

~

s ment crankshafts.- LILCO Ex. C-17 at.,3-15;LTr.-'22,888 l'

(Johnston);;24,-170-71 (Eley).

.Thus,.u' sing the. updated Tn-values, the total torsional vibratory stress imposed on:

the replacement crankshafts exceeds the maxim'um permissi-ble stress'under the ABS rules.by approximately 40%.

^

12/

The evidence generally supports LILCO's proposed finding R

that the ABS summed only two orders when--it. performed its check calculations for torsional stress.

LILCO'-Findings, at 10, 18.. We do~not find, however, that the ABS only:

~

sums two orders of vibration when. reviewing an engine's torsional critical speed arrangement.. The ABS does not.

independently perform a summation of major orders of vi '

bration-but instead. reviews cal.culations of torsional vi-bratory' stress levels submitted to it by engine manufac-(Footnote cont'd next page) 29 -

i i

4

l:

.. -)

a- -

...=-a

--.a..sa.-..~-.,~.

,n

-n

! }j ^b f L,

x-f

-p-1

" is,,

a

>m'

_..a ;

~,

4

+

s, g

-- M.

g

~

,., ~,

4

\\

+

x 7:y 7

x y

4 h

i 6

.c

..s..

U l(ii)fThe1 ABS's' Approval of*the Torsional. Critical!

z 1 Speed' Arrangement-of.the EDGs is Entitled to;.

s

--No Weight.

,i

+

[

142.. InEiddihectitestimony,- LILCO didj notjcor$ test ithei

~

I f

County or/Sta'ff Ltestiinony; that the ;replacemen't crankshafts (do L J

not comply'with ABS torsional.vibrationLlimits.;LRather;-

e

^

ELILCO's: apparent-~hositioni s that, the ABS;has approved : the-tor ' '

4 F,'

- Esional critical'. speed arrangeme'ntfof the EDGs-[(County;Ex./44),'

_ and that?that,approvali;-is d'ispositive;of'the'~ issue whether the--

~

s replacement l crankshafts-comply with ABS; rules.,-LILCO Findings; i~

'at 5...We: disagree. 'The ABS approval.was obtained.'on the basis" of $naccurate.information submitted bylTDI'concerning the ef--

fect if shotpeening on 'the fatigue endurance limit rof the re-1 1 placement crankshafts. :Thus, the ABS'approvalican be--accorded n o T,;a i g h t.

~

Y

(Footnote cont'd from previous page) l turers.

Tr.:23,286'.(Sarsten).

In'eed; when the ABS.

d l.

reviewed TDI's' submission, it performed ; rough ~ hand. calcu-lations based on the information submitted.by-TDI.

Chris -

tensen and Eley,.ff. Tr. 23,826, at 124;'Tr. 24,172-74; 24,~231.(Eley); 23,394~(Sarsten).~..Itfis highly'unlikely that these hand calculations. reflect a= complete torsional analysis of the replacement crankshafts by ABS because such:an analysis would: require a. computer.

Tr. 23;394 (Sarsten); 124,281'- (Eley).

In any event, because that 1 rough ' sum of' only two' orders ' exceeded the ABS-limits; there was noneed for the ABS to sum additional orders to determine whether the stresses exceeded ABS limits.

Tr.

23,289-90 (Sarsten)'; Christensen and Eley, ff. Tr. 23;826, at 124-25.

-v '

~.

--u--

6 i

A E

.n

~

=

y--

~

_,f b

3-y

_f4].

m

.. g W

y j,

n 2

pp c

p

^

~

"~

e c.

~

+

j r

L t

9

[

J "43. 'TDI.filedla submission with(the[ABSIseeking?i,f.s:ap-J

[

s a

~

.,,e F

proval <of:theitorsionalicriticalJspeed-arrangoment,of the EDGs.:

A u

1

" Christ'ensen;and'Eley,;ff.!Tr.J23,826,(ati123-25;: County'Ex.i45..

y;-

i,.. '.

k 2-8 i, _.

,a w

-J iInlreviewing,that. submission,ythe' ABS found thatfthe calculated 4'

' : tors'ional vibhatory stressesLinLthe replacement crankshafts J

exceededLthe' ABS l limits.foritorsional: vibrations.:.Christensen, _

~

_ and - Eley, ff. j Tr. :. 23,826, e at.124. -

+

t I

.44. : : However, Elik'e ' the?otiher lclassificatioE societies,1l ABSi.

n.

~

y provides a: mechanism wherebyia' diesel engine manufacturerJwho developslafdesign:that does?noticomply; strictly with1-ABS rules"

?

can? seek approval'of the design upon-submissioniof-appropriate'

~

1 stress analyses.or'other supportingj data'.' ~ Henriksen 'and

^

Sarsten,:ff. Tr.I23,126', at'9-10; Tr. 24,093;E(Eleps Chris-tensen).'- Accordingly, the ABS considered'supplementalJinforma -

~

-tion submitted by TDI, including l.the alleged effectiofc i

~

shotpeening the crankshafts.

TDI represented to' ABS th'at'a" conservat'ive minimal value ofthe increase in the fatigue en~-

durance limit of the' replacement' crankshafts from'shotpeening is 20%.

Christensen'and Eley;,ff. Tr. 23,286,-at 124, 127;;

County Ex. ; 45 'at.24.

The-ABSLdid not question the 20%

[

shotpeening-value; rather, ABS act: epted the TDI-representation t

and performed six safety factor calculations based upon TDI's.

H supplemental.information.

Based upon~those calculations,. ABS

. r i

g.

I

' J ;_.

- L N.

- ~ >

.s a

r t -.

F

[-.

d, i.,,,-. gp b=

+e-e--y-w'--

e,-e.e w ser' se- +w *' * ~'v " e e v"**w"W-4' 4WW-4'"##""

y-

- ~, u _,_,

i ~

i1

~

s ';'.

_S;

, } y,

+<

1 ti<

f; i g

.g.

s v

sy

+

q

~" igave'its: approval!to the:WDGs'.'.IChristensen andiEley,,ff.tTr.-

e.

e

?23l826, at' 113--27.

145...ThelCounty; asserts"thatiTDI3s representation; concern-1

,]

~

~ '

r -

ingfthe'effect?ofJshotpeening'ontthe fatigue l endurance. limit ofi t'

1 the replacement crankshafts is?ina'ccurate and that 'if -no:--in-

~

zq 3

. crease,inithe: fatigue: endurance; limit (is;-attributedito_

3 shstpeening,: theireplacement cranksha'fts Ldo: not meet the -1.34-

~

2 2

safety factor:which is:the' minimum-ABS standard for; assessing' icrankshafts. that do not Atrictly comply with its > rules ? for-al--

~

^

lowabl'e t$rsional? vibrations ~.N Christensen,Je't al.,-ff. Tr.

23 a 286, - ~at 125--29 O3_/$

t

46.. For severals. reasons, we.agreeiwith the Count'yIthat c

the 20% shotpeening value cannot be acceptied and th'at,. accord-ingly, the. ABS approval.;was obt'ain'ed'~on the basis of. inaccurate:

J

~

information.

Firsti'regarding the 20%-value, we discuss'.~in de-i -

' tail in Section II.D,' infra, our finding 1that-there is.noireli-j; able evidence to support a 20% increase in the. fatigue endur-ance limit from~shotpeening.

Indeed,!as discussed in that,por-tion of this decision, it is clear that FaAA LILCO's lead-

!i J13/

The ABS's. minimum l'.34 safety factor value is the lowest-

~

ivalue for which it previously had approved another crank shaft under the same calculational methods.

'Tr.

24,282-83

-(Eley) r County Ex. 72, at-10.-

1 32 -

S

'w

& +

.y

=

m

.)

w

+

,.,)

g 9

yy,j

.,,y.

y y,,4 y.y,,

. ~_

,,,..,,.,,,%,y,,.

w%p.mg,_,

.m.._m,,w,..,,,,,,

,,,,,,4

,,,m

.,,,,.w%w

.,m,g....o f

F"%.%

%e-3 W

m W

~

?

zqy t g ;

,4 3

L I.

f

~

~s o

3

+

.T,.

4 v

+

.~

. 1

_~;..

e 4

a, consultanth specifica11y'statedfthat M could9notiquantify{the j}

~

+

V

~

o

"'M mount (ofSincreas'e,bifiany,5inLtheffatiguejenddrance limit'of j

^

theLreplacementjerankshafts7due:to shotpeening.'

~

+

s 4f

4 7. - - Further,Niteis3 uncontested::that,Jcontrary tofits rep -

- e rA.

,[_

i._.

_m f

resentations,to"the ABS, TDILbelieved.that shotpeeningiwould-n t

1not substantially. improve (the.-: fatigue. endurance,11mitfof. the -

~

' replacement' crankshafts; Christensen-abd'Eley,1ff. Tr..23,286/

at J125..l.4_/D ' Inifact,. TDI.had i recommended again'st' shotpeening;-

M F

'the crankshafts based lupon;its;experienceLand upon1thel opinion'-

~

of its metallurgical. consultant, thatishotpeening:would'Lnoti provide:more than a 5% increaseIin th'e fatigue ' endurance 211mit.

~

1

~

I_d. at-128i?CountyiEx.;10, at:2-5.

In. addition,'TDI had'previ -

d ously been informed by a; manufacturer-o'f, cran'kshafts;for TDI:

li i

- that.rhotpeening. crankshafts.of this size is a " waste of time."

County Ex. 48.

TDIlnever informed' ABS-about!.this-information.

Anderson,.et:al.,xff. Tr. 23,286, at 128.-

c 14/

The portion!of TDI's submis~sion:to the ABS in which1TDI-represented that shotpeening increase'd the fatigue'endur-

~

ance limit of the replacement crankshafts by 20%:is virtu-

~

ally identical to portion of.the; April-1984 FaAA crank ;

shaft report that discussed shotpeening.

County?Ex. 45, L

at 28. -As note'd in Section'II.D,.' infra,-in its May 1984-

crankshaft report,.-FaAA withdrew.from its previous posi--

. tion that 204 was-a~conservhtive: minimal value~of the in-crease' in the fatigue endurance-limit duetto shotpeening.

ja LILCO Ex. C-17,iat 3-11; Anderson, et al.,

ff.1Tr. 23i286,-.

' i l.

at 128.

Thus, theJFaAA <:hange in position effectively.un-l

'dermines.the bases for TDI's submission to the; ABS.:

,e

~

'r i.i,

v

- N

,,+-

,N

.w,_

..,. ~ _ _ _,, _,.. -,...._ _ _. ~.

' ~

W M.

+.

.s m

')

u.,.

. ry w,,

a

=

Gy N O 3; :'

's h

~#"

d V

4

/M.

+

i.-

4 s

4

{.

3.

..d s

<.Q

'e'

- - + -

f fN' m

?48h'Second',bwelaisoagree,withtheCoun'tyjthatjifLnofin-/

crease Jin jthd ifatiguee enduran'celliinit ist attributed : to?

~

w a

Jsh~otpoening, thehreplacementi crankshafts s fail itoj: satisfy s the '

.a

.+

7 ABS 'Is" min $num. desired) safety.'. factbr Evalue. fin reviewingiTDI.'s

submission,?the?ABSperformedIsixlcalhulationsLoficombinad'

-safety;factorsifor thefreplacement'. crankshafts:and comparedi u'

-those"MalculatedIval'uesTagain'stiits 1/3'4 safety (factore value..

- ' r.

. 'f

. Christensenland:Eley,Lff. Tr.123,826):at(126;?Tr. 24,824 y

,:1.

~

=

+

~ ~

(Eley).- iWheni the. ABS attributed. no fincrease 5 insthe fatigue. e~n -?

h:.

? durancei limitU.to' shotpeening, ; four : of-the - ABS L safety [factori

~ ~'Y

~

calculations!showed.that;the replacement' crankshafts:didlnot L

' meet 7 th'e - ABS 's Hsa fety : factor. value.

Christensen and Eleys : ff.:.

- 'I:

~

Tr. 2 23,826, : at ~126 -27. c

~ '

t; 4 9'.

.The'=two'other1 safety. factor? calculations performed by-3 7

the. ABS attributed-~the' full'.20% increaseLin'the fatigue' limit i

3

~

from shotpeening as represented by/TDI'in'its submittal.- Id..

at'127; County Ex. 47,'at 20.--Those7 calculations showed"that.

d1 l

the replacement crankshafts exceeded the ABS's safety, factor: ~

~

value.

In making these.two calculations,'however, the ABS did-I not. verify. whether shotpeening ;had in fact increased the --fa--

p_

tigue endurance limit.of the crankshafts by:20%.- Christensen-and-Eley,.'ff. Tr.123,826 at 127; County Ex. 43, at 4, 11.

-In-

~

deed, on1y when it is assumed that shotpeening.does.in fact-34 -

l c.

v

..,....--....i.._..,.-

..'A.--

~:

~

-. e

+

~

+

l 7

s; x

- i

. i y

9;c prodiacdlia?quantifiableLincrease?in.the:fatigueTenduranceilimitl 1

1

of ; greateri than 10% m do lthe : replacement 1 crankshafts meet. the

.i

\\

ABS's'sdfaty[ factor value. SChristensen;and[Eley,iff. Tr.r 1

t

23,826,'a'til27,.129; County!EA. 47,Jat: 20;: -IfEa 5% increase'isi '

assumed,1th'e. replacement. crankshafts:-would-not meet.the ABS's.

~ safety factor value under'onefcalculationLJand would;only mar-l ginally; meet-: thatL value 'under Ehe: other ; calculation. c Chris- -

k,.

s 23;826,.at 129; County Ex.147;jat itensen;and Eley, ff.LTr..

.20.15,/-

~

1

50.. Based on the. foregoing,wwe-conclude.that}if ABS'hadL 3

Eatitributed nolincrease in the fatigue endurance 111mit".to'-

shotpeening, the'n.the replacement crankshafts-would;not= meet the ABS torsional stress standardsk Since there is no reliable-

~

basis'in'the record to attribute.any.such increase due to

~

shotpeening, we.must accord no weight to the ABS' approval.'

.3 4

15/~ The ABS-also performed its safety factor; calculations ~

using 1700 psi as the value given to.it by TDI for the maximum firing pressure in the EDGL..

Christensen and

Eley; ff. Tr. 23,826, at 124-25.- As shown above, the:ap..

.propriate value-should be 1720 psi.

Id. at 130..

t

!.l l

a.

I i

s

/H

_ - -.,li._ _ _

. a..

..2.

..-a.

u ;

3

. W; a

(,

s J

9 4

+

'3

-. fi

'f I

I

'(d)l ' Th$ ' Relplacem'entL Crankshafts 'do ' not' Comply with the ABS Rules on Crankshaft Web F

3 s^

Dimansions..

ll l

. c 51. ~ The4 County; and{ theiStaff: disagree whsther the { re-s

' ' ~

c placement 1 crankshafts:lcomplyfwith? ABS Jrules: on crankshaft? web

' dimensions. ;LILCO presented no ? direct'Itestiniony' on' the -;iss~ue.

1Forithe: reason's described below, we< find.that the(web's"on the replacement. crankshafts do noticomply.with the_ ABS. rules.'-

s 52.

- In= order to provide for-adequate bending stiffness.in:

crankshafts?with solid-webs, Section 34.11.4 of the; ABS-rules-provides that:

1Theiproportions of.the cranksh' aft-webslare to be'such that the. effective resisting mo-

~

ment'of4the web in bending is not?less-than 60%.of the' resisting moment.of the minimum:.

required diameter of. pins;and journalsfin-bending.-

Professor Christensen's calculationscshow that'the web strength' in bending is equivalent to-a crank pin or journale-diameter of

- i 10.9337. inches.

Using this value, Professor Christensen'calcu-lated the maximum allowable-firing pressure'for the replacement crankshafts.

Those calculations.show that the maximum ~ allow-able firing pressure-for the EDGs under the' ABS rules.is 1746

7 pai at full. load and 1651' psi at overload.- Thus, when the ac-i'

-tualemeasured peak firing pressures of the EDGs are considered 36 -

a s

e yy-.r--4 3yT-gi n..'--

.9-te=g*

qwe w

y 9ypwa

-g-e eg rg9g,eapg==eJ-

=4 d

g 9-y7etiW**yvrM-n 4 -* f

e z;

~

n

{ '

N cif i

1 ; !,

5 I',.

lly $,

s j

A, '-

-,. ~

'^

.L s

~

v g

ep'

[

~

J

~

q s

~

- s

.m

+ -

e

,.4 (1720 psilat 35000kWsandl1800; psi'ati3900.kW),Jthe; replacements d-Tcranksha'fts?do not; comply lwith thd ABS.Lrules3for operationjat:

4

.=

- " overload ' andt. are marginali at! full: load.---

Christensen,.;ff.:Tr.

1

[23/826p."at 118'-20;' County Ex. 40.1-

~

F.

^

~

153.-- :We-: find: that; Professor 'Christensen's calculational -

~

1 ; method-~ conforms 'with the methbd.,intenddd ;.to. be 1 used; by thd. ABS '

i t

~

- for calculating'.the? dimension of crank'haftiwebs.,'In'per s

s

~

Eforthing his-calculation,1 Professor.Chris'tensen reliedfon' the7 s

I nterpretationiof'the" ABS. web rules'given"by onelof.theEABS'de '

i n..

cponents.:.Tr;:324)-145,U2'4,147.(Christensen)'.'.Asithe ABS depo :

4 O

~

nent explaindd:I I.believe-that_our-normal practice would be;

'to' mea'sure that dimension-from th'e boundary ~

~

of'theiactual crankshaft material atone D

fillet =to thati at its.oppositeL-fillet,-

rather1than constructing.the arbitrary l

' lines-of a' face of'the web and going be-)

I'

-, tween them; = Essentially,-it makes sensei-to count only theLmetal that is actually.

.there..

County Ex. 72.

LILCO Ex. C-42; Staff Ex. 1.

We find that Pro- -

1 fessor Christensen: calculated a-section of-the~ web measuringi the web 1 dimension from metal to metal accordingLto theLABS de--

ponent 's interpretation of the ABS rule.

'Tr.

24,147,'24,148-(Christensen).

~

4 9

I 37 -

I t.

h.

5

.y

-, ll f

'l,

.-r,,

w =N n -

>-e->t.'---e--wM*,

d-

~

M

'c'*

- - - - -''***'***O*^

^

~

pg

.m x

L y

}

.jen y~

^

~

r e

, ' [:L r,. <

^ :

+

s

yy,

(<

~

r

'# ~

54b 5Inicontras 6 Professor'lSarstenfsfweblcalNulation,i

~

i

^ 'EhibhLpurport's?tolbe basedhupon-theisamelinterpretation;6flthe~

v

g

~

wj LABS rules; relied;uponfbyjPrdfessorlChristensen..(Tr.'23,492.

jf

[( SEtraten ) ), '~ddesinot'iactual1h~ represent [thejmetal to, metal;

^

cboun'dariesithrough the fu111 width ofhthefsection of the web

.: Rah.her,/ProfessorLSarstenfocused;on<a:section'of'theweb$1n

~

fthexvertical.~ plane.- Tr.=24,1531('Christensen)'.l6/ 'In orderi o' t

m "obtain thsi"e'ffective resisting moment 6f'the web.in bending" r

.within'the meaning o'fithe ABS rule,:-one must consider a sec'tioni m

iof~the web'in'thi horizontaliplan'e'as.Pr$fes'sor Christensens id'id.. ~Tr.

24,158-(Christensen).- Such an a'pproach._ complies with.

the_ ABS method by considering;only-the' metal thati actually-ex -

'ists in the web'.:

55.

LILCO asserts that the: ABS has approved the dimen--

sions of the web on the replacement crankshafts.- LILCO-Find-

~

ings at 17.

There.is insufficient. evidence'to support.-such a finding.. LILCO'did not introduce ~into-evidence any official

' ABS c'ertification nor any testimony' identifying or explaining.

l_6/

Professor Sarsten had no previous familiarity with how.the

' ABS interpreted its rules.

Tr. 23,492l(Sarsten)...Profes-7 j

sor-Christensen's previous understanding _of how.the ABS p

interpreted-its rule relating'to webs'was confirmed by the interpretation given by the ABS deponent. - Tr. 24,145, 24,148 (Christensen).

i 38 -

~

,p.

I :

I'.

(

, y i

f

' /\\.

,w w

't

-~

, ' j.

e

- ~. - -

,a

(-

.g

~

e~

f:

s--

s i

g,f

.7

..i:--

1.,

howithel ABS purportedlytcalculated the web dimension's--of'the:

z

~

ll

'i*

-?replacementj erankshafts.. ;The ;; County's switnesses " testified ' only.:

^

v -

)that the ABS deponents; assumed thatzthe' webs had been approved.c None:of:the: ABS' deponents,lhowever,' per' formed?any web calcula -

~

tions=or. produced any such calculations ~whichfexplainithe'. basis

,e

'for'theiE assumption. 'Tr.724,141',.24,162L.(Chdistense'n,fEley).:

J(e) - The' Replacement-Crankshafts are? Inadequa'tielyi Designed for Operating at Overload and their

- Design is Marginal'for Operating at Full Load '

~>

- even~under.the German Design-Criteria used by F.E.V.c c

5 6 '.

Th'e"Counhy also alleged)that.the'repla' cement' crank-

^

shafts are, inadequately designed (for operating atL39001kW and-t that their design.is marginal for operating ~at-3500 kW'under.

E the German design-criteria used by LILCO's. consultant,'F.E.V.o Christensen and Eley, ff. Tr. :23,026, at'il21. 'LILCO' claims

~

that calculations under these'. criteria show the;r'eplacement-

~

crankshafts have unlimited life,at 3500 kW and will operate - for.

1200 hours0.0139 days 0.333 hours 0.00198 weeks 4.566e-4 months at 3900 kW.

Pischinger, ff. Tr. 22,610, at~5..

~~ Fo r -

the reasons discussed below, we find that LILCO'_s calculations-g l

under these criteria do not provide assurance that'the r'eplace-m'ent crankshafts are adequately designed =for operating at-full 3

load and overload.

County Ex. 41( at.5; Christensen and Eley, tff. Tr.'23,286, at 121.

g :

4

.. n...ca..

... _, c _

u..,._.

^o

.~

^

%i,yw ei - [

c,,

1

'w Y

N Y

".j l

l

,'d

^

j

~~

~

4 u-7 T

r

+

' l

.q :-

Inl evaluatiing s.the i replacementi cr'ankshaf ts, Dr...

a57 3 :

c.~..

~

~ W, "Pi~schinger of F.E.V.; performed-calculition'slunder'th'e~

b '

':y iKrit$er-Stahl de's'ignLcriteria.-.Kritzer-Stahliis a : method Efor -

? calculating: stre'sses[iE aicrankshaft and forf comparingL.those 2

' stresses with '. calculated ? fatigue f enduranceilimits. for the 1 l

^

crankshaft material.a fThe ratio o'f thS.calculatsd~stressesLto.-

the1enduranceilimitlgives1aifactor oftsafdtyJfor'the craink --

~

shaft Tr.l22j7671(Pischinger).:.

3

' 5 8.

Thelreplacement crankshafts.are/"justion'the bound-- ~

3

--ary tof compliance ~with-the'.Kritzer-Stahl.-criteria-at full load.-

County Ex.141,'at 4.

As Dr.~Pischinger-explained,wthef calculated stressesJ(172 Newtons'per square millimeter) atJfull' load are just1below'the' calculated 'ndurance limit of:the-rea e

placement crankshaft material (175' Newtons per ~ square millime--

ter)._

Tr.'22,794(Pischinger). -Using.these calcblated' values,-

Dr. Pischinger obtained a safety factor of slightly less than-

~

1.02 for the replacement cranksh'afts.

Tr. 23,O'04 (Pischinger).

l Dr. Pischinger described this safety factor value as " nominal."'

I Tr. 23,004.

At overload, the replacement crankshafts do not

. comply with cne Kritzer-Stahl criteria, because-the calculated

- 3

. stresses exceed the calculated endurance limit.

4

+

Tr'.'22,792-93 i

J (Pischinger); County Ex. 41 at 5.

Thus, the ratio of the stress.to the endurance limit gives a factor of safety.less a

j t h a n 1. O. l_ 7_ /

f 4

L

[

'?l_7/ - The safety factor values for the replacement crankshafts under the Kritzer-Stahl design criteria should.actually be' l-(Footnoto cont'd next page) i

~

+

4, r;

,+e,_

.h

,,,...+,,..--..,,m...-_,,,--,.,*,m,

..~,,,4-

-,-..-w..._........

.--.- ~.--. a - - -

m:..

T

, ;}

54c -

n s

J 1

q

n 4

~

59. - Th'e;Kritzer-Stahlidesign' criteria ^contain'no-dircrete-

~

Jrecommended[ factor-ofqskfety.. : However, : a':factorj of.:. safety' of.

1.15 is:the? lowest acceptableivalue'in(contemporary industrial practice with which'Dr.J Pischinger is! familiar [for the d'esign of a'. crank'sh' aft [in. a. medium nspeed. diesel engine ithe1 size: SfJthe?

t

, EDGs. : -Tr.

23,012, 23,071-72-(Pischinger). ~ Thus', wei find that, J

s the calculated. safety factors-.-for the' replacement,cranksha'fts under'the Kritzer-Stahl crit'eria-do not provide' assurance that-I the replacemen't crankshafts are adequateL orltheiriintended-f service..

'60..

Dr. Picchinger also calculated additional safety fac--

i tor ' values for the repl' cement cranidshafss. 'att fullIload and a

~ overload based.upon a comparison of his Kritzer-Stahl.

c-j (Footnote' cont'd -from previous page)'

-somewhat lower.

A calculation of the endurance limit-under Kritzer-Stahl takes'into' cons deration'a number of factorsi including the-ultimate tensile strength (U.T.S.)

of the crankshaft material.

Tr. 22, 791.-(Pischinger ). : Dr.

Pischinger used a value for the U.T.S. of the' replacement.

crankshafts that is higher than the minimum measured.-

U.T.S. of two of the replacement crankshafts.

Tr.

22,992-93 (Pischinger, Montgomery); LILCO Ex. C-12.

This is particularly unsettling because a minor refinement in the inpute to Dr. Pischinger's calculation can substan-tially affect the results.

For example, a-very-small l

L change in the stress level data used in Dr. Pischinger's calculations resulted in,a 100% change in the predicted lifetime of.the crankshafts at overload.

Tr. 23,043-44 (Pischinger).

r (x

v l

.m,.

~. _... ~. - _,.. - _.. _...

m._

L,

ga q ;.

si L

y 7

g m

c

.l

~

u

calculations onithe'oriiina1Tandireplacement~ crankshafts.. Tr..

3

. c. 23,004 ((Pi'schinger). ~ For'the reasons < stated below, we find R

(that:these additional safetyfdactorgcalculations do not pr' ovide >

Tassuranc'e o the adequacycof thefreplacement.cranksha'fts.

~

g 2

.61'. aDr. Pischinger's-calculations pre' dict that;thelorigi--

inal crankshafts should hav'e failed after'twotmillion1 cycles-L(approximately 150. hours) but'in.. fact they failed-at about'Liour h

~

,millionEcycles ' ( 273 ' hours). t. - Using an:S-N curve 18/iand the.ac-

-=

tual numbe'rJof-~ cycles to failure rather5than the predicted'num -

~

ber of cycles', Dr. : Pischinger. calculatedithat the ' ratio' of max-imum-stress:to:-endurance: limit for~the origifial crank' shafts

~

23,005'(Pischinger).' - By.

should have been.22.7% lower...Tr..

adding the: safety factor for'the' replacement crankshafts;to'*

this value,LDr. Pischinger obtained an' additional. safety;factior-

~

_ of 24 percent' for:the replacement crankshafts at full load and :

15 percent for operation.at 3900 'kW.

~ Tr. 23,004,'23',037 (Pischinger).

4 62.

We do not rely on these additional safety fac' tor cal-i-

culations.

The S-N curve used by Dr. Pischinger was based on 18/ -S/N curves show the relationship between the stress'for failure and the number of cycles where failure will occur at a-particular stress level.

Tr. 22,778 (Pischinger, McCarthy).

t -

42 -

t l

_w, 1P yW4

--rtr

?T--'-

'9'

-'NF 7-4' V't"*

owe **$

F5--

f gr^f w'W--2F-=--'*'F-3$F--sv

- eWr-W.'-

-e-mktNr'9w T

9*w a

'a-Nw-W en-1-9e' 9'

v4 ev*-'*si

'--9"-wT

p

+

~

-v

- };v ff

~ i ;, f z m

r x

y; y

- 3 y

s y

- gy y.

~

.g,

T Q ; --[

. E N

^

~

o' t

g

-4f p

v,

+,

['the i number) of.s' p

l L

.i cycles-to the. actual 1 severing of"one-testi

.c

,i9 crankshaft?

Tr.. 23,~'008,f 23j 778 N0ischinger).l_9.b :Similarly, er

.g

[

_ ;.theifour millionLcycleifigure u'sedDin his' calculation'sfisLthel -

j 4

number. of Jcycles ~ at which the ori~gina14crankshafti actuallyf se- <

. 3

vered.-[Tr.. 23,008)(Pidchinger).- As;Dr'~/Pischinger5testifiedi the ' four millionf cycle j figure (is.1veryyimportantf to.his conclu-L

. s ion.. Tr..[23/007'(PisEhinger).. Ifl"fabure"iistdefined;as?the' Etime when : the_. crack actual'ly. initiate'dfinithe cranksh' aft, in'-

F- ~

1 stead,of at the:timeiof severanceJfailure? occurred at:substan-

tially less than!fourfmillion" cycles.-

Tr.,23;008L(Pischinger).>

l Although-it is-not' clear. precisely when= detectable' cracks ini-f J /.

tlate'd in the origina1Lcrankshafts,t the lifetime of the origi---

~

nal EDG 102 crankshaft: from the time-a detectable: indication; was present to l actual. severance wasl a ~ period ;of "less than 168 o

hours (approximately two million cycles).

Tr. 23,064-:

(McCarthy). LIf this'a'pproximate valuelis-used, Dr.

i Pischinger's'Kritzer-Stahl calculations correctly predictedi that the original' crankshafts would fail after about 150 hours0.00174 days 0.0417 hours 2.480159e-4 weeks 5.7075e-5 months .

4 M /

This-S-N curve was based on only,eight measurements taken-on one test crankshaft.

That crankshaft was' smaller-(10 -

[

' on the EDGs and had a' lower ultimate tensile strength than inch'. journal diameter) than even the' original crankshafts

.that of the-replacement crankshafts.

Dr. Pischinger.did a

P not know the' testing procedures used or the forging method-sof the testacrankshaft.

Tr.-22,781, 22,827-29

'(Pischinger).

43 -

L' u:_.

s

),-

L I..

4 w-v

.sg.

.e 4m. e

.n.

i..

1,,,.-s,d.-v-e-e=',6.,44+ %5'e4E.,ww-e-,.w-e,-,. eve e4

=+,,,w.

,-w-..-w,,.

,,,-4.,.3w4e we.s e er r,, - w.* w mpe a es - - -

r;;.

m.

8, 3

Y

/ ph _

" $1

..y-Al

-+

+

',f s~<

~'

r.

w -. - J +.'.

w s

u c

+

_s k

- ~

[ Viewed 71n'thisl light,Ethe? additional-safety: factors?fori 1

, operation ^of;theireplacement-crankshaftsiat'fu'll loEd and?ov~er

,y-g^

l floadl sh'ould be :approximatiel'y the 'same as originally. 'calbulated'

~'

Pischinger. ' As previo' sly iridicatedNthhse.. calculational bylDr.1 u

ldo-not ; provide assurancie: of. th'e adequacy' o'f the-repla'cementi y

crankshafts.<

63.; Evenfif these. additional calculations-are al.normally-t

. acceptable' methodJo'f-calculating ' safetyif actors under the ;

'~]

.Kritzer-Stahl criteria - "anf thereTis noteviden'ce l'n the 1

ErecordEthatttheypare--.theyhardlyprovidethedegreeof: con-aervatism-_weLdeem appropriate'inoevaluating the=a'dequacy'of.'the-

~

replacement-crankshafts. }These, additional safety'. factor 7calcu-

[

'lations mere 1Y[ fall within the' low to middle range'ofLaccept.

~

- able. safety-factor values in - contemparary European ' industrial; practice.

Tr. 23,012,-23,071-72 J(Pischinger).

That,<and the fact that the-. calculations ~are based upon U.T.S.Jvalues.that are too highf(Tr. 22,992-93 (Montgomery) ), do not give' us' suf--'-

k ficient confidence in these calculations to find that' the re-

~

L f

placement crankshafts are' adequate for;use at Shoreham.20/.

..i 2_0/

The Coun'ty also asserted-that the dimensions of the webs on the. replacement crankshafts are inadequate under the-2 design, criteria used by F.E.V.

Christensen and Eley, ff.

- Tr. 23,826, at ~ 121; County Ex. 41, at 4, 7.-

Although the i

.Kritzer-Stahl criteria do not' provide any specific guid-ance on the dimensions of~the webs; they do consider the-(Footnote cont'd next page) 2

^

44:-

l -

e-

,me--

d en

-.asww a N Es =

an-e s

y e se - m ^3e-

'b w w etws

-ts-rp wew '

-e -e w w b e w --* 9P-v ee m-f -e' v e

vis b

-r- -s e-reee et-m -- w w= 4--**tve-

- - ,e--er, T'

Y

q wl ^[

~

7 w:

~

d.h

.g -. ; ~ o

. ?^;

r:

c,: ;:c y..

my

+

~

j u

7

_m s

,~ :$l s

4 D%

~(

v

~_

+

N w

1 s_

~.

A

+

LILCO-CannotJRely'onEAlleged Compliance: with'DEMAt

". B...

-i ~

-to Prove:the Adequacy-of'the--Replacement Crankshaft's.'

1: 8

-}

.z

-64., s LILCO has urged the -: Board toifind that - theiDEMA rac.

l x

. 2-

. =-. s.

ommendation' ns are appropriateEstandards by which to judg'e:the-

^

~

Il

adequacy,of the replacementacrankshafts?andithatjthe replace '

j c

Y tment crankshafts 1in. fact comply:withstheDDEMA'irecommendations.

s

- Johnston,f etial. hh. Tr. (22',6102 :at :

~

20-30. 'TheiCounty as'serts-ithatithe adequacy.ofathe; replacement cranksh'afts1 shou'ld?be '

+ y

-a'ases' sed against theirulesiof the'c1Sissificationisocieties'andI

+

1that"ithe DEMALrecommendaticnsjare.not' reasonable'; alternative a

standards. : ' Anderson, et ail., ff. Tr;'23,826, at l'09-ll,ril44 142. eThe' Staff' contends =that, in'~any-event,.the replacement,

~

4

~

crankshafts do>not' comply with:DEMA..;Sarsteni ff.. Tr.f23,126,-

.'at 13, 17.-

We' agree.with the: County.and theDStaff,(finding

~

thatLLILCO has failedito" establish that'the.'DEMAirecommenda-tions arefan appropriate standard.or.that the replacement-

~

m (Foot' note cont'd from previous page)

~

thickness of the web as'an;11tput.

Tr. 22,768, 22i783-84 (Pischinger).

Dr./Pischinger's-'own engineering judgment-

' called for the use of a web approximately 1/2-inch thicker.

Such a modification also would have required a

-different sized' crankshaft bearing.

Tr. 22,783-84,.

22,787-88, 23,024-(Pischinger).-

A' thicker web would.have

~

beneficially reducec the, stress concentration values in the replacement crankshafts and increased their fatigue

. endurance.' limit.

Tr. 22,784-86, 23,025 (Pischinger).

45 -

M

+

b"3 3

.r

[c

's

. b';.

n.--

.n-3

~e-1

'k 3

~

^

[hI,,,

N":

,'s.

s s

a a

.,e

[

W y

4

~

^

sw E

z S f bh i

"s;_

~

.~ ;-;,.

m 3.

s

_.p4 8

f

^

y t

Jcrankshafts. satisfy-the DEMA"-recommendations..Our reasonstare;5 sc

~ >

e

~,'.

Vsetiforthibelow. _

r f

4 g

~

l Y

t N'? J

.E

^

h-M.

- l..

The=DEMATRe' commendations'are'not a-Reasonablez

?

~

' Standard by which to Judge the Adequscy of:-the

[

3 - t

-Replacement Crankshafts.:

m ea.

w

~

-65.-

DEMALis an ^ American -trade " association " of diesel [en -

w Henriksentand Sarstenh ff.)Tr.U23712'6,udt,

~

.gine1 manufacturers.: :

10. - Unlike:theiclassificationisocieties,[DEMAneithehapprovesi

.noridisapproves crankshafts.T;Tr.122,688i(Chen). ?DEMA does?not u

~

have anin-house-staff cof: engineers to review diesel ? generator; plans,< crankshaft drawings or tor'sional vibrAtionfealculations,

~

r does ;DEMA' havejsurveyors to inspect. cranidshafts: ats specific norz

+

installations; Tr. ; 22,687-68, 23,'055-57 ' (Chen) ; / 24',194--95/

~

(Eley). ' In1its publication, Standard'Pract! ices for-Lowfand.

Medium Speed Stationary Diesel and ~ Gas: Engines, DEMA< describes '

various aspects of the design, operation'. and testin'g of ' diesel; 3

engi~nes. 'For crankshafts, however, DEMA provides only.

'self-policing guidelines..for allowable stre'sses associated'with torsional 1 vibratory conditions.- Unlike the. classification!so-cieties, DEMA does not provide. any guidance ' for. cranksliaft. 'di-

.mensions,. material properties, or methods of fabrication'..

i Henriksen and Sarsten, ff. Tr.'23,126, at 10; Tr. 22,'688

~ '

-(Chen).

46 -

i

_s m

kJ

,g f^j y

.. - ~.

o,.

T, N

d V

+ - Q g

~ 3:

[L Oys

,._. s

- g yc 7e 4

i.

~

.~

,'s

^

.mm.

w

e x

a, I 66.,The;DEMA rebommendations'on allowable' torsional 5vi--.

~

evelshavenotbeebrevisediinTat1' easts 25jyears'.- [ Tr..

bration t

1 l22; 692E(Ch'en).2l.// J Even DE. Chen', who ' chair $d?one fof the :DEMA

.w A

Jtechni' cal l committees [l(Tr.S22,7040(Chen)n Chen OffD Tr.3 22,610, a4 l.at 3'0)', fdoes; noti consider f.thejDEMAJ recommekdations toi be ]

' ~

?

h

-s up-to-date./ - Tr. -l2'2,69b (Ch'en) b iIn ! fact, :Dr.n Chen could : noti c;7 say)whether.DEMA'#it$ elf considers the.DEMA recommendations to, q

m

?

-be up -to2 ates :

d Tr. - 22[689-90 [(Chen) ~. '

f, T6 7.' - Although DEMA allegedly doesD" provide. standards,to measure.theiadequacy of a' crank' shaft" '(Chen,[ff.Tr.:22,610",at:

14),1we cannot find the>DEMA recommendations lare reasonable

-standards!by-which the adequacy-of the. design of the replace-ment crankshafts can be measured.

Christensen-and Eley,~ff.

Tr. 23,826, at 111. :The ' relevant DEMA recommendations only Econcern torsional vibration and.thus theyl lack iufficient-scope'

~

i

[

-21/

In it's proposed' findings,~LILCO states that the trend among classification societies.hasibeen to-become less

-conservative in their rules for_ allowable. stress, wherenc DEMA has not' revised its limits for allowable torsional-i.

stresses since-the late 1950's.

LILCO asserts that this

-indicates that DEMA has a large built-in margin of: safety.-

.LILCO's Findings.at 9.

The record.does not; support-

'LILCO's assertion.

LILCO cites no-testimony or exhibits i~

'to' support _its assertion.

In fact,x contrary to LILCO's assertion, the evidence indicates that the DEMA limits.re-main quite high'(i.e., less conservative) in relation to the torsional: vibratory stress limits of the classifica--

tion societies.

Tr. 23,364 (Sarsten).

a

~s 4s,

~ : :,a r

..~

~,

n-M: ^

if.

+

w-p$ %@.I [$i M

' ~

3 Jl

- gm.

m.

f.0

~

?,,P t

+

7

~,,- _g ; _

m W9; ']

~

- i N

y

+ ;y

((s.).:

Nj 4

y

~ [-

fand) breadth to belused to evaluateNheLoveralliAdequacykof{the-

' :j

~

2

.x (T

~

designiof a" crankshaft".5 fIndeed,-{LILCO'slown expert agrees withI

<v

,.s-

... j-

~

the^ County 1(M.);thatLthe:DEMA recommendations-are.notfafdesign

~

r-Lcoded: "are noti explicit 'enough" to be.used r, 8

A s

~

as.aicrankshaft,

=

criteriaf"=and)cannot b'e us'edltoidesig'n a7crankshafth 'Tr.s

^[^

227689-9'O, L; 23 ',' 015 [(Chen ). 22, t

b

' 6 8'.iiThe'DEMA.,recommendatio'ns alsoflack1 sufficient specif-3 h

^ '

.icity'tofbe.used asEreliableistandards fortavaluatingCthe ade '

" ^ '

-.quacytof;thejdesign ofi$he replacementicrankshafts.

The DEMA

~

recenmendations;Nor allowable: torsional vibratoryJstresses-in;

[l crankshEfts. provide'that l r

In the'caseLof! constant speed. units, sucli ( -

as. generator sets, the objectiveris;to in--

N' suretthatno harmful torsional vibratory.

stresses' occur within five~ percent"above-and below rated speed.~

4:

For~ crankshafts... made of conventiobal materials, torsional vibratory co'nditions--

22/

This fact also is confirmed by the,DEMA recommendations.,

F The. forward to the DEMA-recommendations explicitly states r_

"[I]t is not.the purpose of this book to attempt ~to set forth basic design; criteria for. engines:because such ap-proach would be impossible-within this volume and yet do justice to the many' types of engines on the: market, not..

~

withstanding thelfact that many technical texts are avail--

~

able.to the student who may be undertaking the design L

criteria aspects of engines in -general." Standard

' Practices for Low and Medium Speed Diesel and Gas Engines,

.6th ed.,

1972-.at-iii; Christensen and Eley, ff.

Tr.

- 23,826,'at 111.

L E

F l

f 4

4 f ',.

..i.,o..

., L a

.....--,,,m..-.*-

w

m.,_w: ;

g,

~

pg yM [:ib i.q-y g,.-

^ '

.c a

w-

1.g v.

s w

r m

s,

p q

-6 I y o:. - -

_t f.

, (sh'all' generally. bei considered Lsafe (when.: ~

4 F#

f, Jtheyfinduce-a'superimpos.ed stress (ofcless.

thanl5000 psi, created;by a.. sing 1'e/ order ofz

-l x ibrationkorfa1 superimposed [ stress of(less-n v

than(7000 psik createdibyithefsummation"of" ithe : major; orders: of : vibration which. might -

come'into pha'seLperiodically.

~

s,

+

v

.'As.-isj readily appa)rentMthe DEMAf re' commendations dof notispecify_

a

'any; method toibeJused'for. calculating _ torsional? vibratory 41

-h.'

g 4

. stress:when;performingiaTealculation;for; comparison with the

.z..

r m

-DEMA' limits... Tr.:23,2382(Sarsten).1 LIn: addition, the DEMAtrec -

w.

'ommend'ations do not specify the number'offmajor1 orders of $i -

~

bration+that are:to'be? summed when;calculatingiatresses[for3 compt"ison with the'.7000< psi DEMAElimit.- Tr.-23,249!323,297:

'(Sarsten);!Tr.122,741-42', 22,'.745 '. ( Chen ). T Indeed., i LII40 ? s T own" L

expert witness testifiedjthat.he hoped)that':DEMA wouldCrevise:

2 its1 rules because'they'are:not explicit.

Tr.-22,701'(Chen).'

'69. - Furtherb LILCO did not produce any DEMA representa-'

tive to' testify as to'how the DEMA recomm'endations:are' I

interpreted by'DEMA.

There_is no evidence in the: record that:

LILCO sodght and obtained an-interpretation of the recommenda--

tions from DEMA itself.

Indeedt apparently there is no formal 7

procedure:to obtain a DEMA interpretation of.the..DEMA recommen--

!dations.

Tr. 22,703-04-(Chen).

When Dr. Chen contacted mem-bers of DEMA's technical committee concerning th-l' -

1

,Y h..

u y

}l,, L i

~

a-

._..,.i.v.+,.._

-A...+.....,,..W.4,____,...i-..A._-,,-~,-

~..

l

?1 ~

I E

~ '

'4 p[

I.

~

. 'h P

n_,

8 a s

+

c

':i;.

${.

s e

<-}

9:

. 1:

l s

s.

y

.t

.:4 3-i lrecommendatidn'ar they would?notirespond to his questions,Tand

+.,

Y y

h j~

l were very.idefensive.' Tr.f22,692 -93,122,701-02 S ( Chen ). : LWhen:

%i y-Jr 1-'

. 1Dr.'Chen contacted:several:-DEMA' member 1 firms);he:found that A

~

?

z.therefwere various'discre'pancies(in?the'm thods used and the.

3

interpret'ations i of-the. DEMA. recommendations.

Tr.122,691?._.

f.

~

(Chen).f This'-evidence-ofjarying)interpretatidns'makes:itim-

~

C possible for:this? Board to make anyl reliable. findings:as to how

'the DEMA recommendations: should be1interpretied.D

~

E s

m 3

7 0..

Indeed','ther'e is considerable conflictingitestimony; in the_ record'over how'DEMA should5be interpreted, thus:

V

~

underscoring our view that weicannot find the' DEMA~ recommenda--

Pi

~

tions to be adequate criteria-for judging : the adequacy. of ' the q

replacement cranksha'ftis...

LILCOI claim' Ethat the DEMA recommen --

s dations should' be interpreted "in light of t!he, conventional ana-1 a

lytical techniques'that were.used'for calculating torsional 1vi-bratory stresses when the present-DEMA limits were' established ~

in 1959 or :when the DEMA recommendations'were :last revised fin 1972.

Tr. 22,710-12 (Chen).

According.to LILCO, the conven-tional analytical technique used at those times wa's the Holzer method,.not calculational methods such as' modal superposition.

l (Chen); 22,726 (Johnston).

The' calculated

?

Tr. 22,710-11 stresses from the Holzer method fall below the-DEMA recommended.

a b

limits.23/

j j

._ I i

'. i 23[ According to FaAA, TDI's calculations under the'Holzer'

'l method'show that the. largest single order stress'at full l

4

'(Footnote cont'dnext1page) 50 -

., - -, w ; _. _ c.-. u -...~.i..

.. u. m. '.

n. 3

- n

^

Y

% ;L

[

f o

+

} 1M,

' ~ ~

'[

e 8-

~

. f' s

y.

, +.,

}

A e

_7 w'

71'.'-

Thel Staff'disagreesfthat?the:DEMA'reccmmendations?

contemplateionly.the-usefoftths.Holzer methodTfor estcuiatihg;

' [the " torsionhlNibrat'ory ' stress? levels ' ins cranksh'a fts.~

Tr.

423,284'--85 ' (Sarsten)..-. Cdiculationalimethods.such as modal; superpoiition have.been available;since-the mid 1960s'-and-have

~

l

^

theen? conventionally used since approximately11972. :Tr.

123,283-84 L (Sarsten);; 22,720 f(Chen);' 22,990 R(Pisching'er).

.In.

t

fact, 'even Dr. Chenstestified that forced -vibration calcula' =:

?

i Stions ~ such as. TORVAPf and similar. modal. superposition analyses,:-

A are'typicallyz and conventi$nally performed bylthatdiesel' engine;

~

' industry to checkhthe adequacy.of a crankshaft to withstand:

I

~

. torsional stress.: Chen,;ff; Tr.z22,610 at 28;..Tr.'22,720

~

'(Chen). 2,4/

~

(Footnote cont'd froht previous page) load and rated speed is-2980 psi.. Johnston, ff. Tr.

'22,610, at 24;-LILCO Ex.V"C-17s at 2-3 and Table 52.4.~

In'.

addition,-FaAA's calculations using-Stone &-Webster's torsiographctest data show that thellargest single. order

~

stress at full ~ load and rated speed is 3108 psi and'a total stress of 6626 psi. 'Johnston, ff.,

Tr.- 22,610, at 24,-26; LILCO Ex. C-17 at 2-4Jand Table 2.5.-

These calcu--

lations also show that-the largest stresses'at 3800 kW'are

~

3242 psi for'a single order and 6875 for combined re-sponse.

By linear extrapolation, FaAA calculated-that-the

-corresponding stresses at 3900 kW are:3287 psi and 6958-psi.

Johnstoni ff. Tr. 22,610, at 26; LILCO Ex. C-171at 2-4.

t-

,24/

FaAA used modal superposition analysis to determine wheth-er the replacement crankshafts complied with the DEMA lim-its:for off-speed conditions.

Modal superposition was

-(Footnote cont'd next page)'

' ~

.3.-.

.' k i sg,

s.. - y _,

L q j

,. 4 1_

y[ k 4,

e

~

?t l.

L{

S-

"g_-

'.'? $ Q ; n k:

E

~

v

+

;g i

g t

-))

y 7-f,

-a

~

.w.

m,

~

~-

a 4

p-s

> ~

,as a

1

72.1 Wdiagree with[the. Staff.

~

LILCOsLargumentipresumes~

~

1

',.3

that-the-~calculationalimethod'currentlyfintended byTDEMA to;be s

~

+

~!

c'ranksha'ft1 against the] DEMA' limits is f then u'sedtin< ass'ess'ing:aD 4

"x~

'same; method. that.was ' us'ed -'over 251 year's i ago,V despite EthelfactL '

}

1 thatt much ' more ! accurate' mEthodsJhaueibbeni ava'ilableEfor..'almost :

(20}yearsiand dav.ejbeenle'onsidered conventional.f$riapproxi-

+

z..

matelyl10. years... ? Tr. [ 23,283-84E (Sarsten) ; 2'2,720l,(Chen) ;-

m

g 22,990?(Pischinger).

Je consider"iNihighlyiunlikelyfthatIDEMA',

would continue to publ'ish.and. issue its ' recommendations if iti;

[

J L

JbelievedJthatithose1 recommendations (wereinot applicableTto~the 4

. s -

conventional. analytical' techniques l currently usedeingthe' diesel ~,

t

~engineLindustry.

73. -LILC01also claims that=evenfif'-calhulationallmethodsi such as modal superposition are' appropriate',i-only fourfor six"

~

. major. orders of: vibration should be~ summed when. calculating-

~

torsional vibratory stresses for' comparison with'the DEMA rec-ommended' limits. -LILCO urges-that'whether four or.six orders' i

(Footnote cont'd from previous page) i used.to predict the free-end response that would'have been

[.

measured by az torsiograph test had.it beenLpossible to'run the EDGs at those--off-speed conditions!under-load., The-calculated ~value of free-end amplitude wasI.then reduced to L

Ta nominal stress'using the'stertdard torsiograph method..,

Tr. 22i724'(Johnston).

i-

~ l b~

4

~ I y

~

.~

~

n 6

O

+.

g

7e

,,m z

? d$

.>y..jy, 1

.J'

p - ~

<-Q-

%?' '

a Q }}

,., f/.

- - ~.y s;

s.

~

'k L

A 4

n c

__. ;.3 '_ '

e

~

- should l bey summed -. depends ; upon. erigineerihg' [ judgment [ i Tr.D

=

o

'.s 1

+

L22,858,g23/017,D23,0199(Chen). 'Accordingjto LILCO,iwhenithe.'

s "JEMA? limits 1.were' established;Eit1was notspracticalltotsum many'-

L o'rders cf: vibrationsvith ' any degree fof fad:curacyi Tr.f2'3,'018' 2

~

, (Chen).- Thus,fevenithoughTtheJcalcuIationa by-Professor-l

,.~

. - -, -~.

v..

Sarsten, FaAA 4n( Dr.:Pischinger.;showftha't;thestorsional vibra : 1

-. c P.

4

--.e--

n 2

tory; stresses in the replacementjerankshafts; exceed 1the DEMA 4

E i

elimits ' (see Section II.B.2,' infra), :LILCO argues;that t hose

^

~

calculationsiare notlappropriate_for purposeslof: determining ^

1, compliance.with the DEMA'1'imit's because they sum' twenty-fourf l

ordirs.2_5/0 r

= 74.

The Staff disagrees.' The Staff interpret's(the'DEMA I

~

' recommendations _ as requiring sthe summation,of twent!y--fou'r 'or-

-ders 'of. vibration.: -We-agree with:the. Staff.

Majo.r, orders 25/f LILCO also claims;that the.:DEMA recommendations should be interpreted'in-light of the crankshaft mater'ials conven-l tionally used in 1959 and 1972.

LILCO interprets;the term-

" conventional materials"'in the~DEMA recommendations'as-referring to-materials with ultimate.' tensile strengths in

[

the range of 60,000 psi to 170,000 psi.: Tr.122, 711 ~~ (Chen ).'

T We note that the DEMA recommendations-on crankshafts do not define the term " conventional materials" or'distin -

)

(!

guish1:between grades of conventional materials, (Tr.

23,351-52 (Sarsten)), nor do they permit higher stress levels'for crankshafts that have higher U.T.S.

values.. We

= find that there is insufficient evidence to reach any con-i..

clusions on LILCO's assertion.

53 -

o f4 s-A' W

V

-' I. I '

S' g

a.

4--

-n-',,

,--,*ww

.---e a

.--4+n-e-.e

+,--we,e, ec-v.- - v e u c+

E. wem

,[. rw ',- ww. y <,y ' s w w, w.,w.e=,e-m

+-g y,ei

., - + - -, ~ *, +. -

--,ery,y

+,v w E p -,-

ET

~

t

~

c 1

~

y, within-[thecmeaningiofDEMAt are those.that1 contribute to the"

~

accuracyfo'fithelcelculation. LTwenty-fourforders include all;ofi j,

,the) orders'of vibration?thatiarelsignificant: to the-accuracy.of 1the'-result.

Tr..23,297',n234299.(Sarsten).

Summing' twenty-four

~

Jorders has been the.' standard / practice.iin the European'diesell

~

' engine: industry 3for calculating-torsional vibratory stresses in four stroke 1 engines since the' introduction oflpowerful digitall

/

~computerst in the 1960's'...Tr.-22,989-90 L(Pischinger);. 23,250,a 23,283 (Sarsten)._2.,6_/1 In fact, neither'Dr.JPischinger nor' Pro -

fessorlSarsten would sum fewer.than' twenty-four orders When calculating torsionalcvibrat'oryfstresses.: 9hr. 22,798

'(Pischinger); 23,285 (Sarsten).: - FaAA also_ performed.its.calcu--

'lations using the sum of twenty-four orders.: Tr. 22,724-27,.

22,734 (J'ohnston).

The stresses ' resulting from the smniof ad- -

ditional-orders beyond-twenty-four arecnot significant._ Tr.

23,253-(Sarsten).21/

26/

By the early 1970's, the universal practice among engine manufacturers-submitting computer calculations to one classification society,.Det Norske Veritas,1was to include forced vibration calculations summing. twenty-four orders.

Tr. 23,283-84 (Sarsten).

Prior to the advent of the dig-ital computer, it was customary to consider only one order

~

because vectorial summation is a very-laborious task to-perform by hand.

Tr. 23,282, 23,284 (Sarsten).

27/

In making these findings, we give-little weight to Dr.

Chen's interpretation of the DEMA recommendations.

First, Dr. Chen possesses no particular expertise in interpreting the DEMA recommendations.

He was not a member of the DEMA (Footnote cont'd next page) 54 --

..w p

,-.---.vir e

,.m-4a

-,.,---w.

~-g-

.e---

r-~,s w - e w c-e -,we

-t.-w

a h.

.5,$ ' ~

,3, g

,y}L.

. w' f ?.;y r

4 e

(

,g ; 3;

\\ ;n[.,.m

..-^;

v c

n 3

c

~.

m 3

kagi ?.

[

jk s

y

' ~

s o N1

- e

=

x a

< - ':s.5, ~ -

.x

+

r

',~ a "

w 375? /LILCO's}suggestedJinterpretation(of;DEMA:wouldtpermit:.

~

J

E

, _ w -

e q.

e 4thejsummationtof fewer 3thanfsix4majorfordersEdependinglonfthe

^

i s.

gw 7

v fuser's!enifine'ringsjudgmen k Even)Dr MChen;admittedithatiex-'

y e

t;%

s a

h,

^(

(perts ? could i reasonablyj. disagree fover.wh' ic"h l orders ; were;i-maj or.

i a

/

.s q-2 t

[

j Tr. (22,728[(Chen).- ThEdanger[intsummingcf' ewe'rsmajor;ordhs0 '

^

y

~

^

~,.

.E Kthanythefstandardspracti'ce.'ofisummingitwenty-fourforderse 4"

~

4 w

t p

-(

7,

(Footnote cont'd.'from pre 0ious page)

- Jf s

.c i

"technicalicommittee when theitorsiona.livibratory limits.

^

3

.lwerefestabli'shed E(Tr. J 22l 704 L (Chen) )', f and, there Li'sino ' eYi--

dencefin the?recordithatEDr.1Chenihad previously'performedL a calculation:under:DEMA.- :This: lack of:anyfspecialiin-sight islevidenced,by his contacting DEMALand;its members ito obtainianEinterpretation:of~the?DEMA'recommendationsn

~

l iTr.X22,691-93>(Chen).

'In! addition,iDr."Chen'sftest'imony onftheVDEMAIrecommenda-

> tion's:issfar froml clear andfoftenicontradictory. LForTex -

ample,' l Dr.j Chen.- testified ' on redireci exami' ation that

~

4 n

DDEMA~is afreliable standard, but previously h'ad test'ified

.on: cross-examination'thataDEMA'.was.not explicit enough to"

~~

p be'used'as a crankshaft criteria.

Tr. 22,690,123,014-16 j:

(Chen).~

In; addition,'Dr. Chen' testified on're-direct'ex-amination that the~ customary-practice in' calculating

-stress'es under DEMA is to sum four 'or six orders, but'

~

testified onccross-examination that theDDEMA members use

-various discrepant' interpretations and methodologies when making DEMA~ calculations.

Tr. 22;691, 23,019 (Chen).

Furthermore, as support for.his a'ssertion that the DEMA recommendations are adequate,- Dr. Chen testified.that he F

had.never'seen a crankshaft.that complied with'DEMA fail

[

primarily from torsional fatigue.

On cross-examination, however, Dr. Chen admitted.that he has investigated the failure of'only three crankshafts (Tr. 23,074 (Chen)), and that the-vast majority of crankshafts that fail do not' fail primarily from torsional fatigue but from a'combina-tion of' stresses.

Tr. 22,865 (Chen).

7 E

q i

s p

55 -

4 t

g

,,.,,,..,i,.,,,hp.-.,..,m.w,g--,,w,,,,,,,,,,,,4e.

.-w,,-,-sw-,.,v&,e..,

--me, w,--e+eww-e,w,,.e4.,*c.r..,*,,,-M%-e.4rm+e, r w-e.e w +- '

wu y

7 r

fs i- ~

=t ihowev'er,..is that-the: user could' choose:whatever number of-

~

orders that' permits'him toecomply with2-allowable stress levels.

~

Tr.

23,297-98,- 23,301E(Sarsten). ESuch an approach;would:.be

<inco'nsistentiwith:the notion:of'a published standard? practice.

iTr., -23, 298f (Sar sten ).1

<76.

Based on all of,the. foregoing, we-find thatfLILCO has l failed to. establish that the1DEMA recommendations,are'suffi-

~ ciently comprehensivefand wellaunderstoodcbycthe parties-to constitute an. adequate criterion =for judging::the: adequacy of-the-replacement crankshafts.28/.

2.

The' Replacement Crankshafts do not-Comply with the DEMA Recommended Limits on Torsional Vibration.

77.

Even assuming arguendo that the'DEMA recommendations constitute a-reasonable' alternative standard for assessing the' adequacy of the design of the replacement crankshafts, we find that the replacement crankshafts do not comply with the DEMAL 28/

In' the following discussion, we assume arguendo tha't ithe DEMA rules are sufficiently well defined and understood and then assess whether'Shoreham's' replacement crankshafts comply with those rules.

In that discussion we rely upon the-Staff's interpretation of the DEMA rules, including the Staff view that DEMA requires the' summation of twenty-four orders of vibration.

See preceding discussion in-Section II.B.1 for our reasons for adopting the Staff in-terpretation of DEMA over the contrary views of:LILCO wit-nessHDr. Chen. o

s-

- ~ 7-w

(

1 :.

'f!

ysf [

V:

~

+,

+ '

c y

a

"~

a

+

U..",

J

.+.

7

=

~

O

-k~

r Jrecommen'ded21imits:on; torsional:vibrationi ;The1 Staff'and~LILCOE

. ~

m _

performe.yanalyses~ofthStorsional1:vibratoryLstressesifor1the}

~

w, sum-of twenty-four?ordersiof^ vibration'for.'EDG~ operation 7at:

p J3500lkW. : ?All?of:theselanalysesTshow1thatLthe replacementV

~

il

~

' crankshafts dolndt' comply.with DEMA.

The most a'ccurate?of

~

~ Lthese? analyses 51s:thefStaff's.:,

n

-78.' :The St'aff'sLanalysisib'y Professor?Sarstenishows'J hat t

a for.'section'No.r-6:of thescrankshaft Ni.e.,;the., torsional spring

~.

^constantirepresenting the! crankshaft (elasticity betwee'nEcylin->

i e

ders 5 andl6),.the' torsional stressesEfor the:sumlof' twenty-:

foursorders'exceedithe DEMA limittoff7000 psi-overtvirtually:

the entire. speed rangeLcalled for by DEMA (i.e.ijfrom'5%ibelow '

~

rated: speed:to 5%~above' rated. speed.of;450 rpm).

Sarsten,'ff.

Tr. 23,126,-at 13 Tr.:23/307-08 (Sarsten).. At rated speed,t

. Professor Sarsten's calculated' stresses. equal 7096 psi; at_5%

below rated speedi the stresses equal 7051' psi; at-5% above rated speed,-the stresses equal 7851' psi.

Tr. 23,380, 23,540 (Sarsten).2_9/- Only at'approximately 440 rpm do'es section 29/ :All of the values calculated'by Professor Sarsten have F

been adjusted to. account.for appropriate dampingcvalues and to agree with the measured value of free-end ampl'i-tude.4 -Tr.223,307-08, 23,380-(Sarsten).

As Professor.

I.

.Sarsten testified, it is oft'en customary to adjust'calcu-I lated stress values'to account for the difference between the calculated'and measured values of free-end amplitude.

F This procedure provides a more accurate calculation of y

stresses.- Tr. 23,344L(Sa'rsten)..

7 I

k_,

p r

.a.

F r,-

9 wnr.yy.h

-sq ge%-+-

e,--e.ye4t-T" e M F

'rWfW*-5 P-* Ir W t 'W y wWW7w % - *e m>9= s -w 6, M..

w er1*-*+.-m-pew +

vryg*meww 9' ye *99-' 4 < evm --r w k w wb r-

-vQ

igFe e

.M+ = ar = =v M w t w > 9p w -

we-w-

y q

, y t-;

number I6' 'of the crankshaft; comply with the JDEMA. liinits ! at -full -

" rated; loa'd.

.Tr.I 23,382,y 23,5401 (Sarsten).. ;

179..LILCO's' analyses by:FaAA and.Dr.iPischinger~alsoishow:

. noncompliance iwith DEMA'.s.

FaAA's analysi's_shows~ that;forlsec--

theinominal torsional-' vibrato-tion' number:6:of_the cra'nkshaft,i

~..

ry1 stresses for,the' sum of. twenty-four orders at. rated speed-equal 7006 psi-1(LILCO:Ex.;C-17 at'3-15;lTr.1 22,735, 22,888i (Johnst'on)), which exceeds the'DEMA limit'of 7000 psi...FaAA's analysis 'alsoishows that: the.' replacement < crankshafts do' not -

2 comply with DEMA from 5% below to 5% above rated speed.: ' Al-though'the FaAA' crankshaft _ report states that the calculated maxiraum torsional' stresses at 428 l rpm'(5%. below rated : speed)

. and 473 rpm-(5% above: rated' speed) equal-:the DEMA limit:ofL7000 psi within'plus or minus.3% (LILCO Ex. C-17 at 2-5), some of-the stresses between those speeds ~ exceed:theTDEMA limit of 7000 psi.

Tr. 22,835 (Johnston).

Dr. Pischinger's calculations-show that at 5% above rated' speed, the stresses equaled 7470 psi; at rated speed, the st esses equaled 6890 psi; and at 5%

below rated speed,_the stresses equaled 6240 psi.

.Tr.

22,800-01 (Pischinger).

80.

Thus, based upon both the Staff and-LILCO computa--

tions, there can be no finding cf compliance with DEMA'.

We

-l w,

1

~

l u

'~

=

y__

m-c,~

, 2 e

Q-

'Y w

e o r c

'~l....

^

> % 's

- ~j*1 -

UW.w : %

T W

~

L

~

4 L

- ~

! find {ing thi's i regardj thato Pro'fessord Sarsten? s method ' of -

~ ~cakculating i the ~ nominal $ torsionalL vibratory > stresse s ;isl.the ::

~e m.

f

!:'acistilaccuratef of. the -methods used (by ithelexpert ' witnessesfin -

4 fthis case.30/LUIndeed',-although'many'of the.inputsftoithe? cal--

~

^

w

culation's performed by the experts;were;the;same,--Professorn i

L Sarsten's-method Icalculatiedia. value : of free-end. amplitude s s

.(.690) whichfwas!in closer-agreement;with'theJactual measured'

..v'alue ; ofifree-end amplitude 1by :StonelC Websterf(1693_)'thanLthel values; calculated by FaAA (.662),UDr.,Chen-(.59), and Dr.-

'Pischinger'('.665).- Tr.l23,443-44;(Sarsten); 22,816 L(Pischinger); 122,858 [(Chen ). 3,,1,/H Thi's'. fact in[itself is strong.

evidence that Professor Sarsten's method'is.more accurate than-the others.: Further,EProfessor Sarsten'slCOMHOL method-calcu-lates'the steady-state forced. vibration of'dampedTlinear;sys-tems subject to periodic forcing functions represented by~a M/

In giving more weight' to the results of Professor Sarsten's calculations, we note that Professor Sarsten participated in the. historical-development of the method-ology used for calculating torsional-vibrations.' Tr.

23,239"(Sarsten).

Professor Sarsten has performed tor-sional vibration calculations of crankshafts in-four stroke diesel engines'since 1957, and since 1962 has, developed numerous programs for calculating torsional vi-bratory stress.

Tr._23,260, 23,262..(Sarsten).

d

-31/

Calculations of torsional vibratory stress will be roughly 4

. proportional'to the calculated value of free-end ampli-tude.

.Tr. 23,443-44'(Sarsten).

4 L l L

h' I

,m.

..Z..

,.. ~,,.. -,. _ _ _ -. -., _ _ _ - - -

._-._.,.,.__._.,__.4.

y_

n, -

?

^ ~ '

4 1

r

n o_

s 1

0

. ; c;, -

-w

+

k

~ T

FourierTsehies "of harmonics. 1Sarsten, E ff. J Tr. : 23,126 bat - 14.

. Where,s as-[here, dampirig' lis i presentiin : the : system,.COMHOL more-laccuratelyltikes ihto consideration the effects'ofjdamping thanl s

the ' modal superpos'itilon method and Ecalculates the true 2 Vibra--

U

~

3

-.tions'present-in the sys' tem.-

Tr._

23. 43 5 - (Sarsten)'. 3,2/f

~

'I 8 1'.. ' I n. c o n t r a s t, FaAA'used thejmodal;: superposition'methodi

~

to calculate (the torsional vibratory stresseslinTthe-replace-

-ment crankshaft.3_3/[ Theoretically,?however, that method _ic not.

u applicable'wh'en,'as here,-damping.is-present'insthe1 system.

~

Tr.123,'30, 23,436_(Sarsten).

In practice,: modal superposition-4

-'is an~' acceptable methodEof calculation if: low damping: values.

~

.are utilized...Tr.'23,430~(Sarsten).

FaAA,.however,-used a

'relatively large 2.5% damping _value,_which. roughly translates'-

/

COMHOL and modal' superposition are two different methods 32 of simultaneously solving complex ~equatio'ns. -COMMOL rep-resents the more complex method of calculation.. Although the COMHOL_and modal superposition methods begin with-es-sentially the same equations, COMHOL solves the equations in the complex plane._ Modal superpositioni on the other hand,' reduces the' equations to very simple ones for.each mode, solves them for^each mode and each order separately, and then sums all of the orders and all of the modes'.

Tr.

23,435 (Sarsten); 23,050-52 '(Johnston).

3_3)

Although it is not clear from the record, Dr. Pischinger's method appears to be essentially the same as FaAA's,.and" their calculated free-end amplitudes are'in close-agree-ment.

The only difference in their methods apparently-is the method.of reducing the measured cylinder pressure data to Tn' values.

Tr. 22,814 (Johnston).

J l

60 -

y pv-,,

9 :. -

n:

pf.

a q

);.3~ y s

3

+

w w-c Q,,N a-4 4

~

NF

~

pp" s

- - ;g.

p-T

,1 '

ito:::afdynamicimagnifierMof 20 0 ETr.:l23,'434 ;-l(Sarsten).' 1The~

t FN.3

r:

_m l normally: accepte'd damping' value' ~ forigeneratori enginessis?aTdy -V y

y e9

~.

~

[ (namic magNifiere'of:[40 t M 45;; Tr.; I23[438f('Sarsten). ; Pr$fe'ssorf

~

e i

. d :Sarsten used a dyn'amicJmagnifierfoI)40 in his: calculations-N 4

C i whichis:moreiconsistentwithlstandaidindustryl practice.34,,$

- ~'

_ IFaAA'/siuseJofddistributedidamping?and!a" larger.:dampinglvalue l

(i~.e'.,Laflower dynamic magnifier)\\resultsjinolower,Jand71ess-

~

. accurate, ' values tof,the.' tors'ional' vibratory :s' tresses.

Tr.

c-(23,434,f23,439=(Sarsten).3,5/f e

,82..

LILCO. urges L the. Board tof adopt 'Dr.

Chen's torsional.

6 analysis of theirepla' cement crankshafts which calculated-L i

?

3_4/

Professor Sarsten selected,a;dynamicimagnifier on=theflow end.of:the normally accepted, range of values in order'to-

~

obtain=a safe lower bound on the torsional vibratory stresses on'the'repla' cement' crankshafts.

Tr.-23,'438 (Sarsten).

The.use'of'a lower dynamic ~ magnifier.slightly L

underestimates the torsional stresses.

Tr.--.23,543 (Sarsten).

Professor Sarsten did indicate'that:other ana-lysts':often use higher dynamic magnifier values and that one engine firm that deals'almost. exclusively with genera-tors uses values as high as 90 to achieve good correlation

~

between-calculated stress values'and measured' values.- Tr. -

-23,437 -'(Sarsten).

J 3_5/

FaAA's method also assumes a one node vibratory form as 4..

the basis for calculating stresses.

Tr. 23,435, 23,442 (Sarsten).

This assumption produces only a near approxi-mation of the stresses and thus is slightly inaccurate.

~

Tr. 23,435-36 (Sarsten).

In contrast,' Professor Sarsten's-method is more4 accurate because it takes into considera-

-tion 'all'of the-different modes of vibration.

Tr.-23,442 (Sarsten).

i' i

61 -

n f-1 y -

t'-t-

,4

.a

--e.-.

,n m

,%+a e

+

.E-.w4e.,,.,E,

,,--.-.*-..e.a....y...+,m

.v,..w.,

,,w-w,,.,.+.r-w

, b w.

.,,wm--......r,,,.r.,w-+--.

-+.w-

L 97.

l

'7

-q

~

s

)

s

-1

~

l stresses-below the;7000. psi'DEMA limit'.'

LILCO Findings'at 3,-

~10, 12; passim.-iWe'dofnotLagree with LILCO.- AlthoughLDr.

! Chen's icalcula'tionalLmethod, _iTORVAP-C,' is'_-apparently similari to Piofesso'r -Sarsten'si COMHOL'-method', Dh. Cheri's : calculations do nottaccurately' reflect!the nominal' torsional vibratory stresses

_in.the' replacement-crankshafts. (First, Dr. - Cheni accounted ~ for.m only 12iorders?of vibration instead'.ofJ24.-As.previously; noted, the-stressesLfrom theLadditional 12:orderszcontribute to the accuracyEof.the result. 'Second,:the harmonicfcoefficients;-

~

'or'Tn values,:-used in'Dr. Chen's analysis are basedfon'-.a table appearing-in-Lloyd's~ standards rather-than on the'valuesiused by-the other expert witnesses 'which ' are-based on _ actual-~. cylin-deripressure measurements taken from one'of the EDGs.-.Lloyd's

'Tn values are well;known to be too low (Tr. 323,523 (Sarsten)),

and are less accurate than the Tn values used by FaAA,.Dr.

,Pischinger and Professor Sarsten.

Tr. 23,444, 23,'524' (Sarsten).

Lloyd's Tn-values are more-appropriately 'ised for calculating allowable torsional vibration-levels under Lloyd's rules.

Tr. 23,523-(Sarsten).

Indeed, when'Dr. Chen calculated the sum of only six major orders on a' hand calculator using the-Tn values based on actual cylinder pressure measurements, he obtained stresses:between 6600 and 6700 psi.

Tr. 23,035-36, 23,075-(Chen).

1 i

u 1

w.

c --

ty

" ~

h'

- 2?Y 73

,y,

, g. 4,'

,x m' "

1.,

v 22 2

. e ge.

-y e

w

}p, fg-3 t

(-Vf' ' ' 4

.:P i

_q 7

~

r 4

_u.

f f

n v

Qm J (- ' -'

1~

~

s j f ; q;P '

_ qc;",,

~

~ 83'.V Finally,iwe,feeldconfidentiin[findingfthe r'eplacementa l:

,1 s

s-dcrankshaftsido".notisatisfyitheTDEMN ecommendations.becausenwe. -

^

L'*~

sy a;

cfurtherifind.Vthas the :stresseeicalculat.ed : by - Professor-: Sarsten~

.i L

+

[FaAALand': D M Pischinger?shouldibeihigher,sasfthey,are: based?

'I s

x upon:Tn valuesith'at'.arejinaccuratelyi low. JIniits;proposedi

~

z s

finding's,[LILCO"incorrectlyi.assertsthat"Profe'ssor(Sarsten:

N agrees thatithese Tn values)are-accurate. LLILCOIs-Findings /at-The; testimony to wh'ich'LILCO'citds does~not' support its; s

i>-

21.,

i J

^

assertion ~. -In facth Professor?S'arsten' testified'thatithese/Tn; values are:slightly;non-conservative <andfmay represent'a:. lower.

~

-bound on the'true'Tn: values.-

Tr. 23,'412,j23/418 (Sarsten).:

- 84 n L The - Tn. values _ used; by. Professor: Sarsten, J FaAAiand - Dr.

'1 -

-Pischinger are based-on actual" cylinder pressure measurements-

.taken from cylinder; number 7 on:EDGi103.

Tr.'22,866?

(Johnston); LILCO'Ex. C-17 at 3-2 LILCO:Ex.- P-5;.LILCO Ex.':

~P-35.

Using these~ measurements,.FaAA' calculated'a mechanical' Yj:

efficiency of 1.0 for the EDGs rather than-the-. expected

.88..

2 l

Tr. 22,874'(Johnston); LILCO Ex. C-17 at 3-3.

FaAA' concluded l

that the difference is probably explained by either the pres-i-

sure measurements being too low.or^ top dead center being 4

shifted.

Id.t Tr. 22,874 (Johnston).

i

d...

K 63 -

w I;

I K

+

'.'^

~

x_g -

g

,1.

__ ' % ML

)-

y-

"e-c,.

.l

^

lt

'I kNr gg hi yll$

l A

[

= 3 g-

~

1

^

~

l' N _

s

~ '

l

}, p '

[N

, T 85.:iWelfindithaththefpressure:measurementsiare too11ow.'

~

f w

~

n h,

(SincelFaAA'1obtained a'mechanicaliefficiency of?1.0(from thel n

m measurements,Ethefindicatedfmeaneeffective pressure?("imep");

C

. should).equalitheibhake;mean' effective pressure (("bmep").s.Tr.1 -

23,603-04 h(Sarsten, Henri1Esen). - - However, i the Countys calcula -

Etionaishow that the imepfis-Eless'than the~ beep which indicates i

J ~

<that the measurements should=be-higher. ITr.123,-605 (Henriksen)'; ( 24,~ 458 (Eley). 3_6/L

^

C.

FaAA's Calculated Safety Factor is Insufficient Proof i

that the Replacement Crankshafts are-Adequate.

86. - LILCO has ?further. urged' that we - find the : replacement -

4

-36/- The imep can be-calculated from'LILCO Ex. P-35,-.the. dig--

italized data of~these pressure measurements.

Tr.1 23,601-03; 23,727 (Sarsten); 24,259'(Eley); LILCO'Ex.

P-35.

The County.' calculated the imep:from-these data and

obta'ined-anTimep of.approximately'205,~or 91.3% of the full load rating of 225 bmep_at 3500-kW.

Tr. 24,256, 4

24,'258 (Eley).

The fact'that this cylinder was not developing full ~ power when the engine was' operating at'-

full' load indicates that the'other cylinders must have 4

been developing greater than' full power, i.e.,

greater than 225 imep.

Id.

The reported firing pressure measured in cylinder number 7 was approximately 1580 psi.

Id.

Had that cylinder been developing full power, its firiQ pres-sure would have been'approximately 1677 psi.

Tr.

24,256-57 (Eley).

Since the other cylinders were i

developing greater than-full' power, the_ firing pressures in those cylinders must'have been greater than 1677 psi.

Tr. 24,257-(Eley).

Assuming that all of these cylinders i:

were in perfect balance, the firing pressures in the cyl-inders would be approximately'l percent higher, or 1694

. pai.

^ e

~. -

. -. - - -.., ~....

...- - ~,..- ~..,_- _,,, ~ ~.

m.

-m---.~.--

_...... - -, - ~

k[q:

I.

.?

A

?

9 m,

4 m

g

+ s *:

w n

q:- -y L

~

L,

<'l.n

.)

,(:q ~

r d

c""

+

r

.q

~M / - '

' ~~

',5 q;

- B rankbh fts' a'dequate.' basedluponia ~ fatigue J analysis fit; has

~ (

~-

fperformed.

FaAAiperformed a fatigueTanalysis ofJtheYreplace-s M^

- y N:4 Ement crankshafts'and calculated anienduranceilimit factor-ofi~ '

E

dsafety'of 5'.48jforioperati'onfat full;1oad.- LILCO argues:that,a-

~

m.'

--L

~

factor ofzaafety;ofil.48 provides(suffic$.ent_' assurance that-the.

.g

~

?'

~

replacementicrankshafts?arefadequate'ifor their[ intended service.

.at'Shoreham; - Thel Staff ? contends': thatt FaAA's. calculated ~ safe'ty lfac' tor valu'e' is finsufficientfproof Jof-f the adequacy of f the :

-. crankshafts.

For the'reaNEns, stated bElow,?we. agree with;the-

~

I-

' Staff.

~

t 87.- Acfactorcof safety'is:anjaddisional margin of

' strength thati-is Ladded to a mechanical design to-compensate ~ for.

+

. uncertainties such astthe-service load, material: properties, stress. concentration factors and lifetime for the' design ~.--In--

general, a factor of. safety in endurance limit. is <the - factorf of ~

1 p

strength that the part or' design has over that which is required for.the part to' be expected to exhibit infinite life.-

f

. hether a particular safety factor value is acceptable or not W

depends in part on the' degree of uncertainties and the diffi-

.culty or-penalties-of adding additional strength to the design.

-McCarthy, ff. Tr. 22,610,.at.38-40; LILCO Ex. C-26 at 2, 4,

6.

. /

V1 t

u..

mg 5 -

A

= - - -

' {Ihl, 5'l.

.. Q

~

e:-

N f

DS

^

3+

Q ~~

~.

~

f+:;

j-fp,

-(

- ^ {

~

w

~

w 1

I88. 7FaAAIcalculated;ajssfety; factor of.'l.483by;comparinf the-endurance [ limit of(the repl'acementLcrankshaftsswithithe; ~

1 y

Jsiressesstoiwhich theyfare' subjected.

First,fFaAA computed?the;.

d fatress.-levels'in.theireplacement/ crankshafts from strais7ga'uge-

- ; test" data from-EDG.103; - Second,...FaAA computed tthe - fatigue i en-L idurance limithforfthhjoriginal crankshafts from;the, ultimate.

^

tensile}--strengthofthe~originalcrankshaftmaterial'andifrom

-strain (gauge test data.from EDG 101.- FaAA then calculated the~

i

^

fatigue endurance Llimit'of:the replacement crankshafts by:

-scaling the fatigue endurance limitiof'the~ original: crankshafts' upward to account for the-higher ultimate t' ensile. strength of Jthe' replacement crankshafts.- Johnston, ff.Tr.'22[610, Eat 36-38; LILCO'Ex. C-17 at 3-8 to 3-10.

LILCO claims that-FaAA's-

.1.48 safety factorivalue-provides sufficientlassurance that the 7

replacement' crankshafts are adequate for th$ir intended service in the EDGs because the. crankshaft's design and expected ser-vice are well understood.

McCarthy, ff., Tr.-22,610, at 38, 41; Tr. 23,030 (McCarthy).

89.

We agree with the Staff, however, that FaAA's calcu-

.lation of a '1'.48 safety factor is not sufficient proof that the Ieplacement crankshafts are adequate.

Sarsten, ff. Tr. 23,126, Lat 16.

Absent sufficient testing of the replacement crank-shafts that establishes their reliability at rated load 9

I.

f t

e

?

~~

.,-r

w,,T m y 9m-

~;w uw w

~ ~

s :: '

i -

A,7 T

X

+:..

',i'w,

~n;.<0:

y' %~

' +

x

~

m

~

+

s 7',

,~

4 p-m

,x f.

(3500/3900fkW),ithejassessmen't"offtheJadequacyfofjthe':

~

gs

~

should be based-onLthe.largeJamount of;~

3:

c

.,f' freplacement; crankshafts 7

'~

~

y'

' data" represented.byL;Nhe mppropriate::(cla'ssification Jsocietied 'I ww

frtilesiand their experience in 'the inlerpretation Lof /those'-

~

1 rules.'. --g. at 16 -17.1 LSuchjanJapproabh providesLa" conservative!-

+

3 asis'forLevaluating-thb; adequacy'~ofthe~replacementcrank-shafts.

M~. sat 17."

Given;an; accurate knowledge of a crank-shaft's material' ~ strength, fabrication process?andl fatigue en--.

durance limit'of the ma'terial for giv'enistress cycles, more.

Tconfidence can beEgiven to anLassessment of':$he adequacy of.

J 1

thaticrankshaftiusing the'-guidelines;of a classification soci-ety'rather.than.an assessment based'solAly upon'a:comparisonio'f the calculated-endurance ~ limit-with:the' measured stresses in

[

one' crankshaft'-(FaAA's approach)'.

Tr.:23,528-29, 23,548' i

.(Sarsten)r 24,193'(Eley and Christensen).-

t 90.

Further,'FaAA's calculated safety; factor value isI in-sufficient proof of1the' adequacy of the replacement crankshafts t

because it'is based'in part on approximate calculations, such i

as Sine's method and. Miner's rule (Tr. 23,403 (Sarsten);LLILCO j

+

t'

Ex. C-17.at 3-9, 3-10),3.1/ and its premises are. uncertain.

Tr.

4 j

c

{

37/

For example, to convert the measured strains in the re-..

]

placement crankshafts'into a representative stress state which' accounted for the simultaneous effects-of shear and 4

bending, FaAA~used Sine's-method to~obtain " equivalent 1-i l-(Footnote cont'd next page) 1 j..

67 -

t 1

' - -, + - -

+-e

--.-.....-.v,%,-,,-m.,mw.my cc.

...,--y,,--,

e+.,

x.

=

y 7,[.

.J )

.),f.

'r a

% - (p ;

_y3 '

e t

r

~

4 L-it

}

.3 -..

..T j

S

~

23,405R(Sarsten).

Indeed,^FaAA's: calculated fatigue' endurance;

~

211init[ whi$h'.iifs Jused I as Lan(input to its:: sa'fetyi factor ' calcula-4

_n

. tion, is based _;in large'part-upon the(failure ~ofLthe-original'.

crankshafts. /Although:theIfailuresof'the;originalfcrankshafts

~

'provides la data point from which al safetyE factor: can be1calcu -

Llated and. permits [some' conclusions'.to be drawn.about the1'

,. strength of the:repla'comend crankshaft,rth'ose' data'are not-'suf -

ficient to concludeithat'the' replacement crankshafts:are ade-

~

quate.-

Tr.'23,402-(Sarsten).

The-data reflect only'a' single'

~

point:of reference'.-'Sarsten, ff. Tr."23,'126, at 16;_Tr.

24,192, 24,242.-(Christensen). 'The failure of the original' crankshafts merely indicatesione point _on the'S-N curve =for a crankshaft constructed from a different strength material than the replacement. crankshafts.

'Tr.

23,402-(Sarsten).

91.

FaAA's calculated fatigue _ endurance limit' for the re-placement crankshafts also is heavily based upon the tensile

~

(Footnote cont'd from previous page) stresses."

Equivalent stresses are the " alternating and mean uniaxial stresses that'can be expected to give the same life as the given multiaxial stresses."

LILCO Ex.

C-17'at 3-9.

Having calculated these equivalent stresses, FaAA used Miner's rule (linear cumulative damage tech-niques)_to calculate an endurance limit for the original crankshaft.

LILCO Ex. C-17'at 3-10t Johnston, ff., Tr.

22,610, at 37.,

? L,i.

m Yu

~ ?'

~ s

~

c ;;

m y

1 kls -

t. ;-,

- JK_:[ : -

O:

I

,~

14/

[-

[strengkhi}ok theEcrankshaft material and~the/methohs'lused'-for.

- (

', 'ardiiingcat suchLyalues.E~TrJ 23,467P(Sarsten).3,8/'---In con f Itrast,ithelend'urancezlimit'. calculated by Dr..Pischingers(dich1 IF$AAidid'notLuse.as an!1nput'to.its: safety;factorfcalculation):

tak'es'into considerationLmany more factors:than.the tensile;

' strength,Lincluding:the grain 4flowi..the degree'of-forge work,-

4 Lthefsurface) roughness and various factors concerning the rela- '

-tive dimensionsfof the replacement crankshafts.

Tr;o22,768, $

~

'22,791-(Pischinger).-JSignificantly,-FaAA's calculated 1andur-ance limitifor the replacement. crankshafts.(39.2 ksi)iis much higher;(i.e.,1much;1ess; conservative)Lthan the endurance-limit-calculated by Dr. Pischinger-(25.4 kai),' even thoughlthey used

+

the same value.for the ultimate-tensile strengthLof4the crank-1 shaft material..nTr.- 22,990-94,, 23,007,';23,045-7 (Pischinger);-

Johnston, ff. Tr. 22,610,'at-37. :When Dr. Pischinger's calcu-lated endurance limit is compared-with the calculated maximum 38/

FaAA calculated the fatigue' endurance limit of the re-placement crankshafts,merely,by'upscaling the calculated endurance limit of the original crankshafts to, account for the higher ultimate tensile strength-(U.T.S.) of the re-placement crankshaft material.

Johnston, ff., Tr. 22,610, at'37. ' In doing so, however, FaAA cited'103 kai'as the minimum tested U.T.S. of the replacement' crankshafts (LILCO Ex. C-17 at 3-10), when.in fact'two of'the replace-ment crankshafts have a lower minimum U.T.S. of 100.'777 kai. - LILCO Ex. C-12; Tr. 22,993:(Montgomery); 24,127 (Eley).

L I

69 4

-l 1

---.ve-s y g-e.-e,-,

m+-

,,w-=

.my-,-a-t,ys ew.,,

e* wwp, y,w,,--~%,-.,-g,..,

9ww

,,r.ny.-,-*,w.=rw'~ *-t aw 7 -v M e r*""-me

t

t-r****-*-rm'-T~~

o a

1+.

=

cv -

.).

}

W w

u:n

~ ~ _,

' 'h ?. *

."y s

^

-e_

_-.y

- 4 7

my

_ _L g-An-j;+1

q. _

m.

A

'~,

'['j-

,y.

G.~:

-;f,,

,s

~:

r i

w g,

l p.4

}

~

4 1

.l c

f.%

.s istressesfinithe;repla~cementicrankshafts-(24.6'ksi and~24~.9-ksi)-

x t

{(LILCO Ex.LC-17 at13-9 ;Tr.922l790-94/(Pischinger)),[thd marginL c

s

_m W-Tof? safety islsubstantially. reduced..'InLsum,fgiven Dr.

c s

-f Pischinger 's ' more [ conservative ' endurance ilimit' value, : and'the.

fabs'ence?of'anyevidence$to>indicateIthatnitksLnot?junit'aslre--

i 2

~1iable /as / FaAA's, we aref unable to conclude "that" the[12 48 f safe-J

ty$factorJcalculated)by FaAA4is inVfact'rel ableJ

~

92. IIn! addition,'FaAA'.s safety; factor calculation'does noti:adequatelyjtakeiinto(cons eration]thel fabrication process i

fo'r"the' replacement crankshafts.

Slab-fo' rged :and < hot-twi.sted' I

crankshafts such.as the replacementierankshafts willEyieldL anisotropic ~~(inhomogeneic) mechanical? properties throughout'the crankshaft.=

In contrast, crankshafts fabricated by the closed-forged method will have isotropic. properties,ui.e.,.:the.

+

. maximum mechanical. properties will exist.throughout the.overall.

i surface.. More significantly,fslab-forged and hot-twisted j ;

crankshafts will display a definite gradient.-.in mechanical l

j '

properties from centerline to surface.

Thus, some areas of l

slab-forged and hot-twisted crankshafts will display lower'me-chanical properties.

Bush, ff. Tr. 23,126, at 16r Tr.

23,153,.

l 23,173 (Bush).

4 1

i i

i.

h-

.I 70 -

ij' 4

-e m.;.... _ _a _.,, a a

...-...-._.._,..-.,__..,a_,...-

M' s

~ "

m

-"6. r.f.'a

~

"*h ls _

,F, 4

7 vi t

= +

o J aM

>lt 4,

j R

s QA M

+

=

, ~

jl

\\ l - M%_ g:' 4

+

?M c

'O.

-l J

l'~

i..

3

.o i;

193.;(AlthoughjLILCOfassertedithat;one ofJthelorig~inali n

r s.,

e

-..e E

ierank' shafts'did'notLappearjto have anisotropic'effectsJ(Tr.

4

~ <

q s

t

~

-:23,175'(Wachob)),ithereVisi. insufficient: evidence inithe? record 3 l

4

'todfind" conclusively thatithefreplacementLcrank' shaft's do not{

a LhEveanisotropicieffeck IIn-fact,Lthe. Staff recentlyLis' sued-a1

~

letter.= requesting: additional specificlinformationibout the re /

'placementtcrankshafts'Jforging(process,fthe locationalof the s

Etensile specimen's; relative.to; forged; surfaces,:the criteria:

used:iniselecting-and' testing'those'spe'cimens, the: uniformity:

of tensile properties through the'th'ickness'ofIthe crankshaft" and. the degree of anisotropy..

.Tr~.

25,365;(Berlinger).

+

i

' 94. -- ' Finally, as we-have already held, the ' safety-. factor-

' calculations;under the'IACS rules and the safety' factor'calcu-l-

lations performed by-the' ABS demonstrate that the replacement' crankshafts do not comply with?these. rules.

See discussion, l

.Section II.A.2, supra.: Unlike the ABS and the-IACS,'which as-e i

sess the adequacy.of crankshafts by calculating safety. factor o

values'and comparing those values against safety factor values'

.that were specifically derived through. experience with diesel i

engine crankshafts, FaAA compares-its calculated safety factor l

'value against general = safety factor values set.'forth in basic design texts.

These general values are applicable to a wide range of machine components and do not necessarily include 71 -

i l

I I

f I

i e+,

---.rpy r

+.,%-w ess+a,+-+,.

r-*--yf*+

y

p

,sv er

-e,-r.%-,.-erw.,e19-mwy-+-,ee + e v.r+ wn,, W e,,,

wee,%ge%-',,t--

g e, ew _p-e

.,w+-.,--M-at, y

p 1

+

i C ;,, gg

+

w

'i S m

q>

n w-3

,s x

a<

t u

?

crankshafts:such asithoseJin;the EDGs.'.McCarthy, ff;;Tr.:

522,610/at 1

0-41rj LILCO Ex. C 26 hTr1J 227895-99J(McCarthy). ;

4 Thusslwe have'no reliable basis'upon Which to' find lthat'the~-

'N

.MaAA comparisons:are' valid as3 applied;;to the replacement' crank-e

~~

~

,i shafts.f r

..c

~

m j 95.. ;In: conclusion, although1 FaAA'sl calculated ' safety: fac-J

~

2 tor value--has somaisignificance," we: lack' sufficient confidence ~

Linithis calculation to conclude:that(the replacement crank--

. shafts;are. adequate.

Tr. 23,548 (Sarsten)'. :Our;confidenceE s i

further diminished 1by'the failure offthe-replacement crank,

. shafts to comply [with the'DEMA recommendations as well.:as the

. rules of the' classification societies and safety factor calcu.

,.lations which'are based upon a more extensive bodyLof scientif-ic knowledge.about the' design of crankshafts.

Therefore, we find that LILCO has failed'to establish the adequacy of theLre--

placement crankshafts by a preponderance of the evidence.

i D.

Any Increase in the Fatigue-Endurance Limit'of the Replacement Crankshafts from Shotpoening is not-Quantifiable.

96.

A further issue of dispute among the parties is whether the shotpoening of the~ replacement crankshafts enhanced their fatigue endurance limit and, if so, Whether that increase is quantifiable.

We find that even if shotpoening enhanced..the fatigue endurance limit of the crankshafts, the increase is not t

72 -

'I I

6

, - - +.. -. -

,,n..,

,n,.7,-,.,--.-,n.,,.,.+,.<,-,,.,.prw._

.,c,-wu.-m,,

,, m w n _,.,_

,.,.,n.,r---,.m,

g;,$y v e,, ';

R.45 N ~

--y.

a7 =;,

' '?

^

, 9.c

?

1-@g Q;g

, Les.

^

4 q

,. v

~ _g yv

".~

3 y

mx

.'c'therefore,1 LILCO ( cannot Trely [upon < shotpoeningjLasf

,- [quantifiable.

.. w:

ha sisi ifor.{ seeking happrovaly o

$ g, 1

=

ithe'replacementjcrankshafts'3 l

A g -+,'

5

(

r~

- cYi.

'97.::The: crank?pinifillet r'egionsjofialljth'ree replacement?

m m-n crankshaftus were sh'otpoen'ed.. shotpoening'is.a surfacei 7'

+

~

,w

~ ' fcold-workingTprocess;that' produces a. shallowflayerLof residuall g.", ' Lcompressive: stress on:the7 surface.of the metal'being treat'ed.

~

Theiprocess.-generally consists (of the[ bombardment'cof the metali, surface with 'small beads; of metal-lpropelledby air 7 pressure at -

4 I

4' e

high1 velocity.

Anderson,-et al.', ff. Tr. 23,826, i atf 1331,f 136.,-

Theicrankshaft for-EDG:101 was.shotpeoned(once, by Metal Im t

provement. Company,atithe1Shoreham; plant,.while;.the' crankshafts-2 for.EDGs 102Jand.103 were'shotpeened;twice,.'once':byaTDI(in-Oaklan'd and,onceingain by: Metal Improvement. Company. cId. at-136.

98.

Although the Staff witness,'Dr. Bush, stated thatLthe shotpeaning of the replacement crankshafts-should have somewhat-enhanced their fatigue resistance, he could not quantify any' actual increase in fatigue resist'ance because certain' values were not unequivocably known. - Given sufficient information and 1-testing, it is possible to determine whether,shotpoening has'in fact produced a quantifiable. increase in the fatigu, endurance limit of a particular object.

In order to make any such f

4 p

k i

t i,,-. -,

-.5.---,-,4,,_.,,,,,

,...,+.v.,m.m-,-..,,-e,.,...,.-,,.,.w~,.-~~w.,,,m....

.,,.,...h,..,.

,...,..w...,,. - -

D

~ %: -

$B g p

m:' g '

E~WgA9",

< + +

X

~pg

,W.

y

_y;

a. &

>%'3 e

" ;Q

. [p

. gu.

gyhy

^

~'*

}~

}

a vo q

g

-g 1 4-b;wn a.'h $$: %x m--, %n;p y e ', -

'W ' ' tc

<l 75.

LW e

su-~-

m.

~f..L.

=

}

r-

,,.:

ey n' n,

.m Equantificationkonewouldsneeditoknow,Cforoezample,. thel' 5

. :~

a i1.

Ni y

e m

e.,

~

i

.:4<

~.,

s t "

O s maximum develioftorsionalestressesJand.their. distribution,Jthe;

.l F

y

y:,,

-9

" ^

y y'

" bendingj moments: andia stresses ',lwhother.those. stresses : are ?in'

+w y

f*

T-

~1 phase;orJout of phase with the torsionaN stiresses," as L'welpT.as

~

j'

~

[

w ithe s lavell of ! residual- ! st'resses l in,) and / condit1on' 'ofi lths ' cranki

,4

^*

N Cpin? fillets.: ; Tr. ' 23,152V+( Bush ).,:Another major l unknown vari-L i

r -

atile which 'mahces.quantification Simpossible fis_ thati the [ fab '

h e

erication process,forithe;repla.coment crankshafts,\\the' 1

d'

. slab-forgedLand hot-twi.stedimethod,imay have1 caused.a marked

,Thsian' isotropic effe"ct is' aJvery; manisotropic effect.. Id.

i u

+

pronounced change.in mechanical properties'throughouttthe Ethickness of!the : crankshaft' matierial; because of the' different degree offforge workiin certain~ areas.

Tr. : 23,153.\\(Bush). : 'In ~

l crankshafts, fabricated by1the' slab-forged and.(hot-twisted'meth.

od, the maximum mechanical properties'will,not. exist throughout-

.the overall surface.

Bush,:ff., Tr.-23,126,,at 16.-

l 4

99.

The FaAA witnesses agreed.that;any actual increase in'

~

the' fatigue-endurance limit of'the replacement crankshafts could not be assessed or precisely quantified: based on'the:

i available information.

They also' testified that assessing any-;

actual increase depends on certain factors that were unknown.

l l

In' particular, such an assessment requires a rather precise knowledge of the residual stresses in the as-machined fillets'

~

g

,i 9

9-74 -

l p

P

.-e--

,,......e.r.

,.,,,,,..,...,wd,.,_.,w,.,4w w,.

~~yr.,,,

,..~,,-rm--~w.w-e***.r-+eew-ew-v*erwetm----,omww w

-t,*-* as.e v e m-e m--- er--e

+

, ;9 :%n g-

- m,. W p ;A(, _...

- e; a'

s

._:n

^

c W ai.f ' ~i j ~d ', _ __ 'W s 9, -

- ~ 's t

- ie ~

t

~ E b/ 'l s4?

_p, m,~

'+

f p

[ {.'L,_

,s w-pk?.']

?

~'

s q

v 9

'bh

" ' ~

'?.

~

/ >..

m

, x 4

feL

_~;....

., l

'n sof;the"crankL_pinsJas[welllas?knosingcquiteiprecisely;the 6

T

. L y

L~.

.?,

P'

' L

, J surface conditions of :theffillets, j including {the (existence :of,

e

.a~

. w 4

- lanylmachinin.g : irregularities,m. and i other {unkn.owni factors. - : Tr.--

s

~r f 23i134. (Wells).a iAccordingjto LILCO's hitnessesknone lof
1. these x

lvariousifactors":could M' measuredf, whent'LILCO' receivedi the :

.....v te q

y y

? cranksh'afts. ' Tr.223l134j(Wills)U.3,,9/1 i i..t..

~

)

s

~

s100.$FaAhiit' elf could'notLsupport a quantification'of anyj s

,.'j' _.

r

.?

'i'ncrease "in ' the fatigu_eLendurance : limit 7from shotpoeningL.: Al -

M.

"though FaAA7 originally 1 stated infits; April 1984Jdraft-crank-l

~

sh' aft report that a' cons'ervative: range of~ values fortthe ex-L i

. Lpected! increase;in theifatigue' endurance' limit-of theireplace-t mentierankshafts from.shotpoening :was.'54 to 204,. the final: May.

j

-:1984 version.of'that report deleted that' reference and' attritsuted no numeri~ cal:-value to theialleged increasefin the~

fatigue endurance. limit.

Anderson, et~al.',

ff.-Tr. 23,826, at-

~

128-29; LILCO Ex. C-17 at 3-11'..

When FaAA' performed its quali2 f

ty assurance-review of.the April crankshaft. report,.it could not locate any documentation in the technical' literature or.any test data to provide'a basis for comparing the shotpoened i

l

-i

/

For example, Dr. Wells testified that it was "not'practi-39

[

cal" to perform x-ray diffraction, analyses of the residual l'

stresses because*of the' size of the crankshafts, whereas other measures would have required ~some degree of,.destruc-

j

.tive examination.

Tr. 23,134 (Wells).

1 f

l' b

i,-

e t

I 4

n-,,

.c

e. w d,es, +,, e, u S -n n,

.,,I.

,..n.,,.,,-,-n,,.w,..,,.m..,-,

,;.,,,+-mm.,,

,,n..

,,.p,,,mr..,,,,,-,,

r

w p

,.4, s n '

'mx i' M

W

, [.:: n M

ch?

~

r

,w b

b.h

- + 5 %~ i y p

?

r r@

z s*

j-S (.,

,m 7l[F '

- ig - *WW<

JW??

,. I Gim t

. 1s w > y; ;p:

s

>4

,4 2

s w

-a-

, v ~

.r z

J s

g m;

<v v'

q, m

J,: y

[',

e-

,. _. _. ; y :;;

m.

i g.

w 4,

... / ^_

m. " ",

y ~

F f'

'" freplacement" crankshafts:withitheloriginal?unshotpooned-1 W

f2 y

1 M

1: 1.1 m,

j s cranksha ft's'. ' (Thus W FaAAi wa's i unablei, to (.supportfany[quan.titative u

m,

.y

[p _

Nap' rov'endntiin ithe hfatihueienduran6e dimitiofithe DreplacementY s

~

1.

g i

f, Y'

k.hNrankshafts7from/shotpoening. ;Trs23[131}(Wells). $In fIch t rio ;

~

n' 'n

,=

,4, ytestsior; measurements ? have~? been ! conducted i to ? verify; Whether :

o

,g.

s shotpoeningi prSducEdIany increase in7theifatigue'endurancei ~

l l

.c c

,',y j liml't ! o'f[the i replac'ement [cranksha f ts. :Tr. 23,131d(Wells) M /U.

o Lo [...

51014iMr.;Burrel.l testifihd(on behalffofILILCO th'itfithe:

7 y

a t

4

-a # --

u 1

1shotpoening j of the f fillet $ are'asi of(the replacement ' orankshafts ;,

r o-

~F-r resulted jin' an:'increa'selofLapproximately 15.-204: in= than fatiguel l

'I+..

~ ~ -

~

lendurancerlimith JBurrell,'ff. Tr.023i122,'at',22.x sWe.give,non

.g,

weightito'Mr.!Burre11's-testimony.s(First$fMr.[Burre11's opin--

ionL was based :upon' his experience 'with fatigue tests' on differ--

t

'ent sizes ~'and typeslof cranksha'fts.

The largest crankshaft'forL

~/

Dr. Wells and Dr. Wachob both stated in their' written tes-40 timony that' they could not preciself: quantify, any amount of, increase in the fatigue. endurance. limit.of'the. crank--

shafts 'due":to shotpoening. - Theyfopined, however, t. hat the increase!is-significant and is "not inconsistent'with" the

~

15-204: range indicated by Mr. Burrell, Whose testimony we, address in the text... Wells and Wachob,Jff. Tr. 23,122, at 22.

Dr. Wells-testified that his opinion was.that~the in-crease should be'at leastilot and conceivably as high as 204 or 304 based on his' experience at Pratt & Whitney l Air-

~ craft.

Weigive little weight to these opinions.

Dr.

Wells' opinion was based upon his experienceLwith the ap-plication of shotpoening to components other than crank-shafts. for dieself_ engines. - Tr. 23,158 (Wells).

Di.

= Wachob provided no basis for his opinion.

)

O,

y i

U

n,

1 m

r

~ ' '

,~

!j W

[j

~.

g 3;

4 j

s s

....which?he hadVfatigue?testJdata, howevers was onelwith<a'journall>

l!

m-m.

. +

t

~ ibeasing'diameterof[6-1/UInches~./ITrh23,'l'35 - (Burrell)L IIn.

t o

- 'contrastb.the7 nominal? journal bearing 1 diameter oftthe':Shoreham1 -

q m,

1 replacement" crankshafts 31bl2 inches ~.: ChristensenTand Eleyi

~ pg*

Tff[Tr.l23,286,TatflO6-0.71 ? Mr.j Burrell ha'd no ' fatigue $ te.sti.

4

~

-dataion crankshafts asR1argelas thos'sDat'Shoreham.1 Tr.J23,135.

(Burrell).--

~

s 102. Next, with respectUto the" fatigue test data onIthe a

0 6-1/4 zinch crankshafti,. Mr. (B'urrell;testiflind' that the test was' Lperformed1about 5..-years.ago.by StandardjPressed Steel of' Jenkinstown',JPennsylvania', but.he did'notiknow'who-in'thatior-Lganization performed the testing.

Tr. 23,140 (Burrell).

Mr..

Burrell was told by Standard. Pressed Steel. that. the ~ test'showed a 17%' increase.in-the' fatigue endurance limit from shotpoening.

-Tr. 23,142'(Burrell).

Mr. Burrell did'not~know,.however,,

~

whether Standard Pressed Steel'had performed?x-ray-diffraction' on the test crankshaft before or after the' testing or'whether

'in fact any x-ray diffraction was performed ' at all.-

Nor did Mr. Burrell know what destructive tests were performed on the r

shafts. ' Tr. 23,143-(Burrell). 'Although Mr.'Burrell stated that the fatigue test involved running.a shotpeoned crankshaft and an unshotpeened crankshaft to failure and comparing the fa-

~

tigue rearlts, Mr. Burrell'did not know whether the parameters-i 4

p i

s

.,e-

,-,..-..,,--.-,r-.~,.-_m,.w,,

..v,,3,,

,._-e-o..,.*.,

.m-

...,..--e.

,.e,w.

,,,~mme,%,,.,,-.pr,y,,e.r-em

(gl PE v:cc a j)r p'{ -

t

-s.-

~..

(.~,.

+,

l3

)

i s

Y:

Nfithe tests-1wereiidenticklifor both cranksh'afts 6 even : though'.

(thepparameters.would have~to be7 identical)to-makeLa proper'cor =

~..

t relation., Tr.?23,144'(Burrell). LFurthermore,fMr."LBurrellidid.

~

not know the hhrsepower, tors'ionallvibration!characterihties or

~

C revolutionsiparminute,ofthe: engine [for.whichthe16-l'/4 inch-crankshaft'was inten'dedh other than-'that:it;was.a 16 cylinderi engine. 1Tr.L23','141?(Burrell)'.

r g

.103'.:The* testing' data.on'which Mr. Burrell(relied-were..

. containedLin'an. article he authore'd'.

Tr. 23,142E(Burrell).

Dr.. Wells testified that even :if. FaAA-had had -a copy of' Mr.

Burrell's' article when. preparing its May 1984 report on the re -

placement crankshafts, it'would;have been very-difficult for;

~

FaAA to support a finding thatithe shotpeening'had produced a percentage increase in the.. fatigue endurance limit based on the information contained in the article because FaAA-did.~not know in what manner the particular crankshaft test specimens-referred to.in the article had been machined.

Tr. 23,146 (Wells).

Furthermore,-the test results were relative only.

l Id_.

While the tests showed an' increase in fatigue strength from the as-manufactured unshotpeened condition to the final shotpeened condition, the as-manufactured condition of the test specimen'erankshaft'before it was shotpeened was not known.

Id.

1

,.l r

i

y

.x

~

W f J

- 104. Thus, Mr. BurrellfdidjnotLknow the typelof-informa -

tion 1whichLbothithe Staff.and LILCO agree is'.necessary. tog 3

r i

. quantify.any? increase in the fatiguajendurance limit., Asisuch,,

'his testimony thatfthe shotpeening increased the' fatigue.endur.

'ance limit'of theLreplacement crankshafts.by~'15-20% is

~

f

= unreliable.-

105. In contrastJ to' Mr. J Burrells f experience, TDIJ recom :

mended against'shotpeening the ' replacement' crankshafts, based.

upon its experience and-the experience of its metallurgical.

Econsultant that shotpeening would not'substantially; increase thc1 fatigue? strength of the. material.

County Ex. 10 at 2-5;

. _ County Ex. 51 at 4.L In addition, TDI was; informed'by Kobe

~

f Steel, Ltd., a Japanese manufacturer of crankshafts for TDI, that shotpeening crankshafts of'this size is "a waste of time."

~

County Ex. 48..

106. In sum, we find that there is insufficient evidence-in the record to conclude that shotpeening increased in'any significant respect the fatigue endurance limit of the replace-ment crankshafts.

Any such increase is not quantifiable on the basis of the available evidence, and thus cannot form the basis for any finding that the replacement crankshafts,are ade-quate.41/

41/

The parties also disagree on whether the first shotpeening of the replacement crankshafts adversely affected the (Footnote cont'd next page)

. i -

p.

7 - - -

I' g' _.

[:g~ f

>1 :

+:-

s.

^

.III. CONCLUSION:

7,_

A l107.: Based upon:all of the foregoing,_we; conclude that

,LILCO has failed to establish.by afpreponderance of'the evi-dencelthat the) replacement crankshafts in-the=Shoreham EDGs1arel

~

adequate'for operatingLat rated 11oads.

'We' hold,-therefore, m

'that LILCO haa failed'to establish that-the:EDGs' comply with

~

-the. requirements of<GDC 17.

Respectfully submitted, Martin.Bradley!Ashare Suffolk County-Attorney H. Lee Dennison. Building-Veterans Memorial. Highway Hauppauge,. New York-11788 6t).4 Y W' Lawrence Coe Lanpher Alan (Roy Diynner Joseph J.

Brigati Douglas J. Scheidt KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 800 Washington,.D.C.

20036 Attorneys'for Suffolk County (Footnote cont'd from previous page).

- crankshafts and, if so, whether those adverse effects were corrected by repeening.

We find that although the origi-nal shotpeening possibly damaged the crankshafts, any dam--

age appears to have been corrected by the second-shotpeening.

l

' i

y,, --

4;.;;ce

, y n

~

).

f

.4 ys

?.

,, ' ll W

. a:.

g. -

. g.

..t- ~ ' '[#~'

- ' - 8 il

.. s>'

~

[,1.? = ' g.

1 il.. f T

-]

w Fabian G.-Palomino.

~

-5,-.

Special-Counsel to thel Governor IF ExecutivesChamber,, Room'229

~ :.of the: State"of New York s

~

- CapitaliBuilding!

Albany,fNew York---12224.

Attorney ~for:iMario.M.--;Cuomo,-

Governor'of the Stata of::New York

~

l November-15,-1984-A

.1

(

e-9 e.

e 81 -

(

1 4,

y A;

'lp ;;by W

> 3; B

.(

^

3

, ~ y,,.

l?

4,,'

(

M

+ )l

'S

/

r

. UNITED l STATES'OFJAMERICA.

NOCLEAR REGULATORYLCOMMISSION s:

~ Before the" Atomic = Safety and Licensi'nq Board 1

[

~

)

JIn"the Matter (of-

).

1);

G...'

n' JLONG -ISLAND LIGHTING -COMPANY

)J DocketmNo.:50-322 0.LL '

.)

~

(Shoreham Nuclear. Power Station,,

)1 UnitEl)

=)E

-) :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE' I hereby certify 1that cople'sof SUFFOLK COUNTY ANDLSTATE oft NEW YORK PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF: LAW ON EMERGENCY-DIESEL. GENERATORS' (REPLACEMENT CRANKSHAFTS),1 dated Novemberil5, 1984,.

have been. served to:the followinglthis 15th day of November,~'1984-

- by'U.S.Email,:first class, by hand'when' indicated.byJone: asterisk,;

and by< Federal ~ Express when indicated by,two asterisks.

Lawrence J.

Brenner,-.Esq.'*

LMr. Jay.Dunkleberger Administrative Judge-New York'StateLEnergy Office' Atomic Safety an'd Licensing. Board' Agency.Buildingj2--

U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.

120555

. Albany, New York 12223 p

Dr. George A.

Ferguson'*

James B..Dougherty,.Esq.

Administrative Judge 3045 Porter Street,'N.W.

l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.-20008 School of Engineering Howard University Edwa rd ! M.~

Barrett, Esq.

l 2300 6th Street, N.W.

General Counsel.

F Washington, D.C.

20059 Long Island ~ Lighting Company L

250 Old Country Road Dr. Peter.A. Morris Mineola, New York 11501 i

Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Twomey, Latham & Shea-Washington, D.C.

20555 P.O. Box 398 33 West-Second Street Mr. Brian McCaffrey Riverhead, New York l'1901

.Long1 Island Lighting Company Shoreham Nuclear Power Company P'. O. -. Bo x. 618 :

' North -Country : Road Wading River,-New York 11792 l

q 5

L,'

F;

.,~,.4..

.--c. ~.-~m m... - -

~

4

-.o, g,+

< L-JoelfBlau,?Esq.

MHB1 Technical Associates'

i

+ New YorkLPublic~ Servi _ce Commission

~1723 Hamilton Avenue?

lThe Governor-Nelson A.iRockefeller

-SuiteLK"

' Building.

Empire: State Plaza

~

San Jose,: California"95125 Albany,-New York.-12223-

= Hon. Peter: F. : Cohalan

. Suffolk County Executive.

Atomic Safety and.' Licensing Board H. Lee lDennisonfBuilding.

y

" Panel' UlS.LNuclear; Regulatory; Commission'

-. Veterans 1 Memorial-Highway; i

Hauppauge, New York 4 11788

' Wash ~ing ton, L D. C. ~ -20555.

. Atomic; Safety and; Licensing ~-

DocNeting.and' Service.Section

..- Appeal' Board :

Office"of the. Secretary.

LU.S. Nuclear' Regulatory ~

U.S.-Nuclear! Regulatory Commission Commission' '

e-

-1717'H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20555 3

Washington,-D.C.

20555-

- Jonathan D.

Feinberg,sEsq.-

Richard J.. Goddard,lEsq..

Staff Counsel

.Edwin'Reis, Esq..

New York' State Public, iU.'S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Service l Commission Washington,-D.C.

20555

-3 Rockefeller< Plaza-Albany,eNew. York 12223 Stuart1 Diamond Business / Financial Robert'E. Smith, Esq.

New York. Times

- Guggenheimer E Untermyer.

'229 W.

43rd Street 80 Pine' Street New York, New. York 10036 New.-York, New1Yor'k 10005 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.-

Martin Bradley Ashare

-Regional Counsel-Suffolk County Attorney Federal Emergency Management H.

Lee Dennison Building Agency

. Veterans Memorial Highway 126 Federal-Plaza Hauppauge, New York-11788' New. York, NewtYork 10278'

- Anthony'F. Earley, Esq.

Fabian Palomino, Esq. **

Darla B. Tarletz,'Esq.

Special Counsel to the Governor Hunton & Williams Executive Chamber 707 East Main Street State Capitol, Room 229 P.O. Box 1535~

Albany, New York 12224 Richmond,' Virginia'23212 m

)

y e

l I

l l:

4 1,-

..~-.s.

,. - = +

--,%v

..me.

r

..-,--..r'e,.,..cy.

,-w,-,,

,[.>,

-,~,w,,,.w-v r wew*-w,

,.---wsw.

,-,--,w-r- -

~,me-

_m-.

v.

g

p; c

~

. Od e s ~ L. ; S t r o up,.: J r., Es q.--' * * -

E.7 Milton Farley, III,-Esq. *

.Counse1L-for LILCO'

' Counsel for'LILCO Hunton'-&' Williams Hbnton'E-Williams BBETtBuilding

.;2000 PennsylvaniaIAve.

.N.W.

P.O.cBox.'19230 333-'.Fayetteville Street rP.O.! Box 109~

Washington,LD.C.

20036

. {

.Raleigh,: North-Carolina '27602 i

6 Lug ph d:

Douglas' J. Scheidt KIRKPATRICK-& IOCKHART 1900~M Street, N.W.,: Suite 800

> Washington, D.C.--

20036 DATE:. November.15,;1984

..i -

1 t

e k

+

{'

D i'

!.,

ML20099D216

Text

Conclusions:

Navigation menu

Search