ML20100N634
| ML20100N634 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1984 |
| From: | Anderson AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-A-042, OL-A-42, NUDOCS 8412130280 | |
| Download: ML20100N634 (3) | |
Text
iv FvreffT FhN NA\\l l0 10$( ldN0fAS64 /]//b. med
~
c
'~
0 YO 1
that my testimony will be on a crankshaft, bearing, a skirt, t
2 fabrication, testing analysis.
I haven't been given any 3
details that I can tell you at this time.
4 0
So today you don't know what you are going to do?
5 A
Other than provide testimony on the area of the 6
diesel engine.
I'm gathering data by reading Failure Analyis 7
reports, gathering data by examination of the fabrication 8
procedures.
I presume I will testify in those areas.
9 0
What do you propose to do, just keep doing this for-10 ever?
l A.
- o, I don't believe the attorneys involved will allow 11 12 me to do that.
They will ask me to write something at some l
13 point.
14 0
But they haven't done that?
15
.t I have no request at this tire to document.
16 0
And so you have no schedule --
17 A.
At the present time, it was asked and ans\\ered, I am 18 not under a schedule or request.
19 0
Do you know anything about the difference between 20 the stress levels in the old and new crankshafts?
l 21 A.
- 10.
22 0
Do you know the range of that stress, maximum range?
23 g,
- o,
24 0
Between the old and the now?
25 A,
g;o,
26 0
Do you know whether or not the fatigue life of the 27 new crankshaft 3 is better or worse than the old?
28 l
A.
Indirectly, if it has been surface treated as we 04123302g0 841001 yDRADOCK0s0003yy PDR
+
7 6
- D
}
.y 's cia
\\
qsex
\\
1, Q
l e$
,ss,s$
\\
C s
,N Sh.
4 zg x-N
\\
\\
N h
m D.,j N
- >b5?
kg n
- s.;:y~ $
m
?
c.,,
% *" s NY
71 have talked about and was recommended by Failure Analysis, 1
1 then that should certainly improve fatigue resistance.
2 3
However, I said indirectly because I don't know 4
what the process is.
I can't evaluate how it was done and 5
how it was characterized and how it was controlled.
So I
(
6 can't tell you if it is going to do the job it is supposed 7
to do or not do the job.
8 G
Do you know whether or not Failure Analysis followed g
the same procedures in forming the opinion that the old 10 crankshafts were of inadequate design in determining that 11 I
the new crankshafts were of adequate design?
12 A.
- 'y belief is they did.
13 G
That is your belief?
14 A
I would review the material but my belief at this 15 point is that they did.
16 G
The only thing you can review is the reports that i
I 17 have been furnished to you by Failure Analysis.
Is that 18 right?
19 A
That is right.
And in order to confirm my belief, 20 l I would want to read those reports again.
But I believe I
21 that they were the same methodology.
22 G
Do you know whether or not the new crankshafts have 23 larger crank pins than the old ones?
t 24 A
I also believe that is affirmative, that they do have.
25 0
!! ave you asked anybody to go to Shoreham and see these 26 new crankshafts?
27 A
Yes, I asked that we go to Shoreham and see.
I 28 l 0
You asked Mr. Dynner to make those arrangements?
l w