ML20100P172
| ML20100P172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1984 |
| From: | SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-I-010, OL-I-10, NUDOCS 8412140045 | |
| Download: ML20100P172 (12) | |
Text
........
50-322 at QSC /o g-S c - J </
g-sc U3 SUFFOLK COUNTY, 7/
/R4 f
SC-Y Z~- S e 'f2 2db f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r\\
h Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bo t c
4 m
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 1).
)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S EXHIBITS TO. JOINT DIRECT TESTIMONY ttRftfetM* N CRANKSHAFT EXHIBITS 10, 24, 43, 48, 51-53 VOLUME 3 j BU8LIAS REGULATSET CONNIS$10R s
Decnes no 66-3'M emow na. n.J0 All '/9 48) Sl, S3 la the natter et - l Il C0 l
A Staff ME NfilllD Appucant
. RECilVf D f latervenet
/
EIJECTED Cent's Ott'r Centsa.ter aggg /O-/-y/)
Other Od&N[p 'r
,,,g,,
......e,yd7 8412140045 841001 PDR ADOCK 05000322 P
PDR l
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
)
In the Matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 1).
)
)
)
t INDEX TO THE ATTACHMENTS AND EXHIBITS TO THE JOINT DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT N. ANDERSON, I
PROFESSOR STANLEY G. CHRISTENSEN, G. DENNIS ELEY, DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH AND RICHARD B. HUBBARD REGARDING SUFFOLK COUNTY'S EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR CONTENTIONS i'
VOLUME 3 SHOTPEENING EXHIBITS 10, 24, 43, 48, 51-53 10.
Deposition of Gerald Edgar Trussell, pgs. 62, 45-48, 107, 111-113 i
24.
Deposition of Maurice H.
Lowery, pgs. 1, 15-16, 62 i
43.
Deposition of Woytowich, Blanding, and Giuff ra ( ABS) pg s.
1, 80-81, 93, 98-99, 112, 163-165, 167-168, and Exhibit 3 to the Deposition i
)
48.
Letter from Kobe Steel, Inc. to Greg Beshouri Concerning
]
Crankshafts with Fillet Cold Rolling
{
51.
EDCRF-46109G - Need for Rework of Shotpeening i
52.
Deposition of Paul R. Johnston, pgs.1, 39-49 53.
IOC on Diesel Crankshaft Fillets, Peening 1.
~h. 6 3
.m.s i t 'x
,xy
g
'g 1-
'l y
!J 2
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND AND LICENSIM ARDi 2,4, I P(9 4
~
3
---o0o---
y s-A 2% _
4 In the matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY,
)
(Shorenam Nuclear Power
)
6 Station, Unit 1)
)
)
7
)
DOCK ET NO. 5 0-3 3 2-OL
__________________s_____________
8 9
10 11 DEPOSITION OF GERALD EDGAR RUSSELL 12 MAY 7, 1984 13 VOLUME II, Afternoon Session 14 15 15 17 REPCRTED BY :
1J DadCTA WARNOCX, C.S.R. NO 4732 Ls 20 2 J.
22 23 TCOKER & AtlT*.
24 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 3 681 MARKET STREET, SUITE 925 23 SAN FRA;!CISCO, CALI?0RNIA 94105 415/392-0650 26 l
27 2g COMPUTERLEED TRANSCRIPT
\\
FREDERIC R. TOOKER KEMBLE ANTZ
--,.,-e,-
---p.
a
.-,n
j 45 1
A.
Yes.
2 Q.
And what is that name?
3 A.
Shot peening.
4 Q.
Did Delaval recossend that the replacement 5
crank shaft be shot peened?
6 A.
No.
7 Q.
Did Delaval recommend that the replacement 8
crank shaft not be' shot peened?
'9 A.
I don't recall.
10 Q.
Who was responsible in your organization for 11 supplying the replacement crank shaft to LILCO?
12 A.
Supply -- can you give me the question one more 13 time?
14 4
Q.
Who was responsible in your organization for 15 the supplying of the replacement crank shaft for LILCO?
16-And it may be more than one person.
I am asking who.
17 A.
As to the supplies, the parts manager.
18 Q.
Yes.
Who was responsible for giving the 19 recommendation as to whether or not the replacement crank 20 shaft should be shot peened?
21 A.
I was.
22 Q.
And do you now recall what your recommendation 23 was in that regard?
i 24 A.
My recollection is that I recommended against 25 shot peening.
26 Q.
Why did you recommend against shot peening?
4 27 A.
The detailed drawing for that part did not call 28 for shot peening.
L TOOKER & ANTZ 681 Market S treet San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
46 1
Q.
Who prepared the detailed drawing for that part?
2 A.
I don't know.
3 Q.
Was it Delaval who supplied the detailed 4
drawing for that part?
5 A.
Yes.
6 Q.
Was there any discussion within the Delaval j
7 organization concerning whether or not the detailed 8
drawing should or should not provide for shot peening of 9
the replacement crank shaft?
10 A.
Yes.
11 Q.
What was the. asis for the conclusion that it 12 should not contain the requirements for shot peening?
13 A.
The basis for that conclusion lay in an opinion 14 that mechanical improvement by shot peening did not 15 substantially improve the fatigue strength of the crank i
16 shaft.
17 Q.
Did it improve the strength of the crank shaf t 18 at all?
I 19 A., Yes.
20 Q.
Are there disadvantages to shot peening the 21 crank shaft?
1 22 MR. SMITH:
You are talking about the specific j
23 shaft in question here, I assume?
24 MR. DYNNER:
Yes, right.
j 25 THE WITNESS:
No.
i
)
2,6 MR. DYNNER:
Q.
So as I understand your
)
27 testimony -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- there are J
28 no disadvantages to the shot peening in this crank shaft, 3
TOOKER & ANTZ 681 Market Street San Francisco 94105 415/302-0650
--.-_.-,_._-w-
. ~, -., -.,,.
,.-m,, _,,, _., _ _,
,__y_,__.,_.,r_-.
-..., -.., ~ ~ _ _.-.. _,,,.,.. _.. -.,
47 1
there was an advantage in that it somewhat increased the 2
strength of the crank shaf t, and yet you recommended 3
against shot peening; is that correct?
4 A.
That's correct.
5 Q.
On what was that recommendation based?
l 6
MS. TARLETE:
Asked and answered.
7 MR. SMITE:
I will join in that objection.
8 MR. DYNNER:
Q.
Aside from the fact thqt the 9
detailed drawings did not call for the shot peening.
10 MR. SMITH:
The question has been asked and 11 answered.
12 MR. DYNNER:
I don't think so.
13 THE WITNESS:
What is the question?
14 i
MR. DYNNER:
Q.
The question is:
On what was 15 your recommendation against shot peening based aside from 16 -
your prior testimony that -- when I asked the question 17 previously -- that it was based upon the fact that the 18 design drawings did not call for shot peening?
19 MR. SMITH:
Well, note my objection to the form 20 because I don't think that was -- I think the record will 21 show that that was not the only basis against the 22 recommendation that the witness has already testified to.
23 THE WITNESS:
The recommendation against shot 24 peening was based in part on, A, the experience that shot 25 peening did not provide a substantial improvement in the 26 fatigue s,trength of the shaft, and in part on a 27 discussion with, : salieve it was, P,rofessor Wallace.
28 Q.
Well, what did P rofessor Wallace have to say L.
TOOKER & ANTZ 681 Market Street San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
m DU 1
about the shot peening?
2 A.
I'm going to have to paraphrase the thing, but 3
I believe Jack ' indicated to us that the shot peening 4
technique is section sensitive and since we were involved 5
here with a heavy section, the improvement would not be 6
substantial.
7 Q.
What does "section sensitive" mean?
8 A.
I would like to give an example that would 9
provide a comparison.
10 Shot peening a thin piece of steel of the same 11 specifications of the. crank shaf t would substantially 12 improve its fatigue strength while applying the same 13 surface improvement technique to a thick section, like,a 14 crank shaft, would not provide a substantial improvement 15 in the fatigue strength of the piece.
16 MS. TARLETZ:
Could I have that answer read 17 back, please.
18 (Question and answer read.)
19 MS. TARLETZ:
Thank you.
20 MR. DYNNER:
Q.
Mr. Trussell, what do you mean t
21 by a substantial improvement?
22 A.
Something more than five percent.
j i
j 23 Q.
Did anyone disagree with your recommendation
}
24 against shot peening the replacement crank shaf*.?
i 25 A.
Are you asking for a. specific name?
26 Q.
Anyone.
27 A.
Someone did.'
l 28 Q.
Who?
5 TOOKER & ANTZ 681 Market S treet San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650 1
4
.,,_-.,~.,_.,,.,__,.,,_,m,,-.---..,w
,r,,..-,_,.._,_,,_,...-,y_
107 i
1 Q.
Overheating means where the temperature exceeds 2
that which is normal for operation at that power level.
3 A.-
I don't know.
4 Q.
With respect to the A3 piston, what is the 5
Delaval design figure for the side load on the piston 6
skirt?
7 A.
I don't remember.
d 2
Do you know approximately?
9 A.
No.
10 Q.
Is that number documented anywhere?
11 A.
I believe it is.
12 Q.
Where?
13 A.
Design department.
14 Q.
By design department, you mean the design group IS in the engineering cepartment?
16 A.
Yes, I do.
17 Q.
Is that one of the design parameters for the AE 18 pisten?
19 A.
I don't know.
20 2
Who do you think wculd know the ansder to tnat 21 question, Mr. Trussell?
22 A.
Mr. Lowry might know.
23 Q.
Did Delaval test the AE piston before supplying 24 it to customers in the field?
25 A.
I o.
26 Q.
To waat customers did Delaval supply the AE 27 model piston?
28' A.
Kcdiak Electric Corporation.
LILCO.
I believe b
TOCKER & ANT 2 681.4arket S tree t San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
111 1
say it in his own words -- my understanding is that the 2
witness, Mr. Trussell, will not be available for 3
deposition past 5:30; is that correct?
4 MR. SMIT 3 That's correct.
5 MR. DYNNER:
I have esked that the witness be 6
available to go on this evening and that request is 7
denied; is that correct, Mr. Smith?
8 MR. SMITH:
Well, I wish you wouldn't put it in 9
question and answer form, but you are accurate.
10 MR. DYNNER:
All right.
And I further 11 requested that since we started late, that is,10 :00 12 o'cicek ratner tnan 9 :30, we go at least for another half 13 hour1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> until 6:00 o' clock and, that was denied.
14
- ta. SMITH:
I think it is one statement.
I am 15 not willing to go vast 5:30 tonignt.
The record will 16 snow we began at ten o' clock this.orning.
17 HR. DYNNER:
Thank you.
18 Q.
Trussell, does Delaval have a expected life for 19 tav AE piston?
20 A.
N o.
21 Q.
Do you know what the expected life of a 22 component of a diesel engine means?
2J A.
Yes.
24 Q.
Have you estaoliched oxpected life for any 25 otner comp'nents in the 34 series engine?
26 A.
n'o have come.
27 Q.
Wnat does expected life mean?
20 A.
In my o; inion taat la -- the expected life of v
T00 dea & ANTZ 601 :tarke t S tecet San Francisco 94105 415/392-0650
112 1
the component is that life that component gives before it 2
has to be replaced.
3 Q.
And as f ar as you know, that is Delaval's use 4
of that tera also; is that correct?
5 A.
Yes, I belie ve so.
6 Q.
What components does Delaval have an expected 7
life for in the A4 engine?
8 A.
I don' t know that I can name them all.' To give 9
some examples, I believe we have espected life on valves, 10 piston rings, bearings, fuel injection nozzle tips, 11 possiuly cylinder liners.
12 3
Is there an expected life for cylinder heads in 13 the R4 engine?
14 g
A.
To the best of my knowledge, no.
15 Q.
ifall, you have not established an expected life?
16 Does that mean that lhe component is expected to last for 17 the full life of the engine itself?
18 A.
Yes.
19 Q.
Is there an expected life for the cylinder 20 block of the R4 engine?
21 A.
No.
22 Q.
Is tnere an expected life f or the engino base 23 of the R4 engine?
24 A.
No.
25 u.
Is thoto an enpocted life for the replacement 26 crankshaft codel for the DSR 48 engine?
27 A.
No.
23 Q.
What is the ex uctea life of the DSR 48 engines c
EJ TOCK ER & ANT" 6d1 ;iarket Street San reancisco 94105 415/392-0650
~
113 1
at Shoreham?
2 A.
40 years, I believe.
3 Q.
Does that 40 years postulate any level of 4
operation per year?
5 A.
I don 't know.
6 Q.
Is the life of the engine expected to be the 7
same whether it operates not at all or operates d
continuously for 40 years?
9 A.
Say that again, please?
10 Q.
I said, does it make any difference in the 11 expected life of the engine whether it doesn't operate at 12 all daring 40 ywaru or whether it operates continuously 13 for 40 years?
14 A.
Yes.
15 Q.
Does Delaval have some standard expwetations 16 for enc life of the engine at all aside from the 40 years, 17 enat is to say, in terms of its operation during those 40 la years?
19 MR. $2 TITH:
I don't think I understand your 20 question.
I object to the form of question.
See if you 21 can repnrase it.
I am not objecting to your inquiry into 22 this line, but see if you can repnrase the question.
23 MR. DYUNER:
All rignt, I can see.
24
- tR. SMITH:
The objection in it's 25 lacom sehoosiole.
e 26
.4R. DYNNER:
To Counsel.
27 MR. S; TITH:
At least at a minimum.
23 ilR. DYNNER:
We ha ven 't heard from the witness C
100 DER 4 ' AN7I 681 ihrket Street San reancisco 94105 415/392-0650
'