ML20100P226
| ML20100P226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham, Barnwell File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1984 |
| From: | TDI (TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.) OWNERS GROUP |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-I-005, OL-I-5, NUDOCS 8412140072 | |
| Download: ML20100P226 (4) | |
Text
~
.' )
a\\~
4 l
s' i
S-Cgf D
? @gy
--2
.~
a q 'A q
e ov t
o 2
bhI1EL STATES Gk AhEhICA 4
NOCLEAh REGULA10ht CohhISSIch (n
3 A1Gh1C SAkL11 ANL LIC E b b IhG ECAhL PAN
'O WASHING 10N, C.C.
4 5
i 6
O l
7 i
IN 1hE hA11Eh Ch :
l I
8 I
i TLI CIESEL GENEhATCRS OWNERS GhCbF 9
n j
v f
10 l
l 11 l
O 12 l
13
(
i 14 i
O 13 l
16 l
17 B412140072 840917 PDR ADOCK 05000322 g
18 t
19 The meeting in the above-entitled 20 matter convened, pursuant to notice, on July 11, 21 1964, at 8:35 a.m.,
in ene 22nd floor Conference 22 hoom of the hachovia bank Suilding, 400 South O
23 tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina, Carl h.
24 Serlinger, presiding.
25
'O Castu,. Canna.nBaum & c.hM,
..............s=....sa.~c w3wn.wou. a.mNCa'.420 3
J 124 9
1 standards.
J 2
hh.
hENhIKSth:
The question was:
What 3
- was the difference betyeen p
4 hh.
hat:
It has b e e'n said that that 5
analysis was conservative.
It got down to you 3
6 c41d the stress levels were rii g h.
ho w would they 3
7 compare?
Apparently you're very familiar with 8
l Lloyd's.
You're saying they're high.
hnat is 9
acceptable?
They'r higher than what would be 9
l acceptable by Llo yd ' z o-
- hat?
We have n o" b e' n c h -
10 I
11 mark.
u y
12 he have done, again, significants i
g 13 analysis by. differing methods that have been q
benchmarked against strain gaugs uvaluations,
/
14 i
against torsiographs, and benchmarked a g a i n s':.
a 15 l
16 talled crankshaft, which failures tell you an i
I T would 1 17 awful,l o t about a particular component.
l.
18 I
submit that that far exceeds what is typically 19 done on a crankshaft.
20 bh.
B E h'L I N G E h :
Also, Nhc does not 6
21 require the use of Lloyd's a nt*
specifically 1
22 references LLbA, and we would'not propose to 23 require that this design be compared to Lloyd's.
G 24 I don't know whether we really need any
\\
{
additional discussion relative to what standard 25 Cuttun. Kruwsbaum & E:ba, D
........ o-.... a.... : -4
. 2.....m.
..- ~e......,=
s s
w___-______-____________
)
i 1
to use as a basis for licensing or approval of it 2
these crankshafts.
}lns s
3 hh. SARSTEN:
Perhaps we got off on the 4
w r o ng foot.
The calculations should have been
)
5 _
performed for the true typical load levels the
'6 engines would see.
he would be outside the 7
discussion from t h e.
start.
8 hR. bERLINGER:
Let me get back to the I
on the thought which we're going to get 9
f question i!
10 a response from the Cwners Group, and that was:
9 11 What kind of information would be available I
12 i
relative to operation at lower loads as far es I
13 gthe crankshaft analysis, design analysis is
)
14 F
- oncerned?
]
15.
Mk. kAY:
I believe Shoreham has
)
16 a lr e ad y submitted their load and their plant 17 specific response as far as the loadings are 18 concerned, I believe.
I think you have MFsL's
)
19 response.
Coos it have the loadings that are 20 e x pe c t ed on the engines?
21 Mk.
CLONINGER:
Yes.
)
22 M R.
hAi:
has your question about the s
23 loads on the spec'ific plants or 24 MR.
bEhLINGER:
No, it was more
, 25 directed towards the torsional analysis.
\\
Cattbt. ]amwsbawrt & Ec[niwdst k
..........,........a,-.
o....
..~,x.....
)
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _