ML20100P226

Intervenor Exhibit I-5,consisting of Transcript of Tdi Owners Group 840711 Meeting in Charlotte,Nc.Pp 124-125

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

~

.' ) 4 a\~

s' l i

S-D Cgf

- .~

? @gy --2 o e a qq 'A -

v t

• o 2 '

bhI1EL STATES Gk AhEhICA 4

- NOCLEAh REGULA10ht CohhISSIch (n 3

A1Gh1C SAkL11 ANL LIC E b b IhG ECAhL PAN

'O 4 WASHING 10N, C.C.

5 ,

i 6 '

O li 7 IN 1hE hA11Eh Ch :

l I

8 I

i n 9  ! TLI CIESEL GENEhATCRS OWNERS GhCbF v j f 10 l l

11 l O 12 l

13

( i 14 i O 13 l

16 l B412140072 840917 17 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 Castu,. Canna.nBaum & c.hM,

'O

..............s=....sa.~c w3wn.wou. a.mNCa' .420 3

J 124 9

, 1 standards.

J hh. hENhIKSth: The question was: What 2

3

• was the difference betyeen ,

p 4 hh. hat: It has b e e'n said that that analysis was conservative. It got down to -- you 3 5

c41d the stress levels were rii g h . ho w would they 6 ,

3 7 compare? Apparently you're very familiar with 8 Lloyd's. You're saying they're high. hnat is l

9 acceptable? They'r higher than what would be 9 acceptable by Llo yd ' z o-  ; hat? We have n o" b e' n c h -

10 l I

11 mark. u _

y 12 he have done, again, significants g i 13 analysis by. differing methods that have been q

14 i benchmarked against strain gaugs uvaluations, /

a

, 15 ,

against torsiographs, and benchmarked a g a i n s':. '

l 16 talled crankshaft, which failures tell you an i

1 17 I

awful ,l o t about a particular component. T would 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

\

25

{

additional discussion relative to what standard Cuttun. Kruwsbaum & E:ba, D . .. .. . . . o- . . . . a . . . . : -4 s

. 2 . . . . .m. ..- ~e.. ....,=

. . . , . . . . . . s

-- w___-______-____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _

) .,

i 1

to use as a basis for licensing or approval of it 2 these crankshafts.

}lns s

hh. SARSTEN: Perhaps we got off on the 3 .

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

9 f question on the thought which we're going to get 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?

] '

Mk. kAY: I believe Shoreham has 15.

) 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.

) M R. hAi: has your question about the s '

22 23 loads on the spec'ific plants or --

24 MR. bEhLINGER: No, it was more

, 25 directed towards the torsional analysis.

\

k Cattbt. ]amwsbawrt & Ec[niwdst

..........,........a,-.

o .... ..~,x .. ...

) ,

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _