ML20102B610

Requests That ASLB Convene Conference of Parties in Bethesda,Md on 850301 to Determine Whether Impasse Re Settlement of Diesel Generator Litigation Surmountable.Lilco Will Have Counsel & Corporate Representatives Present

ML20102B610
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/28/1985
From:	Twana Ellis HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Brenner L, Ferguson G, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#185-803 OL, NUDOCS 8503040190
Download: ML20102B610 (13)

Text

$b3 .

CXXETED H UNTON & WU) BEAM S 2000 PCNNS,LVANIA AVENut. N.W.

P.O. 8 5 9 M M P f 'M vosc.s,... ...as, . o..o.esas WAs u tworow. D.C. 2o000 e . . .. .. . a u c

..c-mo=o. .. in.. assia ~ < = v o.. = = w v o.. .o .

,e s...o. ,,co..o.. ,.o. o.. .ae o MFIC' 0F SECRE TAA e , eta.~o~ e n., ..o - .,oo c8HylCf. "'o=

,,..... ..... . ,0 .. reuesoNepggg$tteS'icH en ......<o.~o......

. . ....... .. ..........c. . .....,

~o.,om............ ..<...o~...........

'=" ~;;n.;=-"a' . -

. . . . . . . ~ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

February .-.28, - 198 5 ,

7

.o.......

.ost c-.im ...Do t no.o '

9 .No m.tLLE. ,8 Nas E S S E E 2,.os

, ELE a. NE vo3 Sa Roo -

,iLE seo.

Ot.EC,os.L*eo 8o2 99-BY HAND Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq.

Dr. Peter A. Morris Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judges U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OTKUxman

~

gags Washington, 20555 D.C.

OL

Dear Judges:

The parties are at an impasse with respect to settlement of the diesel generator litigation. LILCO believes the Board can be helpful in determining whether the impasse can be overcome. At the conclusion of last Thursday's hearing, the Board indicated that the parties could be in touch with the Board in this event.

Tr. 28256. Accordingly, LILCO requests that the Board convene a conference of the parties in Bethesda on Friday, March 1, 1985, at a time and place convenient to the Board. In addition to counsel, LILCO will have corporate representatives present. If Friday is inconvenient for the Board, perhaps this matter could be taken up on Tuesday afternoon prior to commencement of the hearing.

LILCO has advised Mr. Reis of LILCO's desire to have a con-ference of the parties on Friday and Mr. Reis has indicated the Staff's willingness to participate in such a conference. I have advised Mr. Dynner of LILCO's intention to seek such a conference.

Attached is a copy of LILCO's proposal. Also attached, at Mr. Dynner's request, are copies of correspondence relating to LILCO's proposal.

Sincerely, 8503040h9085022805000322 5" ^ ""

.1.f/A g a -

i T. S. Ellis, III l

l Attachments cc: Service List O3

't '

1 c C

(:

HuxToN & WILLIAMS 707 s'Ast M.ip. Srpsst P. o. d.c z is s a m R es wowo,V aosx A e3e1s ....... ..

e..o ..= ww i4 mes.ws,

p. o .

. .. v e. .. = s.i,, ...

......o.e..... ...e

......e.o.on i. e os.

.o.e.. 's t ., v ,. .

,ts...e= .o s .. .o...o

. Ts6apa0Ns God.7ee a2eo Twx 7,o . . .. . oo. ..... . .. . . .. .

................. .. u . .... .o..

'";*"'n ',r. .".'.* " ........g........

......a..............

m... .........

..-......** , , . . . 24566.3 February 22, 1985 .. . . ., .. ., ,.. . . . . 8 3 6 VIA TELECOPIER Alan R. Dynner, Esq.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N.W.

8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Diesel Settlement Dear Alant In response to Judge Brenner's suggestion, we discussed the possibility of further diesel testing with the highest levels of LILCO's management. As a result of those discussions, we are authorized to send you the enclosed settlement proposal. As it reflects, the Company is willing to conduct additional diesel testing and in-spections. Any commitments on LlLCO's part, however, will only be made if we receive aoourances from all parties that successful completion of the tests and inspections will completely resolve :all outstanding diesel issuso.

We believe that the atta:hed proposal forms the basis for just such a comprehensive settlement agreement.

We look forward to hearing from you no later than Tuesday so that we can pursue negotiations immediately and be in a position to report to the Board by the and of the week.

Sincorely,

.;*  ?

f <f 2 n f'I , 1e,L'O T. S / Elti6, III Anthefny E'. Earl , Jr.

221/765 Enclosuro cc (by telecopior):

Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Bernard M. Dordonick, Esq.

Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

f .

l '

( (

Elements of e Diesel Generator Settlement

1. LILCO will agree to perform an additional endurance run on DG-103 at 3500 KW for a period of time sufficient to 0

result in the machine having experienced a total of 3 X 10 cycles at or above 3500 KW. The purpose of this test is to demonstrate that the diesel crankshafts are capable of performing their function, even assuming worst case instrument errors and the operation of cyclic loads which the County now claims will cause the diesels to exceed the current qualified load of 3300 KW. This test will be performed using in-plant instrumentation to control load at a median value of 3500 KW. Variations of +/- 100 KW will be permitted.

2. LILCO will agree to perform an inspection of the DG-103 crankshaft after the endurance run. This inspection will be limited to the highest stress areas of the crankshaft connecting rod journals.

3. The criteria for the acceptability of the endurance run will be the acceptance criteria used for the previous endurance run. .

4. LILCO will agree to perform surveillance procedures on the DG-101 and DG-102 bloc 4 tops throughout the life of those diencls to monitor crack initiation and growth, if any.

9.

i.

( (

5. LILCo will agree to withdraw its request that the Licensing Board make findings on the adequacy of the diesels The Board will be asked to limit its at 3500/3900 KW.

approval of this settlement agreement to the quaiified loe.d rating of 3300 rd and a short term load rating of 3500 KW.

This provision would be without prejudice to LILCO's right to ask in the future for approval to increase the long term load rating above 3300 KW based upon the record of this proceeding.

6. Successful completion of the endurance run and associated insp-.ctions will be deemed confirmation that the TDI diesel generators meet the requirements of GDC 17 and are acceptable for full power operation of the Shoreham plant.

7. Pending complocion of the endurance run, SC will agroo that the TDI diesel generators are adequate for low power operation up to 5t power based upon the already completed endurance run of 3300 rd and the substantial inspection and analysis of the diosols performed to date. This portion of l

the agreement will be effective ircodiately.

8. Based upon poin: 7 above, LILCO will agroo to

( withdraw its request for an exemptiun from CDC 17 and the parties will cease and dosist from all litigation associated with the exemption request.

ss KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M S31ET. N.W.

WASHINGTON D.c. 2003. own toefoi PtAcs soston. m oms N 000 44W ($13 945800 0 1434 secERG, Avgas m ac a ma one .n ma w n. noi Oct 3744t1:

1300 0UVBA sV11aC4 February 26, 1985 nrrievum,rr inu wineau crow.,aaena m:> wum (202) 452-7044 (BY TELECOPY)

Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main street Richmond, Virginia 23212

Dear Tony:

We have reviewed LILCO's prcposal for a settlement of the EDG litigation and are disappointed that it does not appear to be serious. The proposal fails to address the County's concerns, which are well known to LILCo.

The crankshafts do not meet cigssification society rules at 3500 kW. Operation for only 3 x 10 cycles is insufficient to prove the reliability of the crarkshafts at that level, as shown by testimony in this proceeding as well as by the number of hours the EDGs operated before their criginal crankshafts failed.

LILCO's proposed additional testing ignores issues of instrument error and sufficient margin to cover additional loads operators could erroneously add during a LOOP or LOOP /LOCA event. It appears to call for testing for only about 220 hours0.00255 days <br />0.0611 hours <br />3.637566e-4 weeks <br />8.371e-5 months <br /> at a median power level as low as 3300 kW, taking into consideration instru-ment error (+ 100 kW) and test tolerances (+ 100 kW).

The LILCo proposal also ignores our concerns with the cracked blocks of EDGs 101 and 102, since it again selects EDG 103, with the replacement block, as the vehicle for the testing.

We have other problems with the proposal as drafted, but need not discuss them at this point given the proposal's non-respon-siveness to the basic issues in the litigation. If, after

KIRKPAT1UCK &. LOCKHART Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

February 26, 1985 Page 2 reflection, LILCO makes a sericas and responsive settlement proposal, as we believe was suggested by Judge Brenner's repeated comments to LILCO's counsel, such a proposal would be considered by us.

Very truly yours, Alan Roy ynner ARD/dk cc Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

a -

o C- (-

HUNTox & WILLIAus

.. 707 LAsT MA 8 stacET P.O. Som isss

.e.v, p.m RIoNxoatn. VIRoIN1A BO918 vs.v.sn.

0Ai ,ws.w =. w. ... a....v.=we w..wam etow . c. . .. .

m.w 'O... m.w v..g los,e

..b.Pnene .....s....

..s.Paom..eg...o ..o.

TE6EPMONE Oo4 788.S2OC m. a . ,.

,,... ............ Twx.7io...e co.,

.n,.....

..... . . . u..

n.............

=";t.'.".;;lt"** , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

... G . . February 27, 1985 . ., .J..*4I . ." "..!,..... . . ...

m ... .... .. . . . ........

. . . . . 24566.3

. . .. .. . . .. . . . . . a 3 BY TELECOPIER Alan R. Dynner, Esq.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N.W.

Eighth Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Alan Your response to LILCC's settlement proposal reflects a studied effort on ment discussions. your part to avoidthat The suggestion anythemeaningful offer was settle- not se-rious is completely unnecessary and counterproductive. More-over, your characterizations of the terms of the offer are inaccurate and misleading. Finally, it is also significant that your letter contains no cov terproposals or suggestions.

Contrary to ypur assertion, enere is substantial basis for choosing 3 x 10' cycles for additional testing. As you know, Regulatory Guide 1.109 requires testing of diesels for 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> at a continuous rating and two hours at a short term rating, a ratio of approximately ten to one. Applying this rationaletoLILCO'spropesaltouse3500Kgasanoverload rating leads to the conclusion that 1 x 10 cycles' constitute appropriate testing at 3500KW. LILco h offered to test up to a total of 3 x 10gs gone further cycles. and it Further, is also significant to note, 16-21) in the reopened proceeding reflects,as Dr. Bush's 3 x 10 testimogy cycles(pages is the. upper bound of the values normally used for the high cycle fatigue limit.

Your claim that 3 x 106 cycles is inadequate because the a original critical crankshaftr. failed after similar testing ignores consideration. Endurance testing is intended to

A e

~

(- (

HUNTox & WILLI AM8 Alan R. Dy'nner, Esq.

February 27, 1985 Page 2 -

demonstrate that crack initiation will not occur'. LILCO has committed to inspect the highest stress areas of the crank-shaft tiated.following testing to confirm that cracks have not ini-You vill recall that when LILCO inspected the origi-nal crankshafts that had not failed, evidence of crack

- initiation was readily apparent. Thus, the testing proposed by LILCO coupled with inspection following the test is ade-

. quate to demonstrate that cracks will not initiate at 3500KW.

Your suqqestion that the testing may be conducted at a median level of 3300KW is also incorrect. As you know from testimony, instrument errors are less than t 100KW and are likely to be random in nature. More important, although the operators are given a 1 100KW centrol band, they will be instructed to maintain the median reading as close to 3500KW as possible.

Your assertions the County's to the contrary, LILCO did not ignore block concerns. The purpose of endurance testing is to demonstrate tnat cracks will not initiate.

Once cracks have initiated, as they have in the DG 101 and 102 blocks, further testing to the fatique endurance limit is not meaningful. What tion analysis coupled with LILCO's commitments for surveil-is mesning lance of the block cracks. I should add that the DG 10' bicek has been tested for 209 hours0.00242 days <br />0.0581 hours <br />3.455688e-4 weeks <br />7.95245e-5 months <br />, essentially 3 x 10E cy-cles, at 3500KW.

Thus, fur:her endurance testing on the DG 101 and 102 blocks would be unnecessary and unwarranted.

to Judge LILCO's settlement Brenner's comments- proposal is serious and responsive Given the impasse between the parties, we believe the best course of action is to' ask the Board (see Tr. to28,256).

become actively involved in settlement discussions i

To that end, we intend to submit the set-tlement proposal and We will, of course, make the related correspondence to the Board.

it clear that any settlement discus-sions before the Board are without prejudice to our respec-tive positions in the litigation. Please let me know by the close of business today if you have any objection to this course of action.

\ _ ,

. C C H usTox & WILLI A>ts Alan R. Dynner, Esq.

February 27, 1985 Page 3 In any eventr.let me close by noting LILCO' remains open to any reasonable suggescions from Suffolk County concerning settlement of the diesel litigation.

Sincerely yours,

/s Anthony F. Earley, Jr.

cc: Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

bet Dr. Joseph W. McDcnnell W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

T. S. Ellis, III, Esq.

Brian R. McCaffrey Bruce E. Germano 0

KIRKPATRICK 6. LOCKHART 193 M # 3 3 ,N.T.

gAmasyN38,D.C.$EM es sammt mms somm,uAem 1enne M4M9 sin MNe W 8 ""U 14WmICEELA M nummunseeen ausnan

' Jet 2Nellt im ema smase February 27, 1985 mtunaenu mn samn amer: sat meana ata men (202) 452-7044 (EY TELECOPY)

I Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. ,

Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535

707 East Main Street l Richmond, Virginia 23212 l

Dear Tony:

'P c Jftur abrasive rept

~

to my letter of February 36. elearly

~trates that LILCO s so-called " settlement proposal" was ing more than a:nateurish posturing aimed at the Licensing

• i, is look at the facts. TheCounty,notLk first proposed settlement of the diesel litigation through a testing program. As you well know, we earlier stated that the crankshafts would be acceptable at particular loads if either they meet classification society rules (which they do not at or above 3500 l or71f they have been tested at the tr,,,3,value.of u such loads kW) for IT cycles (about 740 hours0.00856 days <br />0.206 hours <br />0.00122 weeks <br />2.8157e-4 months <br />) and been subsequently found to be I . free of defeats. We also said that the cracked engine blocks of diesels 101 and 102 could be acceptable for operation at particu-lar loads if one 9f those blocks were tested at the truc value of such loads for 10 cycles and been subsequently founTT6 hi' ave suffered no significant ligament er circumferential crack propa-gation and no initiation of stud-to-stud cracks. These settlement l offers have been "on the table" for'many months, and were recon-l firmed as open offers earlier this month on the record in the presence of the Board. Tr. 27,101s.27,ll3.

Has LILCO ever responded to these settlement offers 7 No.

Instead, in october of 1984 LILCO chose to test diesel 103, with its replacement engine bicek, for 525 hours0.00608 days <br />0.146 hours <br />8.680556e-4 weeks <br />1.997625e-4 months <br /> at a nominal load of l 3300 kW. Taking into consideration instrument error of + 70 kW, that test run conservatively was at only 3230 kW. LILCO~took credit for some 220 hours0.00255 days <br />0.0611 hours <br />3.637566e-4 weeks <br />8.371e-5 months <br /> of prior operation of diesel 103 with the replacement crankshaft and the original defective block which l

LILCO has since replacad.

i 7 ,

1 .

I X5XPATluCK 46 LOCKHART i

Anthony F. Ear 1 q , Jr., Esq. ,

February 27, 1985 l Page 2 l l

s

! l Before LILCO began that test run we strongly urged the Staff, which was acting as a "go-between" to try to arrange some settle-ment, to persuade LILCO to test either diesel 101 or 102 and at loads higher than 3300 kW. Our position, which I am certain was communicated to LILCO, was that because the replacement block of

diesel 103 was unaraoked, of a different design and of a stronger material than the cracked blocks on diesels 101 and 102, the test run on diesel 103 could not possibly resolve our concerns with the cracked blocks. We also indicated snat testing at only 3300 kw was risky because m. maximum load of 3300 kW had not been justi-fled. Because LILCO had maintained that the diesels were capable of safe operation at loads of 3500 kW to 3900 kN, we could not understand why LILCO was unwilling to put its theories to a test.

NoStaffrespondedthatLILCO,nottheStait,.hadselected

~ 3355 kW as the maximum load for testing, and that the staff had determined whether such a maziams load was justified. The 5 'said that diesel 103 was to be tested because greeks on the ibmen't of the other diesels would preclude strain g e measure-f' the can gallery areat however, the staff actnewledged that those measurements could be taken in 9nly about ten hours.

There was no reason for not running the 10 cycle test on diesel 101 or 102, except that LILCO must have been afraid of the consequences.

On February 22 LILCO sent us its settlement proposal, purportedly "in response to Judge srenner's suggestion." This proposal did not mention, much less address. the County's con-tinuing settiament offer, despite Judge Brenner's comment about the County's offer. Tr. 27,113. Moreover, LILCO's proposal 7 overlooked Judge arenner's questioning regarding testing at 10 cycles of diesels 101 or 102, and his statement that if LILCO l

belleves the diesels are acceptable at 3500 kW, why doesn't LILCO l "put your money where your mouth is and run it at that load." Tr.

I 27,098. See also Tr. 27,117. If LILCO had cared to respond to the countyTs oYYer in a meaningful way, these comments would have put into context Judge arenner's saggestion that you discuss with the " highest levels" of LILCO management practical steps that LILCO might take to settle the diesel litigation. Tr. 27,111.

j Sut aside from the LILCO proposal being unresponsive to Judge Brenner's comm9nts, it was also unresponsive to the County's concerns, for the reasons summarised in my letter yesterday. For

! the sake of clarity, we will respond briefly to the arguments in l your letter of February 27.

1

i MRMFATWCK f61oCKHART Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

February 27, 1985 Page 3 .

First, as to the 220 hours0.00255 days <br />0.0611 hours <br />3.637566e-4 weeks <br />8.371e-5 months <br /> of additional orankshaft testing, we do not accept the Regulatory Guide 1.104 twenty-four hour test as an applicable standard for crankshafts that fail to asst classification society rules. The original crankshafts on your diesels ran hundreds of hours longer than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before they broke, second, Dr. Bush's profiled testimony has not yet been sub-jected to cross-examination. We believe his analysts of crank-shaft failure modes is faulty and not supportable. Dr. sush and l

the Staff witnesses previously testified that the7 crankshafts should be acceptable at 3500 kW only if tested 10 cycles at that load.

'96134, inspections of suspect orankshaf ts after testing is no l

he9stituteforadequatecrankshafts. If eracks initiate and prop-in a crankshaft during a Loop /LOCA event, your inspections

$.J have been useless. LILCO's own witness, Dr. NoCarthy of

.y ute Analysis Associates, testified that there would be only'a

.3 short time between crankshaft crack initiation and the severing of

• the orankshaft (tr. 23,009) and that there is little purpose to be served b'y periodic crankshaft inspections. Tr. 23,065.

Fourth, your letter confirms that your test would be at a

" median" level, would allow operators a '+ 100 kW control band,"

and would disregard instrument errer of +"100 kw. Hence, the test could be performed at a true value of onTy 3300 kw.'

Fifth, your statement that testing the cracked blocks of diesels 101 or 102 would not be meaningful is absurd. It is based upon LILc0's specious " cumulative damage analysis," which we do l not accept. Opiously if one completely accepts that analysis, testing would be superfluous. Let's put the LILC0 theory to a real test. The County was willing to test its theory concerning the origin of can gallery cracks (over LILCO's objections), and we

were proved wrong. Why won't LILCO "put it9 money wher_e its mouth

! is"? Test one of the cracked blocks for 10 cycles and we will all see whether or not your theories are correct. LILCO's refusal to carry out such a test speaks loufer than all of LILCO's words.

Your letter closes by stating your intention to submit the i LILco proposal and our exchange of correspondence to the Board.

l We are airsady before the Boards tnat's what this litigation is all about. If LILCO really wanted a settlement, LILCO might have responded to the County's long-outst'anding settlement offer. You

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

m__

ls .

, s.

l KRIFAT1UCK & LOCKHART Anth'ony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

February 27, 1985 9 age 4 l

l might have given us a proposal wnich responded to our concerns.

You might have suggested we discuss the issues in person or by telephone. Instead, you sent one non-responsive proposal and one l intemperate letter.

In our view, taking theso matters to the Board will accom-riish nothing in the way of furthering a settisment. We cannot stop you from proceeding with your ill-conceived plan, but we will only discuss your " proposal" with the Board if the soard orders us to participate and if such discussions are on the record.

The County has settled most of the issues in the diesel litigation. We settled our contention regarding pistons. We T. ed our contention on cylinder heads. We settled our concerns r'?

east gallery eracks. We have made offers to settle the crank-and cylindey block issues, based upon the testing of those eats for 10 - cycles et the true value of the loads they may

!f _ iense. We will continue to be ressenable, but we will not be

-* 4 by your theatrios.

..- 4 s The state of New York shares the views expressed in this letter.

Very truly yours,

/L Alan Roy sf ner[

Ano/dk cc '

Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

. _ . _ _ _ . - . . . . _