ML20117F397

Summary of 840126 Meeting W/Tdi Owners Group for NRC to Present Concerns on Delaval Diesels & Tdi to Respond.W/O Listed Encl

ML20117F397
Person / Time
Site:	05000000
Issue date:	02/02/1984
From:	Olshinski J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20115A145	List: ML20115A141 ML20117F369 ML20117F386 ML20117F397 ML20117F482 ML20117F489
References
FOIA-84-275 NUDOCS 8505130226
Download: ML20117F397 (2)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:y h FEB 2 1984 l MEMORANDUM FOR: James P. O'Reilly ) Regional Administrator FROM: John A. Olshinski, Director Division of Engineering and Operational Programs

SUBJECT:

TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL INCORPORATED (TDI) OWNERS GROUP MEETING On Thursday, January 26, 1984, I attended a meeting of the NRC staff with the TDI Owners Group. The purpose of the meeting was for the NRC staff to present their concerns on the DeLaval diesels and for the TDI Owners Group to respond. Harold Denton was the senior member of the staff present. The staff presented their review of the U. S. Nuclear and Marine experience with TDI diesel genera-tors. Enclosure 1 presents an overview of this experience. Enclosure 2 presents a more detailed sumary of the DTI diesel experience. Region IV (John Collins and Ian Barnes) then gave a sumary of the Region IV experience with TDI. gives an overview of the 62 violations /nonconformances identified at TDI by Region IV during 1979-1983. Enclosure 4 is a more detailed listing of the Region IV experience. Enclosure 4 was not handed out at the meeting and is not public information at this time because it contains results of two inspections which are still being reviewed for proprietary information by the vendor.- Mr. Denton did indicate that the NRC staff was not prepared to go forward with a recomendation for licensing for any plant with TDI diesels. Mr. J. P. McGaughy is the Chairman of the TDI Owners Group, and he was their chief spokesman at the meeting. The Owners Group program, as presented, included resolution of known problems on the diesels, a design review and quality revalidation, and additional testing and inspection as required. presents an overview of the Owners Group program. The program appears to be extensive. The principal questions from the staff centered on what appeared to be an overly optimistic schedule for completion of the program. The staff requested that a formal submittal be made detailing the program. The staff also requested that reports be forwarded as they are completed rather than waiting until program completion to submit the reports. It should be noted that this meeting was a public meeting and was covered by the media. A transcript was taken during the meeting. is an internal memorandum assigning Carl Berlinger of NRR as the JDI Project Group Manager for purposes of resolving the issues related to TDI diesels. The memo'randum includes the TDI Project Group charter as well as the preliminary TDI review plan elements. It is my understanding that the staff wrote a Comission paper on tne status of the TDI diesels on January 25, 1984, but I do not have a copy of that Comission paper at this time. g51g684103o' BELL 84-275 PDR

James P. O'Reilly 2 FEB2 1984 I intend to give a copy of this memorandum, with enclosures, to the Senior Residents whose sites have TDI diesels. I also intend to give a brief presenta-tion to the residents cn this subject during the week of February 6,1984 ctg;NAL CGill? BY JOHN A. CL5HINSKI John A. Olshinski

Enclosures:

1. Overview of U. S. Nuclear and Marine experience with TDI 2. Detailed summary of the TDI Diesel experience 3. Overview of violations /nonconformances identified at TDI during 1979-1983 4. Vendor inspection history 5. Overview of the Owners Group program 6. Memorandum, Denton to Berlinger dated 1/25/84 cc w/ enclosures: R. D. Martin R. C. Lewis A. R. Herdt RII:D:DEOP JkDTshinski:aw 02/ 1/84

4! e nsco +# p o UNITED STATES E 3*' ' i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s y E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1 %, ' %.....f E Docket No.: 50-400 Mr. E. E. Utley Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Subject:

Request for Additional Information Regarding Transamerica Delaval Emergency Diesel Generators - Shearon Harris Unit 1 The enclosed letter from Mr. T. M. Novak to Mr. J. P. McGaughy contains a series of questions that the staff has developed regarding Emergency Diesel Generators manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI). Notwithstanding the attention being directed by the TDI owners group to these questions, we request that you ensure that they are answered specifically for your TOI diesel engines. This may be done by reference to an owners group report or by a plant-specific report. If you have any questions, please contact the Licensing Project Manager, Bart Buckley, at (301) 492-8379. Sincerely, c'f s /[/ nM& eorge W Knighton hief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure: See next page QL3 q 1/ 4// d /L - i p u-( w ?' r / /

Shearon Harris Mr. E. E. Utley Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 George F. Trowbridge, Esq. Mr. George Jackson, Secretary Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Environmental Law Pro,iect 1800 M Street, NW School of Law, 064-A Washington, DC 20036 Univeristy of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Richard E. Jones, Esq. -Associate General Counsel Dr. Phyllis Lotchin Carolina Power & Light Company 108 Bridle Run 411 Fayetteville Street Mall Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Travis Payne, Esa. M. David Gordon, Esq. 723 W. Johnson Street Associate Attorney General Post Office Box 12643 State of North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Daniel F. Read, President CHANGE Thomas S. Erwin, Esq. Post Office Box 524 115 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27514 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Bradley W. Jones, Esq. Mr. George Maxwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Resident Inspector / Harris NPS Region II c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Route 1, Box 315B Atlanta, Georgia' 30303 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Richard D. Wilson, M. D. Charles D. Barham, Jr., Esq. 725 Hunter Street Vice President & Senior Counsel Apex, North Carolina 27502 Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Regional Administrator - Region II Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Mr. John Runkle, Executive Coordinator Suite 3100 Conservation Council of North Carolina Atlanta, Georgia 30303 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Karen E. Long, Esq. Staff Attorney Mr. Wells Eddleman Public Staff - NCUC 718-A Iredell Street Post Office Box 991 Durham, North Carolina 27705 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

, Dr. Linda Little Governor's Waste Manacement Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 l l

j.asec.,,,'g '.* I i UNITED STATES i

• i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3g wasmNctoN. o. c. 2055s

%. y'/l ' DEC 2 ; ggg3 Cccket Nos. 50-416/417 Mr. J. P. McGaugby Vice President Nuclear Production Mississippi Power & Light Ccr;any I P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205

Subject:

Delaval Diesel Owners Group Activities Based on my discussion with you on December 22,-1983, in your capacity as chairman of the owners group for providing a unified response to concerns that have arisen regarding Transamerica Delaval emergency diesel generators, I am enclosing a list of NRC staff cuestions concerninc Delaval diesels. We would expect that the majcrity of these questions address generic concerns which the Owners Group could most efficiently answer. Plant-specific ouestions should be addressed by individual applicants. Copies of these questions will also, be sent to all affected utilities for their res::ense. Sincerely, t' r ' f. -l-. l ...: u,,.... ; k_ T. M. Novak. Assistant Director for Licensino l Division of Licensing \\

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure: See next page s WJaIm//n/ A w (g - u < y i rw r lN'

ENCLOSURE 1 REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DELAVAL DIESEL GENERATOR EVALUATION 3 '1.' Provide a copy of the procurement specifications to which the standby diesel generators (DG) were ordered. i^ 2. Provide the performance specification and inspections performed upon receiving the DGs to show that the procurement specifications were met. -3 Identify the materials used in the design of the DGs at your plant (specifically limiting components such as crankshafts, camshafts, pistons rocker ams, bearing materials, cylinder blocks, cylinder heads, pumps, turbochargers, etc.). Discuss how you assured yourself that design materials usedin the manufacture of your DGs were as stated and in accordance with materials described inthe TDI proposal, ourchase specifications, and confomance to industry standards.. 4 Does TDI have a program where parts / components, etc., are modified D (such that design margins bility and DG reliability?.are reduced) in order to improve opera-Does this apply to any DG parts at your plant? Provide a list of product improvements made by TDI i on your model DG and identify and justify which of these were not incorporated on your diesels. 5 If applicable, provide responses to all"NRC open items on standby DGs at your plant. 6. Identify sach of your DGs by model number and rating (continuous duty and short time overload) as purchased and discuss all tests (including torsional and other design proof tests) perfomed on the DGs that were observed (also those not observed) by yon at the manufacturer's facilities. 7 In addition to qualifications tests that were performed in accordance with regulatory guides 1.9 and 1.108,.and IEEE Std. 387, describe all other onsite tests perfomed on your DGs. 8 In addition to any deficiency reports already provided to the NRC, susanarize and describe problems encountered and resolved during installation and preliminary operation of the DGs. During this y period, were any unusual or abnomal operations observed such as L excessive vibration, noise, etc., and how were these conditions 7 corrected. Provide a detailed summary of the complete operating histories of your DGs.

O g. Tabulate ' compare and discuss differences in present actual DG loading to estimated loads included in the procurement specifications. Identify the magnitude of the increased load (if any) on the DGs and l describe how the increased loading affects the DG capability with regard to reserve margin. 10. If DG loading has increased from that specified in the procurement specifications, has it been necessary to upgrade the standby DGs l to meet the new load requirements? If DG upgrading has been l performed, provide a detailed description of the upgradir.ig accomplished on your DGs? What is the revised manufacturer's rating for each upgraded unit for normal continuous duty and short time" overload conditions? 15 the DG built-in design margin (aftec, upgrading) still within the recommendations of IEEE Std. 3c7: What is the reserve load carrying capability (margin) of your upgraded DGs: 11. In light of the problems that have been identified to date with Delaval diesels, discuss your plans to perform an internal visual inspection of each standby DG with regard to potential crankshaft and/or web cracks as. identified at the Shoreham Station and pro-vide a detailed discussion of your plans to perfor= any non-destruct-ive testing (NDT) such as dye penetrant testing, etc., as deemed appropriate to assure absence of cracks at these loca'; ions or at any other locations where cracks may have been observed. Discuss schedules for such testing. - 12.. Justify that the standby DGs at your plant are sufficiently reliable that there will be reasonable assurance that the facility can operate without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Your justification shouid include, but not be limited to the following: (1) quality assurance program conducted by you during procurement, manufacturing and receipt of your DGs, (2) your assessment of the TDI manufacturing process, inspection, and quality assurance program con-ducted during manufacture of your DGs, (3) your assessment of T3I responsiveness to problems that have occurred with your engines during installation and prelirinary operation including assessment' of TDI performance, (4) comparison of your DGs with all other TDI emergency. DG models now in use or to be used in other nuclear generating sta-tions (and other non-nuclear facilities) to show that the conditions and/or. failure modes present at Shoreham will not occur at your plant and at other nuclear plants; provide any supporting information that may be obtained from non-nuclear installations, (5) independent . review or verification of any TDI design calculations ~ for critical corponents of your DGs, and/or other means used to assure that your DGs are designed to DEMA standards and applicable industry codes and standards, and (6) your overall assessment of the DGs at your' olant with regard to TDI system design, operating experience to date, and system

3. -

dependability, availability and reliability to warrant operation of your plant. 13. P-ovide a tabulation of the number of times ( including each date of occurrence) voltage was lost at the emergency bus (es) re-quiring operation of the DG(s) including a brief description of each incident. In the above tabulation, also identify the loss of ~ emergency bus voltage due to loss of offsite power. 14 Shoreham has identified connecting rod bearing materials are not in accordance with design specifications on their engines. This I condition may also exist on all other TDI diesels. Provide assurance that correct bearing design and materials have been used in your engines. Should you find that improper bearings have been used in your diesels, state how and when you propose to correct this problem. 15. Most of the piston skirts in the Shoreham diesels were cracked. Because of a common cylinder design for all TDI diesels, it is presumed that this condition potential 3y exists on all other TDI diesels. Discuss your plans, including internal inspection or other means to determine the potential or actual existence of such cracking. In your response, indicate whether the design and materials are identical to those in, the Shoreham units; if not identify differences. Identify any corrective actions you have taken to date or plan to take. The staff understands that TDI has a piston design modification to correct the above problem. Are you aware of this and has TDI transmitted this service information to you? 16. What maintenance and/or operating practices have you developed to. assure optimum reliability of your diesel generators at your plant? 17 What surveillance practices in addition to those required by plant technical specifications have you instituted to assure optimum reliability of your d~iesel generators at your plant? e e 4 0 9

• -,---.,.-,,,,,.~--,-,--,--.,,,,.-.e.,

,..,---,-m-,,---.--_.---,,,._,e.--_----,---.. -_,,rg--

v e na s[f y)o, UNITED STATES ,. f j NUCLE AR RECULATORY COMMISSION M e w AsstNoroN. o. c. 20sss M... /,/ a February 27,19U g APPLICANT: See Enclosure 1 FACILITY: See Enclosure 1 - St:BJECT: REPORT OF FEBRUARY 16, 1984 MEETING BETWEEN THE NRC AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC. (TDI) OWNERS GR0tiP Or-February 16, 1984, the NRC met a' the Shoreham site with nenbers of the TDI Owrers Group to further discuss the Owners Group pecgran plan to establish the reliability of TDI d.esel generstors. In particular, several task descriptions outlining the componen* design review for several components were described to the staff. Enclosure ? includes the meeting agenda. contains the meeting transcript which includes an attendance list. '{kda O nk Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures: See next page Sl I'1% s --, u, j m h 1 Y b h]f }' ?

RELLEFONTE Mr. F. G. Parris Herbert S. Sanger, Jr. Mr. H. N. Culver Mr. William T. Watters Mr. R. A. Wallin Mr. Robert B. Borsun Mr.- Donald L. Williams, Jr. Resident Inspector Bellefonte NPS James P. O'Reilly CATAWBA Mr. H. B. Tucker William L. Porter J. Michael McGarry, III . North Carolina MPA-1 fir. F. J. Twogood Mr. J. C. Plunkett, Jr. Mr. Jesse L. Riley Richard P. Wilson Mr. Pierce H. Skinner North Carolina Electric Membership Saluda River Electric Cooperative, 'nc. Mr. Peter K. VanDoorn James P. O'Reilly Robert Guild Palmetto Alliance raren E. Long COMANCHE PEAK Mr. R. J. Gary N'cholas S. Reynolds Spencer C. Relyea Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Vr. H. R. Rock Mr. A. T. Parker D..vid J. Preister Mr.s Juanita Ellis Mi. James E. Cummins Mr. John T. Collins Mr. Lanny Alan Sinkin B. R. Clements GFAND GULF Mr. J. P. McGaugby Robert B. McGehee iTroy B. Conner, Jr. Mr. Ralph T. Lally V. Larry Dale M". R. W. Jackson M. Alan G. Wagner i

MIILAND Mr. J. W. Cook Michael I. Miller James E. Brunner Ms. Mary Sinclair Stewart H. Freeman Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. R. B. Borsum Cferry & Flynn Mr. Don van Farrowe Mr. Steve Gadler Resident Inspector's Office Ms. Barbara Stamiris Mr. Paul A. Perry Mr. Walt Apley Mr. I. Charak Jrnes G. Keppler PERRY Mr. Murray R. Edelman Jry SIlberg Denald H. Hauser ~ Resident Inspector's Of' ice Mr. James G. Keppler Donald T. Ezzone Ms. Sue Hiatt Te rry J. Lodge John G. Cardinal

RANCHO SECO David S. Kaplan Sacramento County Mr. John B. Martin Rrgional Radiation Representative Mi Robert B. Borsum Tiomas, Baxter, Esq.

Hrlen Hubbard Christopher Ellison Ms. Eleanor Schwartz Decketing and fervice Section Resident Inspector / Rancho Seco Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Alan S. Rosenthal Or. John H. Buck Ctristine N. Kohl Jr seph 0. Ward

R,.'EP B END F. Williar J. Cahill Troy B. Conner M. William J. Reed H. Anne P'ettinger W 'liam J. Guste 4 R chard M. Trov D":'ght D. Cham'berlain G etchen R. Rothschild J.:nes W. Pierce D'ris Falkenheinger Itn Douglas Lindsey-M. Linda 8. Watkins S*-fi DNDFRE P. Kenneth P. Baskin M. James C. Holcombe C'erles R. Kocher 0 rick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Alan R. Watts Mr. V. C. Hall Mi, S. McClusky Mr. C. B. Brinkman Mr. Dennis F. Kirsh M. Mark Medford Mr. Henry Peters Richard J. Wharton Charles'E. McClung ~ R"gion Administrator-Region V/NRC Resident Inspector, San Onofre NPS SHEARON HARRIS M. E. E. Utley George F. Trowbridge Richard E. Jones M. David Gordon Thomas S. Erwin Mr. George Maxwell Charles D. Barham M. John Runkle Mr. Wells Eddleman Mr. George Jackson Dr. Phvilis Lotchin Mr. Tr' avis Payne M-. Daniel F. Read Bradley W. Jones Richard D. Wilson Regional Adninistrator - Region II Mr. Robert P. Gruber Dr. Linda Little

pOREHAM M',w. M. S. Pollock H ard L. Blau Mr. ' Jay Dunkleberger Energy Research Group, Inc. Mr. Brian McCaffrey W. Taylor Reveley, III Rilph Shapiro Hr norable Peter Cohalan Mi rtin Bradley Ashare M19 Technical Associates S ephen Latham-Jrnathan D. Feinberg E; ra I. Bialik Rtsident Inspector H< rbert H. Brown Liwrence Coe Lanpher Ki rla J. Letsche J;mes B. Dougherty Mt. James Rivello Liwrence Brenner Di. George A. Ferguson Di. Peter A. Morris Le on. Friedman Ge rald C. Crotty Ftbian G. Palomino VJGTLE Mr. Donald Foster Mi. L. T. Gucwa Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Mr. Doug Dutton M:. J. A. Bailey E' nest L. Blake Mi. G. Bockhold, Jr. Mi. James P. O'Reilly Mi. William S. Sanders De ppish Kirland, III Jines E. Joiner 1

E-s l wt:P-1 i Fr.-D. W. Mazur Mr. V; Mani Nicholas S. Reynolds Mr. E. G. Ward - i Resident Inspector /WPPSS NPS. Mr. R. B. Borsum G.. E.. Craig Doupe Jack Martin Nicholas D. Lewis Mr.. Eugene Rosolie Nina -Bell-i e e -j i N l l l TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC. 4 EMERGENCY DIESEL GE'NERATOR DISTRIBUTION i Plant Docket Utility Shoreham 50-322 Long Island Lighting Grand Gulf 1, 2 50-416, 417 Middle South Energy San Onofre 1 50-206 Southern California Edison Rancho Seco 50-312 SMUD River Bend 50-458, 459 Gulf States Utilities Shearon Harris 1, 2 50-400, 401 Carolina Power and Light Catawba 1, 2 50-413, 414 Duke Power Perry 1, 2 50-440, 441 Cleveland Electric Illuminating. Bellefonte 1, 2 50-438, 439 TVA Comanche Peak 1, 2 ' 50-445, 446 Texas Utilities Services Vogtle 1, 2 50-424, 425 Georgia Power Midland 1, 2 ' 50-329, 330 Consumers Power WNP-1 50-460 Washington Public Power l 4 e ,-_,m -_.._-_._,--_-.m.._w._ .._y_.- AGEEA 2/16/8I4 N.R.C./T.D.I. 0.G. MEETING l. INTRODUCTION W.J. MUSELER II. STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT D.G 0 G. EFFORTS A) SHOREHAM C.R. STATUS M. H. MILLIGAN B) V-16 COMPONENT SELECTION & DRQR STATUS J.C. KAMMEYER III. REVIEW OF GENERIC COMPONENT IASK DESCRIPTIONS A) CRANKSHAFTS C.W. WELLS B) CONNECTING ROD EEARINGS G. ROGERS C) CYLINDER HEADS C. WELLS /G. ROGERS Iv. DISCUSSION OF N.R.C. COMMENTS / QUESTIONS ALL V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULING /IOPICS W.J. MUSELER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION - TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL INCORPORATION Docket No. DIESEL GENERATORS ? t' Location: Wading River, New York Pages: 1 - 82 Date: Thurscay, February 16, 1984 4 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i coon ne,.nm 1923 i Sarm..N * $wte late N/4 3 4 q gj

• ssaiarea. O C. 20006 D [p v9 y s.M:129).19M

FILIPOUR arl 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOPY CO.vPISSION 2 3 4 SHOREHAM NUCLFAR POWER STATION - TRANSAMERICA .5 DELAVAL, INCORPORATFD DIESEL GENERATORS 6 7 8 Shoreham Public Information Center Old Country Road 9 Wadino River, New York 10 Thursday, February 16, 1984 11 12 The Conference in the above-entitled matter 13 convened at 12:00 noon, C. Berlincer presidino. s_- 14 15 PRESENT FOR TFE NRC: 16 C. BERLINGFR 17 R. CARUSO 's is

e. 2URPer 19 A.

SPANO 90 C. SFLLERS 21 R. WRIGHT 22 M. MILLER 1 m R. GIARDINA 24 H. SHAW l 25 P. ESFLGROT1! l L _

ar2 2 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY PARTICIPANTS: 2 W. MCSELER i 3 M. MILLIGAN 4 G. GISONDA 5 C. SEAMAN 6 J. MORIN 7 I. OSTROWSKI 8 D. LANKFORD 9 B. BEGIN 10 STONE & WFBSTEP ENGINEFRING PARTICIPANTS: 11 J. KAMMEYER 12 J. MURPHY 13 s. A. LEWCFIK 14 R. ANSTEY 18 W. BARANOWEK1 16 A. LORFTI 17 l V. KLO 18 W. SEARCY 19 30 MISSISSIPPI POWFR & LIGHT PARTICIP?.NTS: 21 F. GROGAN 22 BROOKHAVEN NATJONAL LABORATORY PARTICIPANTS: 23 I C. HOFMAYER 24 P. LOUZFCKY 26 A. HENRIKSEt.

f Cr3 2-A l J. HIGGINS 1 I l 2 M. SHEAF i 3 S. KARIMIAN 4 C. WAIDE 5 R. ISLFR 6 C. CZAJKOWSKI 7 FAILURE ANALYS[S ASSOCIATFS PARTICIPANTS: 8 G. ROGERS 9 C. WELLS + 10 11 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PARTICIPANTS: 12 B. BOULTON 13 \\- TEXAS UTILITIFS PARTICIPANTS: 14 M. LARGF 15 16 CLFVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING PARTICIPANTS: P'OT 17 E. O 18 EOUTHERN COMPAPY FFRV7CFS: 19 N. SANTORO 3D l 21 ALSO PRFSFNT: 22 A. DYNNAR 23 24 ~ 26 p

i 1rgl 3 l 1 EfEEEEElEgs i 2 MR. BERLINGER: I would like to open the meeting. 3 I apologize for the lateness of starting the meeting. You can 4 all write letters to U.S. Air and file a complaint if you 5 were inconvenienced as much as we were. 6 The purpose of the meeting, first of all, the meet - ing is being held between the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission 7 a Staff, its contractors and consultants, and members, partici-pating members in the TDI Diesel Generator Owners Gr3up. 9 10 This is an open meeting in which members of the public are free to attend as observers but we will n3t be 11 12 entertaining questions from the floor other than from Staff 13 or Owners Group people or consultants, including our contrac-v 14 tors. 16 MR. DYNNAlt: Excuse me, Carl. Is that -- are you 16 not going to follow the past practice at meetings of this type of 'at the end of the meeting permitting suffolk County 17 18 to ask any questions or make any comments they might have? HI MR. BERLINGER: This is a meeting open to the pub-30 lic. It is not a public neeting and I think you understand 21 that. It is a meeting to which you are free to atter d as an 22 observer. i I am not changing any past practices or pc,licies. I r ( 23 I am trying to enforce them better than I did at the last f' 24 meeting we had last week in Bethesda. ~ 2 MR. DYNNAR: The past practice has been at the end

a gi 4 f I 1 of the meeting there has been an opportunity for Suffolk 2 County to ask questions or make comments. 3 MR. BERLINGER: I would ask that if you have any 4 questions that you would like to ask me as the presiding mem - 6 ber of the Staff, feel free to do so during an adjournment or 6 after the meeting but it will not be open for a broad dis-7 cussion as part of the meeting. 8 Are there any other questions? 9 Okay, as far as the agenda, we will start out with 10 5 Bill Museler from the owners Group, and he will give us an 11 introduction to today\\'s presentations. 12 MR. MUSELER: There are copies of the agenda that 13 we have passed out. We have a few preliminary items we would v 14 like to discuss with the NRC and then Mike Milligan and 16 John Kammeyer will discuss the current status of the Owners is Group program with respect to the quality reviews and with 17 respect to the first V-16 engine and where that stands in the 18 Owners Group program. 19 We had hoped to have finalized the task descriptior s 20 for all 16 of the known problems today in order to give them 21 to the NRC, however it has turned out that that was not possi-22 ble However, in those area's where we are sufficiently well 23 advanced that we can with confidence give you information on 24 what is in these tas). descriptions, Dr. Wells will fill you i 25 in on that.

.irq3 [ 5 1 [ And clearly we will be available to answer any f 2 questions we can from you or your consultants. i-3 We did want to clarify, since this is a meeting l 4 with the Diesel Generators Owners Group and not just l the Shore-5 ham diesel generator issue, based on an NRC filing on the 6 Shoreham docket our understanding is that I the Staff currently 7 believes that they are not in a position to go forward in li - 8 censing hearings on Shoreham because it was on file on a Shore-9 ham docket until the Owners Group Program Plan is submitted 10 reviewed, and approved and until the 16 known problems are 11 submitted including their resolution or at least the proposed 12 resolutions and that is reviewed by the Staff. 13 We have -- I guess I have three questions I would 14 appreciate a response to. 15 One is, did we correctly understand the Staff's 16 position, because we have not had a chance to see the filing. 17. Secondly, does that position apply to the Grand i HI Gulf Station, because Grand Gulf has a license and is seeking Hi to go to full power. 20 And thirdly, does' that position apply to the other 21 units that are in litigation, specifically Perry, Catawba, 22 Comanche Peak and I may have left one out -- so I would appred 23 ciate it if you could first perhaps -- Carl, is that a fair 24 characterization of the NRC's position? 2 s, MR. EERLINCER: Let me try to state the posit;on i J

c-Arg4 6 l' I so that I think everyone will understand it. 1 2 At the January 26 meeting held in Bethesda, there i 3 was a statement made by Harold Denton of NRR. It basically 4 said that the Staff is not in a position to go forward with 5 licensing until the concern with regard to TDI diesels are e addressed. 7 The intersretation given to that remark is based 8 on the information tlat we have and the information we anti-9 cipate receiving, na'nely that there is, as part of the Owners 10 Group, a generic pro; ram which has been proposed and albeit 11 it has been presented at the meetings both on the 26th of 12 January and February 10. 13 The Program Plan proposes a method to resolve the L 14 issue with regard to reliability at the TDI diesels, both on 15 what I consider to be a short term and long term basis. 16 The short term basis would be a basis for taking I 17 licensing action initially in a shorter time frame and it 18 would not require th3 completion of the entire Program Plan, 19 which encompasses several different parts. 20 For instance, the Program Plan proposed by the 21 Owners Group proposes that to go forward with licensing on 22 a short-term basis 1. would be necessary for the Owners Group M to address the significant, the 16 significant questions or 24 concerns with regard to components or systems associated with 25 TCI diesel generatore, such as crank shafts, heads, bearings

.irgs t 1 et cetera, that in addition to resolving those issues, frer l 2 the standpoint of solution and implementation of a solution, 3 they would conduct and complete a test program which would 4 prove that those fixis were adequate to resolve the concerns 5 and to enhance reliaoility of those engines. 6 In additi>n to the resolution of the 16 known con-7 cerns and conducting a test program, there would be a commit-8 ment to conduct a de: ailed design review and quality revalid-9 ation program and alno the initial stages of that program ~ 10 would be completed, uhich would involve the screening of the 11 parts list to make component selections and the draf ting or 12 development of the task descriptions proposed to resolve those 13 issues. 14 That program is to be reviewed by the NRC Staff and 15 its consultants. The successful completion of that review and to the acceptance of that program plan would in essence form a 17 basis for going forward with licensing. 1 18 The overall program plan would involve the comple-18 tion of the design and. quality revalidation program but that is further down the path on the calendar and although you have 21 proposed schedules for that, that goes into the summer and 22 since licensing actions were upcoming in the near term, we 23 are pressing to complete that review of the pro.fram plan. 24 Unfortunat ely, the program plan has not been for-w. 25 mally transmitted to the Commission for its revtew and it is

l}' 8 1 presently scheduled, if 1 am not in error, for one week frc-2 i this Friday for sut r.ittal. Obviously, in order to cor due j 3 that review, we also have to have the task descriptions and 4 the reports that address the 16 known concerns i identified 6 concerns. 6 Now that is a generic position. The intention of ! 7 the Commission is to address the TDI question on a generic 8 basis. We are hard-pressed from the standpoint of Sta ff re i 8 sources to lie able 1o single out each of the licensees for 10 separate consideration, separate from the generic review. 11 However, if extenuating circumstances exist, and 12 a proposal is submitted to the Commission, it will be consi-13 dered as to whether or not to separate out individual licen b 14 sing. ' 16 So, does the Staff position apply to Grand Gulf? 16 Yes. And does it ap)ly to the other units? Yes. And'if, in 17 their individual casos, they feel there are extenuating cir-18 cumstances, then it would be necessary for them to take the 18 initiative and bring a proposal before the conmission l 8 '.MR. MUSELI R i You are really saying that if any 21 of the owners believe theyneedtopressonwiththeirlicen-I 22 sing, and clearly LILCO does, Mississippi Power & Light does 23 and I am sure the othar heavily litigated units do, that we 24 will have to provide some basis for you to consider us indi-i' 26 vidually, which is exictly what I don't think the NRC wants, u

~ 9 I 1 i 1 j. I don't think you wanted to P.andle this generically. I 2 Let me focus for a moment on the fact that, fer ex-3 ample, all 16 items have to be looked at and submitted prior 4 to your moving forward, not necessarily to allow licensing '6 but even to move into the litigation stage. 6 What LILCO had proposed, and I believe the other 7 owners would propose, in any cases where litigation is required 6 is for example when the crank shaft reports are submittt d e 8 that anyone who wants to litigate crank shafts should be able 10 to litigate crank shafts. 11 The Staff position, as I read it, is that even 12 though the crank shaft reports may be available, if the other 13 15 are not, then the Staff position is going to be to not \\-, 14 move into litigation at that po. int unless we make a separate 18 and individual case requesting you to on a utility by utility le basis. 17 MR. BERLI!iGER: I think my interpretation of the is filing on the Shoreham docket before the hearing board states 18 the approach or the opinion of the Staff, which says you 30 cannot address a small number of the technical concerns 21 go forward with the issuance of a license. It may be possible 22 from the standpoint of logistics that if there are 16 items 23 that are to be addressed, although not all of them are part 24 of the present contentions that we could go forw.trd with that 24 litigation or try to co forward with that 1 tigation tr 4 b

i 10 .l I li resolve those questions but the final conclusion necessary on 2 the part of the Sta'f as :: whether it can or cannot suppcrt 3 issuance of a license depends on the completion of our review.i. 4 I do not think the concern is whether or not I have a head 8 problem. It it a concern as to whether or not I have a diesel 6 generator problem and therefore I have to be able to reach a 7 conclusion with regard to the reliability of the engine to 8 provide its intended service. 9 Therefore, it would be necessary for the Staf f to 10 complete its review, albeit we could perhaps proceed with the 11 litigation but the final bottom line conclusion as far as 12 whether the Staff could support completion or support the 13 resolution of the issue of diesel generators will have to wait 4%- 14 until we have completed our review. 16 MR. MUSELCR Well, I think we certainly -- LILCO 16 understood and did not indicate otherwise in its filing that 17 the Staff would not produce a finding on a recommendation that. la the diesels were adequate for licensing before as a minimum 18 all 16 issues had been reviewed and I don't think anything \\ 20 in our filing suggested that we were asking anyone to do that. 21 What we were suggesting is that the litigation 22 on an issue by issue basis, the issue being are the crark i i 23 shafts adequate to be pursued and that we not wait until all 16 1 24 or if the Staff decided that the DR/OR was requa red, not wait 26 unt11 all 16 problems plus the DR/QR were all ccmpleted prior s_, I i l i i

it y s n 11 I i to starting litigation on one issue, recognizing that ) k finding that a Staffj 2 the crink shafts were okay does not mean a Staff, 3 finding that the diesels are okay. i 4 MR. - BERL3 !1GER: I understand. 5 MR. MUSE 1.ER: And right now that is what the filines 6 say and if that is applicable to the other units, we just neec 7 to be sure of that. We don't agree that is a prudent course. 8 We don't presume to tell the Staf f at what point 9 they can make a determination that the diesels are okay but 10 we do think that it is in the interest of time and economy 11 and just prudence to start litigating these issues on the ones 12 that are done. 13 We realize that another crank shaft report still N-- 14 has to be forthcominq before the crank shaf ts are available 15 but the current pos. tion is going to cost a lot of time to 16 all of the units that are waiting and with respect to whether 17 or not each utility needs to consider trying to make a utility 18 specific case for the Staff to review them, again the owners 19 Group will have to get together and discuss that but I think 30 we will certainly be asking the Staff to reconsider that posi-- 21 tion and to consider moving on to litigate on an issue by 22 issue basis recognizing that an overall finding cannot be madd 23 until you review enough to satisfy yourself that such a findI 24 ing can be made. 25 I think that s, is all I wanted to get discu, sed.

- a s..- 1: I I i 1-I do have before the folks whose hospitality we i j 2 are enjoying here really get mad at me, i I was supptsed to .en-3 tion earlier that we have a very strict fire marshall in this 4 area and there is no smoking at all in this room. They also 6 ask that to_the extent you have coffee, which is available in 8 .the back, that you please hold onto the cups. There is a 7 lot of - you know, typically we put them on the floor and a they tip over. These fellows have a limited budget and it is 8 likely to become a lot more limited in the next few days so 10 I really gequest that you be very careful with the coffee an c. 11 not leave the cups on the floor. 12 MR. BERLINGER: Bill, I appreciate your remark and 13 I will take it under consideration. N-- 14 MR. MUSELER: I appreciate that. 15 Okay, Mike', do you want to cover where we stand? 16 MR. MILLIGAN: We had given you a brief update at 17 our last meeting on the status of some of the Shoreham-specifj e 18 task descriptions in the design and quality area and I would 18 just like to bring those up to date a little more. 20 In the quality area, we have completed approximatel y 21 139 of 139 quality task descriptions written and approved. H The number has increased somewhat since last wetk. As these 23 l l-numbers all have a tendancy to increase slightly in the de-24 l sign area, we have 94 of 152 task descriptions written and s,,

approved, so we have made some headway in that area as well.

i

i l arg61 . Li f 13 i 1 In the area of inspections, as we have told yot, 2 j we do have the t;o. 102 engine done ftr substantial 1 i r.s p e c t; t - 3 per its schedule. Across all engines, we have completed in 4 excess of three quarters of the skid: mounted component revie 6 i that being piping - pipe supports, et cetera. 8 In the area of engine internals, we are approx-l 7 3 mately 70 percent complete on the 102 inspections, much less j e on the 101 and 103, although inspections are co'mmencing on s { 8 some of the peripheral of those engines. l l 10 Some good news to report. We have completed the 11 crank shaft inspection, the fillet inspection of the 102 18 engine in ' the No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 fillets and we have no indi-18 cations they are rejectable either by LP or eddy current. We 'I4 think' that is a significant point. 16 In the area of piston inspections, on the AE 16 pistons we have installed, we have completed inspection of 17 No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 pistons in the area of interest an.d again la no rejectable notifications have been noted and that is af ter End 1. 18 the 100 full power hoJr operation. 20 21 22 23 24 26 s l - --- - - - - --^- ^^

14 I =gc'a-1 Unless you have any questions, I guess that is 2 pretty much the stat:s. 3 MR. BERLIN lER: When you say you are 70 percent 4 complete, what major portion still -- the 30 percent -- what 5

is that composed of, as far as your inspection?

6 MR. MILLIGAN: I will need to talk to my task l 7 person. 3 Craig, do ou know what the outstanding items are in the 30 percent?- 10 MR. SEAMAN: Well, not off the top of my head. II There are a number of inspections still required to be done 12 on internal engine parts. 'We just had to wait for the I3 disassembly of the engine. to proceed on before we had L I4 access. I can't rec.11 them off the' top of my head, exactly 15 which ones they were 16 MR. MUSELE :: Are there any other inspections on 17 rotating components, or did we get all of those? 18 MR. SEAMAN: There are a few. We have somo ~ 19 inspections to do on the wrist pins, for example. There are 20 some inspections on 'uel tappits and guides and things like 21 that, but most of th< 1arge components are already done. 22 MR. MUSELE When do we think we will complete 23 the inspection on th: 102 at least? MR. SEAMAN I would have to say probably by the I ~ end of the week. l l l

l'. I 15 mgc 2-2 i MR. MUSELI.R: End of this week? 2 MR. S E A '.A: : Right. Pess;bly extend;ng into the 3 weekend, depending upon access and so forth. 4 MR. MUSELER: So we anticipate -- 5 MR. SEAMAN: Of course, it will take a little 6 bit more time beyond that to get the inspection reports 7 all completed, signed out and reviewed, but the physical 8 inspection work should be done sometime around then. 9 MR. BERLINGER: Any idea on schedule as to when 10 you would have it all put back together and continue on 11 with your start test program? 12 MR. SEAMAN: For the 102, I can't comment on that 13 right now. V 14 MR. MUSELER: We have taken it apart a lot more thac 15 we intended to take it apart; therefore, it will probably 16 be at least a week to get back into operating condition, 17 and then we go into the 100 start tests on that engine. i 18 John Kammeyer, do you want to comment? 19 MR. KAMMEYER: Yes. At the present time, we have l 80 representatives fror five utilities on site, representatives 21 from the Owners Grouo, that are actively participating in 22 the program and developing the information necessary for 23 component selection. Of those five utilities en site, 24 three of them have the V-16 engine: Texas Utilities,

s..

25 Mississippi Dower & Light, and Cleveland Electric m

~ 16 1 mgc 2-3 Ill umina ting. All taree utilities have complet ed their I -s 2 s co=parison of parts :anuals and the development of a matrix 3 as a comparison to the Shoreham DR/QR program. We are in -4 the process of havine-developed or in the process of 5 developing an indiviciual component design basis for each of 6 those three utilitier;. 7 i Texas Utilities and MP&L have both issued the 8 design basis and are in the process of inputting the site 9 experience. Approxiriately 80 percent complete for Texas 10 Utilities as far as < athering the information, and 40 11 percent complete on !!P&L. 12 We have dor e a preliminary component selection, 13 more or less a reviev of the task descriptions that we have y 14 available from Shoretam with all three of those V-16 engines, 15 and we expect to formally perform the component selection. 16 It is approximately a three-day process, and we have it, 17 scheduled for Texas Utilities to commence on February 22nd, i 18 MP&L on February 27th, and Cleveland Electric Illuminating 19 on March 5th. That is approximately where we stand. 20 - The other two utilities we have repre sented on -21 site are Gulf States and Consumers. 22 s. MR.'MUSELER: Gulf States is an R-48 and c 2 1 -Consumers is a V-12? ' 24 MR. KAMMEYER: Right. Gulf States also has v 25 ,their parts matrix developed. We have issued taem a d t'

1 17 i i i

e 2-4 I

l component design bas.s, i and we are scheduling component l selection for Gulf S:ates 2 the week of March 5th. Consumers 3 is still in the process of developing their parts matrix, i 4 i which we expect to h.:ve completed next week and commence 5 component selection the week of March 12. 6 MR. BERLINGER: The intention is to go through 7 your parts selection on each and every one of the plants? 8 MR. KAMMEYER: Yes. 8 MR. BERLINGER: Not just the lead plant? 10 MR. KAMMEYER: Each and every one. MR.-BERLINGER: And the task descriptions, as far 12 as DR/QR, on each anci every one of the plants? 13 MR. KAMMEYI.R: Yes. 14 MR. BERLINCER: Utilizing as much in the way of 15 duplication as is appropriate? i i 16 l MR. KAMMEYER: Exactly. We plan on each engine + I \\ we review, we have available to us task descriptions from 18 the previous engines, and we use that as an input along with l I l le the specific site experience to develop a task description i 20 unique to each utility, based upon our increasing confidence 21 as we do more and more inspections and more and more i analytic analysis. i 23' i MR. HOFMAY1R: Will your program plan describe the j part selection in detail, what criteria you are using, and 2 include certain parts, which ones you are selecting and l l

4 18 (,' 1 how you go through that thought process? ,e 2-3 l 2 MR. KAMMEYER: We have issued -- I :1. ink we've 3 given you copies of our procedures, which explain in general i 4 detail exactly how we performed this. We are in the process 4 5 of updating those procedures. We have not issued them for 6 preliminary review, but we will update those precedures to 7 reflect the Owners Group and the Owners Group's involvement 8 with DR/QR. 8 MR. BERLINGER: The procedures you are referring to to were on the Shoreham docket. 11 i MR. KAMMEYER: Yes. 12 MR. BERLINGER: That's the prototype? 13 I MR. HOFMAYER: That's just for Shoreham. .s 14 I MR. BERLINGER: (Nodding affirmatively.) l 15 t MR. MUSELE!:: I think there was a similar question 18 i at the meeting in Washington. ,I don't think you were in 17 I attendance at that meeting. And the Shoreham, the NEC 18 asked a question with regard to -- a similar question with 18 regard to the criteria specifically for which items were-20 l-excluded from the list, and all items were reviewed. So 21 no items are excluded, but some items are not etaluated, 22 based upon their use. And the procedures that Ichn U references do explain how we do the process. 24 i What we con nitted to NRC at that time is that w 25 we would be submitting for each plant -- and Shareham's will

19 l mqc 2-6 1 be the first one you see -- the component selection, the 2 output of the component selection process -- in other words, 3 which components were selected and which ones weren:, and I 4 that when you review that, along with the task descriptions t 5 for the design review and quality revalidation, that if 6 BNL or the NRC feels, at-that time after you review it, 7 that there is a need to provide more detail on why certain l 8 components were excluded, we will do that. But we are askingl 8 you to review first, because we think it is fairly obvious, 10 and if it is not, we will provide additional information on 11 it. 12 Okay. Given the schedule, we had thought briefir 13 before that what would be appropriate would be that we would I 14 go through one of the components in terms of where we stood i 15 i on the task descriptions, and have Dr. Wells go through one, i 16 and then take a break for lunch and come back after that. 17 MR. BERLINGER: All right. That sounds great. 18 MR. MUSELER: After an excruciatingly detailed le evaluation process for which we don't have a procedure, we have selected cylinder heads as the first one. 21 (Laughter.) 22 MR. WELLS: That was the toss of a coin, I think. 23 (Laughter.) 24 MR. WELLS: I thought I would review these by 25 first listing the functional attributes; that is, the I

23 mgc 2-7 1 performance requiremt nts of the ccmponent, as ceterm.ned I 2 by the Component Des: gn Group, and then list the specific 3 evaluations that are being or will be performed to address 4 the adequacy of the component with respect to these various t 5 requirements. 6 In the case of the cylinder head, we have listed 7 five functional attributes. First of all, the head rust i 9 8 have sufficient stif 2 ness, so that the head will withstand 9 the firing force.=, pr essure forces, without seal leakage or 10 without introducing any deformation which would produce 11 bending loads on the cylinder head studs. 12 Second, the fire deck must be sufficiently stif f 13 with the thickness necessary to maintain the stresses below 14 the fatigue limits, but must not be so thick that it produces 15 an excessively high temperature or an excessively high 16 thermal stress. 17 i Three, the cylinder head must have overall sufficien't 18 resistance to therma] and mechanical fatigue. 18 Four, the residual stresses of a cylinder head must 80 'be adequately relieved to prevent casting fatigue and fracture 21 And finally, five, areas of high contact loading 22 i and high gas velocities, such as in the valve seats, must 23 be resistant to impact and corrosion dar; age. j 24 How the evaluation currently underway and schoduled .v 25 to be completed'by the end of the month -- and this is

rue

21 1 I 7c 2-8 for all of the major components on this list cf sixteen -- 2 is first to review a:1 of the previous f ailure analyses of 8 the cylinder heads that have contained flaws in the jacket f 4 water. passages in the fire deck and also various flaws in 5 the hard facing in the valve seats; secondly, to verify all 8 .of the possible causes of crack initiation in these heads. 7 And in this case, it turns out that most of the problems 8 that have been report ed and verified deal with manuf acture. 9 They deal with the specific melting and casting processes, 10 the subsequent machining, and with the heat treatment, 11 in particular the stress relief of items such as the hard facing deposit for the valve seats, stresses introduced in \\, the casting itself by the cooling process, and also occasionally weld repairs. 15 Therefore, our investigation to date has 16 concentrated on a det ailed firsthand investigation of.all 17 I aspects of the cylinc er head manufacture, including the 18 inspection procedurer. 19 Then, of course, it is necessary to provide some 20 sort of structural and thermal analysis. And in'this 21 connection, we have to conduct physical and dimensional 4 22 examination, and, of course, comparing all of the generations' 23 of cylinder heads that are currently in use, and then 24 determine t.he gas pressure loadings and all differences u 25 that may exist between.those parameters involved in c peraticn L_

4 22 mac 2-9 1 of the on-line R-48 engines ar.d t the various V engines, 2 I and having that infc rmation, we will de stress and i: thermal 3 analyses, and the ccmplexities of these calculations are, 4 at the moment, unkncwn, and I cannot comment on them, to 5 determine the adequacy of the dimensions and the tolerances 6 and the inspection procedures on the critical components of 7 a head, which are primarily the fire deck and the exhaust 8 gas ports. 8 Finally, w2 will review all of the results of 10 the hydrotesting, ani, of course, the results of inspections II of the cylinder head.; on the Shoreham engines. 12 That is essentially the extent of the evaluation 13 that is being performed on the heads, L at least at this point. I* Are there questions? 15 I. (Show of hands.) 16 MR. SHEAR: I have a question. In your review of TDI manufacturing, are you going to review their material 18 review actions _to determine what discrepancies they picked 19 up internal to their operation and whether those flaws or 20 discrepancies could impact your analyses? 21 MR. WELLS: We are not trying to perform any type 22 of an audit ourselves on what they did or what was involved 23 in checking their material. i 24 MR. SHEAR: I am not concerned with w? ether they 25 l did it or not. I am concerne:. with what they fc und. i l H

23 I r 2-10 MR.EELLS: The answer to that is, we will avail l I 2 ! ourselves of all information concerning the material 3 evaluation and inspection results. I 4 Question back here? 6 MR. WRIGHT: Bob Wright, NRC Staff. 6 MR. BERLINGER: Let me interrupt. Could each of 7 you, when you do ask a question, identify by name and 8 affiliation before you ask a question? 9 MR. SHEAR: I am Marvin Shear, ENL. 10 MR. WRIGHT: Just so I understand, it seems to 11 me that you start out by saying that this was a manufacturing-12 related issue and not design. So I assume that in your N-- process of checking, that the materials specified, the 14 thicknesses, all the other things from a design point of 15 view, are correct, as far as you are concerned. It is 16 i really a question of, did they use the right material? Did 17 s they heat treat properly? Is that correct? 18 MR. WELLS: Part of the design issues relate to 19 the tolerance on the castings. 20 No, we are not reaching the conclusien and have not 21 reached the conclusion that everything is perfe:tly all right 22 from a design standpoint. That will be checked independently. 23 MR. WRIGHT: Okay. 24 MR. WELLS: If the components lack adaquate 26 structural thickness for some reason, that will, of course,

I 24 j I mac 2-11 be determined, regarilless of material quality. 2 MR. BERLIN;ER: "o follow up that questicn, what 3 phase of the task, c: where in your task description, will 4 you describe that portion of your investigation with regard 5 to specific design acequacy of the TDI cylinder head? 6 MR. WELLS: At the moment, we are making a 7 detailed study of the manufacturing procedures. We have 8 not yet embarked on the stress analysis or thermal stress 9 or hot spot analysis of the heads. What we are trying to 10 do at the moment rea]ly is to determine how complicated that 11 analysis must be. I am sure you can appreciate the fact that 12 if a detailed analysis of such a complex structure were 13 s,, required, it would be a very time-consuming proposition, 14 because these surfacts and general geometry of the head are 15 extremely complicaten, as is the temperature distribution. 16 So we are attempting to determine those critical areas where 9 17 8 problems existed -- where they may potentially exist, what 18 are the weak spots from either a fracture or a defermation 19 standpoint -- and come up with appropriate calculations that 20 will address conservatively what the stresses and strains, 21 strain ranges, peak temperatures are and so forth. 22 MR. BERLINGER: Thank you. 23 MR. WELLS: Yes? 24 MR. SELLERS : Dave Sellers, Materials Engineering, s_- 3 NRC. t i 1

25 l I mgc'2-12 When you da a stress analysis, do you use the 2 nominal drawing dimensions of the head or the actual limits? 3 MR. WELLS: No, sir. We will use the actual limits. 4 MR. LOUZECKY: I would like to ask a question here. 5 You mentioned five functional attributes, and in your failure 6 analysis, you say you are going to study the water passages. 7 But-in your functional attributes, will you include 8 the study of the cooling of the head, so that the head 9 provides proper cooling to the valve, so that it doesn't to create some of these problems you have mentioned? 11 MR. WELLS : Yes. In the sense that we are looking 12 for areas of high -ter perature and associated high thermal 13 strain. I don ' t thir.k it is our intention to go through a y,, complete-fluid mechanics analysis of either the water side 15 - or the gas side. That is beyond the scope of this 16 .Investigation. 17 i MR. LOUZECKY: But I thought you might have an 18 idea of the flow through the head. You could look at the 19 passages. You could proportion how the ' flow was going to go 20 to see if you would get enough cooling in these areas, so 21 that we don't get an overstressed-condition in operation. 22 MR. WELLS: Yes. I would say, in general, that is 23 the case. Yes. 24 MR. SHAW: Horace Sh aw, Mechanical Engineering 'i' 25 Branch, NRC.

F f f 26 f i t m c 2-13 1 i You did me:. tion that the manufacturing process l 2

.seems to be problema.ic at this moment.

3 Does the present manufacturing process require any 4 nondestructive testing before and after the machining? 5 MR. WELLS: That will be determined in the course 6 of this investigation. It's hard to judge that at the moment. 7 MR. SHAW: My question is, is there any requirement 8 at present? 9 MR. WELLS : Are there present requirements for 10 inspection? Yes, there are requirements. 11 MR. SHAW: Is that the same as the ABS req 2irement, 12 or do they have a different standard? 13 MR. WELLS: I don't know. That hasn't beel I4 evaluated. 15 MR. MUSELER: Are you speaking of a specific ABS 16 standard for cylinder heads? I7 MR.'SHAW: Yes. 18 MR. MUSELER: I see. We don't know whether the NDE called for -- there is a series of NDE inspections 20 called for. We don't know at this point whether or not they 21 meet whatever ABS says. 22 MR. WELLS: We are simply not at that point. 23 24 '~ M a

3rgl 27 l. 1 M.0 BERLI"GER: Are there any other questions? 2 (No response.) 3 MR. CARUSO: Bill, I guess we will -- 4 MR. MUSELER: We wanted to cover what input inform-ation goes into the analysis we get from TDI and also what we 6 are trying to do in the task descriptions of the 16 known 6 7 problems in not only have the design review information but f s also the inspection requirement, so that in the case of the 16 9 known problems, instead of having two documents, which one 'i 10 has for all of the rest of them, we will have one document which says.here is what we are doing for the design review. 11 12 Here are the inspections and the quality validations we are 13 doing, so it hangs together a little better there. ~ 14 I think for the others it is still appropriate 15 to do them separately but for these we are trying to put them 16 together. 17 MR. WELLS: Fine. 18 Just briefly to list the information that we must 19 gather, first of all, the manufacturers drawings of the vari-20 ous generations of the cylinder heads. Secondly, the cylinder 21 firing pressure, maximum and ranges of the firing pressure 22 for all of the various engines in-line and V configuration. 23 Estimated or measured cylinder head transient tem-24 .peratures, in some cases there have been measurements made. 25 In ether cases, of course, .t will be necessary to perform i

3: g. I f. 20 s I calculations of the transient temperature. i 2 l Finally, documents and reports of cylinder head I 3 cracking for the broad class of both the in-line and V engines. 4 The inspections required are three. 5 First, liquid penetrant inspections of the cylindat i 6 head fire deck between exhaust valves. Second, liquid penetradt 7 inspection of the exhaust valve seats. This is particularly 8 the stellite weld deposit. Three is the barring of the engine 9 and a check of any leakage before any attempt is made to run 10 the engine and that is the list. 11 MR. HOFMAYER: I have a question. 12 You are going to go back and get the documents in 13 reported cylinder head cracking for TDI. Is this only for the L I4 diesels within the program or all of the diesels over the 15 years of manufacturing. 16 MR. WELLS: We are collecting all information on 17 all instances of TDI cy$inder heads. 18 MR. HOFMAYER: For whatever use? 19 MR. WELLS: The head, you understand, is in most 8 if not all respects common to the V engines and our engines. 21 It is characteristic of this particular engine design and 22 there is a fairly large population. 23 MR. BERLINGER: But does it go beyond -- what is 24 it? -- Model 4, is that what it is called? MR. WELLS: Yes, Model 4. A

29 f 5 1 MR. BERI INGER : Does the same head exist in Model 3? I don't know if there are Model 5's. 2 3 MR. WELL3: It is different in 3's, 4 and 5s. i 4 MR. MUSELER: It is only the 4 series engines, but.i 5 y there are a lot of 4 series engines and the data available, 6 especially on the new style heads is quite extensive so , and 7 on the new style heeds it is quite favorable, but there is a 8 pretty big database on heads. Thatdoesn'tcoverthewater-! 9 front because the reporting obviously in the comme i rcial world 10 is not as rigorous as it is for nuclear engines but there is 11 still a fair amount of information available. 12 MR.'BERLINGER: Does your data -- I'm sorry, go 13 ahead. \\-' 14 MR. CARUSO: Does DeLaval keep track of every 15 cylinder head, the history of every one in terms of whether l 16 if one comes back? l 17 i MR, MUS$LER: t If a cylinder head comes back to TDI 18 they have a record of it. 19 MR. KAMMEYER: But in the past there have been 20 problems with other organizations other than TDI doing work 21 on their heads so they have no records of -- they call them 22 parts pirates doing reuork and any subsequent failures to a 23 head modified by a non-TDI organization so that compli cates 24 the issue. 2 s, MR. CARUSO: Right. L

3:34 30 1 MR. BERLINGER: Would that database include the .2 operating experience in the marine area, specifically the 3 Falcon carriers? .i 4 MR. KAMMEYER: Yes. 5 MR. WELLS: (Nods affirmatively.) 6 MR. MUSELER: (Nods af firmatively. ) 7 MR. KAMMEYER: We have the serial numbers for.all of the heads manufactured since 1977. Where they are 8

located, 9

approximately how many hours as of last years were on those.l l 10 MR. BERLINGER: Okay. Shall -- 11 MR. SHAW: Horace Shaw,, Engineering Branch again. 12 Based upon the present database, is there any 13 reason for us to think that the present codes or requirements 14 are appropriate or not appropriate? I ask this because ap-15 t parently there is a lot of cylinder head failures recorded and i 16 they must have been manufactured previously based upon certair. 17 requirements land I understand that you are looking for a new 18 basis for this process but my question is, based upon-the a 19 database we have right now, do you believe that the require-20 ments we have on hand are proper for the service life we tend 21 to have? 22 MR. WELLS: It would be premature to try to answer 23 that at this point. I just haven't evaluated that. 24 MR. BERLINGER: But that is one of the things you 25 are evaluating? s, i

s 3rg5 31 1 MR. WELLS: Oh, yes, yes. 2 MR. MUSELER: Again, someone asked this questic-3 previously. We do not intend to come up with conclusions 4 as to whether or not alloftheABSandalloftheothercelek are right or wrong but for these particular parts and this l 5 6 service, if a code standard is whatever it is and at is me. ! 7 by these parts and we determined there is still a problem w: th 8 the part, then we are going to so state. 9 The issue of cylinder head failures, thcre is a i 10 semantic problem between manufacturers on what cylirder head 11 failures really mean but one of the things that is difficult 12 .although I think we are able to do it but it takes a lot longer 13 is to separate apples from oranges in terms of what happens v 14 to cylinder heads, particularly in engines that see severe 15 service. 16 1 For example, marine engines that are driven very f 17 hard o'n heavy fuel tend to have cylinder head problens much 18 more so than engines run on gas or light oil so the database 19 is not interpretable as there is a problem or not a problem. 20 There is a problem in this' kind of engine run unde $ 21 these kinds of conditions and there may or may not bc a prob-M lem with a virtually identical engine run under different i 23 conditions and that is what needs to be sorted out with regard 24 i to how you use all of the industry data. But that data is l s 25 s-available and that will be part of the submittals on this i f I

32 1 1 cylinder head issue. i I' 2 MR. M*.*SE; F : Okay. i 3 i MR. CARUS): Do you want to break? 4 MR. MUSELER: I would think so. 5 MR. CARUS): How about until 2:00? 6 MR. BERLI'!GER: Can I ask a question? If I take 7 a break, where can I get something to eat? 8 MR. CARUSO: I'll take care of you, Carl. 9 (Lunch recess.) 10 AI'TERNOON SESSION 11 (2:25 p.m.) 12 MR. BERLI!!GER: I apologize again for delaying the 13 . meeting. Send your cards and letters to the Hertz Corporatior 14 (Laughter.) 15 They gave me the wrong car keys. l 16 VOICE: Or the wrong car. 17 MR. BERLINGER: Or the wrong car. 18 All right, let's get started. 19 MR. MUSELER: We will continue with Dr. Wells and l 20 we will go in -- 21 MR. WELLS: Ralph Caruso said he couldn't wait for H crankshafts. 23 (Laughter.) 24 so -- ^' 25 MR. MUSELER: Let me say, what we would like to I i I i

33 l cover in the same detail we covered the cylinder heads ar 1 i 2 the crank shaf ts and the connecting rod bearings and als: 3 Dr. Wells is prepar.3d to report on pistons because we have some 4 test results and in:1pection results but not the task descrip-5 tion in detail. 6 .Go ahead, Cliff. 7 MR. WELLS: On the crankshaf t, we have three 8 functional attributes to address. 9 First, the structural stiffness of the crankshaf t, 10 which must be sufficient to maintain acceptable states of 11 stress in the crank pin web and main journal areas.and to 12 maintain ~ system natural frequencies sufficiently removed from 13 engine operating speeds and the crankshaft has to withstand \\- 14 normal main bearing ' misalignments inherent in service. 15 Second, the journal area of the main and connecting 16 rod bearing must be sufficiently large for proper bearing l } 17 oil film pressure and the journal link must be sufficiently I i i short to pr event end wear of the bearing sleeves. l' 18 19 Finally the material of the crankshaft and surface 20 finish should be sufficient to resist fatigue crack 'initia-21 tion and a number of standards have been specified,

IEEE, 22 ASTM, Diesel Engine Manufacturers Association and the evalu-23 ation consi.its of a series of steps, several of which hare 24 been completed, several ongoing.

25 I l'irst of a 11, all of the available Trans-Amera ca s,

3rg8 34 I l ^ 1 LeLaval calculations and tests have been reviewed. 2 Secondly, the engine ~ test of the replacerer.: 13 i 3 inch main bearing diameter by 12 inch shaft meaning the 4 main journal, is 13 inches in diameter and the connecting red i 5 journal is 12 inches in diameter,- as I say, that test has j t i 6 been completed. I S'e did a complete modal super position and Holzer 7 8 torsional analysis of the replacement shaft under the exper-9 imentally measured cylinder pressure versus crank angle data, 10 directly measured from the engine tests and we found that the 11 calculations of torsional response agreed with the measured 12 strains on the crankshaft and also the torsional twist res-13 ponse of the free end of the crankshaft matched predictions ,v 14 and also the output torque measured between the engine and i 15 the flywheel matched the predictions of the model, so we have-16 the moment a very complete understanding of-the torsional I at ' 17 response of the replacement crankshaf t. 18 We will then conduct the standard Holzer torsional! '18 analysis of the RV-16 engine, Grand Gulf crankshaf t specifi-20 - cally and later on the RV-12 and RV-20 configuration. 21 We have already conducted the finite eier ent 22 analysis of the stress distribution in the crank pin fillets. This of course was necessary in order to convert 24 torques at any particular throw to the histcry of stress or 2 strain measured by strain gauges during the engine test.

..v, 25 4 + i 1 It is, o: course, these local stresses that go v.e r r 2 the structural intecrity of the cre.nkshaft. 3 We have not yet completed comparing the cetailed stress to the material properties of the new crankshaf ts. 4 5 That will be done soon. i I We will then compare the nominal torsional stresses 6 for both the R-48 and RV-16 crank shafts with the recommen 7 tions of various organizations such as the Diesel Engire 8 Manufacturers Association, the American Bureau of Shipping, End 3. 10 Lloyd's Register and so forth. 11 12 13 v 14 16 i i i 16 i 17 l i 18 i 19 1 l, N 21 22 23 4 24 26 s-

Y l 41bl 36 i 1 i l Then our final report will contain the evaluatic:1 2 of'the Shorehan R-43 and the Grand Gulf RV-16 c 3 integrity. Subsequently, a report will be issued on :1_dlans f 4 and San Onofre and the information required from TDI and 5 elsewhere includes the drawings, of course, for the various 6 engines, the original so-called Holtser calculations and 7 their revisions for the four different configurations of a crankshafts, the experimental pressure versus time-curves 9 for the Shoreham and Grand Gulf engines. Excuse me, that 10 is the extent of the information required. And I think that 11 will give you the scope of the crankshaft investigation. 12 Are there questions on the crankshaft? 13 MR. BERLINGER: Did you also address in this part G 14 of the task descriptien, or your ef fort in general the is operating history, the operating experience with regard to 18 crankshafts? And did it go beyond the nuclear plant? 17 MR. WELLS: Yes, of course we have very little 18 experience in nuclear plants anyway, crankshafts, and we l l' have acquired, I.think, the information on stationary and l marine crankshaft experience for all 21 types of TDI engines. There have been a couple of other problems with crankshaft -22 that we are trying to fit into the general picture of the torsional response or other situations. We are not limiting 24 ) this analysis, necessarily, to just torsion response eitrer. Concerning manufacturing procedures, that'of course t i

41b2 3' 1 is also reviewed. I issume you've seen that. 'nd the effect 2 of the material and s;rface finish c.. the endurance limit 3 actually hearkens back to the original performance of the i 4 I Shoreham crankshafts. We have a number of cracks that were 5 produced after so many hours at a certain stress level. We 6 are using that as our basis. It is, of course, apparent that i 7 .the stresses in the replacement crankshafts -- and I might I 8 add, intheVengines--aresubstantiallybelowthoselevels.! 8 So we are asing this established endurance 10 1'imit as the baseline from which to compare the behavior 11 margin of safety, if you will, of these other crankshafts. 12 MR. HENRIKSEN: I noticed, in your analysis of 18 s, the Shoreham engine crankshaft failure, that you had-considered 14 i the possibility of misalignment and, based upon deflection I 15 readings, you found this not to be the case. Were those 16 deflection readings under both cold and hot condition? 17 MR. WELLS: Yes, that is a routine check, I think. 18 Every time the engine is assembled. 19 MR. HIGGINS: Jim Higgins from Brookhaven. Are 30 you checking the input of forcing functions for all of the 21 engines and confirming those, or where is that engine gotten 22 from? From diesels other than Shoreham? i I 23 I MR. WELLS: We have done that on the Shoreham 24 i diesels, of course. It's not definite, at this time, wrether s-i 2 we would require that for instance, the other R-48 engines. i i

s 41b3 38 1 Probably we will look for a confirmation that we are dealin: 2 with the same pressure curve. At the moment, it appears t..e r e : 3 is a sufficient margin on the B eng nes that it i is not necessabi 4 to go into an extensive experimental evaluation of this. 6 But we are looking at any parameters that might 6 affect the combustion, that is changes in parts, changes in 7 valving or timing or other factors that might significantly 8 influence this forcing function. It does make a substantial 9-difference. 10 !1R. MUSELER: Correct me if I'm wrong, Cliff. 11 From what we've seen to date, relative to how people design 12 crankshafts, it appears that the forcing functions come from 13 empirical data and analytical data and, at least, v. we ha/en't 14 seen where they specifically go out and get this pressure 15 time history for a specific engine and then go back and they 16 _do the analysis. They get sort of standard numbers. I think II i Loyds you can just take the TN out of the table and that is 18 how they do the crankshafts, using that in formation. 19 So it appears, and the final report should -- we'vejl 20 got the previous report, which was an analytical way to 21 generate the forcing functions, and this report, which I 22 think has the real forcing functions from the pressure time 23 histories. They are not that far apart. And as Cliff 24 said, the margins shot 1d be such that we should not have to s-25 measure it. It turns out that we are pretty confident t!.e l we---

i i 39 41b4 1 j data we have on the Shoreham engines is good. But it is data t 2 that is not easy to get and apparently, according to the 3 technical experts, the Germans, who really got the data this 4 time, that is not always successful. 5 So we think it may not be necessary on the vs, 6 but we will see how much margin there is in the calculation. 7 I liR. SHEAR: Marvin Shear, Brookhaven. This I 8 same basic question I asked on the cylinder heads. In doing 8 your analysis, have you gone back and looked at the TDI 10 inspection results for any discrepancies or defects they may 11 have had during their manufacture of these parts and played 12 those into your analysis or evaluated them as part of your 13 analysis? U I' MR. WELLS: Yes, in a sense, we have reviewect the 15 standard acceptance criteria. And there are, of course, 16 ASTM standards for ultrasonic examination. We've gone I far beyond that in our inspection of both the old and new 18 crankshafts. We have looked very carefully at the surface 19 and in the latest insaection we used a custom tailored, high -20 resolution eddy current flow and a mechanized fixture to be 21 sure we could pick up even the smallest detectable, practica11t 22 i detectable, fatigue cracks in the fillets. i i 23 1R. SHEAR: My question was a little different, 24 actually. In the TDI manufacture of the parts, they often 25 come up with situations where the parts do not meet the

7 41b5 I 40 1 specifications or parts will not meet the draw:ng or the i 2 x_ material is not exactly correct, or they don't have a 3 i !lcertificationorwhateveritmightbe. Have you looked I 4 ! for that type of information and included that in your t i 5 l evaluation? 1 6 MR. WELLS: Let me be specific about that. We 7 i have checked the chemistry, the pnysical properties, and we I t 8 i have checked the inspection records. But I think you are 1 9 l l implying that these inspection results might be usable in l 10 determining the fatigue characteristics of the shaft. That 11 is not the case. The size defects we are concerned about are 12 much smaller than the defects that are normally specified 13 and examined in the standard acceptance criteria for a g,, 14 forging of that source. 15 In other words, the process control nust guarantee 16 that you have no defects above a very small,sizc. The ASTM 17 requirements, for example, only require that the forgine be 18 inspected to something on the order of -- I don't know what 19 the number is, offhand, but it's something like a quarter of 20 an inch. Just to be sure the forging is sound. 21 That's not at all what we're concerned about. When 22 it comes to fatigue integrity, we are concerned about the 23 largest flaws that can actually be found in the

ritically stressed areas and that requires a special inspe: tion.

25 MR. SHEAR: Are you, in any way, sugg! sting that

41 41b6 1 they tighten up the specifications? 2 MR. WELLS: No, not really. You find this situat; r. 3 in gas turbines and all sorts of critical rotating parts. Youj 4 l really cannot inspect them to the sizes that would be required' 5 to predict fatigue properties. It is an impractical require-l l 6 ment for ultrasonic cr surface non-destructive evaluation. { 7 Sonormally,thosepartsaregovernedbyverytightmanufactu! 8 ring process controls, and I'm not talking about TDIr. I 8 am talking about the forging shop. 10 Does that help? 11 fir. SHEAR: Yes. 12 liR. !!USELER: Relative to materials, while there is 13 going to be another crankshaft report, as Cliff indicated, 14 the original report on the Shoreham 13 by 11 crankshaft, 15 which included a metallurgical report, indicated that the 16 cause of the failure was design related and not fabrication er 17 material related. 18 While we are looking at 13 by 12s in the newer 19 i ones, we are certainly looking at that. We believe there is 20 no reason to believe there is a problem or that anyone would 21 have to tighten up any crankshaft manufacturing standards 22 as a result of the Shoreham problem. The Shoreham problem was 23 a design problem, not a manufacturing or material oroblem. 24 Okay? Do you uant to go on? 25 14 R. WELLS: Ralph, you must have questions en

41b7 42 1 crankshafts. 2 (Laughter.) 3 !!R. WELLS: Connecting rod bearing shells. 4 These are not the main bearing shells, these are the shells 6 that connect the rod to.the crankshaf t and the functional 6 attributes specified for the connecting rod bearing shells are 7 gour:

First, the tearing shells must have sufficient l

8 fatigue life and wear resistance to tolerate normal operatin; i 8 conditions. Second, the bearing material must be of low 10 friction to tolerate momentary contact with the crankshaft, 11 especially during the starting of the engine. Three, the 12 dimensions must be ma tufactured with suf ficient accuracy 13 to obtain the proper.nterference fit in the connecting A, 14 rod and to establish :he proper clearance between the bearing 15 shell and the crarkshaft. 16 Finally, the bearing must be designed so that during II operation key parameters, which include the peak oil film 18 pressure and the mininum oil fill thickness and a temperature I' rise, are within acceptable limits for the specified engine 20 application. The evaluation, in this case, consists of a 21 number of steps. 22 The first, af course, the loading of the bearings 23 is related to the loading on the pistons. So it's necessary 24 to obtain cylinder pre ssure versus crank angle data. And N. 25 we've done this, as I said before, for the R-48 engine tasks

41b3 43 1 and that has been coapared to assumptions for our previous 2 l shell design reviews. Secen:!1y, we must review the evlinder 3 pressure versus crank angle again, for the RV-16 engine, l' 4 t to be sure there are no significant differences. Third, it's ! 5 l necessary to perform what is called a journal orbit analysis j 6 of both of these engine types. This orbit analysis consists 7 primarily of finding the centrifugal loading on the crank 8 pin journal. Then, in the case of the R-48 engine, we perferred a structural analysis by finite element modeling, followed 10 by fracture mechanics, life estimates. II And that estimate started with the experimentally 12 determined void size in bearing castings. Normally cast parts 13 contain a certain size of void which-is, of course, variable. ,s_. 14 And we sampled a number of bearing castings to see what the I range of void size was. We assumed that this void size then -16 represented an initial crack or flaw for the purposes of 17 fracture mechanics analysis and combined that size with the 18 results of the finite element stress analysis to predict 19 the lifetime and load limits of the bearing shells. 20 That analysis is now essentially complete. ke 21 have then to complete the analysis, both the journal orbit 22 analysis, the finite element analysis, and the fracture 23 mechanics life estimate for the RV-16 bearings. That will 24 s' be done as part of this final report. l

s. -

g Also, we mist determine the maximun void s:ze in l

F A 41b9 4 1 the bearing castings and that will be done by performing 1 2 radiographic inspections, by physical examination of used l } 3 RV-16 bearings. ? Actually, several bearing shells. ,t We will '4; look at the effects of the adhesion and the thickness variatio; oh,aBabbitoverlay,whichisprovidedonthealuminumcast

s 5

i 6 to facilitate break-in and reduce frictional wear. And then l 7 complete the report, as I said, on the DSR-48 and the RV-16 { 8-bearing shells in Grand Gulf and Shoreham engines. And 8 finally, determine what differences may be involved between l 10 the RV-16, the RV-12, and the RV-20 connecting rod bearings. 1 11 And the information required for this analysis ] 12 consists, as usual, of the manufacturer's drawings of the i l 13 \\_s parts, the bearings, the connecting rods, and the crank pin 14 journals. \\ s This is a system problem, whether deflection of 15 all parts may interact to determine the stresses and the oil 16 film and the pressure on the bearing shells must determine 17 - er.. estimate i cylinder firing pressure versus time for the RV-16 l / 18 engine specifications for the lubricating oil and the weights I 19 I of all of the connecting rod rotating and reciprocating l l 20 components. 21 i Are there questions on the connecting rod bearing ' n shells? U 23 -ond t4 24 s-26 l

45 j I I mgc 5-1 MR. BERLINGER: Were there a variety of failure 2 i modes that have e> listed, l based upon operatinc exterience? 3 MR. WELLS: The only real failure moce consisted i 4 of the cracking of an overstressed bearing shell in bending, i 5 resulting from lack af proper support and high oil film 6 { i pressure. Of course, a shell can fail by where we haven't 7 I been really confronted with a significant amount of wear 8 in the shells, insofar as I am aware right now. 9 i The primary problem that we did experience in the I j 10 ' Shoreham engines, of course, was the presence of cracking. 11 That, I think, is the primary mode failure we are concerned 12 about. 13 MR. MUSELER: The TDI data on bearings, again when v. 14 they get replacement bearings, that is sometimes due -- i ) 15 i in the normal overall, they just decide if the engine has 16 fifteen or twenty thousand hours on it, they replace the 17 bearings, so that that data is being sorted out, because all 8 18 bearing replacement d>es not indicate bearing problems. But i to the extent the dat.t base does have some examples where, I for example, warranty replacement of bearings indicates that 21 the customer, at least, thought it was TDI's responsibility, 22 so we are trying to get as much of that idformation as we 23 can. But as Cliff said, it appears that the mode of failure j 24 we are concerned about was the kind we experienced on s-2 Shoreham on the smallc r crank pin journals.

46 n-c 5-2 1 MR. BERLINC-ER: You are nct having any difficulty l 2 setting that data? 3 MR. MUSELEF: TDI is being cooperative, if that is 1 4 what you mean. i 5 Again, the universe of data on bearings, it's 6 a little more difficult than it is on cylinder heads, for l i 7 example, where you have a nice neat number on each cylinder i i 8 head to track. [ l 9 MR. CARUSO: When you get information like this j 10 from Delaval,~do you nake an information request of them, 11 and they come back wi:h a response, or do they say, "Here 12 are our records on journal bearings," and let you sort throughi 13 s,, and decide what is relevant? 14 MR. MILLIGAN: For example, what we have attempted 15 l to do in the not too distant past on bearings and a number j I8 of other components with Delaval was to physically visit 17 Delaval, meet with their respect engineers in the Oakland 18 property and have them, to the best of their ability, either 18 what they had in their respective minds or what they could 20 drag out of their files, tell us all they knew about, for l 21 example, the marine application problems. And that is 22 about the best they are able to do for us. As I am sure you can appreciate, the marine 24 industry doesn't ha'.*e a rigorously documented r.ethod of s-25 getting feedback frc. the engine manufacturers.

1 a 47 l ( mge 5-3 1 l MR. CARUSO: Do you know if they maintain any t 2 ! files by engine; for example, if the. have a file or. the {Shorehamengineswithallofthecorrespondenceyouhave 3 l 4 sent them? 5 MR. MILLIGAN: I can't say that from perscnal 6 knowledge. I just don't know. I would expect by now they 7 would. 8 + (Laughter.) 9 MR. CARUSO: A big file. 10 MR. MILLICAN: Yes, a large one for Shoreham. 11 MR. MUSELER: That's how they store this, by 12 customer? 13 MR. WELLS: Yes. They seem to have files by v 14 customer. i 15 MR. MUSELER: By purchase order. They don't have files -- at least if we are recalling it porrectly -- 17 1 they don't have files on bearings. They have files -- if 18 there were bearing problems on four engines, it would be in 19 their files under those four engines. That is what the 20 difficulty has been. We are interested in all of the 21 in formation on a component basis. But their normal modus 22 operandi is to worry about it on an engine basis. i As a 23 matter of fact, their method of ensuring that they don't 9 3 j have component problerts is to do just what we did with them s_ %5 I out there. They, on their own, have ceriodic meetings to a

i 48 i ~oc15-4 1 { make sure they unders tand whether there are any component l 2 i type problems going on with all of their service engineers. 3 MR. HENRIKSEN: These being aluminum bearings, t will there be instructions for periodic -- at certain I 4 5 times -- 6 MR. MUSELER: Inspections? l t 7 MR. HENRIKSEN: No. Change-outs. 8 MR. MILLIGAN: I believe the TDI instruction 9 manual, maintenance manual, calls for a refueling outage 10 for the nuclear application, a refueling outage and inspectica l 11 of the bearing, and based upon dimensional and other 12 examinations done, that they are either suitable for -- 13 s,,. MR. HENRIKSEN: Visual or otherwise? You can't 14 see when an aluminum bearing is ready to go, because of OH: 15 they lose their quali ty. That is subject to changes due to 16 temperature. i 17 MR. MUSELEI: The typical service of an engine 18 between refueling out ages, even if one assumed an accident 19 during that period, is about 300 hours. So the total hours 20 on these engines wher the plant gets into service will be 21 very, very low, and cne of the outputs will be a recommenda-22 tion for the frequency of inspections and the acceptance 23 criteria of those bearings during those inspections. I don't 24 know what 300 t imes 4 3 is, but it's not a bic number. s-25 Is it 12,000? So thst's about the total service life of

49 I mc-5-5 these ' engines, once 'he p. ants start up, which is within 2 the initial estimate of bearing life -- was 38,000 hours. 3 MR. WELLS: Yes. I 4 i MR. HENRIKSEN: I didn't hear the number. 5 MR. MUSELER: 38,000 hours. So that you can see, 6 it should be within that, but still we have not decided 7 what the inspection criteria will be for those maintenance 8 outage inspections. 9 MR. HOFMAYi:R: You have mentioned a number of times. 10 you were getting all of the manufacturing drawings, design 11 data and that. How available will this be to us, to utilize 12 this review, if we want to do a confirmatory analysis, 3 's-something of that nature? 14 - MR. MUSELER: If you would like to,'we have,'under l 15 proprietary agreement signed by the Owners Group, TDI, and i 16 FaAA and Stone / Webster -- we have Aere at the Shoreham site 17 the drawings for the RV-48, and we are going to be getting 18 RV-16~ right? 19 MR. WELLS: (Nodding affirmatively.) 20 MR. MUSELER: So if anyone wants to look at them, 21 we can't'give you copies, because the proprietary agreement 22 . prevents us from giving them to anyone, but if anyone wants 23 to come here, look at the drawings and take dimensions -- 24 I mentioned before,.lohn Furphy is coing to be the primary s. 25 contact for people who wan t informat ion. John is back there.

i 50 .mcc *-' 1 i (Mr. Murphy raises his hand.) 2 MR. MUSELER: And whatever is the most convenient, 3 -if you call John, he will figure out what is the best way 4 to get you the information. You might perhaps want what one 5 dimension is, in which case we will get it for you and call 6 it in. But if you want to look at the drawings, it looks 7 like you would have to come here right now. 8 MR. LOUZECKY: You would like to see th e oil 8 groove and how the oil groove is located, wether it goes 3 10 completely around the shell, is it in the center, what is 11 the spacing, the length and so on of the bearings. 12 MR. MUSELER: Uh-huh. I guess that's one thing. 13 g In talking about bearings, if you want a bearing, we would 14 be glad to give you a bearing. 15 (Laughter.) 16 MR. LOUZECKY: Except they are expensive. I MR. HENRIKSEN: No. He means one that has failed. 18 (Laughter.) 18 MR. CARUSO: There's not much of a market for 20 eleven-inch bearings? 21 MR. MUSELER: Not much. I guess the six-cylinder engines might want them. 23 MR. HENRIKSEN: 'An additional question. It is l 24 not concerning these aluminum bearings, but ycu mentioned s-earlier, you have included now inspection of the wrist pin j

I l' 51 ,I r 7' I bushings. 2 Will that be added to the criginal list cf sixtee.- 3 components? Did you find any distress in them? 4 MR. WELLS: We are, of course, analyzing the { 5 i deformation of the rod in that vicinity anyway. That was 6 part of our original charter, and I am sure that will be 7 coupled to the deformation of the bushing. 8 MR. MUSELER: The answer to your question as to 8 whether we will add it to the list of sixteen, we are - 10 certainly going to consider that, based upon the inspection 11 results, but we have not evaluated those inspection results 12 enough to be able to say at this point -- well, there is a N~, 13 question. 14 MR. SHEAR: Getting back to your file drawings, 15 do you. have the engineering change notices that go with 16 these drawings to provide a chronology of each drawing, so II to speak? 18 MR. MUSELER: Let me just ask Mike. 19 MR. MILLIGAN: That is a good questien. I cannot 20 say. I believe we have the most recent revisien of the 21 drawing that is applicable for our engine. I don't know I 22 whether we have a trail of prior drawings. If it is typical of the drawings I have seen, there will be red boxes that 24 show, in the lower righthand corner or so of the drawing, .s_ 2 but we don't have previous revisions, previous issues. We i

r. 52 l \\ 1 4 ,c 5-8 just have the most i recent ones. l MR. WELLS: On the key ccaponents, we have gone 3 back and asked for all of the earlier drawings, in t he 4 event -- only the latest revision was sent to us -- in case 5 a drawing had been redone. It does not represent wrat was 6 originally delivered with the engine. We have gene back and 7 ensured that we have a copy of the drawing that was in effect 8 at the time the part was supplied. 9 MR. HOFMAYER: I guess earlier you mentioned, 10 you also took Asbrook measurements of different comp)nents. 11 Have you been able to confirm the drawing s versus 12 what you have been measuring in the field? Do you have a 13 s_. - full program to do that? Is a spot check -- 14 MR. WELLS : Yes. All of the key dimensions. I 15 can't tell you we have gone back and checked everything, but 16 where the dimension is critical, there is a specific i I 17 5 8 requirement to check the dimensions. 18 MR. HOFMAYER: Have you found many discrepa ncies 19 between the drawing and what you have measured? 20 MR. WELLS: I think very minor at this point. I 21 don't knea exactly how all of that inspection has coma out 22 on this current tear-down. W9 23 are still trying to co' lect all of that information. 24 Mt. MUSELER: I think Craig indicated we were '~ 25 75 percent :hrough with the inspections, but net all c.f the

1 f l 51 .\\ I .m-- 5-9 I inspection reports have beer. finalized and written t f f i 2 .So we really can't say. 3 I think ycu can say with respect to crankshafts ~ and other components like that. 5 MR. WELLS: (Nodding affirmatively.) 6 MR. MUSELER: Even bearing dimensions. 7 MR. WELLS: Yes. Crankshafts, bearings. 8 MR. MUSELER: Have we had any signif.tcant 9 dimensional deviations on those? 10 MR. WELLS : No, no, none. But I add, we have not 11 checked all of the dimensions that you might ecnsider 12 critical. Diameters, yes. Tillet radii, that has all been, 13 u-yes. 14 MR. SHAW: I am curious, what is the revieking 15 process going to follow? You have outlined-the procedures. 16 Are you going to follow a certain configuration;

namely, 17 i

a certain drawing dinension and everything, and review that 18 against your design conditions derived from your functional l 19 t attributes? Or do you derive a set of design parameters, 20 and then you have a new design? I mean,'what is the -- are 21 l you reviewing against an existing design, or do you 11 tend 22 to come out with a new design ? 23 MR. WELLS: I think what you are askir g, all of I 24 ) our analyses are done on the neasured dimensions of the s_- 2 particular parts. I In each cas:e, we ha te indeper.dentl, b_

[ ) 54 I' I .mec 5-10 measured the parts. 2 MR. SHAW: Basically, you are just analyzing 3 whether it is adequa te or not for a certain design. 4 i MR. WELLS: Precisely. We're not doing any 5 redesign or making any suggestions as to how a part night l 6 be changed, unless, of course, it should come to~ pass that 7 one had to do that. But that is not the issue. MR. SHAW: I understand that. But you are trying 9 to come up with a set of design conditions which should be 10 working conditions. 11 MR. WELLS: Yes. 12 MR. SHAW: I see. Thank you. 13 I I y,, MR. MUSELER: Can we move on to pistens? I 14 i MR. WELLS: There are five functional attributes 15 of the piston. You will recall that the piston is actually i made in two pieces. There is a separate piston crown 17 attached to the piston skirt. The crown, of course, receives ~ I 18 the direct pressure from the burning gas and transmit s that load to the skirt, and the skirt transmits that load through 20 a wrist pin to the connecting rod and so forth. i 21 t Attribute No. 1,the piston crown must have 22 sufficient :trength to resist the high temperatare and 23 pressure ftring loads. 24 Two, the load transfer between the pi ston crown v 25 and skirt /urist pin n ust not produce alternatiny stresses

55 mqc 5-11 1 su f ficient to fatiguo and fail the skirt. 2 Three, the wall structure of the skirt must be 3 resistant to pressure-induced deformation which could result 4 in skirt fatigue in proximity to the stiffening ribs 5 What is meant here is a circumferential stif fening rib which 6 is entered in the cast of the piston skirt. 7 Four, the preload in the crown attachment studs 8 must be~ sufficient to include fatigue failures of studs, 9 nuts and washers. I 10 And last, it must distribute side forces from 11 the connecting rod to the cylinder liner without significant 12 wear. 13 And the evaluation steps are, first, to determine s_- 14 the historical evaluation of the various models of piston 15 skirts. Ycu will recall there a,re about five of these, I 16 think. There is a Type AF, a Type AN and a Type AE. There 17 is also something called AH. These are the ones involved 18 in nuclear emergency generator engines. And that evaluation 18 will include the processing; that is, castirg, heat 'O treatment, dimensional and material changes. 21 Tao, of course, the significant loading derives 22 from maximum firing pressures and temperatures, and as I 23 mentioned before, they are being evaluated for the 24 different engines. y Taree, we have developed finite element structural l i

l 56 i mac 5-12 models for the original Shoreham and Grand Gulf AF type 2 h_ piston skirt and the new replacement, AE type, pisten skirt 3 with the appropriate pressure loading conditions, and this is 4 just a static analysis. 5 l Basically, the intent here is to compare the t 6 i level of stress in critical areas of the replacement design 7 with the old design,'and this analysis has been essential]y 8 complete, and it shows a very significant reduction of stress 9 from the original AF to the replacement AE skirt. 10 i Then we have to conduct a combined thermal and 11 mechanical analysis ultimately to determine the load transfer 12 between the crown and-the skirt under actual engine operating 13 s,, conditions. We have performed metallurgical examinations 14 of those original AF piston skirts that did show fat;gue 15 failures in the crown stud attachment areas. i That, of coursel 16 confirmed that we had fatigue cracks initiating in critically I 17 stressed regions near the boss. 18 We have, as Mike Milligan told you before lunch, 19 completed eddy current examinations of several of the 20 Shoreham AE piston skirts and have found no indications, l 21 according to our criteria. We have also inspected piston 22 skirts, AE piston skirts, n l from the TDI developrent er gine, R-5 engine, which has been running at high pressure and 24 l speed, and also piston skirts were moved from a stationary s_ g j diesel generator in rodiak, Alaska, and all of these i 8

p -,. \\1 I r c 5-13 investigations so far indicate that the AE pisten skirt is i s_ 2 not subject to fatig2e cracking in the areas that did fail 3 by fatigue in-the original design. 4 MR. MUSELER: I have got to say, we have been 5 looking at them. We haven't seen any evidence of any 6 cracking in any other areas of the piston skirt either. I 7 just wanted to clarify that, because it sounded like we 8 only looked at one spot. The piston skirts appear to be 9 intact and have no adverse indications. 10 MR. CARUSO: Do you disassemble the piston to do 11 that inspection? 12 MR. MUSELER: Yes. N, MR. WELLS: You have to. s 14 MR. MUSELER: You have to take the crown off, take the bolts out, because you want to get in under the washers. 16 MR. CARUSO: I was thinking about on top where the 17 crown and the skirt mate. I remember seeing something about [r@q k 18 a thr;;di..g problem. 19 MR. MUSELER: Yes. 20 Essentially to inspect these, areas MR. NELLS : 21 that crack, you have to remove the nuts and washers and 22 the crown. 23 Okay. After performing this structural analysis, 24 we are then conducting a fracture mechanics analysis, and c those properties have been independently determined for both. I I 1

Sr i I mge 5-14 the original AP and the new AE skirts. That analys: s is 2 currently underway. s, 3 MR. BERLINGER: What do you mean by " independently 4 determined"? 5 MR. WELLS : Actually cut up a skirt, made specimens,I 6 and evaluated the me :hanical properties. 7 MR. BERLINGER: Took some measurements? 8 MR. WELLS: Yes. 9 All right. We have just recently, in conj unction with Transamerica, Delaval, carried out experimental stress II analyses of the new II skirt design. In fact, we did this, 12 as it were, in tander.. TDI instrumented one skirt; 'fe I3 instrumented one skirt. We loaded them up hydrostatically v 14 in a pressurized cylinder and had a large number of atrain 15 gauges over the inside of the skirt, including very small 16 gauges in the critically stressed regions, and have :found 17 both tests are in agreement that the peak stress is 18 substantially below tae yield stress. So we find, in fact, 19 an agreement with the service experience that has been I exhibited so far by these skirts, that there should te no l problem with crack inttiation or nropogation. 22 23 l i i 24 i f i s_- 2 I i i e

6rgi 59 1 We are st t11 evaluating th e ef fect of piston side s-2 loading on wear. Tha: has not yet been done. 3 We will inspect the other two pistons from the 4 other two Shoreham engines after they complete their endurance 5 runs and then this report that we issue will evaluate the 6 original and replacement piston skirts in both the Shoreham 7 and Grand Gulf engines. 8 Information required to do those analyses consists 9 of the TDI drawings, as usual, and the historical information 10 on casting changes and heat treatment changes and there have 11 been :several of these and the maximum cylinder firing pressure s 12 and temperatures for the different engines. That's it on 13 pistons. 14 Are there questions? 15 MR. HOFMAYER: In your evaluation, you are concen-16 trating on, I guess, analyzing the fixed condition. As part 17 of the evaluation, are you pinpointing what caused the probleri is so that you can be assured? 19 MR. WELLS: Yes, to the best of our ability, I 20 think we have and in the case of the piston skirt, ..t is the 21 maximum pressure that the piston has been subjected to and l M all its operating history which is pertinent to the cracking.' 23 MR. HOFMAYER: And your analysis can demor. strate 24 that what you did for the original component, if you did that, s-2 you might predict that condition under new analysio on your

6rg2 l 60 1 l new co.mponent would confirm that that condition no longer 2 exists? 3 MR, WELLS: Yes, the analyses do in fact show that, 4 the original design should have cracked and cracks should have 5 grown to somewhere between one-tenth and two-tenths of an inch 6 in that which was seen in many, many locations on the skirts 7 and the same analysis predicts that there should be no crack-l 8 ing in the replacement skirts. I 9 MR. MUSELER: Certainly a part of the report wi ll 10 be as much of an analysis of the AF piston as we need. There 11 are, as Cliff mentioned, in these engines there are a few 12 engines that still have AF pistons in them of the type that 13 exhibited the cracking we found on Shoreham and Grand Gulf. v 14 Most of the engines have AN pistons; the AN report i 15 will be the second one out because Grand Gulf has AE's now i I 16 so we need to get that out. 17 If it is determined that it is -- if the problems I 18 with the AF is such that they need to be replaced, either 19 with AN's or AE's, as I said, we will just do enough analysis-20 or put enough in the report to demonstrate that we understand' 21 where the problem was coming from and not--die amount of the 22 report devoted to AF's may not be that substantial if it cars 2 out dut will not be a piston used in the engines, 24 If it turns out that it is, then it will certainly 26 have to be as detailed as the AE and A!; reports. I

61 1 MR. HOF?iAYER: But as a general philosophy for each 2 known problem, you will go through that process? 3 MR. MELLS: (!!ods affirmatively.) 4 MR. MUSELER: The crankshaft i is a good example 5 of that. It was done exactly that way. 6 f1R. MURPHY: This Emmett Murphy. You are doing 7 stress analyses. Under the stress criteria in the applicable l 8 specifications, are your analyses -- are you applying i the calk 8 - culated stresses to these criteria, enforcing criteria or a I 10 rej you going beyond that and taking each calculated stress and 11 evaluating the stimulus to that stress on its own merits on 12 a case by case basis? 13 MR. WELLS: We are looking at the stresses initialiy 14 according to the material properties and what a reasonable I 15 factor of safety would be, either on crack initiation or on 16 crack propagation. 17 If there is a standard for the particular component 18 or recommended practice, we also evaluate the ad i 18 thereof according to that standard but essentially we t are l 20 evaluating the anticipated fatigure behavior given separate i 21 .information on stresses and geometry, on material properties l 22 and that wvuld, I think provide a complete engineering f 23 evaluation. i 24 l In addition to that one looks at l the various E reconq s_. mended stress levels and section sizes according to variou s I J

6rg4 t2 1 organizations like AVS. 2 MR. MURF:-:Y: When you evaluate something like t..e 3 f atigue life of a part on a crankshaf t, is this fatigue 12 f e 4 or endurance determined on a best estimate of the f atigue 5 properties of the material in question or is this a design 6 fatigue curve you are evaluating the life against? 7 MR. WELLS: We use two different approaches, the 8 first, of course, both with crank shaf ts and pistons, we have 9 unfortunately developed a pretty significant database that 10 shows what the material will withstand. You see, we have 11 had many cracks in crankshaf ts. We have had nany cracks in 12 pistons, so those stresses and those material properties we 13 take as being the baseline, where fatigue limits or endurance 14 limits, if you will have been established by actual engine 15 operation, i and if we say we know the stress on those location 16 from measurement or calculation, then the fact that so many ( 17 of these parts have cracked in that area says that this is l 18 indeed the endurance limit for so many hours or cycles of 19 operation. 20 What we are trying to do is ratio or benchmark 21 those demonstrated fatiguo limits with new stress levels. 22 Now that is one approach. The other approach is tc-23 go into data collections of fatigue properties, either crack 24 initiation or crack propagation as appropriate, and determine w-2 whether specimens of that material with various allowances for

.sy. 63 i I surface mechanic and size effect and so forth would be expc:tefd 2 to have properties above or below the stress levels that are 3 calculated in the part, so in other words we are using a 4 database for a material but we are also using. I think primar-{ 6 ily relying on the established database for the components. 6 MR. MUSELER: Okay, Carl, we had hoped to go thrcugh 7 more. components but we didn't get as far as we had hoped in 8 finalizing the TDs so the next item on the agenda is any 9 question that may remain from I our meeting in Washington or 10 any other meeting or any questions your consultants have that 11 Dr. Wells may be able to answer. 12 MR. HOFMAYER: Do you have any specific items you 13 want to raise? su 14 MR. HENRIKSEN: (Nods negatively.) 15 ' MR. LOUZECKY: (Nods negatively.) 16 MR. HOFMAYER: I gave you a copy, Ralph. 2 17 MR. BERLINGER: Yes, I have a copy, 18 MR. HOFMAYER: I don't know if you want to pass 19 this out as a discussion for a future meeting? 30 MR. BERLINGER: I think a number of these questionb 21 i have already been addressed today as part of the task descriu-22 tion discussion. 4 23 MR. MUSELER: Maybe if you have questions you would 24 like for us to put together answers on, if you leave them with 25 us, we will do that and get it back to you as scon as we can. ~,

-.yu 6 l i 1 MR. HOFMAYER: If we are going to get into

.t.

Of 2 course we will need this kind of infor..ation. 3 MR. BERLINGER: I would like an opportunity to ic 9. 4 over these questions and then send those that are appropriate; 5 on to you for discussion at the next meeting, 6 MR. MUSELER: That will be fine. i 7 MR. BERLINGER: I know you two gentlemen are sche-8 duled to leave around 3:30? 8 MR. HENRIKSEN: No, 4 o' clock. i 10 i MR. BERLINGER: Didyouhaveanyspecificquestionsf 11 MR. HENRIKSEN: I don't have. Do.you? 12 MR. LOUZECKY: Not particularly. 13 MR. HOFMAYER: If you want to get into an:rthing v 14 specific, go ahead. 15 MR. BERLINGER: What about-the rest? 16 MR. HOFMAYER: Do any of you? 17 (Pause.) 18 MR. BERLINGER: How about the NRC Staff? Any 18 further questions? Any different areas you would lika to 20 explore at this point? 21 (No response.) i MR. BERLINGER: All right, there are no ot.her l l t 23 technical problems at this time but I think it is important l l 24 we discuss schedules and what you plan on doing in ycur 25 l program over the next week or two, give us an idea of topics i i

65 l for further discussion either next week or whenever is ne 1 2 appropriate. i' 3 MR. MUSELER: I think you have made it clear, Faul 4 that the program plan is very significant from the standpcin: 5 of how you plan to go about your review. 6 I think our priorities will remain the completion 7 of these task descriptions so that we can submit them to ycu formally and the formal submittal of the program plan and with a I 9 that, we still intend to get a number of final reports on the 10 TDs, on the known problems, crankshafts and a few others cut in February, so I think we are on 11 track to do that. 12 I think ue are on track to get the task descrip-13 tions of the 16 known problems finalized and to you within 14 the next -- I think the task descriptions within the next 15 week. i 16 We are going to be a week later than we t1ought 17 we would be. We thought we would have them for you :his week. 18 The program plan is underway, so I feel confident 19 we will meet that commitment and as I said, I can't predict 20, the exact number of reports but clearly, some of the major 21 known problem reports will be out this month. 22 MR. BERLINGER: The p rogram p lan, the previous 23 connitment, was the 24th. I 24 i MR. MUSELER: That is a week from Friday, I belie *te, 25 MR. BERLIN 3ER: And you are still on schedule fer i J 3

orgo 66 8 1 that? 2 MR. MUSELER: Yes. 3 MR. BERLINGER: And as far as the final reports :.. 4 the 16 items, as they become available, will they be submitted 6 to us as they come or rather than as a group? 6 MR. MUSELER: Yes, as soon as they are finalized 7 and reviewed by the owners on an individual report basis, 8 they will be forwarded to you so that if we get one done, we 9 are going to submit one. 10 We are not going to hold them until we get two or ! 11 three or groups. t 12 MR. BERLINGER: Okay, just for clarification, to 4 13 make sure that I understand and everyone else understands, s-i 14 those reports, for instance, call it crank shaf ts -- that is 15 going to address crankshafts as generically as applicable 16 to each of the engine types or will it go further to address 17 t each of the engine. owners? 18 MR. MUSELI'R: Yes, let me clarify that. 19 In some cases, the reports will be able to be t 30 issued and it will cover all engines, all engine types. In 21 the case of crank shaf ts, the first report will cover the 22 R-40 Shoreham crank shaf t and the V-16 Grand Gulf crank shaf t. U As rapidl} as possible thereafter, we will deter-24 mine, for example in the case of the first V-16 crank shaf t, 25 that the other V-16s are in fact identical or at least

6rg9 1-identical enough so that the analysis is applicable. We d:n.'t 2 think that will take a long tire but right now the first s af: 3 report will be on those two engines, 4 In the case of pistons, clearly the piston report l 5 we think and the report will so state, since we are going to l 6 be evaluating the V engine, pistons in the V as well as pistons 7 in the R-40s AE type pistons, that will be applicable to any 8 engine that has an AE piston in it be:ause the other V's in l i 9 terms of the service of the piston, I think we believe there 10 is no difference in the V engines. 11 MR. WELLS: Yes. 12 MR. MUSELER: And they are slightly different than' 13 the R-48's so we do need a different analysis so it is on a 14 case by case analysis but it will be at least the two lead I 15 engines in the first reports that are out and nore if we can 16 get it in. 1 l 17 MR. BERLINGER: Okay. 18 MR. HOFMAYER: In the program plan, what size is 19 this document and the task descriptions just in terms of l 20 expecting -- 21 MR. M"SELER: The program plan, the task descrip-Z2 tions, the task descriptions for the 16 known problems by 23 themselves is about that thick (indicating). 24 MR. HOFMAYER: Total? s_ i 2 MR. M'.'S E L E R : For the 16 known problems, total, { I s

6rg10-t7 l it is about that thick. The rest 1 of the Plan will procably 2 be about an inch thick. v 3 MR. EILLIGAN: An equivalent dimension. 4 MR. MUSELER: And the atta^chments will be similar 5 to the attachments to the Shoreham submittal, those same typ n 6 of procedures modified to encompass the whole Owners Group. 7 So you will have, I will say, two inches of very a substantive material and four inches of procedures and things, 9 MR. HOFMAYER: And how many reports at this time 10 do you expect to have? Will there be 16 reports on the majc: known factors and will there be subsets? 11 13 MR. MUSELER: There will be 16 reports, some of 13 which will have divisions as we add in the follow-on units, 's. - 14 then our intent beyond that is to have one report for each 15 engine and by each engine, I mean each utility, one repart 16 for each utility covering the DR/QR. 17 MR. CARUSO: With regard to component selection, I t 18 you said earlier that there were a number of component selee-19 tion boards meeting or groups meeting. t j 20 What is next week? 21 MR. - BERLINGER: Grand Gulf? 22 MR. CARUSO: Grand Gulf next week? 23 I MR. MUSELER: Comanche Peak is first, right? John ! I 24 isn't here. Is Comanche Peak, Perry -- is ready to 90. s-M Who else? I I

l L f 68 '6rgli 1 21R. CARUS.3: Roughly one a week for the next fev i 2 weeks. 3 MR. MUSEL:R: We are two or three at the sane time l 4 so we will have four done next week. 5 i MR, MILLICAN: That is optimistic, I guess. l 6

1R. CARUS.'

All right. I 7 MR. HOFMAYER: Between now and the end of the mont 8 how many reports.do you expect to have out in terms of the 9 known problem reports? 10 MR. MUSELER: I would say to be realistic that we 11 had thought we were going to get out five or six before the 12 end of February. I w3uld say two or three is probably going 13 to be the real number. G 14 MR'. WELLS: Well, two or three -- 15 MR. MUSELER: -- known problems. l 16 MR. WELLS: (Nods affirmatively.) 17 MR. HOFMAYER: Will those reporth, like on the 18 crankshaft, supercede or supplement reports already out? 19 i MR. MUSELER: Ithinkwewouldsaytheysupplementj them. 21 MR. WELLS: Yes, I will say supplement primarily, 22 I think the crankshaft report primarily, since we have a 23 different forcing function in this case I would probably say 24 that supercedes the earlier report. 25 The other report predicted the behavior of a 13 by

I 6rg12 'j 69 i 1 12 crankhaf t and now this report says what is really gcing, 2 on. L i 3 MR. BERLINGER: Bill, I have one question with re t 4 gard to the status of ongoing inspections as a result of the 5 i completion of the 102 runs. t' 8 You have done some inspections which have been re i 7 i ported with regard to the piston liner crack and the er.gine 8 block indications. Is there any additional informatior. that 9 you could provide? 10 Give me a status of the results of the those,inspec-i 11 tions or what you intend to do as followup to our earlier i 12 findings? l 13 MR. MUSELER: With regard to the indications in \\- 14 the blo.cks, the engine blocks by the cylinder head hold-dewn i 15 studs, we currently believe that it will be appropriate to, i 16 based upon having mapped those indications -- we have map;sd 17 those indications and they are similar to other indicationa 18 i which appear not to grow in marine applications. Although we j 19 are not saying that is the case at this point, i< we believe 30 that to the extent they are related to operation it,,- would 21 be most likely that they be related to thermal transients 22 and therefore the 100 start tests, which renain to be done t 23 on that engine, should show us whether those cracks will grow 24 or whether they will remain in their present state. 26 ' s, So, right now on the 102 engine, with regard to I I D

[ ..y.. It G i- !i I 1 the block, we intend to, when we have finished all of the 2-inspections and signed out the inspection reports, we innenf 3 to reassemble that engine and run the'100 starts, so I guess 4 we also reported on the turbocharger and somebody is going to 5 have to help me with that as to where we stand. I know we 6 have the parts to put then back together again, but the fix --- 7 MR. MILLIGAN: We have issued via E&DCR a temperary 8 lubrication modification based upon the suggestions from 9 Elliott that was concurred in by TransAmerica that we think to resolves the problem in the short run. We do need to follow i 11 up with Elliott and TDI to get a more formalized disposition 12 paper from them in order to conclude that-that is a longterm 13 solution. 14 ^ As I think we indicated earlier, the problem appea:es 15 - toberelatedtoinadequatepre-lubeoftheenginesidethrusd 16 bearing, which was not all that clear from the 10 CF3 21 17 report of 1980. 18 An additional amount of lubrication is being 18 provided prior to operating the turbo-charger and we think 30 that will cure the problem. [ 21 MR. BERLINGER: Who's Elliott? I 22 MR. !!ILLIGAN Elliott is the turbo-charger manu-t i facturer. 24 MR. MUSELER: The turbo-chargers are all made by l ~ l 25 Elliott, although there ara at least two types I think, se 4

i erg.4 p I! <1 that the applicabili ty of this between engines, 1 I tlink we 2 l said we didn't belie ve it was a Grand Gulf proble.. l eca 2se :f the lubrication system arrangenent on that 3 enginebutwehavej 4 to check it to see what it is on all of the other engines. 6 I think we know, I j us t don ' t know -- s o th e s ang 6 thing applies. We intend to run that engine through its 100 i 7 start test and the other engines, the two 101 and 103, well, 8 all three will have new parts to replace the damaged parts and all three will have a modification made on then, 9 so yea have two engines that will go through the endurance 10> run and 'one engine that will go through the 100 11 starts. Th.tt should 12 give a pretty good indication of the validity of the fix we End 6. 13 are putting on. 14 15 l 16 17 a 18 19 so 21 22 23 24 f(,

72 71bl I l 1 I!R. SHAW: You mentioned you are going to perfor-2 a lot of stress analyses. May I ask what will be the i 3 I acceptance criteria? 4 MR. MUSELER: i Depending upon the component, the i 5 -- I think Dr. Wells indicated that for crankshafts we are I i 6 i going to compare the standard methodology to the industry i 7 standards, ABS and DE:!A among others. With respect to the 8 finite stress element analysis, and the alternating stress, 9 I think Dr. Wells indicated that unfortunately we have 10 a very good endurance limit for this data, based on three 11 crankshafts, all exhibiting the same problems at certain 12 stress levels. 13 If you recall, we actually measured those stress 14 levels on the old shafts, so we know what the experienced 15 stress levels were and we know that was based upon the fact 16 that the cracks were initiating, in some cases, and 17 1 propogated further. That's a good indication. That was the 18 endurance limit. So #or that, that's what we're comparing i: I' to. Where we don't h.are that kind of data, the standard 20 type of endurance limit numbers will be chosen, either from 21 the literature or from the empirical data, wherever we can get j Zt .lt. 23 Does that answer your question? 24 MR. SHAW: Yes, I think that answers it. But the 25 last part was not too clear to me. In other words, you are n.

l 71b2 73 1 going to search the literature. And perhaps based uocn some i 2 kind of empirical da.a. select a limit. 3 MR. MUSELER: It depends upon the components. 4 Not all components are subject to fatigue analysis. 6 MR. SHAW: I understand that. Yes. 6 MR. MCSELER: For example, we are doing stress 7 analysis on the appurtenances, the piping attached to the 8 engine. We are using as the stress allowables for those 8 limits. And that will be called out in the reports. The 10 piping is not one of the known reports. But in the DR/QR, II that stress analysis report will be presented and it will '2 say what the acceptance criteria was. 13 MR. SELLERS: Sellers, NRC. Did you mention you I' also had a cracked liner on the 102 engine? 15 MR. MUSELER: No, I'm sorry. We did have a 16 linear indication, which is about 3/16ths of an inch deep 17 8 in one liner. Not from the 102 engine. It is from the 102 18 engine. And the reason we looked at it was we -- when we 19 found the indications in the blocks, we opted.to take out 20 take off one head on each of the other engines, which had not 21 been through the endurance run, and take a look at those engina 22 blocks in that one cylinder location. 23 There were no indications in the cylinder blocks, 24 but we noticed in the liner -- because we took the liner out E to do a good 0xamination of the block -- this indication in I tha

74 ilb3 1 liner. And that currently was sent to railure Analysis and 2 I don't know if you can report anyth ng on that yet, Cliff. 3 There is one out of ten. In other words, we have inspected 4 ten liners subsequent to that and there have been no other 6 indications, other than that one. 6 MR. SELLERS: Mention was made at a previous 7 meeting about distortion of the liners. Are you doing any a dimensional testing, before and after? 9 MR. WELLS: Yes, we did mention we measured to diameter and diameter variations of the liners. II fir. MUSELER: That is one of the criteria called 12 for in the inspection. And I guess I can't report to you now 13 on the results of that dimensional inspection. I don't know -s, I' what the results are, but it is an item being checked and 15 documented. 16 MR. WELLS: I saw, too, and the variation was abrut 17 a mil all of the way around. They seem to be within the 18 drawing spec. 19 MR. S HEAR: On your cylinder blocks, aside from 20 determining whether the cracks will propogate as a result of 21 your test, you intend to determine what the cause of those 22 cracks are, and how will you do that? 23 MR. MUSELER: Failure Analysis is attempting to 24 analytically determine what the situation is. In other 25 words, if we can predict the thermal behavior of the block

75 71b4 1 under thermal transient to startup, whether that will {indicatewhat is the situation there and the live loads, 2 3 the operating loads, will also be factored in. 4 So we are attempting to analyze the situation. 5 We don't have an answer, at this point, as to where it came 6 from clearly. We think we have to understand what caused it 7 if we are going to be able to form an opinion on whether 8 they are acceptable, not acceptable, or what. 8 Yes, Carl? 10 MR. BERLINGER: You referred to some marine 11 experience, with regard to cracks in engine blocks and referred 12 to them with regard, over a period of operating hours -- I 13 s, assume many -- the cracks did not continue to propogate and 14 cause a need for the replacement of the block. !!R. MUSELER: Let me say we haven't verified that. 18 That is preliminary information from TDI, which we have 17 8 asked TDI to give us details on, in terms of how these 18 indications were found, when they were found, and the operating 19 life of the engine. How often are.they checked? How are the'; 20 checked? And have they grown over the period of observation? 21 MR. BERLINGER: The period of running of these blocks, you are talking about a couple of a thousand, 10,000. 23 20,000 hours? ) 24 i MR. MUSELER: Tens of thousands of hours, 22,000 26 hours on one shift.

71'b5 76 1 MR. BERLINGER: Do you know of any engines 3-2 that had to have blocks replaced for reasons of cracks? 4 3 MR. MUSELER: That is somewhat of a difficult 4 question. We do know that there were one or two engines 5 where the blocks were replaced, based upon the decision of the 6 owner, TDI. And that was the motor vessel Columbia. TDI's 7 position is that the blocks did not have to be replaced. 8 believe that is the only instance we know of, I 8 right now, where blocks were replaced. The key question is. 10 the basic question in this particular item is, are those 11 cracks a problem and are they likely to. If they are not 12 a problem can we really demonstrate that they are not a 13 s, problem. So the argument between TDI and the owners of the 14 Columbia becomes part of the universe we have to deal with. 15 MR. SPANO: Will the program plan that you submit to us have a detailed description of how you proposed to 17' conduct the startup tests? 18 MR. MUSELER: In the case of the Shoreham tests. 19 we have -- we have included a description, I think a fairly 20 good description of the pre-operational test requirements 21 in the Shoreham submittal. Hotiever, we have not submitted 22 our actual test procedures. We have no objection to providin< 23 those test procedures, if someone wants them. 24 The NRC has them, in one form or another. But if ~~ Mi we need to provide them again, we will. I would refer you t:

71b6

• /

i i l 1 the Shoreham pre-operational test plan description because lthattellsyouthenumberofhours, gives ycu the iced ~ 2 I 3 profiles and the like. And if that is not sufficient, we 4 will provide the actual detailed test procedures. 5 tiR. MILLIGAN: But the -- as a program document, 6 the owner's submittal we were referring to later in the mont'- 7 will not describe by plant the testing programs, other than 8 those specific to components that might be included in the 8 program document. 10 MR. CARUSO: Do you expect to provide that at any 11 time? 4 12 MR. MILLIGAN: No, I think we previously said that 13 plant specific testing would generally be discussed between 14 the specific plant or the region and the specif f.c region or. 15 NRR. 16 MR. MUSELER: Except to the extent that the pla:.: 17 specific testing requirements, in terms of the gross test 18 requirements, are shown in the matrices in addition to the 19 task descriptions for.each known problem. We are going to 20 provide a matrix which indicates the testing and inspection 21 that goes along with all of the engines with all cf the 22 owner's. But that will be at the leve of, for example, 23 any engines where we are going to recommend doing the 100 h u: s 24 at 100 percent power run. That will be indicated as to which 25 I utility we recom. mend do that. i

71b7 1 MR. CARUSO: So it will be up to the indicidual 2 i owners to tell us what they plan to do to test their ind i eid :._- 3 machines? 4 MR. MUSELER: Beyond that. 5 MR. CARUSO: Or are we to get a summary c: all test! 6 programs, or we'd have to ask the individual? 7 MR. MUSELER: Yes, if you want to know whit their 8 normal pre-op test program is, yes. We are assuming that { 9 in the NRC -- you know what your pre-ops require. Ard some 10 plants put in additional requirments, unrelated to tre 11 owner's program. 12 MR. CARUSO: So to find out the whole procram, we 13 would have to ask them? s, 14 MR. MUSELER: Yes. 15 MR. BERLINGER: The information you provided, 16 with regard to schedule, the 100 start tasks on unit 102, 17 that is approximately 10' days to two weeks off before those I tests are started? II MR. MUSELER: Yes. MR. DERLINGER: In the interim period, we sill 21 be preparing a specific question for discussion which will l 22 address the test program from the standpoint of the namber 23 of starts to be demonstrated in each of the three units z.t 24 Shoreham. We have had some internal discussions amon;st the 2 l Staff and we feel that it may be more appropriate to look at l

79 71b8 l 1 possibly 50 starts per engine, as opposed to 100 on one and 2 23 on each of the other two. The basis for this stems frc: m 3 the fact that on a 50 percent probability basis -- 4 MR. CARUSO: 50 percent confidence. 5 MR. BERLINGER: 50 percent confidence level, which 6 is the basis for the 23 starts for the other two engines, that 7 it may be prudent to go with larger numbers of starts with a 8 different acceptance level, as opposed to zero failures or 8 one failura, maybe two failures to start. Something l ike 10 that which would give us a higher confidence level and give 11 us a better test from the standpoint of reliability, overall d reliability. 13 MR. CARUSO: Essentially keep the same number of 14 starts,~ but just distribute them differently. And that the 15 statistician says that increases the confidence level in the 16 I starting capability of the engines. MR.-BERLINGER: But this is something we will put 10 down on paper and provide you, before the next meeting, for I' discussion. 20 MR. MUSELER: Do you have a feel for when you would 21 be able to give us your position, because you know the sooner 22 the better?' 23 MR. BERLINGER: Obviously, we want you to have the benefit of the position. ' ~ 25 MR. MUSELER: Can I assume that is what it's going

~71b9 50 1 to be? i I 2 MR. BERLIN 3ER:'Nc, no.

's going to be cpen f e:

.l i 3 discussion and it will be decided on the basis of an an e 4 of opinions. And we may stick with your program if you can 5 convince us that that, in itself, is adequate. Or we may 6 insist that you spread them out more evenly. I don't want 7 to predetermine the outcome of those discussions 8 MR. MUSELER: Is that a discussion which shouldn't 8 be held with a more limited group? 10 MR. BERLINGER: I think it might best involve some 11 statisticians and people who are more familiar with experimental 12 programs. 13 MR. HIGGINS: Carl, maybe I misunderstood Dr. Wells N_- g4 comment, but I was under the impression that one of the thin ~s 15 you would get out of the 100 starts had to do with some 16 fatigue and stress limits that you might be getting fror 17 that. So you may want to be careful about doing it strictiv 18 on a statistical basis if you are taking credit for some 19 statistical fatigue testing from the 100 starts. 20 MR. CARUSO: That is the sort of thing we would nee:L 21 to know from you. i 22 JUR. BERLINGER: That is why we want to discuss it. 23 MR. MUSELER: Well, we will take it under advisement. 24 and get back to you quickly, and then maybe have a conference. ~ M MR. BERLINGER:

Okay, s

71bl0 i E. i i i 1 j I don't have anything more. All right.

ow the I

2 ! only other thing I think we should d: at this poir.: is tr. 3 and set a schedule for a future meeting. I think these 4 meetings are quite beneficial from the standpoint of keeping I .5 up to date, as to what you are doing and how you are progres-6 sing. Also in knowing some of the problems you are having. 7 It gives us an opportunity to interact in a verv 8 active way with your program and not hold our questions until 8 you are done, so to speak. I would like to continue this i i 10 and I would tentatively set up a meeting for next Thursday. 11 If today's flight is any example, maybe we want to have it 12 in Washington once in a while. 13 g, (Laughter.) I4 MR. fiUSELER: Carl, we have discussed that and 15 we certainly don't disagree about the benefits of getting 16 together. However, we also note that it is clear that it is 17 very important that we get the program plan and some of 18 these documents to you formally, so that they can be 19 reviewed aiong with the first reports. 20 What I would like to suggest is that we not meet 21 until we get the progra= plan out and until we get the first reports ou':. What I am suggesting is, at least for the 23 next two weeks, we don't schedule a meeting because, quite 24 frankly, in takes your time. I'm sure you realize that it l also takes a lot of the time of the people trying to get the I

71bli d2 1 I work done. j 4 2 As you can see, we are haeing trouble holcing :: 3 our schedule and frankly, I would like to lock them all up 4 down there for two weeks and get the work we have committed cu t. 5 And not prepare for meetings and the like. 6 MR. BERLINGER: I have no problem with that. I 7 think that is the next big hurdle, as far as getting some 8 submittals to actively review. Why don't we tentatively set 8 up a meeting for two weeks, so that would be the first week 10 in March. 11 MR. MUSELER: I don't have a calender, but let's 12 see. 13 - (_. MR. CARUSO: The next week is the 23rd and the 14 week after is the 1st. 15 MR. MUSELER: I would like two weeks to gE t the 16 work done. 17 MR. BERLINGER: So let's go for three week s. I: I would be around the 9th. 19 MR. MUSELER: The 8th or the 9th. 2D ' MR. BERLINGER: And we will get a meeting notice 21-out. 22 All right, gentlemen, thank you very much. Z3 This meeting is adjourned. 24 (Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the meeting was adjourned 3)

.CERTIT: ATE '.F PROCFC.':35 i l 2 This is to certify that the attached proceedi.qs bcfore the 3 NRC CO:ct!SSION 4 t" In the matter of: TDI DIESEL GENERATORS 3 Date of Proceeding: Thursday, February 16, 1984 Place of Proceeding: Wading River, New York were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript for the file of the Commission. i 10 Sharon Filicour [ Official Reporter - Typed 12 't3 [ Of ficiad Reporter -/ Signature 15 16 17 l 18 IS 20 21 22 23 24 ~ 2; TAYLCE AS SOCI ATES REOtSTE A E3 PROFESSICN AL R EPORTERS ) NCRFCLK. VIRGINIA

s *  ; ,i UNiTEO STATES ' j NUC:.E AR F EGULATC P CCM.'.;:53;C'. w... a,,e -cs s w :c :, e :.::sss '..../ February 28,198" Docket Nos: See Enclosure 1 Mr. W. Museler Program Technical Manager TDI Owners Group Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Post Office Box 618 Wading River, New York 11792

SUBJECT:

REQUEST TO TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC. 0WNERS GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The staff is continuing its review of the reliability of Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI) diesel generators. In order to facilitate our review, we require additional infonnation. lists drawings of various diesel components required by the staff for each type of engine. We request . that you submit 4 full-size copies of each drawing requested. includes a request for additional information, while Enclosure 4 provides additional staff coments. If all the requested infomation is not readily available, we would prefer to obtain the information as quickly as possible even though in parts, rather than delay submittal until the package is complete. Sincerely, f Carl Berlinger TDI Project Group Manager Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures: See next page ' 9UM747A9e OlY'utu700 ^ lopp

BELLEFONTE Mr. H. G. Parris Herbert S. Sanger, Jr. Mr. H. N. Culver Mr. William T. Watters Mr. R. A. Wallin Mr. Robert 8. Borsum Mr. Donald L. Williams, Jr. Resident Inspector Bellefonte NPS James P. O'Reilly CATAWBA Mr. H. B. Tucker William L. Porter J. Michael McGarry, III North Carolina MPA-1 Pr. F. J. Twogood Mr. J. C. Plunkett, Jr. Mr. Jesse L. Riley Richard P. Wilson Mr. Pierce H. Skinner North Carolina Electric Membership Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc. Mr. Peter K. VanDoorn James P. O'Reilly Robert Guild Palmetto Alliance Karen E. Long ' COMANCHE PEAK Mr. R. J. Ga ry. Nicholas S. Reynolds Spencer C. Relyea Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Mr. H. R. Rock Mr. A. T. Parker David J. Preister Mr.s Juanita Ellis Mr. James E. Cummins Mr. John T. Collins Mr. Lanny Alan Sinkin B. R. Clements

GRAND GULF Mr. J. P. McGaughy Robert B. McGebee Troy B. Conner, Jr. Mr. Ralph T. Lally Mr. Larry Dale Mr. R. W. Jackson Mr. Alan G. Wagner MIDLAND Mr. J. W. Cook Michael I. Miller James E. Brunner Ms. Mary Sinclair Stewart H. Freeman Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. R. B. Borsum Cherry & Flynn Mr. Don van Farrowe Mr. Steve Gadler Resident Inspector's Office Ms. Barbara Stamiris Mr. Paul A. Perry Mr. Walt Apley Mr. I. Charak James G. Keppler PERRY Mr. Murray R. Edelman Jay Silberg Donald H. Hauser Resident Inspector's Office Mr. James G. Keppler Donald T. Ezzone Ms. Sue Hiatt Terry J. Lodge John G. Cardinal RANCHO SECO David S. Kapian Sacramento Ccunty Mr. John 8. Martin Regional Radiation Representative Mr. Robert B. Borsum Thomas, Baxter, Esq. Helen Hubbard Christopher Ellison Ms. Eleanor Schwartz Docketing and Service Section Resident Inspector /Pancho Seco Atenic Safety and Licensing Aopeal u

RANCHO SECO (con'ti Alan S. Rosenthal Dr. Jchn H. Buck Christine N. Kohl Joseph 0. Ward RIVER BEND Mr. William J. Cahill Troy B. Conner Mr. William J. Reed H. Anne Plettinger Willian J. Guste Richard M. Troy Dwight D. Chamberlain Gretchen R. Rothschild James W. Pierce Doris Falkenheinger Ian Douglas.Lindsey Ms. Linda B. Watkins SAN ONOFRE Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Mr. James C. Holcombe Charles R. Kocher Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Alan R. Watts Mr. V. C. Hall Mr. S. McClusky Mr. C. B. Brinkman Mr. Dennis F. Xirsh Mr. Mark Medford Mr. Henry Peters Richard J. Wharton Charles E. McClung Region Administrator-Region V/NRC Resident Inspector, San Onofre NPS SHEARON HARRIS tir. E. E. Utley George F. Trowbridge Richard E. Jones M. David Gordon Thonas S. Erwin Mr. George Maxwell Charles D. Barham Mr. John Runkle Mr. Wells Eddlenan Mr. George Jackson Dr. Phyllis Lotchin Mr. Travis Payne Mr. Daniel F. Read

SHEARON HARRIS (con't1 Bradley W. Jeres Richard D. Wilson - Regional Administrator - Region II Mr. Robert P. Gruber Dr. Linda Little SHOREHAM Mr. M. S. Pollock Howard L. Blau Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Energy Research Group, Inc. Mr. Brian McCaffrey W. Taylor Reveley, III Ralph Shapiro Honorable Peter Cohalan Martin Bradley Ashare MHB Technical Associates Stephen Latham Jonathan D. Feinberg Ezra I. Bialik Resident Inspector Herbert H.13rown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche James B. Dougherty Mr. James Rivello Lawrence Brenner Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Peter A. Morris Leon Friedman Gerald C. Crotty Fabian G. Palomino i V0GTLE Mr. Donald Foster Mr. L. T. Gucwa Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Mr. Doug Dutton Mr. J. A. Bailey Ernest L. Blake ~ ' Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr. Mr. James P. O'Reilly Mr. William S. Sanders Deppish Kirland, III James E. Joiner 1 4

? 2 - WNP-l' ,1 . Mr. D. W. Mazur fir. V. Mani-Nicholas.'S. Reynolds - Mr. E. G. Ward j t Resident Inspector /WPPSS NPS Mr.- R. 8. Borsum G. E.. Craig Doupe - Jack Martin ' Nicholas D. Lewis Mr. Eugene Rosolfe. Plina Bell \\ 4 h t a e 2 ,,,yr,.,w.%m_ tv--ee-Mw'r*'r

TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC. EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR DISTRIBUTION Plant Docket Utility i Shoreham 50-322 Long Island Lighting Grand Gulf 1, 2 50-416, 417 Middle South Energy San Onofre 1 50-206 Southern California Edison Rancho Seco 50-312 SMUD River Bend 50-458, 459 Gulf States Utilities Shearon Harris 1, 2 50-400, 401 Carolina Power and Light Catawba 1, 2 50-413, 414 Duke Power Perry 1, 2 50-440, 441 Cleveland Electric Illuminatine Bellefonte 1, 2 50-438, 439 TVA Comanche Peak 1, 2 ~ 50-445, 446 Texas Utilities Services Vogtle 1, 2 50-424, 425 Georgia Power Midland 1, 2 50-329, 330 Consumers Power WNP-1 50.-460 Washington Public Power 4

Drawings Needed for Each Engine Type Crankshaft - old and new Cylinder Block Oil Pan / Lower Engine Base Cylinder Head and Fasteners Starting Air Valves and Fasteners Pushrods - old and new Camshaft Fuel Pumps Spray Nozzles . Pistons - old and new Cylinder Liner Cylinder Head Gasket Flywheel Flywheel Bolting Accessory Drive Gears Crankpin Bearings Main Bearings Connecting Rods Piston Pin and Bushing Water Pump and Shaft - all models and versions Generator and Shaft Lube Oil Pump

Information Needed 2 WR of Generator P f Generator (electrical spring characteristic) R Weight of Each End of Connecting Rod Piston Weights Bearing Orbit Analysis Bearing Peak 011 Film Calculation Lube Oil Pump Capacity Provide Cooies of the Following: a. Descriptive D/G manuals for each engine type (e.g., Operation, Maintenance, and Instruction Manual). Descriptive manuals have already been provided for the DSR-48 engines. b. Descriptive manuals of D/G subsystems for each engine type, if not included in item a, above. c. TDI " Comprehensive Report" to all OG members (see slide entitled "Smmnary of Owners Group Activities" which was presented during January 26, 1984 meeting with the NRC staff).

Additional Staff Comments 1. Individual utilities have reported diesel gerarator related failures and/or deficiencies via LERs, Part 21 notifications, 50.55(e) notifications, etc. Information is also available to the TDI Owners Group regarding failures and deficiencies in similar engines used in non-nuclear applications. The "significant known problems" to be addressed as part of the Owners Group short-term program should be based upon a systematic review of the universe of known problems. 2. The TDI Owners Group has identified sixteen (16) "significant known problems" to be addressed generically as part of their short-term p rogram. The methodology, criteria, and rationale used to identify these "significant" problems from all known problems (see previous comment) should be described. 9 - _ _ _}}