ML20244B476

Discusses Settlement Proposal of Diesel Litigation Through Testing Program.Taking Matters to Board Will Accomplish Nothing in Way of Furthering Settlement

ML20244B476
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/27/1985
From:	Dynner A KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Earley A HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
References
OL, NUDOCS 8906130130
Download: ML20244B476 (4)

Text

._ ___ __ _ _- - _ -_

, l KIRKPATRICK suiW mar, N.v.

& @T temustanaan 8 P1'.4 ** """m E sseum eneme W W ""E HW M AVets ma="%f#Mio?sWS!  %";" .

cRANCH unmaa manee rebruary 27, 1945; annessu m nas venneamorseamnem ms name (202) 452-7044 '

' L- .A l

.,.# -4 @ p E E %  !

(BY TELECOPY)

I Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

Hunton a Wil11ame P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dear Tony

??* c "Tt:nr abrasive rept to my' 1stter of February 36: elearly

~ rates that LILCO a so-called " settlement proposal" was ing more than amateurish posturing aimed at the Eisensing

1. ,  ?. =

- is look at the facts. The County, not LIIMtb first proposed settlement of the diesel litigation through a testing program. Ao you well know, we earlier stated that the crankshafts would be acceptable at particular leads if either they meet classification society rules (which they do not at or above-3500 kW) le7 1f they have beer. tes .ed at the g value, of such loads for H cycles (about 740 hours0.00856 days <br />0.206 hours <br />0.00122 weeks <br />2.8157e-4 months <br />) and been subsequently found to be

. free of defeats. We also said that the cracked engine blocks of diesels 101 and 102 could be acceptable for operation at particu-lar loads such leads if for one109f those sysles blocks and been were tested at founTTo subsequently the true nave value of

" ' n, suffered no significant ligament er circumferential crack propa-s@ gation and no initiation of stud-to,-stud cracks. These settlement

$8c$

gg

.- offers have been "on the table" for many months, and firmed as open offers earlier this month on the record in the were recon-me presence of.the Board. Tr. 27,101s.27,113.

$6 Has Lnco ever responded to these settlement offers? No.

o8 Instead, in october of 1984 LILCO chose to test diesel 103, with

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

e KRXPATRICE e6 LOCKHART Anthony F. Earle , Jr., Esq.

February 27, 198 Page 2 i

Before LILCO began that test run we strongly urged the Staff, I which was acting as a "go-between" to try to arrange some settle-ment, to persuade LILCO to test either diesel 101 or 102 and at .

loads higher than-3300 kW. Our position, which.I as certain was j communicated to LILCO, was that because the replacement block of J diesel 103 was uncracked, of a different design and of a stronger l material than the cracked blocks on diesels 101 and 102, the test run on diesel 103 could not possibly resolve our concerns with the cracked blocks. We also indicated -hat testing at only 3300 kW was risky because a maximum load of 3300 kW had not been justi-fled. Because LILCO had maintained that the diesels were capable of safe operation at loads of -3500 kW to 3900 kW, we could not understand why LILCO was unwilling to put its theories to a test.

[ Y h e Staff responded that LILCO, not the Stafi,.had selected {

' 3355 kW as the maximum load for testing, and that the Staff had ne$ determined whether such a maoimum load wee justified. The

'said that diesel 103 wee to be tested because, greeks on the i' bment of the other diesels would prestude strain gm measure-C the can gallery areas however, the staff metnewledged -

that those measurements could be taken in 9nly about ten hours.

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

On February.22 LILco sent us its settlement proposal, purportedly "in response to Judge trenner's suggestion." This proposal did not mention, much less address. the County's con-tinuing settiament offer, despite Judge Brenner's comment about the County's offer. Tr. 27,113. Moreover, LILCo's proposal 7 cverlooked Judge arenner's questioning regarding testing at 10 cycles of diesels 101 or 102, and his stacament that if LILCo believes the diesels are acceptable at 3500 kW, why doesn't LILCO "put your money where your mouth is and run it at that load." Tr.

27,098. See also Tr. 27,117. If LILCO had cared to respond to the countyTs oTYor in a meaningful way, these comments would have put into context Judge Brenner's saggestion that you discuss with the " highest levels" of LILCO management practical steps that LILc0 might take to settle the diesel litigation. Tr. 27,111.

But aside from the LILCO proposal being unresponsive to Judge Brenner's comments, it was also unresponsive to the County's concerns, for the reasons summarised in my letter yesterday. For the sake of clarity, we will respond briefly to the arguments in your letter of February 27.

7

'e .

L i

MIRMFATRICK 46 LOCKHART Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

February 27, 1985 Page 3 .

First, as to the 220 hours0.00255 days <br />0.0611 hours <br />3.637566e-4 weeks <br />8.371e-5 months <br /> of additional crankshaft testing, we do not accept the Regulatory Guide 1.104 twenty-four hour test as an applicabis standard for crankshafts that fail to meet classification society rules. The original crankshafts on your diesels ran hundreds of hours longer than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before they broke, geoond, Dr. Bush's profiled testimony has not yet been sub-jected to cross-examination. We believe his analysis of crank-shaft failure modes is faulty and not supportable. Dr. Susa and the staff witnesses previously testified that the crankshafts should be acceptable at 3500 kN only if tested 10 7 cycles at that load.

Y 'Sird, inspections of suspect crankshafts after . testing is no N,..

pSetitute for adequate crankshafts. If eraeks initiate and prop-La a crankshaft during a L007/LOCA event, your inspections gf- .have been uselees. LILCO's own witness, Os". NoCarthy of V uts Analysis Associates, testified that there would be only a J ehert

• the orankshafttime between erankshaft crack initiation and the severing of (tr. 23,009) and that there is little purpose to be served by periodie erankshaft inspections. Tr. 23,065.

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

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

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

Fifth, your statement that testing the ermoked blocks of diesels 101 or 102 would not be meaningful is absurd. It is based upon LILCo's a tous " cumulative damage analysis," which we do not accept. tously if one completely accepts that analysis, testing would be superfluous. -Let's put ths LILCO theory to a real test. The County was willing to test its theory concerning the origin of saa gallery cracks (over LILCO's objections), and we were proved wrong. Why won't LILCo "put it9 money where its mouth is"? Test one of the oracked blocks for 10 cycles and we will.

all see whether or not your theories are correct. LILCO's refusal to carry out such a test speaks icuds than all of LILCO's words.

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

We are already before the Boardt tnat's what this litigation is all about. If LILCo really wanted. a settlement, LILCO might have responded to the County's long-outstanding settlement offer. You

,3>

i ,

KIRXFAMICK k IDCEMART Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

February 27, 1985 Page 4 might have given us a proposal wnich responded to our concerne.

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

In our view, taking these matters to the Board will accom-plish nothing in the way of furthering a settlement. We cannet stop you from proceeding with your ill-conceived plan, but we will only discuss your " proposal" with the Board if the soard orders us to participate and if such dissuasions are on the record.

The County has settled most of the issues in the diesel litigation. We settled our contention regarding pistons. We

t. ed our contention on cylinder heads. We settled our concerns

?.@ ' east tellery oraeks. We have made offers to settle the erank-f' *:

and cylindey block issues, based upon the testing of those to for 10 cycles sa the true valus of the loads they may

$: . We will continue to be reasonable, but we will not be M ., ..

4 by your theatrios.

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

Very truly yours, h' . -

Alan Roy ner [-

ARD/dk ces' Edwin J. Aais, Esq. '

Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

9