ML20024A950
| ML20024A950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1967 |
| From: | Neely J JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-*, TASK-GB GPU-0198, GPU-198, NUDOCS 8307010218 | |
| Download: ML20024A950 (5) | |
Text
-
~
n.-
(,
g)
's ?
g s
COhTERE'!CE NOTF3 M*.1 @.1, April 11, 1967, StEJECT:
Initial Factinr: with EF: Sep N:entatives DATE:
Parch 30,1937 PLACE:
Board Roon, Morristown General Office Th0SE PRESENT:
BABCOCK & WILCOX W. B. Beisel L. M. Favret G. Gray D. E. Heyburn J. H. MacMillan W. H. Rowand D. R. Wilson JERSEY CE" TRAL PO'iER & LIGHT CO?GA!iY J. E. Logan W. H. McElwain (Part Time)
J. V. Neely G. H. Ritter Mr. Gooden Gray opened the meeting by introducing Mr. Rowand who inturn re-introduced all of his people and explained briefly how they would be working on the Jersey Central reactor.
He expressed his appreciation and thanks for Jersey Centr:1': confide..ce in placing their order with B&W and stated that the full resources of their boiler division would be available.
Mr. Rowand then invited Jersey Central people to visit any of their facilities and particularly invited us to their Mt. Vernon, Barberton, and Alliance Yorks.
Turbine and Core Rating Mr. Logan opened the discussion of B%i's proposal by questioning the neaning and sig.ificance of the 114 per::ent overpover margin.
He indicated that he was concerned about the difference between reheat and non-rcheat turbines and about differences in site condition, particularly cooling water te=perature.
He indicated ccncern about the significance of this overpower margin in taking a decisien en turbine procurement.
~
Mr. F.acVillan gave a brief explanation of the reason for the overpower margin.
Basically, desi n for c erpower is required because the systet uses out-of-core flux teasuring equipment.
Because of this 8307010218 670411 PDR ADDCK 05000289 A
HDL 94 Exh. For in 1qg m
Charles Shapiro CSR pflMg/
Doyle Reporting Inc.
Cd
- n..
g separation, the flux (pw:r) in the core will actu Ily be cre.ter than tN flux (pw c) btit:0 :.n.:urvi by th instrument::.
Tne ovi.rpower trip (deterr.ined by flux r.ca. ure: ant) is set at 109 5 p.r.wnt on the instru-cc:nt.at.ic::, bu, core pawer could actually oc llh percent.
Mr. Ritter in11 sted that we hsi reviewed the propocal thorouch'ly and hsl ccmpared it to th Meted proposal and that we were concerned about so=e of the differences between the t:o propose.ls.
Farticularly, we are concerned about the difference 1.n power output ratinc.
Mr. MacMillan and Mr. Favret both indicated that the MetEi and Jersey Central reactors are identical.
Further= ore, these reactors are identical to the plant being supplied to Duke Power.
In response to further questions frc= Messrs. Logan and Ritter, i
the E W people indicated that they were only guaranteeing one power level for all of these reactors and that power level is 2b521Nt.
The Duke reactor is being licensed to operate at 2k52 D!t, but for accident analysis a core power of 2568 Dit is being used. The Duke turbine.is nameplate rated at 832 Die net and approximately 880 Die gross.
This works out such that turbine rating is 107 percent of reactor plant design capacity (thisratingbasedon1)-inchmercurybackpressure).
In further response to Mr. Logan's request for help in sizing our turbine, Mr. Favret indicated that EW will provide firm figures for i
steam flow, tecperature, pressure and feedwater tetr.perature, which they feel are consistent with reactor design capability and which Jersey Central can use to size the turbine.
Site Mr. Ritter questioned why.B&W had laid down site criteria in Section 15 3 of the proposal since they are not supplying the contain-ment vess'e1.
which they are supplying, are very definitel.yMr. MacMillan stated that de affectec by site conditions and therefore, MW felt obliged to include site features as a condition in their price.
If the site finally selected does not meet the criteria specified by EW and if changes are needed to the engineered safeguar'ds, then EW may adjust the price to cover cost of changes in equipment design.
i 3
There,was some discussion as to which site had been selected.
Eiri requested thst they be advised as scon as possible what the site
. location is, and Messrs. Logan and Ritter assured them they wculd be given site information, including written reports as soon as they are available.
Schedules and EW Coe tit =ents Mr. Neely asked how many large thick wall pressure vessels E W has fabricated to date, how many vessels they now have scheduled into their shcps, and if delm/ in ene vessel would set schedules back on all later scheduled units.
,8
, ' =.[ *
(,
C.
!*r. R:r, r! rtata l th st t!.cy r.'.
h2v : celer:. for thirty-one prea;ure v.:r.:.1 ; !.at t.h y have not. h!;; ~J 2ny.
Ecw.er, th y have several -/ni b ar. ii: t:) l: ch.;.; -! in *.i : :..::t few ma thJ anl all of thtae are on :.:er.elule.
.r. Rowand tatei th2t a del'y in one vessel vould not ::ffe. t : h.lule en another b. : cs;e of the unique a;sproach they take to fabri.: ate there verse 1=.
7:-'y cove the tools to the work rather than the al1:r approach of puttin; the work onto the tools.
The questien w2: raised as to ha many nuclear sten:2 supply systems SW.is present2y :cr.titted to deliver.
- 's. Rowind stated that they now h.vc orh r.: for five systems in a.!dition to the Jersey Central r
reactor. The:e sy:te.: are: Florida P ver and Licht, Duke Pouer and Lignt (two units), yiddle South Utilities, ar.d I:etropolitan Edison.
All of this work has been scheduled to minial:e the overlap and rainimize the possibility that one =ight interfere with another.
5di stated that they had been very careful to avoid takin; orders for more work than 4
they had capacity to perform.
Mr. Beisel, in discussing planning and scheduling, indicated that they would like to begin design work on September 1.
In order to do this they proposed the following schedule for critical events:
9-1-67 Complete Site Evaluaticn Reports and Start on the Preli=inary Safeguar:is Report 2-1-68 File Application for Constr.uction Autp.orization 2-1-69 Obtain Construction License 1-1-71 Ship Pressurizer 2-1-71 Ship Stea:2 Generator No. 1 3-15-71 Ship Reactor Ve:scl 4-15-71 Ship Stea::: Generator No. 2 8-1-72
. Hot Loop Circulation Tests 5
12-1-72 Load Fuel 5-1-73 Begin Cc=ercial operati:n i
In response to questions frc:a
~.r. I'cely, EE indicated that they have done a CF'.* network for all of their engineering activities on plants of this type, and they would be preparei to cocperate in an over-allprojectCP:./?IRTschedule.
1 8
l-
(.
4
~
Ihr te:
Mr. :~. cly c:gr== ml concern about wcirling pre lure: which S&W intends to ucc.
E4.' indicates on pace 2-19 of the propo:al that they intend to r.d:e veld jointe in clad piping by butterinc stainla s steel j
onto carbon steci curfa c cn the wcld prepa. ration: ca.d t6 n ecepleting
~
wcld joint: with stainles steel filler. Since the st'ainles to carbon steel penetration 1: ?.own to be wenher than either of.he parent materials, this =cthod of joininc is hichly questionable and has been fourut to be un:stisfactory on other projrets.
Mr. Rowand agreed with this evaluatien sni indicated that 31W would intend to make these joints between stain 1ces and clad piping using Inconel filler.
Mr. Favret stated that the paragraph in the proposal was obviously incorrect and they would revise that page and re-issue it. Also, in weld cladding stainless onto carbon steel, there have been some difficulties in using type 30S rod in the first pass.
Proble=s such as clad cracking on the Elk River reactor vessel head have been partially attributed to welding in this canner. On other projects, use of type 309 rod for the first pass, followed by type 308, has been found to give better results.
B&W indicated that they would investigate this question, and if necessary, re-evaluate their procedures for weld cladding of carbon steel.
Mr. Neely questioned the extent of reliability testing which has been performed on the components and co=plete assemblies for the control rod drives. B&W indicated that they have had a very comprehensive test progran underway for some time and that they have already been involved in these matters with the AEC Staff in the construction applica-tion for the Duke Power plant.
They are well prepared to docu=ent component and system reliability and they will invite Jersey Central to visit their plants to see firsthand the tyra and extent of testing which they have dcne and are continuing.
Fuel Protosal Ottions Mr. Ritter expressed concern about the difference between the Jersey Central and Meted proposal provisions for spent fuel buyback.
He also pointed out that there is no provisien for retention of funds pending proof of fuel p,erfomance. Also the Jersey Central proposal includes provisions for =aterial and labor escalation adjustments which the Meted proposal does not have.
B&W indicated that the Jersey Central spent fuel buyback price is lower than the EetEd buyback price because EFi estimates higher reclamation costs in later years. Also they stated that labor and material escalation is provided to protect 3E. against error in predicting i
these costs so far in advance.
E&W stated that they.did not feel that retention of funds on the fuel contract was necessary since the plant 1
contract provides for retention of 5 percent of the ::ssa cost.
t a
4*
e,g.
d 1'.r. Rit t...r ein."*^ th<'
'*L *C bT~ udv1.'it t ' ' ' Lta t. uc u.
e 3
.."'. e. or. 'on the proje,*.'... r. ;', n Jcr.;cy Cent r
~ *'-
not
,~,...'n'L.w uv y..
un#
s ~-
- v-w for a.;f...i i.,A,, in ;.J.a p.. 1.
....,, it..
- g....*,s.:.:.:. ;r,,, c do h1vc os, <....,1 cot! ;u' '* a '.
..o !...i n n on
- ~ - -
- w-a 4.
p,.,,.,,,, 3',,**j, to beJin their work on Septemb'ar 1.d ad liti se 1-ML wi 1 be engaged ve y ~, U c: oth.;r cite 2,;al :00.
l' 7
fic in fic Creement with
' /
Q.Il'
. 'i. '.
J
=
~
V. Neely JVil:ep Copy to Those Present Mr. J. K. Pickard Mr. D. R. Rees W. A. A. Rochester Mr. G. F. Trowbridge.
,i 4
N t
e e
t t
=
f
. [.
-r
,w w
--,.-e e
r 7
g 9
.mr 7