From: Wayne T. Reiersen
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:42 AM
To: 'Hutch Neilson (hneilson@pppl.gov)'
Cc: Ronald L. Strykowsky; Bob Simmons; Phil Heitzenroeder; 'Brad Nelson (Brad Nelson)'; Lawrence E. Dudek; Michael E. Viola
Subject: CD3 Rebaselining

Hutch,

 

I spoke with Ron this morning about what we were going to do and what we were not going to do as part of ECP14 – CD3 Rebaselining.  I thought it would be good to document what is not going to be included in ECP14 and make sure everyone has a common understanding:

 

  1. Changes in Field Period Assembly.  Viola has proposed changes in the FP assembly schedule.  The net impact is zero to first order.  Strykowsky has some concerns with what Viola has proposed and does not have the time to resolve and incorporate in ECP14.  These will be addressed in September.
  2. Changes in Final Assembly.  I am concerned about inconsistencies with the final assembly schedule and the Final Assembly Plan.  Again, the net impact appears to be nearly zero.  These too will be resolved in September.
  3. Finalizing the MCWF delivery schedule and use of the prototype winding form as the first production article.  Strykowsky’s schedule is currently based on the “worst case” assumption that we receive 6 Type Cs followed by 6 Type Bs and 6 Type As.  This is sub-optimal for performing initial handling trials.  Basically, the schedule allows no time for this – a point of vulnerability.  We need to be prepared to say that we can do without 3-coil handling trials.  This delivery schedule also pushes back the start of field period assembly, forcing us to work on three in parallel.  Heitzenroeder is working with EIO to change the order of delivery to allow time for 3-coil handling trials and begin field period assembly earlier.  This will also force any MCWF fabrication issues to surface sooner – another benefit.  One of the things we might be able to offer up is for EIO to use the prototype as the first production article.  The key here is to scan the actual part and verify that a finished part does indeed reside within the casting.  That seems to be the final hurdle before we can offer this as an option.  The benefit to EIO is that they would have one less casting to produce.  The benefit to us is that we would receive the first and last castings sooner.  Again, it does not look like we have time to resolve these technical and contractual issues in time to incorporate into ECP14.  We will have to go with the existing MOU for ECP14.  However, we should plan to resolve these issues before signing the contract.  Another September change – aka ECP15.

 

Are these thoughts consistent with your own?

 

Wayne