ML20024A995
| ML20024A995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1967 |
| From: | Favret L BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-*, TASK-GB GPU-0201, GPU-201, NUDOCS 8307010283 | |
| Download: ML20024A995 (4) | |
Text
u. um
.,, s 3 THE BABC0CK & WILCOX COMPANY
', l. I, C ~:T,D n
p"._ p. -.3'-
I BOILER DIVISION i
B&W PERSONNEL LISTED BELOW E-] M l'I D I 6 From L. M. FAVRET - NUCLEAR PROPOSITION hhCyg7
, 333,3
'UU/VSEL@g'y S u bj.
MINUTES OF MEETING ON MAX. EXPECTED Date CAPACITY AND LICENSABILITY JUNE 9, 1967 g m. i.ti.e to eme on. catw.r w on. aj.cs.onis.
The following were in attendance:
Jersey Central Power & Light Babcock & Wilcox Company J. E. Logan' W. B. Beisel J. V. Neely L. M. Favret D. R. Rees G. Gray A. A. Rochester D. E. Heyburn J. G. Martin Pickard & Lowe Associates R. F. Ryan D.. R. Wilson J. K. Pickard GPU Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge & Madden Beft Exh. For ID ol0 l f"Rt '- Ev G. F. Trowbridge Charles Shapiro CSR.3,-
nnvie Reporting Inc, cf The above m5t on June 8 to review B&W's offering, the max. expected capacity of the NSS, changes in B&W's offering to achieve the increased capacity and licensing responsibilities.
_ Higher Power Level LoLan advised that they have purchased al Westinghouse 4 flow 44 reheat iischi.%)and that th3_ mmc._,exp,qcted cagabil_ity at the VWO position is
~
[j60' #4t at the inlet to the cy3.~e}from the 24S.b) but they 'JWe
~
IThey did not reauest Ehat 5&N
.incInare._its gtl.aranteed power level reque,s. ting. tha.t,B&'QoRucJ_-'tY_ e~Ebc'Id6'n)- a.naly,sl's. for_t.Ke, P'r~ellifiln~a,ry
}4fe.ty. Analy.sia nshs.rCf_t_216_O MWtj,. They realize that with the increased
+
power level for the accident analysis, it would be necessary to increase the size of the comoonents in the engineered safeguards for the higher
_ power level.
We are to review the NSS and advise Jersey Central of our max. en ected capacity of the NSS, and if. minor revisions are necessary in the/ steam generator to achiev6 the higher power level, we are to advise ugiat changes would be required in the steam ca
"{
7]'jgQ.'.g.
a i
o Uo1311 g
D 0
uw i.
,= =
=
=
a
i
_2_
run the risk of t_he higher power level from the core, _ primary pump, capacity and the [ balance of plantL The only agestion that they have
_1.s,._tlle_g.a. pab.111 ty_.o r, t7ie._s.cem_ gen e.r.a.to rL.
If we are unable to achieve the 2760_MWt.with minor modifications,jwe are to advi.se tha max. expected capacit _
we caH achieve through minor modifications}
~Nsely isT6 pFo_ vide l'y tnatrom burns & rioe the Westinghouse heat balances
~
at the guarantee and VWO ratings of the machine.
We~ replied that we would take this under consideration and that the steam generator model in Alliance is current 1'y undergoing testing for increased capacity and we would advise them at the earliest possible date of our max. expected capacity and what changes would be reguired in the steam generator.
It wasindicatedthiswouldtakeat[Ieastamonth]
. y Tecau.se of the higher power level, we are also to advise.'them of the increased cost for engineering of the accident analysis'of the highe_r 0,ower rating / We are also to advise the increased cost necessary for changes in the auxiliary systems and engineered safeguards, and re-engineering of the systems due to the higher power level. _
Schedule CONF JEN- #d.
JCP&L has established the following schedu ave pe,h LTguested if B&W can comply with the schedule:
t_U Late Fall 1967 to Februar Approximately 12 months 'y 1968 PSAR submittal AEC time of review Construction permit Latest date February 1969 Com=,ercial operation May 1973 JCP&L has requested that Burns & Roe prepare a construction schedule which should incorporate slack time for anticipated interruptions due to labor conditions.
Logan inquired as to when we would be able to start engineering and we replied that our original schedule was based upon a PSAR start date of September 1,1967 and based upon having available complete site information that 5 months would be required to prepare the PSAR.
We also advised that due to the increase in power for the accident analysis, we anticipatede that 6 months would be required for precaration of the
,PSAR materia]/and that fu r th e r e x t e rts.io n s _ney_b_e._n gg e s.s.ayy_@p_t o.. _ th e anticipated difficulty associated with the more__r_qs__trifJ;iy.e_gite of__
~JDVEL. /@e agreed to investigate the possibility of an earlier engineering start date and we are to advise them next week when we can start engineering, what site information is reguired (mainly__ seismic and meteor-
~
01ogy data) and when we anticipated that we can have PSAR material
~
available for TEE. higher power level accident analysis.
Site Data Mr. Logan distributed copies of preliminary site information which described the site location and gave limited site data.
Beisel will review the preliminary site information and has scheduled a meeting with Bill Lowe to advise them what additional information will be required.
UG1312
-~
I
(,
Mr. Trowbridge than inquired if we contemplated any changes in our equipment for this site.
Beisel replied that due to the more restrictive site we. anticipated that a second iodine removal system would be required, additional redundancy in core flooding can be anticipated, a core catcher may be required per Con. Ed., and that JCP&L should contemplate the possibility of double containment.
Mr. Neely then inquired if we had investigated the possibility of an underground plant.
For this site the underground reactor building could impose 4
further difficulties.
i D. R. Wilson then_ explain,ed that_it,may...e_,ad_visable for_J_CP&L to b
_obtain a statement of exoression from B&W re_garding our,,op_ inion of the difficulties to be antici Lat,ed with the Union Beach Site.j'Favret i
suted t'fia't BMW concurred wIth J6P5f7s barliFr statements regarding
~
the difficulty of licensing this site and that we anticipated that this site could possibly be the most difficult to license in the United States at this time.
Because of the more difficult site, we anticipated that there would be changes in our scope of supply and.that the increase in power level would further aggravate the licensing at this slte and that this also -would necessitate changes in our offering.
Licensing Responsibility Following a break for lunch and a caucus by the customer and hic i
consultants, we were advised by Logan that in order to obtain the full l
cooperation of BkW in the licensing of this more difficult site, JCP&L would relieve B&W of its responsibility for changes in cost in the l
balance of plant.
They still wish B&W to prepare the design criteria for the b'alance of plant, but we would have no financial responsibility for changes in design criteria.
B&W would still be responsible for 3
its own scope of supp,1y if the change is necessary on MeYTEd. and a similarchangTisrequiredonthe,JCp5CEdit'~)'B&Wistobereimbursed for all cost increases associated with the-increased accident analysis an_d ch,an3e,s_,in engineered saf,eguards for the more restrictiv_e site. /~
JCP&L was no_t__defini_t3_on who wouli,Aav for th.e,_inc_reased engineeri6E cost associated with the more restrictive site.- We thanked JCP&L for this offer and Wilson requested that Trowbridge prepare a draft state-ment which B&W.would take under consideration.. We further stated that we did not contemplate any problems in the acceptance of this offer by i
B&W.
C0F>t EC' ' A'~ '
Terms of Payment f
r-ffer and Mr. Logan then inquired as to the terms o we advised that the schedule of progress payments is contained in the Proposal, Section 16.
We advised that due to the earlier engineering start there may be a minor modification in the schedule of payments.
_After we establish our engineering start date, we are to advise JCP&L of any change in the schedule of progress payments.
Mr. Neely then inquired as to how JCP&L could verify our progress payments and also monitor our percentage of completion for control purposes.
JCP&L required verification that our_ progress payments do not exceed the percent completion of the work.
We advised that we would discuss this with Wilson to determine a method of providing them with a sched'ule of key events.
UO1313,
.~
_ - _, ~., - -
.....y ',
Construction Scheduling JCP&L requested that we establish at the earliest possible time the date when we can meet with.them and Burns & Roe _to discuss our engineering Beisel advised that this would be done after and construction schedule.
we complete the review of our own engineering schedule to determine Favret suggested that if we when we can make an engineering start.
encounter engineering manpower limitations in the areas related to site analysis and auxiliary systems designs, which could be done by others, that it may be advisable to delete from B&W's scope items such as Reactor Building Cooling System, Service Water System, IntermediateJCP&L and Pick Cooling System and Spent Fuel Cooling System.with this with the excep capability in this system.
Fuel We inquired if JCP&L has come to any decision on the fuel alternates
- and we advised them that we did not have any uranium commitment specif-Pickard advised that unless we had.better ically allocated to JCP&L.
uranium prices to offer, he did not believe that they were interested in this offer because they were able to procure the equivalent of $8 We replied that B&W has been gnable yellowcake from the Commission.to obtain absolute assurance that the Commissio sell uranium and that in our opinion this will probably be related to Further, we did not expect that the Commission' industry viability.
would price below the industry if the radon restrictions have increased the cost of uranium because this again would be in conflict with the Trowbridge then made the comment to Pickard viability'of the industry.
that he had been telling Pickard the same thing for the past few months.
Pickard then made the comment that the price of U308 on the open pit mines would be considerably lower.
7/
A L. M.
avret LMF:mr cc:
D. K. Davies N
nny,-1 T N T'in L N. S. Embrey BUN I L J El', l G. A. Profita COUNSE_ ONLY O
Uo1314
[
.