ML20024B020
| ML20024B020 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1966 |
| From: | Heller F BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-*, TASK-GB GPU-0179, GPU-179, NUDOCS 8307020033 | |
| Download: ML20024B020 (8) | |
Text
.
J. G. K3hilNs 3ORIEEMf ki N3*
/', i' Q,-
EW YORK
_j
,s 3
1*d N P,.;-
./
THE BASCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY F.ECEl /E0 801LER 01 VISION 8,. & W. H. Y: 015 T..
To l
MEMO TO FILES CM 7
- 1 10
- I 3 3, c, w Froa OCT 7 1966 F. C. HELLER PHILADELPHIA SALES OFFICE 333 g3 3 Cust.
ris, no.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY A4-7
~Subj.
Date OCTOBER 6, 1966' 1
j n. i. n.,
A meeting was held in the offices of the Metropolitan Edison Company Reading Pa.
at 10:00 A.M. Friday, September 30, to discuss various, problems,with, regard to P4W responsibility for licensing and other general conditions in our bid for hardware under alternates "A" and "B".
The following were in attendance l
Jersey Central Power & Licht D. R. Rees, Supt. Oyster Creek Station
_ Gilbert Associates. Inc.
.f -:
S. Goodman Mgr. Nuclear Eng.
J H. C. Schwe,ikart, Vice-Pres. Engrg.
George W. Switzer, Mgr. Utility Services
- Gerald Charnoff, Attorney Shaw-Pittman J. K. Pickard Pickard & Love a
Metropolitan Edison ' Co.
~ ~ ~ ~
-3 a
n- -
R. E. Neidig. Vice-Pres. Engrg.
J. G. Miller Chief Engr.
U(
s TU.
J. '.c.
A J. S. Bartman Supt. Oper.
~,
G. F. Bierman Project Engr.'
BaF ock & Wilcox Co.
Dr. J. Coughlin L. M. Favret F.C. Heller John MacMillan D-y J. B. Olmstead De4. Exh. For in d'-) T W. H. Rovand G. S. White Pl64sk h Ev CharlesShapiroCSR gfft/
'- l
^
i
/
Doyle Reporting Inc.
..;.. z5.:.2 QEP } 53l" f \\/Y 3.,
- j m g.sg @ 9 "171
.s.,
8307020033 661006 1'
PDR ADOCK 05000289 l
P HDL
.f A
., (-. -,,.
,e
}
t
%$.%) '
N.
5 ug.te;3 Y Y
~
r
3 B0llER DIVISION b.IEL ca-T'M THE BABC0CK & WILCOX COMPANY Olik d
u-s From NLY I
2 0 TO FILES F. C. HELLER PHILADELPHIA SALES OFFICE ses 663-3 Cust.
File No.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
- ' y AN-7 Subj.
Date OCTOBER'6, 1966 - l * * " *' ** *r *a
- a* **=' aa* *a* a'*i '** *a'r-The meeting was opened by a request from Jim Pickard for.a detail discussion on the scope under both the "A" and "B" bids with particular emphasis on safety items.
Lou Favret outlined this material in detail for him with terminal points at the interfaces.
At the conclusion Jim Pickard stated that in his opinion everything concerned with licensing was included in,our "A" scop,e.
Lou Favret agreed with the exception of emergency power, turbine-bypass, and minor items in the turbine island.
A lengthy discussion then ensued on the size of our bypass which is set at 15%.
Met-ed is concerned with the effect of a full load turbine trip and whether or not this would cause the safety valves to blow.
We advised that we could accep* t a' 1+0%
drop from full load without blowing safety valves, and could reduce to house load on the main turbine by the use of our control rods without a reactor scram.
We cautioned them, however, it would be necessary to specify to the turbine manufacturer that he should be able to take the overspeed caused by the 100% load' rejection without tripping the turbine.
It was~further agreed that, although the 15% turbine-b> pass was adequate for our needs, for reasons of,public relations, at c.,ing safety valves.
it might be necessary to supply a larger bypass to prevent blow Further if AEC or Met-ED decide they desire to have a larger bypass, itl 1s for Met-Ed's account.
of load rejection was mIt was further agreed that the problem' uc)1 more expensive with the BWR'due to the -
quick res by a 100%ponse required.
This is taken care of under the BKR design turbine bypass which could cost in excess of $1 million.
In answer to a question.from both John Miller and Jim Pickard as to why we could bring our unit down faster than other PWR units, ?
~
we advised that the B&W BWR has 50% more co,ntrol rods,is more and with the once-through boiler, less heat storage so that it responsive.
, x Jerry Charnoff Ettorney questioned what portion of the equipment beyond the nu, clear staa,n supply system bid we trould
~
5.-
take responsibility for.
i.r. ;>.
.c i
l M. '.
.:..L G
. ~.
.U 1234.
a 0
+
.p_
_7 3.._p, l
THE BABCOCK & Wil.COX COMPANY
[ q p[jk %
p1M B0ll.ER OlVISION q
MEMO TO FILES Op&L] %,
- P 'OI a
uc.
F. C. HELLER PHILADELPHIA SALES OFFICE sos 663-3 Cust.
File No.
or Ref.'
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANI A-4-7 Su bj.
Date OCTOBER 6, 1966 l)Ns lener 18 Cererone customer ed one adject e#3 o F
Jim Pickard replied that it was his" opinion that, if B&W changes criteria after approval by us of the Gilbert design we would accept changes to all of our scope of supply and one, half of the equipment outside of our scope of supply within the nuclear island boundaries.
At this point Ralph Neidig again raised the question which he had raised the pre,vious evening at the Reading Motor Inn which can be summarized essentially as follows -
"he can't understand why the B&W Co. won't take the same responsibility on the "B" bid t.s on the "A" bid if we provide all the design
- criteria Engineers, and have the right to approve the final design by his Gilbert Associates Inc.
W. H. Rowa,nd advised that the,B&W Co. as a method of doingIn reply to business, will not accept responsibility if we do not supply the equipment and do not have control over its design.
Ralph Neidig cocmented that if they Met-Ed, were doing it again they would probably word their Spe,cifications differently and then questioned "How can we do it." (this would appear to be an obvious entreaty for us to come up with a means of getting together on some common ground).
A discussion then followed between Goodman and Pickard as to what the additions to our bid were and how a common ba'se could be established for the 50-50 sharing.
It was agreed that this could be extremely confusing unless such a base could be established (it was for this reason that we met with Gilbert Associates on Monday and Tuesday, October 3 and 4 to compare
~
the scope of their balance of plant with our "A" bid).
Following this discussion, Herb Schweikart stated that the 50-50 sharing system on the "B" bid gives the utility more control than under the "A" bid hisownbesEadvantage.in which the manufacturer would tend to design for Sherm Goodman advised that the balance of plant in their estimate for our "B" bid was based on our criteria and design including the drawings made for us by Jackson M reland.
Herb Schweikart then stated that, as a minimum,they are du B&W should accept all changes in scope outside of our supply if e to our mistakes in criteria as supplied with o,ur bid since this information was used in the bid evaluations and wo,uld not involve "a
any AEC changes.
H
?
H 3.
01235l\\
'~
l 6
n' ' '~~
. ~ ~
" ~ ~ f<
t n...
+
THE BABC0CK & WILCOX COMPANY
[d #~{$g%
tig yN p ec B iLER 01 VISION
' }.
r To
[
dC.G s
.f MEMO TO FILES
.,g pa Q From pd
,,U u""
F. C. HELLER PHILADELPHIA SALES OFFICE.
ses 663-3 Cust.
File No.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
" ** A4 -7 3ub.l.
Date OCTOBER l'O, 1966 l
p. i. w s.
e w r i t wir.
We did,not agree to change our stand on this item.
At this point Don Rees leaned ove'r to the writer advising that there was some me,rit in the 50-50 sharing of changes brought about by AEC, he same problem with regard to licensing costs.
since he felt both the utility and the manufacturer are fighting t He believes it was a shortsighted policy to " stick the vendor" with all such licensing changes.
We believe he had in mind the future,
of the industry where the changes required on one job will be required on all future jobs, the cost of which will, discussions of course, be ultimately paid for by the utility industry.
In with George Bierman on October 3, he also agreed that shaging would tend to reduce the overall plant cost since both the utility and the manufacturer would go in with what they considered a 1;Leensable offering, they would then fight it through until it became apparent that a more expensive design would be required at which point they would be sharing the costs.
On the other hand, if the manufacturer is required to accept 'all changes he will tend,
- under the "B" option, h the additional coste of upgrading the to play it safe on all designs in order to avoid being caught wit design after he has finally approved it and it has been submitted to AEC.
In answer to questions as to whether cur statement on site suitability would be withdrawn after we have obtained complete site data, Lou Favret advised that B&W would take all financial responsibility for our scope of supply for the specific site.
We would not take responsibility for material outside our scope, such as flood dykes, cooling ponds, etc.
In reply to a question on earthquakes he further advised when a specific site is selected B&W and Meted will agree on a specific design basis, and then if AEC requires a change in this design criteria it will be for the Meted's account.
The question was then raised by Jerry Charnoff with regard..' H to the cutoff point on the warranty which they believe should be
- 1 carried through the date of full power acceptance without any AEC Limita,tions.
.c, I
U 12 g. *
- Q 1
.~.u l
C Q
(\\
O D
}'
I
mn....
THE BA8 COCK & WILCOX COMPANY O:
. h i; i,,. '.
BOILER DIVISION Nii O i 5 4 2 d '*ia MD10 TO FILES Fros
~
- l F. C. HELLER PHILADELPHIA SALES OFFICE enHi-[
Gust.
Fine no.
or Ref.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY A4-7 Subj.
Date OCT. 6, 1966
,,y _ p.. i.n t.
w. w r.,
i.a wir.
i It was agreed that we could make some changes in our specifications defining the time of commencing warranty; e.
g., full power demonstration.
With regard to questions on changes, it was stated that no changes in our design would be made other than those i
necessary to. meet license requirements or warranty without first clearing with the Owner.
B&W agreed, in general subject to our i
right to make changes to cover our own financial, responsibility with regard to warranty.
It was further requested that when j
replacement parts are installed the new Warranty date start as of the time of the installation.
It. was agreed that we could come' up with a limit such'as; e.
g., a second warranty for an additional year with a total warranty not to exceed two years.
Lab *or f'or J
installation of the failed parts is to be furnished by the B&W Co.
j.
, Vendor's warranties to 3&W would be passed on to Meted as a i
j condition of our Purchase orders.
Several questions were raised as to the once-through,boiier test program and whether or not we would accept a substitution ~
boiler.
We advised that there was no thought of changing from the once-through to a conventional unit, Alliance.and then want through the test program now being conducted at As far as I
control drives are concerned, we advised that the cutoff date for making a decision as to whether Diamond or Westinghouse would be supplied was January 1968.
Ralph Neidig then asked the '
question: "If AEC approves of the drives, but Meted does not.
3 l
what then?"
We advised that we would be willing to discuss j
a substitution at this point if they should desire.
Our extended scope fuel proposal was then discussed in some detail.
Jim Pickard, in particular, showed considerable interest in our method of presentation.
They will study this i
further and, undoubtedly, will wish additional discussions on i
this subject in the future.
In summary, however,' as a bacic point. Ralph Neidig stated that our fuel contract could in no way I
effect their ability to run the plant at such loads as they deem necessary.
.Upz&
,,?
.7 D
0 C
r.
' ? ; <.,.
.m.
O.n.,.. -
THE DA8 COCK & WILCOX CCHPANY
. i.
i DcJ E
~' U 2 d Na BOILER OlVISION MEMO TO FILES From F. C. HELLER PHILADELPHIA SALES OFFICE m.,,3 3
Gust.
File No.
or Ref.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY A4-7 Su bj.
Date OCT. 6, 1966 1
,,y_
p.. i.nor t...r...
.w r.no on. amus onir.
f It was agreed that we could make some changes in our specifications defining the time of commencing warranty; e.
g.,
full power i
demonstration.
With regard to questions on changes, it was stated that no changes in our desir,n would be made other than those necessary to. meet license requirements or warranty without first clearing with the Owner.
B&W agreed, in general, subject to our
}
right to make changes to cover our own financial responsibility with regard to warranty.
It was further requested that when replacement parts are installed the new warranty date start as j
of the time of the installation.
It. was agreed that we could come-up with a limit such as; e.
g., a second warranty for an, additional year with a total warranty not to exceed two years.
Labor for installation of the failed parts is to be furnished by the B&W Co.
Vendor's warranties to S&W would be passed on to Meted as a 9
j condition of our Purchase orders.
i
^
Several questions were raised as to the once-through boiier test program and whether or not we would accept a substitution ~
boiler.
We advised that there was no thought of changing from the once-through to a conventional unit, and then went through the test program now being conducted at Alliance.
As far as control drives are concerned, we advised that the cutoff date for making a decision as to whether Diamond or Westinghouse woul,d be supplied was January 1968.
Ralph Neidig then asked the question: "If AEC approves of the drives, but Meted does not.
3 j
what then?"
We advised that we would be willing to discuss a substitution at this point if they should desire.
Our extended scope fuel proposal was then discussed in some detail.
Jim Pickard, in particular, showed considerable interest in our method of presentation.
They will study this further and, undoubtedly, will wish additional discussions on this subject in the future.
In summary, however, as a basic i
i point Ralph Neidig stated that our fuel contract could in no way t.
effect their ability to run the plant at such loads as they I
deem necessary.
m Q
7
.e
.....==w
=--.
- - = = = * * **=
g
= - - =. = -
l THE BACCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY 3'"
j, 80lLER DIVISION
" , W To l
$h} Y l
w l
MEMO TO FILES i
'b'b I
From F. C. HELLER PHILADELPHIA SALES OFFICE cust.
ses 663 3 m e no.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY A4-7 i
i Subj.
1 Date I
OCT. 6,' 1966 i
-6l**"'"***""***'"""*****i"'"*'
In other words, should they desire to over-burn the fuel in order to generate capacity during a peak period, our contract should not constrict them from so doing.
Lou Favret advised that if they elect to remove the core before full burn up for i
scheduling reasons or over-burn our centract provides for an i
adjustment of under,-burning at 11# per trillion BTU and 8.1+#
per trillion for over-burning.
,I -
Jerry Charnoff was concerned about adjusting their with-drawal of fuel from the AEC to accom=odate plant startup should the plant be delayed.
It was his feeling that B&W should be respons-
.ible for the extra withdrawal charges if B&W was responsible for
~
the plant delay.
He also felt that extra carrying charges for the second fuel load should be for our account under similar circumstances.
Lou Favret agreed, in general, that we could pr'obably accommodate them on this request provided the delays were due to factors under our control.
We would, of course, not be responsible for any consequential damages, loss of profits, etc.
The meeting was closed by Ralph Noidig with the request that we get together promptly with Gilbert Associates to compare our nuclear island bid with their balance of plant in order to uncover any missing items of scope,plus our "B" bid criteria etc.
He then stated that it was his hope after this had been a,ccomplished that we would then be in a position to submit our "B" bid and accept responsibility for changes due to AEC licensing requirements after approval of the Gilbert design.
(
COMMENTS ON GAI MEETING OCTOBER 3,1966 l
OCTOBER A 1966 The details of these meetings to discuss the site suitabilit t
and scope of supply are covered in L. M. Favret's memo of October 4.y
[
During this meeting Georgs Switzer, Manager, Utility Services for GAI, set forth as their objective the obtaining of an agreement on the scope of materials included in our "A" bid which permits us to accept responsibility for AEC licensing. Having agreed on j
this equipment they then proposed to include the equivalent in their balance o,f plant so that when added to our "B" bid it will
. 4 l
then match our nuclear island "A" bid.
i
'i.
U 1238 0
_ _. _ 7.... _.. _ -
.,,,,,,,,,, y t.
.- ~,....
s F'
m E
4.*
O h.
i
, p - - r. y v. F. 7 " ]
THE BA8C0CK & Wil.COX COMPANY
'@'g (} Q
' B0llER DIVISION
'd MEMO TO FILES (d
t.
La from s
F. C. HELLER PHILADELPHIA SALES OFFICE ses 663 3 cust.
rise ivo.
HETROPOLITAN EDISON t.*0MPANY
" #* A4-7 Subj.
Date OCT.
6', 1966
_ 7 _ r..........
.,. ~,.
should they so desire, to add From this base B&W can then elect, hich we would consider necessary an amount of money to our "B" bid w as an insurance policy against AEC changes.
f The justification for this stand is that Meted does not have sufficient nuclear knew-how to protect themselves against the possible future requirements of the AEC and looks to us as a knowledgable manufacturer to do so for them at a price--this price j'
being our insurance policy.
At the conclusion of our two day meeting Bob Bredin, GAI Project Engineer, pointed out that Meted is very,much co,ncerned atrout the overall cost of the nuclear plant, since as one of the*
three operating companies of GPU they must justify its cost to the Corporate Management of GPU.
He pointed out that they could not possibly afford an overrun of even as much as Sy million, since the Meted Management would then be severely criticized for not having anticipated these higher costs and electing to build a fossil fuel plant.
By way of background, although this was not discussed in the meeting, thera is a continual struggle within the GPU organization by the three operating companies for location of new generating capacity.
Penelee has obtained all the recent fossil fuel plants, while Jersey Central is bufHing the Oyster Creek. nuclear plant.
Without any modern plant since Portland, Meted is fighting hard to obtain this new plant and
,these overall costs are of vital importance.
Summarizing, it is absolutely essential that they obtain scme guarantee of the upper limit of cost which could be imp'osed by AEC requirements.
They are willing to acdept the normal costs of doing business with regard to material and labor escalation -
on the balance of the plant.
FCH:MBL.
j cc-R.K.Behr, Boston Sales S.T.Mackenzie, VP Sales Ba b.'
r Dr. J. Coughlin, Nuclear Spec. Barb.
J.G. Martin, N.E. Reg. Mgr. NY
~
N.S.Embrey, Prop-Nuclear, Barb.
AED, Lynchburg J.B.Olmstead, Prop-Nuc. Barb.
L.M.Favret, W.H.Rowand, VP Nuc. Pwr. Barb.
H.H.Hauth, Pittsburgh C. T. Smith, Mgr. Elec. Ut. Bar' J.W.Landis, Washington Operations U$9 i
.u
~c.-----
.