ML20024B021
| ML20024B021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1966 |
| From: | Heiding R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Heller F BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-*, TASK-GB GPU-0180, GPU-180, NUDOCS 8307020035 | |
| Download: ML20024B021 (6) | |
Text
_ _.
('N r *\\
- J
(*. /
s.
o s.:,,..w 1
._-,_3,~
,..., n
.s C.,,....
-9..
- *....t.,..
5't.o It,:ce. Os i'f.1c=: Ccry.:-/
,-..,.......v.3.
.4
~c < u s,.
ly.,,
....s
_w
.s.... s.
a -. -..
. 4.,
.L..,,.s a
s.
- u.....,...,.., ~.....,0
- s. s.< t. cr c.
3
,n. c.,.J.,,.
. - - ~
t 2,.......-
....,._..,,..,s..
_...s.................,........
... -. y.-....
s.....
n....,,e.
<4....
-'s.
.t a-w..p p g
.u
.a n,...
P,*
G-PO
~
. r,.
'.\\
8 eft. Exh. For in I@0
~
l
%7
~
~
.chriesshgroesa ggg Doyle Reporting Inc.
S-P w
,u.
(a n'-
Cetober 12, 1966
]
+
Mcmorandum of Mcotings on Ocrte: ber 30 and (tober 12, 1956 betvcen Metropolitan Edison a.i Babcock ani Wilcox This memorandum surmarizes co==ents by Mot. Ed. on certain features of the plant and fuel bids submitted by BUT cnd Met. Ed.'s understanding of 32f's responses. It was understood that the follovirc ec cnts represented only certain general inquiries by ;'.et. Ed. and do not represent all of the issues which cight be discussed at another occasion.
i 1.
Scope of Suwly i
Within its, proposed scope of supply for its "A" bid, BMI intends to provide all of the equipment and systems which would be evaluated 9
by the AEC for regulatory purycses with the exception of the
'5-emergency power supply, the electrical supply equipnent, the safety valves outside of the primary system and the bypass and condenser l
systems.
In addition to the equipment to be supplied by Bt4T under its
)
"3" bid, BGT8s propossi also supplies design criteria fo'r the balance of plant. Based on these criteria, Gilbert Associates, Inc. would prepare conceptual and principal engineering designs for the full balance of plant equipment and structures at the site selected by Met. Ed. Ef47, prior to the award of a contract would review and approve the engineering designs, i
2.
Licensability a) BMT Suwlied Equipaent - 3Mi would agree to accept full financial responsibility for a v modifications required, at any time up to plant acceptance, in its supplied p
equipment (1) to satisfy AIC regulatory authorities to permit operation of the plant at warranted base capacity, i
and (ii) to remove any license conditions imposed by the AEC which would interfere with nor=al use of the reactor i
.t in routine utility use at varranted base capacity. The
[..,
f,erm " modifications" includes the provision of additional itens of the kird within the 3'CI scope of supply as well as items which are in neither 37.i's nor Met. 31.'s scope, but whose functions are more si:nilar to the fur.ctions of t
l equipnent within BT4('s sco;e of supply, than of the equip-ment in Met. Ed.'s scope of supply.
t i
1 l
e
(, s.I i *. V
(
.i s
,s
-3 b) Tali nce of I'1. nt 7euir. nt - Ur.?.ar its " A" bid, El vould s
ICW3'in rudfditihT.~iT;W, chrin;;cs in balance of pinnt equipment 1 : posed by the AEC with the exception of its cutrantcc that the A:0 would not i= pose nGditional c=crconcy 0,' ' f gcncrator capacity for core coolins in excess of 1200 Kit crenter than that listed in Section 6.0 of the proposal.
In such event, MT would assu=c full fincncini responsibility for the cost of providing additions 1 cmercency power supply i
ih excess of the sum of that listed in Section 6.O' and 1200 K4.
Under the "3" proposal, W.T and Met. Ed. vould shcre ~ equally the first $1,000,000 of increased costs resulting from changes in the full balance of plant designs, approved by Mi prior to the contract attard, required (1) to satisfy the AEC at any time up to plant acceptance, or (ii) to eliminate AEC license conditions which would interfere with nor=al use of the reactor in routine utility use at warranted base capacity, or (iii) as a direct consequence of a change in the MJ supplied equip =ent either to satisfy the AEC or to satisfy El's perfemance or defects warranty obligations.
Ei vould accept full financial responsibility for the cost of al* such changes in excess of $1,000,000, sub,iect, however, to a raxiznun liability equal to the sales price of the MT supplied equipment. The scope of this responsibility includes,.
2 but is not limited to, additional e=erge: icy generator capacity for core cooling in excess of 1200 *0T greater than that listed i
in Section 6.0, and site-dictated balance of plant equip =ent and structures (other than structures to protect the site against flooding and ice) which may be required by the AEC.
Met. Ed..would be responsible for the full cost of emergency generator capacity up to the sus of that listed in Section 6.0 and 1200 W4.
t..
3 Plant Design Chances A:%
^
c W,T is prepared to accept the plant design changes concept provided in 7 2,.2'of the Mat. Ed. specification provided that it is clear that ET would be free to make changes, without any additional ~' cost to Met. Ed., if rectired, but only to the extent nec tssary, to satisfy El's perfor=asce or defects
~
varranty obligations or to satisfy E!'s licensability
. s.
j responsibiltties. Any other chense in the design would be subiect $o the disapproval of Mat. Ed. if it deter =ines that the~ pro,osed chcnge vould have adverse effects on plant-l operability or availability or upon oport.tinc and =aintensnee costs or upon balance of plant costs or upon plant cc=pletion'
-schedule. Ei vould be obliga$ed to de=enstrate tir.at its
.s proposed design cht.nce vould not result in any such adverse s w effects.
i;-
\\
}
x S
y
.a
.\\
f f,,
(
.I
.I*
f
(,-
3
'e-m Pla.nt Defects *.hrrantv 7ac B'il prepocal vould li=it the effective ti=c period of "to the its dcrccts varranty on repaired or repl-eca part:
unexpired tem of the warranty applicable to the original El explained that it is interested in establishirc part."
a definitive period of ti=e after Vaich its warranty obligation to extend its defects vould expire, however, it is willin varranty for repaired or replaced parts to 12 months frca the date of installation of such pc.rts.
9.
3G.* is also agreeable to tre.nsfer the' varrantiec it obtains; frohts]supplie'rs oil cpenents used'in the plant' to Met 'Ed' 5
Design Features _
/
Onea-thrcush Steam Generator - The Ei once-through a) stea:s generator is an integral part of its overall bid and BMT vould not entertain providing an option to Met. Ei.
to acquire a more conventional steam generator.
1 Control Itod Drive - The Bf4T pr-sposal contemplates that b) its proposed Dic=ond control rod drives would be satis-n facterily tested,by January,1968_cr it would utilize a Vestinghouse control rod drive. Un any event, 3ET agreed
,.e i
that Met. 31. vould be per=itted to choose between the A'. '
s' Diamond drive and the Westinghouse drive arder cc=pletion
?. ' '
of the Diamond drive tests and after the test data has been ~
~
,f J " '
furnished to Met.:Ed?
- p.,. y. & A l f.d.).
6.
Fuel Design Changes s
Ef is agreeable to a fuel design changr provision,Vaich veuld permit 3MT to make any changes in the fu*1 design described..'.n its proposal if, but only to the extenti necessary to nect ".ts Any other charge frr.rs the dcccr'hed fuel varranty obligations.
design vould be subject to disapproval by Met. F,1. as. outlined in 7 3 2 in the Met. Ed.sspecification.
y.
yl b'S..
7 Fac1 Surely t..i w '
For the first cord, 3'2? vould undertake to adjunt the schedule' A @'
a) of withdrawing specia'L nuclear =aterial fro = the AEC to correspond to delays in the plant, schedule which are dne,to i
factors within E T's control.
T.
l
- 7<
For reload batches, St!.T vould sucrantee a fixed period for b)
-?
conversion and fabrication and abonrb carryinc chx:*6es on the special nuclear =aterir.1 for t.ny period of tir.c in exccas of the guarante'ed convercica and i'abrication period if the i
delay is caused by factors.within Efat's control..i
- '~
[,...'.
- l.,.. %. j -
./
\\
4 1
.i N.,
i 1
l g
/
5
s
- I*.
, *)
h-
.i
.t q
- c)~ Ifil vouif. crtend to I'.ct. Ed. an cption to elect betvecs
>h its hol rMr.r3 cxtending for none period of time (six nonths
,. c;
- to a year) n"tcr awnrd of a plant contract.
!i
- s...
.q
8.
Connitant.s. '
s 1'
BUT e:Gectseto ret. in United Engineers and Constructors as encirrecirg; consulta.3tc to review the licensability of the
~
plant.. United would. not be used to review on-site construction, altho.:da Fil reconne. ads that Met. Ed. retain United as construction managers for the-entire plant. 357 also expects to retain site consultants.,uch as De=es and Moore to assist in establishing site criteria for the plant design in the areas of hydrology, neteorology, seisnologf and geolocy.
t Gerald Charnoff m
For: 31'ccock and Wilcox m
i. :..
.a.......,.....
?x*:
.~. p
- x
,t -
.N
- [ [Y h.k2k.[..
. gz'..:x.
- 2. b.
N ', N* '..
....' $'("C -
.. 7 ;.i r '-
/
4. x...
g..z q' q 3 r %' '.~. =f.j, *yz._;. f. ;*..,Y;s.?
n..
- ,) *
~o
- a.:.
.... :.:.......:.. 1 r *.:
7 o.
..' ~
. 7 4.e ;yg'tg-.o'.:., u y a. !.' :.~ tyi.h.".
o. L ** Kf.< 3.:. *"?
%.s.$'
\\, 4;C., t. ' - {. ;f.*.C. l,f*':.
- V.9:..f. w~~..'.*:..
.ps m. -
k,.
C
.... q :,.; -~,: :.5,,* --...?.
- e,
^.
.*., < =/ 3:"7,*.,..,g.,.g, J *,g.q. ; g -
.i; 9.n*.........
.3 y.
,.'.;,.Q~ j.).e,,s.';
. ~%
- . a;, ;,,. ;,.,,..q._,,
. ~_
- l~ !.*
= ( t.,( * ; h.
J.
..!..,, f* ' : ? ~.
...,y... %.,e -..,
.: *n. n . ' '..
..+
.. -~.'
x,. :..'..i.y&;v
- c. ?. -
~
~
,~
-.Q. i:Vf...,
~
.=.; z.~. -.
s-
.=%y.,.,..
.;..*;t.;
~
.w t
e.-
2.
l s
..?'.
- 8
.s
..