Re: draft Braidwood reponse to P5

From: Hans Jostlein (
Date: Wed Mar 15 2006 - 13:45:17 CST

Thanks, great paper.

I am a little nervous about two cost items:

a. the civil construction contingency for the underground part is probably
way too low
(see the NUMI re-baselining fiasco)

b. The veto cost may be low by a factor of two.
Double CHOOZ pays 2.2 M$ for their veto system which, is comparable to that
for one of our detectors

I don't know what the right answer is politically, of course.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Blucher" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:20 PM
Subject: draft Braidwood reponse to P5

> Dear Colleagues:
> We've attach a draft of our response to the P5 questions. The responses
> are due tomorrow (Thursday), so please send your comments as soon as
> possible (but no later than tomorrow morning).
> Thanks.
> Ed and Mike

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Mar 30 2006 - 03:10:13 CST