ML20009B429
| ML20009B429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/12/1979 |
| From: | Levine S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RIL-051, RIL-51, NUDOCS 8107150435 | |
| Download: ML20009B429 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_. D.. ,e .a.~ .s,, 7+,'..<.w. w:nn u Wi..~.,.n wa e , Y " %,'o,_ t UNITED STATES jf[ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON - r,. ' - C W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s J ..... / WRi21979 ~ 'MEH0RAJ10UM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director-Office of Naclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Saul Levine, Director M Office nf Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
RESEARCH I!! FORMATION LETTER # 51 - THE CONCEPT COMPUTER CODE AND CAPITAL COSTS FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR PLANTS Introduction This memorandum transmits the results of completed research updating and expanding the CONCEPT computer code for forecasting capital costs of pressurized water reactor plants. The work was performed by United Engineers and Constructors Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under the direction of the Environmental Effects Research Branch'of the Office cf Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) in response to a research request from your Office (RR-NRR-76-6). In 1971, the Atomic Energy Commission authorized power plant investment cost studies, which culminated in the WASH-1230 reports (1000 idle Central Station Power Plants - Investment Cost Study) published in 1972. Their purpose was to facilitate policy and economic decisions about electric generation facilities in the public and private sectors. The w WASH-1230 report series consists of five volumes: Pressurized Water Reactor, Boiling Water Reactor, Coal-Fired, Oil-Fired and High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor power plants. National priorities on energy, the regulatory environment and the cost of labor, equipment and material have changed significantly. These changes dictated the recessity of updating this series of studies, and expanding the scope to consider the fuel cycle and the total generating cost. As a result, a program to study, reassess and produce a new set of updated reports was authorized and undertaken. The current series includes investment cost reports for a Pressurized e Water Reactor Plant, a Boiling Water Reactor Plant, High Sulfur Coal 9$ Plants, and' Low Sulfur Coal Plants. The Oil Fired Power Plant Study Mi , was _not updated because utilities are no longer expected to build Q significant numbers of these plants, and the High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Plant Study was not updated because these reactors are not now being marketed. Investment cost reports on multi-unit stations and for different cooling system types are included. In addition, the series addresses fuel supply investment costs and total generati,ng costs for both nuclear and coal fired power plants. . S107150435 790412 g 'PDR RES
- 1 8107150435 PDR M
o. r Harold R. Denton. The studies _in these series have a uniform set of economic and technical criteria and a-uniform accounting system as contained in Guide for Eco-nomic Evaluation of-Nuclear Reactor Plant Designs, NUS-531, January 1969. The investment-cost estimates in these series are developed _for reference plants constructed at a hypothetical site called "Middletown, USA." The reference investment and total generating cost estimates can be used for. baseline comparisons of different generating systems. However, the major use of the investment cost data is as input to the CONCEPT computer,, ). code which was developed for DOE at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (0RNL The CONCEPT cost study for the 1139 MWe pressurized water reactor '(PWR)- ~ central station power plant consists of two volumes. Volume I. includes the. Foreword and Summary, the Plant Description and the Detailed Cost Es tima te. Volume II contains the Drawings, Equipment List and Site Description. Additionally, Volume II, Section 6 ' presents the " Site Description" and major ground rules used in this study as follows: The reference plant design is based upon principal technical features corresponding to the Public Service Company of New' Hampshire Seabrook Station. The reactor plant design is based on the Westinghouse Reference-Safety Analysis Report (RESAR-35). Key plant parameters for the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) and steam and power conversion system are shown in Ta Hes 2-1 and 2-2 in Section 2. Cost data is based on prices effective July 1, 1976. A full complement of licensing and design criteria circa January 1,1976, are utilized. Safety classifications, seismic categories and design coaes for the major struc-ture and equipment are addressed in Section 2 and in the Equipment List (Volume II, Section 5). The detailed cost estimate is developed for a single unit station, with sufficient land area to accor.,nodate an identical second unit. The detailed cost estimate is developed in accordance with an ex-panded AEC code-of-accounts (USAEC Report NUS-531). The design of the main heat rejection system is based upon the use of mechanical draft wet cooling towers. The nuclear ultimate heat sink is also based on mechanical draft wet cool-L ing to'ers.
- {'
-y of ps-M :
[ E .p* ,$ d? . ;n - . W :~ j - rp Q -p .h..c j N ~.4 _ j . h}' ~ %;y,
- y
+ + - Harold R. Denton~ 4 ry. + : J' i -Escalation and interest during construction.are not' included : -j 4, l ~ .T Jin:the cost estimate. j! ' The plant'has an onsite nuclear reactor core storage ~ capacity {: .for 4/3 core. The design uses two! independent offsite sources of power; one y,, at 500 kV'and one at 230 kV. ,Ni The plant design life:is 40 years during the first part of: q-7 ~ which it~will be baseloaded. 4 Results The estimated total' base construction cost for the 1 Sumaries of. the Detailed Cost Estimate at both the two- 'and three digit account levels' are'shown-in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 prices.' ~ The; cost estimate does not include normal contingency-- costs.for the: equipment, material and labor components of the total respectively. interest . base-construction cost; nor does it include escalation andO i during construction. are ' listed.in the beginning of Section 3. Detailed C adjusted for regional variations in material and labor r L rates incurred during construction. - + Conclusions and Recommendations 'The total base construction cost for the PWR power plant (1031 MWe n output) reference in WASH-1230 was approximately $211,000,000 orThu .$205/kW, based upon prices effective January 1971. in The principal factors contributing to this increase .in terms'of $/kW. [ are as follows: ^ .; ~ Cost escalation from January 1971 to July 1976. Regulatory requirements for additional engineering and safety feetures, and environmental considerations affecting plant ~, v design. 1~. ' These: rest'it in.' increased engineering, management, labor, equipme and matrrial costs'due to increased scope and lengthened schedules u, 7 ~ ~ .h '4 L, t n.n MEidN[$ -
2 1 .-~ _ h ,4,.-{ q.9 f~ p. - Harold R. Denton g design The increase in direct construction costs of the current plant , y are directly related to increases in the qua 4 ious liance with licensing and -construction commodities required for compFollowing are examples of the design criteria circa January 1,1976. differences in the il .~+.4 PWR WASH-1230 PWR 1139 MWe Net Output-1031 MWe Net Output (1/76) (1/71) 167,200 90,000 43.2 x 10 6 Concrete, cu. yds. 22.0 x 10 21.8 x 10 6 6 Reinforcing Steel, lbs. 8.8 x 10 6 Structural Steel, lbs. t and hr.ers Table 1-3 is a sumary breakdown of the direct craft labor t f $12.30. for this reference design. corresponds to an average hourly ra e ocraf tively 5 manhours /kW. mately $133,100,000 These compare to averages of $9.86/ hour and 6.0 manhou Approximately 10,820,000 for the earlier design reported in WASH-1230. d method-This study provides the NRC cost-benefi; analyst with an u actor plants. ology for forecasting investment costs of pre to the the compara-proposed action, the NRR staff must reach a conclusion a tives. For the tive costs of generating power among the feasible alterna de to past five years, the NRR staff has used the CONCEPT co L~~ Nw r plant obtain forecasts of plant capital costs. on the premise that basic designs for a given type of steam l t can be re-are sufficiently similar so that capital costs fo l cost variation, labor efficiency and interest cost. l hile in The study and its methodologies have been reviewed exte m_ progress by the RES project manager and va for applica- ~ 6). Technical questions tion to the identified regulatory need (RR-NR 427-4358.
- r.
Saul Levine, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Enclos res: NUREG-0241, Volume 1 4 Od - 1. NUREG-0241, Volume 2 v4~;. 2. mmwu
- . n?i.
w
- ;m
.u ) Harold R. Denton. The increase in direct construc'. ion costs of the current )lant design (using the updated CONCEPT Code) over those estimated in JASH-1230 - -are directly related to increases in the quantities of the various construction cocuodities required for compliance with licensing and design criteria circa January 1,1976. Following are examples of the differences in the quantities of some of these construction materials: HASH-1230 PWR PWR 1031 We tiet Output 1139 IWe Net Output _(1/71) _(1/76) Concrete, cu. yds. 90,000 167,200 8.8 x 10[ 22.0 x 1 43.2 x 106 Reinforcing Steel,1bs. 21.8 x 10' Structural Steel, lbs. ' Table 1-3 is a sunaary breakdown of the direct craft labor costs and hours for this reference design. The total direct craft labor cost of approxi-reately $133,100,000 corresponds to an average hourly rate of $12.30. Approxicately 10,820,000 craft labor canhours average about 9.5 manhours /kW. These compare to averages of $9.8G/ hour and 6.0 manhours /kW respectively for the earlier design reported in UASl!-1230. This study provides the NRC cost-benefit analyst with an updated trethod-ology for forecasting investment costs of pressurized water reactor plants. In the performance of fiEPA obligations to evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, the NRR staff must reach a conclusion as to the compara-tive costs of generating power among the feasiblo alternatives. For the past five years, the NRR staff has used the CONCEPT computer code to obtain forecasts of plant capital costs. The code was developed and used on the premise that basic designs for a given type of steam power plant are sufficiently similar so that capital costs for any plant can be re-11 ably estinated given parataetric specifications for the regional cost variation, labor efficiency and interest cost. The study and its methodologies have been reviewed extensively while in progress by the Rr5 project manager and various staff members from NRR. RES reconnends that the updated rethodology be used by flRR~ for applica-tion to the identified regulatory need (RR-t!RR-76-6). Technical questions related to these results may be directed to David Barna at 427-4358. R [tr orm. sind by
- J Circ Saul Levine Director Chrono s
RDG - DBarna Office of g,grEfegu carch, all concurrees, copy 0Bassett F lt # </ )
Enclosures:
SEE PREVIOUS YELLOM FOR Concur.3/ /79 3/ 79 d '- i F TUREG;U24T, vo!une 1 RES RES A74 ' S RESg' avis ~@H URE.G-0241 Jo lume) J. J. RScroggins RBudnitz S vine 1 RES:SA R BES: SAFER e-===* DBa rna:k tswanherg-3/1h'.)_ %/79 9/ /79 .3/ /79 3/ % C- /79 I - 3/- /79 3/- /79 ,a n' NRC IORM 318 (944 NRCM 0240 W us e.oovannuent raintins orricats tore-eae-eaJ
f + g n:4 y _ n,.. , EM.' x . f.'~' l -~ .~. ;'- ac A: _ . _ ~ _ i,..
- +.
[, m / Harold R.>Denton.J. .5-v7 l DISTRIBU_ TION:- Y ~ Central File A' ' CIRC, CHRON0-Barna ~Swanberg . Davis-Bassett "Arsenault .Scroggins-Budnitz Levine ma. RJBudni tz Stevine RES:DD RES:D 3/ /79 3/./79
- a. -
^ l .y -1g RES: FER. NAF REM 1FER RES: SAFER RES: SAFER:D RES: ARCS -n---~. -.m.,w. v.y . ~.. - ..r..e. OEUJssett FJArsenault RMScroggins.- jg; Opa
- akb_ FSh@ berg,Jr. JJDa,v; s:
eva-===* d[ f=a*=>-~ 3/E/79 -- 3h 79 ---_..3/\\/79-3B739 - 3/ /79 3/ /79 j rie,,g; Fetae ATC488 LRen 943) AILM 02eo ~ .. # w e. oow sawtesh? *anatens or e.cs: n ote.eas-s ee 4gu-w-a}}