ML20098C852

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Revised Concept Calculations Requested by Jc Petersen for Facilities & Results of Calculations
ML20098C852
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Satsop
Issue date: 03/26/1976
From: Bowers H
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
To: Keblusik S
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20093C821 List: ... further results
References
CON-WPPSS-048, CON-WPPSS-48, FOIA-84-603 NUDOCS 8409270240
Download: ML20098C852 (7)
v • d • e


Text

-

00NC $W= NW OY OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY OPERATED Bf UNION CARB!DE COr.PORATION NUCLEAR DIVISION

@ l POST OFFICE box Y OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 37313 March 26, 1976 Ms. Suzanne Keblusik Cost Benefit Analysis Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Ms. Keblusik:

The enclosed memo describes the revised CONCEPT calculations requested by Mr. J. C. Petersen for the Washington Public Power Supply System, Nuclear Projects Nos. 3 and 5 and presents the results from those calculations.

Capital cost estimates for a plant provided with a heat rejection system utilizing natural draft evaporative cooling towers are presented.

For these estimates the cost stodelt in the CONCEPT code were =cdified as f ollct::: (1) sparc parts allcusacc. crc 2% of the dhed costs of cquip::. cat ,

and materials, (2) contingency allowances are 10% of direct costs, and (3) indirect cost relationships for the nuclear plant were increased by N 60%.

The estimates produced by the CONCEPT code are not intended as substitutes for detailed engineering cost estimates, but were prepared as s rough check on the applicant's estimate.

Plense contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Very truly yours,

-l s'!

Dwsc w i

H. I. Bowers Engineering Analysis Dept.

HIB:sf Enc.

cc:  !!. L. Myers J. C. Petersen, URCs p

T. H. Row File (BHF) 8409270240 840824 PDR FDIA COHEN 84-603 PDR

^^

p ,

b .- ,.

w3 a: COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE BASE-LOAD GENERATION SYSTEMS A recently developed computer program was used to rough check the applicant's capital. cost estimate for the proposed nuclear power station and to estimate

.the costs for fossil-fired alternative generation systems.

I This computer program', called CONCEPT ' was developed as part of the program-f' analysis. activities of the ~ AEC Division of Reactor Research and Development,

'and the work was' performed in the Studies and Evaluations Program at the Oak Ridge'. National Laboratory. The code was designed primarily for use in examining average trends in costs, identifying important elements in the

. cost structure, determining sensitivity to technical and economic factors, and providing reasonable long-range projections of. costs. Although cost estimates produced by the CONCEPT code are not intended as substitutes for ,

detailed-engineering cost estimates for specific projects, the code'has been organized to facilitate. modifications to the cost models so that costs may be tailored to a particular project. Use of the computer provides a rapid means of calculating future capital costs of a project with various assumed sets of economic and technical ground rules.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONCEPT CODE The procedures used in the CONCEPT code are based on the premise that any central station power plant involves approximately the same major cost ecmpo-nents regardless of location or date of initial operation. 'Therefore, if the trcnds of these major' cost components can be esta' c lisned as a function of plant type and size, location, and interest and escalation. rates, then a cost

. estimate for a reference case can be adjusted to fit the case of interest.

The application of this approach requires a detailed " cost model" for each plant type.at a reference condition and the determination of the cost trend relationships. The generation of these data has comprised a large effort in the development of the CONCEPT code. Detailed investment cost studics by an

~

architect-engineering firm have provided basic cost model data for light water reactor nuclear plants," 5 and fossil-fired plants.'" These cost data have been revised to reflect plant design changes since the 1971 reference date of the initial estimates.

The cost model is based on a detailed cost estimate for a reference plant at a designated location and a specified date. This estimate includes a detailed breakdown of each cost account into costs for factory equipment, site materials, and site labor. A typical cost model consists of over a-hundred individual cost accounts, each of which can be altered by input at the user's option.

-The AEC system of cost accounts' is used in CONCEPT.

e 4

5. <-

~'

s-To generate a cost estimate under specific conditions, the user specifies the following input: plant type and location, net capacity, beginning date for design and construction, date of commercial operation,-length of construction workweek, and rate of interest during construction. If the specified plant size is different from the reference plant size, the direct cost for each two-digit account is adjusted by using scaling functions which define the cost as a function of plant size. This initial step gives an estimate of the direct costs for. a plant. of the specified type and size at the base date and

-location.

The code has access to cost index data files for 20 key cities in the Un2ted States. These files contain data on cost of materials and wage rates for 16 construction crafts as reported by trade publications over the past fifteen years. These data are used to determine historical trends of site labor and material costs, providing a basis for projecting future costs of site labor and materials. These cost data may be overridden by user input if data for the particular project are available.

This technique of separating the plant cost into individual components, applying appropriate scaling functions and location-dependent cost adjustments, and escalating to different dates is the heart of the computerized approach used in CONCEPT. The procedure is illustrated schematically in Fig. 1. .

ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS The assumptions used in the CONCEPT calculations for this project are listed in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes the totsl plant capitel investment estim2ter for the proposed nuclear station.

As stated previously, the above cost estimates produced by the CONCEPT code are not intended as substitutes for detailed engineering cost estimates, but were prepared as a check on the applicant's estimate and to provide consistent estimates for the nuclear plant and fossil-fired alternatives.

I I

. .1

ORNL-DMG T2-2255ft luPui DATA Defining [ CALCUL ATE 3. 4 A;e 5-OfGIT

'T5M1'"'/ --*

"';1!!J?5&M'#."5n" MATERIALS AND SITE L N R

- -- -E? - -*.l 1

' t

'r l l I I Bast PLANT COST COST thDCI DATA FOR t l SE* ECTED SITE OBTAINEO e MODtt SELECTED FROM I CALCUL AT[ CONTINGihCIE5 m DATA TILLS FROM MISTORICAL CATA FILES "'

A10 SPARE PARIS I 1 f SCALE 2-0!GIY BASE C05T5 TO SrtC1f!ED SUM Att DIRCCT C0375 PLANT Sllt e EICEPT LAND i f i p

q Olvl3E 2-DIGIT C0515 I410 ,

IACTORv E0utrviMT. SITE CAICULATE INDIRECT CMT5 tes MATERIALS. Silt LABOR EXCEPT INTEREST CURING O COST CATTUmiE5 CONSTR*XIION 1 I ADJUST 2-OlGIf CMf5 - SUM ALL Costs (ICEPT To et314to toCATIO4. DATE. '

LM CMT OvtRTIME ETC.

1 f CALCULATE ESCALAflus DutING  ;

CALCULAft INTERtsi -

CDs57RUCTIC4 (OPTIONAL  ! DURING CCM*1RUCTICH WITH USER) 1 P

' I PRINT PEPORT OF SUM Att 00515 7 DETAILEO COST, ESTIMATE Fig. 1. Use of the CONCEPT progre::t for estimating capital costs.

~

4 l 9-Table 1. Assumptions Used in CONCEPT Calculctions (Revised March 26, 1976)

-Plant name WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos. 3 and 5 Plant type TWo-unit PWR with natural draft cooling towers Alternate plant types None Unit size 1240 MWe-net, each unit Plant location Actual Satsep, Washington l CONCEPT calculations Seattle Interest during construction 7.5%/ year, simple Escalation during construction Site labor 8%/ year Site materials 6%/yc;r Purchased eo,uipment 6%/ year Site labor requirements 10.3 manhours /kWe, unit 3 8.9 manhours /LWe, unit 5 Length of workweek 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> Start of design and construction date NSS ordered June 1973, Unit 3 October 1974, Unit S Commercial operation dates Unit 3 March 1982 Unit 5 September 1983

\i

i. ,

5

[..

Table 2. Plant Capital Investment Summary for a Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plant Utilizing Natural Draft Cooling Towers (Revised March 26, 1976)-

(Washington Public Power Supply System, Nuclear Projects Nos. -3 and 5)

Unit 3 Unit 5 Total Net capability, MWe 1240 1240 2480 Direct Costs (Millions of Dollars)

Land and land rights 4 0 4 Physical plant .

Structures and site facilities 88 69 157 Reactor plant equipment 113 112 225 Turbine plant equipment 125 123 248 Electric plant equipmu.t 48 41 89 Miscellaneous plant equipment 8 5 13 Subtotal (physical plant) 382 350 732 Sparc parts allevance 4 4 8 Contingency allowance 38 35 73 Subtotal (total physical plant) 424 389 813 Indirect Costs (Millions of Dollars)

Construction facilities, equipment 42 19 61 and services Engineering and construction manage- 85 39 124 ment services Other costs 42 39 81 Interest during construction 173 142 315 Total Costs  !

P Plant capital cost at start of project Millions of dollars 770 628 1398 Dollars per kilowatt 621 506 564 Escalation during construction 298 246 544 l Plant capital cost at commercial ,

! operation ., i Millions of dollars 1068

  • 874 # 194f{

Dollars per kilowatt 861 705 t, .$

e e ~

+

6 REFERENCES

1. 'CONCEPI' : A Computcr Code for Conceptual Cost Estimates of Steam-Electric Power Plants - Status Report, USAEC Report WASH-1180 (April 1971).

-2. R. C. DeLozier, L. D. Reynolds, and H. I. Bowers, CONCEPT:

Computcrized Conceptual Cost Estimates for Steam-Electric

- Power Plants - Phase I user's Nanual, USAEC Report ORNL 'Df-3276, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 1971.

3. H. 'I. Lowers, R. C. DeLozier, L. D. Reynolds, and B. E. Srite,

--CONCEPT II: A Computer Code for Conceptual Cost Estimates of Steen-Electric Power Plants - Phase II User's Manual, USAEC Report ORNL-4809, Oak Ridge Nationc! Laboratory, April 1973.

4. 2005-MWE Ccntral Station Poust Plant Invectment Cost Study, Volume I, Prcasurized Water Reactor Piant, USAEC Report WASH-1230 (Vol. I), United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. , -

Philadelphia, Pa., June 1972.

S. 1000-MWE Central Stacion Poucr Plant Investment Cost Study, Voltene II, Boiling Water Reactor Plant, USAEC Report NASH-1230 'e (Vol. II), United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., June 1972.

6. 1000-NW Central. Station Pover Plant Invcctm:nt Coat Etub, Vch;;;c III, ,
  • Coa 7-Fired Foscil ??, ant, USAEC Report' WASH-1230 (Vol. III), United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., June 1972.
7. 1000-MWE Central Station Pouer Plant Investment Cost Study, Voluma IV, Oil-Fired Fossil Plant, USAEC Report WASH-1230 (Vol. IV), United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. , Philadelphia, Pa. , June 1972.
8. Guide for Economic Evaluation of Nuclear Reactor Plant Eesigns, USAEC Report NUS-531, NUS Corporation, January 1969.

~

J

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20098C852&oldid=2781182"