ML20128F087
| ML20128F087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1993 |
| From: | NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128F080 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302110241 | |
| Download: ML20128F087 (298) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- b' u l FEASIBILITY STUDY : OF ! COOLING WATER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES TO REDUCE WINTER FLOUNDER
-LARVAL:ENTRAINMENT ,
AT MILLSTONE UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 ' I u JANUARY 1993
'f NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY 1 Berlin, Connecticut-JB222is$AlSNM4s
-p. PDR-
t I j -- t 6 y
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS a+ f _ SKt!nD 11112 PAD'1 AC KN O W LE DG EM ENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .- ill j L-E X EC UTIVE S U M M A RY . . . -. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ................. ES 1 :
?
I NT R O D U CTI O N . . . . . . . . . -, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... .11 p
< PART I ENGINEERING EVALUATION f ,- !
- TA B L E O F C O N T ENT S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i ; I LI S T O F T A B LE S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v-L I ST O F FIG U R E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii . 1 PRESENT INTAKE DESIGN AND OPERATION ' . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . ,'. . . . . . . . 11- . 2 OVERVIEW AND' PRELIMINARY- ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE MITIGATION
. MEASURES.:...-................,,...:..............'.-.,,.....4 2 1?
Sf ENGINEERING _ DESCRIPTION 'OF SELECTED MITIGATION DESIGNS . . . , . . 31 4' ESTIMATED COSTS AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ' . . . . . . . . . . . c. , . 41 5- ENGIN EERING SUMMA RY-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51:
' APPENDICES .
A~' COST ESTIMATES OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . - A ll.
-B COST ESTIMATES'OF PERFORMANCE PENALTIES ... . . . . i. . . . . . . . . . , . .
Bi 0~ COST ESTIMATES OF FORCED OUTAGES . . . . . . .. . . . , . . . . , , . .. . . . . ,- C i - L01siswes- i
I Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce larval Entrainment .
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) But19n Thie hu PART ll
- ENVIRONMENTAL /BIOLOOICAL EVALUATION 1 TA B LE O F C O NTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I LI S T O F T A B LE S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . . . iii LI S T O F FI G U R E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 1 ENTRAINMENT OF WINTER FLOUNDER LARVAE AT MILLSTONE NUCLEAR '
POWER STATION .......................................... 11-2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATtONS FOR SELECTIVE ENTRAINMENT MITIG ATION ALTERN ATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 { 3 REPLENISHMENT OF WINTER FLOUNDER AS A MITIGATION ALTERNATIVE . 31 4 SELECTION OF DATES USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF SHUTDOWNS AS A 'l MITIG ATION ALTERN ATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 4 1 5 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MITIGATION OF LARVAL WINTER FLOUNDER ' 'i ENTRAINMENT -
........ 51 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANL' BIOLOGICAL
SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . , 61 .
i y 4 a l] 01 sis.w s a ..
1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study could not have boon done without the Interest and (.coperation of engincors and Acientists from both Stone & Wohstor Engineering Corpo ation (Stone & Webster) and Northeast Utilities Servico Company (NUSCO). We wish to acknowledge the excellent coonoration from both organizatlans.
. The following Stone & Webster engincors contributed to the development of this report:
Dr. Y.G. Mussalli Proioct Engineer T.A. Adams Principal Machanical/ Hydraulic Engineer J.J. Elder Cooling Tower Specialist J R.L. Stevens Condensor Specialist P.M. Ven9to Principal Civil / Structural Engincor R. DaContu Principal Gootechnien! Engincor 0.R. Crouthamot Gootochnical Engineer 8,W. Sanders Electrical Engincor P.J. Slatkavitz Cost Estimator F. J. Trainor Construction Manager The f ollowing NUSCO employoos contnbuted to the development and/or review of this toport: M.P. McNamara Pro}oct Engineer D.A. Erriche ti Senior Engineer, Corporata Planning B.W. Nichols Senior Engineer. Plant Engincoring E. Krinit:k Senior Engineer, Nuclear Fuels A. E ms Unit 3 Plant Engincoring D. Danila Senior Scientist, NU Environmental Laboratory J.D, Milior Senior Scientist, NU Environmental Laboratory: Dr. E. Lorda Principal Scientist, NU Environmental Laboratory. W.A. Kramer Mechanical Engineer D.A. Gilba no Attorney 01616 M B iii
Cooling Water System Afternatives to Reduce LarvelErstnuinment Tho following NUSCO Depar* meals provided input and/or review of material contained in this . report: Mechanical Engineering Dectrical En0 ineering Civil EngineerinD Balance of Plant Systems Engineering Plant Operations Department Plant Maintenance Department Civil and Mechanical Det.ign Department Cost and Schoduling ! Generation and Environmental'Ucensing 1.ogal Department Part II, 'Environmer.tal and Biological Evaluation," of this report was also critically roviewed by Dr. C.F. Sears, Dr. LE. Bircloy,. and P. Jacobson of NUSCO Environmental Services Division and by the following members of the Millstone Ecological Advisory Committoe: Dr. J. Tietjen (City University of New York), Dr. N. Marshalf (omeritus, University of Rhode Island), Dr. S. Salla (emeritus, University of Rhodo Island), and Dr. W. Pearcy (Oregon State University). l
~ . iv otsie wies
L , V-h I nummum 4 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
L INTRODUCTION
)
This report presents the results of a comprehensive feasibility study of cooling water system design alternatives and oporational strategies to reduce the entrainment of winter flounder larvae at Millstone Nuclear Power Station (MNPS) and fulfiils a condition of the recently renewed MNPS National Pollutant Discharge Elim!r.ation System (NPDES) permit. - The report consists of wo " Engineering Evaluation" (Part l} that provides an overview of available technologies for entrainment mitigation including those mitigation schemes proposed for study by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Part I also includes preliminary design development of selected mitigation measures for MNPS Unit 3, , order of magnitudo cost estimates, construction schedules, and outage durations. ' Part 11,
- Environmental and Biological Evaluation." of this-report contah.s a background discussion of winter flounder larval entrainment, the environmental considerations f or selected '
mitigation schemes.' a discussion of replenishment of winter flounder l(fish hatchery), the rationale for the selection of outage durations to mitigate entrainment, and the bases for the
~
NUSCO stochastic population dynamics model (SPDM). This numerical model was used to - inssess the effectiveness of mitigating winter flounder larval entrainment, 0 ol's16.WPs ' ES 1 m_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ m .
1 Coolirm Water System Attematives to fleduce LarvalEntrainment The following alternativos were evaluated as mitigation measures:
- Natural-Draft Cooling Towers
- Offshoro intake
- Fine Mosh Screens c'
- Wedgewiro Screens
- Diversion Sills and Curtain Walls
- Infiltration Systems
- Operational Strategios Reduced power / flow Variable speed pumps Scheduled refuel outages Forced outages
- Reptonishment of Fish PRESENT PLANT DESIGN i
Tho existing seawater intaken f or MNPS consist of three separate, shorelino, surf ace intakes: one for each generating unit. The intakes are similar in design, having vertical wot pit type j circulating water pumps (non nuclear safety related) and service water pumps (nuclear safety related). Each intake is equipped with traveling water screens, coarse bar racks, and curtain walls extending below the lowest water level. Each intake draws water directly from Niantic - 1 Bay. Total station withdrawal of seawater during normal full power oporation of all threo units - is 4358 cubic feet per second (cfs). Unit 3 withdrawal (2007 cis)is approximately % of the total with Unit 2 (1282 cis) and Unit 1 (979 cis) each using approximately % of the total. 1 ENTRAINMENT OF WINTER FLOUNDER LARVAE AT MNPS MNPS primarily affects winter flounder by entraining larvae through the condenser cooling-water system. Most (>90 percent) larvae are antrainod in April and May, Since 1976, annual entrainment estimates have ranged from 31 to 219 million, but since three-unit operation began in 1986, thoso estimates have exceeded 100 million larvae each year. The . average fecundity of Niantic River females is approximately 572.000 egge por fish. From about % to % of the entrained winter floundet larva'e woro estimated to have originated from the nearby Niantic River spawning stock; Based on indirect methods (i.e., mass balance calculations), it was determined that from B to 20 percent of the annual production of this - stock are entrained at MNPS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and effectiveness of cooling-water hystem alternativos with potential to mitigate entrainment mortality of Niantic River winter flounder larvae by at least 25 percent. Because ES 2 otste w s
p p Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 half of the cooling water flow occurs at tJnit 3, engineering design efforts focused on alternativos for this unit. ENGINEERING EVALUATION Each of the altomotives examined is briefly discussed below. COOLING TOWERS Cooling towers could reduce intake entrainment by reducing intake circulating water flow to only that required for cooling tower makeup, which for a full size natural draf t coohng tower would be loss than one-tenth of the current circulating water flow late. Two salt water cooling tower attornativos for Unit 3 were evaluated: a 100 porcent capacity tower and a %- capacity tower. With the %-capacity tower, % of the existing Unit 3 circulating water system would remain onco through. For both altomativos, the proposed location for the tower would be in the wooded area to the east of the switchyard. A new pump station would be located I at the cooling tower, and piping would be routed to the north and west of the station in a common cut and cover trench. The condonsor would be converted to two-pass operation. The ::xisting once-through circulating water r.ystem would romain intact and operational. Valvos would be provided to operato the station either onco through or on the cooling tower. I A cooling tower option would reduce cooling water demand and larval entrainment without posing insurmountablo operational difficuttles. However, the cooling tower option would requiro further onvironmental evaluations (e.g., chlorination to control biofouling, a wasto treatment facility, dochlorinization of the blowdown, aesthetics, and noise). A full-sira natural-draft cooling tower for MNPS would bo 535 feet high and, thereforo, a significant. visualintrusion on the coastlino near Millstone Point. Construction would be very challenging, given allthe present underground utilitios that would require re routing or removal. A cooling tower would also pose a severe economic burden due to the capital cost of construction and porformance penalty rosulting f rom lost generating capacity. Maintenanco and operating costs could also be substantial; however, they were not addressed. The total estimated cost for the cooling tower is $88 million for the full size and $70 million for the % size, ot sis,wPs ES 3 x i
. . - - ~ - . . - - --.-.-- - - . ._ _- -.
. i ag ( k Cooling \%rer System Altematives to Rectuce toeval Entrainment OFFSHORE INTAKE ;
An offshore intaku, placed outside of the confines of Ninntic Bay, would draw a larger l proportion of wintor ftounder larvae from t.ong Island Sound rather than from the Ninntic River : population. A rock tunnel design ytas developed which would place the Unit 3 intake ' approximar.ely 1 rnilo south into Long Island Sound. A booster pump station would be provided on the shoreward end to overcomo head losses in the tunnol. Cooling-water flow I from the offshora tunnel and $ hafts would enter a sheet pile-enclosed forebay that would , , isolate the existing intake structure from Niantic Bay, A separate flow bypass for the nuclear sofoty related service water pumps would also be providod. ; An of f shoro intako would requiro substantial environmental revicws and significant input itom regulatory agencias, such as the Connecticut Siting Council, U.S. Arrny Corps of Enginocra, ; U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. EPA, and the National Marina Fisheries Service. Uke the cooling 'l tower, this option would be a considerable construction project and would be prone to- -i difficulties common with tunneling, it would also be extremely exponsivo. -The probablo -i entrainment impad on larval populations in the vicinity of the offshore intake is dif ficult to predict, but incroubed impact to some spectos (e.g., bay anchovy, tautog) could occur. - Maintenance and operating coats could bs significant, but were not addressed. The total ostimated cost for this option is $117 million. . ( FINE-MESH SCREENS j Fine-mosh screona can reportedly block fish and larvae from entering the intake. Fish and larvae collected on the fine mosh ocreens would be transported to a sluicing system and returned to Niantic Bay, Approach flow velocities to fine mesh screens would bo limited to 0.5 feet per second (fps) to prevent debris overloariing and also to protect the larvae. This would require an approximate doubling of the screening area of the current intako! A design was developed for Unit 3 which would incorporate oighteen-10-foot wide traveling screena. An entirely now screen structure constructed in front of the existing intake and connected to it by sheet pile walls would be needed to support the new screens. The new scroon structure - , plan dimensions would be approximately 270 feet long by 40 foot wido.- A separate safety < related bypass would be required for service water. Altemate fine mesh screen arrangenients, g including angled screens and drum screens were evaluated, but not cost estirnatodi i l
- l
- While fine mesh screen technology can be effective in reducing entraintnent of ceitain sizes l of larvae, there is little evidence that it would be successful in protecting winter flounder I larvae at MNPS. Fine-mosh screens used at the Brayton Point (Mass.) Generating Station ES.4 oist a.wes - w.. ... . - -.- -- .-, , . - , , . . -.,- - - -
0 9
)l Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 resulted in only a 6.5 percent survival'of winter flounder larvae. These screens were subsequently removed from operation. There are also significant concerns over the ability of fine-mesh screens to control debris fouling, which has previously resulted in numerous plant outages at MNPS. ,
The total estimated cost for this option in $52 mFlion. WCDGEWIRE SCREENS Wedgewire screens could reduce or climinato entrainment of fish and larvae by taking advantage of natural cross currents to sweep fish and larvas past the submerged screen units. - Gereen slot width would be selected to block entry of small organisms such as fish larvaer A wedgewire screen design developed for Unit 3 would condst of an array of submerged i wedgewire screen units extending up from collector conduits placed in the sea floor. Six 9 f t diameter collector conduits, each equipped with nine 84 inch diameter screen units, would , extend out from a plenum structure that would be constructed directly in front of the existing intake structure. The array would be staggered to promote more offective natural flushing of . l screen units. An automated air burst system would be requirert to backflush the screens, one
- unit at a time. An alternate bulkhead design was also developed consisting of two circular-bulkhead structures containing the wedgewire screen units that would be constructed in f ront of the existing intake and joined to it by a plenum and inlet conduits.. The bulkhead j- arrangement would offer the advantage of being able to hoist the screen units to'an operating
- ' deck for cleaning,
' Wedgewire screen technology of f ors some advantage in limiting impingement and entrainmont of some fish. However, the few mstallations currently using this technology require much ,
smaller volumes of water than Unit 3. This design is not' appropriate-for the flow. rate at'; MNPS and would resuit in new blofouling and corrosion problems, Because of their size,- winter flounder larvae would probably not be significantly protected using the screen slot sizes - - - that would be required at MNPS. ,
, The total estimated cost for th!s option is $65 million.
DIVERSION SILLS / CURTAIN WALLS - While there are no known installations of barriers or sdis for the purpose of diverting fish
. larvas away from intake structures, hydraulic diversions are commonly used and the principles
- well-understood. Diversion s19s and curtain walls can possibly divert a portion of wintor:
flounder larvae away frorn the intakes. Concrete sills, such se Jersey typo barriers, would ha oisis.wP5 - ES-5
/ w --
L +- h (- w
Cooling Water Systr+m Altematives to Reduce Larval Entrainment placed on the sea floor in front of the intakes, and of for a passive means of diverting a portion of the larvae away from the intake. A design for the Unit 3 intake would consist of a , V shaped barrier that would be constructed in front of the intake. Additional angled vanes placed upstream of the sill would be required to enhanco sitt diversion. An attornuto concept to the sill for diverting a portion of the larvae away from the intake would be a floating curtain wall with an air bubble floatation system. The curtain wall, constructed of nonmetallic composite materials, would bo supported by piles driven into tho - sea floor. The floatation system would consist of multiplo diffuser pipes installed on the sea floor in front of the floating barrier. Compressed air would be supplied to these diffuser pipes : by blowers that would be located on the shore. Larvae would be " floated
- to the surface by the rising air bubblo curtain. They could then be diverted away from the intake by the floating curtain wall. ,
Because winter flounder larvae are planktonic, particularly at night when most entrainment - E occurs. it is unlikely that a diversion sill would appreciably reduce entrainment. Further, any larvas diverted may be entrained at Units 1 and 2, particularly during ebb tides. The air-bubble curtain wallis unproven technology in proventing larval fish entrainment. It should be noted that those options would require significant additional study and modeling to validate the degree of effectiveness. _; Tha total estimated cost for the concrete sill option is 61.8 million. ( INFILTRATION SYSTEM / BEHAVIOR BARRIERS Infiltration systems consist of arrays of perforated pipes installed in aquifers. Wator enters the piping array by percolating through the overlaying sand and collector pipe scroons. Those systems would prevent the entry of fish larvas, however infiltration is not a viable concept for MNPS. Infiltration systems have not been used on large flows at the MNPS intakes, and clogging and maintenance ata common problems when a sitty overlay forms on the s9a floor. . Therefore,infiltrative systems and behavioral barriers were not pursued beyond a preliminary evaluation. Behavioral barriers (e.g., lights, noise) wer9 not considered credible mitigation alternatives for wintor flounder larvan. PLANT OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES , Entrainment rnitigation through reduced cooling water flow could be accomplished by using fawer circulating water pumps during power generation or by the installation of variable speed circulating water pumps. With the present plant design, power reduction does not result in - ES 6 ois tesws
4 I Afilistone Units 1, 2, and 3. '! a corresponoing isduction in' cooling water flow requirements; also flow reduction has a , negative effect ot' plant officiency, safety, and econumics. Circulating Water pump flow reduction achieved through the operation of fewer pumps is possible but not practical because it jeopardizes plant safety. Variabie speed drives for the circulating water pumps could allow reduction in circulating water flow during the spring season. Reduced flow through the.
- condenser would promote increastd tube fouling and potentially result in an outage. A small l reduction in power would also be likely. !
Refueling outages scheduleo for each spring could reduce entrainment because cooling-water requirements are much reduceo during outages. Many of the MNPS refueling. outages have and will continue to occur during the spring season. However, fuel nucleonics, scheduled . maintenance activities, unp' armed outages, and other f actors preclude a guaranteed refueling _ . outage each and every spring A for::ed outage each spring is possible but extremely-expensive. ? The estimated costs associated with 1orced spring outages range from $214 to $510 million. The total estimated cost for conversion to variable speed circulating water pumps is
$32 million. .
REPLENISHMENT OF WINTER FLOUNDER f Several programs established in the United States and Japan to culture flatfishes were found ; to have had limited or no success. Nu evidence exists that large scale production of winter . 1 flounder has successfully augmented natural wild stocks. To produce enough young winter flouauer to offset entrainment mortality would require a considerable area (an estimated 33.6 ha, or 83 acres) for roaring ponds, which is unavailable at MNPS, and may be very expensive elsewhere along the Connecticut coast. Food and nutritional requirernents, predator, and disease control, water quality, genetic issues, production costs, and a means to ascertain . success of stocking remain uncertain. A conceptual engineering design for a fish hatchery - 1 was not developed or cost estimated due to the uncertainties associated with this alternative. . COST ESTIMATE
SUMMARY
The cost estimates prepared for the alternatives investigated, are shown in Tables ES-1 and - ES 2. iThe costs for entrainment mitigation would most likely be shared by~ ratepayers, although this would require apprevals by regulatory agencies such as the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control.
- oist e.wPs ES-7 t
e[ t g r f: ~" w G---- , - - m, , , - - - , m-,L,, ,A-- , , ,
Cooling Water System Altematives to Reduce Larval Entraintnent TABLE ES-1 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE
SUMMARY
(All Dollars in OOOs Present Day) Cooling Tower - Cooling Tower Offshore Fine-Mesh Wedgewire Two-Spsed Concrete Description 100 % % Intake Screens Screens Motor Sills Direct Costs $44,100 $35,100 $61,000 $19,300 $12.100 $2,300 $1,300 Total Capital $62.100 $49,300 SES100 $2fl.200 $17.600 $3.200 $ 1.800 Costs Performance $14,700 * - $9,800 * $4,600
- N/A ! N/A $16,800
- N!A Penalty Costs Lost Generation $12,000 * $12,000 * $24,000 " $24.000
- 848,000 * $12,000
- N/A (Outage) Costs l TOTAL' COST $88,800 $71,100 $117,700 $52,200 $65,600 $32,000 $1.800 NOTES:
- 1. Operation and maintenance costs are not included, although they could be consideratie.
- 2. These estimates are for comparison of relative costs and due to thsir conceptual nature could be significantly less than actual costs.
- 3. 1992 cumulative net present value of replacement power costs, assuming 2 months of operation per year, over the years 1993-2010 for NUSCO's share of Unit 3 grossed up to full output.
- 4. Same as Ncta (1) except replacement power is needed for all months.
- 5. Based on the cost to replace NUSCO's share of Unit 3 output on average in 1993 grossed up to full output and discounted to 1992 doftars.
ES-8 cisiamas
, , _ i
i Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 TABLE ES 2 FORCED OUTAGE COST ESTIMATE FOR 25 PERCENT ENTRAINMENT MITIGATION Cumulative Replacement Power Scenario __ CositJn Millions oL1192 $ Unit 1 offline 4/2 to 6/13 $214 Unit 2 offlino 4/2 to 6/13 $307 Units 1 and 2 offline 4/2 to 6/13 $519 Unit 3 offline 4/2 to 6/6 $310 Units 1,2, and 3 offline 4/22 to 5/12 $318 NOTEM
- 1. Estimates are 1992 $ grossed up to full output for each scenario.
- 2. Some years had no replacement power cost becau8e a scheduled refueling overlaps the time period.
- 3. Costs estimated from 1993 through 2010.
- 4. Dates offline are approximate: Part II. of this report discusses rationato for date selection.
- 5. Maximum attainable mitigation for Unit 2 is 13 percent.
ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES The long term ef f acts of MNPS operation on the Niantic River winter flounder population have been addressed using the SPDM. This numerical model has boon used to approximate the decrease in abundance or biomass of the Niantic River female spawning stock nad its eventual recovery undet various scenarios of plant operation. Concurrent mortality by fishing, which greatly affects winter flounder abundance, was also included in the model projections. A baselino time series was simulated that included current or projected rates of mortality from l fishing, impingement, ai.d entrainment (i.e., under current MNPS mode of operation). ! This was a reference series against which increases in spawner biomass as a result of several levels of reduction in entrainment mortality (10,20,25, and 50 percent) could be measured. The inodel simulations showed that proposed reductions in fishing would be of much greater i benefit to the Niantic River female winter flounder spawning stock, than concurrent entrainmerit mitigation. The calculated mean gain in biomass as a result of a 25 percent initigation of entrainment would be 1,274 lb per year. The calculated cumulative total-increase would only be 50,959 lb over a 40 year period. if an average weight of 1 lb per female spawner is assumed, biomans and numbess of fish become equivalent. These values ot st e.was ES 9
-__-- _---_--___:_--____-__.__-__ - -0
1 Cooling Water System Attematives to Reduce Larval Entrainment reptesent a modest (s 4.3 percent) gain in the annual Niantic River winter flounder spawning , stock biomass. Further, this would represant a very small (s 0.25 percent) fraction of the combined sport and commercic! winter flounder catchesin Connecticut since on averago, the Niantic River stock cccounts for less than 5 porcont of the Connecticut wintor flounder resourCo. Probabi!istic risk assessment was used to examino the probability that the stock could f all to loss than 26 porcent of the maximum spawning biomass (a critical fisherios reference point) at six selected points in time. The analysis indicated that in 1993. beforo simulated reductions in fishing and entrainment rmtigation altomatives woro put into offect, the spawning stock biomass was already (p = 0.94) loss than 25 percent of the maximum biomass. However, once fishing was reduced, the probability of a critical!y reduced stock quickly fell to 0.02 by 1998 and became zero for subsequent years. This would occur with or without larval ontrainment mitigation. Dy the time the sma81 contribution in biomass attribu'ablo to 25 porcent mitigation (O lb for the first 3 years followed by 920 lb average for. the next 3 years) became effectivo, the stock would no longer be depressed below a critical Silo. CONCLUSIONS This study has uvaluated cooling water intake designs with respect to mitigating the impact of MNPS entrainment of Niantic River winter flounder larvoo. Known mitigation mo*. hods were reviewed and some new ideas wore ovaluated. Some of the altomativos are not technically fonsible (e.g., infiltratinn systems) or have safety and operability concems (e.g., wodgewire screens, variable spoed pumps). Several altomatives (e.g., natural draft cooling tower, offshore intake) are possible to construct and operate, but aro extremely expensive, as are forced shutdowns. Concreto sills woro a simolo and relatively inexpensive option, but it is highly unhkoly that sills could provent the entrainment of planktonic _ wintor flounder larvae. . . Mitigation of larval entrainment mortality.by any technology would have minimal elfacts, as - demonstrated by the SPDM simulations. Moaol results indicate that the planned seduction in = n fishing would be the primary f actor responsible for increases in the Niantic River winter female ' flounder spawning stock, rather than concurrent entrainment mitigation, Thore have boon no technological or operational strategies that have significantly advanced j cooling water intake designs since the extonsive reviewa performed in the NUSCO Final Saf oty l; Analysis Report and the Environmental Report preparod for Unit .3. The relatively'small P increase projected in Niantic River female wintor flounder spawner blomass (mean annual
' increase of 1,274 lb) does not warrant the millions of dollars required for omrainment ES 10 oisie w s fi
~
n .-
' M;ilstone Units 1, 2, and_3 .-
mitigation. The projected. costs that would have to be met by ratepayers are wholly l disproponionato to the ecoloDi cal benefits gained. Open cycle cooling using the existing + t
-intake structures and equiprnent at MNPS remains the best available: technology at a ;
reasonable economic cost with respect to larval winter flounder entrainment. I Steven Scace - Eric DeBarba C. Frederick Esars Vice President Vice President Vice President Millstone Station Nuclear Engineering Environmental Services Services ; a
.1
, i l I l :- 01616.WPS '- ES 11 a E e_1k
p c g ( , r . ANTRODUCTION BACKGROUND h The Millstone hPDES Permit No CT0003263 renewat application was submitted in December 1989. The existing permit expiration was June 5,1990, .The plants continued to operate-under the previous permit under the Clean Water Act provision of a timely reapplication submittal. Over the past several years, staff of Northeast Utilities Service Company's (NUSCO) Environmental Laboratory and the Connecticut- Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Manne Fisheries Division met numerous times to discuss the status of the Niantic River winter flounder'(P/euronectes americanus) population and the affect of-impingement and entrainment on various flounder life stages of that population. - . After several meetings.among personnel from DEP Water Management Bureat, DEP Marine- , Fisheries Division and NUSCO Environmental Services Department, the DEP directed that a
~
feasibility study of winter flounder larval mitigation be conducted, Accordingly, in December of 1992, the Millstone station NPDES permit was renewed with a 6 2 condition that the feasibility study be completed and submitted by February of 1993.--The: sc. ope of the study as directed by the DEP in'sarlier correspondence to NUSCO was as- ,
- follows:,
The proposed study of the feasibility of reducing entreinment of wintor flounder larvae ~ at ' Millstone- Nuclear ~- Power' Station should- investigate soveral alternatives. The study should review intake structure alternatives including-screening devices and physical barriers such as sills, baffles, and curtain walls. '
. 01516 wP5 . 11 m
I ) Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce LarvalEntralnment The study should also review cooling system design alternativos such as recirculating cooling towers and an of fshore intake. Finally, the study should review operational alternativos such as reduced cooling water flow (higher Delta T and Maximum Delta T), reduced power generation, and tho scheduling of maintenance shutdowns. Each alternative should be reviewed with regard to technological fossibility, effectivonoss, and costs, SCOPE OF WORK As a result, a project assignrnent was initiated and funded for the purpose of conducting the study. A scope of work describing the study was developed and submitted to the DEP on May 20,1992. This study selects and evaluates alternativo mitigation measures to reduce entrainment of Niantic River winter flounder larvaa into the MNPS intakes. The study consists of an engineering evaluation of existing intake technology as it could be applied at MNPS and on I environmental / biological evaluation of the effoctiveness of selected measures for reducing j entrainment of larvae. The estimated costs for selected measures are also provided. Enginntina Evaluation The engineering evaluation consists of an overview of existing technologies which could potentially reduce entrainment of winter flounder larvao into the station intakoc. The following types of mitigation measures for minimizing entrainment of fish larvao are included in the review:
- Thoso designed to reduce the volumo of cooling water required for the station.
- Those designed to provent larvae from entering the plant by obstructing the larvoo or by changing the source of cooling water.
- Those designed to reduce the number of larvae entering the plant by obstructing er diverting the flow.
. Under these categorios of mitigation measures are the following designs:
Flow Roduction
- Convert the Unit 3 circulating water system to a closod-loop system with cooling towers.
Natural-draft Mechanical-draf t - 12 oisie.wes
r i Afilistone Untrs I, 2, and 3 s j * - Convert % of. the Unit 3 circulating water system to a closed loop - system with cooling towers.
~
- Heduced flow through isolation of circulating water pumps.
- Variable speed circulating water pumps.
}=
- Scheduled and forced outages.
Prevent Entrance of Larvae at intakes
- Offshore intake '
Fino _ mesh scroons
- Angled screens _'
- Wedgewiro scroons
- Infiltration systems floduce Larvae Entrance at inlaLC3
- Wolr, sills, and curtain walls Air bubble flotation system
) *
- Behavioral barriors ,
Rep!Dalib.f ish
- Fish hatchery Basert on the initial overview, a select number of' alternative measures were chosen for .
preliminary design and detailed ovaluation. The detailed evaluations consisted of a preliminary design of rna}or components for each selected alternative, Because Unit 3 accounts for approximately 50 percent of the cooling-water flow at MNPS,. designs were developed for Unit 3 only. The preliminary designs addressed gootochnical considerations, developed preliminary civi,1 engineering designs f or all major structures, sized major mechanical equipment . and piping, and developeo preliminary designs for electric power and control equipment. From thoso designs, quantity estimates were taken and preliminary order of magnitude cost; estimates developed. Operation and maintenance costs associated.with the attirnatives :
- discussed in this study could be considerable, but havo not been addressed. A constructibility review and preliminary construction and unit outago schedule was developodlfor each alternativo. The following alternative measures woro selected for preliminary design:
* . Natural draft cooling towers (100 and 66.7 percent capacity)
- Of fshore intake
*- Fine mesh screens .
*' Wedgewire screens
* - Diversion sills and curtain walls ois16,WP5 l3 4
6 y 4 s- w- p e ,,o ,
s.o s.r , o Cooling Water System Attematives to keduce Larval Entrainment -
- Operational strategies y
. Reduced power / flow
.- Varishle-speed pumps Scheduled refueling outages Forced outages ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION- .
q The early life history of the winter flounder is briefly summarized in Part 11. Winter flounder-larval entrainment at MNPS and methods of quantifying this impact are discussed. Various mitigation alternatives were considered for environmental and biological effects that could - result frorn their implementation, The evaluations include most of the engineering measures, and include a natural draft cooling tower, offshore intake, fine mesh screens, wedgewire screens, and diversion screens and curtain _ walls. The replenishment (l.e., fish hato'l fys operationtof winter flounder as a mitigation altemative was also considered. The rationale for the selection of dates used- for the evaluation of plant shutdowns.as ~ a mitigation altemative is given. The effectiveness of various mitigation alternatives was quantitatively , assessed using the NUSCO stochastic population dynamics model, The ostimation or sources of information for key model pararneters and rates are presented. Particularly important arer the rates of mortality due to fishing, which were projected _ to decrease. Model output consists of the annual increase in Niantic River female winter flound6r spawning stock - 2 biomass ior various reductions in entrainment mortality. The cumulative gains in biomass over: time was also calculated, and probabilistic risk assessment used to . Insestigste the' oflectiveness of entrainment mitigation. m c A
.j
- l44 } 01s16 WP6 I e .. +
Q.-
1 l NORTHEAST j
' 'T> UTILITIES FEASIBILITY STUDY OF .
COOLING WATER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES TO REDUCE WINTER FLOUNDER LARVAL ENTRAINMENT AT MILLSTONE UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 knillstone nuclear power station JANUARY 1993 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Berlin, Connecticut i
i
?
PART I : i ENGINEERING EVALUATION i I 5 t t : t l 9 l l 1 f . 1 t I i. l i
- 01516.WPS PARTI
[ !; L _r
1 t-i t TABLE OF CONTENTS - PARTI - Stetion Iltle Eann PART I ENGINEERING E', ALUATION 1 PRESENT INTAKE DESIGN AND OPERATION ....,.................. 11 2 OVERVIEW AND PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE MITIGATION M EA S U R E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.1 O V E RVI EW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 IN FILTR ATIO N SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.3 BEH AVIOR AL BARRIERS . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 , 2.4 SELECTED MEASURES FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COST , E ST I M ATI N G . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.5 R E F E R EN C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3 ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED MITIGATION OESIGNS . . . . . . . . 31 4 3.1 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.2 NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 3.2.1 FULL SIZE COOLING TOWER SYSTEM , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 3.2.1.1 Natural-Draft Cooling _ Tower .................. 35 3.2.1.2 Closed-Loop Circulating Water System . . . . . . . . . - 3 0 3.2.1.3 Impact on Unit Perf ormance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 11' 3.2.2 TWO THIRDS SIZE COOLING TOWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 11' , 3.2.2.1 Two Thirds Size Natural Draft Cooling Tower . . , . . 312-3.2.2.2 Closed-Loop Circulating Water System . . . . . . . . . . 315 3.2.2.3 Impact on Unit Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . 3 16 01 s t a.v#5 i ' PARTI
Cooling Water System Afternatives to Reduce Lervel Entralnment TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) Section Ihls Enga 3.2.3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 10 3.3 O F F S H O R E INTAK E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 17 3.3.1 DESIGNBASIS.................................. 3 17 3.3.2 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 18 < 3.3.2.1 Cut and Cover Offshore Twin Tube Tunnel ....... 3 21 3.3.2.2 Subsurf ace Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 22 3.3.3 O FFSH O R E IN LET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 23 3.3.4 BOOSTER PUMP STATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 24 3.3.5 OFFSHORE INTAKE EXPERIENCE AT SEABROOK NUCLEAR P OW E R STATI O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 26 3.4 FIN E M ESH S CRE EN S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 27 3.4.1 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 27 3.4.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FINE MESH TRAVELING WATER SCREENS ...................... 3 28-3.4.3 ALTERNATIVE FINE MESH INTAKE DESIGN CONCEPTS . . . . . 3 28 3.4.3.1 Through-Flow Fine Mosh Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 20 3.4.3.2 Dual Flow / Center Flow Fine-Mesh Screens ....... 3 29 3.4.3.3 Angled Scr ee ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . 3 30 3.4.3.4 Fine Mesh Drum Screen Feellity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 30 3.4.4 REQUIRED TESTING . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33 3.4.5 FINE MESH SCREEN FACILITY FOR UNIT 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 33 3.4.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 36 3.5 WEDGEWlRE SCREENS .......................,......., 3 36' 3.5.1 STAGGERED ARRAY DESIGN . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 40 3.54 2 ALTERNATIVE BULKHEAD DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 43 3.5.3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 44 3.6 DIVERSION SILLS AND CURTAIN WALLS . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . 3 45 3.6.1 SUDMERGED DIVERSION SILL , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.6.2 CURTAIN WALL WITH AIR BUBBLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 3 49 3.7 PLANT OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES ....................... 3 49-3.7.1 POWER AND FLOW REDUCTION . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . 3 40 3.7.2 VARI ABLE SPEED PUMPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.7.2.1 Hydraulic and Pumping Energy Requirements for
%-Speed Operation . . . . ...................351 3.7.2.2 Two Speed Electric Motors . . . . . 4
_........... 3 52 PARTI ;; oisie,wpg i
i Millstone Units 1. 2. and 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) - Section I,ing Eagg 3.7.2.3 Impact on Unit Perf ormance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 , 3.7.3 SCHEDULED REFUELING OUTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....,353 3.7.4 FORCED OUTAGES EACH SPRING . . s ................. 3 57
3.8 REFERENCES
......................................... 3 58 i 4 ESTIMATED COSTS AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 41 !
4.1 E STIM ATE D C O ST S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1-4.2 SPECIAL EXCAVATION COST CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 4.2.1 NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER EXCAVATION COSTS . . 4 10
' 4.2.2 OFFSHORE INT AKE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 4.2.2.1 Tunnel Excavation Assumptions / Costs .......... 4 10 4.2.2.2 Shaft Excavation . Assumptions / Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 4 12 4.2.2.3 Schedule Assumptions and Considerations ....... 4 13 4.2.2.4 Total Offshore Intake Excavation Costs . . . . . . . . . . -413 4.3 CONSTRUCTION PERIODS ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 14 5 EN G IN E E RING S UMM A RY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 51 -
APPENDICES i A COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A i . B COST ESTIMATES OF PERFORMANCE PENALTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-i C COST ESTIMATES OF FORCED OUTAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-l 01616,WP6 lji PARTI l_l
A k
, I.
t t f h
. . s h
i
+
+
.L L
T
-1 T ~l .;
1 k, 1 Iw i
' .s c
r e
l 5
5 t,
-.)
-.3 t
P t
- i
. . b
]'f
- 1. ?
..f r
1
.,t a
T 1 . .
..t h
.. l'6
.7
.,f c.
-' i.
a > t PART 'l; jy oist e.wes , 1
'i
- r- ;
+
, i
.~
(r-
--e :, -:. ..
_ . .. - : -4
. . ,- o; d'i'- 0 Vfp -% we -s e--t-ews---+
w+ris w - *- a f.1 3.' 4 y *, r+,s. , t y 4
- s. J ,.w---
@ w ,. y + , y, e--g-yi..-
,--s -
* ,.-r*
,.s*-.
i i LIST OF TABLES - PART I t t t Tabin Thin Psae 11 Millstone Nuclear Power Station Flow Withdrawal fresn Niantic Bay . . . . . . . . 1 4-3-1 MNPS Units Circulating Water Pump vs Flow Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 32 Millstone Station Refueling Outage Schedule 1993 2003 ............. 3 55 l 33 Approximate Outage Durations at MNPS for 25 Percent Emralnment M i t i g a t i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56- , 3-4 Forced Outage Cost Estimate for 25 ?ercent Entrainment Mitigation . . . . . . 3 57. 41 Natural Draft Cooling Towers Summary of Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates................................................ 4-2 42 Offshore intake Summary of Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . 43 . 43 Fish Mesh Screens Summary of Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates . . . . . . . 4-4 - 4-4 .Wedgewire Screens Summary of Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates . . . . . . . 4-5 45 Two-Speed Pumps Summary of Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates . . . . . . . 4-6 4-6 Barrier Sills Summary of Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 47 Total Costs Estimate Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 4-8 48 ' Relative Order of Magnitude Costs for runnelling . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . - 411 < 49 Construction and Outage Period Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 14 P 01516.WP6 y PARTI 5
+ - .- - y y
CooEng Water System Attematives to Reduce larval Entrainment .- LIST OF TABLES (Cont) ) IAldo Iltle .P_ gag [ 51 Total Cost Estimato Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ....... 50-1 5-2 Forced Outsgo Cost Estimate for 25 Percent Entrainrnent Mitigation . . . . . - . . 57 S3 Evaluation of Entrainment Mitigation Alternatives for MNPS ..... , ..... ti.8 h PARTI vi 0151Ns
/
4 18 ",'y u . a
, l 4
7 LJST OF FIGURES VUTI .
- i
- floure Il1[g EAgA.
n
.11 Intake and Discharge Facilities for Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 . . . . . . . , . ... 1 -2 :. .
i 12 ' Units 1,2, and 3 Typical Section of Circulating Water intake Structures ... 4 3 3-1 Unit 3 - Natural-Draft Cooling Tower Alternative 100 Percent Capacity .... 37 G mi j'i.} )
-- 32 Unit 3 Natural. Draft Coolin0 Tower Alternative 66 Percent Capacity . . . . .- 3 13 ~ ':
3-3 Unit 3 - Offshore intake Structure Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19.
-4 Tit 3 - Fine Mash Screen Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.- 3 31 e% ' Vedgewire Screen Unit
. ...................................... 3-37; [
. 3 Sb Unit 3 - Wedgewire Screen Alternative , , . . . . . . . . . -. , . . . .. . . . . , . . . . ,; 3;41.
0 Unit 3 - Sill / Curtain Wall Alternative . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . :.. 3-47 i
- 3 7.. Pum p Pe rf ormance Curvo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . 3-51
. q
't
, il q
9 s 1
=j 4
- c1518.wPs- vii - PART I -
3
- m. = -.- . _g,
w- -- - g n .y a
.l, w ,
.x t
I 6l-w y yp < lw , h
":li
;'t . ' .* '
6- ((. "' Cooling WateE System Attemativen to Reduce larval Entrainment ' ,
. N 6
-'. '.-V,-' rA Ci
- ^e
. l s r. !
-... P 7 }
L t 0 r' i k I F f { y
't v ,
. (A , ,-v 1, 3
L
\ N i
a "gh ' % %' y 4\! ck<'
+_ i'
.,.v .
-k 9 a
.. i k f .j f s'
I ~-[; '.- l
,; 1
.. j'- s I-e I . . -
PARTI vijj - 01516.WP6 .
*h
- i I
- 1.> ) 4 e g , '. ...f' . i
. - , i t \ ,'
-.s .(. , w Lg.- -j
, , ,b...,,(e i s
.i i
.1
) .
PRESENT INTAKE DESIGN ANDI OPERA TION
-i I
There are two main heat dissipation systems for each of the three Millstone Nuclear Power Station (MNPS) units that draw water from Niantic Bay:
- Circulating Water Systems (non-nuclear safety related)
- Service Water Systems (nuclear safety related)
- The pumps for both circulating and service water systems are installed in common intake :
structures, Each unit has its own separate intake structure, Both systems draw water from Niantic Bay, pass the water through e;ther steam surface condensers (circulating water ' systems) or . heat exchangers (service water systems) where the: water temperature is increased. The heated water is discharged into the quarry and ultimately into Twottee Island - Channel. The location of the intake and discharge facilities for sach unit is shown.on Figure 1 1. The circulating water systems condense stcam by means of once through steam surface.
' condensers, The weste heat from the condensing process is transferred .to the circulating:
water as it passes through the condenser tubes, in the normal operating mode, the service water system provides cooling water to numerous station facilities. Major users are the reector plant component cooling heat exchangers and the turbine plant component cooling-heat exchangers. In the event of'an accident, such as a loss of primary coolant in the reactor (LOCA), service water is diverted to the containment recirculation coolers to remove haat from the reactor and the emergency generator diesel angine coolers. m 01s16.WPs 11 PARTI-t
- Cooling Wster System Alternatives to Reduce larval Entrainment
~# / 3
\ h roe \
o
% D l\( .o
/
* )',.-
'* A'i"o
,' e = = i '4 ,i Q-Q,-
.c ., ,.
m l A-=--!.g .- . ., f rM'ke
. T '~Q C **
=J ~~
r o O} // <>
;P' g 8 n - j[
ip s ' ,
, ;, , m ar. .
I $hb fp bb p- -- __ ,;P.) g W '
/t s ,
'~' . . -
i l1 _ _ / c' t.,,
,7' - $1 3
W$p/ l sinue rm
% ':,~;' '
NIANTIC BAY Figure 1-1 Intake and Discharge Facilities for M;!! stone Units 1,2. and 3 I PART1' 12 01516.WP5 l
.. , . . . ~. .. . - - , . . -. -
y ' l
. ' 'j Millstone Units 1,' 2, and 3.
.: i 1
The intake structures for each unit are simila'r inl design.' Each intake structure contains
~
-j service.and circulating water-pumps.in common baysi The intakes have traveling water l
= screens'with % inch (9.5 mm) mesh, coarse-bar racksiand curtain walls which extend below i lowest water level. The coarse bar rack excludes debris and fish larger than 2 inch in size andi
- " the mesh size of Winch prevents smaller fish and debris from entering thG pump forebay.--The-curtain watt prevents warm surface water, ice, and surface marine organisms from entering g the intake. Each intake has lateral fish passageways installed in the bay walls upstream of ~
the traveling screens to allow fish to escape the screen f aces. A typicalintake section, 'which is similar for the intake structures of Units 1,2, and 3,is shown on Figure 12.
.l -l EL 39'-0" l I r-
. . . . . . p .,. .,a, .,,,
.p-p'aj
" . - k01 P -- SERVICE t *4%" gnM'6"a > R -
e n , y ' ' e An ; r ' EL 14'-o" e V w., l _ I -' 2 e n ,.A ey e ry e . m ... . .e e e r e e . _. .._, _ y p ,,-
- c y .
._. 7r r-e
- EL (-)5'-6' gg=3 p'4 ,
r.per -
.., ,, .. , ?
""" 'i CURTAIN WALL .'. -. p 0
- l. - ,
TRASH \ RACKS /) J\ a' =
'"** p c.,f . p \ p .+. -
p np l ..
~
-.ggh h TRAVEUNG
- SCREEN rPASSAGE_
Figure 12' Units if 2; and 3 - Typical Section of Circulating Water intake Structures: J
-oisie w s 13 PART1 g
y ,y-,,-b+ +c ,- r,,w ~ - ~ * - - --
. Cooling Water System Attematives to Reduce Larval Entrainment -
The intake structure for Unit 1 contains four : circulating water pumps which deliver-420,000 gpm (935 cis) of cooling water to the condensor and four service water pumps, each rated at 10,000 gpm (22.3 cfs). Normal service water flow is 20,000 gpm. The service water pumps are in the center bay of the 5 bay intake structure. The water velocity approaching the traveling screen is in the range of 0.5 to 0.9 fos. The intake structure of Unit 2 contains four circulating water pumps which deliver 548,000 gpm (1,220 cis) of cooling water to the condensers. The intake also contains three service water pumps, each rated at 14,000 gpru (31 cfs) each. The normal service water flow is 28,000 gpm. The water velocity approaching the traveling screen is approximately 0.5 fps. The intake structure for Unit 3 houses six circulating water pumps, each rated; at 152,000 gpm, for a total circulating water flow of 912,000 gpm (2,030 cis). Theintake also contains four service water pumps, each rated at 15,000 gpm. Normal service water system flow is 30,000 gpm (67 cis). Traveling screen approach velocity is in the range of 0.5 to - 1.0 fps. Table 1-1 provides a summary of station flow withdrawals from Niantic Bay. 1 TABLE 1-1 MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION FLOW WITHDRAWAL FROM NIANTIC BAY Flow Withdrawal lich Svstem -(cis) Unit 1 Circulating Water 935 3 Service Water 44 i Unit 2 Circulating Water 1,220 Service Water 62 i' Unit 3 Circulating Water '2,030 Service Water GZ Total Station Withdrawal 4,358-PARTI 14 01516 M 6 1 a
w 34 7 t t j MI
; OVERVIEW AND PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF A VAILABLE MITIGA TION: 1 MEASURES .
4 NUSCO extensively reviewed alternate intake structures in its Final Safety Analysis Report > (FSAR) (1) and Environmental Report (ER) (2). This review demonstrated that open-cycle cooling using the existing intake structures was the Best Available Technology at MNPS. NUSCO's basic conclusions remain accurate and valid, However, since several years have - elapsed since the submittal of the FSAR and ER,it is useful to provide an information update, especially in regard to fish larvalimpingement and entrainment. 2.1 OVERVIEW-Biologists and engineers have, over the years, conducted extensive research to develop-methods to protect fish cnd larvae at water intakes, Most of the research that is pertinent to MNPS was conducted from the late 1960s to the early 1980s and f ocused on the biological
?ffectiveness and engineering practicability of screening systems for use at _ steam electric j
?_
stations. In the early 1980s, the design and construction of new steam electric plants in this e nation came to a near standstill. ' From the mid 1980s to the present time, fish protection: research has continued at a reduced level of effort for' steam electric-stations,7but has: increased greatly for anplication to hydroelectric facilities.'Some of the information derived from ongoing efforts at hydroelectric facilities, however, is pertinent to the issue.of fish impingement and ontrainment at MNPS arid is presenteo to provide the best information-
- available for the ovaluation of alternatives, j
Most fish protection systems in_ use today are designcd primarily to protect juvenile and adult
~
. fish from impingement. Few such systems and devices are both biologically effective in ,
E reducing entrainment, and at .the same time practical to operate, cost-effective, and acceptable to regulatory' agencies. o1516 WP5 21 PARTI
'l 1
h . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. ..i
l Cooling Water System A!tematives to Reduce Larval Entrainment There are several types of mitigation measures for minimizing the entrainment of fish larvae at cooling water intakes. The various general categories with specific means for application are as follows: Flow ReductiqD
- Cooling towers
- Variable-speed pump driver
- Outages PJaym}t Entrance of Fish Larvae at intaken
- Of fshore intake
- Fine-mesh screens
- Angled screens
- Wedgewire screens e infiltration systems Reduce Entrainment of Fish Larvae at intakriul
- Weirs, sills, and curtain walls
- Air bubble floatation systems
- Behavioral barriers Eqplanish Fish
- Fish hatchery The above mitigating measures were screened to determine if they were feasible for application at MNPS. As a result of this preliminary review, the inflitration system design and behavioral barriers were eliminated from further analysis. The reasons for rejection are listed below:
2.2 INFILTRATION SYSTEMS Infiltration systems consist of a systern of horizontal pedorated water collection conduits installed in the aquifer below or adjacent to a. water oody. The collector conduit' system then - conveys the water to a common collsctor chamber where the filtered water can bo pumped to cooling systems. The system utilizes the filtering action of the bottom'soi! or an engineered . filter media to remove suspended solids (including' biota) from the water. . An infiltration system would elirninate entrainment'of fish and fish larvae into an intake. Engineered filter media systems placed over the field of collector pipes can be used to increase permeabilities and thereby allow for higher flow rates. PARTI 22 c1sto.wes - j t 1
w; - Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 I Two companies specia.lizing in r.he _ design andLconstruction of infiltration type intake' system, were consulted regarding the application of an infiltration type waMr collection system for the Unit 3 intake < These companies are the Ranney Division Afflydro Group, Inc., Westerville, - Ohio, and M&S Systems intomational Ltd of Oswra, Malta.
- After reviewing the geologic conditions and flow rete cf the Unit 3' intake, Ranney concluded ,
that an infiltration gallery system would be marginal and would be an extrapolation of theJ technology to flow capacities rnuch larger than any existing system placed by.them. The ' limitation to npplication at MNPS is the very high flow capacity. The typical yield from a radial collector can he limited to between 1000 and 3000 gallons per m'muto (gpm).' Given the normal 912.000 gpm operating flow to the Unit 3 intake, a large number of collector wells
-would b') required. The City of Belgrade, Yugoslavia, utilizes a series of.'40. collector wells" installed atound an inland lake to develop a municipal water supply (approximately maximum system capacity 80,00 gpm): based on this data, approximately 500 wells woutd be required ,
W - for Unit 3. An infiltration gallery may also be installed,' consisting'of horizontally oriented - media as much as 2000 feet in length.- However, the long; term yield.of these systems appears limited to 1000 to 2000 gpm, based upon years of experience with installations of 1 th;s type. For both the infiltration gallery system and the collector wells, tho individual wells / galleries need to be properly spaced, resuhing in large seafront property 1oguirements. ,
- M&S Systems International Ltd presented a design similar in concept to the Ranney infiltration [
system. M&S claims it can achieve higber yields than the Ranney-type system through the ~ use of specially designed filter. media systems' installed around the infiltration pipes.jM&S
- claims a 40 percent capacity increase over the Ranney system. . The' proposed design for-Unit 3 would consist'of an orray of collector pipe screens;with media / covering an area of; 3800 m*. The collection system would su'pply cooling ; water to a single pumping f acility.1 A U review of the M&S filter media concept indicated that this system could be subject to clogging .
in the high detriral environment of the MNPS intakes.
~
It was concluded that an infiltration system is not a viable technology for the large operating; - flow rate of Unit 3. This conclusion was based primarily-on Ranney's previous attempts toe build and operate high capacity infiltration systems :The maintenancie' and screen plugging >
* - problems are likaly to occur particularly~during the periods'of high k5lp and high eelgrass .
A loadings. The spring period of high flounder larval activity is-also a period of high detrital; c loadire at the MNPS Intakes. The M&S' system, although possibly an improvement on the- 3'
.Ranney design, would be subject to the same clogging and maintenance problems. Alsoi
- e ' there is no experience in the United States with the M&S system.
. 01516.WP5 2-3 PART ! .
< d
Conting Water System Afternatives to Reduce larvalEntrainment 2.3 BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS. Behavioral barriers such as lights or sound devices are not considered effective measures for preventing the entrainment of early larval life stages of fish into intakes. Everi if larval fish react to lights or sound, they do not have the swimming capability to overcome the flow velocities approaching er entering the intakes. For this reason, behavioral barriers were eliminated frorn further cor. sideration as potential measures for reducing entrainment of winter founder larvae into the MNPS intakes Q). 2.4 SELECTED MEASURES FOR PRELIMINAR'l DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATING All of the alternative measures listed in Section 2.1 with the exception of infiltration systems and behavioral barriers have potential for mitigating entrainment of winter flounder larvae at MNFS. Preliminary designs f or the following attornative measures are presented in Section 3 with cost estimates and construction schedules prosented in Section 4: i
- Cooling towers
- Offshore intake e
- Fino mesh screens
- Waugewire screens Diversion sills and curtain walls with air floatation
- Operational Strategies
- Reduced power / flow
- Variable-spt2nd pumps
- Scheduled refuel outages Forced outages The fish hatchery is discussed in Part 11.
2.5 REFERENCES
- 1. Mil! stone Nuclear ' Power Station, Unit 3; Final Safety Analysis . Report: Docket No 50-423,
- 2. Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3, Environmental Report: Docket No. 50-423.
- 3. E.P. Taf t. Assessment of Dpwnstream Micrrmt Fish Prote.qtion Technoloales for ltdruejectriclDD!iCAti20. Palo Alto, Califomia: Electric Power Research Institute, 1986. AP 4711.
PART1 24 01 s16.WPs . 1
$ 'W x ,s " cm (' w + i
,' .{
3 ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION'OF SELECTED MITIGA TION: DESIGNS d in this section, preliminny designs for selected cooling system attematives were developed' fof the Unit 3 intake. . Unit 3 fraws approximately % of the total' station intrke flow. Elimination or reduction of larval entrainment into the Unit 3 intake would produce a reduction q in station entrainment. The selected designs of for the potential for a reduction in entrainment of winter flounder larvae. The designs were developed to alevel of detail adequate to develop. order of magnitude cost estimatas. Previous studies evaluating cooling towers at Unit 3 were dono during' the initial licensing
~
work for the station in the early 1970s and subsequent studies conducted during the19COs. 4 The results of these evaluations w' era incorporated into the selection of the type'of cooling] tower (natural-dr/ tit) to be used for preliminary design and specific system design parameters q used~in this study. Design criteria and construction ' experience for the Seabrook Nuclear- H Power Station offshore intake and discharge tunnels were used to develop the prelirninary; ;j design for the proposed offshore intake system for Unit Si,The most current U.S; and foreign - design critoria were used to develop prelirninary designs for fine-mesh screens, wedgewire screena, and diversion sills and curtain walls. ' c
.in all cases the nuclear safety-related service water system operation would remain the same.- y The service water pumps would remain in the existing Unit 3 intake structure and function as- y
' they currently. do, in the cases of the offshore intake, fino-mesh ' screens und wedgewire . d
.j screens, where the existing intake wou!d be enclosed by a forebay, a separate nuctoar safety-related watet passageway would be required.' This passage system -would consistfof ^al $ combination of an. automatic safety-related valve or gate system t.nd collapsible panels. The; actual design and cost estimate for the se systems were not included in the report.- e oisie,wPs ' .3-1 PARTI
- )
n a. .
w - , , .~ .. . - - . - ~ ..- . - . .
.k i
^ "
.y Cooling Water' System Attematives to Reduce Larval Entrainment
~
Because thel service water system 11s nuclear s'afety related, the design lwould:be nuclear _ - Mi: safety-related Category I and would be subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission review and-approval.' This area was not addressed in detail. l 3.1 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS :
- Much ci the goology at MNPS was well documented 'during the licensing ~and. construction - -
~
phases of the three units. The most current information is described'in Section 2.5'of the . ,
- Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (1). Boring, seismic refraction surveys,1bathymetrici ;
P surveys, laboratory data and geologic mapping during excavation provide information on the l _pfcperties of the rock and soil types expected elsewhere'in the site vicinity. - Bedrock'at thei site is overlain by glacial deposits consisting of basal till, ablation till, stream deoosits, beach. ands and artihcial fill. All major Unit 3 structures, ducts and pipelines were founded on basal ' till cr cedrock and no unusual conditions were encountered during excavation or construction. 1 It should be noted that the variable nature of the top of rock surface does not allow for an. accurate prediction of overburden thicknesses elsewhere at Millstone Point using Unit 3 data.- . Therefore, estimates of rock and soit quantities are difficult. i' The predominant site bedrock is Monson gneiss. 'It is a uniformly: foliated '(layered); rnetamorphic rock, composed of thin segregated layers of quartz, feldspar / and mica.JThe-- [ g Monson gneiss is' intruded by sills of younger Westerly granite,1 generally parallel to the foliation. The Westerly granite is most prevalent at the discharge area and near shore in the? l vicinity of the intakes.- Both rock types are _hard,L dense, crystalline rocks that are mostly
- unweathered, except in the vicinity of fault zones, and serve as excellent foundation materials.-
- The determined allowable beanno capacity for these rock types is 200_kst (kips per square foot) (FSAR Table 2.5.4-23). According to the site bedrock map (FSAR Figure 2.5.1-13), the -
Monson gneiss extends offshore into Niantic Bay, where it contacts the Brimfiald Formationc This rock is a garnet-mica schist and gneiss a'nd is expected to have physical properties similar ' to the Monson gneiss.
- According to FSAR Figure 2.5.4-39 the rock elevation is generally highest at theJeastern!.
portion of the Unit 3 site (22 feet) and drops to 132 feet at the Unit'3 intake. Site grade is?
- 24 feet and rises gradually to the north of the Unit 3 structures to 30 feet. it is expected that -
rock elevations: pertinent to this! study-are similar to those found in the area of Unit 32
-(between 10-to 20 feet)! Offshcre, the top of the rock surface is inferred from seismic:.
L- refraction data which indicates highly variable' elevations (0 to -180 feet). y
=g,
' pal (T I -
3-2 01516.WPS .
'i e _
a J n +, - < a :a.._..--__-- --_L
q
. Millstone Units 1,' 2, and 3 -w The bedrock surface is overlain by a dense basal till.of variable thickness'(5 to 40 feeth it q consists of a poorly sorted mixture of clay, sand, silt' and cobbles that was compacted by -
- glaciat ice. _The allowable bearing capacity is 12 ksf and its ahear strength is relatively high,1 making this soit suitable for use as a foundation materiat in sorne cases. Overlying the basal-till are less dense aeposits consisting of ablation till; stream deposits, which are found mainly -
on the west side of the site: beach sands; and artificial fill. The physical properties of these materials were not considered well suited for foundation of major structure's. - Therefore, during foundation preparation, these materials were removed until basal till or bedrock-was exposed. The same general procedure is assumed for foundation of the structures addressed , in this estimate. Previous excavations indicate the basal till can maintain a :lH:1 V slope while - th_e overlying looser soils require a 2H:1V slope for stability purposes.- Analysis of Unit 3 soils iridicates that liquefaction is not a concern. However, a re-evaluation will be required if there are any major modifications to the shore front slopes and channels in the vicinity.of the intake. , Geologic features which mayinfluence design and construction include rock discontinuities, rock strets concentrations, soil- deposits of poor ' bearing capacity,: and oundwater conditions. Discontinuities that form planes of weakness that must be considered for - .
-' structural stability in rock excavations and tunnels are the foliation, loints and faults. These s planes of weakness can form unfavorable geometries singularly or in combination when they -
intersect an excavation. The foliation at the site is uniform and the average orientation is N67W/48NE. The jointing (fracturing) of the rock is well developed. The dominant orientation
' is NO3WiB3NE and two lesser sets are NO2W/78NE and N48W/07NE. -The joint spacing is generally _3 to 5 feet and the joint apertures are generally closed or thin. Depending on rock excavation orientations, some stabilization may be necessary through use;of rock = bolts.
Excessive rock stress concentrations were no; observed during excavation and +s is not.
' considered an issue.
Eleven fault zones were uncovered during mapping as shown in FSAR (1) Figure 2.5.1-18 and more can he anticipated during future excavation. The fault zones generaUy trend north-south, are nearly vertical, and can produce fragmented and crushed zones a few feet in width - adjacent to the f ault plane. Although faults did not pose significant foundation or stabilization -
, problems during construction, they can act as conduits for groundwater flow during tunnel
^ construction. ,
. Groundwater elevations prior to excavation at the Unit 3 site are shown in~ FSAR:
1 Figure 2.5.4-37. They indicate that original groundwater elevations are at elevation 20 feet and drop seaward. The overall groundwater gradient appears to be from northeast to southwest. Since the tills are relatively impervious, groundwater movement is manly restricted to the more pervious materials overlying the till. Hydraulic conductivity for granite i els16,WP5 3-3 PART I 1 i F -
=
1~ : g ,, 3 ; e' Cooling Water System Attematives to Reduce larval Entrainment >
~
gneiss and_ granit'e typically range ~ from =10tand-10? cm/s"and_is mainly a function of the: density and orioritation of fracturingi Pressure testsin the site rockindicate permeabilities ~a're; extremely Llow.liThisiwas confirmediby;the lackfof Tinfiltration during excavation and 3l
, , construction.
3.2 - -NATURAL-DRAFT COOUNG TOWERS; _ J
- Two cooling tower alternatives were addressed including ^a fuil-size natural draft cooling tower 4 ,
with accompanying closed-loop circulating water systems for ' Unit 3 and a similar b'u t smallerr <
. natural-draft cooling tower system for Unit 3 designed to re}ect % of the unit waste heat tot the atmosphere. The_ objective.of these cooling tower-alternatives was to reduce flounder, larval entrainment by reducing station saltwater withdrawal rate from Niantic Bay. These two--
cooling tower alternatives' were selected to provide representative currenticapitalicost
- estimates, unit performance impacts, and construction schedules for converting Unit 3 whollyi O or partially to a. closed-loop circulating water system.' The results of stu' dies;prepareci for:
MNPS Unit 3 during the initial licensing process (1) and evaluations conducted during the
~
W 1980s addressing closed-loop cooling systems using various cooling tower configurations > . were used as a basis _ for this updated study; however, new calculations were pelformed to ; y design the cooling towers.-
- Both cooling tower system designs would allow either full-time or part time operation with thef ,
existing once-through cooling systems remaining intact and operational.l Performance impacts ;
~
were estimated for both fulli and part-time operation. # The nuclear safety-related service water system for; Unit.3 would^ remain as'isLwith' both$ , cooling tower alternatives; however, extensive regulatory approvals;would'bo required?Thist area was not discussed. ~ q 3.2.1 FULL SIZE COO'.ING TOWER SYSTEM , J This alternative consists of conversion of the existing once-through circulating water systerni
. for Unit 3 to a closed loop system utilizing a naturaRfraft sattwater cooling tower.;The heah
^
j L rejected _by condensing steam would be rejected to the atmosphere,lprirnarily by evaporationo ', , of the saltwater in the cooling tower.1 The: service water system would remain the same ; . j ly s
~ ~ ~
The objective of this alternative would be to redu'ce total station (Units 1. 2Tand 3) intakeJ ' flow from Niantic Bay to approximately % of its current volume. The current flow withdrawal! m: rates for Units 1,2, and 3 are shown on Table 1-1.- The total withdrawal rate'of saltkvaterL
, . PART1 ! 3.4 01616.WPS gm ;y
MWstone Units 1, 2, and 3 (from Niantic Bay is 4373 cis. The cooCng tower would reduce the required Unit 3 circulating - water flow withdrawal from 2030 cfs to 90 cfs for cooling tower m tkeup resulting in a total station withdrawal of about 2430 cfs. This would be a 44 percent roduction. Thisieduction in station flow withdrawal from Niantic Bay would result in a corresponding reduction in the . ..
~
number of winter flounder larvae entrained. 4 B'.th natural-draft and mechanical-draft cooling tower configurations f or Unit 3 were evaluated
'during the originallicensing process. The results of these studies have been' summarized in the Final Environmental Statement for Unit 3 W The results of these studies showed that -
the total cost for mechanical draft and natural-draft cooling tower systems were similar. The ; natural-draf t cooling tower was selected for this study to develop current representative costs - for conversion of the Unit 3 circulating water system from once through to closed-loop, The advantage of the natural-draft cooling tower is that it eliminates the po,ver requirements for - fan operation. The natural-draft saltwater cooling tower alternative would consist of the towerlocated in the ' - wooded area to the east of the switchyard as shown on Figure 31. T he cooling tower would ' , have a new circulating water system with the new pump station at the tower iocation.1 The
. existing condenser operation would be changed from the current single pass co.ifiguration to a two-pass configuration. This change would be necessary to maintain high condenser tube-velocities for eff!cient heat transfer with the reduced circulating water flow rate in the closed-loop system. The existing condenser has adequate pressure rating (80 psi) and valving to-
- allow operation in a two-pass mode with no modifications. The proposed circulating water :
Epiping from and to the cooling tower would be routed to the north and west of the station and : would be manifolded into the existing circulating water piping on the west side of the stationL as shown on Figure 31. Piping would be installed in a common cut'and cover trench. Valving would be provided at the tie-in point of the new closed-loop circulating water system ? piping and existing circulating water piping to allow operation of Unit 3 either on the ccoling' t
- tower or once-through, a
New makeup watar pumps would be required in 'the existing Unit 3 intake structure. The cooling tower blowdown would be discharged to the quarry, t 3.2.1.1 Natural-Draft Cooling Tower The natural-draft seltwater cooling tower for_ Unit 3 would be designed.to operate in summer conditions. The tower would be a massive structure,450 feet in diameter at the base and . ' 535 feet tall The tower design would be the counterflow configuration with the filllocated within the tower shell just above the air inlet. Tho fill mass would be disc shaped covering 01516.wF5 3-5 PART1 I
g w , ,
*~
.m-1- . ,
.4 Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce larvelEntrainment .
the full plan area of the tower and would be approximately 4 feet in thickness. A system of - l channels, pipes, and spray headers would distribute the circulating water' evenly over the fill- ['i area. Provisions for ice control, such as a spray curtain ring covering the circumference of the airintet and fill zoning, could be incorporated into the design. Special structure provisions: for salt water would include gah!anized or epoxy-coated rebar and _ Type 11 Portland coment : The polyvinylchloride (PVC) fillis unaffected by salt water. Specific design parameters for the cooling tower are as_follows:
- Circulating Water Flow 630,000 gpm Cooling Range , 25*F Approach Temperature 14*F:
Wet Bulb Ternperature 27"P Dry Bulb Temperature 89'F Evaporation Rate 2.1 % Drift Rate - 0.002% Concentration Factor 1.5 Drift elimination technology has imprnved since the early 1970s when cooling towers were originally evaluated for Unit 3. At that time, a drift rate of 0.00375 percent of the circulating
- water flow was used for evaluation. Current drift eliminator designs can reduce the drift rate t0 0.002 percent of the circulating water flow. The original conclusion on the affects of salt drift from a natural draft cooling, tower 'for Unit 3. by the United States Atomic Energy-Commission was that naturally occurring levels of salt drift from Long Island Sound _would be'-
p an order of magnitude higher than levels predicted for the cooling tower (2) A modern '~ cool!ng tower would generate even less drift than that predicted by the original study. It is' concludsd, thereforeithat salt drift f*o_m a natural-draft cooling tower at MNPS should not. create an adverse environmental impact. i: u v-l l-l' PARTI 3-6 01518 M 5 i g
y, , - - , - - -n - - e Y
- n Il1 - 10' ( : l -- 8 l; -7z .l-p
- L,. .,
C
'Sgtf I n.
\ ex - ,,.
~
/ ..
If/ g J _ etowoqww tur l-
~ O (l\'
-q g
$5TCHY
*- s -
r-.
, r-r;.
._a 2? g - --(W 4 ~., k '
. I! k ) { *** W'y h--)
F.5?L 5 ==
/# l Mw ~.'L v.e a-d' m fl*.f qq
, f. 3
( 7 w a /I . a '9P
" ~~'
9 ,
'#ASIN ( --
Cf _
,a{
og g; , n. l - W o o) ,_,_,, g v-- y gl _ h C n .ii I
. .. L _ _
. ,=g L. _. - l ca l - -
ar ,=a g ,;3.-g me.- ,=g 1 , l); . s s e. - 4, , 4, a, - m,w
,.au.
i, . '= s __ : r- 7 -- a s N* JE uwoto ' warup ((T f ,, = , ,, . m. e _,
.,- f', JT!n .
INIMTIC:B) cpof'ei*%s~,j?
' PLAN r.aco' -
'l c
a I. 'IF' #EtM ' AN OC M2 a--. .. .. _
= .
^
m ,e E s1 ;s' " r 3r y fQ l :l- l. ; 4 7
. m_,&
t
. c:
- / 5 w.
s rj, o . fluerart ssung - g; '
,/ {
(
'p :ll
} - m, , o a_ -. G/AMr y- . -
*1
.b, p/ o .SI: g#de- / o APERTURE 0: hj : CARD-- y . m s., y{ Also AvailaNe One
- Aperture Card c
_icqjj < cgm - c; [+Jw c 30,tif02,@Oy FIGURE 3 -
- s!
- smon .au -
" . proue 6 venstua sunemannse ceasematiev-m se sowasma ernaer -
.- -' 3.+, -*. .ovtR N : - uam amur . :
- l .. lt S&W ' DWG NO.1728103 DY 1 JXMM .
~
NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CO. l
. .ma "'*"% -. _ * =
- io'".Je!"aM"ceA'L"M"55
*C'^"" _
bMLLSTONE NUCLEAR STATION tMT NO.3 - - SECTION 1-1. NATUR4. DRAFT . C00 LNG - TOWER ALTERNATIVE .A>
, , , , .. 100X CAPACITY i
= vm - ~ w w e~=
N E/19/92 N MM<
"N -
,5:as A5 NO4C -
o*4 "D-
- . 3-7 . PART,1 4 -Jl t >
jj e s c fs
- Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 . i
" A chlorination system to control biofouling in the cooling tower fill and the condenser tubes .
~
would be; required and a dechlorination system would probably also be required'for the blowdown. Costs for these systems wera not addressed.
- The required rnakeup water flow to the cooling tower to main _tain the concentration factor in
- the c!osed-loop circulating water _ system at -1.5 or less at. all times would be 90 cis-
~ (40,400 gpm). Makeup flow would be pumped into the circulating water return line near the ;
condenser discharge manifold as shown on Figure 31. Approximately 55 feet of pumping j head would be required to pump the makeup water into the system. Required pump motor horsepower for the makeup water pump would be'720 horsepower. Two full; size makeup-
- water pumps would be provided. A 42-inch diameter line would be required for- makeup -
water. Blowdown would be discharged from the cooling tower basin at an ovcrflow weir structure
- that would be located on the cooling tower discharge fiumet The discharped blowdown would; Bo d pipin oul be tot ted to e ex s i g di arge f u at _the quarry. Bio do flow would range from 27,000 to 40,000 apm, 3.2.1.2 Closed Loop Circulating Water System The circulating water _ system for the cooling tower would consist of a pump station containing six circulating water pumps and motors located at the cooling tower basin, a buried circulatin'g ' ,
-water conduit which would convey cooled circulating water from the cooling tower to the.4 condenser and would return heated water from the condenser back to th'e cooling tower.
- valves, electric power, and control equipmentc The proposed pipe routing is to the north ofi ,
the station and then south and to the west side of the condenser as shown on Figure 3-1. Flow rate for the closed-loop circulating water system wouid be 1,400 cfs (630,000 gpmL .
-Total system head loss and static lift to pump circulating waterL to _the cooling tower fill 4
- distribution system would be approximately 100 feet. The head would include friction losses
;in conduit: lossesin the two pass condenser: form losses at bends, fittings, and junctions: and
~
an estimated 45 foot static lift to the cooling tower fill distribution-system.JTo meet the_ set ' flow' and head requirements, six:circuiating water _ pumps would be;requiredJ ratedLat;
-105,000 gpm at'100 feet total dynamic head. This would require 3,300 horsepo_ wor per: _
pump for. a total pumping energy requirement.of -_19,800 horsepower. This -equated to approximately 14,800 kW of electric power. _ l I. 015163VPs 3-9 .PART1 e _ - , __
Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce Larval Entrainment The six circulating water pump discharges would be manif oldec into a single ; 4 f oot diameter inlet conduit which would convey the circulating water to the west sids of the Unit 3 condenser. This piping would be manifolded to join three of the six 84- nch inlets to the condenser. Valving at the manifolded junction would consist of throo 84-n 6 motnr aperated butterfly valves in the three inlet iines from the cooling tower. TM c valves, in conjunction with the existing pump +scharge valves and condenser valves, would allow operation of the system either on the com.ing tower or once-through. Water would make two passes through the reconfigured condenser and exit the condenser ' rom the alternate three 84-inch lines on the west side of the condenser. These existing 84-inch lines would be cut and manifolded into a single 14-foot diameter return line which would convey heated circulating water back to the cooling tower. Pipe material selected for the circulating water pipe for this study would be fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP). Advantages of FRP pipe as compared to concrete cylinder pipe include lighter weight for easier handling during construction, longer sections resulting in shorter placement time, and no corrosion in saltwater, Carbon steel pipe would not be considered suitaule in saltwater service due to high corrosion rates. Electric power for the new circulating water pumps at the cooling tower, the makeup water pemps to be located in the existing Unit 3 intake structure HVAC for the cooling tower pumphouse, and cooling tower lighting would be taken from buses 34A and Bin the existing - Unit 3 pump structure. Ten new breakers would be required on buses 34A and B presently feeding the existing circulating water pumps. The breakers would feed the six new 3,500 horsepower circulating water pumps located in the cooling tower pumphouse, the two new 750 horsepower makeup pumps which would be located in the existing circulating and service water pumphouse, and a new double-ended 480 V load center would be located in the - cooling tower pumphouse. The addition of the breakers to bus 34B would impair access to the switchgear room. it has been assurned that buses 34A and B have adequate capacity to power the increased load. Because air blast breakers are no longer manufactured, vacuum breakers would be used instead.
/ 2,800-foot ductline would be required for power cables running from the existing intake structure to the cooling tower. The ductline would follow the same route as the proposed new cooling tower circulating water intet and discharge lines.
A detailed electrical design was not performed and the information developed for this study is considued preliminary and only conceptualin nature. Existing electricalloads and location of utihties could have a significant impact on the conceptual design. PARTI 3-10 01 s 16.WPs
i Millstonc Units 1, 2, and 3 3.2.1.3 Impact on Unit Performance The natural draf t cooling tower would result in added power demand for operation of the higher hctsepower circulating water pumps and added cooling tower makeup water pumps. Also, the average circulating water temperature would be highw in the closed-loop cooling tower system resulting in higher average turbine back pressure and reduced turbine performance, particularly during the summer months. The existing circulating water pumps are 1,500 horsepower pumps which draw a total of 6,700 kW of electric energy. The closed-loop circulating water system would require six new circulating water pumps, each rated at 3,300 horsepower, and two makeup water pumps, each rated at 750 horsepower. Normally, all six circulating water pumps and one of the two makeup water pumps would operve continuously. This would result in a net increase in pumping energy consumption of 8,600 kW. The annual average net loss to Unit 3 performance resulting from the higher circulating water temperatures in the closed-loop system and the accompanying higher turbine back pressure would be 18.500 kW. These losses would occur primarily during the warm weather months of May through September. This estimated performance penalty was based on the unit operating on the cooling tower 100 percent of the time. Oparation of the full size cooling tower only during the months of April and May when flounder larval activity is greatest would result in reductions to unit performance of 14,900 kW in April and May. Switching plent operation from cooling tower to once-through and back to cooling tower would likely require an outage. The performance penalty associated with this outage was not included in the estimated cost. 3.2.2 TWO-THIRDS SIZE COOT. LNG TOWER This altemative is similar to the full size cooling tower except that four of the six condenser paths would be converted to a closed-loop system integrated with the natural draft cooling tower, and the remaining two condenser paths would remain once through. The objective of this alternative is to provide a reduction to station intake flow from Niantic Bay, at a reduced capital cost and reduced performance penalty, as compared to the full-size cooling tower. The %-size cooling tower would reduce Unit 3 withdrawal rate from Niantic Bay from 912,000 gpm (2.030 cis) to 304,000 gpm (677 cfs) plus 27,000 gpm (600 cfs) cooling tower makeup. This would result in a net reduction in total station withdrawal from Niantic Bay from 4,343 to 3,050 cfs. This would be a 30 percent reduction, ois t e.wes 11 1%RT I
m Cooling Water System Altematives to Reduce larval Entrainment The proposed cooling tower location and circulating water pipe routing for the Wsize system would be similar.to that proposed for the full size system and is shown in Figure 3 2; The
-four condensar ' paths requiring conversion to closed-loop would be' changed .to a two-path type flow,'using existing condenser valving and waterbox cross connections, in this case; as with the full-size system, circulating water would enter and exit the condenser on the west side. Valves would be required at the manifolded junction to allow operation of the system with % cooling derived from the cooling tower or fu!!y once-through. The two ~ full-size-(27,000 gpm) makeup water pumps would be installed in the circulating water pump bays in the existing Unit 3 pump structure.
3.2.2.1 Two Thirds Size Natural-Draft Cooling Tower A natural-draft cooiing tower sized to reject % of the Unit 3 heat load would be approximately ) 400 feet in diameter at the base and approximately 460 feet high. Specific design parameters for the Wsize cooling tower are as follows: '] Circulating Water Flow 422,000 ppm Cooling Range 25oF Approach Temperature 14 F , Wet Bulb Temperature 77*F ; Dry Bulb Temperature 89*F Evaporation Rate 2.1 % Drift Rate- 0.002 % - Concentration Factor 1,5
.The drift rate for the %-size tower would be anticipated to be about.% of that resulting from the full-size tower. (Refer to the discussion of salt drif t in Section 3.2.1.1.) Required makeup .
flow to the %-size cooling tower to _ maintain _a concentration factor in :the closed-loop _ circulating water system at 1.5 or less would be 27,000 gpm (60 cfs). Makeup water pumps' would be rated at 27.000 gpm at 55-foot head. Horsepower requirements for the. makeup; pump would be 480 horsepower. Two full-size pumps would be required. A 36-inch diam _eter makeup water line would be required. Blowdown would be discharged from the cooling tower basin at an overflow weir structure located on the cooling tower discharge flume. The discharg'ad blowdown would be discharged . by gravity to the quarry by a 48 inch line buried in a cut and cover trench. Blowdown piping would be routed to the existing Unit 3 discharge fiume at the uuarry. Blowdown flow would; range from-18,000 to 27,000 gpm. I PARTl- 3-12 O ! 516.WP5
11 l 10 l 9 l 8 l 7 l 1 1 c- _,, s=
/ 'N s * * *
- j
! l \\ ..Q j
/
g/ tu omot*w tot a (\ N s.ncm , l $, mrm i$ s [i ',, s** s's.,]/}/
/
5MW Q-. B1.
<lg // i (^~- %sg=gr,gff;3(gf m
*'s .
j.+1*~ g&~.y a
#9 q
1a n (' !I-. . Y hk
.,., ._,' ~ -
t Er o 01
=3 b, b ,
w- ~, O b'
--)
j - __ yo "- v-n lg "Lj-
'-~
oo ... . tiit.8 ua ,; g ,=g,i '- p oo --
...si . ._ _
~ $$ $
-. u
'n - '
P"" O tj .
~~> TU$ {-
l fdC L9 7 "^* "* s tu e y n_: su .a TLF / 5= ' *c set p
. .,i
~.
w a,se Q/" $2'$,lY N/ ANTIC R/
. C)
PLAN T 200' 1
&M 1 'i 9% M
6 l 5 l 4 l 3 l 2 l 1 G Gi _
- <3 W .
9
/ ~
f ra y 51 pyp;rORE [*** o- g' , dARD o,> / . ,,a on
/ o b r Card 0 xgM"'A w. a y),
?K 8-p r sj N
\s Y' A) --
D3 ,
] cm l N\ a%
cg Q c
, ,. # ~
I Y FIGURE 3-2 B
- svevert.s4t sortt U ~ * *E7m7,",,7w""*"
l!- li [N:-ovtwooe' S&W DWG NO.t? 030Y l EMb % <!%%Wh. - g NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CO. 7 M C0j,%'y*tgu 5 g jggts MILLSTONE NUCLEAR STAllON UN'T NO 3 S?CTION 1-1 NATURAL ORAFT COOLt4G TOWER ALTERNATIVE A t 20- ' 66X CAPACITY v m e . WE GA TE Mf( 947/g ;ja
- u m u t. >. m l ,
l t 3-13 ' PARTI 6
-i Millstone Units 1,2,-and3 i 3.2.2.2' Closed Loop Circulating Water System The closed-loop circulating water system'for the % size cooling tower would be similar in- ! - design and layout to that proposed for the full-size cooling towerc The circulating water pump station wouid be located at the cooling tower and would contain four %-size pumps, each rated at 105,000 gpm for a total circulating water flow rate of 420,000 gpm (936 cfsh ! ' These four circulating water pumps would discharge to a single 12 foot diameter pipe. Both -
supply and return circulating water lines would be routed to the north and to the west of Unit
- 3 in a common cut and cover trench as shown on Figure 3 2. Each circulating water pump would have a motor operated discharge valve. Existing S4-inch lines and valves at' the:
condenser would be utilized by the new closed loop system. Two 12 foot x 7-f it two pipe manifolds would be required on the west side of the condenser to make the connection . between the new 12-foot diameter cooling tower supply, return lines, and the existing piping. The two northerly condenser waterboxes would be converted to the closed-loop system. The-
- two manifolded 84 inch inlet lines from the cooling tower would have motor-operated valves installed. These valves,in conjunction with the existing pump discharge valves and condenser.
valves, would allow. operation of the system either on the cooling tower or once-through. The southerly waterbox would remain once through. The system . head losses for- the. Wsize
- circulating water systorm would be essentially the same as that for. the full size systam; >The- 7 four circulating water pumps would be rated for 105,000 gpm at 100-foot total dynamic.
head; ' Pump motors rated at 3,300 horsepower would be required.
-Eight new breakers would be required on buses 34A and B feeding the existing circulating . -water pumps. The breakers would feed the four new 3,500 horsepower circulating = water -
pumps located in the cooling tower pumphouse,- the two new 600 horsepower makeup pumps vwhich would be located in the existing circulating and service water pumphouse, and a new-double-ended 480-V load center located in the cooling tower pumphouse. The addition:of; -
~
breakers to bus 34B would impair access to the switchgear room. it also was assumed that . buses 34A' and B have adequate capacity to provide power for the increased load; -When
-. obtaining: estimating prices for new 4,160-V cir circuit breakers and switchgear to match - -existing, GE stated tha* they no longer manufacture such. equipment and they proposed' .
vacuum breakers instead. 1 A 2,800 foot ductline would be required for power cables running from the existing -intake structure to the cooling tower. The ductline would follow the same route as the new cooling tower circulating water inlet and discharge lines. W c1516.WPs 3-15 PARTI
x Coahng Water System Alternatives to Reduce larval Entrainment
--3.2.2.3' Impact on. Unit Performance ,
Four 3,300 horsepower pumps'would also be required for closed-loop circulating water flow. These pumps would operate continuously if the cooling tower.were operating. In addition to the higher horsepower circulating water pumps, two 480-horsepower cooling tower makeup . pumps would also be required. These pump changes would result in a net power increase for~ pumping of 5,700 kW. The annual average net loss to Unit 3 performance resulting from operation of'% of thel circulating water system closed-loop would be 12,300 kW. Operation of the %-size cooling tower only during the months of April and May during highest flounder larval activity would result in reduction in unit performance of 9,900 kW in April and May, Switching plant operation from cooling tower to once-through and back to cooling tower would likely require an outage. The performance penalty associated with this outago was not included in the estimated cost. 3.2 3. .GEOTECHNICAl. CONSIDERATIONS The topography in the proposed cooling tower area is characterized by a wooded easterly sloping ground surface with elevations ranging between 15 and 25 feet. :No geotechnical explorations have been performed in the vicinity of the proposed cooling tower ' area to
- characterize the subsurface in that area. Some rock exposures are noted near the proposed cooling tower structure location on the U.S. Geological Survey map, suggesting the top of
- rock surface may be near the ground surface, The overburden in'that area is considered to
-be thin (10 feet or less) glacial deposits of outwash and till. -
The ground surface in the area of the proposed cooling tower discharge and inlet' lines isi ,
. largely flat due to modifications by construction activities and generally ranges from elevation- ,
L24 feet in the plant area to about elevation 30 feet north of the main plant. The ~ proposed '
- locations of these structures are in areas where subsurface data ar'e abse'nt. oxcept where; boring was completed in support of the Temporary Radwaste Facility and Interim Storage -
Facility for the Steam Generator Replacement Project. These borings suggest that top of rock-elevation isyariable, ranging from 15 to 24 feet above maan sea level in that area '" A few - s feet of fill material was found at the surf ace and denser glacial till overlies the rock which was - described as granite gneiss. Since the overburden is presumed to be thin in the cooling. tower area and the foundation' grade may consist of both rock and soil, it would be recommended that the overburden - PARTI- 3-16 10 m NS -
Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 rnaterials be removed and the structure be founderi entirely on bedrock to limit differential settlements. The average maximum bearing capacity of the rock based upon Ur.it 3 field investigations is 200 ksf. The soil overburden's bearing capacity is considerably less and more variable. Thus. the overburden properties may not be sufficient to limit differential settlements for a structure of this type. The proposed conduits for the discharge and inlet knes would be constructed through a cut and cover procedure, it was estimated that 50 to 60 percent of the excavation would be in rock; therefore, conduit construction would require controlled blasting methods to limit vibrations near existing structures. Some local rock support, such as rock bolts, may be necessary depending on excavation height and rock geometry. Soils would require 2H:1V-slopes and bracing where slopes are not feasible. There could be considerable dif ficulty in coordinating the required activities in excavating areas adjacent to the condenser / turbine building. There are numerous buried utilities in this area, including some that are nuclear safety related. Numerous plant outages would be required. This has not been addressed in the study and could add significantly to the cost estimate. 3.3 OFFSHORE INTAKE The offshore intake alternative would consist of extending the Unit 3 intake approximately 1 mile south into Long Island Sound utilizing a submerged offshore intake, a rcek tunnel, and a booster pump station that would be located in front of the existing Unit 2 intake structure. The proposed design is shown on Figure 3-3. The objective of the offshore intake would be to place the Unit 3 intake south into Long Island Sound past the confines of Niantic Bay such that significant numbers of Niantic River flounder larvae would not be entrained in the Unit 3 intake. Those flounder larvae that would be entrained by the proposed new Unit 3 offshore intake would come from the Long Islaad Sound population as a whole. 3.3.1 DESIGN BASIS I The offshore intake system would be designed for a flow rate of 958,000 gpm (2134 cfs) which is 5 percent greater than the present design flow of the Unit 3 circulating water system (912,000 gpm). The intet velocity cap structure would be sized for an inlet velocity of 0.5 fps to minimize fish entrainment. The offshore conduit would be sized ar a flow velocity of 5 fps to minimize head losses. These criteria result in an offshore conduit 1.D. (inside diameter) of 24 feet. The head loss in the offshore intake system, assuming biofouling in the tunnel and risers. would be approximately 5 feet. The onshore booster pump f acility would be designed ois t s.wes 3-17 PARTI I _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ~
l Cooling Weter System Alternatives to Reduce larvst Entrainment to provide pumping head to compensate for head losses in the ofIshore intake. The booster pumps would be sized to pump a minimum of 5 percent excess flow into a now forebay that would lead to the existing Unit 3 intake. An excess flow would be provided to prevent sur' ting between the two in line pumping systems. The fotobay walls would be designed to spdl the excess flow into Niantic Bay. Diofouling of the offshore intake, shafts, and tunnelin the form of mussels and other marine organisms could become severe and difficult to control. A chlorination system which - introduces chlorine at the inlet and possibly at multiple locations along the tunnel would be required. Continuous chlorination _during the fout;ng season may be required to control L'nfouling of the tunnel, shaf ts and offshore inlet. This chlorination would kill flo der !arvae. A i, ichlorination system would also be required for the circulating water discharge.. The cost of these systems was not addressed. ; l-l > 3.3.2 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS In the absence of borings along the proposed tunnel alignrnent and offshore intake, the geology was inferred from the nearshore boring, seismic f ofraction surveys, end bathymetric t:urveys. The ser, floor bottom along the proposed intake generally slopes seaward from the cor to about -40 feet at the proposed offshore intake. According to seismic refraction. surt ss, v5hich cover approximately 4.000 feet of the Jnitial proposed 5,000 foot tunnh, the: i top of rock surface along the alignment is irregular with top of rock elevations ranging from 40 to -120 feet (FSAR Appendix 2.5' Kh Thus the overburden along the alignment is expected to be between 0 and 80 feet thick. L l l-l t 1 i L l'AllT I '3-18 ' 015io WP5 4 m
., ., _ .. - ,, - 2. ,_, -- . - -
11 10 y l 'l l 8_ l 7 l ,_ sr.N C ' N P p s u.r.u g.,h.,, =. .-
--. 1f,
<, ' [~I)
( ysQ {y c U*As
/' ,/ * }
/
\,,0 #**) r,/ /
;ln .u-(pI...,% ~,-#-[u-- , a;. g p .h
;k xx '
i- tui r
#p
/I- ,.,N ,D o.- .
,=3 -o
- ~
'* """'- 1-. ' .
- _[ 0s a o *W t/ /.-
1 ,
- f' u'
o .D._h3 .' ?~bp~,v
,,,=,
%y / .nu-: ..:-y//
C i f.-- o , g n .7 mo
/,,\
e l +- ut _ t .
--_O ()_ . . . . .
c} if.3{! 3 1 n,.a _ r 7 rn) n'
,,es ._%m n
'\.._s/
El .l a i,g --- it'l MTA - i&W _ L D ~]..C>. s.x
-._. .argg.tra_
,, c -- _ .
s 7- . ,. a [~) 4 / p j.y] 7 y M #"> rz./ ,-
/ g'r' C.<F.f...k.=,.
~
_. . ..,,,,,4 f y'< <
,,'gu,1.
_.) -[p.-
,, ,, K 1(wtf r,av g tsstr fiset $1p(r n set
*' i ,
' '{ 't
//
"%g%
.. . , C. J / n m,a : l m
( r , a' I'* =aw <,# L Ad).l . i t,- ' lF)O% T[ R
.- No ,' ~ ,'-
s sin ties srn,(etet D
/
NIANTIC BAY '~~ %
/ "Dh N %
PUN y;nd.
'N g..-m ,
/ s
% .sy)
- - . . , , . ~
tifi'B,l"7 nm,r --
,e sie o time
{. n0 - Q g, g g g g w .a. m , 5 se.ad , Nyf -gyp 3 gyp i /- n .w ., em c it (ITP # DR Ji 1
- I s 4IV. *r 1841 el j 9,? wl *>'
% INIA f t3Id(
( 4,'d y h 40Rt w 1at(t**'*" W ,, g , #, d 2 4' tw a
- last ht tg et L ]g i p .e I J"
- ~ ~
h _ y
-- .,-A;iT
( . t--
.n. n ?
N' D toor o'
,j,.
SECT 1+1 u . , , r.n W ,e b { h V,o hb t s.n tu .e m a
I
'Q g 5 l 4 l 3 I e 1 8
/5 -- ~ - * * '
N~$ ' nonto
;,,,,a c:
,/-)
c nn , i ( -- hff HlANTIC . y'fy s wac no, gy
, +g L.
i,,w,4'\/
... . 5
;. ;:y
- a c' 0 a.
- o L ett M.
%,an
**w %**'*4 stxn n. #f** C
- e
.ge .,
~<- ..
LocAvoR. PLAN --
- r. tea 95 "N % ApERWRE N Mso Avalla ae o n N Apertur e Card-N,'%m ergy._
P44v4 - 1?!M! g,-_ .. 0J' n.23-02.6 - LJ C
.- . mq-y--
i
~.. p--1-(/t.. -- 8** #E*5n a+,
,f ,,_._ m ,, ,,
-,e / - -
noenn , m , Sk,, \ hhh f h, -
-- tayn e FIGURE 3-3 o-
$!{f6!!QRC E Vl M r.,,.Ei(Q9J3.L.Q AP .nse. man. mi .um.im RJ db U O J'E
,5g
( - 4,,_ % ,, 80* E* P*o ""*?* f40RTHCAST UllLif1ES SERVICE Co. t So*M*OUte$ESOEIY [' __ l / 'Neterwn MLLSTONE NUCLEAR STA100tHT Ho.3 4 W" Orr$Horrt NTAKC STRUCTtlR(- ALTERNAllyf A
~* E C1!9t u d - c-~ ; .,,, -- ., , , - -
re e -- a, g..- , .
*E A$ edfl0 '#
gag.wem 3-10 l'AllTI .O w _. Ii
5 co cn D i
^
i A1mstone Udts 1,2, and 3 l t 4 The nature of the overburden cannot be determined from the solsmic-velocity data, it was ; assumed that a dense basal till of varying thickness overlies the bedrock and looser silty sands { overlie the till. ' The type and quality of bedrock along the alignment was assumed to be similar to those ; mapped at the Unit 3 Intake structure. The rock typos are gnolds und granite with the fractutos oriented north south and dipping near voltical. A conservativo range for hydraulic ( conductivity of a rock rnass of this typo was assumed to be between 10' to 10 8 cm/s. .j a Both cut and cover and deep rock tunnel schemes woro evaluated for conveyance of water j trom the offshora intake.
-?
3.3.2.1 Cut and Cover Offshore Twin Tube Tunnel i i p The cut and cover scheme would involve the f abrication of two parailoi pipes, apptuximately -. 12 foot I.D. nach, that would be placed in a single common tronch.. A 5,000 foot long trench would be dredgod at a constant elavation from the intake structt.iro to the of f shore intake port. ; The tronch would be excavated to a depth of approxirnately 15 foot (3 feet desper than tho tunnel heights), 26 f eet wide (at the bottom), and covered with a protective gravel cover af ter J the pipes were placed. Due to tne ihm nature of overburden in eomo areas;it Was estimated , j that 10 to 15 percent of the tronch would require underwater blasting. Based upon current ; i offshoro data, it would be expected that nearly 90 percent of the trench would he dredged ' ; in relatively donso overburdon, Mo)or technical concerns of such an operation would bei g
- 1. Disturbance of potentially contaminated sedimontF during> dredging 3 operationo and their disposal plus the disturoance of; marine lifo may
^ 5 poso a significant environmental concern. 3
- 2. Ismited available construction period (lato spring to early f all). l
- 3. Impact of underwater blasting on marino life and proioct coat.'
- 4. Numerous regulatory reviews and approvals would be required by_bnth stato "l E and Federal agencies. . ,
Soil tests and surveys would be necessary to verify adequate thic'kness of the overburden,
. suitability for direct pipo support, a' 1 need for structural backfill.' While a cut and cover.
tunnel would appearloss challenging from a technical point of view than subsurf ace tunnelingi ,f the environmental impact during const/uction must be weighed in considering this schamo.- ; R , . om s,wns - 3 21 iwnr1 3 uw
+e-r- .+r v-rv,-- ,-- ,-.,4..,.4 -.,A., y -y-,7 y~ ,,,,,9.-, , n_% ; ,,., 4,,, . , ,.,,v s ,. . , ,.;,iin.,m,,,, ,,m. 9 ,.#y
1 .
.i
.j l
y Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce I.arval Entrainment The cut and cover conduit approach would be given further evaluation to include geotechnical i investigations of sea floor subsurface conditions along the proposed route prior to any final design. 3.3.2.2 Subsurface Tunnel The subsurf ace tunnel scheme would require a vertical shaft near the Unit 3 intake structure, sunk to a depth of approximately 300 foot below low mean sea level. The shaf t must be sunk. j 1 30 to 50 feet deeper than the bottom of the tunnel to provido space for loading and storage of muck. A circular tunnel approximately 270 to 250 feet- below low mean sea level.- .j . (minimum rock cover of 125 to 150 feeth and 20.5 feet in drilled diameter (24 feet inside lined diameter) would be initiated from the shaf t and excavated entirely in rock. The tunnel' ; would be sloped down from the offshore intake structure 1 percent towards the pumphouse j at a descending grade to assure adequate flow and minirnire ponding during schedulud shutdown. The offshore intake shaft could employ either a single or multiplo " dry. tap * :i construction scheme to intersect the tunnel. The dry tap schemo would uso a circular steel caisson grouted in place on the sea floor bottom. Water would be purnpod out of the caisson,- Jj and the shaft sinking operation initiated. Similar operations have been perfortned at tht Oswego Steam Plant and at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.- The major geotechnical: j constraints for the tunnoi scheme were determined to be: ) 1. Control- of water seepago -into the tunnot during - construction..
.. 9 l
. fexploratory boring in the rock may indicato that this may r at be a concern). ;
- 2. High costs of offshore shaft construction. ~I
, 3. Development of access shaft for muck transfer to the surface and a- j subsurface lay down area for equipment. At the surface, a temporary =! hoist system would ba bocessary to lif t muck from the shaf t and lower ' , excavation equipment. -> 1 4.- Muck transfer facilities from the access shaft (barge and/or convoyer) j would be necessary, as well as a lay down area at the surf ace for under- ; si ground e'quipment, ventilation, etc.: -t 4 The critoria for 125- to 150 feet of depth was ~ based primarily, upon estimated rock permeability, rock structure, an'd m'anageability of water infiows;during construction.- Basod; i upon the abovoLassurnptions, overall tunnel seepage rates could be expected to range from
' loss than 300 gpm to 3,000 gpm. Groundwater inflows of several hundrsd gpm in a short ' "
c tunnel section could adverselyimpact tunnel advance rates, even when ground support is not - .; affected.. The tunnel advance rate problems are related to inefficient muck removal and l . s PARTl" 3 22 ot st e:WP5
,,~,~,a. -._u.~ -...m- . ~ , - - ~ . . ~. - i ,
i-Mdistone Umts 1, 2 and 3 production of extra fines. Tho extro hnes would make cleanup slow (often by hand) and lengthen the drill and blast cycle. The water would also make support installation more dif ficult. The impact of high water conditions on groutin0 usage would be inuch higher, resulting m longer standby tema, and more difficult overall machine maintenanco/ operation (electnc doll jumbos, scaling, rock bolt and i<no. installation). During shaf t excavation, water inflows could be expected at the rock /Soilinterf aco and from npen joints in weathered rock below the interf ace. Thorofore, pre grouting would probably be necessary to reduco inflow ratos at the interface and in areas of high pormeability. Ground freoring was not expected to be necessary and was not considered in tho costs. Both drill and blast and tunnel bonng m u 'c (TBM) excavation methods were ovaluated. Although the TBM advancement rates e < w? $his method would require a TBM orection chamber at both the head and tail shaf t and tua:t intersections Additionally, drill and blast would be more v9tsatilo and less riaky in excavat.ons of poor or variablo ground and potentially high water inflows. This method would be recommended until a moro dotatled analysis of other f actors including equipment capital costs, labor costs and availability, machine delivery load times, sito considerations, geological considerations, and geometry / space constrainM was performed. Based on available r ock olavation data, the proposed tunnel olevation at the near shore access shaf t would be 270 feet, The tunnel would slope upward at a 1 percent grade towards the offshoto intake structure to elevation 220 feet, Preliminary layout of the offshore tunnel schema indicates that the long axis of the tunnel would parallel the ro0 onal i (,cological structure. Thus the formation of unstable wedges as the tunnel f ace advances, prior to liner installation, would be likely. To prevent occontric loading of the final tunnel liner due to unstable rock wedges and to provide for worker safety, temporary ground support would be necessary As a preliminary estimato, pattemed rock botting may be nor'essary along most of the tunnel's length. The rock bolts would be relatively light in size (No,8) and would be uso primanly above the tunnel sprin0li ne (60 percent utilization). Additional rock bolts would F used as necessary, as dictated by field conditions, below the springlino. Because of potential environmental problems and uncertain geological conditions associated with the cut and cover off shore twin tubo tunnel, the subsurf ace rock tunnel uttornative was y selected to develop preliminary cost and schedule estimates for the of f shote intake altemative. The proposed tunnel dasign is shown on Figurn 3-3. I
- om e.wes 3 23 1%RT 1
Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce larval Entrainment 3.3.3 OFFSHORE INLET For prehminary design, a single riser shaf t and velocity cap would be pic. posed, The large velocity cap could be constructed and placed in sections. An alternate approach would be to use multiple smaller riser shaf ts each having a smaller velocity cap. This single large riser couH have cost advantages over multiple smaller shafts. A detailed evaluation of cost and construction issues would be required prior to detailed design. The offshore inlet would consist of a hexagonal velocity cap structure supported on the sea floor by a tremio concrete mat centered over the verticalinlet shaf t as shown on Figure 3 3. The inlet would be 95 feet wide from point to point. The hexagon and the inlet would be 15 feet high beginning at a silllocated 3 feet of f the sea floor to minimize entrainment of sand and silt. The mlet entrances would be protected by bar racks. The rack spacing would be t foot 0.C. (on center). These bar racks would protect the inlet from the coarsest forms of debris. Inlet approach velocity would be 0.5 fps. The of fshore intake would extend up 19.5 feet from the sea floor in 30 feet deep water and would create a hazard to navigation. The proper warning buoy would have to be provided with the design. 3.3.4 DOOSTER PUMP STATION The 24-f oot I.D. concreto-lined inlet tunnel including riser shaf ts on either end would be 5.400 feet in length, it is anticipated that a tunnel would become significantly fouled with mussels and bamacles, causing significant hydraute resistance. Head losses were estimated at 5.0 feet. The existmo circulatmg wote pumps, based on the model test report Q), have very little raargin for degraded suction conditions, " 'his reason, it was considered necessary to include a booster pump station at the onshore end of the of f shore intake system. The booster pump station would require four low iiead, high flow-pumps each rated at 240,000 gpm at 7.0 feet total dynamic head. Each pump would require 525 horsepower. The total pumping energy requirement for the booster pump station would be 2,100 horsepower (1,600 kW) The pumps would be vertical wet pit type. Each would bc located in its own pump bay. The pump bays would be 24 feet wide by 52 feet long with an i invert elevation of 28 feet. The pumps were s zed to draw water from an elevation of L7 feet. The overall plan dimensions of the pump structure would be 106 feet wide by 54 feet long. The pump structure would he constructed of reinforced concrete, and would include a protective building which would enclose the pumps, motors, electricalequipment and controls. The rump structure would be joined upstream by a transition structure constructed over the PARTI 3 24 01518 WPS
Millstone Units 1. 2. and 3 24 foot diamator riser shaft frorn tuo tunnel. This transition structure would contain a submerged weir to spread inflowing water evenly to the four pump bays. The pump structure and transition stsucture are shown on figure 3 3. The transition structuro connecting the vertical tunnel riser shr.f t to the boostor pump station would also serve as a surge chamber. The chamber would not be covered and the top of the walls and would serve as an emergency spillway in the event of surgo. The existing Unit 3 intake structuro would be joined to the of fshore intake system by sheet pile walls forming a foiebay between the two structures and isolating the Unit 3 intake from Niantic Day. A section of the top of these sheet pile walls would be designed to function as overflow weirs to discharge the excess flow pumped by the booster pumps into Niantic Bav. A 12 foot x 30 foot gate would be required in each of the forebay walls designed to pass
% of the circulating water flow in the event of failuto of the offshore intako system.
A separate Category I flow passage (not shown) would bo provided for the service water pumps. Tho system would consist of flow passages constructed in the forobay walls with flow controlled by automatic motor operated gates or valves. Separate openings with collapsible panels would also be required as a backup. Because the service water system is nuclear safety related, the design would be nuclear safety-related Category I and would be subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission review and approval. This area was not addressed in detail. Four additionai 4.160 V breakers would be required for the four raw pumps. The new booster pumps would be located in a now intako structure that would be located in front of the existing circulsiting and service water pumphouse it was assumed that buses 34A and B have adequate capacity to provido power for the four new pump motors. When obtaining estimating prices for new 4,160 V air circuit breakers and switchgear, GE stated that they no longer manuf acture such equipment and they proposed vacuum breakers instead with a transition section to the existing switchgear. Finally, an 800 foot ductiine would be required. The ductline would follow the samo route as the ductline to the existing circulating service water pumphouse. A detailed electrical design was not pe formed and the information developed for this study is considered preliminary and only conceptualin nature. Existinq electrical loads and location of utilities could have a significant impact on the conceptual design, d o t s t e.wr5 3 25 l' ART I
_ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . , _ . .m. ____ __. ___ __ _ i Cooling Water SyJtem Attematives w Reduce Lsrval Entrainment 3.3.5 OFFSHORE INTAKE EXPERIENCE AT SEABROOK IdDCLEAR POWER STATION - Two deep bedrock tunnels, extending into the Atlantic Ocean to provide cooling water ' l requirements, were constructed f or the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station locaud in Seabrook, New Hampshire. These tunnels are similar in design to the rock tunnel alternative proposed ! for Unit 3. Both an intake and a separate discharge tunnel were constructed, each over i 3 rnstes in length (17,156-foot intake 16,500 foot discharge) (s). The design flow rate for ' the Seabroos tunnels is 850.000 gpm at a flow velocity of 6 f ps, One of the primary reasons- -{ for choosing the offshore intake and discharge with deep rock tunnels at Seabrook was to i minimize any dcmage to the coastal environment (4). 1 Geological conditions at Seabrook necessitated deep rock tunnels. Vertical shaf ts were used on both ends of the tunnels to connect the offshore water ports and the plant cooling water
-l systems. At land's end, the tunnels are 260 feet below sea level and 180 feet below sea level at the seaward ends. The tunnel shafts are concrete lined. The bore diameter is 22 feet ,
ud the liner thickness is 1.5 feet with a tunnel I.D. of 19 feet. Rock bolts were used as necessary along the top of each tunnel. 1 The Seabrook intake tunnel terminates on the seaward und with three 0 foot 5 inch diameter shafts located approximately 7,000 feet off the Hampton Beach shoreline at a water depth
, of 60 feet. Mounted on each shaft at the sea floor are 30.5 feet in diameter velocity cap structures of similar design to that proposed for Unit 3. The velocity caps are clad over their entire exterior surfaces with copper nickel shee(ing to minimize marine growth. 'On the ,
shorewald end the vertical shaft terminates with a surge chamber. The circulating water 1 pump station is located in an excavated chamber adjacent to the surge chamber. The Seabrook discharge tunnel connects to the ocean by means of eleven 4 foot 11. inch diameter vertical shaf ts located approximately 5,000 feet off the Seabrook Beach shoreline.' :) The Seabrook tunnel construction was accomplished by means of two tunnel boring machines , operating concurrently. .Offshe a construction was done using a Jack up barge. Offshore vertical shaf ts were dnlied and pref abricated steel shaf t liners installed from the Jack up barge
@, . Work began in the nummer of 1978.- Tunnel and vertical shaft excavation 1was -
completed in the spring of 1981. -Concrete fining of the tunnels was completed by the end _ of 1982, The total project cost for the Seabrook tunnel was approximately $125 million.- PAltT I . 3 26 .o HH 6,WPS ~- 1
- -w . , , - . ;, -- , m .,,. - . - . _ _ . ~_ , . __~ .m., , , , . - +
Afittstone Units 1, 2, and 3 3,4 FINE MESH SCREENS Mesh Mies str aller than 9.5 mm are considered to be " fine mosh' and rnay be effective as a barrier to tha passage of fish eggs and larvae with mosh sitos m the rango of 0.5 to 1,0 mm. Vancus types of traveling screens, such as through flow, dual flow, conter flow, and drum screens, can be fitted with kne mosh scroons. Travehng scieens aio normally cleaned automotically by high and low pressure sprays. Wedgewito screens are also someternes considered to be a type of fine mosh screen and are discussed in Section 3.5. 3.4.1 EN0lNEERING CONSIDERATIONS Sovaral stations have installed fino rnosh traveling water screen systems, wthough conditions at MNPS are generally significantly different and more sovero than at those stations. The screen systerns in use include:
- Big Bond Station, Tampa Electric Company - continuously terwoling dual flow screens with 0.5 millimotor screen rnesh and specially designed organism troughs, buckets, and spray washes. The design flow for Units 3 and 4 is about 242,000 gallons por minute each (salt water).
- Brayton Point Unit 4, Now England Power Company - 1,0 miliimeter screen mesh, 260,000 gallons per minuto with angled scroons (salt water, but with much lower levels of total suspended solids and debris). ,~ine mosh screens are no longer in service at Brayton Point.
- Praitio Island Nuclear Units 1 und 2, Northern States Power Company -
0.5 millimotor screen mosh,630,000 gallons Der minuto (Mississippi River, with no biofouling, or salt marsh debris problemsl.
- Barney Davis Station, Contral Power end Ught Company, Corpus Christi, Texas - 1.0 millimeter screen mesh, 340,000 gallons per minute with heavy sea grass loading (salt water).
- Somerset Station, Now York Stato Electric and Gas Company - 1.0 millimotor screen mosh, 195,000 gallons poi minute with limited debris (Lake Ontario),
- Brunswick Nuclear Station, Carolina Power Company - 1.0 millimeter screen mesh, 990,000 gallona por minute with additional barrier scroons on intake canal (salt water),
- Danskammer Station - 0.5 millimeter Scroon mesh tested on the Hudson River 01s t s.wes 3 27 1%RT I
Cooling Water System Alremarives to Redver Larval Entrainment 3.4.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGE 0 OF FINE MESH TRAVELING WATER SCREENS A fine mosh traveling water screen intake system rainimires entrainment but increases , impingement, in aridation, the incorporation of rubbor seals between baskets and between - l baskets and framo would minimize the passage of organistns arounct the screen. The disadvantages of the fine mesh travchng water screen concept includet ;
- Effective sealing of spaces between scruen baskets, screen baskets and -
structure, and structure and bay walls is difficult.
- Increased impingement of organisrns and debris.
- Screens are subject to icing conditions including frazilice and Hoe ice.
- Mesh size of 1 to 2 MM may bo insufficient to block stago 3 winter flounder larvae, o
Additional screen wash capability may be required, and current problems with this system could be exacerbated. The growth of barnacles and mussels and the buildup of sitt can clog l the spray wash system. Chlorination of the screen wash system could help to control biofouling, but would defeat the purpose of the fine-mesh screen concept because the chlorino could kill larvao, it could also resuit in existing NPDES permit violation, Periodic inspections would be necessary to maintain the scroons, and the use of nontoxic coatings ori some screen ! components may reduce marine growth, Continuously operating fine mesh screens would accumulate greater quantities of trerb than coarse mosh screens. Debris handling systems would include a large capacity sluiting system similar to the existing system. 3.4.3 ALTERNATIVE FINE MESH INTAKE DESIGN CONCEPTS 9 Alternativo fine mosh intake dnsign concepts include replacing the existing through flow vertical traveling screens with continuously operating fine mesh screens and constructing a new screening facihty in front of the existing circulating water intake incorporating now, through flow, dual flow, drum, or angled fine-most. screans with a low approach velocity of; 0.5 fps. Dual flow, conterflow, and drum screens are primarily of English/ European design, although some are curreritty in service in the United States. The angled screen is a special-
-application of the through flow screens where the screen units are placed at an angle _ to the incoming flow to divert fish to a fish bypass system. The Electric Power Research Instituto- >
(EPRI) reviewed the performance of these screen configurations QL Facilities were. visited , at several utilities throughout the United States. PARTI 3 28 01618WP5
! Afillstone Units 1, 2, and 3 3.4.3.1 Through Flow Fine Mosh Screens The eosting through flow traveling screens cannot be replaced by continuously operating fine-mesh screens. The original screens at Unit 3 had a 3/16 inch (5 mmi opening. The clogging potential of the 3/16 inch opening resulted in numerous plant outages and screen failures. The screen openmgs were increased to % inch (9.5 mm) in 1991, which has helped to eliminate the cloggmg potential experienced previously. The higher clogging rate of the fine-mesh would require that the screens be capable of operating continuously at spends up to 50 feet or greater por minute. Also, to reduce the loading of large debris on the fine mesh screens, the existing bar racks and mechanical cake system may require replacernent with traveling trac,h rakes. Because the offective performance of fine mesh screens is sensitive to flow velocities, flow distributors and more frequent maintenance dredging may also be required to maintain approach flow velocities of 0.5 fps or less to the fine-mesh screens. 3.4.3.2 Dual Flow / Center Flow Fine Mesh Screens The vertical dual-flow travelin0 screen is similar in mechanism to the through flow design, but tho screen would be turned 90 degrees so that its f aces would be parallel to the incoming water flow Water would enter both the ascending and the descending screen faces, then flow out between the two f aces. The primary advantage of this screen configuration is the elimination of debris carryover. This screen configuration has a possible advantage over the through ficw screen in terms of fish protection only when applied in the so-called *no-weil" design. In this case, the screens hang in the water (f om a platform and would be coupled directly to the circulating water purno, eliminating the pump bay which can form a fish trap II),(Pa). Because of the open platform structuro supported on piles, the no-well intake configuration is only suitable for warm climates where freezing is not a concern. This type of structure, therefore, is not recommended for MNPS. The dual flow fine mesh screen configuration also has been shown to produce low survival rates f or fish larvae, which is the principal problem at the MNPS intakes, The longer impingement time f or organisms impinged on the descending fence of the screen may result in higher mortality rates For these reasons, the dual-flow fine rnesh screen configuration was eliminated from further consideration The centerflow screen ( onfiguration is a European design and is similar in configuration to the dual flow screens except the flow path is reversed. F!ow would enter the centerflow screen at a key nolo and pass into the screen between the screen faces and out through the screen faces. The flow velocity entenng the key hole between the screen faces of the centerflow sereen is usually high, which is a disadvantage from a fish protection standpoint (S). Because of the disadvantages in terms of potenual survival of entrained and impinged flounder larvae, the centerflow fine-mesh screen configuration was eliminated from further consideration. l i 1 o t s t 6.w"5 3-29 iwnTI
- - . - ~.- - - . - .~. - .. - - . . . -. ~~ . -.
i Cooling tVater System Attematives to Reduce larval Entrainment 3.4,3.3 Angled Screens 4 Angled screens are a special anplication of through-flow screens where the screen faces would be arranged at an angle of approximately 25 degrees to the incoming flow. The normal through flow screen arrangement, as discussed earlier in this section, would place the screen faces normal or 90 degrees to the incoming flow. The objective of the angled screen arrangement would be to divert fish to a fish bypass system without impinging them on the ., screens, Fish would not be lif ted out of the water but would be diverted back to the receiving water by screw type centrifugal fish pumps. The angled screens, as proposed for MNPS, would incorpnrate fine-mesh, a fish and larvallif ting bucket, and a standard sluicing system for handling impinged fish and farvae in addition to the fish bypass system. A conceptual layout for an angled fine mesh screen structure foi Unit 3 is shown on Figure 3 4, . Fine-mosh angled screen facilities were formally in place at New England Power's Brayton Point Station on Mount Hope Bay @), are currently operating at Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's Oswego Steam Station Unit 6 on Lake Ontano (10), and were tested at Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation's Danskammer Point Generating Station (ll) on the Hudson River. 3.4.3.4 Fine Mesh Drum Screen Facility Another type of fine mesh screen is the drum screen that is used in Europe, A preliminary 1 design was develop 6d using double-entry rotating drum screens to determine if they would ; of fer a significant cost savings as compared to the through-flow screens Drum screens are , , of British design and-are similar to a ferris wheel in construction, They operate with the ; screen rnesh. mounted along the ' circumference of. the screen, in the double entry arrangement, the drum would be installed with its axis normal to the incorning flow with the, plane of the wheel vertical. The wheel would be mounted in an enclosed chamber with all moving. parts including the axle mounts above normal high water level. The operating machinery would be located on the deck of the screen structure. Unscrecned water would enter the screen from channels on either side and'wou!d flow into tha screen at semicircular openings on either sido of the screen chamber, The water would be screened by passing from within the screen out through the screen Tiesh mounted on the cbcumference of the drum. The scrrened water would pass into a chamber 'below the drum screen and then to t ;, pumps. Fish baskets would be mounted on the outside of the sc(een and would function in ' the same manner as with the through flow screens. PARTI 3 30- C S O d'5 ,
- 1
..A . - , , - , , _ O ,.i. ,, , ,. , _i -,%
4 11 l '10 l 9 l' 8 7 l l g,/ o % '1
-*m ,/ k *
$un1CHyano h g{ _j
\ %, / $f s~4(W
' ,c 7, *4 gA h.,, ,,,
I ', __3 &).. ' '
~&
a n -., 4 V J'
~
m srap 6 sit ew Of ----.w, () -- f
$108t *44 . tawipg . . . . . ,/# e p Q tt i
~^" ~
0
,m7~
_' E3 mo o ,a _ o f ?j ,gb e
~~
{ ff 00 _.__n , q -
, .> c __
tu, 3 i- - oo --
% J
'h b g A
- 1 y 1.8 f.
^
ow , ,D,0
, 2 e.- ,
t_, sw., V _ee_t
,- ,? *
*~' /
has:f tedi Q9, , ST AucfWE l8,'j
..m ,/'
/ /
y StkttH l , Jgx. ,i linuC f wt s > na
.. ,e h
37 0' N aCCill M Aff 0md n N __.
--.-- a , , , .
-0 a
} \ al
~
/,
e, iii.,
~ Qs f
=%
it. w eveass cafes sten
'd -d --
' S f
4/ emLewfge.1tt w-n N ato "' WW l\ S lVM V 8A O(1 16 9997 j
G 5 l 4 l 3 l 2 t l $ _ } 0 a 1% .
/ ,7 ,-
" ~~
Ol'ARRY !') cEu'e*ca / Q r is g ry' .
'I . = =' N k g,n$unE. -
L_3 = , %- , can R c'5 # '- sist, sseaue on Aperture Card c
!swt (t
. [
VIAVTIC BAY ,
'N D
'N ( , s
~'
gtram ,$ f l
, -comc.. , c.
2 p( >=ottit,vt nevc mt
'Nb" !
r susnaws
-tt w e- ._
7 l p FNE/ COARSE MESH SCREEN ETERNATIVE I l 1-, . uts s
'j ~
cutim = 4 ) Il
~
a em naca FIGURE 3 4 h
-Et -re .ca et .33 o. etous a vsutta a reemon4two I
[ "p- smeta sus nie U
=
, SLW DWG NO.17283 03 0Y 3 -
2kw - NORTHEASI UTILiflES ftERVICE CO.
"?oTEEIE/EIn%'E='E"
""uttsrote wctEAR stAta tur no.3 Id - ,
FtE WESH SCREEN ALTERNAfivE - A
,, m m -
== oci n.ma.= En M ._,_
m As acito > =s W 3 31- PARTI- fi
~,. , - - ~ -. - -~ . - . . .. - - - - , .- ,
- i Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce LarvalEntrainment '
The preliminary design for fine-mesh screens, as shown on Figure $4, would. consist of' l constructing an entirely new through flow screen structure for Unit 3 in front of the existing [ screen structure. The existing intake structure would remain functional with the existing . I traveling screens serving as backup screens in the event the fine mesh screens become ! blocked. Bypass gates would be provided to direct ilow around the fine mesh . screen l Structure.
- Fine mesh screens, applied to Unit 3 for winter flounder larvae, would be designed to block ~
the larvae frorn entering the circulating water system and to safely transport impinged larvae; back to Niantic Bay. The stage 3 larvae, which are most susceptible to entrainment into the ! MNPS intakes, are from 4.5 to 7. 5 mm in length. The existing seasonal heavy trash loading' j ' at the MNPS intakes of celgrass and kelp would require a design screen approach velocity of O.5 fps for fine-mesh screens to prevent overloading of the screens during periods of heavy: ;! trashloading. The AprH and May time frame for greatest winter floundet entrainmentis also a period of heavy solgrass influx at the Unit 3 intake. Full scale prototype testing of a fine mesh screen facility to' confirm impingement and. q entrainment rates and the related mortality rates ior winter flounder larvae is required before l committing to this technology. - Also the reliability of fino mesh screen operation in the heavyj _ detrital loading environment at MNPS would have to be confirrned during this prototype testin0 f Design parameters for the screen structure are as follows:
, a Dock elevation 14 feet 0 inches - a invert elevation 28 feet 0 inches j Design flow 912,000 gpm (2032 cfs)
Approach flow velocity t to fine mesh screen 10.5 f ps Sc'een unit width 10 feet The deck elevation, invert elevation, and design flow would be the same as the existing intake. The 10-foot screen unit width would be selected because experience has shown that l#
-wider screen widths tend to result in less reliable operation and more maintenance.' Through-flow screen units are available'in widths up to 14 feet, j y
The number of screen units required was determined by calculating the: required cross- -3 sectional area needed to achieve a 0.5 fps approach flow velocity lor less to the traveling screen. A 20 percent' unscreenable area was assumed to account for the screen boot area : and structural metal f rame area between screeri mesh. Flow velocity calculations were_madel O e '
- _
g e , , , ., u u y I .~ya v , w ,, .,i r . i
l
^i I
'l Afilistone Units 1, 2, and 3 ;
Having fewer moving parts, and with many moving partslocated out of the water, the drum ) screen may offer some reliability advantages over the through flow traveling screen. Drum .l screens have been used extensively at large intake f acilities throughout the world (D) with- . service records comparable to through flow screens, j Six 10 meter diameter by 4 rneter width (32.8 feet by 13.1 feet) drum screen units would be > required to screen the full design flow to the Unit 3 mtake. This preliminary sizing was based , on sizing charts provided by Hawker Siddeley Bracket Ltd. of Britain for a fine + mesh- , application (3 mrn or less). Ther.e drum screens would require a structure approximately l 255 feet wide by 50 foot long. Dock and channelinlet elevations would be the same as for _ r the through flow screen design. The screened water collection chamber would have to extend j about 10 feet dooper under the screen to a depth of about 30 feet. The top of the rock is at about -40 feet in the proposed area. The structure required for drum screens would be similar in siis although different in detail , to that for the through-flow screen structure. Based on the preliminary design, the drum > screen arrangement does not offer major cost advantages compared to the through flow-arrangement. Pilot scale testing for at least 1 year would also be required to confirm the etfec'iveness of the drum screen in handling flounder larvae and returning them to Nidntic Bay alive. 3.4.4 REQUIRED TESTING Full scale prototype testing would be required to determine impingement and entrainment rates and the related mortality rates for the fine-mosh traveling screens. The debris removal T" capability of fine-mesh traveling screens _would require testing to determine if an increase in ,
^
debris matting or " stapling" brought about by the fine mesh can be removed adequately tin - < addition extensive testing would be required 'to verify the ability of fine-mesh traveling screens to perform reliably in the silty and corrosive environment of MNPS. The effects of increasing the screen travel speed to over 50 feet per minute would also require further '! evaluation and testing. 3 4.5 FINE MESH SCREEN FACILITY FOR UNIT 3 For the ter sons noted above, replacing the existing % inch opening screens with fine mesh screens,is not'a reliable technology for MNPS. Further,it is possible fine mesh screens might cause as much mortality by increased impingement as they saved in entrainment. Loisis.wes 3 33 ' PAllT 1 -
, .' .n. , _. _ , ~ --_._a l
Cooling Water Systent Grematives to Reduce Larval Entrainment 3.4.G GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS The geology at the intake structure was documented by the "P" series boring on land and the "l" series boring of fshore, seismic refraction and bathymetric surveys, and geological mapping during construction. The intake structure is f ounded directly on bedrock which was excavated where necessary to approximately elevation 40 feet af ter construction of a temporary i offshore cofferdam P -'o excavatiors, the bedrock surface was overlain by a dense basal till of approximately i (in thickness. Twenty to 30 feet of glacial deposits of a looser ! nature and beach san ., wore found to overlie the till. These deposits were replaced by structural backfill around the Unit 3 intake structure, in the area offshore of the intake structure, boring conducted 500 feut offshore indicate bedrock elevation is variable, ranging between -20 and 57 feet. Bedrock immediately : offshore of the intake is likely at elevaticn 40 feet. Most borings indicate that bedrock is overlain by several feet of basal till although locally thicker deposits are possible. Overlying the till is a ponrly graded, micaceous silty sand which forms the seafloor bottom. The seafloor bottom in the vicinity of the intake was modified during construction of that structure, as well os by dredging af ter construction. Immediately adjacent to the intake, the seafloor bottom elevation is at at)out 28 feet according to soundings taken in 1990 and slopes up seaward due to dredging rnodifications to about 16 feet. No field permeability tests were conducted in any of the of fshore overburden materials. Based on field / laboratory boring log descriptions and grain size distribution curves performed on similar soils obtained from onshore boring at the intake structure, it was estimated that hydraulic conductivity is approximately 10 4cm/sec for the silty sands comprising the seafloor bottom. 3.5 WEDGEWIRE SCREENS Wedgewire screens are passive and utilize "V" or wedge shaped cross section wire, welded to a framing system to form a slotted screening element as shown on Figure 3 5a. Where a relatively high velocity ambient current cross flow exists *o carry organisms atound and away i from the screen, cylindrical wedgewire screens can reduce impingement and entrainment. Ambient currents providing high velocity cross-flow are also necessary to provide continuous flushing of debris. Fixed wedgewire cylindrical screens need an open screen minimum of 40 percent, which requires slots of 1 mm or larger Reducing the screen slot size to 0.5 to 1.0 mm, to achieve the rnost effective entrainment reduction, would reduce the open area to about 20 pWent. Thus, wedgewire screens are normally less effective at reducing PARTI 3-36 01515 WF5 ~
Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 at mean low water (0.0 feet). This would result in eighteen 10 foot wide screen units as shown in Figure 3 4, The screen structure would be 40 feet wide by 276 f eet long, it would include both upstream and downstream curtain walls extending down to a depth of -5 feet for ice, cold weather and floating debris protection. Bar racks would be provided to catch large deb.is that could damage the traveling screens. The structure would include open sluice fish return and a separate trash removal system. Fish would be sluiced to the west side of Bay Point and returned to Niantic Bay. Equipment included with the structure, in addition to the 18 fine-mesh traveling screens, would be:
- Mechanical trash rake
- Screenwash Systems iricluding 6 screenwash pumps, each rated at 5000 gpm at 200 feet total dynamic head
- Gantry crano e Fish return sluicing system
- Trash sluicing system
- HVAC for et closure structure
- Control equipment
- Electric supply equipment The fine-mesh screen structure would be joined to the existing Unit 3 intake by double sheet pile walls with tremie concrete placed between the sheet' pile. Each wall would have a 12 foot by 30 foot bypass gate. These bypass gates would be sized to bypass % of the total design flow to the Unit 3 intake. The bypass system would be provided in the event that -
.some or all of the fine mesh screen units become blocked.or inoperable and for the safety-related service water system.
The forebay, formed between the new fine-mesh screen structure and the existing Unit '3 intake, wou'd have a system of flow guide vanes to create uniform flow conditions entering the existing intake. Hydraulic model studies would be required to property design the guido vane system. The guide vanes shown in Figure 3-4 are conceptual and were used to develop material quantity estimates. 01 s16.WPs 3 35- 1%RTI
1 l j Cooling Water System Attematives to Reduce Larval Entrainment i entrainment than impingement, and in either case the of fectivenessis highly _ dependent on the presence of the proper high velocity ambient cross flows. The J. H Campbell Plant Unit 3 on Lake Michigan has employed a wedgewire screen intake system since November 1979 (2. The Campbell Plant's Unit 3 withdraws 340,000 gallons per minute (less than 20 percent of MNPS' total station flow) from an offshore location (3.500 feet from shore in 35 feet of water) through 28 fixed % inch (0.5 mm) screen units.- .j Difficulties arose ir the design and construction phases, but operating experience to date has = j beeri satisf actory and there has been no substantial clogging, biofouling, or ice darnage.- Such - C operating experience might be expected because of the large screen slot size and because of - ] the relatively low debris loading in Michigan compared to the Niantic Bay near MNPSc Even ' so, the Campbell Plant has an alternate intake to supplemore flow in case of severe bloc'kage of the cylindrical screens. At the Campbell Plant's Unit 3 *. .ake Michigan, the stainless steel screens have eliminated impingement of gizzard shad, smelt, yellow perch, alewife, and ' . shiners and have required minimal maintenance. The screens are cleaned annually by water j jets to toduce biofouling (algae) and the plant was forced to shut down once (spring 1984)- j due to anchor ice. ! Philadelphia Electric Company installed a wedgewire screen intake system in June 1990 at _ 5 its Eddystone Station Unit 1 on the Delaware River upstream of Salem (G. The Delaware River at the Eddystone Station is a relatively fresh water regime, although it is undbr some - tidal influence and can be slightly brackish. The design flow for the combined'Eddystone Units 1 and 2 is 440,000 gallons por minuto, again only 23 percent of the flow at MNPS. lThe screen slot width is also quite large,L% inch (6.4 mm), which_would provido no significant_ ; entrainment benefits for Unit 3. To date, the wedgewire screen intake system has performed ; acceptably. . The Eddystone screens are backflushed by compressed air. To date, the air. j backflushing has maintained the pressure drop across the screens at a constant value slightly ~i greater than the manufacturer's design pressure drop. However, it is too'early to evaluate - , problems with _ biof ouling. More severe proLlems with biofouling and corrosion would be , . expected'at MNPS because of the higher salinities and greater tidalinfluence in Niantic Bay. Wedgewire screens are still developmental with respect to MNPS. The flow rate at MNPS is much higher than at either Campbell or Eddystone, and neither of those installations used the) ( small screen mesh sizes necessary.to achieve entrainment benefits. The Campbell Plant i installation is not estuarine and Eddystone is in an upstream, more fresh + water environment. l Total suspended solid and sand loads at MNPS are higher than at the other two plants. { Detritus, eelgrass, and kelp'l_ cads'are also high; MNPS has had a history of creen blockage and collapse; During the years of operation, there was a significant amount of plant outage time attributed to screen problems ' improved traveling screens were installed in the Unit 3? PART I - 3 38 oisie.wes
Afilistone Units 1, 2 ad 3 Flow --. - s-R -l .- - - -
~
=h / /
I Welded at every k intersection of
~
vertical rod and surface wire
+
~ , %"-- _4
= %v M l'
! %%d
\1 ,. s i d
eg
' P i.. &
k.l A y L 3 1' (
-a _
~
N N [;i u 4
%j -i
-s
% 'M I
*y i i
[' [ %
% i I
Figure 3 Sa Wedgewire Screen Unit o t 518.WP5 . 3 37 t' ART I
Cooling Water System Afternatives to Reduce Larval Entrainment provided for the service water pumps. Cost estimates were developed for the staggered array concept. The second alternative wedgewire screen arrangement would be a bulkhead design, in the bulkhead design, the tee screen assemblies would be mounted around a 13 sided bulkhead structure. Two of these bulkhead structures, each having 26 tee screens, would be required to handle the full Unit 3 circulating water flow. Water from the bulkhead structures would be directed through buried conduits to a common plenum structure that would be constructed directly in front of the existing Unit 3 intake, similar to the plenum for the staggered array design. The bulkh6ad design with deck above water would allow lifting, cleaning, and' replacement of tee screen assemblies without divers. The bulkhead structures would also have bar racks and curtain walls similar to conventional intakes which would protect the tee screen units from damage caused by large floating debris. The bulkhead design would also incorporate a compressed air system for backflushing the tee screen units. Each bulkhead structure would be joined to the plenum structure by a bridge capable of supporting small vehicles for maintenance. Costs were not developed for the bulkhead concept. The large - bulkhead structures would be expected to add significantly to the cost of this alternative as compared to the staggered array design. These proposed conceptual designs are shown on Figure 3 5b. 3.5.1 STAGGERED ARRAY DESIGN The staggered array wedgewire screen intake system would be sized to handle the full Unit 3 circulating water flow of 912.000 gpm. The screen slot width would be selected to exclude-the stage 3 winter flounder larvae, which are 4.5 to 7.5 mm in length. For preliminary design, a screen slot width of 1 mm was selected, ine manufacturer's sizing criteria for these wedgewire screen units was based on a through screen flow velocity of 0.5 fps. Using this sizing criteria, a total of 54 tee screen units, 85 inches in diameter - by approximately 24 feet long, would be required to pass the 912,000 gpm circulating water pump flow to Unit 3. These 54 tee screen assemblies would be arranged on six 108 inch diameter conduits with 9 tee screen units por conduit that would be buried in the sea floor in front of the existing Unit 3 pump structure. The screen arrays on the conduits would be staggered as shown on Figure 3 5b. The staggering would prevent crowding of the screens and would promote better natural debris flushing characteristics. The six 108 inch conduits would terminate at a plenum structure that would be constructed directly in front of the existing pump structure. Each conduit would require _ a sluice gate or knife gate _ valve at the plenum for isolation. 1% RT .I - 3 40 01516.WP5
Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 intake in 1991 which alleviated some of these problems. Ambient flow velocities approach zero at slack tides and currents are variable with tide, so that the high votocity cross flows necessary for screen flushing and biological ef ficacy are not always assured. Further, under any tidal conditions there is a question of whether the necessary high velocity ambiont cross-flows can existin the presence nearly 1 million gpm plant withdrawal flows. Salinity is higher m the seawater environment than in previous applications, Biological fouling and detritus wrapping around the screens could be resistant to cleaning by compressed air backflush. Thus, biofouling and detritalloading could present very serious operating impediments. On site testing and hydraulic modeling would be necessary to determine whether and to what extent the necessary high velocity cross flow currents exist, in order to obtain adequate i screen cleaning action, and to determine whether: (1) the necessary low velocities could be obtained, given the operating difficulties and (2) adequate ambient high velocity cross flow ~ , currents exist (particularly at slack tide) to achieve any reduction in entrainment and I impingement of aquatic life, Biological and hydraulic research would, in general, be needed ; to demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of a wedgewire screen system for MNPS. Both pilot and full-scale testing at the site would be required to determine biological ef fectiveness, maintainability, ef fects of silt and biof ouling deposits, and material compatibility of the wedgewire screens in the war environment at MNPS. Testing would require ; installation of a full scale prototype edgewire screen intake in front of one or more of the circulating water pumps and operamg it for 1 year or longer. Biological considerations, engineering performance, and cost would have to be evaluated. No amount of testing, ' however, could adequately predict the severity of probable siltation problems with the complete system. Two alternate intake arrangements utilizing wedgewire screens were developed f or application , to Unit 3 including the staggered array and the bulkhead design. The first alternativo design concept, called the staggered array concept would consist of six collector conduits that would , be buried in the sea floor in the area in front of the existing Unit 3 intake. The. collector ; conduits would be equipped with nine wedgewire toe screen units which would extend up . from the sea floor. These collector conduits would terminate at a common plenum structure ; that would be constructed directly in front of the existing Unit 3 intake structure. The Unit 3 = intake structure would remain intact and functional. The existing traveling screens would remain in place and would provide backup screening capability in the event the wedgewire screens become blocked. Bypass gates would be provided to bypass -% of the Unit'3 circulating water flow, An automatic, compressed air system would backflush each of the tee screen units, one at a time. A separate Category l' flow passage (not shown) would be : 0151o WPs - 3 39 PARTI _ _ . - . - _ _ ,_ -..-._s
Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce Larval Entrainment ' the tee screen assemblies of the staggered array design were severely blocked by kelp or eelgrass, the air burst backflush system may not be capable of roestablishing flow. In such f case, the wedgewire screen system would have to be bypassed and divers employed to clear the blocked screen units. The bulkhead design would incorporate standard coarse bar racks ; in front of the wedgewire screen units and a mechanical trash raking system to handle large debris. A mechanical trash take and trash bin would be mounted on rails along the circumference of the structure for removing debris from the bar rocks. This system would ; provide some protection against blockage by large debris. The bulkhead structure with dock ! above water would also allow each tee screen unit to be bited individually from t!.e water f or draining and maintenance without the use of divers. A preliminary bulkhead wedgewire screen structure design is shown on Figure 3 Ub. Two '
% size structures would be proposed, each sized to handle % of the Unit 3 circulating water flow. The outline of the structures would be circular with a diameter of 160 feet 2 The structure would mount 26 tee screen units that would be arranged in double screen .
assemblies. The double tco screen assemblies would be mounted on bulkheads forming a 13-sided structure as shown on Figure 3 5b. Each tee screen assembly would be mounted in a set of slots which project vertically upward to the structure deck. Track mounted davits with hoists would be located on the dock and could lift each screen assembly up to the deck for maintenance through the slots provided. Outboard of the tee screen units, the structure would include a curtain wall for protection from floating debris, Two 12 foot diameter inlet conduits would draw water from a central sump in the bulkhead structure. These unit conduits would pass under the bulkhead structures and terminate at a plenum in front of the - existing Unit 3 intake, similar in design to that proposed for the staggered array concept. Each inlet conduit would have a sluice gate or valve for isolation (not shown) Each bulkhead , structure would be connected to the pienum structure or the adjacent shore by a bridge which - would allow truck access to the bulkhead structure dock for maintenance. Each bulkhead wedgewire screening structure would have its own air burst backflush system,. similar in design to that proposed for the staggered array screening system.- The bulkhead wedgewire screening system would be a full size design using two % size , bulkhead structures. This design could also be sized for a sin ~gle circulating water pumpi-3.5.3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS The geology at the intake structure was documented by the "P" series boring on land and the -
"l" series boring of f shore, seismic refraction and bathymetric surveys, and geological mapping during construction. The intake structure is founded directly on bedrock which was excavated l' ART 1 3 44 01616.WPs
- . . - - ._- ~ .- - ~ . . . . - - - - - . - - -
i Millstone Units I, 2, anct 3 . The plenum structure would be a 50 foot by 125 foot reinforced concrete structure that would provide a common flow charnber to distribute flow to the existing pump bays, The plenum structure would be equipped with gates to bypass the wedgewire screen system in the event it became blocked. A separate Category i bypass (not shown) would be provided for the service water pumps. Because the service water system is nuclear safety related, the design would be nuclear safety related Category I and would be subject io Nuclear Regulatory Commission review and approval. This area was not addressed in detail. l The wedgewire ' 'een units would be periodically backflushed with a compressed air scouring : system. The compressed air or air burst scouring system would co;1sist of an air compressor, a compressed air tank, a compressed air piping system capable of delivering a burst of compressed air to each individual too screen assembly, one at a time, air actuated valves, and an automatic control system. Backflushing would be accomplished by discharging the entire compressed air charge in the air tank to the screen assembly to be backflushed. The compressor would then recharge the tank to the required pressure and the process repeateo i for the next screen assembly to be cleannri: The 84-inch tee screen assemblies are normally supplied with 69nch air pipe connections. The preliminary design would use G inch air pipe and connections. The air compressor and tank would be sired to backflush one too screen ; assembly, one at a time.'with a % hour interval. The required pressure in the compressed air i tank would be approximately 150 psi. This would require a compressor size of 40 i horsepower. The compressor, compressed air tank, and control system would be located on : the deck of the plenum as shown on Figure 3 5b. j Biof ouling of the 108 inch diameter conduits connecting the screen units to the plenum would be a potential problem and a chlorination injection system could be required. This was not addressed in detail. , The screen units would be fabricated of copper nickel to take advantage of the biocidal-properties of the copper to control biofouling. The design presented and cost estimate developed would be for a full size installation. This design concept could be used for one circulating water pump or any combination of the six pumps. 3.5.2 ALTERNATIVE BULKHEAD DESIGN An alternative design concept for wedgewire screens for Unit 3 would be a bulkhead structure. The tidal ebb and flow and periodic high detrital environment of the intake provide! a far less than optimum environment for the wedgewire screens. If a significant number of 01516.WPs - 3 43 1%RT I
j .. I' i
' Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce Larval Entrainment i could potentially'llcat the larvae The curtain wall,' arranged at an anglo to the intake, would then divert the larvae away from the intake, Preliminary dos;gns for the submerged diversion j stil and the curtain wall with air bubbler are shown on Ngure 3 0. j l
Both options were considered only experimental with respect to entrainment mitigation. I i 3.0.1 SUBMERGED DIVERSION SILL ! l The submerged diversion sillis a V shapod barrier on the bay floor that would be constructed - i directly in front of the Unit 3 intako as shown on Figure 3 6, The barrier would be' constructed of Jersey berrier concrete units, G feet in height, This design could divert some - portion of flounder larvae away from the intake during daylight hours when they reside at or. near the bottorn. The V shape with an interior angle of approximately 50 degrees (or ~! 26 degrees to the flow) would be designed to divert the larvae to the sides of the intake in- l the incoming flow. The 50 degree angle was selected based on the experience with angled screens for fish diversion Q),(1Q),(1J) as effective for diverting fish. It is probable that thel ! larvae would be carried up and over a straight barrier arranged normcl to the incoming flowL to the intake. Although this design is a passive system, dredging to remove silt build up may-be required. A build up of silt, if lef t uncorrected, would render the sillineffective as a diversion barrier for j flounder larvao. To reduce this potential problem, an array of scouting vanos,' arranged along the outboard sides of the diversion sill, would be required as part of the design. : Work by - Odgaard (L4) has shown that arrays of submerged scouring vanes could be effectivo in diverting silt away from intakes, The potential effectiveness o'f the system in divertin0 winter flounder larvae _ at'MNPS could-only be determined by a more detailed analysis, hydraulic modeling and by placing the barrier and testing it in. place. There could be considerable difficulty in attempts to. quantify tho - :t of fectiveness of this option and there are no installations which could be used f or comparative purposes, The variability of larval density in the water column raises questions on attempts-to quantify ef fectiveness. This option could also disrupt existing flow patterns and possibly . increase debris tcads and larval entrainment at Units.1 and 2. "
-PARTl. 3 46 ~01518 WP C a Z -
l Millstone Linits 1, 2, and 3 whole necessary to approximately elevation 40 feet af ter construction of a temporary of fshoro cof ferdam. Prior to excavation. the bedrock surf ace was overlain by a dense basal till of approximately 20 feet in thickness. Twenty to 30 feet of glacial deposits of a looser nature and beach sands were found to overlio the till, These deposits woro replaced by structural backfill around the Unit 3 intake structure. In the area offshore of the intake structure, bonngs conducted 500 feet offshore indicate bedrock elevation is variable, ranging between 20 and 57 foot. Bedrock immediately of f shore of the intake is likely at elevation -40 feet. Most borings indicate that bedrock is overlain by several feet of basal till although locally thicker deposits are possible. Overlying the till is a poorly graded, micaccous sitty sand which forms the seafloor bottom. The seafloor bottom in the vicinity of the intake was modified during construction of that structuro as well as by dredging af ter construction, immediately adjacent to the intake, the seafloor bottom elevation is at about *2B feet according to soundings taken in 1990 and slopes up seaward duo to dredging modifications to about 16 foot. No field permeability tests were conducted in any of the of fshoto overburden materials, Based on field / laboratory boring 100 descriptions and grain size distribution curves performed on similar soils obtained from onshore boring at the intake structure, it was estimated that hydraubc conductivity is approximately 10 4cm/sec f or the Silty sands comprising the seafloor bottom. 3,6 DIVERSION SILLS AND CURTAIN WALLS Two alternative diversion system designs were developed. The first was a passivo design that would consist of a diversion sill on the bay bottom constructed of precast concrete Jersey-barrier units that would be placed in front of the existing Unit 3 intake structure forming an angled barrier. This design would take advantage of the tendency of flounder larvae to reside at or near the bottom of the bay during daylight hours. it should be noted, however, that this design would not prevent nighttime entrainment, This barrier would divert silt and other debris being carried along the bottom by tidal currents away from the Unit 3 intake. As part of the design, an array of diversion vanes also constructed of Jersey barrier units would be arranged along the outboard side of the barrier to scour silt away and prevent silt from filling-in the front of the barrier, The alternative design would be a floating barrier or curtain wall, that would be constructed on piles. An air bubbler floatation system would be used for floating the flounder larvae to the surface. This diversion system would work on the principal that the rising air bubbles 01 s16,WPs 3-45 PARTI
i ' 11 l la- l 9- l 8 l 7 l _.
~ _- -
._ _ _ Q "
$h Ob \ -
y I "; - 3 ,N*o ._ . a , ., 7 _,ma _ 3 cm
- r- rWW^ . af k31 4 1"4.1 mm .d2 u ,.
s
,3
,, r.
,- /g g,,> .
s'='a . I','af,, 53 wr- /
,2 L - " '
N/ ANTIC BAY
.:..a. "'" E!ni,'#,. ..
9 a ""*aw y'".,:,- me m ,nu. c, a _
'~"
BMRE!LeLM f"*fotr b
,k'-....g [ Db j i -.- -
n f "L m, , L-1.oo _. me s., [' - g a "vW EU.".o -
- g. __3 m
;f _ r-- -
Ta# D _ "8I,g ' { 00
' ,.~g
~
93.- E'd ,= Er,. .. y2 i,? 'in!Qh '" r//2'., f
.==\r U CL *.2(
i s aqred'sim,t 2 N/ ANTIC BAY Qo -gp a ,,,n NLLl%M f"* 200'
- = = * , , -
I f.Y'1f.DA" , .
* - - - ' - -"lan---___.__mmm,_m___ ,_, _
, , . . . . . --g n , , - , ..- . . ..~.,,,e. , + . . _ .
y l jp1 i '
, j f. ,
. .; s t
., 7.l o.
f .
.I '1', '[.
'6i l' 5 lL 2 4= . 3 i, ll)
~ l: ' ' ll -
12L - t{ , Js, ',. C ;,
,3 , Wal k% AT-
..; ~ tr Idt _W,tt 0 ga s .
1M M9 Cuntam watt 4 me.P4 PLE- .
# '#I" P"
~
. Day h .' I'IIIY .3
-.- (t .3 75. . ; E :. _ 1, h-
, .: . . . ,, w.
1 I ~"" g r: ( ._
"88-**" plt 020Utt0 - - **
*
- ed10 PMpettto .
M0tt M toca - (. 1
.v - - - -.-_ _,
._ o.
' r; _.. _ _ _ _ _ . _ .
-y*" -
, r.,a.
1
. . eu. . mn 0 AR BUBBLER / ALTERNATIVF ,;
r.. . ,
.A?E N$ D CARD-.u
.MSOA'gaaSlbW jperture cart .
d m G .EXISTDC aw staucw. U47-) Cl v nw tt o o-in
.- : , / ,,,,"
u s [~P9tCAST
* " " 'c'
-.a, n w y ; [ ;) g ~
.& 4 (t .nn m~
&WW. p)p)p,,
~~
u
- ,. , FIGURE 3-6? 4 a) -
3, ,
, 4-- --
T . eman owvem.a.:. mee,==earnen ,s s -
... sem wam aw . >
$$w owc puina3.03*0Y-6 ~
$f&DQfl.)-25 . .
NDPITHEASTtLITILITIESfSERNCECO. i IWER90N SSL ALT [.RNATIVE1-i r,n - ra b ,ainsysw muwims Y n"s s to arme_t tanva. twremum
~WLL$ TONE ffUCLEAR STAT 0N LMit NO,3
-, 23 6
SLL/CURTMN WALL ALTERNATIVE : ,A.
~
' 9 t
' ut v . .amM ""* -- - - - - 4" '
Ef!"Q,. y , ws ws " * * * ' Mrs Y.4IA) @Kg NN V~ ~ - o , - :t - , A
. < . . -s g,4 p , v;I'ARTI 10E 3-
'L: c' !
<- , 4 1 i' 5 > \
[y >) ib h. ! ' ' _ wi
MlHstone Units 1,' 2, and 3 3.G.2 CURTAIN WALL WITH AIR DUBBLER a The barrier with air hubbler floatation system would be designed to float flounder larvae up to near the surface and then divert them away from the intake with an angled cortain wall, The curtain wall would consist of a barrier constructed of timber or nonme - synthetic matenal that would be supported Dy precast concrete piles as shown or. h m . .t 6. The barner would incorporate a float system (not shown) that would allow the barner to slide up and down on the piles with the tide while maintaining a constant depth. The barrier would be serviceable by a walkway which would be connected to the Unit 3. intake structure at either end of the barrier. The air bubbler system would consist of multiple ('.0 to 15) diffuser pipes that would be mounted on the sea floor on a concrete pad. - Air blowers to provide air to the diffesor pipes would be located on the shore as shown on Fil Te 3 6. Two air bubbler systems would be-provided, one for each leg of the angled batriar. The multiple pipo air bubble diffuser arrangement would be designed to create a wide curtain of bubbles that could of fectively float the flounder larvae. This multiple air bubbler diffuser pipe arrangement has been used by the Swedes to float jellyfish. The air bubbier system would be located a distance in front of the floating barner to allow complete floatation of the larvae in the approaching flow to the intake. The submerged position of the air bubbler system would be removable when not required for service. Both labor, tory and site testing would be required _to develop reliable design criteria for this system and confirm of f active performance at the MNPS intakes. This design concept,like the submerged barrier, may divert a portion of floating eelgrass and kelp away from the intake. 3,7 PLANT OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES 3.7.1 POWER AND FLOW REDUCTION
'A reduction in the power output of the MNPS units does not have a corresponding reduction in the required cooling-water flow. Significant flow reduction can only be achieved by.
shutting down one or more of the circulating water pumps. Vadous scenarios of circulating l _ water pumo flows to achievo approvirnately 25 percent total flow reduction. are shown in l~ Table 3-1.
- c:st e.wes 3 49 PARTI
_ _ _ _ = _ _ ,
Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce Larvei Entrainment TABLE 31 MNPS UNITS CIRCULATING WATER PUMP vs FLOW REDUCTION f Option unit 1 (gom) UEI 2 (gpm) Unit 3 tripm) Total topm)
% of Goal
(- -- w --~~:n - .
, ~~ ~
each Unit ~
~
2 Unrt 3 Pvmps, - 137N0 304360 TTI~D00 94 1 Unit 2 Punp 2 Unit 3 Pumps, ~TU57600 T37,ooo 30C0F6' 546.0F0- 1TB 1 Unrt 2 Pump, 1 Unit 1 Pump _ w + -m= - - ..r.m w- 4. _e-tiQTE; 25 percent of Total Flow - 0.25 (1,880.000) = 470,000 gpm =- Goat There are several negative aspects associated with operating one of the MNPS units during the spring season with one or more circulating water pumps isolated. The most important of these is vulnerability to an automatic plant ttip if an operating pump were to trip. It also causes the condenser pressure to increase and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) thermal performance goals to degrade. Depending upon other plant f actors it could also result in a significant loss of power output. Other i.ssues which wou!d require add;tional , study are the NPDES permit restriction on differential temperature between the intake structure and discharge (wnich would be exceeded under some operating conditions) and the impact on backflushing capability, mussel cooks, and hypochlorde injection. The challenge to safety posed by purposefully operating an MNPS unit at a state of readiness which is far less than optimum during the time of year when nigh energy storms have historically caused problems is not acceptable from en engineering or plant management-perspective. it is, therefore, prudent to investigate variable /multispeed circulating water pumps. 3.7.2 VARIABl.E-SPEED PUMPS Variable-speed driver for the circulating water pumps would cllow reduction in circulating , water flow ouring per.ods of flounder larvai activity. A two-speed drive which woilld operate the circulating water pumps either at rated flow or at %-rated flow was evaluated in this section. 4 PARTI 3 50 015t6 m 5 1 l l
w Afillstone Unirs 1, 2, and 3 3.7.2.1 Hydraulic and Pumping Energy Requirements for M Speed Operation Reduction in the pump speed to 4 would result in transposition of the pump performance
- curve to flows equal to % of the existing curve and total dynamic heads of % _of the existing curve according to pump afhnity_ laws (15). The actual % speed- pump flow rate was determined by superimposing the repositioned 6-pump curve for 6 pumps operating at.
M speed on to the circulating water resistance curve as shown on Figure 3 7, Reducing 6 circulating water pumps to %-speed would result in each pump operating at a flow of 76,000 gpm at a total dynamic head of 6.5 feet, This would result in a reduced power requirement for each pump from the existing 1,500 to 170 horsepower. The 76,000 gpm was exactly % of tne design pump flow of 152,000 gpm. This total reduction in cumping eriergy requirements for %'-speed operation would be 5,950 kW, B&W PUMPS Babcock & Wlteca Cenodo ud. HEAD PUuP DERFORMANCE CHART 60 -g-50 - 40 -
- Y Eb'M -
30 - 2 _ r 20 - **N***% ,
- "$El# --
- f. -.
10'- G g& m.= J
/ -
. ., . i . . .
< i
. , , , , , , i g
4 6 8 10 12- 14 -16 16 0 2 FLOW gom x 10,000 ' Figure 3 7 Pump Performance Curvo > 'l S niste wes 3 51 PARTI
, , . . , , . +
54[ - Cooling Wster System Alternatives to Reduce Larval Entrainment - .. 1
'3.7.2.2' - Two Speed Electric Motors 1 A circulating ' water flow decrease to % could be -achieved. by decreasing' the motor synchronous speed frorn 277 to 139. This could be accomplished either by a variable-speed drive or by a two speed motor, it was decided to provide an estimate for only the two speed :
motor option. The variable speed drive was eliminated for the following reasonsi q
- 1. Only two speeds arn required, s ,
- 2. The cost of each system was approximately equal, $275,000,
- 3. The space requirements: For the systern investigated, each drive system would occupy an indoor area 394 inches long x 48 inches deep x-90 inches high and an outdoor area 57 inches deep by 93 inches wide ,
by 100 inches high.' Other systems wculd require ~ comparable. area r , The six existing 4 kV,1,500 horsepower, 277 rpm vertical circulating water pump motors L would be replaced with 2 speed, 4 kV,1;500 horsepower, 277 rpm motors. -The. motor would be based on the concept of pole amplitude modulation (PAM) and the license to this-
- design is held exclusively by Westinghouse. An estimated price was also obtained for a
, conventional two-speed, double. winding motor. The price of this motor was in excess of :
$ 200,000 more per motor than the PAM motor. Even the' PAM motor would be'.a'farge . .
motor, approximately 45,000 pounds, whichis 20.000 poundsinore than the existing motors. 1 Powe_r would still be provided to the motors from the six breakers located on buses.34A and B. However, a two-speed motor starter would be required for each motor to reconnect the 4 windings to change the motor speed. The motor starters would be controlled from control; j switches mounted on the. main control board. The screenwell stnicture is r)either a suitable
- environment nor does it have adequate space to locate.this equipment Therefore, the 'costi of a heated and ventilated building,30 feetlong x 25 feet wido'x 12 feet highrwas'includad :
to-house the starters. .it was assumed that' the. existicg circulating and; service.-water , pumphouse would provide power for.the new building heating and ventilatingi and lighting, The building would be located in front of the circulating and sqrvice water pumphouse. , As part of the estimate, it was also' assunied that existing motor feeder cables .would be + $ ' pulled back to the manhole nearest the circulating and service water pumphouse.1This is: - approximately '300 feet from that structure. A new ductline frorn the' existing' manhole to the new starter building: would bel.includedc The 1 existing' cables would then b.espulled and connected to the two-speed motor starters, Finally /new ducts from the motoritarter building
- to the existing circulating and service water building with new motor feeder cables would be o includedi PARTI 3 52 0151 m "P5 t
q i Millstone Units 1, 2; and 3
' A cursory check of the existing installation' indicated that the foundations were adequate?
However,if this alternative were pursued /an extensive investigation of the foundations ~would J i be requited.- 3.7.2.3 Impact on Unit Performanca ' Reduction in circulating water flow rate to % in each condenser tube bundle during the , months of April and May would result in a reduction in unit performance of 32,840 kW for < each month. This reduction to unit performance would be dueLt'o the reduced flow in the : <
- condenser tubes and reduction in the heat transfer of ficiency of the condenser tubes due to 4 reduced tube flow velocities. A 90 percent cleanliness factor.could only be maintained with-on line ball cleaning at reduced tube flow velocities. Currently, Unit 3 does not have an on-line tubs cleaning system. Capital cust of this cleaning system would be about one million: -
- dollars.
~
i
.Without on-line tube cleaningi the condenser tubes would foul. Unit 3 load 'would have to bei raduced to as rnuch as M to avoid turbino trip. : Because of the fouling buildup of slime in the /
tubes during %-flow operation, condenser tube cleanup could b'e necessary following reduced flow operation before full flow and unit operation could be resumed. This would lead to a vulnerability similar to that described earlier for operation.with one or ' more circulating water pumps isolated, Therefore, this alternative would require additional
.. study of condensor vacuum imbalance and associated issues to determine if the plant could' continue safe operation with significaat condenser fouling and Jess than maximum cooling- ,
S water flow.
-3.7.3 SCHEDULED REFUELING OUTAGES Refueling outages are generally targeted for periods of low electrical' demand and, hence,most.- N refueling outages are' scheduled for the spring and fall. The outage. schedule also takes intol account factors such as fuel nucleonics (usable life), required. upgrades to plant equipment,E ,
required inspections; regulatory commitments, safety, maintenance concerns; and available y manpower. Factors that could influence the actual versus scheduled outage include safety,- duration of a previous outage, ec uipment malfunction or failure, and inspection or surveillance 1 failure; The scheduled refueling outages' for MNPS are shown in Table 3 2. As shown the Unit 1 scheduled refueling outages occur in the even nurnbered years and coincide with a portion of the average winter flounder larval entrainment period of April through mid-June. Unit. 2's . s.. j . oi s!o.wPs 3-53 PART I ..
/jQ x m .
i s;s i [ Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce larval Entrainment-I . scheduled ~ outages are'also even numbered, although the dates are subject to change based upon completion of the' Steam Generator Replacement Project. - Unit 3's scheduled outages- -! i occur in odd numbered years _and also coincide with a portion of the winter flounder larval = c entrainment. period.1f all plant; operation and _ refueling outages went as scheduled,; then - planned outages at Unit 1 (even-numbered years) and Unit 3 (odd numbered years)Lcould - coincide with the larval entrainment period each spring. Several refueling . outages have in fact taken place' during all or. portions of the-larvals entrainment period, and the _ refueling outage schedule indicates, that this: will probably: continue. A review of past MNPS refueling outages indicated that four refueling' outages-occurred during the dates shown in Table 3 3. There were another three r9 fueling _ outages-that took place for portions of the time periods'shown in Table 3 3. It should be noted that . cooling-water flow is not terminated during refueling outages; however, the durations shown-in Table 3 3 compensate for' continued flow and would result in MNPS flow reduction of y approximately 25 percent, except for Unit 2 which achieves a maximum of about 13 percent. For further detail in understanding how these dates were established, refer to-Section 11, Part 4,
-i i
_-l h i d 4 a PART I - 3 54- 01516.WP5 : __1_
l l l MJlstone Units 1, 2; and 3 1 l TABLE 3-2 L MILLSTONE STATION i' REFUELING OUTAGE SCHEDULE 1993-2003 m 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 '2003 Plant 1993 1994 1995 l 1996 i- i Apr. 29- May 25- July 4- 1 ! Unit 1 Feb.19- Mar. 25-July 1 Aug.5 Sept.14 May 2 June 5 i July 19- Aug.14- 5 Sept.10-Unit 2 July 1- June 23-Sept. 29 Oct. 25 Nov. 21 Sept.11 Sept. 3 May 18- May 14- May 11- i May 24- May 20-Unit 3 Aug.8 July 29 July 25 July 22 -l Oct.19 Aug.4 July 31 l { l ! Aug.11- Aug.9- Aug.18- ,, May 22- Dec.9- Aug.10-CY' Oct. 22 Oct. 20 Oct. 29 Aug.2 Feb.19 Oct. 21 _ May 6- Nov. 26- June 17- Jan.14- l Seabrook Mar. 26- Oct.15- Mar. 26 Dec.'26 July 17 Feb. 6 Aug.2E
- June 6
- The outages for CY and Seabrook are shown to illustrate the potential irnpact in changes to the refueling schedule.
~
PARTI 0151en75 3-55
t Cooling tVater System Alternatives to Reduce Larval Entrainment ' TABLE 3 3 L APPROXIMATE QOTAGE DURATIONS AT MNPS FOR 25 PERCENT ENTRAINMENT MITIGATION PLANT (S) CALENDAR DATE * - ELAPSED Single Combination Start Finish . Days I Unit 1 - April 2 June 13 73 Unit 2 * * - April 2 . June 13 73 . Unit 3 - April 2 June 6 66 Unit 1 & Unit 2 April 2 June 6 -66
- Unit 1. Unit 2, & April 22 May 12 21 Unit 3 ._,- m _ _ _ . _ . _
NOTFa
- Rationale for date selection is described in Part il of this report.
*
- Maximum attainable mitigation for Unit 2 is 13 percent.
Unplanned outages are common and have a potentially .significant impact on the' scheduled refueling' outages for a nuclear unit as well as the other nuclear units owned by NUSCO. -This is due to the nuclear fuel burn-up cycle. Interruptions in plant operation during'a particular. fuel cycle essentially extend the life (or cycle) of the particular fuel. 'This could potentially ' postpone the required date for refueling. Changes to the refueling schedule'for ono nuclearc unit potentially changes the schedule for the other units. Because fuel purchases must-be planned in advance, there are design costs and carrying-charges to consider when deciding on a refueling' outage schedule change. The costs - associated with nuclear fuel procurernent,' fuel cycle redesign, andicarrying charges are _ . significant: up to $ % 'million could be expended in cycle redesign and carrying charges. Flexibility in the refueling outage schedule is obviously important. Although a detailed cost estimate and engineering analysis of all the issues associated wit'h-rescheduling the Unit 1 and Unit 3 refueling outages to coincide more precisely with Table 3 was not performed, preliminary indications were that a one-time adjustment to the outage schedule would not be very difficult or costly. However,it would not be possible to maintain that schedule every year without exception, even with extraordinary and costly engineering-and nuclear fuel procurement strategies, unless forced outages were to occur each spring. PARTI 3-50 01510E
Millstone IJnits 1, 2, and 3 3,7,4 FORCED OUTAGES EACH SPRING A forced outage each spring to coincide with 25 percent mitigation of an average winter flounder larval entrainment year is shown in Table 3 3. While this option does not significantly af fect f uel nucleonics (the next refuel outage can be extended to allow f uel burn-up), it would be a severe econornic burden to NUSCO and the ratepayers as shown on Table 3 4. TABLE 3-4 FORCED OUTAGE COST ESTIMATE FOR 25 PERCENT ENTRAINMENT MITIGATION Cumulative Replacement Power Engnario Costs in Millions of 1992 $ Unit 1 Offline 4/2 to 6/13 $214. Unit 2 Of fline 4/2 to 6/13 $307 Unit 1 & Unit 2 Offline 4/2 to 6/6 $519 Unit 3 Offline 4/2 to 6/6 $310 Unit 1, Unit 2, & Unit 3 Of fline 4/22 to 5/12 $318 NOTESa
- 1. Estimates are 1992 $ grossed up to full output f or each scenario.
- 2. Some years had no replacement power cost because a scheduled refuel overlaps the time period.
- 3. Estimated costs starting in 1993 through year 2010.
- 4. Dates of fline are approximate, Part il of this report discusses rationale for date selection.
- 5. Maximum mitigation for Unit 2 is 13 percent.
- 6. Explanation of how the cumulative replacement power costs were developed for power reduction cases using net fuel cost data included in Appendix C.
- by year each case's (Case 1, Case 2, etc.) replacement costs were grossed up to full plant.
- these full plant replacement power costs were then expressed in 1992 dollars by discounting at 11.78 percent per year.
- these full plant replacement power costs in 1992 dollars were then -
summed.
- this resulting value was then reported as the cumulative replacement power cost for the case.
l 0151 c WFs 3-57 PARTI l
- Cooling Water $ystem Altematives to Reduce LarvalEntrainment
.3,8 REFERENCES 1 Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3. Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Docket
- No. 50-423.
- 2. Final Environmental Staternent Related to the Proposed- Construction of Millstone Nuclear Power Station e Unit 3. Millstone Point Co. et al, Docket No. 50-423, United States Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, February 1974.
- 3. Hydraulic Model Study - Phases I and 11: Testing of the Circulating Water Pump Installation: Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 3: Lasalle Hydraulic Laboratory Ltd: LHL 847: June 1982.
- 4. A.J. Hulchizer, J.C. Stuart, R.L. Obradovic, and A.J. Stuart. Land Shaf t Construction and initial Station Development for Seabrook Station Cooling Water Tunnels. RETC Proceedings, Vol. 2,1979.
- 5. A.J. Hulchizer and J.P. Rossereau. Design and installation of Large Diameter Sub Sea Connecting Shaf ts for the Seabrook Station Cooling System. RETC, San Francisco, .
CA,1981.
- 6. R.T. Richards.- Alternative Water Screening for Thermal Power Plants. J. Hydraulic Division, ASCE Vol.114, No. 6, June 1988, pp 578 597.
- 7. Electric Power Research Institute. Guidelines on Macrofouling Control Technology.
EPRI CS-5271, Project 1689 9, Final Report, June 1987.
- 8. Y.G. Mussalli, J. Williams, and J.- Hockman. ' Engineering Biological Evaluation o'f a FineiMesh Traveling Screen for Protecting Organisms. Proceeding.s of the Workshop of Advanced intake Technology, held at the Sheraton-Harbor Island Hotel,-San Diego, CA,Apnl 22-24,1981.
- 9. M.R. Anderson, J.A. DiVito, and Y.G. Mussalli. Design and Operation of- Angled-Screen intake J. Hydraulic Division. ASCE Vol.- 114, No. 6, June 1988, pp 598-615,
- 10. S.J. Edwards, J. Dimbeck, T.E. Pease, M.J. Skelly, and D. Renpert. Ef fectiveness of Angled-Screen intake Systems, J. Hydraulic Division,- ASCE Vol.114, No. 6, June 1988c pp 626-640.
- 11. . J. A. Matousek. T.E. Pease, J.G. Holsapple, and R.C. Roberts. Biological Evaluation of Angled Screen Test Facility. J.' Hydraulic Division, ASCE Vol.114, No. 6, June .1988, pp 641-650.
- 12. Stef an, H., A. Tu. Cg ctor Well Study of the Coolina Water intp_k_g System of-James H. Camobell Electric Power Generatina Plant Unit Nom 3, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratories, University of Minnesota, Project No.176, November 1978.
PARTI- 3 58 otsie w s
Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3
- 13. Veneziale, E.J. fish _ELqtf& tion with Wedgewire Sctnens at Eddvstone Stati.pn.
Proceedings of the American Power Conference 54(1):433 438.- 14, J, A. Odgaard and Y. Wang, Sodirnent Management with submerged Vanes. J. Hydraulic Division, ASCE Vol.117, No. 3, March 1991, pp 267 283.
- 15. l.J. Karassik, W.C. Krutzsch, W.H. Fraser, and J.P. Messina. Pump Handbook.~
McGraw-Hill Book Co.,1976. 01516.WP5 3 59 PARTI
._______________________._z__________________________________.-..______
1 . - - i.- , TJ i., s-
!I 'Y
$ 4
[f.b a :- . i '$^ffi :1 ; , l ,' g
. n3-bp f. p m,,m r w'
..=c,,
w cLplc a n-
?
,- , -gu , . M. ~' c t
&x >
m.3 c
' -Q.. n A . (~-
, -- " .,g0 -'
i'5^- s'
~
5 s W. > Q il s, s 1- :D,g;,t o. - Iv;q&, p s
'q ,
-(" 4
' 3 s
.. g
.. - 5 f * -.
f s' 5,, y1 n'...=_ ~, ~ " > n' : - r , ,.
" l ',:_ >: A .L y r,!
b: 4,_ 1 , i-Tst f d 'r / o.
..L
..j .,. j . 3
- 1 . . . r
- + p!.,
3 i -j
.. ;y.
- - * : 'l. i- a .
~-y ,
py4
-8 s _.;; f t , . _f. _
-;p _ , .'1;~.o....c.
.= - ..
_i s I
._h,-k',,.
g ,f(- ;[, f 4 N.,,, [*.._p.
. .a h gg
.. .,r r, '- t ,
g ' t y , '. , 4 kg s # :
- 1. .- 5 W.L .U, -. -
/ # # I ,,- k-] . y
.? .
-'V
{ n' g :,_A, 4_ I i '
,p-
&'.l' l:) { , = )- ?
' ,_,Y='-
A" k - j-f ,
- I '
r.w,
.a., nr ._ '
F .r R q
?
1-f ._w .. , . p -y. ,
---', 1 .- i r
s' 15; . - , a . .. g
-.s
,.E{._-
S . .f s
.5 cy .;. q, ,.
, I
!_5'9_ 1.-
i s
?; ; ,
-- - {
sa P , + r I
$ 'h.' ~ - 5 j
)
-; s;;
4 L
~
'J)' ,
+
3 ., ,\... y -
. . _f 1
?
i h L ,; - I t
. ; .)iG ' ,
/ i f M -
.I
! .if L -r W ..
N'y e
>[,
i 4 d< t.-- l
.[ ,
\k Y f
- - - -z.'
~y;.s ' . ,; -
l_ ('E,'. j=.N s rc b y+.. T
., I T ' i ~
T' 4 4 ' + e _i(a , q { a
'.-l.,-
3,g
-e. .*i_..,e J j,. t #
6_
-# 4 I 5
I
!.3'%
I ,-,g'.,f,',.-}.,
- M.'
\ t g i;]f.
] ' ,
.'."s,..1 s !. .1
' %'Q -) ; : ' #
<q- , 'p[
f I $ ']. .( { [ h e 3 2 t, j' t , M. - . -l' M [ M _s'y[ -- ?.x[:l v.4.,. . . 7 _ .,1f : s' . v( , , , 3 , i , ;;. i ... 4+ .
'e'. *2. '.',-
,'c 5 a,-, . .. s N + Qf
; i
, s i &'c 1 ,Q u:
l a;:1-. s s x 3
+- h
.. 7
.. - - . y
.. m .A q-
'.s:,- - j f,, 3 5"k' P ' s',k f .'ny
,zf,c._.-k_
*i 7 .#3!' ' ^ b-s a .',h,
,'. $ [.
w
- 3. 4 >
' 4.3 60- d
.s a .. '<w. .s, d, -- . p, -Gi -
- ;t
_v.- y,$ -m s-
. J+ 7 _
- N
?,?f- 3 L;
' h_. $' ; i' j~' ~
,v e
- !f <
'? ~, ( '
> -w y
t
# / s' * .,, [ > , ,
w')* .g d[ n+ c , w. , / - u t,~, ,. :~ ,, x., ,_ g ,
... ,- v' .;,- ~I[.*.. c W ,h:. - .i , .: r ;',&:.,*i, ?
. ' ,^:- '
c n
. '[, W.. vep 1 ?:, , l ,
3p
; , L>ywy.
.. u , , ,
uy , ., t j, a,.1,y,=q a , ,, j-> .
, 3. .73-., .f.,
y e j ,
4' 5 ESTIMATED COSTS AND CONSTRUCTION. SCHEDULE . k Order of magnitude costs and estimated construction schedules were de" eloped for_ each of the proposed alternative intakes for Unit 3 discussed in Section 3. , 4.1 ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated costs for each of the seven alternatives are summarized in Tables 4-1 through
~
4-6. These summary tables are based on the detailed information in Appendices' A, B; and - c C.
~ Appendix A provides detailed capital costs for each alternative.
Appendix B provides tabulated calculations of annual costs for added power consumption and - performance degradation resulting from implementation of cooling water system alternatives ; for Unit 3 for the years 1993 through 2010. Performance penalty costs appearing in Tables 4-1 through 4-6 are the sum of total incressad syste'm annual costs forithe years 1993; through 2010. ( . l- .' p- Appendix C povides net fuel cost' data for the various outageLscenarios evaluated to j i determine outage costs. [.
- Table 4 7 summarizes the direct, capital. and total costs of each alternative for companson..
N h' l l' , l b o t st e.wP5 ' 41 PART l-l,
.i
~
o Cooling \%:er System Attematives to Reduce Larvalintrainment TABLE 41 NATURAL-DRAFT COOLIN'G TOWERS --
SUMMARY
OF ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES Fu'll-Size - % Gize - itgr0_ Tgwer Tower Cooling Tower 613,000,000- $ 11,70d,000 Equipment 6,500,000 4,500.000' Piping Main C.W. Piping i2,500,000. :9,600,000'_ Makeup and Blowdown 1,100,000 -800,000- i Excavation and Backfill 3,100,000 2,200,000 Cooling Tower Durnp Station and Apron, 1,700,000 1,100,000. and Access Road Cooling Tower Basin 3,500,000 -2.900,000 Electric and Control Equipment - 2,600,000 2,200,000 H Tie-ins to Operating P; ant 1C0.00.0 _100 qqq. TOTAL DIRECT COST 44,100,000 35,100,000 4 .i Engineering '4,400,000' 3,500,000 ; Construction l',1anagement 3,100,000 2,500,000' 3 . Allowance for Indeterminates/ Contingency 10.500 Oiq ' S200.00Q
-T OTAl, CAPITAL COST 62.100_,000 495300,000- h Outago Cost _ 12,000,000 12,000,000, Performance Penalty LQOgg, ppjg,QJQo,' s t --
y , i TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ' $P 8,800,0001 S 71.lJ 00.000 ; g
/
v "j M Note: Costs were developed for relative comparison' purposes and:due to titair conceptuit . naturn may be sonsiderably. lower than actual, Further limitations are described in the Q applicable text describing the design alternative, h
! PARTI 42 ;ota)o,y/P5 4 r >
j g , q v} l _r* ' f
u - :- . e
; is
. > Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3. '
to '
~
- TABLE 4 21 IOFFSHORE INTAKE
SUMMARY
OF ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES '] 1 s (Lt!D Pumps, equipment $4,700,000 . a Tunnet ,, 32,700,000. ; o Shaf ts- 11,400,000 Concrete & Dredging 4,700,000 Pumphouse, Forebay, Temp. Dock- 6,300,000 Electrical 700,000'- F Tie-ins to Operating Plant S.QQ&QA -
-TOTA'L- DIRECT COSTS 61,000,000-Engineering 6,100,000-Construction Management- 4,300,000
_-. Allowance for indeterminates/ Contingency 171700.00Q, i
- TOTAL CAPITAL COST - 80,100,000: :
- Outage Cost 24,000_,000- "
Performance Penalty 4:600.010, , y' TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. _$ 117,700,000 ; yz Note: Costs were developed for relative comparison purposes and due t'o their conceptual: + nature may be considerably lower than actual Furtheilimitations are described in the-
. applicable text des ibing the design alterr.ative, f.h i (l '
l f:p otsi s.wPs 43 PARTI-o '3 <
- . , i j g , a
a> ,. n i!G 3p s 4-lif i p w b Cooling Water System Attematives to Reduce 1,arval Entrainment
; u
~ TABLE 4 3:
FINE-MESH SCREENS:
SUMMARY
OF ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES llem Equipment $ 8,600,000 Piping & Sluicing System 500,000 ~ Concrete & Dredging - 4,400,000 Forebay, Cofferdam & Temp, Dock 5,400,000- , Electrical 350,000 Tie ins to Operating Plant __ 50.000 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 19,300,000 Engineering 1,90'O,000 Construction Management 13300,000 Allowance for indeterminates/ Contingency 5.700.000
- c. ' TOTAL CAPITAL COST 28;200,000 Outage Cost -24,000,000-
' Performance Penalty . ,. N/A' TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - 052,200,000 Note: Costs were developed for relative comparison purposes.and due. to their conceptual nature may be cons?derably lower than actual' Fuither fimitations are described in the" .ti
. applicable text describing the design alternative.
a
- P6RT'1 44 . O t 5 t 6.WPS -
=l Q 's
- ~
[: e Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 TABLE 44 WEDGEWIRE SCREENS
SUMMARY
OF ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES'. Itern Equipment $ 5,500,0C0 - Piping 1,900,000' Concrete & Dredging 1,200,000 Colferdam & Temp. Dock - 3,300,000
. Electrical 150,000 Tie-ins to Operating Plant 50.00_Q TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 12,100,000-Engineering 1,200,000 Construction Management 800,000 Allowance for IndeterminatesiContingency 3.500.000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST 17.600,000 Outage Cost 48,000,000 Performance Penalty N/A
~
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 65,600,000. Note: Costs were developed for relative comparison purposes and due to their conceptual nature may be considerably lower than actual.- Further limitatio_ns are described in the applicable text describing the design alternative.- 01 s16lWP5 45 PARTI
Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce Larval $ntrainment TABLE 4 5 TWO-SPEED PUMPS
SUMMARY
OF ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES LLelD Equipment $ 1,500,000 Piping - - Excavation / Concrete -100,000 Electrical 650,000 Tie-ins to Operating Plant 50.00,Q U TOTAL DIRECT COS TS 2,300,000 Engineering 200,000 Construction Management 200,000 Allowance for indeterminates/ Contingency 500.000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST 3,200,000 Outage Cost 12,000,000 Performance Penalty 16,800.000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $32,000,000 Note: Costs were developed for relative comparison purposes and due to their conceptual-. nature may beconsiderably lower than actual. Further limitations are described in the
- applicable text describing the design alternative.
PARTI 46 01516.WP5
o
. Millstone Units 1, 2, and $
TABLE 4-0 BARRIER SILLS
SUMMARY
OF ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES
'IM!D Sill Fabrication $400,000 --
Sill Installation 600,000' Tremie Concrete 200,000 Temporary Dock 100.000-TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 1,300,000' 100,000
' Engineering Construction Management 100.000 Allowance for Indeterminates/ Contingency 300.000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST 1,800,000 Outage Cost N/A Performance Penalty 'N/A-TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 1,800,000 Note: Costs were developed for relative comparison purposes and due to their conceptual nature may be considerably lower than actual. Further limitations are described in the
- applicable text describing the design alternative ~.
~
t oi S16.WP5 _ 47 PARTI
qg s [ * $ ~ s 4
- ^
y, . < q ,_ ,
~ -
, 5-p# "
y.; l s d' S" e a r e* 0' t t e i t u a t r ' . c e1 n' " clls i 0 0 0 a y u o nS o 0 0-3, '8, - 0 8 n h' e c* C_" _ 1 '1 . A/ A/ 1 h a t~ is r
$ $_ - N N $ t s e v
d' d s o' n d l e a' ' y r ~ t e er * '
- lt a e"
u p po 0 0 0 n y ' t a St o 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 8, 0, 0, ic r e o" oM 3, 2, f p" l' w 6 2 2 in lu T 2 3 1 1 3 g n f o'
$ $ $ $ $ is o '~~
it g e a r t " p b e" I e d p u i r s l u o~ d e wn 5' o f s e e 0 0 0 0
. c o~ s ger 0 0 0 0 b le e r s' o' r~
d c 1 6, 0, 6, a u ht g eS j 2 7 r t n W A 8 5 e a 3
- 2:
u 1 1
/
N $ 4 6 d is n o m 9" 9~ o n la 4 Y o t u 2 1 ' 5 ~ R )y c p g' i r , Aa h ss e e n S' .
, " b c g MD en n Mtn Me e 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ld o c. im u s
~e r"
a u
- r s'.
Ue s e n c 3, 2, 0, 2, o ie r s a't ht v a" Se iS F 9 8 A 4 2 c ,u n Er P 1 2 / 2 5 y ht sp o n 7- $ $ N $ $ e t t m o' 4 T h o s u t E AsO t t e oo c
!a p u
8' " ^ MO h g u r u
.l l
r t
~
L B I TO e.
- u d ef o o
u 5" 4 oke r A Sn 0. 0
- 0 0
0 o d n w o f d h a h ot 3" ' T E i st 0 0 0 0 7, lt a p p e Sr s f f n 0, 1, 0 0, 7 a s d e it' n a O I 1 9 6, 4 t t u n e t n Ta l 6 8 4 2 1 1 d e s o ede n U - e Sl o m O D
$ $ $ $ $ d lu c ms es s
f o n C e co i r e + i l c n v 'a r e r~ a l r LA r
~ i it a lp g w a e' h' .
- t n A( e t o le r3 o s L
g E T w n r p s' l a O o' . e f o f onit t n T T O' eU r vr g%
- a n e U a n 0 0
- 0 0 s o uf m S L li 0 0 0 0 0 t s isr la o e c U e o 1, 3, 0 0, 1, o a ver N c o 5 9 8, c p t a la u C' 2 1 nh p e^ -
d 3 4 9 1 7 e m e s e c' e $ $ $ $ $ c n cc s es j r la' p R a r p L o n r o p O' e e~ r t e f t C c s r t n e eS x o"' - e e r nU e t v w ia a eN
)
t' s 7 i o m 'se v r 1
~oi
'c sr T%
t a i L '(
*
- it o n g 0
- d t a laf e r .
n t 'ela l e t in0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a m u0 m1 N o hl t o A lo 7, 0, 8, n it n d o' 1, 1, s 1 4 2 4 2 8 o e u0 s a o2 C' it c21 m 6 e . d 9 e 4 1 1 8 a s 23 e t $ $ $ $ $ r e st e 9 s y p es 99 99 m a s1 a o ,' h o S s O Tc '1 1 S Bt r n s et s T 5 S e o la S E f t a i t s t c o n n O T S
.tp o ip aC '
o C O s& W ir C a my i) t e . . . . ' g c C r t ag r L N 1 2 3 4 5 n s t c la fola t- e t t as A k i e e t r n s n us T t o D i r o ee o eOo O u D T PP LG( C T Oa C fl I 9
$a
+ + . 1 "
Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 The estimated costs listed in Tables 41 through 4 7 were based on the following general assumptions:
- Present day prices and fully sub-contracted labor rates as of 11/1/92.
- 40 hour workweek, single shif t operation
- Dredged material can be disposed of locally; assumed to be not contaminated
- Required construction utilities will be supplied by Owner
- Land required for construction trailers, parking, and lay down provided by _
Owner
- Allowance f or interferences along pipeline trench; electrical ductbank included within trench
- Construction management included at 7 percent of direct construction cost
- Detailed engineering / design included at 10 percent of direct construction cost The cooling towers, the two-speed pump drives, and the concrete sills have a 20 percent AFl/ contingency applied to total capital costs. The fine mesh screens, the wedgewire screens, and the offshore intake each have a 25 percent AFI/ contingency applied to total capital costs. These f actors were recommended based on the level of detail of the preliminary designs and estimate pricing basis. These factors could also be referred to as budget protection factors for possible additional costs that might develop but cannot be determined at the time of preparation of the estimate. A higher factor has been applied to the more difficult marine alternatives.
Costs associated with the following were not included in the estimate:
- Escalation
- Abandonment
- Demolition / relocations
- Sales, use, service or other taxes
- Insurance (building all risk and other marine insurances)
- Severe contingency costs (e.g., those associated with adverse weather, craf t strikes)
- Startup 01616 WP5 49 PART I
?., - ' t%
,, at d
,- i i -- Cooling Water System Attematives to Reduce larval Entrainment ;-
- s I
~
* ! Permits (including environmental)'
-* . Employee training, certifications, security work; _
; i -
P
- Operation and maintenance' E ;
17-
*-- Category I structures-
* : Own, er's cost -
The total present-day capital costs consisted of the October 1992 direct) distributableland ?
.. engineering costs, and allowance for indeterminates/ contingencies.:
4.2 SPECIAL EXCAVATION l COST CONSIDERATIONS? , Relative order of rnagnitude- cost estimates forfexcavation' were based Jon preliminary'
- excavation-quantities; available site conditions and'similar case histories.
~
- 4.2.1-- NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER EXCAVATION COSTS..
. Typical rock excavation costs, utilizing pre-split blasting in rock' range _from $10.00 to $20.00( '
per cubic yard.. This assumed that average haulage would be less than 5 miles, and easy site? ! access would be available. , 4.2.2 OFFSHORE INTAKE COSTS - 4.2.2.1 Tunnel Excavation Assum'ptions/Costsi
~
A; relative order of magnitude of tunneling costs for' al24-foot-l.D., 5',000'-foot long intake
~
tunnel has been m'ade, The following. assumptions were madei
- 1. The tunnel would be excavated through drill and blast methods along'its :
entire 5;000-foot. length.
~
- 2. . A singie intake structure would be built offshore, requiring an offshorei , ,
-shaft to be constructed from the tunnel up to the submerged ' structure - , ;
< - elevation.
~ 3. : The tunnel linerTwould be cast'in place, reinforced concrete? 2-foot 1 ;
average thickness.
- 4. Tunnel cross-sectional shape would be near circular / modified horseshoe.
O PART1- . 4 10- ! 01616.WP5 g y ' ' i -,e + e v.- , 4 A4 4 4 0
ibfillstone Units 1, 2, and 3
- 5. The access shaf t would also be located of fshore, approximately 150 to
~ 200 feet from the front of the current pumphouse structure.
6; One working face was assumed te be available starting from the access shaft, and that the tunnel would be driven towards the offshore intake structure.. The heading was assumed wet, yet with controllable water inflow rates; o 7. and the rock assumed competent. If the heading were to be. driven under wet conditions with crushed rock or unconsolidated conditions, the tunnel excavation contingency could be as high as 50 percent.-
. Table 4-8 describes the breakdown _of the tunnelling costs, in general, tunnel costs are ~ 'approximately $ 6,500/ lineal foot. Total cost of the tunnel excavation and construction is-estimated at & 32,700,000 for 5,000 feet of cast in place concrete lined tunnel.
TABLE 4-8 RELATIVE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS FOR TUNNELLING DESCRIPTION QUANTITY. - -UNIT COST TOTAL COST Mobilization 1 $5,000,000 $5;000,000 Shaft Station Development 2 $175,000 $350,000 Tunnel Excavation + Temp. Support (Rock Bolts) 5000 LF' $4376 l $21,88 .000 Concrete Linin 0 (Slip Form) 5000 LF ~$920
.-?4,600,000:
Drilling in Advance of Face 5000 LF - $40 S200,000 Pressure Grouting at Tunnel Face 3000 LF $_100 $300,000 - 106,029 cu-yd - $ 120,000 - Muck Disposal - nal Cleanup 5000 LF $42- $ 210,000 - 1 GRAND _ TOTAL $32,700,000 or $6500/LF of Tunnel (: .ol 516.WP5 4 11 PARTI
Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce ltrval Entrainment . _ 4.2.2.2 Shaft Excavation Assumptions / Costs
- 1. The circular access shaf t would be sunk thr'ough conventional drill and -
blast full face methods. A gallow stage would be used to advance,' drill and muck the shaft. This platform would also allow grouting and - placement of the shaf t liner during construction.
- 2. The intake shaft would be drilled.by raised bore / reaming method's to 3 26 feet in diameter. .. .
l
- 3. Only conventional surface preparation costs and equipment .were 4 considered. Underwater preparation, offshore. shaft servicing .and.
operations were not considered and are likely to raise this estimate slightly.
- 4. Access shaft diameter would be 27 feet 0.D. (outside diameter),24 feet
- 1.D. with cast in place concrete liner. It would be drilled entirely through -
rock.
- 5. The rock was assumed to be competent and groundwater inflows to be y at a rate as only requiring standard grouting techniques-during shaft :
sinking. The costs for a full-faced excavated shaft were estimated based upon 1982 Army Corps'of j Engineers' estimates for a shaft of this diameter. The final costs were adjusted to 1992-prices through the Construction Ccst Index published by the Engineering News Record. The price difference is 32 percent. The average cost per linear foot of shaft depth is $7645/ foot, This includes both capital costs and operating costs. These costs compare favorably with other proposed shafts in high strength granite of similarr diameter in North New' Jersey. The New Jersey project cost estimate for a 24-foot shaf t was x
$6883/ foot. The New Jersey costs reflect dryer conditions (little or no giouting), and little. f or no ground support prior to liner installation. Excavation techniques!are similar. '. Collar development in rock for a 24-foot diameter shaft typically costs $1 to $1.5 milliott The north shaft for- the outfall tunnel of the MWRA Deer Island Project was not entirely comparable to the proposed shaft of MNPS. Slurry wall construction was necessary, as was
~
a larger diameter (35 feet) to accommodate a TBM..
-1
~ Total cost for a single shaft at MNPS would be: 350 feet x $7645/ foot 4 collar development ($1,500,000) = $4,175,750/ shaft. This does not include underwater construction costs for sea floor prep and caisson installation. For preparation and cawson costs associated with the - main access shaf t and the velocity cap access shaft, the allowi nces were $2,000,000 and . PARTI 4-12 ol s10.WP5
l l Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3
$ 1,000,000, respectively, it should be noted that shafts costs can vary considerably with _
respect to the following f actors: ground conditions, crew experience, quality of supervision, labor rates, and excavation techniques. The cost estimetes for MNPS consider that the entire length of the shaft would be excavated in competent rock under wet conditions. Ground conditions any less favorable could significantly raise the shaft excavation costs. The contingency for the shaft excavation costs was 30 percont'. 4.2.2.3 Schedule Assumptions and Considerations The schedule was based upon onsite construction requirements, it does. not includo __ engineering design, site investigation work, or other prerequisite work. The schedule also does not include the Unit 2 intake structure modifications. Both the access shaft caisson structure and the intake shatt atructures would be pref abricated and floated to finallocation. The schedule was based upon exilar f acility experience. Variations in rock types or ground condittons could significantly impact the schedule. Excavation techniques f or the access shaf t and the tunnel would utilize full face drill and blast methods. The of fshore intake shaft would be excavated tsing raised boring techniques, which would reduce shaft excavation by 1 month and create a safer working environment. Excavation rates for the tunnel and access shaft were assumed at 30 feet / day and 8 feet / day, respectively. The excavation for the raised boring rnachine was assumed at 30 feet / day, it was assumed that the liner would be installed during excavation with the tunnel face at least 150 feet in front of the installed final liner. Finalliner installation and sealing of the tunnel floor wou!d be performed prior to raised boring of the intake shaft. 4.2.2.4 Total Offshore Intake Excavation Costs Two offshore shafts would be necessary, one main access shaf t and one intake shaft. The main access shaft would be close to shore, 350 feet deep, The offshore shaft would be 225 feet deep, yet constructed approximately 1 mile of fshore in slightly deeper water by raise bore techniques. While the raised boring schedule would be shorter than conventional shaft construction techniques, capital equipment costs were assumed to be higher. For estimation purposes, both shafts have equivalent costs of $4,175,750. The total cost for this scheme would be: Tunnel: $ 32.500,000 Shafts (2) - $4,175,750 x 2: $ 8,351,500 Access Costs for Shafts: $ 3.001000 Total: $ 43,851,500 01516 wPS 4 13 PARTI
l l Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce Larval Entrainment-4.3 CONSTRUCTION PERIODS ESTIMATES Construction periods and esti_ mated outage periods for each of the alternatives are presented-in Table 4 9. These periods do not account for time for engineering and design, oquipment procurement, or permits. The construction periods estimates were developed assuming standard construction methods and work weeks. Estimated outage periods are total durations. The periods could be scheduled to take advantage of scheduled refueliag outages to minimize forced outage time. TABLE 4-9 CONSTRUCTION AND OUTAGE PERIOD ESTIMATES Construction Period Outage Period Alternative (Months) (Months) Full-Size Cooling Tower System 24 1 Two-Thirds Size Cooling Tower 24 1 System Offshore intake 36 2-6 Fine-Mesh Screens 18 26 Wedgewire Screens 12 46 Submerged Diversion Sill- 2 0 Curtain Wall with Air Bubblor 2 0 Variable-Speed Pumps 2 1 PARTI 4 14 01616.WP5 l
r 5 4 ENGINEERING
SUMMARY
x The present seawaterintakes for Millstone Power Station consists of three separate shoreline surface ints' as, one per each of the three units. The intakes are similar in design having vertical wet ,_., type circulating water pumps (non nuclear safety related) and service water pumps (nuclear safety related). Each intake incorporates traveling water screens, coarse bar rack's, and curtain walls extending below lowest water level. Eachintake draws water directly . from Niantic Bay. Total station withdrawal from Niantic Bay during normal full power operation of all three units is 4358 cfs. Unit 3 withdrawal (2097 cfs)is approximately % 'of the total with Unit 2 (1282 cfs) and Unit 1 (979 cfs) each withdrawing approximately % of _ the total. This engineering evaluation consisted of an initial overview of available mitigation measures which offered potential reduction to the entrainment of winter flounder larvae into the intakes.
.These technologies would achieve reduction to the entrainment into the intakes of fish andL fish larvae through flow reduction, prevention of'entrainment, and reduction of entrainment.-
-From this overview the following alternative cooling system schemes were selected for
' detailed study:
- Natural-Draft Cooling Towers
- Offshore intake
- Fine-Mesh Screens
- Wedgewire Screens
- Diversion Sills and Curtain Walls
- infiltration Systems
- Operational Strategies
- Reduced power / flow
- - Variable-speed pumps
. Scheduled refueling outages Forced outages
- o1516.WPs 5-1 PART l-
. , . _ . . - - - _ _ _ - . . . _ , _ _ . _ _ - . ~ ~._.__-m , - m_,m._ -
3
, I I' l B ,
CooNng Water System Attematives to Reduce LarvalEntroinment >
... t Preliminary designs for these selected alternatives were devel'oped for Unit.3 only. A tra)or '
reduction in fish end fish larvao entrainment for Unit 3, which draws % of the total station. e flow, would represent a major reduction to station entra~ nont. Cooling towers would achieve reduction in fish entrainment by reducmg intak.e flow to only , that required for cooling tower me eup. Two salt water cooling tower alternatives were , l evaluatet a full-size natural draf t cooling tower and a % size natural draf t cooling tower. The existing condensor crossover valving and waterbox design pret,sure would allow conversion - to a closed loop system with the condenser operating in a two-pass configuration. Natural- [ draft cooling towers were su ec+ad based on the results of previous studies conducted fotL MNPS. The cooling towers would be located in the existing wooded area to the east of the switchyard, New pumping stations would'be located at the cooling towersi Piping for the 9 new closed loop circulating water systems would be routed in a common cut and cover trench to the north and east of the station and wou'd join the existiag circulating inlet piping to the west of the turbine building. Valving would be provided to operats either the existing once- . theough system or the closed loop system with the coohng towers. The nuclear safety related service water system would remain unaltered with the cooling _ towers. New makeup water pumps would be installed in the existing Unit 3 intake structure, Coohng tower blowdown . ! would be discharged to the quarry. A chlorination system would be required to control biofour"I of the condenser tubes and tower fill. A dechlorination system v ould be' required for th wdown. c Construction cost would be very high for a cooling tower, and there would be considerable : costs associated with the loss in performance. Maintenance costs wou!d probably also be - high but were not evaluated, i An offshore ir'take would place the intake outside of the confines of Niantic-Bay Entrained . fish and larvae would be drawn from the entire Long Island Sound population in lieu of the confined Niantic Bay population. The offshore intake attemative would consist of extendingL j the Unit 3 intake approximately 1 mile south into Long Island Sound, : A rock tunnel was selected to develop cost estimates, The offshore end of the tunnel would terminate with a- ! veloGty cap structure located in the bottom of the sound. A booster pump station would be located at the shoreward end of the tunncl to provide added pumping head to compensate f or L , hydraulic head losses in the tunnel. The offshoro intake system would be-joined to the I existing Unit 3 pump structure by-_ double sheet' pile watts-with-tremie concrete filler. A: " nuclear safety related flow bypass system would be provided for the service ' water pumps. . .
- Dypass gates for 50 percent of the circulating water flow would be provided ' A chlorination: -
system would be required to control biofouling in the inleti shafts, and tunneliand a . d0 chlorination system would be required for the circulating water discharge. _ Experlence at PART1 52 ' (01516,WP_S { I' I _ 14 F , w -,, , ,s . , - . - , ,-. p..e, p-.,. , . s,-,. --
,-.,w.
_ 4 ,c-... wI w - .,-..ww- me -,s ,,- t ,-
s i a' ' b ,;
-i
^N ' Afilistone Units. r, 2, and
- _. 3 - .:
L 4 Seabrock Nuclear Station and the sewage outf all tunt al currently beino constructW in Boston 1 l m Hwbor were utilited for design criteria and cost estimating, ; d l The conutruction cost for an of fshore intake would be extremely high, construction timai would bu lengthy, and the project would be difficult due to uncertainties in rock stability and j permeability. Also, ciof ouling; of the tunnel from mussels and oth3r marine organisms could :' s be severe and difficult to control. Chlorine (Cid will killlarvae. 3 Fine-mesh screens prevent fish and larvae from entering the intake by intercepting them and , i returning them to Niantic Bay with a fish retum system. The fine mesh ,1 to 2 mrn) seseens: E require an approach velocity of 0.5 fpn to prevent overloading of the screanS by debris,- A through flow fine mesh screening System for Unit 3 would consist of eighteen 'to foot wide traveling screens, housed in a screening structure 276 feetlong by 40 feet widt that would - , be constructed directly in front of the existing Unit 3 intake. A forebay would be creat0d, . 4 connecting the existing intake structure to the new fine-mesh screen structure by double' sheet pile walls. A nuclear safety tclatt i flow bypass system would be included for the service water pumps and bypass cates would be provided Ior circulating water flow Fish and '. larvae collected on the fine-mesh screens would be returned to Niantic Bay to the east of Bay. Point by a sluicmg system, Aiternate fine-mesh screen design utilizing angled through flow screens and double entry drums screem were also eva:aated.. 3 Fine mesh screen technology has been successful with cortain species and sizes of fish and larvae: however, success with stage 3 winter flounder larvae was not found in the literature,- There were also concerns with debris clogging of fine-mesh screens, which is prevalent at_ MNPS during the spong season. Wedgew;te screens < educe or eliminate entrainment of fish and larvae by taking advantage of natural cross currents to sweep fish ant !arvas past the submerged screen units and by utilizing small screen slot widths to block entry of smalllife forms and iobris, A staggered-L array design for submerged wedgewire screen units with_ six collection conduits .was-developed for Unit 3 The staggered array design with alternato long and short collection . ! - conduits.would promote better natural flushing of screen units. = A -plenurn structurej
, constructed in front of the existing intake structure, would gather the flow from the collector pipes and distribute it to the existing intake bays. An automatic air burst system would be
[ . provided to backflush the screen units,' A chlorination system may be required to control L biofouling irithe coriduits, The plenum would be equipped with a nuclear safety 4 elated flow; bypass for the service water pumps and s9parate oypass gates foi circulating water.E An alternate bulkhead design is also presented but not costed.
'01ste. wee 53 .
PART l'. x *
-- - - - - - . -~~ . - ~ ,. , ..-.- , . - - . ~ . . . - -,
1 5
' ' i
" Cooling Water System Attema'Ives to Reduce LatvalEntreininent .
Wedgewire screens are not in ut,e at flow rates as high as the Unit 3 circulating and service - water flows. There is also the strong potential for Srvore debrio clogging, biofouling, and corrosion of the Wedgewire screen units in the marine environment of Niantic Bay, FDersion sills and curtain walls can divert a portion of the flounder larvae away from the ! intakes. Concrete sills constructed of Jersey type barriers placed on the bottom of Niantic ; Bay in front'of the Unit 3 intako offer the potential for diverting a portion of the flounder ' larvae away from the intake. A design is presented consisting of a vec shaped barrter that I' wotJd be constructed m front of the existing intake. The sill has an added potential benefit' of diverting silt away from the intake, Additional angled vanes that would be phced upstream of the sill are included with the design to enhance nilt div'ersion, t An alternative to the sillis a floating curtain wall with an air bubble floatation system, The f floating curtain wall would also be angled to divert larvae to either side of the intake. The curtain wall would be supported by piles driven into the sea floor The floatation system , would consist of multiple diffuser pipes installed on the sea floor in front of the barrier and would be supplied by compressed air from blowers located on the shore. ! There are no reported installations of diversion barriers or sills for the purpose of diverting fish ~ '. larvae and thatefore no quantitative data is available for determination of offectiveness. Infiltration systems consist of arrays of perforated pipes installed in the bottom sediments, Water enters these pipes by percolating through the overlaying sediments-into the pipes, s These systems wnutd prevent the entry of fish larvae Existlng systemsin the United States 1 have capacities an order of magnitude less than the. Unit 3' operating flow These systemsi , have clogging and rnaintenance problems when high yields are attempted, A. European design offers potential improved perfermance, however, a review of this design 'which incorporates-
, a patented filter media' design indicated it could be subject to clogging in the high detrital' environment - at MNPS.- For these reasons, infiltration was eliminated as a nonviable
-technology for the high MNPS intake flows, '
Power reductions do not resultLin corresponding cooling water flow reductions;'however,. ; significant reductions in cooling water flow could necessitate a' roduction in station power'. production. Isolation of circulating water pumps during the spring season was not considered . ; '* a viable optmn due to operational difficulties and a degradation of plant safety. Variable-speed drives for the circulating water pumps allow reduction in circulating water flow < during periods of flounder larvae activity.- Reduced circulating water flows would result in-increased condenser tube fouling and would.likely require a reduction in unit' output or an - g PART I 5 4L 01518 WP5 r- s y + , -i y e *, ,,e. mw ..,m., ,,, , , , . , , . . , . - . . , , ,,,-.-,,..._.,% .%,. ..,m,d'.,_._,_mm .%..., , jh_4
; . . ... -.g,. - - . _ . .. .. .
nu I'
},( t l
3, j 1< l Afdistone Units' 1, 2, and 3 l _ .i r outage. A twu-speed drive system design was developed which would operate the circulating- l
' water systern at either full flow or % flow.
I fiefueling outages ' eduled for spring and fall seasons. Spring refueling outages will j occasionally occur o..ang some or ail of the period of larval entrainment. However,it would ~l be extremely expensive to guarantee the exact timing every year. Forced outages of one or= l n mors of the MNPS units would also be extremely expensive os shown in Table 5 2. ' i Cost estiraates were develooed for the selected alternatives, Costs are order of magnitude -1 and include direct costs, enginesong, construction management, AFI,. contingency, outage costs. and performance penalty costs. Table 51 provides a summa:y of cost estimates. ; A tabulated evaluation of the selected altematives in terms of constructibility, compatibilitv q to Unit 3. operability, maintainability, plant safety, biological ~ effectiveness, environment , impact, and coste,is presented on Table 5 3. - t 3-I r: A i I h
'k u
l '. f
'}-
a l} - _ . .... '"
. . . . . . . . ., . . . . - . , , , . - . _ -..,.=-...:--., ..~ - , , , , . .- , . - , , . . .
l s t s o N [ i
* ,) 1ll c
_ l a M u s d 1 e t t r a t e 0 e c e n ~ r s 0 0 0 a y u cs n o nS 0 0 0 a e c o 3 8 8 ht _ C A A ht is 1 1 / 1 r d
$ $ N W $ s s e d l
e v n _ l o a d y r t e er *
- lt n
a e p u pot 0 0 0 a y t u 0 0 0 0 0 c S o 0 0 8 0, 0 ha r e o oM 3 2, 6 2 2 n p i lu w ig n T 2 3 1 1 3 s f
$ $ $ $ $ io o _
e t a t I b r p d l e p u e u o d k s
- o e wne e 0 0 0 0 e
. c e
f o :s s ge 0 0 0 0 l r s o r d c r 1 6, 0 6 b a u t ht g eS v 2 7 A 8 5 r e a n 3 Y 1 1 / 4 6 d n o 9
" $ $ N $ $ i l a m 9 _
" s n u 1 o t 2 _
"Y )y c p g m e
Ra h ss
- e c n i n e g
AD en b o m a _ Mt Mee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d l c s u s
. r e
Mne - ec r 3 2 0 2 u o r e s . ht v a Us n iS 9 8 A 4 2 c ht at n Se r F 2 2 5 ,u o n _ 1 / y sp o 1 EP $ $ N $ $ e o t t m ht t so u t 5 Ts c o u t e ia p E AO h u t r t 6 L MO e
- c d r efiu o u $
B O 0 u f o A I T r e ok 0 0
- 0 0 Mt d
n ot o w d 3 T Sin hst a 0 0 0 0 7, a p p e t E s f n 0 1, 0 0 7 t a s d e i r f 6 t t u n t Ta O i 1 9 4 1 d s n e U r Sl l 6 8 4 2 1 e o ed n v Oo $ $ $ $ $ d u c e me es s i s f o m n CD it l c v co r e e r i Li n i lar a p g t a i a w t r AA r e t o l e e3 o h s n T( n r r p s E O o w f f i on t l T e o t n O' a vr T
- r a n e U e C g% '
3' o uf m S a n 0 0 '0 0 s s l a o e L 0 0 0 0 0 t s i c U e ilo' 1 3, 0 0 1 o e v. re a N c o 5 9 8, 2 1 c p t a l p e a C 3 4 9 1 7 e m nh es e c , f t $ $ 3 $ $ c o s r a e e l r 's n c t p R a r pO p e o n o e r e f t C c o t r t e eS x s es n r nU e t e ia a ) t s - v w o s eN 1 o . c sr i m v r t a n TWg 0
*
- d e
t a it o af ( e e!a r ,0 0 0 0 0 0 n l t o h! e ' a m u0 o t k1 0 0 0 0 0 m1 N t n it n d l A lo 1, 1 7, 0 8, s u0 s o 4 2 4 2 8 so e c2 a o2 m C 8 i a e - e 9 e 4 6 1 1
$ $ r e s 23 o9 e
t s p e 99 m s1 a Bt o a y h 99 S O T 1 1 S s T S r e
'n s l a et s S E o t c n O t
a it s o i t p n aC o o C T ip a l O ; W r c C C my it a ag L N 1 2 3 4 S g t s r t r as A I s c lat ola e tt n e e t s f r n t s n us T T l o i D k oo ee o eOc O R o D TC PP LG( C T A. C lI, ! P , R
i Millstone Units 1, 2. and 3 TABl.E 5-2 TORCED OUTAGE COST ESTIMATE FOR 25 PEF 1 CENT ENTRAINMENT MlTIGATION Cumulative Replacement Power SEEDf!L!Q _191tl.!D.1&lliontollM2JL_. Unit 1 Of thne 4/2 to 6/13 $214 Unit 2 Offline 4/2 to 6/13 $307 Unit 1 & Unit 2 Offlino 4/2 to 6/6 $519 Unit 3 Offhne 4/2 to 6/6 $310 Unit 1, Unit 2, & Unit 3 Offline 4/22 to 5/12 $318 LLOIES.1
- 1. Estimates are 1992 $ grossed up to full output for each scenario.
- 2. Some years had no replacement power cost because a scheduled refuel overlaps the time period.
- 3. Estimated costs starting in 1993 through year 2010.
- 4. Dates of fline are approximate. Part 11 of this report discusses rationale for dato solaction.
- 5. Maxtmum mitigation for Unit 2 is 13 percent.
- 6. Explanation of how the cumulativo replacement power costs were developed for powar reduction cases using not fuel cost deta included in Appendix C.
- by year each cas9's (Case 1, Case 2, etc.) replacement costs were grossed up to full plant.
- these full plant replacement power costs were then expressed in 1992 do;lars by discounting at 11.78 percent per year.
- these full plant replacement power costs in 1992 doiiars were then summed.
- this resulting value was then reported as the cumulative replacement power cost for the case, i
o t s16.wes 5-7 l' ART I
Cooling Water System Alternatives to Reduce LarvalEntrainment
' TABLE 5-3 EVAlltATION OF ENTRAINMENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR MNPS Plant $atety - Badog cal Emronmental Cost Teest Cost Constructb34ty Compatbihty Operai.iisty MaintaenaNety Regulatory tenpect EU., t. _ _; impact E;'sc- - ~n (Maices)
Cocling Tower F F F 7 P G P P 70-30 Tunnel 'P F: F 7 P G-7 P P 120-120
, Fine-Mesh TWS G F P P F P F P 55 1= Wedgewire Screens F F P P F F F P 70
- Siits/ Barriers G G G G G P i G P 2 Power / Flow ' n/a n/a P n/a P G n/a P n/a Reduction .
Variable-Speed G F P F P G G P 30 Pumps Scheduled Refuels' nia n/a n/a n/a 7 G n/a P n/a Forced Gutages n/a n/a n/a n/a - n/a. G n/a P 200-520
' NOTES:
P - Poor-F :-- - : Fair G' -
' Good -
- n/t - Not applicable
-? ? .: .
Evaluation incomplete due to uncertainties 4 PARTI- 5-8 02555 " 5
APPENDICES A. Coat Estimates of Design Alternativos B. Cost Estimates of Performanco Penalties C. Cost Estimates of Forced Outages 1
'i PART1 ot si s.wes Y--___---_--_____-__--____-________-----_-______-_-____-____-________-___________-__
t' s $\ j
-h APPENDICES ,
h i A. Cost Estimates of Design Alternatives , B. Cost Estimates of Performanco Penalties i C. Cost Estimates of Forced Outages ; b I-6 (- v
,1 ?
[ .' t
..e l
\ IwnTi oisis.wes. [ f- 4'- m' s =^m<e- e y e,%9,.,, sw i r , ...,,p... .,pg.5 3,. , , . , , p,, , . , , . , , ,, _, , , _ _ ,
.. . . . _ . . . . -- .~...,.. . . . . . . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . . - -
_ .~ . . . . t
'I l
M: : l J COST ESTIMA TES OF. DESIGN AL TERNA TIVES t t f i i 4 , t I l' 3 (: i a L
. :y ci51e.wes- Ai PA.RT l'L
,g,,, .y,. , . , , g ,, " 'j. ' '2
--.----.-.__m. .m..... ,.4.- . . . , .7, w. g , .j
I i I h
. -- ~ ~ - ,
ee : 0 0 4 y>>I!'4 m : a a b W . O O . g g e, dgoi. E. a. a.a a. E. l
-g: a g y.~
s-e, g n*
- g. .
g i aa e d :
- a.. : .,
A . t* 8 m: 53: y , . e
- a. r
-r s s u q: s s :i . . a h l 2 3 ..
-9 d 4 4
W. E ,; lt. H. H. a. R. .
*n g !. B. E. ii. - 9 9 q
; a-- e a
' 5- :
l l l l l l l W- ! : : : : :' 1 : : : : :
.W : : : : :
g ' m 5 . : : : : : a 3 : : : : : : W. : :
$ - i : : : :
*l :, .: : :
l l l g' tt j : : : : : u lN I ! ! ! ! ! . . 'i gu : : : : : :
'd 5 '
gg. l t
- : : : J ,
-. .: : : : y .
E '.
- i : ; * ~i
* . . . ;.!. if
't ! : : : : :-
- U $" -1 : .: : : '
-w :- : .: : :- @
eW:
- . L': 3 u 1- .
. s ,
bl t'5l
- : J : * '5 .
. . w . E *
. !b f l t : 6, >
- y s
Ohm ! - d- 5 . -' !
"n : *9 x
~g _3 g ~ "'.:- : E :
,. j m . L' :i q , :5 j1 sEE j - - i- -
"s b
+
' 5"- . ::. M5 ' "
.a R
.' .t
-t-W u
$g
.u -a 64 -
O 0U tJ .
,, 4 ed I. g g p l ', ' ~
/F g - a ;
O 1 .
. <.G,0 W . 8 - 2 3 R*
e a t. - -* e it - ;
.d'<y- . l 4
F y ; c, hF -
< . b., -
t 4e 1 + - , 44 -- .,-..,,-.4 -
. 4 r , ,. ., , Z, ., i B,.I." ,_ _4 , - ,. ,
c.; - ....; 5 %e q; M
~- W9sCR1A -'!WTR;XTUCT" Ole ~ STOKE & WEBSTER ENG!ETER!nG CORPORATton J.O.1723303 - COOL T044R-100% PAE 1A
, CLIENT - - WCitT# EAST Utti tTIES Sm!CE COMPAmY REPORT DATE: 11/25/92 i
**** MAft!RAL 04AF1 COOL IWC TouElt - 10CG SIZE *****
PECJECT - MILLSTONE Uls:T 3 ALTERWATIVE C00LimG WATER SYSTEMS STUDY Esit=4TE DATE: 11/25/92 ESTImME mcTES fatimate basis' M foltrws:
- 1. . Present day prici.a as of 11/!J92.
- 2. Stscontr+cted labor setes es of 11/1/92.
- 3. .. forty hour work ueek, single shift operation.
- 4. Dredged assterial to be disposed cf locatty, asswed to be not centamir.ated.
- 5.. . Required construction t:tilities supptled t>y ewer.
i 6. ' tand.recpaired for construction tretiers, parting. and lay sourt prodded by ower.
- 7. : Escalation not. included.
. 2. Ai:endorment costs not ird$ed.
9: Demolition /relocattart cats ret included.
- 13. Lost revenue cbritu station shut downs for tie-ins not incit,$ed.
- 11. . sales, use, service or other tazes ret included.
- 12. Inuitsers ett-risk insurance not included. .
'13. Severe cWiegency costs such as those A sociated with adverse weather, craf t strikes mt incitz$ed.
- 14. . $ tart w costs ret included. .
- 15. ' Permits including emironmental not included.
- 16. Evtoyee trcini:t certifications, secuelty costs ret included.
- 17. nio Category 1 uoric included.
'_18. Estimate stiowance for irsterferances along cfre water pipeline trmth included.
- 19. - Electrical ducitank to te included within trench.
l t s
~
t ,o;
- +. s l 3 + % g - w - ~ # yy 3 , , w r, w w $ - *=+ . . . , h r, ,. . ,, -m-' . , - > . - _t , _ - .wu - ,
?
j u E ; gJ. . . . j 0 f. a Em3 0;
.g;G:0ll; J j : -- ! .4 HEE 9EBR 159
$- 3 H
4 . . . ..
"w- w e
o ~ z w. -: ,
-g"$, v".J-! a. E. B.R.I.E.R.G.E.W.E. . 9. - 9. -
j gz R. I.?.H.r3
+6 , - -g!;
- -g g j$gastsg as 5 9 g ggs d
. .R 4 .. r . e e- . .. q
; a.. . :
,18 .. u:s!. E. S.$.$.3.H.E.R.R.2.- E. . a. 9. E. 3. 2. !.L ,
%-W' $
.R $ 3 N 4 M R S -- 3 g 3 2"Q : $ =
pu Sg;- . , a.-
-g i a :
A Sg!.
. a. l. ' a.a.$.a.a.R.a. l.a. R. 2 R. ' E. . S.H.E. l.'
jaj . f, R, HRE***! 88 3, . E,L w ff!!E 3l 3, 1 :, 8
~~
gel- C C88ccCC CC 8 -~ 8 E 8 8 8 o 3-- Sh'i; $ $$$dddd :$$ $ '$ $$$ ' $- , , 1
$l! $ $$$$$$$1 $$ $ $ kk$ $
i ., 12 it:-! i sinisin in.-
.gicigji .
<!.E- 4_tl g g_ ggggggg: 8 8. . 8. - 8. , 8. 8. S. 8. -
gg . . ....... . J:[ w . I h "g . . l j h !k hh - h kh P
=
5: 5 -5~ 3555555-' 55 .0- 15--55515: '
.9 ooos.o 9 o -oqo99o9- Eco- o.
.s l e -emeeuw --
g ew _ gew-eg gm h,> l .3 - l
' g,.- -
1-.
. u- : , ,
3 : .' s x4 0 of
.=g E. :
-= a E..s g, {
9- 8*.a, 3g.- o ' g , gg. g5 !' E W $ h.a :e ,,," '5'
- f lh.. $y hg.5;; -
gua.ces -g-s
- - .gw 2b.,q.s.#e ". "g w.e=.:ca my.E ,s$..-
. u m.
rs_ .,,,_,
; og,- 5Wg c.w.
..- E"B"
=
s t g.*xx
., g .d t
.g C ' l B! :dm 9 E h' 2 5 4 W .
B R a -'d ..g Iag->: . g y g q =2 W J . 8 %' ? :: 8. ca . -
..:. 5' .:WS:- '-
m 3*Sm= N 5g.NEggs *@5 1
- W;' t :-
j _ne
~ -
'g g H g 3 338ug: .
25 g & ,s j* g' :n-gszu m a -gga
- git , i. a ! .. . e . .g rws ~
c n 3 Ji ar , seas $,v gggk33g5g) p < m I g -*g t a E<+ r: n W w
- 4== E:gngs gj g e- a 2
8 d*5 R
~1 5 pak" 3 :Ws g - . r ...gg, s u l't l' o '3 a : .g. .
. E. ggg WEv$s 2 -.og
- - ==C L:<"~
s r E
- g. 3
- 3. 858.N x d.EEs .g -
50.: A 3"E p2 e3 5 5 5.e - v . <
- r * ..- 6 2 d d : *.3 t-t . ;,
-W
, isd j jf - w- '
wz g uq j 'j;; $ $. s. g - - 2: *'R 4 R$7 RF . -l '" - d2,% ?RQ' ~ 5[A* !
, 5E.W5: 0 -
# 'M. :D C02600A- s40 -
,. :g *::8
,_ 8 w- c-s- .s.-
- 3 3 w-.', ; g .
- g 'mg {a g
.- @ c ] -_ [ Q$@@@@NL - @ @! @ .ggl ghgg! lg g i . j :]l *a lr l ,.
.:g ...s ., --,,.m m, ,m,
+ ,qqBmao w - 5 r; g e s g - g; .g- ggggggg- .gg: _ g ggt . g g -g g--g ? :o- p;y i
~ ~ ' " ' ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~
[@ $34EI E!:; "
+4 yg >
^ Nh 4 f.
.7 ,
,t ,
, 6
' 5'f I ,a 'f.fi s !, 's' , ., ,, __f,e'.,,. ,, + ,, , , <,Jr-
,,, ., , ,.n. . , _ r ,, 'l',.
)[
~
EE ! i w-on g:
- e. .
sas 4 seen
- - gsg . .
e
~ gRp
.- s ggR .n~ -~gg<c; gue.--
e a 4 -- - ~ -3 - - n 3-W W- : tila E BEHa s 6G50aa598 E SEB $N3 GEEN SE9 E : 0 l l! 9 $je ! R' iii nii disi did i siin i d'"diiiii Y i g, i d 4 A. .
. i
# 8 5 E R 8
. .. gB: E. " E.I. . E." U Cx ~. E.U $. .- . 4.$.6. ~8 .. 3.3. 6.3.E.E- .N 6.0 .
r y _ sg:: 3,
*** W 2 2 R*R 2 A"R RGN
- o - bnEi h*R m- - y., .
l
-E d W l
4 $E!$ $ EE6E E EE!@$$E$$ 3 $ EE- $3 E: E
% g l g' di's d'adiging J is si a ;
i i i l I :s s _a E!!s. 888 8.8.8.8 8. 8. 8 S. R. S. S. S. S. S. C. N. R.3. 3. 8 5": *** $$$$ $$$ SSS 383 3333 333 l5g .. Ot: Eggf,
. 3:. ,R a. g . n.. Sgg n.. R
, ,S, S n,888, ,RgS,8 ., R, d,8 ,
,. oog o44g meg ooo ooo oooo oco N g,E!
5
#:!8 8888 888888838 8 38 38- 8 l" dg5 GQ::'
W. a E'g* n- J"- a 'dl'ga; 432 - p' E A JA dA .K S < a : E" n n* e w
- L 55 , Ef5 3553 055555550 000 OCD Caud 500:
8 ::9 o 9 *. = o 9 o.o c o o o 9 oeo ooo . 9 a c o' o*o-h E si~ E**~ 3~~#~k"O~ lEl hEEE$llEE
- s 2e 5::
- - n as - -+
*O :
M" x- g de L * ~
.35 p-
- 3 WW _
sk uS wS.W v0 w a
- R oo-On om DE O* 6' ,O 5:3 20~ 3rW i W
gi w.
$a~ Swo. .
- y -2.
wes
- r. 3 r.
.s g=s ge-.- ge g .e.
r
$a~g 8:t
- r g.e .ar r B .ers sr we
-:- -em egt ea e e
.s.ggwgq w
- .. .e $ =t-e uge.ac een e 5; g -W v:
S:3 5 bob 4*e42dok
.55 W 55 a a !wnLgaat.sw gjd
- .m g g.
- -s g::5 he .e!- H e. .e !*- _a: g.! ..,8..,s..,
4.a: "'-- a e wl5 L.
- - <- <- 5 sdd2 . .,9 d d 2 Jd d 2 d d t-a $5iiU5*dE5 e:g
. 5 4 WEdsn "# . : 15:: #: - 'W-
=sa ga:
- gIrhehe s
2~ 3 u ' E f( 2 8reeeh: set:es e S 556sGyEMudygE55di5 aca .. s,es. .cn . Q
.. .J n
*
- w w
's # 5 W :-
iR 5 5 5 $~ ss3 Rass x!xg 883 udg R 2Rg 22 R S*R gn ~.5:a m$$p ace 4 ~~a a Lenn~2.E"o*hJ u - - v
-.5 $o: B 3 G B h 5 W - - -
'y W. t.xe .
w-
.- .- .:8 8 ggggg .8 88888$8g8g 8 8888 888 88 g $I R s- - t J E i ;. E. ". - . ~ . , 9 99999.9.9. 9 8248 883 88.g8-$,8g#.
,4 ,. .
,88888
~-
-;.-5 g,
'o d ..'
g.8 5:
. --- 8 8 8.- 8. 8 8-. 8 8 8 ---8 8.
8 8888 8,_88 3.888-- .--- .8.88
- 8.;-. 8:
- ~ee ~. .
.A 0'F g":.g:g y $.2g 2080M82 2 R $
. g .>- -
< -- -~
@ agg28g"n~ .n m~m. n. - ~38-Mg:g.
. n
~
3 . . eW : 1 a : E. 358. B.3.3.E.312 4 S.4R2.3.B.B.- E EHEEEB E
!4 ~!- =! a se!!
g::g E. g e n n-aas-~ g savagge ~ - a ac-aga > -
.g nr.
a- :
.Ii g!!5 5 $sE EGEPREE R EBBEEEE B EEHESE S=
- r i
sy!i i did iadiisi i ininggi g' idaigi ( e 9 : ae : - . -
!egis sir R E a
RB a
$8 E !
a affa E R Baa ! , i sa i siti i add i
. r 4
i i 5- I W. .I S. S. S. R. R. S. R. S. C. R. S. 2. 3. S. c. c. c. 8. - S. S. S. c. c. c. ses sssssss a s-:s sssssss sesass-B - 4 uE g:s::g 92F
..; gS8SgR8 88p8Sgg
- n. m...
82[gRg n.. . .. , a . a~a oonaoao waanono ooo~og B$ g,k 0 IE We!8 8 38 38 S 2388. S d 888 . 5! EEig A #d *d d dddd d#d' e at
. g-:3 -
o
- n :
U w : aW $' - 5 i ti Gut Guttant bbDub"h 0 0 0 G3 5-5 -: o occ amonoco ooooooo o o oo o o'
.,- 5- '#
h!J *id e g pd *f d pdfddd 0,> G g $.' d-m' p dE~ 'f G' gy .- - A$ch g e e. S -s< -geGg*
-r eW 4 8M :
yG : a b du
*d
- y. 4 Y $*
gs :93 ""-
- =
a
-a s~" -! -!
e ;-
- v . g-te3.gg gs g
. g se e
2 . ax ew w 3 $, :5 g :: s-" eW*'u- u g R E- h g"n8 - 9-. ..,5- u eg, g c:-ceg g"5 B w-e ds.9 :*-e s.eg
)s.
~g -r "45 . . 8:ga g::s.s5e* - .W .g*- gg .
g-g4 w:p0wxgs 3 .g E gg" s . .;! u. gg go F gg!
.s
=g .
7 g ;. 1
#5e a -- 8 eeessee -s! w Were.
y veaeug 8 a 4e -v-
- v :Eg.g"e-
- U -- > - -
n A U-g.BEggs{cemet m.
- a*=: gg91.5 o g--e - 0u- -
- :4-.; g ,, :543"x30
; 0, Pw-53". E we2g- 8 s 3,NEgoesu358:
www < N7 a-== , u u tu. W::
- 4, 5 g g .g g u
pu>W P tM 5".-!' 8 . S H H.. ---- R H R H.. -.- . HHSH-w I E,EEGB: m
-* no h g e e
-gcQl"r w; a y*!B B RHR:RRRRRH R laH889H a' EHEEHE E$ '
b . g*e * ! "; n-.
".". . ......, " c ".
a2
-.8 5: -
8 8888
; " * ".. ' 8 8 8 8 --- ,8 8 8 8", ' ". '; ". ". '.;--*; 8 8 :. 8" 88888
----.8 - ---
"8888888 --
8 ~ 8,
.-> ~
, e g -- d ' . t M-: _ .b
^EE !
4 h - g s a > k"r:g3888
- N N 5 g :. ~t " . ~ a.
g
- E 3 RS- $224$ $.
R R A*834$
'd -
g - .- . 3 3 3 ,g 2 : J $ 0 5 5 5 3E $338E $ 0 E 0 003600 llb-{!28669 y
@ Dglisi@i
= ' '
i i ' i i i di d""i @ i i i *di'd;
- 3.. l.
A : k5 I*R .4 *e. *c. 3". lA "8 R8
.4 c.g g g ss g' s.
pE s.4 R 3 S g*0 S." A. I mW 33"g M :hS53g
! 4-A"CR* C * " #
g *" 3 -b $ 4 N 4 * " *S*- n - . . g ,,
. - m c >
E : d 4
$$! $$3 $ $ 0 !$ $ $$ @HE$$ E $ $ E $$$$$1 jfl ititj i a i is n 'i j i i i ";iu
. A E R R CC CCCCC C C C C 04 C 0 0.
[*f!SRCCC i d d dddddd"
? 1 lididi i s di didad )~E Ej!Ek33E $ $ EE EEE E $
ad$d 6d $$$$kM'. g ';_ a lddadf a a gf giffy d d e;ma;
;2 s :
0 : : 5 a 20: 8R8 2 3- 88 88888 8 8.8 885888. d d N. d d dddddd: e$ x [h! m d#d lld$3, a a* a w bb. M 8 .b WWW J d'. M WW e ::ss-s, e 2 se seses - , e ss-ess.
"" 5 S
$ a :: 8 8 g -
"'""E R 4 2.
$ 1- :le. gg-d 4
- ]91 g >Q 8-9 1 .,, .
- a :
M.r ae-j ggy,
-ssa a.d g g g* an mEO =W
- o r, "5
$e 3' E"$$ x . S
; E' 1 5(0 4 , . .~- SSf.
g e :: x-<b ;s .. sI.g: 4' : 86& $23 903 " d k SSs* s:8 o s .a - - n- ~n gm me 9 E::$-
-*~
5B-$+-ly" t
.I-X :: ggy cs -
w e:E am 5 9_ esa ew-rBe.se55sa se e
- mr-g !gm
- 3. v : g: .
sac d--r: d- 3_g p03 < *e n- *::s -! 3 a. a m. " > 3 ngr ege saa
- - *a 30 ug: :se-u
- q
$e n g5egda ye*,g-e
.a :
5dg ! s age .v8 s - s~ < U8c. Ut* yg 128
- esgs$$(snu D e"r <13a.g3 a53UrA$ss Mo R8
= a~ a m - .ss5 5r
.a.ilEd$ee_
. . .ss 3 - e .
5"5' -W !-
" 15542-
- 4 afafia s!siniEsses ua m g :-----
!s 3 -
ee 3 g tata. .s. s..a m. m 3 8
.g :s2 a. 4a a.. a . : - sis Gi 8 8 8 E2 Waf$s 8 s E $'Esaaff !l'7fe!EE,EER... - eH $$
a2 , f, , BEEnne nn- !!!a! S n E <: n D0. G n-e G $$3060 ennen E- 5_
- y.88888 5: 8 88. 8 8- 8 8 888 8.8888 '8--.8 88 - 8'888888 a u- E o
e
I
*EE 0- : I 4 RSg 4- S 33 SRG 2s#383 2 g S g R "23 -
g Q
= 5"3.2
- s
. . . . : I ee : J aa : ;
dii$ 0 SES 3 eag g 0 06 a sa IE g $$MlE sas g 963560 e asea 3 g a e E6$ se
$ 'g' egpgjs g w : ,
0 ' d l lb b N bbb~.~ . b.b. b. b.b '
- b. bb
,t bb.k.k b. b. b. b --
b.b. ,
.~a
~ -~ ~- ,, ~ ~ . . .
, .g,- g , ,
c i E i d W 4 MBiR 2 HN
%. E,a 8, 9 0 SER S .23938% 3 H E NHS
~-. ~ ; - ~ - . ~ . - - ,
ggj g
! I 5 CCC C C CC CCC C C C C C V: 80 CCC -
l*%in ddd d d dd ddd dddddd d ddd U s ld . g! b Eh!k k b.b. k ! k b. b. b. $. - k..! 4~! kaok., b.k k k b.b. ' L d u g,;m kr ooo g g gg o~g g uno-C !.
.5..
2 % #t:8 883 8 88 888 888883 8 888 . al
=e l,0ld n .
d5d 8( f gh Al if $$$$dd' h $$d
- A, #
W !
, 5j0 $tt 5 5 US b53 5555tb $ 552 < .g a ::= e=e e e ne ese 99e9=e e ese G ..
R S.8g
- GS" S***gSg "
- E 8, am 5:
au : gG :. x - .. g, 25 !E I N. g gs
-e
- es E
eg < Ei- p e t t; . H t *" .-
*J- d 5:; 5A N.
s$ = "m- B - {.8 w 6' 8 x:s 2 58- - g M Gg" b w. 1 c e ., E pag- 9: -ce
- g g saHd.
-- e )/ e x.a ap -
e g"- .g c"g - 9 g
.-a.
s-gs. a um2% g"ugr W ao u .t: se aura n, 8W i oyog#5 ans u ua ge5 g .. E= KW g WEEE gg; m: : j us< Igg!h ute,sl31e . s ae g,is"l,a 9 as u ! gs anse a as .- !yers !s. la.E es c:2.
- s ss -
- ssa -
- massam -is
- ahs c s!g-5 .sss s.
pgs g $ 'g3 5 g, a 5 aas5SE 5 g 5 .:ssa g gs! 4 a ., a s 2 39 : sasasu u- 4 4 g e,2s. 4
- ij j g":0 4 E
Haa a a- aa 4 E 4 Baa E .Blassa E aE aff 9l p . . p.:g a saag a a sa P 2 ss E EEEE-
-re- l1 -e gain 5:s
- 4 MM8n M 8 ssss a 9 88 suas g-gt3.22
#: n nn a saas 4 +Bs.ME"002 a gsasg88 nn, -- n n n 8 88.
e nnnt 8 8888 g 7 g. a;- - ---- - - -- - ---- - --- - - -- - .---
- m. _ . .
Q N N -s R R '
,h$lf; g
S b. k S.E.
- b. b.
~
W
<=
e : 0 $ #$!E@ $ 3E$ E $$ $$ 2 3 5 E. eE t k g ! 'a i dai i i i i -f
. - fi - if .
l.n 7. 1 A : 5 $ 6$$ $ Ed $$ 0 $ 6 R i glE!EE s la . a ai e gi di i i a EE d W 4 5E!'$$ @ $$$ 3 $$ 63 3 E 3 a < < h lll : ai i di at i i 5 E!RC 000 R8 CC S C S [3!ss (-
= 1 ddd is is s i s 9E
,W fiita g,:;og ara
.oo 48 o-as go 4
o 4o 4 s a d .r O s EE # R8
- 880 38 88 8 8
$8g
-EE:-.; E a 8 4* dd dd d d
- 2 5 :
G w w :
;5 5:05 505 C au D "
b 3- DD w E t i 9 a. 99a 9a ao 9
- j-a : :g" "gg 80 Eg g S-
- g ji- 4 n~ t la :
M* i 8 U . ?
- 35- : . w g 4" w -
5'
- ;8 . E - "8 H5 2 :
8
-er ac r a
" N" SE d -
m 8 --et-E $8 ar3 8s- Ew ew : W 5'- e- s: [ 2. $ 1.r5"al sw 5-NRo 0
- e-n."ag 38sw
.8 .us .6 8Eg :: *2 b:s s 5 ,3g gr.- ;a w
. 3 a,egega ; ..
g" g
-w a: 2: I*r;Bu..v .m. s ga WW: e: - oat =-- .e 5 E a o r m8 g9 g=.g :a-wggy. o, g.n-g -: sy..
d: 5 - W ~l15 a: Ww gggg
~2 h:gggagy--Sw$ W- ygg dag gy.3 Wd W #
. : :se"s a n-~ es sg -nle,.r.g- -
s a g-et-*
- . . e.
- E05 5
W ss 5AM ~g -ns,sU@N
< BEO g_n; 8.8dTEWA.
o Og a sg ac0sI.-
< 8 5 es-[gu_n 5-gI
,5 I'
- E "t d :
- 54 BWB
-GEg a' ! 5 5
.-i QQ 5 454 lEca 5l s 4
as 4 e 45 R8 5 1 4 3 5 S' ta 22 51- d QQQ .4 2 $$ $ $6 d :- 3 33~
-lisg5:ss 9
Siaa n :.. E 888 E E sa s sa E E H Hs 0 m - t
@"::nn 88 .n-$3 8 o E n n .n .
8-n4 88-nn 8 n 88 en 83 n n n
~8 3 n
3-
.n.
a.5 Wg 5:88 g:-- 8 8888 8--- 8 8 88 8 88 8 8 81 8. 88
.o d a .
j,l1ll i f1lli!l ll l 7 2 2 . f 9 9 .
/ / .
5 5 RS. 6 3 1 0 0 0 4 2 2 OR .5 T 1 0 0 0 6 E G
/ /
1 1 BJn.2 A C, 3, 0, 0, 0, 1, A F 1 1 LK. . 1 3 2 1 1 1 0 8 1 E E . T T . A A C C 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 7 2 0 T E LR 2 0 3 5 5 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T. 0 2 0 T A A A T L 5 1, 2, 7, 7, 7, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 P M Ot. 9 1 3 6 2 2 2 7 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 1 E I T ( 7 3 0 0 C 3 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 R
- S T S
D 7 1 1 1 1, 0, 0, 0 0, 4, 4, 4, 4 E 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 M O 8 1 4 T : . 4 . L 3 . O : . O 0 S . 0 2 9 0 0 0 2 C 1 RR . 5 0 2 5 5 5 2 OA . SL . 7, 4, 5, 7, 7, 7, 4, E A L . 3 6 0 2 2 2 5 3 ' 8 LO 1 5 5 5 $ 5 0 0 3 I T D 2, 1, 8 . 1 0 2 T . 1 7 R . 1 O P
. E R .
D. J L S . 0 AR . 6 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 7 6 3, 4 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, N, 0 0 0,
*0, I A . 7, RL 7, 7, 0, 0, , 0, 0, EL 5 6 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 5 3 9 9 0 9 T C . 1 8 5 5 1 1 1 1 AD M
4, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 4 4, 4, 4,
. 1 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
. 3 a
c RR . 5 OM . 7 5 7 i B/ . T AS 3 2 A L 5 5 R . O T . P R ST . 0 0 R O R! . 8 0 O P . 0 C E R F R tm.0 . 0 0 G OR . 0 k L BE 0 I I AP 1 R A L . E T . E E . I G N C E A I . 08 LT I N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N C R . 0 0 0 E A E/ U.1 0 0 0 Y T S . 0 0 0 R C A . 0 0 4 E A M . 5 9 1 T F . 0 4 S . 3 4 B K . E c . W o . S S W 4 . F S
& 0 . L L L L f
E D T . 0 0 0 0 N U T . 1 O T 1 . 0 1 1 T S T . 0 S N . 2
- S A . 3
- M U .
- E Q .
- T .
- S .
Y . ES . Z . I R . 1 SE . 7 T .
%A . T T a 0W . N N 0 . AA TT 1 G LL NN T N FP EE N - I . MM A L . GG EE T FRO N . NN GG N wEO O . I I AA E 1 C WC I T T N N " 0 CO T AA A A F 1 TE P . RR PM G E V I . C EE A G CGI R . V PP 4N N I NT C P OO 0O A GG VI A S T 1 I M kb R L N E . 0 OC N TT 1 !
EOR D .. 4 T T E CC 4 RR SOE T M UU 0 EE G CT . M E NN E S E RR E 1 EE E N S L . C G I I G O G T T G T NN G i ET A S A i - - A T C A SS A T C I I A T R
- F K m EE K N N N N K N U GG K NJ E T A3 . C t I C U T A OO C U R NN C 1 t I E . 5" A fT A O C M CC A O T EE A t u LDT I I P m r
P C C E E N F C C s i s P C C i G TLN UAU L . A M . A t a R A B K R A B I D O I K R A e o C G N K R A S N E R . O U O U T O u I O W U T UE T 0 W S 0 W S - C 0 W S - R 0 S ST N SR 0 0 U 0 E 0 AAO EO . 0 L L 0 L L L R 0 L L L E 0 L A L A A t ENT . 4 A A 7 A A A T 9 A A A N 9 H T
- L S @S CO . 5
. T O
T O T O T 0 T O S N T O T O T O I G T O T O T C T R* L E . 0 T T T T T O T T T N T T T R O* I T S . 0 C E O N* M N P U 2 2 00 0 00 0 00 0 E - - OS . 6 6 00 0 00 0 00 0 R CT . 0 0 00 0 1 1 1 22 2 T CS . 5 5 5 77 7 7 99 9 9 99 9 9 t T C A t N E M 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Q E J E . 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 22 2 2 2 T I O T . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 99 9 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 E L R S . D C P .
!lll ,ll ;!!lI(fl ' ,ll iIfll! illI lI,lli lll lI
.e Qq .
n n ga: 8'>* * >.I s 2 l ". 8 r eW 3 8 : 40i $ $* $ $ $
- h. - WI i s -J : C d d g
'T = c 8: 3 3 3 3 -
hy 0 l N N N N i , A : : m t a : s g : ".- g - l 2 +
$ 1 ci e : .
Nfl $ $ $ $ $ 3 d a n' d m' j$. : 3 3 3 3 8 2 2 S S ? 8 gt:
- <k:
g . mj Ei! l W a g:: E E
- E . :a:; st: 8 2
u -
- (
0.:. n* O a l g
.2-w : -
W g- :-
. 5: 5 5 m- >
- o o 5 0 a
u 2:
- 12. $: . 9 o 14-- :
0 N" : et _ G"
- 5g
=
8 5
- W ~~
- M .
- E a
8 $
-W : =. 5 5 -
u- : : 5 a aa-
~
5: M 5 "a :: - 5 a ~El e m. 35
~
EI # E -g E- *--
- dg#
g g -g ! -a u g; y < -
- g- < M:
-. . 5 5.8 g
5 - 5 8 g W g - S .v :N .g gg_ ,,, Ogm-
- o-g$- --
r* 3 ---dd g 5
- 8 g
E5 st j g I 3 5 2 s-
.n_m . .. :. .
g .. <
-v v v e g=e-.35:: .,::- ,g n s- a s- a e-- s -. -a
- - E, .
. .s. - -
g:,ta. m .:. gg s s 8
' .-:. - . u:
.. E . a** a ,
d E . hl
- r *: g. pp .. .d. ..
d E e E-o 3 $$. - d 5-d a o. 8 5 .. -d 0.tl
- a -.*l -
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ . - . - _ . - . . _ ....n_, . . . , . _
SUMMARY
REPC::T STOEE & WET. STER ENG1kEE214G CIRPCXTton J.O. 1721503 - COOL TOWE2-2/3 PAGE. ~1. CLIENT - NORTNEAST tfTILITIES SERY1CE COMPANY STEM SLMMARY REPCRT TIME: 12:36:28 REPORT DATE: 11/25/92
**** WATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER -- 2/3 SIZE ***
PROJECT - MILLS 10hE tJuif 3 ALTERMAflVE C00LiwG WATER SYSTEMS STUDY EsitMATE CATE: 11/25/92
~
-STEM . MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL LASOR ACCOUNT- TITLE DCLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS HOUR $
100 DIRECT C0ST...................................................................... 27,274,015 T,840,496 35,114.511 140,487 910 CouSTRUCTION MA4A0EMENT.......................................................... 2.458,000 2,458.000 920 ENG!WEER!mG...................................................................... 3,512,000 3,512,000
. 930 ESCALATICE - PRESENT DAY........................................................
. 940 ALLOWAMCE FOR INDETERMINATES/ CONT 1RGENCY......;.................................. 8.200,000 8,200,000 7 0 T.. A L E$TIMATE 41,444,015 T,840.496 49,2SA,511 140,487 a
.q
'WBSCR1A . INTRODUCTION' STONE & WEBSTER ENG1mEERIuS CORPORATI(* J.O.1723303 - COOL TOWER +2/3 PAE 1A CLIENT - NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE C0MPANY REFoti CATE: 11/25/92
' **** NATURAL DRAFT C00LlwG TOWER - 2/3 SIZE *****
PROJECT - MILLSTONE UNIT 3 ALTER 4ATivE COOLING WATER SYSTEMS SitCT EsitMATE DATE: 11/25/92 ESTIMATE NOTES Estimate basis as follows:
- 1. Present day pricing as of 11/1/92.
- 2. Subcontracted labor rates as of 11/1/72.
- 3. Forty hour work week, sinate shif t operation.
- 4. ' Dredged asterial to be disposed of locatty, assmed to be riot contamir.ated.
$. Required construction utilities stoptied by cuner.
- 6. Land required for construction.traiters, parking, and lay down provided by ourwr,
- 7. Escalation not included.
- 8. Abandonner=t costs not included.
- 9. DemolitterVrelocation costs not included.
- 10. Lost revenue during station shut downs for tie-ins not included.
- 11. Sales. use, service or other taxes not included.
- 12. : Builders all-risk insurance not included.
- 13. Severe contingency costs such as those associated with adverse weather, craf t strikes not incitzled.
14 Start-tp costs not included.'
- 15. Permits inctea$ing envirorunental riot incita$ed.
- 16. - Esployee training, certifications, security costs not incita$ed.
- 17. No Category 1 work incttsted.
- 18. Estimate attowance for interferences along cire. water pipeline trench included.
- 19. Electrical d xtbank to be included within trench.
3 " { {-
.j L 202599 Es E a 9 9 AHL-c '
feGillt L
;: ; a w w_
S a ; R:
- c. ax ; ,
g<- .
'- h WI! E* $ $EEEd6 $. $$ $ $ $ .EIU i
- 5. 'rE t g';t $ E d.
d<niiin- i di - i
- 4 '
i a-' $'id -n i ho U ! d " d
- o2 !
$ $$$$$6 E- $$ E$ I' < 2I9' R5 lig !, d
$$$$dd .$. -
$$ i
- $'- W Add
_-- .g - t - : dW < 4
![i l' a alla88 a al a--H- E Raf' I :
E a REBRSE A 48 E-E J _ a RSE: o 4 o
.E- IE! 9 988999- 9 99 8' 8'888
._ 5"j M M$$NMM M .33 3 $ $$$.
Ik E. kE!E.E.k : k' kk' O. E Mkk ' g-l a EnasSE a Es a $$s-ggi: q l= . :3 E8 #tI 8 8 888888- 8 ~88- 8 . 8:f 888 + U r g..,- ; ;
, E $ 5 '555555 .5~ $$ ' 'i 5 555_- l g- g. g; o, o d
cooooo -o : o, o o
-_ , - ._o,N . o, c o ;
Q - ga e= e4N44N' N- - . * ' ; , O N et
,y ;e = '
.i 15 5l: :
]Ea i ..
g - N' . o -d5 = d=: - 5 : a c, g v.g nn .._. : , y .~ ~ ~ j ~
,e A-e lne #: (-- 4 R.
1 : !- E-5H , E . e g .fr . g
;5 84E _ sn,.,y ; .
=g 8g -- $ r 5 _ r $ 64 8 ? <
r 3a g "g gg v.a v -
.: , a
; s:
ss 3 v .g e ~w+ - Q s t ue!ik 1 E .- :: 5e= a- E.s i a g-sm we
~ v a ' y-d: - a E a. ..r '
r e;E Si
,8- :.';a segs a vi. a> g8 s-[;EE>g gi. WW G qa...ag!*u
-e s; g LE. gg , E!*eg;.9 -e. I e ms
-n-gan.gg-gga..D' t
..* $.e-g s -::. s igI.i ,
vaud r g gbeg . s:- Bgs5ag,&ael-m a s.
.g a
. ru p" ! iW
. glltg? . e, .$ a.E' E W' i
- - n!r i ~E~l a n H!.st=asa.ms .s
. 5.E a k s e n " v E gv-a -l: l. .$. r .5g~
ees . -
= 5= . - -. a. s-
-
- W
.' t;;$E dh g . ^i ' t i' k 15 R 8 *2R SS R8 :55 *l v= 4- r g!~ @i~g -.-
p- g [ ~a :O v e n nonBno.-E no- - ~
-q-;@,,.;j
.5 s' -
h! r. .-- < g.g -gg_-.g_8g: 'g;gsg
.:l: g gggggg_ g
, s :,.y -O .-le!
w .
...... : ". . : '. '. I'"'.-
--/".'.". r i d5g ' 5 : 8?8 . 8 8 8u
~ ~ ~
8-
~
888888
~"~~~~'
8-
~
88
~~
- 8:~ ' ' "
88 8M888' A
< - Wi di 2 *: ~
4 1 r -
--n - - -
c'sr --*-t 's- ----w **w ew-w.---m sr % -
!l 2 2 2 . 9 9 .
/ / . 000 0002 00 5 5 RS 0 0 136 0 6998 03! 8 051 2 2 OR 0 9 732 3 7 0 03t 4 605 001 5654 7
86 E G
/ / B u .. 0, 9, 1 2 1 3 0, 1, 6, 5,1 9 2,6 T, 4,1,41, A
r 1 1 1 1 Ao.2 LM
. 1 0
2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 32 1 E E . T T . A A . C D S 54e0 633$00080 8 036 005 5051 00 R . 00 0 0 5 T E L' 0 4 8050 4 099400950 8 853 005 2629 93 _ 3 R O T A AA . T L 0, 0, 4, 0,6,3,0, 0, 6,4 2,6,0,5,8,3,0, 7, 3,85, 7,34, T, 0, 2, 0, 1, 6, CL 4400 9 8320 8 497 463 8929 75
/
2 P E R M l i T O . 7 D .. 2, 2 0 5 7 5 T 4, 341 1 9 7535Q9199 6 2 3 - 1 3 8 9 5 650 6 1 0246 21 4 R S E E 1 9 W 0 . O 1 T : 7 L 3 O : O 2 S . 0 0 586 9 6338 088 6 036 005 5051 00 C 1 RR . 0 4 645 6 5994 0 2 6 053 005 2629 93
- : B L. . 0, OA 4, 9, 8, 0, 8, 8,442, 0, $',3, 2, 3,3,5, 1,3, 4, 7,4,2,0, 1, 6, E AL 2 5 317 2 9 7 612 8 467 763 8779 73 3 M LO 7 7 1 1 5 6 4 9 5 130 0026 4 0 I D 6 1, 1 6 1 21 3 T .
3 ? 2 T ~ 7 R . 1 O . P .
. E .
R . O. LS . 0 0 0 0600 6 000000200 2 0 00 - 00 0 J AR . 0 0 0 2500 7 500000430 2 0 00 00 0 I A RL 0, 0, 0, 1,7,3,0, 1, 7,0,8 4,0,5,0 0,0, 5, 5, 6, 0, 6, 0, 0, . EL . 0 0 0 0230 6 752822200 0 3 70 15 2 T O 0 5 0 34 1 8 5 44139 9 42 21 AD M 6 7 3, 3 1 6 8 N RR 0 000 0000 000 000 000 0500 00 O 0M . 0, 000 0000 000 555 555 5755 55 I 8/ . _ T AS . 6 666 6666 666 000 000 0900 00 A L . 5 555 5555 555 666 666 6466 66 - 2 . C T . P E ST . 0 000 0000 000 000 000 0000 00 R O RI 0 950 2000 000 250 050 5650 25 O C P E kN R U0 520 3440 0442 455 056 111 000 311 000 - 0000 1011 11 00 G N R L OR . 8 BE . 0 084 2 2 I I AP . R A L . E T . E E . N D LT 0 0 0000 000000c00 0 00 00 0 40 60 0 I G E G Ai I N 0 0 0 0 0000 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0.t.e00 500007750 0 5 15 05 5 C E A K RU.0 E/ T S . 0 0 0 5800 261 0 G0000301 0 T54601 070 R C A . 4 0 01 0 21 2 2 0 E A M 5 1 1 4 9 T F 7 1 S. . B K . E R . W O . W N . A S AAS FAAASFAAS YYY YYT YFYY YY Y U.E . L JEEL LEEELLEEL CCC CCC CSCC CC E D T . 0 0 0000 000000000 000 000 - 0000 00 N U T . O T I . 0 1 G431 022410621 0C ' 0 000 0000 00 T S T . 5 2 5 1 0 4 001 000 0002 00 S N . 1 1 5 5 075 001 0004 54 S A . 2 3 9 447 3631 6'
- M U . 1 3 1 23 1
- E C .
- T . .
- S
- Y ) *
- S . S L
- E D M) E F) 0 0S 0 '
ZR A EE N K 0 0E 0
. IE . O T h I B 0' K5 N1 K0D t2 kt ST . L Sl L /0 N1 I A . - C3 A( A AN 3W
/
. S 0
5 GSP E YL S PGGSPWGSP EN E X( E B T N BMS T C2 EC TN 2G . T 1 ETI NJ 8 EET I OET I H CC CN CR , Y N . I - E DI P WEDDI PDDI P SC UN URX UT N - I . K E G 0K OK05K W5K EN .DE DT N D A L . P R 9 A DA94 AO4 A NR R D~ PRO es . D I A D1 uM D1 L DI I T CT CDI .. CL MEO O . L P MPxLD o( xKLDBxLG L E EEP EO OWC I . E CR E l E ( E NTLL ,TLLCETLLF T CO T . W 2' SF " W"2 BP"R 8 8" W"8 R 8" W*8 P RECAENCAEADCAEI C OEM R EM N E C T, I TE V P . I R D L 1 I D E
,27D7 L & F,3 3 O L 3 F,4 D L 4 EFEM T
A LRRI
,EOOTEOO LRRSLLERr.EL
,L E O O M.E 1 NT C E R PP ,ER PE , ,ERE ,ER W SNF ASNF NF USNF N
S vI A .S I O MI P1 O UPPPI OPPI O N CC , ,JA V
, ,JO ,=,JO ,
RLN E . F F UPRF F EI RRFF I RFF E0R . P F KPF F PF RI LLDCLLDI ,LLDI L S0E CT D. . A I T N E GI
- A
,I AT H E A
MA , ,I AT HA ,I AT M E I TLLAXLLAT GLLAT L CAI I EI I ANI I AI S L . D G G NDWDG G - 1 WWDGII WD& DO G VF F Y mAKKTKKKTACKKT AK F F YVI FFYVF ETA . PI P A I O 1 A E0OO l A I F .
- RER K P" B E K P* BB" E' B E K l CCCCCCCQCACCCCC T A3 I R
. 2 1 F,FL F, C
A I 2 L 2" P7E7F R C A I 8L L 8 R 8" L 8" P3EE3F 4E4F R C A AXAA OAA MEBB - RBB- EBBB - EB XRAA XA LDT I . P P P I . TLN t . s .
'C K K UAU R e
R O R C R O . . T UE ST N T . 0 SR . 5 0 5 W 0000 1 222 W 000000000 1 23334555 W 000 1 1 2 000'.6618 345 0000 00 90 AAO EO . 6 6 L 777T L 888888888 L 444 444 4444 45 ENT DS . 2 2 A 2222 A 222222222 A 111 11 1 111* 11 H S O T T T T* L CQ O O O T R* L E T T T 2 O* I TS C N* M N P U . 0 0 0 00000 0 0000000000 0 0000 000 0000 00 E - OS . 0 0 0 00000 0 0000000000 0 0000 000 0000 00 C. CY 1 1 1 22222 '2 3333333333 3 4444 444 4444 44 T CS 1 1 1 11111 1 1 111111111 1 1111 111 1111 11 L- T C A . N E . 0 0 00000 0 0000000000 0 0000 000 _0000 00 I A T E I J O M.0 E T . 1 0 0 1 0 1 00000 1 1 11 1 0 1 0000000000 111 1 1 1 111 1 0 1 0000 11 1 1 000 1 11 0000 11 11 00 1 1 E L F S D' C P
. 4 '
i l m n n < F R R : a 4 C C E 2 4 $.Gg 2R8$402 g g ga>h'h:.A a
- g
. a.
a.
*-a.-~ - 4 2
a"4 83.8.g g
~~
S S E "S
.. . : l We :
i 8 a '
#E!3 E 9 9 SEB EdBE3EE E BEEEERS 3 HE2s -8lW! nlli i i i dai dii'a i di;igii i didi 3e,c i gE!3 8 0 0 $5E 6$6E330 '$ EE06EE6 E- $$35' ,
j i syli i i i dJi iddiida g di;iggi i insi.
-n . -
R E : d
- i 4 #Ei E E E E SE $$ E $ IEE3 E 3 E
%y::
1 i i i a a; da i a didi ga d: l s- D E .I R. R. R. R. R. 8. 8. 8. 8. c. 8. 3 R. R. R. c. c. c. 8 R. R. R. C. 3": S S SSS 3883333 3S38033 SSSR ;
@- 05: 8 g
!g _ "s:- 288
, . - $.R8SgS8,
....- qRgg
...s.S[$. $.R g g-g,.o
, w g ooo ooooooo ooomogo ooou E d' <r: E u.
w sw "
*a it: 8 8 38 38 3 8888 3 8-g A 'A a^ ' ' s 8
al< jfi n : R d'dn
- u. "w sg 5:0
$ abb C0b0300 0550353 DCCC .
cia
- 99* a9999*9 9o9aaa9 9aa9 h
6 d sin - lsj ERER$_Ha-
- -- ~ ElB982E
- ;.m HafR. -
in g::. . L 30 : w" ' d a B MS : w ma $4a a w W t .,
*2 I g 008 t b g us s 06 C' - 55*55R 55 Y" -5 h "
W
- M 555A 8BE an == 5' 5 5 5
- ww 'E9r gra i
5w =- I-g -s: e ee=2.w- s- .e- d't"gr I , E ::ge ::e BE*- E"O s *
- c "a Is"
-g d '5 y2 55" -
gs:w
- n a:55 g: .,
!!:e55sue n l
.w!e[amm.g s . .,: . .a w us gu -
-gs e- R.
2. Wl: 3:d2 : U5:REE- e 1:ddWWdd:Jdd o- dW" f - W5s d Wi
=0 20"
- r-
.; 0 5 8 go wt.. N'B2:: *: 25 5
8 g E"wstg5g8gc- 8 **5: taa ta. g< sus#wif= 50h$ W 05MPBMdd5gdd2 5 a d . D <a 2 8ggd.w25g"gh" 5.a a . Ww $ <-l550 Eca son ;. .- w
=
w
=
w
=
w
-sg- g.
,.I, *g.3 ,
- ,a ,30$ $$$$$$$
-- ------- ,a
------- ,a .
50$E
- 4: d b":- # 2 2 2 8 gidtI..f:
w
=C <E!9
- 8 8. SR 9 99 R 8888 8888888 9 9999 9999999 8 g 91.ggggggg g ggggg
. ,5...
. O' g- 5:8 8 88 8 8888 8888888 88888888
.8- -------- 8 88888
- , g.- - -- - ---- ------- - -----
..o -d a .
e ~ ~ . R R : c c 8 3 5 9 88
-- ~ 8*$4g g @R * -R
> c> ga: 5 Sc R R. $.n W s w: :m. . a.
e ng psp Q. g
- ~ ".
2 g ~ < .. ..w W 5 8 1 m
- m -
s 5*
- cg g 3.8c8c
~.% % .
8 8 4 "8 8g 38
** *@gRg R
- R
~.
g E- R* a--~o engg"s
!*gI a g :: :s."m. as e n
- e
~ a a 4 g
- " 3az ga7. * :
M 5 gE!Es 9 HBEES E 2 5 9 B BS E3EEE E a!B
" *a i 's ii4
~
sflli i diiig ia i i i l~i i i i
~ 4 d W :
4 $E!$$ $ $$$ $ $ E $ 5 EE EEEEE E $$ $.~ jylid i gig ii i g si i 'i i g i i;
- 4 5 g* rice RRccc R R cc ccccc ccc
~
5 iis dissi i i dd'didad idd E EjiOE $E$$$ $ $ EE $$EEE 066 aaa
;2 g.lad da~ad a a di issin O C :
5 a it:38 888 2 3 88 88888 8 88 Sh!: N dN NNN
" g
< f fhNNNNG
~ -
g-
, E!**
- o=
Cube" o.o a a a n o
- a 55 55555 a o. =9999 0 t 5:
a a a' 8 ~~ ~~~~" h
.2 E
s!l5 5:
$$!l$ -
l 5
- l l' E
~
}* :
l Edo 8 5 g
"5 : 535 Ewu :
*~ : swa Et .S * -
0-
$2 3 : "$$
~x LsW
. 5W "
E8 't 5 4 l g
- 5 . . ,, .
- =0 5N S"~. Edm 5 5 3 183
-i'~l 5:. ~B $ .J x" .
g8ei Geeeg* 9 gw ss- wtw
$"5 gv: -W S
3-
=$ .5g$ 853
.tv -B"<W g a55" 25 5 W 3c 5
g: m: 5-g.
. e
= g5.a 9 "exm
-ec5 ger"-**a8
-se n, EX e3d"$.
3g5 a a: -u m:ee*g gl-E
._ *; 5*s -n
"$~g5mg "s WGGe e v go a t- : E W *1 W
" # d .W a " 8 sg 4 ut"
- 5*
lEW g
< 25585a5g.0 5 bg=WEld5.58m.9M
< 5a g
SBgE d8- EUBkgC Oc 3
<5*4g$sg A.guA' so- . . u . =
E45 Wi 15 4ttia 1 2-s!s y a eR:seg i --
!3 s mas e-a e
!3 g 3 i :a..s m.a.s.a.s. !3 :a a. a
- 8 2 8 8 is ssfEs 8 sW2 l jis si'Ile!EE a SHHHHH E EE E E E !!! !!!!!
! GS*E*.$ $
s - t ":.. . .~..... . .. . . 5 . 99* ***** 9 9-3 5
- 5:88 8 888888 8 88 8 8 8 8-888 88888 8 88 8 8 g g.-- - ------ - -- - - - - --- ----- - -- - -
o d u .
ll1 'lll l ji 5 2 2 . 9 9 .
/ / .
5 5 RS . . 6860466O 6 030 6 0 o0 r 4 800 8 0o60G8 4 2 2 OR 3 9 83 ' 1 624 9 4 e4 6 428 4 6t1 424 9
/ / BU 2 0 6 9 1 1 2 E
A 1 1 AO 4 1 1 LD . C . E E . T T . A A D D 2 550 0 0 50 5 050 5 580000 3 S . 53005515 570 6 T E LR . 30621772 4 200 6 5 25 1 1 5 256552 3 2 C T A AA T L 9 4,1,2,7,1,3 5, 9, 7, 2, 4, 7, 8, C, 6, 6, 1 2,8, 2, 4,8 2,6,2,8, 2,
/ P M 41 5752 3 3 420 6 2 *2 3 41 4 0 6 2472 4 2 E I OLO T 41 7 4 6 1 2
- R T D . 7 S .
00 0 7 1 E . 7 . L 3 O : 580000 O C 2 1 S . 53005535 RR . 30601 322 4 3 550 200 0 6 0 5 50 25 5 1 4*50 70 5 5 236558 3 G 0A . 9,4 1,9,5,9,3 2, 8L . 8, 2, 5, 4, 1, 1, 2,1, 8, 50,3 9, 2581,4,5, d, E 4 L . 1 5241 3 5 31 4 5 2 32 1 21 4 7 3 262 5 3 M LO . 1 1- 3 5 1 0 I D. 2 3 T . 8 . 2 T . T 2 . 1 C . P .
. E .
R . O. LS . 00000080 8 000 0 0 00 0 000 0 000000 0 J AR . 00020440 0 000 0 0 00 0 000 0 020004 6 A . I L . 0,0,0,3,2,2 R 3 1, 5,7 0, 6, 7 55 5, 625 3, 2,1 4,5,8 2 4, EL . 31 041 8 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 12 8 T O 4 5 1 AD 5 M . m 555 5 5 55 555 55555 0 I RR . 55555555 OM . 77777777 B/ . 777 7 7 77 777 '777777 T AS . 33333333 333 3 3 33 333 333333 a L . 55555555 5$5 5 5 55 555 5$5555
'C T .
P 2 ST . 05400000 000 0 0 00 000 000000 R C RI . . 27200000 006 0 0 00 600 000052 O P MN 10005500 641 0 0 00 000 550010 C E U 0 00 020 124400 C R 00053113 000 4 G OR . 2 2 64 8 N L BE . I I AP . R A L . E T . E E . N C LT . 00000000 000 0 0 00 000 000000 A I . 00000000 005 0 0 00 000 000001 GI E I N . N G R . 50t 0 0 00 200 300010 E A K E/ T U.1100000085 S . 1 951 1 1 1 0 4 5 3 00 85 20 5 8855 32 2 C A . E *. M . T P . S . S K . E . W . W N . FFFAAAAA J . LLLEEEEE t FFF LLL A E A E Ss Lt FAS LEL AAAAFF EEEELL Y . 000 0 0 00 000 000000 E N O L Y . T . 0 0 0.D.0 0 0 0 000 2 001 0440001 00 O T I . 00084460 4 11 01 4 T S T . 000422 2 070 S N . 310 1 0 8 84 S A . 4 4 2
- M U .
- E Q .
- T .
- S .
- T .
S . X Y Y E . E L L ZR . vV L B B
! E . c0N F M M T ST . 00N R E E CR A 66O OS S RS UE 3W . C T E S ES 0W S
SSML OD
/ . 00 A T A - O 2G . 0/R P ST K 7 N . 54OSSN N - L f T AT E C
. #8T N NOOSC l I Di xG A
%I PRO L
N
. CCOOOI I N N
. 33MI I T TOI U
O D U Au D oN BI N S E P Sf MEO O . - T T AAI - N N Y N L N R TKl OWC I . ESCAAN NT S O O AOSNO O U RCU CO T . MDSNNI I AR - R R C T EAD TE P . UEI : I MMNO YY C. C. S C. S T,N U T C M IPOO K T T- N E CGI I NT V I . SE M*MRRI T S R . SF - RREEMON C . A EETTRMO RAAMDMP RUEL MXUPSO TT L ELUEL I T Hr. SAt I ST F EALC RBL O VI A S . - LVTT E I AFAPLAPS G uDEW EU PTYW1 A0 t RLN EOR E . SE0 D . DN0YY00 vWT0T 2C LLDCDC F,D E UNY EE A L NERD C GY KC GE t u SOE . EA6K K00V E TBBI SI RT I KRN ! S A kTiNRI R e CT . EP SS660EN E I AAGI GI T GAT O E 0ADC E I FEORI E P S L . F 8 0MN G UCCI M1 CUI M OR G NBN G T P GO V G C ETA C#00006UO A R R CD A u UC A HI fRD" A I F T A3 tSC0/0/ CI /54548S SC C K D" N O6" R O RN OO" OI E RSE K C o0OS R/RI K C GRt ET42 I T xMU/1 K C S I I R . MM3#s###A& A P C 2 6 1" F 4" F C3F MF A P G4GM A P LSEEO3# A F M LDT I I T LN L AAAnAAAA C - AAA A A AA K - AAA t - AAAAAA C - UAU M . AAAAAAAA R - AAA A A AA R - AAA k - AAAAAA R - R . O O 0 O T UE T . 00000000 W 000 0 0 00 W 00O W 000000 W STN 0 0 00 AAO ENT SR . 00000000 EO.44444444 DS
. 33333333 L A
000 222 444 2 4 2 4 22 44 L A 44K 00 444 L A 1 1111 1 11f 11t 444444 L A N S O . T T T T T
- L CQ . 34555555 O 000 0 0 00 O 000 O 000000 O T R* L E . 00000000 T 000 0 0 00 T 000 T 000000 T R O* I T S 00000000 000 0 0 00 000 000000 O
P E N* M N U OS . 22222222
. 00000000 0 2
0000 3333 0 3 0 3 00 33 0 3 0000 4444 0 0 0000000 5555555 0 5 1 5 R CY 00 00000 0 0000 0 0 00 0 0000 0 0000000 0 0 L T T C CS A . 5 5.%.5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 55 5 5555 5 5555555 5 0 5 0 - 0 T E E I N L E J O R M E T . 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 S . 00000000 00000000 0 0 1 0000 0000 1 1 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 00 00 1 1 0 0 1 0000 0000 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0000001 000000 11 11 11 J. 0 1 D C P .
!,Il ,fi l; llllil{[,r l
*EE !
88 38 c c%-gC:8-- R e
*2343 3 OBR P
R Q 40. 4W f$ Sge ; JJ A l :% : al' i eW
< g I $ 66639 a EEE 3 $0 63 0 @lW[n#"!$g!< ; ;;;a i ad; e gi di i 8a: c i
d " ' 85
. .. E"!R3 *.**
R
. R
** e $.$.R
. ~.
8 280 4 b,c. 28
~. 4 E
.a W _ 5g:* "--N *
*E- R ~8 N kg 3 e
@E d W 4 WE!R R SB!al 9 Rac S Sa El S ,
gg - " R R AG Es y ; s t!c ccccc ccc CS cc g#!.d 5 ddddd ddd $$ dd 5 EE d*
- e E5!E g,;g E.E.R.!E
~~oog R.!$
ooo o- go
<r:"
g : E8 W:i8 88828 808 R8 88 gs E Q l R' gged*E dds Jf f;
.B =
a s4 : 4 , 5 0 55555 tts a ab a Et i g s ::e sesos see oe os
. G ::"
- *Rgg" -
8 R
-- gg
~-
Sg
- E- 5:: .
~ 4 E i o se ![ .- ; e s
-5 :. ns es :.
- e .- -
D2 :$ ~ 8 -ere eE :e -- ;
- - :- ) ee E @ cms ~-I.
n e -- Elk - g:s- E e 4 h W '*g J.s 8. sxg a g l-a : : :. av s Eve a -
-w a:e -
3: 88 .5 e: _v e-=- g .: e s 8
==9e 3:
8 en ost BG:.au - Es g s9 ok> o .
-~s. s n ies9agmg.=f v :s s = = e9 = w'. - v. sy - .B e age 8::9 -e5a De s
.- :- Becere-s
--a s --a-Isg ed tg
[; e:- :a
- s wgr a 43.g as - l s s~-
aas i. a-gas _n - -u g g 5n Ear sm .rra g El e s<: : . . ses- v:s - ssuns *
$: -g sss * : s ss s as 5
Bw : ooo _5 o ao o o ggs egt $_:Haooo
. 444ga a 4 m 33 m a ss s- s- , ;
, ag 3 3 3 - --
fw s ie Nia 8 Halaa 8 aff 8 s 52 E sf 8 a 8s ge:s - s Hala ss
.n- ' R. - -ssnn 3f. n .
- e . *
- n R. s .R.sn R.R. ns n nnne n .n 8 88 E 5 W* 8 888888 8 8888 88 8 88 8- 8 C
a ~d E b. :. 8 -
. DETAIL. REPORT : STCHE & hSTE2 EWCI XERING TJCATION D J.O.1723303 f COOL TOWE> 2/3- PAW n 7
' CLIENT '- kOPTHEAST LiitLITIES SERVICS COMPANY , WORK PACKArE DETAIL $tP0af RETCT 11ME: 12:37:10 REPORT DA1E- 11/25/72
**** NAlDRAL DRAFT COOLING T0uFR
- 2/3 SIZE *****
' PROJECT - alLLSTONE UNIT 3 ALTERNATIVE C00ilNG W4TEP STSTDtS STUDY. EST DATE DATE: 11/25/92.
ACCOUNT Cf9E3 MATERIAL LABOR ERS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL LABOR STEM SYS SEQ SORT ML DESCRIPTION CUANTITY UN $/ PER tmiT $/rR COLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS E0urs
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ................ UN!T ... ................... ,.................................. ........................
100.5062 001 1410 AA EkCAVATION-3'x 1.5x UOO*-x1.4 cv MULTIPL!ER Of 1.4 USED FOR V SHAPED TREWCW - 00ANTITif
-lN7 UDED Wi!M CEMEPAL PIPE TRENCM EXCAVATION: 00CTEA4E TO SHARE SAME TRENCM 100.5062 001 1410 AA FOR N ORK-800*X2*X 2 SIDES 3200.0 st 1.50 0.200 49.75 4,800 31.ScG 36.640 640 MULYIPLIER OF 1.4 USED FOR v
'SNr.PFD TRENCH 700.5062 rD21410 AA ' CONtRETE-1.50*xi.50*x. 6005 68.0 cy- 65.00 1.500 60.50 4,420 6,171. 10,591 102 tug.5062 003 14*0 AA SACKrlia.! CY
.! KCL W/WORMAL SACKFILL F0E
- PIPE TREMCN l100.5062 004 1410 AA REssa 3.c TE 5?5.00 25.000 61.75 1, 725 4,631 6,356 ~ 75 .
100.5062 00$ 4t;00 AA ~ 5" *CH 40 PVC ' 3200.0 LF 1.80 0.930 53.75 5,760 ' 13,760 19,520 - 256 100.5062 10TAL WORK PACKAGE 16,705 56,402 73,107 1,0 73 100.5 10TAL suaACCOUNT 1,151,558- 1,007,159 2,158,717 18,840 - 100.70u0 . TIE-IN TO OPERATING PLANT 100.7000 7000- TIE-IN 10 OPEPATING PLANT 1.0 LS 50000.00 1000.000 52.75 50,000 52,750 102.750 1,000-100.7000 1CTAL WORK PACEACE 50,000' 52,750 102,750' 1,000 - 100.7 -TOTAL sueACCouNT 50,000 - 52,750 102,75G ' f,000 ' 100' TOTAL - DiDECT Ccsi~ 27.274,015 ',840,496 35,114,511' 140.487 1
-- 910 COWSTRUCTiONMANAGEMENT-
-910.9100 CONSTRUCT 20N MARAGENINT ' -
-910,9100- 9000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 2 7% 1.0 LS 2458000.00 2,458,000 2,458,000- ,
. 910.9130 - TOTAL WORK PACKACE - 2,458,000 2,458,000
- 910.9 'Tc7AL SUBACCouuT- .-2,458,000L E2,458,000 0- TOTAL - CONSTRUCT!CW MANAGEMENT' -{,456,000- 2.453,000
~ .
,_ s.i+
~ y . , m ~, r y .m; . , . . , . , , . . , , , ___. _ . , ,
.h p $' 3 -
O_ _7 g} ' % ' dM' p 3Aa _
.5 .._j ,
h' t g2;j 4
-. .3, n%fMN
.~
t
,7'- r
} j f y -, , 4 e
+
f ,..
~
_ - i
- T a1~-
Lx. _2 - # 2
~
f: 8 . . s8 _
- ,7?9 / /
RS
~
. p.U 73
,- , . . 2
..E
. 5T5 / /
2 OR . Bu. . 8 : qy;< G :. A ~1 1V1 Ln~ 1 Ao. - e ,44,3
,. 0
..,r .F.z l
4= 1
.E ii E
~
T Y
,s A A i.
D' D
.0
'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T! E LRs... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .
.<1
'1 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, RiT AA. 0, 0, O 0, -
3
/ P' A
M T t Gt . 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 q ,m. 4 6,( . 2 E I To 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 Y - R
- R' T S D. I5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 2, 7, , 2, E
W 0 E 3 3 3 8 8 8 8 *9 O 1 ' . . c4 T 2 . L O M-1 s D 2 S -
;- 6
.C 1 RR .
CA . 9
./ ,4 %
- EL
'- E AL ~ -
_C 2 3 0 3 M I T
' LO. D y 8,3,. 6 6 . . 3
_ 2 T' .. > _~7- _ 7 R . _ y . 1 O P E . g.e . . y R . .
~
O. Ls. E 0 0 0 x ---51 gc,,
. 0 0 0 0
, J AR 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
.I A 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, RL 0, . 0, ,,6,- 7.
EL - 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 , 1 O .- 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 . 8 4 j~. S
- AD.
M 5, 5, 5, 5 2, 2, . 2, 2 ' 4,x - 3 3 3 3 8 8 8 6 1 - -
. 4 g, . ?
l 4 . RR . .? C I OH . B/ . _ ~ _T A5 . _ A L . CT - .
. , r R ST+
3 Q O P RI . HN . : , C E R R U ge
. JG OR . -
=
C t BE ; - - ,E I R l A T - AP. L
? , Wg%
M E D Lt 0 z
,s
~ 0 ,
! Ai. 0 0 -
E' I _x
. T. G A
Rt E/ M~ 0 0 0 z 0
~
y E. K T S 0 0 ,- E R C' A A . .2 0 - M . .1 0
. T P . 5 2 r ,
5 . 3 8 8 E, K" R
;v.1 .
W- O - W N S S ._ !
-(
f
+& U . L L ._ L
_4 Y E, D Y . 0 0 0 ( 0 (3,, N U T . O . T I . 1 1 ,1 .S_ T. S . S S -- A T N '
.Y
^
m
.* M
-
- E
- U Q.
. C N . 3m .
-
- T
-
- S .q
. m h E G 5 .
Y , N
*. S
. YY I.
E CC l .2R
. ;N N
. .I K -
1 E .. Y ,GG 0
. C NN <
z $T C A . N , ,I I / . 3W . Y E ,T T 5
/ . A G NN E
. 2G D N OO T 3s," f .
Y k I CC . A g Q NVi A t T N Y A T N - SS
-.// 3 .
. N ." ___
PRu N ~ - E D O . . ', I T
. I M _,
hn. MEO % S C.NN g
. O . R - _m
. OWC . I 0
- E T / MM .
E CO . T 1 R t1 S. ,_RR T E TE V
. P .
a P E S E. TT DD E D
.E y _
CGI I l .;T. _ O - R . - E A , NN N I NT C *. G Y R N. ,I I I e A ;; v. ~? : VIA S
."I NN A .Na P I RLN EOR
. E .
. D RR I
D OG
, I! ~-
M. R .. R OOR R O M- # sY'- S3E EE .
- G T T! E FF F - I>
CT ... EE . E N N AA E N T. E . ; T~
)S L INN; G I E ,LL C O E . -. W W G. -
E AA A D..t OO IET A R T C F A T S . CC I . I T. K E Et N T N . ,LL .A. K N- N S-
. TA3 GW N C A
E f SS C R A 0 A S.,LL<AA C.. U A W
, I R
, LDT E E. P I N P . EE.
P 0 C A L R. A P. b 0 C E4,-
- h
,. t iLN 8JAU I
. L .
G N K, R
= M [ K C
A a C S E O.. F Kx R C A E
.L A
L l L'-
.4
-- M. R
= d .
-_TUE STN.
AAO'EO R
.S R .
T I E R E 0
.0 .
0 O W L S' L h 'L t ( T A
' 0 0
0 W O L u s LL L E-C N A .. 0
<0 0
O W L. U S
'L
.-L %A9
.f y s 5
,Ei I.
H t S -O DS N 9 A A A L A
-9 A A A W 9 A, A- A
, y, .- R* - TfL ' CQ I G T O t o T O C T O T c T O O._ L T O ,. T On
~
O .-O< i
] , O* L.*YS I
E
. E N T T T S E
T T T L A. T; T . T 2,Tg;.. C..N* M.-U, N P 00. 0 . 00 0 , 00 0 E- OS . 00 , 0 . 00 0 C0 0 1> $< R', - ' . - . *CY . 22 2
, 9
. 33 3 .
44 4 . T.. ..CS . 99 9 99 . 9 9 99 9
'u . lL . "' N, T f C . .A. N .
0 ., _0y _
- R ~ 7 9 2
00 0 0 0 0 . 00 0 0 0 0 00 0' +
, hM 1 .E 9 22 99 2
9 2 9 2 9 3 9
- 33 99 3
9 3 9 3 9 4 9 44 99 4 9 4 9 9 4 EQRO g40. i$. .. I E D '
, C L .
P, -
? .
A
. g' um y-4 k
t
&t <
,7kyE . ; .y gWE - h- 54
. ,Ut ;
- bs % Q'
1 a
~
.Q' l-i-
(J J.C.1728303 - Off 5M02C it7tAKE PACE 1
' STONE & VEBSTER EEIEEERIE CORPORAT10s l SUre.ARY REPG T-STEM SUMMARf REPCRT TIME: 05:40:C7 AEPORT DATE: 12/02/92 CLIENT - WORTREAST UT!t! TIES SEEvtCE COMPA4Y
?- tect2004tt UTS140RE 1 RIME ###Metttti ESTIMATE DATE: 12/02/72 i l' PROJEti . MtL570EE L2ili 3 ALTEREAtiVE C00ttuG WATER SYSTEMS STUDY o atATERI AL LABOR TOTAL LABOR DOLU.RS DOLLARS DOLLARS NS
?!TLE I ACCOUNT ~
53,350,086 7,616,7?? 60,975,E53 136,155 100 DIRECT C05T...................................................................... 4.265,000 4,268,000 910 CONSTRUCTION MtAA0CMENT.....................................-,.................... 6,093.000 6,095,000 920 EEGtkEERiWG...................... .............. ........................... .... (' 930 fSCALAT!0N........... ... ...................................................... 17,747,000 17,747,000 I 940 ALLOWA4CE 'Ot 18sDETERMIEAiti/COEfthCENCY... ..................................... l 81,472,056 7,616,767 89,053.853 136.185 roTAL E$f1 MATE l i-t
'l
[ i i i I l l-i t I ( l
-- a_._m
r:' 1 --g _
,. ,y 3
, it : ;
t. _ ~:-
-. us3C(c1A - IN1RODUCTICit STONE & WESSTER EEGINEEllWG CORPGtAT!ON J.C. *T28 %3 - CFFsucaE INTAKE PAGE ' 1 A ..
- CLitki - fFJRTHIA51 t;TILITIES $$RVICE COtPANY- ~
REPORT DATE:' 12/02/92
#rar#rfs*# . OrF$HORE TETAKC ###M if###
PROJECT - MILLSTONE tiiif f. 3 ALTERNATIVE COOLING WATER SYSTEMS STUOY ESTIMT6 DATE: 12/02/92
-ESTIMAfE NOTES Estimate basis as follows:
- 1. ,Prese't n day pricing _as of 11/1/92.
~ 2. stbcontracted labor rates as of 11/1 S 2.
"3, -Forty hour work week, single shift operation.
4 Dredged emerist to be disposed of locally; assuned to be not centaminated. .
- 5. 'ReqMred construction utilities sspplied by wr,er; .
~
- 6. Land required for construction traiters, oorking,' ard lay dom provided by ener.
-7. Encaintion rot included. . .
- 8. Abanoornent costs not included.
- 9. ' Demolition / relocation costs not Included.
10.' Lost reveruse during statiert shut downs for tie-ir:s not included.
- 11. nsales,.uee, service or other. taxe. r.ct included.
- 12. Suitders at1 risk insurance not. included..
- 13. Severe centingency costs such as those a sociated 'with adverse weather, craf t strikes not included.
- 14. Start-up costs not included.
- 15. Permits including envircrvnental not incitzied.
- 16. Eniptoyee training, certifications, security costs not included.
- 17. No Category 16ecrk included;
- 18. All st.rf ace of fshore work to be scheduled other than d2 ring winter months.
~
t'
. . " .' . ^,..._m.m. - .
M. - _--,._._E' -----.u ._.m
- j. w_.m 'n---.a.. . - - m ._,[_,._,, _ __
== . . .
m.
=- , . nu -
I; s -Wl? p ,' -- . s e C?
- yr #
Tkf; $ "
~
pr . + r i
< t
- w i
5 .[ , ,
.q -
1g
&g .,
e g . u__
, ~
(pc<t s
, j .7f <
n y- ,
, - c-
, s :
p[Pj;f ,
' ~
{ W. , g -(g, +ag c:. .
! I $$4 lEhl@). .R@i -
3; , sf'
- 1.%d{H E.:II La - ~ ~ 3 M 5,
. . . y: .
o :s 4 g %a .a . ..gnsa - :- :n
- . g s g 4
m E yU _ ^$ ,$~- L@l:3@L y ~-@@@ @@@@@ $( k@$$$? sj e
;VQ:e
,;y W ;g-ga:v-I:
g . g 61. ,,
~
; - - - ~
4 ; g$g@@y
- ~-
a r.: : :^, - J ,, s -
- ww ,
1 - a m'Es@'g@g;n;8 ;a c : a.:a.:x n u g ;. g-
>..h U S.. _.* :
; s4. 8 m . .. . : 5 3 ::-
g g S
- g 0'
f m vw
- 5 g i- 5 x 2 ,+,j pR g qgm
,^
/ ,1 $ q r e r , . -
,m n g}G[ 1[ _
yQ 4
~! . 3" .i. i@. .
@- . @... @ @ _. _{ @ @
... E.3.@. !.$.$. $. @.@.[~ ,$
- : An R 8. ? 22 3: 3 080 +s' eN:
2 : - @.- 2
" ~ ' *- - ***
U j
- W , '
4 4' .
- N ** N e* ** < ,]
- <~ , c , gy u
e # Et: -W c. c nc' '
., n
~;.
?!: ) .i j di, ,
H'.-te.
- l@_ Ly t !~
- s. @ . - $. _ @. .... _ @@. . '
g[:," ' ,j g:[: . '3 $ : -- @ 3h U gm
;g a '
- M t:;- 1 '
- a' #2 8 8 8- 88 888.888c8- :88888i
, ' M:
-ng' b 2, i :g adg.:a' as n
.g g
- w' -
e,; ' y ' @' ;;; 4 p < , * .
.n, :, ,_ ; A c*
N, ,s g; -..
- ca ca. - :, ...
,- y , ,. .
-~
'g[
u- :
.g. .g- .y 3 3p g g g3 gg yg fic ;
;g. s.: '. a*' .o= 'o oo. ooo:ooooo ocoon. ' .o NA Y i '
I h.
- O - A: , $ A;.
l0 QL i [ 1 3g:: m -,@- ' ' m m
- n -
W Mp! (, '
.,; _t_, _5' l1+
.' -_O'
.w , . _ .. m g:
1 w ,a w .. 1 .a . wse
- j g; n :n 2 ,. = a r 71 9
s g ... .n. m _- - -a- .,pg; , g _g d -ao g, g" f g y ; 5; i: .a' .;' S - 5;[-stet ;go R / g yc e g5g"' g n.
,, 1 # #-m 33635- m w l e. p%f g.; g; n
b < c
'r .
B e. a-t. a;gt a e- q c ggaf 3 ;; a, g . g ge y
-l , :E :. 2A.c P,it*D gr *g <
15,, w=al 5 r" go E~Iz-=f B % cw Jg , +S'l w ;d,1 - j '{ t - m~ n ..L
*8 , _;W g W g ( Qi_
-t .
8 Q *3 j g PQ ". m2 4 ;40r' q : .2 s ) $ ,' 8. %53 , ;; . md: 25
- a.5g25,sg*bl; ,Edt-'tyt?"*r an s y _g $ft '@
nA an s x
- u g--
4 m - go-~ge.g,-g;, . o n s - e g g _. m ,, 4
..E,g_
w# _ qm . *: m o g
- e. s p r; ,:; n g uad a ; .sug:-ey
- 1,m,$,gsvis g g q gSa 3 ,3_ 9Q eg s ._
p.Baa %
;. z i =
,e-t-si g hr e g -gesgx w.:;g;;dtis:aselst Rs=Ree.e- gc sv eg :=aW
;e e: .a ~
L c .
+
s . ,u
' ~
4 c5'* 5: _ i'1:. . % *); ," 'M by u-m 8: n :
- 8: $" 2 o.
s
~x , , ,
as o-~;-,,
. : o:::::1 ;
.. ; -@ juau- ,g 9 4 g ;9 d *; g- 7,_ m y - i
- s.- - :w
-n . - . . '.#
.< w-- ---~~ g; ' - - - . - -
4 p . 7 '- -i;f 8 : 1 o fl - :o; , s ,
-sea o m ghsega g:; Q g iy ^ xp-. *. pe,qc et se -s ggggyg!!sa!!
- e; .-
t 3q Lg3 q q-: J q g.. , - A q q m sgnNnnn g(gegj ;
# ; q-; 4, y~d , s4 g e. >rg); gg g gggg: ggggg gqggggggz g ym, ~ ,, g ; -,g- o . .g .g , ).g -- - .gs :_:.-.--; , - - . , - -
1" 1 ' M yc..,,-- J8/ d4 w; r c . ...
, -i .,.I
. ,,d I
I ' : \
~*^
N6MQQj , , ,-
',l i y. ,~ ,
i 4
.c , #
...s u g -W g
- m. ,
N N N . t N R. m vag a R t 5m.5! SO~ $. 2, 3. l, oc & $ 4 3? 2 $$: . JJ- 4 J ,.' J d I. 9$ Q Q 08G w gg8R83g.Rg y O. B g g..g $. g .- w E -n. g3::g t a. *.a. e . .
* . *t
. - o.~
< g~~og4$ -y0 3 rva3E 3 n = =::: -%.@
- r,, 0. 4-0 ga 3- r -
w w :. nr a.
*y *o . :
e . : 888 E 380 0 B 8 : p
. .. $5: * .*t o. a. t *
- a.
5g:: 8s] E 3 830 2 2-g -W <N ,
-r- n 3 ..
j E : e ..! e o e 52:$ 3 e $%8m om$ 89 c 3,$ u-on c $ $$$$ 8 lii $' i nii n'd i did s i niin i
;~
1 5 gEi 888 C 88C C 5 s ki did s add s g9 : , a i fi$$ H E0$ a
" i:5 : ,: g j gm ggg g W a $5:
3';
~
R
& 2 OO :
5 # :8 888 8 8.8 888 8 8888 8-o g GR* 8 3 < 5 k..!8 8g8 888 g8 g 8og e ., 2 m j < e 3: ;g 8 R.8 st N g - .d . 2 w ;~ 5 y :
. s: va9x: 22 ca: 2 Ease a-w Tj -lo eccocoomo ooo o- o ci o o e f ;,
Jdd ' A d r: - af & Addd d. m n sa E e N m .
- b. . 'O M
$ $ e $8 SE.Woue e
.2 :-J : me eamee a 2 e 22 Swk" "O ME9 m8 MO--9
==-
en 4tin -n*ae3
- a3Mwn< u o.mb> e mC uow s, O x- a ta.x e w as "r em
= o ms
<NmM w ,.
N 44 a v6 Va O M == E M& Nm= 3; G N y)
<JW N >O E ** u a %O 4
.. s u-g*MSUJ"8Ed
-.umena :
M .IC ( R w <2 2 ** La a N 0 er
' " -J $ ' m G " T. 0 0 0 a
-E-
=
. N J, = * :"
wwW S: ** .c g" .g teem
- gr<-wwwonst=c -
gt: 22N e g '4 *' g$..
.24; 5:"J5dahMA *
- o. 25U an 8*Q* *d'
- n W == m ou a30 s:5<.4 0
.-44 8
-
- 8s
- J m' s*
==
Q= 5 a
- 8*
u e- :Oees -Q == ev~ a. w w a u www' ss=v..~.- w-- A e w NN NdN$N g & 5Nhbh Y .s 5 M w Cb bJ uJ ue EW bf e.d M-Bw gnsom ugsag g ass: sea xe muau - ega : sw" m gnews sw~;n g
== Q =a k* na.
** Ca p Q C *C e- *-Qges55mse ma Q *= =* - W W Q Q m
>= 4J - W g hg.ame=
M u O ca O 4 O*
$$ Y. M .
s3 . t, O OOO O . ** N W H g ul * * ** 3 O N*# e N - e g O .3
.8 s00 a 3 333m .R n; g 03:.0 a .
3 3----- 3 :f a s s a. --k u 3 --- 3 - ---- -
- En .J uO s O O O gad :
$ .* *. Bc,;.r,. no --,....o.
- o. . . .
o o . - - w
" 2 3 o o c o.I 3 33 3333 3 a - t , 8 <0 : 51 . 333333333.. 3 3 3. : . 3 2 3 4 5:8 8 8 -888888888
- - - - - .-. - - 8.- 8. 8.--8 8 8 88
- -- 88.88-8
, .; g g.
a= u u. . 4 s'
- - - _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ___ ._m___ -s
. !ljjlll , i
-'c 3 2 2 . 9 9 .
/ /
2 2 R3 0 - 0a55 0 00 0 5 0 0 0R 0 6579 8 20 2 7 E G
/ /
2 2 8J X A . 6, 0, 6,3, 5, 6, 3, 6 9, 3 LM. 7 1 t A 1 1 . 3 5641 F 1 2 -, E E T T - A C A D . S . 0 0 0065 1 0 0 50 5 00050 T E LR 0 0 6002 1 0 0 1 ) 1 00020 E l l T AA 0, 2, 6,39,7, 6, 0, 0, 1, N, 1 6,8,5,6,4, nGP E A M l 4 0L . 8 7O L 7 0 1 7139 1281 2 4 4 4 4 4 1 5 07 9 7 34450 3'.137 i. T I K i S D 9 4932 9, 2 2 E . 1 E 9 . C0 F S 4 4 F 8 S 0 0015 6 50 5 5 0 0 RR 0 8082 8 60 6 - : OA . BL . 7, 1, 8, 2,7, 9, 3, 0, 3, 8, A L . 2 8537 4 22 4 9 3 W LO. . 8 - 6688 282 0 94 3 1 0 D 1 1 3 8 5, 1 2 T . 7 . 1 G I
. E .
R . O. LS 0 0 0J50 5 0 0 00 0 00000 J AR 0 0 2 0 0 50 00050 iA 0, 5, 0y206,0, 5, 6, 0, 0, 7, 0, 6,8,5,7,4, RL EL . .5 7 9502 7 3 4 4 85 03
@4 T 448" 4
11 T A M O.7 D 2 7 4503 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 N R R . 0050 00 0 O OM . 0070 00 0 I B/ . T AS . 3245 00 - 3 A L 1565 77 5 9 . 0 T
$T .
0000 00 0 P R 00 I O R 1 . 0509 0 - C F H N7 . 2402 1 0 .5 C E 1 . P R . - 2050 95 1 G CR . 2 1 N L BE . I I AP . R A L E T E E . L D LI . 0000 0 00 00000 I AI . @ 0500 0 00 00000 G N E G I R W L 0 5154 0 00 00 050 E A E/ 0 6 72 0 50 00 370 r K 6 0 79 00 0 R C T 5 A 5 5 3 8
?6 4
W2 8 8 E A t S 1 T P . S . . K J R V O . OOoYG W Y LW.oM . rF CSTS
- NF G H
NN T T MMMCN E C Y . 0 0000 5 00, 88505 4 U T . C T I 5 0050 3 50 OOO0O T S T 0070 44 5 S S N A 3015 27 5 1 2' M U . 3 E O . T . S . Y . S . C ft ) C D U R T U G R N R T C k I E . A T D S U i S R - $_ R T S R S R / f 2A P C S T E W A ' E 1W P M 0' N U R N A S N O D N E S B EW4 5 D k
# M u2 0 L REX '
#G . E P t T R N I E I L .E f #k GX i S T 0 T Y P L 0R' W T
- s W! 2 RN t / f ! T A f C0E' A5L . OI E f N W i S 2 E VGl 2R 2 P1O MWO O N . - C
. N FTD HI A u O
( t 5 N A R M / S R E S h Ed 3N1 C " S T ME A
/
R O9C ! . LL
- CWF T R i E L/ is C i . OO I S N T l G A T E ! W k GAEE E P . RC E EL' / E / S R R / V - P E4RM1 V E1 EEV ! . T O R M W N A T W i G M/A U ,00 R i CKl R NL U 54 P ( A S / ( D A EN PWB3R($
AY C . cT T GTC S I - R W - E EI I /C IV1 A RNN S E
. C R
C b HCAX i UY E U Q E L T
/
O C ( G N 2 R ATSA HC UEOWN2 QCG O EI R D 4E RE KCRHcS E R W R T I - N R ERRTC . AAA A A A R f EYB
,osU S E . 1 TT RRT (
ET E SEoOs E E S - C O E S E AiAs E EBCOES SRL Y. M G R wF ret ; G N E B T 2 G BABL G k BI R EOA i H 4 RK A K PCMNE N MNRI P A 0' H G A K I R X N A K C G A W E V A K E MEE RRRE A K iKK RRCCE V ME i S3 . uC C UOOEUR1I C A 3
- R E U E I C OEO! C AOEUR I l f . s- A PCTRSC1 M A M V C D T C D A F PF S A MWDTTD lf f . P P P P i Oi t .
E K T a L . K K U t N . R R R R
# O O O o T#E T 0 W 0000 W 1 4
2 3 4 5 4 G 7 W 1 2 55 u 35800 55550;67 S#h 5R . 1 1 234 4 4 4 A#C 5O 7 L 1111 L 1 1 1 1 1 i L 55 L 55'111 F#T 0S 1 A 1111 A 1 1 1 1 1 l A 1 1 A 1 1 _ M#S 0 T T T T T KL CQ O O 0 O E T no R8L OcI N6M T S T T 1 p N L
. 1 1 22222 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 55 5 646666 E - - OS . 4 4 44444 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 444444 R CY . 4 4 44444 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 444444 1
t T T C CS . A . 1 1 11111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1,1, 1,1 1 1 1,1 t N E M . 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 000000 A E J E 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 000000 Y I O T . 1 1 11 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111 1 _ E R S . L h C P . i ,!
DETAIL REPORT STONE & b~BSTER ECGINEERICG C06DC2AT10:1 J.D.17283G - 0FF3MCM 8:TAKE 'PAcr 4 ~ CLIENT - NORTHEAST UTillTIES SERVICE COMPANY WORK PACKAGE DETAIL REPORT REFORT TIME: 08:40:49 REPORT DATC: 12/02/92
#####t##t# OFFSHORE ikTAKE #########
~ PROJECT - MILLSTONE UNIT 3 ALTERNATIVE COOLING WATER SYSTEMS STUDY ESTIMATE DATE: 12/02/92-
~
ACCQJNT CCOES MATERIAL LABOR'NR$ LASOR ' MATExAL LABOR TOTAL LAGOR
- STEM SYS_ SEO SORT ML DESCRIPTION CUANTITY UW S/ UNIT FER UNIT S/HR 00LLARS Dos Udta DCLLARS IGJRS .100.1446 1710 WRVEY & Coid1ROL - 2 EMP 0.5 MG 15600.00 7,800 7,800 100.1446 TOTAL WORK PACKACE- 149,650 19,875 169,725 -375 100.1550 DREDGING AMO FOUNDATION PREP OUANTITIES FOR 800 STER Ptw .
STAT 10N AND TRAniS! TION - STRUCTURE' 100.1550 1510 DREDGINC -900.0 CY- 0.200 100.00 18,090 18,000 180 100.1550 -1520' TREMIE CONCRETE. 1800.0 C7 75.00 1.500 53.00 135,000 143,100 278,100 2,700 100.1550 1521 DISPcSAL (SPo ts) 900.0 CY- 10.00 0.050 100.00 - 9,000 4,500 13,500 45 100.1550 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 144,000 165,600 309,600 2.925 100.1555 0FFSHORE VELOCITY CAP lblET STRUCTURE - ONSHORE FABRICATION IN P!ECES PORTION 100.1555 1610 CONCRETE' 'MHX1.3 1100.0 CY. 65.00 2.900 53.00 71,500 4 9,070 240,570 3,190-100.1555 1620- FORHuoRK MHxt.3 18000.0 SF 1.50 0.590. 52.00 27,000 552,240 579,240 10,620 100.1555 1630 REihr0RCING. Max 1.3 85.0 TN 575.00 33.000 64.75 48,875 181,.624 230,499 2,805 100.1555 1640 STEEL BAR 6.0 TN 800.00 35.000 64.75 4,800 13,598 18,398 210 100.1555 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 152,175 916,532 '1.068,r37- 16,825 100.1660 MARINE EQUIPMENT FOR OFFSp0RE
-VELOCITY CAP STRUCTURE INSTALLATION.
100,1660 1730 JACK BARGE W/4 MAN CPEU 3.0 Mc 47200.00 141,600 141,600 100.1660 1740 DECK CARGO BARCE 120 945'x 2EA 6.0 MO 6000.00 36,000 36,000 100.1660 1750- TUG 80AT W/3 MAN CREW 3.0 MO 29000.00 87,000 87,000 100.1660 1760 . CONCRETE Mix!NG EQUIPMENT 3.0 MO 3500.00 10,500 10,500 100,1660- 1761 CLANE-100TN x 100' REACH' 3.0 NO .'19600.00
.346.000 51.75 E 5s,800 64,097 122,897' '1,038 100.1660 1770 DIVERS- 4 DIVERS /4 TENDERS 3.0 NO 176000.00- 528,000 525,000 100.1660 .1780 : SURVEY & CONIFOL-2 EMP 3.0 MO 15600.00 46,809 46,800 -
100.1660 1785 BALLAST TAkKS 20'DIA X 30*x2 2.0 EA L40000.00 80,000- 80,000
-- TO BE USED FOR FLOTATION 100.1660 W TRAVEL TIME LOST . 2 HR/DY/Dd.P .' 1.0 LS 2640.000 -50.00 132,000 132,C00 (2,640
- AVG CF 20 EMP 100.16601 10TAL WORK PACKAGE. 988,700 -196,097 . 1,184,797 .3,678 ..
100.i663 . OFFSHORE VELOCITY CAP INSTALL: . 100.1663 1610- ' Ot: SHORE SUPPONT-BALLAST,LGAD .
'2.0 MO 1038.000' 60.00 :124,560 124,560 2,076 100.1663 1620 -0FFSNORE SUPPORT-ASSIST IN SET- '3.0 MO 1038.000 60.00 186,840 186,640 1 3.114
_ 1 m 5' 2 2 . 69 / RS 5 4 066434 8 0 0 2 00 E. 2 G 2 0 CR 0 9 005 057 2 5 61 1222 6 0 068%%834660 53 .6 0 7 92 G
/ /
2 ? BU . AO . 1, 36, 0, 6, 1 1 3 4 4 2 4, A 1 1 LM . 5 1 2 5 1 P . 9 E E T T A A O D 0 0000 0 6 066484 8 0 31 1 669175 0 4 85 S . 0 3715591 78 79 E K T R O E T A AA0 LR T L 0, 0 4, 0550 0,9,2,0, 0 2, 5 2, 6771 01 3,6,4,7 0,3, 4 5, 0 9, 6 9,4,2,0 7 2,3 5, 5 9 5 1, 1,5, A P M OL 0 1 0900 0 6 01 1235 4 1 441 5752 3 5 3 71 E . 0 3622 4 9 3 91 4 8 5 4 2 3 T:
't R
T S TC.1 D. 1 4 1 2 8 1 2 E . 7 E 9 5 R 4 O : H S 0 4 V-F : . f 8 S 0 000 0 3 066434 8 0 81 1 669195 0 6 S5 O 0 RR 0 055 0 4 6771 01 4 0 371559725 5 6 29 0A. 0L . 4, 0, 4, 2, 7, 3, 7,8 8 3,0,3, 1, 9, 6,9,4 2,2,5,9 3 2, 9, 5, 9,0, E AL 1 075 2 2 3 171 0 1 41 5541 ' 3 0 0 41 3 M LO 1 38 2 1 2 2 2 1 8 0 I D . 3 1 5, 3 T . 8 5 2 T 7 1 C F
. m
. E R . -
O. LS . 0 0 000 0 3 000000 0 000000080 0 8 00 J IAR . 0 RL A 0, 0 0, 000 5, 0, 0, 0 5, 1 9, 000000 6,8 6 4,0 0, 4, 0 0, 000000 0,0,M 0,8,2,2 40 3 0 V, 8 5, 50 2,5 03141 EL 0 0 250 7 3 1 2 64 4 0 1 S 2 2 T 00 0 812 1 5 2 81 2 6 3
- 5 -
A0 M . 1 1 1 3, 1 1
. 2 5
C a RR . 0k . 000 000 555555 777777 5 7 555555555 777777777 5 7 55 77 I 3/ T AS 030 41 4444 4 46 4444444 4 4 A L . 057 1 555555 5 555355$55' $ M5 C T ST . 000 000000 0 505401' 000 0 00
; a, J
C R1 005 000000 0 72/200000 0 4 C P 250 000000 010005500 0 C E R R du. d. 41 0' 065422 1 0 0000431 13 0
%. 04 00 G OR . 81 1231 0 -
N L BE . 1 I ! AP R A L E T . ' E E 5G N D LT 0 000 000030 0 000000000 0 , 2 I G E C AI . I N . RU0 0 000 500 0 0 0 0.L.0 000000 0 000000000 0 0 00 507 f% 5 500050085 E A 0 71 0 E/ 000000 1 11 1751 1 ~ 0 11 I T S 0 0 856?50 5 R C A 0 0 0 1 1 7 7 . E A iP . 0 2 1 2 .e T P . 1 S . B K E a. W C . W N . S YYYS CCCL AAAAAA EEEEEE F F FF FAAAAA LLLLEEEEE' A E FF E T D U.L T . 0 0000 000000 0 L 000000000 0 LL 00 w
= U T .
0 T I 1 0001 21 11 42 0 0000?4460 2 00 T S T 000 0 0000222 2 55 S N . 515 ' 0 031 0 1" S A 11 1 4 6 4 M U E Q . T S Y . . -
~
S T N X CX F O _E NE R - RA P I Vv - L I L A E T 00 RI t i A T
. /
S C C E T. E 00n 66o'
.R OS F
WS t 'W .W L S K C T E 5 e i ~ G0 OC E C. R %
#G T V 3 e 0/R SSML OL YtN . C - SS J 54OSSN N - L T i tI E RR AC
=tL T R ##T I
. E /
P#O MtO NNON C
. d 0
H S8 NE ET MN RK K EAA EE S EE W EtCcWcI L33M B - T NOosM TAAi iu TTc RN EI OCC I . C S EOE
!! N PELLMEE 5CAANNf S ? )C RS C
EtV E
.I T . E P . E f
F f f T PD ES/ I CEERR R U QLAAF NNOEB 0L ' 2%0SdNI I AR7 l f B A S "- fI ! I MMuD ACPYsFMMMRRl 1 ST f S E0 YYJ AA CtI R N O R S EOPPSTi M M0sF AON RR IViAkT C . I S . S CFO NOM R LT YVAUu NI l I VU0A - MKP6 - LVTT RREEM0MGMO EETT RM E I TT C0DNSE4 V RnN E . R O AN RCC RS J v T 0 T lt0T EE . EE E D. O GGCLG AN CO78TRR E 0 R 0 E A '4 K (J M 00 2CC2C LL S SRL
'f T E . F
.W E
G NNI ESI I GGI OG E G I L7U R T R//V 22ACC I I E C 1
\5I5EP r E3CiI s 5566GE%u 0Mw EF f'
E N N E G
. i SB l AA uCC C t C 0/ 00/0 6 U SCLSC O o L*. O EOA K
.. O A 0DMPD A T COVVKVv A L# r A
. L K fEESt K N ET00 K0 K K N l S3 C O "4
- y C C U L O825 0 C A/O/c! C e'd /
BCRCt$Ch454**S ' LS l . L RRRI l i A A O EM41456 A C3F1 ? s 8 # # A C26 iF Lf T
! OI
. A
. P DOT Dc P C C
P JlAA& P - SAA
. - ~
N K K A K A K il L U L . M.. R O . R O B U
- AAAAAA
- AAAAAA R O
- A
- A 'AAA#AAAMA AAA AAt A A R O
- AA c T#E S#N T .
SR . 3 0 W 0000 5678 W S 000000 000000 W - 0 0 0009fQ000 t C000 1 0 0 W 00 00 A#0 E #1 H#5 EO DS O CQ ., 6 1 L A T 6666
- 11 11 L
A T L A T 777777 444444 L A T
-3 4 000W3I33 33 44C 64440 3 4
L A T 22 44 T T tL I aL E . O T O T G T 345677 000000 O T 1 0 23455555"# 000CC000? 0 5 d T
- 00 00 m C
2 Ctf Nsh TS N 000000 C 0 0 9 u O 5 0 0 C- 0 - 00 - P U . . 3 3 55535 5 0000000 0 00 060cO0000 0 0 000 E - - OS . 6 6 66666 6 1 11 11 11 1 22 2222?2222 2 2 333 R CY 6 6 66666 6 0000000 0 00 0 0 f* 0iD00ta t 0 0 000 T CS 5555555 l C i . 1 1 1,1 1 11 1 1 5 55 5555S.5555 5 5 555 l T A i . E I s iE
.O J
M E T 0 0 1 0 0 1 00003 00000 111 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0000000 0000000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G 0 1 00 00 1 1 00GA00%60 000t 00r 00 1 1 1' 1 1 f 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 000 000 111 E L R S D C" P . m
r > ,. x> C
.:i k ,
.oI;gI y 1 EN
-g:.
- g. , n a ,g *sl. a - 3.
.. . . . 1 S g ARS R kS'3RE 4 - $
m R E "4S43 S-
*0 W W ;
y n -- . .
- 8 R,$,@ j Q3280G M' R R $$@#@. SJ
;-S*,],
.$ *3!: ",6 . % S R,t o, o, : n, + ~,
w- e, o, < o,rg #, . e,
$ 82 '2 ~ a m-,
a s m<en g n . -n.~
- -u
;g ; o g; . ., . c - -
0 ; S.. :
. S :
55 M3:?
*i d C.
8 S n *gg R g "8.d" *e.8 .'t0 p 12 t i *. R
*. JR Mgsg8
* .~...
?
N. 23 g g: . n.
,1
,y n ~
--4 ~
m -~nm g o n. -m-u n u R
,n E=- :
*d EW -i
- E 4
g5:g WM: g- . 9 R a. gg8* lg . E.$88g"8 .-t . g 8 8 n 288Sg-aa*- g'.- g E {- gg.e - o .
- m ~~- o - - n -,
ga:
.: . , o-
_5 %. s% : n. C.
. C. C. C. C. - C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. ' , - C C. i 4
U 5*:% % % 3%% %%%%%% % %%%%X >%% ga g fi:3 aa t RHH 3Rafne a HHBSa :33 W' g,fd ig dag JAJJdd pj .Aaddg [J d 2 S E: ', dt : 5 W:18 8 8 888 88888E 8 '888E8' '82
$Wg Ekid
$. 8 m
AN$o .$$$*'d mM 5 g
$$d*fd- .$'
av 2 I : 8- w : W 5' 5: 5.5 5 $50 5555 5
- 55555 50 w g-
- o o o ooo -oooooo o -ooooo- -oo f 3
$l A
-hb- $ A A bh. h Ab$h5- -
A$
# .g::.
C
- 5 g 5 : 2 ~
5
.4 : W = Y R' :
- -- na 4 4 W$ .r . S 5
t2 0 t 8 52- : Q . g- ~ 5' 'E .1 5:h; Sw$
- - =
k - $ g82
"$ g @ ::8 a 5 . $" E- 55 0
=
.E2' s 8 mwy *: 8 WG 5m ' d m" c;. :g5g ex R;#
- 5:le!'.5: ~. E cW*d s .
8.s o"8W
--as WI,se 5 85 5:32 O~ -
gua M5 0 a:: *SMS - * *E Ja s i EW"Q 2:ay S M 550 Sag 2' -g2"
.s*
E "O :SES8-~2- E E 8 939" 5 BoSM 8 =a d 5; 525~ ME"W5 8.{"b 5 88 0 ***"s~8~ 8 5e a d-to =
- ?
M p'W"IEAEWS 1pf e g =. l"E"E5EE6
- 1 L W
a 533E W u-3558AE W a s 4 a
.L
- =
GA 3 5 5t : 1 '1 5-1415 *
$ ;44541% M 144421 ~$ ;ee 41
!w W4G
=s es:a- E*
8":* to g
~
~
5 coo xas 2 ococon m
- 1-a$5
. 33oooaas m
5 na s ** Gia.s a 2 -Ha'*a 2 Haaana. 2 3 2 .HHHfa 2- af E W-
*ia
' ' g":8 o
o- o 8 e 8-o ocoo 8 3388 o ooooooo 3 E888888 o -- 8 88
.mmmmmm 8 888888 n
8 $$$-
* * * ** 9 **9*9* * *9*
.a -t W": 9 9.9*99 9 **999*9 2 -5 W g_
5:8 8 8- 8 8888 8 8888888 8 88 8 888888 8 888+ _g y.- - - - ---- - ------- - -- - - ---- - -- o d a- . 1 _ a
s gs- -
+
27 3 .-o - p. l
, 1{ 9"2 2
9 e / f Ssu 0 S 9 0' 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 Cs.08 2 2 3 2 3 1 0 0 3 5 4 0 1 5 t. 0 3 c 0 0 0 0 0 8
.( G 2
/ /
2 Bt A0 .
. 2, 3, 6 2 1S 7, 5, 0, 0 0, 0 0, 0, 1, uf
- y;A 1 1 LN 1 1 1 6 r. 4 0 0 6 P . - 2 2 b. -M 1 1 3 1 E E T T .
. A -A '
t D 0 T E LR S . 0 8 2 8 8 3 0 4 6, 5O34 1 S1 6 4 7, 7 9 0 0 0, 0 0 0, 0 0 0, 0 0 0, 0 0 5, 0 0 5, 0 5, 3 5 8,
. f 2 C
T A AA T L . 3, 0, i, 7,c,7,4, C,
#, P = OL 8 3 3 6 0129 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 5 r G 2 2 2 0 1 1 4 4 4 7 1 E : TO 9 3 1 4 1 3 R f D. 1 1 7 7, 7, 7, 6 6 6 9 1
E S
. 1 1 1 0 ,.[T 6
x:s. E G' . tR 4 0
- i a 0 4
F - 8 0 0J30 4 0 0 0 0 a00 G 7
-# 8 0
. S . 0 RR . S 2
8 5 4 7861 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 0 5
- _C OA .
BL . 0, 9, 1, 6, 0, 0,2,0, G, 9, 0, 0, 0, 5, 5, 5, 7, 4 3 2' 95 2 0 0 0 7 7 T 6 E AL . 0 2 7 1 3 1 3 9 % 0 0 0 4 4 4 1 _ 3 0 3 I T M LC~7 D . 3 2, 2, 2, 5 5 $ 6 _ 3 1 1 ! 7
- 2 T F"- ._7 1 C .
7
. E :
f4 . C. L$ 0 0 0 5- 00 5 3 7
'0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 S J Ar 0 0 0 4 50 9
- I A RL 3, *
, 5, 6, &, 4, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, C, EL . 8 0 4 P 34 1 5 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 _
T C 2 3 1 3 6 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 AD M . 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 3 5. N R k . 5 0 5 0055 G 5 O Oir . 7 5 7 5577 0 7 I B/ 4 T AS 4 0 9 0014 0 A L . 5 6 4 6665 5 5 R
-O T 0 0 9090 a 0 P 2 S! . 9 c aC C R! . 7 0
2 0 0508 5100 c 0 0 _
. C P
E r MN /. t 1 0 J 0 050 0
-r?
3 R 0 1 0 2
.M L OR .
BE c% A 0 0 LA P ., i I 2 1 s R A E T
. E i ,.
t D tl . 5 0 0 00 0 0 0 i G d IAi 4 5
- 0. - 5108 0 0
0 0 0 0 g 2'
.E
. G E Est O 1 5 6 7 0 0 0
.E G E/
! S . 1 0 0 0
^ R C A . 0 .6 0 E A H 0 1 0 T P 5 i S .
S r - C i a '
~ k c' W .
Y YfWF . s t S s Y UF t C 7 s CcY L i L L ?
- E ) Y . 0 0 0 0000 .
0 0 0
.N
-- O
- tA i
f . l . 0 5 0 5960 1 . 1 1 ~ T S i . 0 3 0 31 0
-S
.M S
N A U . 6 0 4 4 2 3 11 0 B 'h
.E Q
- T S .
- Y .
. 4 A 5
~S - E 0 R ,. E 1 V V R M E . E x A Q .
T A
. b i
- R O SC R
SSS#P T 6 , HW C U 0T 0 EF D [ l I t 1 A E 'A c C WN6R AA O O' TTER Y!:MG R 3D-' I D PPOt L XF.. N N T C sE I I YSY G~ RP E#! . E S xS S ILL At GGPM 3' 4U 2U A*L . L I Efi P2O
. N B E x CCE/C MNPE .,
n~O AAR O iA o#C 0 1 . C A K A T x
' 1 X4 2' 1
*3 x
FiFWL TCE I T T AAD 6 s C-E - t . f . L N
- 5. F x
- c CK uV RROE EEI PPRL H E F W0 CCRv CF E. : Y iO I H*
n R 3OC0OC5 v cc0AE AT C . T O + W0 4 -P ct7LR cOES IVTA ' S N T NRE8RE1 O PS
. R :: N E O OEf Et 3 Y!EYHE oO A El R D .. C f I ! l Cl iEL 4 RRTRSR TT N .
N T t Ri T L AAAAFU - I ; T S 'E ET . 2 6 4 APDCPDE: H E
*OiOOC RRRf T E s N' - S E S O
3RL EOA
. 1
. s G 8 ATPW7PCKAS
.YI f 1 ERF RC G A T t
PP' P G G A ! I I
- - EEI T G
A T C IT$3 H . C G C T C* G' CLAR LAKCi s K C U N MMGMRk EE~ E Ot K C s u : t EET t i o K C N U T I f
. /
. 5 A L0xUH0Oi0AE" D85 MSf t 5 car 5 6
A O TT - T F S A a 1f - s I A O C
~
LfT . P P C P C P C E I OI t . C C C R T i L A K -. A 'A AAAA 's A K A s E R A I O
. M, A R A A AAAA t S 2 G U# b i#E T . 0 O
W 0 G 0000 ni U S .'0 0 G u u t 0 O W l Z [ s#N 0 0 A*O
$ R ;. 1 E O 8, L 1 1 4
1 11 0 4440 L L 7 7 1 L L 8 L" D ~L E T < A M 1 1 11 4 A A 1 1 A A 1 A T A f A T , RMS T L VS C0 - 0 C T O 1 1 2345 O T T G T O T O 0 o O %
.R Y
t : #M 2mI C L T f S 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0G00 0C00 T I T T f T T
^+ -. 5 M- . G 0 2 2 2 2222 2 00 ..00 0 00 0 e-s.
f
. E R - .*T OS . 6 CY . 0 CS . 5 6
0 5 5 0 5 6 5 0 t 0 5 6666 0000 5555 50 5 5 00 00 66 0 6 6 0 0 ~ 6 00 00 77 0 0 7 7 gs.f, L i C A . 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 00
.i
. A l
E E J O M.0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 00 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 , 3T 7 E D G R F T . 1 S . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1
,l a
j ' l L=b
Q 2 9 2 9
. f
/ /
2 0
/ /
2 0 Rs.. 0k 3J J. T A 2 1 2 1 A Lf . P E E - T T . A A . D c S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T E LR . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E K R O T A AA . 7 L 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, _ A P M 0L 3 5 8 8 5 3 Y E I 1 O . 6 6 4 6 % 9 M 0 C I A T S D .
. 4, 2, 2, 2, 0 0, C, 0, E . 4 4 4 4 6 6 e 6 -
E 9 . C C 4: _ H 0 . S 4 T : ._ . F 8 S Q 0 RR OA .
- BL .
E At 3 M LC 0 I D . 3 T 9 2 . 7 1 9' C F
. E R
s. D. L . 0 G 0 G 0 0 0 0 J AR 0 J* 0 0 0 0 0 0 I A . RL 0, L, C, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, EL 8 8 5 8 8 8 5 3 T O. 6 f 6 6 V 9 9 9 AD M 2 2, 2 2, 0, 0, 0, 0,
% 4 k 4 6 5 6 4 N RR O OH
?
3/S t A L . R: T . K R ST R O RI O C E P kHL . R R . G OR . N L RE .
! I AP R A L E T .
E E . k D LT 0 0
! AI 0 0 C E I N .
D C RU . 0 0 E A. E/ . 0 0 s T 3 . 0 0
,. C A . 5 8 E A M . 6 0 1 F . 2 0 5 . 4 4 8
M C W is . S S S 8 T U. L L L E N c t Y .. T 0 0 0 O i l . 1 1 1 s i ST M S A . M J T E O . S . Y S f Y
. C R . 2 N E 7 f G T C W 4 . & N T .
#u f Y E N Tf A G O tG Nh D N C.
T nE . EE I / 4 a! . M 'P r T S ACt . E T M N P M#o o N O GT AA E N E s O C T N M O#C - I . NN M 0 E / R C T . AA E 1 s S T E F ,. MH G P E E EEv I . A 3 T D C K R . Ni l N - A N AT C . DO A GG a t I
!VT A S T TTl f int NW t
i t NE iI R E D M f CC 4 RRi oc ! M R R O S E M uU 0 EE 1 T T E F Ei i. E G rR C 5 EE E 6 AA E ld T SMl A t T G 1 WN C 1 LL G O E J O EKA N sS NN A K T N C J GG A. is R E AA CC A E T N I T D N L 1 M3 . A cO C !. O r Nk t c s t E Ss C U A I L I t . N CC A T EE A a A Et A O L A Lf T P C $ P C 1 P C A 2 I oI k C N C c C C C T N t . O K A O G K A u C A S F U U M . I B C W R S F M R S E TNE T
. T C U U S R O
W U S C O W U S E C 1 0 - 0 L - I SWN SR O E 0: T 0 N A2C EO . R 0 , L L E L L A 0 A
<#T t
t iS TS T S 9 A T i A T A T E I E A T A T k t l L A 9 4 T L f A L A T W O T iWL d#L CO. E . N O O T T O O G N 0 O o C S O C O L T 1 T f T T T L 2 o iS C E E A C P N NMI h t . 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 E - - OS . 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 R CY 1 1 1 22 2 33 3 4 T CS 99 9 9 90 9 9 99 9 9 9 L et C A I A s E J M 0 09 0 o 0 G 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 t E 1 1 1 1 i 1 2 22 2 2 7 3 33 3 3 3 4 4 T a O T . 9 99 9 V 9 9 99 V 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 E t i S . - D C P . l1
s sx x :- + >
-_ + -
.. .- ---c y e y. -ma.'
-~.-
j.
; PAE 1 .M-
[_? DETAIL"REFCRT $70kE' & WEESYEE EdGINEERlEG CCFORAT!CW ' J.O.1172$303 (- UFfSHORE INTAKE. b CLNET- + CORTMEAST Uf!LlitES SERUICE COMPAW .. , : WORK #ACKAGE DETAIL REPORT'- REPO f TIME: ^4:40:49 CEPCP OATE: 12/02/9N
' it##t*#### Of FSHORE . !NTAKE firJ#####
TFROJECT a MILLSTONE Uiiti.3 ALTERWATIVE COOLING W TIC s? STEMS STUDY :Esi! MATE DATE;f.:12/02/92-
~ACCa WT CCDES' IMATE21AL LABOR hAS LABOR MATERIAL' LABOR' ' TOT?t LASCR STEM $YS SEQ SOET ML DESCRIPTION- QUANTIFY UN . 5/L>Nii . PER tMIT S/HR D0tLARS ~ ~ COLLMS DOLLARS- It0URS '
--......... 2,........... ..... 4................ . ....................aa.......... ...............-...... 2. 2..... 2..... ........... .....................
940.9400 9G00 . ALLOW FOR INDETRMNTS/COMTMCNCY 1.G LS '17/47000,00 17,747,000 1?,7 4 000-17,747,000 17,747,000 . l 940.9400 707AL WORT PACGGE ~
.; 4C.9 1 TOTAL' SUCAccathT 17,747,000 17,747,000 940 .107AL - ALLOWANCE TCR 'IkOETERMINATES/CCNTINGEECY ~ 17,74/,000 17,747,000 ;
i 0TAL E S 711 M A T E S1,472,086 7,616,767 89,088,833.- 1M,125. ' m 4 w ' b H-a
* ~
- 7 +
.r n e
Y ( f - '. g ,sy ' g gL. ,a,, . , .% _.
, .,,, _ ,a
a. s = Wf., *
?
s.
,e J ,,+7 S -
w T ,
~ -,
1' 2 2 . 1 9 9 . -
/ / . -
5 5 RS . 1 1 2 2 OR . 6 6 E C
/ /
1 1 B0 . A0 . 6, 6, A 1 1 L s t 9 9 P . 1 1 ..
. 1 1 E E . y _w T T . n.
A A .
- C D .
S . 6 0 0 0 6 _
'. T E LR . 9 0 0 0 7 N
R O T A AA. TL
. 4, 0, 0 0, 4, P M OL . 9 6 '. 5 GR E !
T S TO D 5' 2, 4 3,
',* a 6,
2 2, H E . 9 1 1 5 8 S 8 . 1 2 E 2 . M : . 5 . E 0 . N . I 5 S . 1 1
, F 1 RR . 2 2 ,*
OA . 5, $, ,
- BL .
3 E M A L )L .. % 5 0 3 I I H.. 0, c, 8 . 7 7 2 T . 7 R . 1 C . P .
. E . t R '
O. LS 5 1 0 0 5 J AR . 7 0' 0 0 7 I A . RL . 9, 0, 0, 0, 9, EL . 5 9 6 1 1 T O 0 4 2 9 7 AD N . 2 3, 9, 6, 1,
. 2 1 1 $ 1
. 1 2 N .
O . I . T A R . . . O . . . P . . . R . . O . . C . . G . . . N Y . . . I R . . ' R A~ . . . E M . i. . . E M . . N t . . . S . . . iGI a M' L E . . . T . . R S . . . E . . . T . . . Y . . . D M T U
& S . . . .
. . . ^^
E S . . N M . . . . . O E . . . . . T T . . . ~ S s . . Y . . .
. S . . . .
R . . .
> E . . .
>T . . . .
> A . . . .
>W
. . . . Y
. . . C
> G . . . M T > n . . . . E N >i . . . . G A > L . . N P>O . . . I M O
. . T O C . . . N CS . . . O NE . . . C EEV . . . . /
CE! + . S
! RT . . E VCA . . . T RSN . . . A
- E R . . . N ENE . . T I ST . N . M E SCL . E . R EMA . . M . E T I . . E . , T TE' t . . G . . E A l 4 . . A . D tlT - . . N . N M iFI E . . A . . I T N M .
U<U L .. . R I
. . . N l. O T T < E -.J f C K . F y S < N $ ! t N $
A < O I . 0 T 0 E E < T . C C Ra 1 C E H < S T . U E T N T T < L , T R E A A R R <L . C T N L W O O<I . E S I A O L ,. P it < M . R N O C L E . I O W S L A R - - T . D C E E A N . T ', Y T MJ R A T M C 2 CD. T C .
. 0 0
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 G
- M f J SC . 1 9 9 9 9 T
. M i O A .
U l R . y S C P . - 3 y
- .- f _
>+-u ~
.,.x. -
_ :- m-
- n. ,. - - ~
m, WaSCR1A + IC7TRODUCT104 'SiewE & WEBSTER EZlWEERG CORPORGTIO J.O.1728M3'i FINE MCM SCRW - PAGE, TA CLIEMI . kM1MEAST IfT!LITIES SERVICE COMPANY ~ REPCET OATE: 11/25/92,
<<<<n u << FINE MESH STREEks >n> nun *
! PROJECi'- MILLSTOWE tMIT 3 ALTERNATIVE C00LikG WATER SYSTEMS STUDY. ESitMATE DATE: ._11/25/92 ' ESTIMATE ktTES Estimate basic as fottews:
. 1. Present day pricing as of 11/1/92.
- 2. Subcontracted (tbor rates es of 11/1/92.
-3.. forty hour work week, single shift operation. . .
- 4. Dredged materist to be" disposed of locatty; assM to be not conteminated.
- 5. Reg;tred construction i.ititities stspiled by owner.
6 Land required for construction trailersi parking, and tay down provided by owner.
- 7. Escatation ret included.-
4.. h -A .- ,t costs not inclaied.
- 9. DemotItton/ relocation costs not incita3ed.
- 10. Lost revenue during station shut dca s for tie-ins not included.
11; ' Salesi use, service or other taxes not incio,$ed.
- 12. Builders at1-risk insurance not included. _
. 13. Severe contingency costs such as' these associated with advene weather, craf t strikes ret included.
. 14. Start-up costs rot inctWed. .
- 15. .Perafts including environmental rot included.
~16. :Esotcyee train!M , certifications, see.wity con s not included.
- 17. J No Category 1 work included.-
- 18. Att of fshore work to be scheduted other than during winter cetths.
k A.-
+ br
.^; .
e.,..
~ -
", W d n &v ~ eA -, , ,
. l __
.fj y -
^
;-{; , z; a:
.- ~
t : .
- ,. m Nm ":= $ $$ S--
<~ . ,
x*$ 4 o, gS . -S 18 .s -8'- $.. s- E<
~
- 4. .. ,
9 . - - - a .
;_ .e- - p -~- m =m-W2 :
.a 3 a
-a35 ; ,
- *m.6,,$
*0 S 8
, 4, _,,
C
, o, G, gg N
2 4-o, - ,_ 5-
.. W ;. l eg :_: n w ng* N _mW 48 5 n,
n*C R** 3.
.C-m 4 : - ; .
- - ~
.a a
w =. u 8.- :
=W .
W 8 i' - - - - E # B$i S $N' $ $ $0' b .
*E3$$E
$ l. 3 - 3' EL l$"?$5 6i 0
- Bjj l
.g s u e a-na g ;~> --* 1_s lg n p :( -
~
c# l
.-{
- i O -m
- 4~
$$! $ $$$ $. 0 $ $' E $$$1$$$ 3 -@ E. 2 l1 Rj!
2 g igi i i si i s' i i;a i g- i i ;i
. ~ ~
'8 BI: c ccc c & RN cce.ccc- A c: 8 3#j ddd 5.d dddLddi A
~ d dd d d-gwf _ Ej! H- EHH a a 2 a - -
$3 se
-558 888 saw wa.
2 a E-
- 2:
a-g :
.5: $ C $c W - .a -
.w m4- 5":
Ewa #t: 8 888 8 8 83 888 888 8- 8 53-
#w 5$ hh!
s-e N@ N' o s-E N F$ ~ - kNd
'N N' N
- s. a .: .e ne
- 8. w :
&Q
- a. 5 -555 1 5 50' 555 555 5 5 -D:
3 .: 8- C: 9 9CC: 9
- 9*. ** .
** . 9- 9 *:
5 G :: S 800 NNO
- g C-
# 4: - .
5 8:
.; : s
'G : .. . . = , .
a : c o' a '5' J 3' G
'Re' ; 55 .g h
- _ E' 52G 1g- w 29 : 00 . 0; -e ~'G " . B to l MW 8'W "U W x
* ~
N
"^5 : o.- Fi* ~ 2 5 =R, - S a $. w.
3 3go2 g :- 59 dh a3 =t =e == es m *"s s c .- me a W"$9" '
- a su ,.. .g5- --
o us wwW. r: eu e
<non na m. a
=e ww-zs--o nueve-au -a.
.m m
. u -a.8a s 20 5: N 3-5 di WG m8' "J"W-WJ. 5k"4 t. 8.
sM3 n: a:
= -=5""a"S'Me,5-mg* OME ~-
'M"Wg" E' u.5 e* -sSeus --
-a Se>45$ --
s e ~ 2:
.E"*0' -
tr iE E - " gWSEu[t5-58may$$ '8 555 d *WpJd k "4 x ! g d5555baa" W -: 5 g TW W l- W X'#*** Wi CW" g;= t A a m: i
'6.-
W 35'"ll!m G $ 3 2 W d"s < *b EM5558555 w- .g < Sjh58 Cu W - M$ we ' M:. i 9 * * ' l 5,3 . . S-S G?g'w""$;: S yRS SSR2SS S S R*N SO S 30-- u # S ";; ;;; 4 % U- 10
'e:n-ao: _g. g
= s
- i s-- 5
'W-
.c- 4 g"3#- ' '
oo oco o o ao o o ogo -o -o o .o .co a.. '
< a w U J
4" :
- 55 555: 5
'd
-55 5 9 oob BB Bo8 8 -Gd 0
LE l3 8'
*::t' 'L 8 8 288. 888 3 ~5~W 5: 8" '"8 8 88 888 8 8 F8 S 88 8 8 '- 8 8-4a d 2 r
G '- .
'- ' ' ' ' ' - ~ ~ " " ~~ " " ' " " " " " * -
" "" *~ " ' " " -
{ r f J' %
b N N ee
- v. 4 0 Q g" CSS
- IC gg
- gg8 y 3 4 2- ag: .n - 8 SSQ
.m n . ". ..
~ ~
. $. $. Rn
".m.
- s. -
g o.
~
y- - s. 2 m. . - - e - c c- i I ao a :
-W v 9 E.a.B. E. i.s. 3 a.a a. E. S.R.B.R.2. a. E. a.f.a.n.
9 .E;*. . eg:: - i Sexa !. E.S.3.a.
- y n., -C a s se - g sae
~-~ g n., ~s ,a,, g, ga.. e o, s.aan -~
w , ., ~
-ry8 i w 8 :
i 5 sij3SE 3- EEG 'E Sa 3 SHE F sh! 3 S E
>g"::su:a .n :o ~a a n
sea a - - e a nE = :
~
E a ~a 3 - = au t u ard un & u u
- r- : a a 2
- ' g- . I d W !
4 sGiGSaa S 282 a 3D E af a Ha E $ afla inlitii i nii i di i 66 i di i i iiii-8 88 888 8 8.8
,M*sW i. R. R. R. 8. 8 8 R. - R.
~
s l443 RRO RR 88? RRR S 3 l- :: 8 a9 w 3:a.s.a. g.:nnn 8. a.n 8,8 ac-8. oo-2.n 8 8 H.a. a. a. C 3c
- <r: a c e. p- -
8 w .m s : M o . y* _it:8888 5 %g .lR 8.88 8. 8 88 8.S.18 8 8 8 8.-
- gkW ggR [+8 ER 8g 9 g 8, e s'- 2 *
- sm -
~a-O g : 4 1
l , l Bj$"5K "Et *E tuu ""$$7 2 REEE! w -e CCCO C00 00 000. 00000 O COCO h ! 3,!N53 Ndd dd pgg jd"#5 d ddddI E G
~~
n : l = l a eMoa 2
;, y 2 acte 23 0 "
"ssWM -
2e l
': g m
E O 5 E "o"E*'b- 3% 863g-gt* l ~ W
- E E" #a5mt i .M
~
=#5= 3 A 1 g .
.h$A ' 5: r:
- 5
.w 5
6 W e l0 SamSS eg 50 j ~d
- '~ES*R
~
btE soWW "o Boo 8B' $"35m*
., = 2 G54 5 .M
$~
B
*G" "I 9fl"W g
"$5 g w g s"7 5an 8 lcDEU g' d 5 5 3d g$w$ at BEm. w a = g/
f
"$W OWW.
Egy B W ";-
"W5 w E'"w W StdE w
g'80C g'sEs
*ai y
< 8g
-wkw 1
E E "85"D"a ea51-Eggg5EdW gr5"d E w gEilx!B 8-madg.- 2 is!sh
! !EEE u w
!w Esse .s s===Gi~s w w 3 !ooo $ coo h oo $ o-o $ ggggg g' $ g g g g '
lll
~d b :!jBES!
S: g E 29E g 2 EB g 2 559 y 2
- = g 2
=~ue 9 0;;E -
'S
= -.
B n.-.3883 oo ? d 60$8 So S o c2a@ u S RRRR oooo R. 788880a o e
- 8. 8 o
$ $ P.f,.a s
a ".8 l i s - t W": .nnn .-.".. " 7~~.~.. 7 . 5 ". .- 7 . . " W 5 Wg 5:8888 8 8888 8 888 8 8888 8 888888 8 8 88888 ( i a: d a g:----
A m 3 2 2 . 2_
~
9 9 _
/ /
'6 70.
5 5 RS 6 7 7 8 8 8 0 0 0 1 _ 2 2 OR . 7 3 90 9 9 2 2 2 0 0 0 6 E G
/ /
1 1 BU . AO 0, 6, 1,2 3, 3, 2, 2, 2 4 4 4 6, _ A 1 1 LN 2 9 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 P . 0 1 . 1 1 m E E m T T A A '_ D D 6 6 00 0 0 0 0 0 6 S 0 3 0 60 0 9 T E LR 0 9 1 35 8 8 00 0 0 0 1 - 0,9, 9, 9, 0, 4, 4, 4, 4, AA 0, 0, R T 3, 1, 1, 1, .
'N O A T L 00 0 0 01 8 8 8 2 u
R P M OL . 4 3 2 7 7 1 1 6 . C . 0 2 > 2 01 1 1 3 3 3 S E R I T S TO.7C
. 8, ,
3 3 3 2. 3 5 5 2 M E . 1 8 9 ' a S 8 . 1 1 E 0 . M : . 6 . E 0 . N : . _ 0 I F 5 1 R8 5 3 9 5 3 60 35 6 6 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 1 2 m OA . BL . 1, 0, 0, 9, 9, 9, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 1, 5, E AL . 8 6 50 5 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 6
. 2 3 71 8 8 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 3
3 0 M I T LO. D 1 5, 1 1 1 3 3 3 0, 0 . 6 7 2 T . _ F R . 1 O P
. E R
J. LS 0 0 5 00 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 5 J AR . 0 0 7 00 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 7 I RL A 0, 2, 9, 0,0, , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, _ EL . 4 5 5 50 5 5 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 T O. 0 9 0 71 8 8 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 AD M 7 6, 8, 1 1 1 2 2 2 2,
. 1 1 2
. 1 1 N RR 55 0 5 O OH . 77 0 7 I B/ . -
T AS . 44 -0 7 A L 55 5 5 O P T R ST . 00 0 0 O R1 . 00 0 0 O P . 00 0 0 C G E R RH5.~ OR . 1 . 70 90 6 4 0 0 O L BE . 1 1 3 4 I I AP . 3 R A L . e E T . E E 0 00 0 0 C D LT I AI 0 00 0 0 G E I Mf D G Rt 0 00 0 0 ' E A E/ 0 00 0 0 ~ K TS 0 00 0 0 R C A . 8 55 0 5 E A M . 8 7 0 1 T P 1 2 S B K . E R W O SO W .N U. M
. o SA LE LM S
L Y E D f 0 00 00 0 N U i O T l 8 12 18 1 T S i 1 S N S A M U . E Q . T S . Y . S . G
- N NN R O0
> E S RI I 1
>T R 1 T T
>A E W SS AA
>W
> . N D
R EE I I - RR EE T O PP N YpEG . E
. T T TT I I OC E N > I . EEA LL M A > L . 2 CCR I I GG E P >0 N . / NNE CC G M 0 O . S AAP AA NNI I A O C I . R WuO FF' T T N A 5' CS T . E Oo S$
NE P V Lt E KK X M EEV I I LtT CC IXX N CEI R . D AAA OO EE O I RT C G DD' VCA S 2 LL O0 T I RSN E AAR YYN TT N T %
. E R D -, CCO RRO E C SHE I I F AAI SS T M U ST S E RR E RRT E NN E S E R SEL R G TT W G OOA G I I G O G T EMA . E A f CCO A T PPR A T - .
A T C A S I . V K s EEL K N MME K N EE K N N N
. I C C U EEP C U C U T A O TE3 I N D A W LL L EEA A O TT O A O TYI I
A P O C C M C ~ LI T P t P C P C E I F I . c C C C R N T N L K A K A K A K A I O U J t M R B R 8 R 6 R B D I
< . O U O U O U O U T T < E T . 0 W S 00 W S -0100 W S 0 0
W S - C U S < N SR 0 01 A < O L L 00 L L 00 L L 0 L L L R E < T H < S EO.2 DS O 1 A T A T 55 A T A T 66 A T A T 7 A T A r A T T S T < L CQ O O O O O O O T o T O T N O T R < L E T T T T T T R O<I T S . C O W < M H . 000 0 00 0 0 P L . 0 0 000 0 0 E * - OS . 9 9 000 0 000 0 00 0 - R CT 0 0 000 0 000 0 00 0 1 T CS 1 1 1 555 5 5 666 6 6 77 7 7 9 l T C A 0 - l N E M .. 0 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 Q E 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 1 T E I O J T ,01 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 9 9 ~ E L R S . D C P .
J.O. 172d303 - 5146 R;SM SCR2 PAGE 4 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERIEG CORPC2ATICW DETAIL REPORT WORK PACKAGE DETAIL REPC2T REPCRT TIME: 15:06:08 REPORT DATE: 11/25/92 CLIENT - NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANT
<<<<<<<<<< FINE MESH SCREENS >>>>>>>>>> Est!MAIF D4iE: 11/25/92 PROJECT - MILLSTONE beli 3 ALTERNATIVE C0041NG WATER SYSTEMS STUDY 3ATERIAL LABOR TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL LABOR HRS LABCR ACCOUNT CODES DOLL?SS DOLLARS DOLLARS NOURS i
QUANTITY UN S/ UNIT PER UNIT S/NR STEM STS SEQ SORT ML DESCRIPTION l l 1.0 LS 1349000.00 1,349,000 1,349,000 I 910.9100 9000 CONSTRUCT!DQ MANAGEMENT a 7% 1,349,000 1,349,000 910.9100 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE I 1,349,000 1,349,000 910.9 TOTAL SUSACCOUNT l 1,349,000 1,349,000 910 TOTAL - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT I ( 920 ENGINEERING 920.9200 ENGINEERING 1,926,000 1,926,000 9000 ENGINEERING G 10% 1.0 LS 1926000.00 920.9200 1,926,000 1,926,000 920.9200 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 1,926,000 1,926,000 920.9 TOTAL SUSACCOUNT 1,926,000 1,926,000 920 TOTAL - ENGINEERING 930 ESCALATION 930.9300 ESCALATION 9000 ESCALATION - PRESENT DAT 1.0 LS 930.9300 930.9300 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 930.9 TOTAL SUBACCOUNT 930 TOTAL - ESCALATION 940 ALLOWANCE FOR INDETERMINATES/ CONTINGENCY 940.9400 ALLOW FOR INDTRMNTS/CONTINGNCY l
.5
~
Sb "DETAll' REP CT $TCE & WEBSTER ENINEERINC COP 0ATICJ J.O.1728' u53 - FINE MESH SCRN . ' PAGE' -5 . CLIENT - NORTHEAST LfTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY WORE PACKAGE DETAIL REPORT REP (#! TIME: 15:06:08 REPORT DATE: '11/25/92 s
<<<<<<<<<< FINE MESM SCREENS . nninn>
PROJEcf - MILLSTONE UNIT 3 ALTERNATIVE COOLING WATER SYSTEMS STUDY EOTIMATE i) ATE: '11/25/92 -
- JCCOUNT CODES .
MATERIAL LABOR HRS . LAB 0ft MATERIAL LABOR TOTAt2 ' L ABOR - QTEM SYS.- SEQ SORT ML' DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UN $/ UNIT PER LNIT S/HR DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLMS NOURS' 940.9400 9000 Allou FOR IkOTRMNTS/CONTirtNCY 1.0 LS 5691000.00 5.691,006 .'5,691,000
'940.9400 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 5,691,000 5,691,000 940.9 TOTAL SUSACCOUNT. 5.691,000 5,691,000 940 TOTAL - ALLOWANCE FOR INDETERMINATES/ CONTINGENCY 5,691,000 5,691,000.
TOTAL ESTIMATE- 21,171,915 7,056,521- 28128,496 119,661-J
. , , . , . 4, , -- -
. . _ , , , . . _ , _ , , , , { h
u j - x s+ 1 2 2 . 9 9 ,
/ /
. 2 2 5
2 5 2 Rs. OR 0 0 4, E G
/ /
Bu. 4, A P 1 7 ~ 1 1 Ao.. Lh 9 5 9 5 E E . T T . ro A A D D 0 o 0 4 5 . 4 E . 1 0 o 0 1 N M 1 L 1. Ai . 9, 0, t, 0, 9, R C A T L C P M OL 0 2 2 4 8 0 S . 2 4 0 4 E E R I T S TO.C. 0 8 2, 5, 6 R E . 2 1 3 7 -, I 1 1 'q W M: . E 8 ' C 2 9 4 S 5 5 E W 1 RR . 9 9 OA . BL . 0, 0, ., E AL . 5 5 ' M . 4 4 3 0 3 I T LO.D
. 9, 9,
'g 5 2 2 2 T 7 R .
1 O . P . ,
. E . ,
R O. LS 9 0 0 0 9 J AR . 1 0 0 0 1 I A . RL . 8, 0, 0 0, 8, 9 EL . 5 2 2 4 3 9 T O. 7 4 0 4 6 AD M 0, 8 2, 5, 6, g
. 9 1 3 4
. 1 N
O . I T M C . G . . . . . N Y . . . I R . . . R A . . . . 7 E M . . . . - E M . . . . . W U . . . . l S . . G . . . N M . . . E E . . . T . . . . R S . . E . . T . . . . . . S . . . . . B T . . . . . E D . . . . W U . . . . T . . . f, S . . E S . . . N M . . . . O E . . . . T T . . . . . S S . . . . T . . . q
~ S . .
- R . . . .
- E . . . . . f
- T . . . .
- A . . . . .
y
- W . . . . .
- G . . . .
T* N . . . N* . . . A* I. 5 . . . . . y P 0 . . . . M 0 . . . . OSC . . . . . . CN . . . . . EE . . . EEV . . . . g CRI . . . . S < I CT . . . . . E VSA . . T A k R N . . EER . . . . . N SRE . . T . I I T . . N . M E SWL . E . . R j E A . M . . E T I E . . E . . T TG3 . . G . E A I D . A D LET . N N M I WI E . A . I T - N M . l'
) R U t L .
. . N . O T T E T . T O G . F S N . S I N N S.
A O I 0 T I O E E* T C C R I C E . H* S T . U E T N T T
- L . T R E A A 2 R L . C T N L W ^
O C O I . E S I A L P N. M . R N G C L Y' E . I O N S L A C - - T . D C E E A E' N . T 7 T MU . R T C EO . 0 0 0 0 0 O A N E TC . 0 1 2 3 4 M E J SC . 1 9 9 9 9 i M I O A . _ U L R . S C P . 71
WSSCR1 A - INTRCOUCTION STONE & WFBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION J.O.1728303 - WEDGE WIRE SCRM PAGE1 -1A '- CLIENT - NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANT ' REPORT DATE: 11/25/92'
********** WEDGE WIRE SCREENS' ********** . .
PROJECT - MILLSTONE UNIT 3 ALTERNATIVE C00t!NG WATER SYSTEMS STUDY .ESitMATE DATE: 11/25/92
- q:
ESTfMATE NOTES c-
-Estimate basis as follows:
- 1. 'Present day pricing as of 11/1/92.
- 2. Subcontracted labor rates as of 11/1/92.
- 3. . Forty hc.ar work week, single shift operation._= . . . .
- 4. Dredged material' to *e disposed of locatty, assuned to be not contaminated.
- 5. ' Required construction utititles supptled by owner. . .
' 6. Land required for construction trailers, parking, and lay down provided by owner.
- 7. 'Escalatton not inctts$ed.
- 8. Abandorment costs not included.
- 9. Demolition /retocation costs not included.
- 10. Lost revenue during station shut downs for tie-ins not included.
- 11. Sales,'use, service er other taxes not included.
- 12. euilders att-risk insurance not. included.
- 13. Severe contingency costs such as those associated with adverse weather, craft strikes not included.
- 14. Start-up costs not included.
15, Permits includ8ng envirornental not included.
- 16.; Employee training, certifications, security costs not included.
- 17. No Category 1 work included.
- 18. At1 of fshore work to be scheduled other than citing winter months.
m.. . . . . _
1 2- 2 . 9 9 .
/ /
5 2 5 2 RS OR 8 0 6 3 0 4 0 2 4' 6 4921 0 0 02 26 8 3 48522 80374 1 4 0044 7044 5 5 0 0 E C
/ /
1 1 BU . AO . 1 8, 4, 61 1, 6, 33 6, 6 1,1 6,3 9, 5,7 2 1 6, 3, A 1 1 LH . 1 1 1 1 7 2" 3 6 3 4 3 /,_ P . E E . T T . A A . D D . r? t S . 1 7 0 0249 0 01 4 430820 2 8596 8 0 T E LR . 8 7 6 611 4 0 80 2 046650 3 6723 0 0 M R R O T A AA. TL
. 4, 3, 1, 9,5,3,4, 4, 4, 0, 1, 3,4 5,6,1,0, 1, 1,8,6,8, 5, 4 C P M OL . 5 0 3 4035 2 70 3 661 484 1 9270 0 2 p E
S E I T O 8 9 5 47 0 7 45 2 506021 7 0411 8 7 E R T S D 7, 1 3 2 4 3 5, 42 321 3, 4 4 2 R E 3 5 1 l 7 . v 1 E 9 G 2 D : . E 4 S 1 7 0 0249 0 01 4 48022 6 851 6 0 0 W 1 RR 8 6 61 1 4 0 80 3 04635 9 620 1 0 0 OA 4 1, 9,53,4, 4, 4, 0, 9, 3,0,5,6,1, 6, 1,6,0,3, 0, 9,
- BL ,
3 E M AL . 5 b 3 8 tA1 4 6 2 20 22 7 88759 8 6048 9 4 0 3 I T LO. D 41 1 1 5 4 311 ' 01 2 8 3 041 2 6 2 7 1 8 . 2 T . 7 R . Y 1 O . P
. E R .
D. LS 0 0 0 0000 0 00 0 000600 6 0080 8 0 - J AR 0 0 0 0000 0 00 0 000300 3 0532 0 0 I A . CL . 0, 2, 0, 0,0,0,0, 0, 0,0, 2, 0,4,0,0,0,0, 4, 0 4,5,5 5, 5, EL . 0 7 0 0021 0 50 5 A84994 2 3232 1 7 T O 8 9 7 06 4 6 23 6 1 85901 8 0 1 9 AD. M 7, 2 2 3 2 0, 4 21 9 2 2 %
. 3 5 N RR . 5 5 5 5555 5 55 00000 5555 0 0 OH 7 7 7 2777 2 22
- 00000 7777 0 f B/
f AS . 0 0 7 0447 0 05 66666 7777 3 a R L . 5 5 5 7555 7 75 55$55 5555 5 O T P R ST 0 0 0 0000 0 00 00000 0000 0 R O RI 0 0 0 0000 0 00 00000 1000 0 O P HN 0 0 0 0000 0 00 90509 5004 2 C G E R R Ot . U. 2 4 3 0 4 0%21 6 48 0 0 02 66 02240 6 3 0242 2 N L BE 2 1 4 13 I I AP R A L E T E E h D LT 0 0 0 0000 0 00 000000 0000 0 i AI . 0 0 0 0000 0 00 000000 0000 0 G E I N . N C RU 0 0 0 0000 0 00 000700 9782 5 E A E/ 0 0 0 0000 0 00 5001 50 2 54 6 K TS 0 8 0 0005 0 50 560950 R C. A 0 1 5 0025 5 20 21 4 E l M . 7 4 53 6 13 1 T P . 1 S . B K E R W A . N . A A A AAAA A AS t 4AAFS FAAA 1 E T D U. Y .
. E 0
E 0 E 0 EEEE 0000 E 0 EL 00 LEEELL 000000 LEEE 0000 C 0 N U T . O T I 4 4 6 4212 4 21 044801 001 0 0 T S T 5 5 6 63508 0566 0 S N . 7 13~ 03 5 S A 7 1 M U E Q T S T S . W S T' G SH' R'
. N E P T N & I L GT A
- R . 0 I H R I U NG S' E 3 T O P E DT' E ' T N E
" T .
N C 0 P P NI5TP FE R -
- A H E S 4 R I OK I R
*W .
O S E * - L A P C ,IKP &T &'
- J V 0S L E - DS S-
- G .
- E L 3RFU S H T RLNDR E S-Y* N S E A OCF T S l OEOLO PH . M N* I . E T V XT0 S/E/ U T WI ET E I G R -
A* L I O0 , I WCW D C T WCP PI S. O P O N S L R Y . M4S O N N EDC EI
- H.SR- P S F^
M' OSC O O . I . N E B M F O L D 2' F E1 H ,EV HLAL
/ EWE O
C L LEDLP L EN LL E N , ,' CN T E E RT - TBL WEON OI NEOP I PGFW E EE P R S L EAGI LAR T LAM R CFOI CR LRN O T EEV I . C S T TROW VOSSLPE O CF F FI ,B E' CRI R . S A S T EL 0 T E A T T PP P T - LSL R UP C RRPPRR I CT VSA I N C . S . E . E R TE8/8 N4IN 4SOPR1 S5LAT LUA0' OO - ATC3 ABS LLY ES E L F F RRF O F F F SEPEE RPUE UI OTG C~ N O-EER D . I NE - T - AYT SKBC C! LSAA A BPC E CE_ SRE . W ERTI TI LSSh MC EAA ASxI SRPO
'L OGI I AAI T RAA6" D0 ME T
I T E K DL S E CNDDI I DH E E SWL E G PSL L ALRTI RA' TAR G I DD G G I I I G UR E A . G A EDE UEP A A ADDX9 A NC I E TG3 D E K C UEDLD8" I QEOEO0ATOI NEMR DI P2CLT A - 1 ELN
/t LOO C K
NT" A I T 8 8" I 0 0 0"0" 8" 0R I E K L " K C EN LO I D LET W A P ET MWM1 M S C A 6" WS - ECC A P MF1 1661 F A P 6" 6 6" 6"6" A F PC I WI . T N L . T K K K K U U* T* E M . T S O C R O W 0 0 0 0000 5 60 R W O 010101 R O W 0000 R O W - 0 S* N SR . - 1 1 2 3456 6 67 1 12233 1123 1 A* O EO . T L .0 0 0 0000 0 00 L 111 111 L 2222 L 3 E" H T
- L T
S DS . O CO . C E R A T O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A T O 1 11 111 A T O 111 1 A T O 1 T
- L E . I T T T T 2 I T S . D P
C Mt ** M N U' _ . 00 0 0 0000 0 00 0 0 000000 0 00000 0 00 - E !- - OS . 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 222222 2 33333 3 44 - [ CT 00 0 0 0000 0 00 0 0 000000 0 00000 0 00 CS _ T 11 1 1 1111 1 11 1 1 111 11 1 1 11 111 1 11 L T C A . . . N E M.. 0 0 0 00 0 0 0000 0 00 0 0 000000 0 00000 0 00 I - A E J E 0 0 0 00 0 0 0000 0 00 0 0 000000 0 00000 0 00 T I O T . 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1111 1 11 E L R S D C P
DETAIL REPOT STONE & WEBSTER EOGICEEQICG CC2PC AT10N J.O. 1723303 - WEDGE WICE SCRN PAGE 2 CLIENT - NORTNEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANT WORK PACKAGE DETAIL REPORT REPORT TIME: 14:29:17 REPCRT DATE: 11/25/92-
********** WEDGE WIRE SCREENS **********
PROJECT - MILLSTONE UNIT 3 ALTERNATIVE COOLING WATER SYSTEMS STUDY CS11 MATE DATE: 11/25/92 ACCOUNT CODES- . MATERIAL LABOR HRS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL LABOR STEM SYS SEQ SORT ML DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UN S/ UNIT PER UNIT S/MR DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS HOURS 100.1040 1320 FORMu0RK 22000.0 SF 1.50 0.450 0.45 33,0(io 4,455 37,455 9,900 100.1040 1330 REINFORCING 115.0 TN 575.00 25.000 25.00 66,125 71,875 138,000 2,875 100.1040' TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 196,625 251,230 447,855 16,075 100.1045 PLENUM SHEETING SIDEWALL (PERM) 100.1045 1300 SHEET P! LING 95.0 TN 750.00 9.100 70.00 71,250 60,515 131,765 865 100.1045 1310 STEEL BRACING 29.0 TN 900.00 15.000 70.00 26,100 30,450 56,550 435 100.1045 1320 TREMIE CONCRETE 152.0 CY 75.00 1.500 53.00 11,400 12.084 23,484 228 100.1045 TOTAL '.JORK PACKAGE 108,750 103,049 211,799 1,528 100.1050 DREDGING & BACKFILL 100.1050 1410 DREDGING VOLLME 14000.0 CY 0.200 100.00 280,000 280,000 2,800 100.1050 1415 DISPOSAL (SpolLS) 14000.0 CY 10.00 0.050 100.00 140,000 70,000 210,000 . 700 100.1050 1420 BACKFILL VOLUME (SELECT STONE) 9500.0 CY 5.00 0.300 61.75 47,500 175,988 223,488 2,850
- INCL BACKFILL OF PIPES 100.1050 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 187,500 $25,988 713,488 6,350 100.1060 ELECTRICAL SCOPE 100.1060 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 100.1100 TEMPORARY COFFERDAM 100.1100 1100 TEMP BRACING INSTALLED W/ RIG 255.0 TN 9.100 70.00 162.435 162,435 2,321 100.1100 1120 TEMP COFFERDAM DRIVEN W/ RIG 65.0 TN 15.000 70.00 . 68,250 68,250 975 100.1100 1130 REMOVAL OF COFFERDAM, BRACING 1.0 LS 1648.000 70.00 115,360 115,360 1,648 100.1100 1140 RENTAL OF COFFERDAM, BRACING 1.0 LS 80000.00 80, coo .
80,000 100,1100 1150 DEWATERING Q 24 HRS / DAY 4.0 No 2500.00 720.000 50.75 10,000 146,160 156,160 2,880 100.1100 1160 SURVEY & CONTROL - 2EMP 4.0 MO 15600.00 62,400 62,400 100.1100 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE- 152,400 492,205 644,605 7,824 100.1200 PLACEMENT OF PIPE SECTIONS & MARINE EQUIPMENT FOR DURATION 100.1200 1200 UORK BARGE W/4 MAN CREW 12.0 MO 42000.00 504,000 504,000 100.1200 1210 DECK CARGO BARGE - 120'X45' 12.0 MO 6000.00 72,000 72,000
'100.1200 1220 tug BOAT W/3 MAN CREW 12.0 MO 29000.00 348,000 348,000 100.1200 '.1221 CRANE-25TM x 70' REACH 12.0 MO ' 8100.00 173.000 61.75 97,200 128,193 . 225,393 .2,076 EM]$D V2B . CKZI) - O 61Qiy4 TENDERS l5.0 MO, 176000.00 850,000 .' ' 880,000
L ' DETAIL REPC2T . STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORAT*0N ~ J.C.1728303 - WEDfC WIRE SCRM 'PAGE- 3' C1. LENT L- CORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY .WC;K PACKAGE DETAll REPORT.. REPORT TIME: 14:29:17 . REPORT DATE: 11/25/92-
* * ****** WEDGE WIRE SCREENS **********
.. PROJECT - M!LLSTONE UNIT.3 ALTERNATIVE COOLING WATER SYSTEMS STUOY_ ESilMATE DATE: 11/25/92-ACCOUNT CODES MATERIAL LABOR HRS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL LABOR STEM STS SEO SORT ML DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UN S/ UNIT -PER UNIT S/NR DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS HOURS 100.1200 1 1230 PLACE PIPING SECTIONS IN WATER 9.0 EA 80.000 5 7.75 41,580 41,580 720
-40T INC1. BEDDING & SACKFILL
.100.1200 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 1,901,200 169,773 2,070,9b. 2,796 100.1 TOTAL SU8 ACCOUNT 8,805,619 2,657,875 11,463,494 53,8N 100.5000 .ELECTR1 CAL SCOPE 100.5000 .5010 BRKERS, WIRE CONDUlf FOR COMPR 1.0 LS 3000.00 160.000 54.75 3,000 8,760 11,760 160 100.5000 5020 LOCAL WIRING 8 ACTUATORS / SUPPL 62.0 EA 600.00 10.000 54.75 37,200 33,945 71,145 620 100.5000 5030 ALLouANCE FOR GATE OPERATOR WR 4.0 EA 5000.00 100.000 54.75 20,000 21,900 41,900 400 100.5000 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 60,200 64,605 124,805 1,180~
100.5 TOTAL SUBACCOUNT 60,200 64,60S ~ 124,805 1,180 100.6000 TEMPORARY DOCK FACILITT 1C0.6000 6000 TEMPORARY DOCK FACILITY 1.0 LS 200000.00 200,000 200,000. 100.6000 6000 DPERATING -12.0 w) 346.000 50.00 207,600 207,600 4,152 100.6000 TOTAL WORK PACKAGE 200,000 207,600 407,600 /,152 100.6 TOTAL SUSACCOUNI 200,000 207,600 ' 407,600 4,152-
'100.7000 TIE-IN COSTS .
100.7000 6000 TIE-IN COSTS .1.0 LS 10000.00 . 260.000 57.75 10,000 15,015 25,015- 260 100.7000 TOTAL WORK PACGGE 10,000 15,015 25,015- 260 100.7 TOTAL SUBACCOUNT 10,000' 15,015 - 25,015 260 100 TOTAL . DIRECT COST 9,075,819 2,945,095 12,020,914 59,402 910 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 910.9100: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
- m u_ _ _ _ __ _ _ ._.
_ _ _ _ o
, y - - '
r ,
+-
.:-=+-
a
- DETAIL REPCST < STCE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING COPCATICJ ^ J.O. 1720303 - WEDGE WIRE S0 D ~ <
PAGEh [4. T CLIEKT.
- NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY ' WORK PACKAGE DETAIL REPORT- REPORT TIME: 14:29:17 REPORT'DATEE 11/25/92 _
****ce**** ' WEDGE WIRE SCREENS J**********
iPROJECT : MILLSTONE UNIT 3 ALTERNATIVE COOLING WATER SYSTEMS STUDY ESTIMATE D4TE: :11/25/92a p LACCOUNT CODES. . . MATERIAL LABOR HRS ~ LABOR MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL- ~ LABOR-LS/ UNIT PER UNIT- S/HR
~
' STEM STS SEQ SORT ML- DESCRIPT10r : QUANTITY UN DOLLARS . DOLLARS DOLLARS HOURS L -
- 910.9100~ '-9000 ' CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3 7% 1.0 LS '842000.00 842,000 842,000' A
- 842,000 ' 842,000'.
910.9100)TOTALWORKPACKAGE 910.9 TOTAL SUBACCOUNT' 842,000; 842,000-- a 910- ' TOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 842,000 -842,000. ;
.920 ENGINEERING. '[
920.9200 . . SENGINEERING . 920.9200 9000 ENGINEERING 2 10%^ 1.0 LS- 1202000.00 .1,202,000, 1,202,000.
.920.9200 TOTAL' WORK PACKAGE '1,202,000 .1,202.000' ,
920.9 ' TOTAL SUSACCOUNT~ 1,202,000 1,202,000' 920 ' ? TOTAL - ENGINEERIkG 1,202,000 -
- 1,202,000 i
930' . ESCALATION 930.9300 , ESCALATION'
.930.9300- 9000 -ESCALATION 4 PRESENT DAY. .1.0 LS 930.9300 TOTAL. WORK PACKAGE >
930,9 TOTAL SUBACCOUNT 930- ' TOTAL:- ?SCALATION; 940 ' ~ ALLOWANCE FOR INDETERMINATES 940.9400; 1 ALLOW FOR INDETRMNTS/CONTi.GNCY.' _ i bp'- g4,*ig g ,. 4 W g g.-$. p ,. -- .
{ !1fII lf i 5 2 2 . l 9 9 .
/ /
5 5 RS .
. - 2 2 2 OR . 0 E / / SU . 4, G 1 1 AO .
A 1 1 LH . 9 P . 5 E E . T . A T. . . D 0 . S . 0 0 0 0 4 i E LR 0 0 0 0 1 s R t X T A AA T L . 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, C S M E M l OL T O.4 . 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 0 E R i S D 5, 5, 5, 5, 6,
.. 7 R E . 3 3 3 I 7 1 W 1 E 9 .
G 2 C : E 4 S . 5 W 1 RR . 9 OA . BL . 0, E A L . 5
. 4 3
0 3 M I T LO. D. 9, 5 2 2 T 7 R . 1 O . P .
. E .
R . O. LS . 0 0 0 0 9 J AR . 0 0 0 0 1 I A RL 0, 0, 0, 0, 8,
. 4 4 4 3
!L T
AD.5, O.4 4 4 5, 4 5, 4 5, 6 6, M .
. 3 3 3 3 4
. 1 N RR .
O ON . I B/ . T A1 . A L R O T . P R ST R O RI O P HN C G E R R OR . U. N L BE I I AP . R A L . E T E E N D LT . 0 I AI 0 G I N N E R U.0 E/ . 0 E A. K T S . 0 R C A . 4 E A M . 4 T P . 5 S . 3 B C E R W O W N . S
& U L Y
E D Y . 0 N U T . O T ! . 1 T S T . S N . S A . M U . E Q . T . S . Y . S . Y
. C
- R . N
- E . C
- T W
- A T
** W . N
. O S
E
- G . C T Y* N . / A N* I S N A* L T I P O N . N4 M M O O . P R OSC 1 . R E CN i . T T E EE P E E EEV I D D N
T CRI R . N I CT C . I I A VSA S R h E R R M EER D .. FO O SRE F I I T . E SWL .W G E C T E A . O A T S I E . L K N N T G3 . L C U A I D . A A O W E LET P C O
! WI . C L T N L K A L U U M R S A L
* . O U T*
S* E N T . 0 SR . 0 W S - A O . L L L A* E* H* T S EO.90 DS O . A T A T A T T 0 T
- L CQ . C O O T R* L E . T T T T R O* I TS .
O N* M N . P U . 0 0 E - - OS 0 0 R CY . 4 4 T CS . 9 9 9 l T C A l N E M 0 0 0 0 A E J E . 4 4 4 4 T O T . 9 9 9 9 E IL R S . D C P . 1 : i Illltllllli
r ,- , .r.m. _.
SUMMARY
REPORT STONE & UEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION J.03 :1723303 - TkO SPEED MOTOR. PAGE 1 .
. CLIENT -- NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERV!CE COMPANY . STEM
SUMMARY
. REPORT TIME: 09:46:23 RE.Otf DATE: '11/30/92' E < u u 'TWO SPEED CIRC WATER PUMP MOTOR nn>n PROJECT -LMILLSTONE UNIT 3. ALTERNATIVE COOLING WATER SYSTEMS STUDY ESTIMATE DATE: '11/30/92
$ TEM- MATER!AL LA8OR TOTAL ' LABOR ACCOUNT - TITLE DOLLARS DOLLARS . DOLLARS hours 100 DIRECT C0ST...... ............................................................... 1,870,506 438,009 2,308,515 8.212
-910 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT.......................................................... 162,000 162.000 920 enc Ntfe:No.................. ................................................... 231,000 ~231.000
.930..ESCALAT10W.......................................................................
940 ALLOWANCE F OR I NCETERM I NAT ES/COWi l WGENCY. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 542,000 542,000 T0iAL EST1 MATE 2.805,506 438,009 3,243,515 8,212: Wagl Ja --n,s, .-a--,,Lns , _am,=..a-- a .u.:m a:--.-. , - , _-w,,,_ ,,.A.,-- ,_z,. m._,.,a,,
. . _ . . . .... _- ~ -
J.C. 1723303 - TkC SPEED MOTOR FA&E 1A ST03E 4 WEBSTER ELT WEENING CORPGrAT!CW W2$CR1/ - JaT2000CTION EEFOftf CA!E: it/3WV2 Clifasi - tiCdtTHEAST t!TILITIES SEEVICE CDMHuit accu TW SPtID CIRC WATER FtstP MOTOR *nnn EstimafE DATE: 11/3c/92 HOJEC' - R!LLSTOsiE Lai!T 3 8LTERuTIK CCr* IaC WATER SYSTEMS STUDY ETTIM TE W ES l 1 Esti-ete basis as feitows: I
- 1. Present day pricing as of 11/1/92.
- 2. Secontradec !stxm rates as of 11/1/92.
- 3. Forty hour work weak, sirgie shif t cperatien. a 4 D-%ed materlat to be disped of toestly; ass med to ba ret contami eted.
- 5. zwired constrsstion utitities swptied by owner.
- 6. Land remiired for mtaction traiters, ;mrking, and lay dcun p ov'H:ed by owner.
- 7. Escaistion ret included.
- 6. Abardth costs not i*wtuded.
9, Cesolition/retacation costs not inetta.3ed; rs.aoyal of originst setors included.
~
'10a Lost revenue during statie shut dowrv. for tie-ins not foci:Ad.
11; - setes, use, mice er other tases rot irctuded.
- 12. Euilders all-risi insurance ret init&d.
I
,13. Eewcre c;vitingancy cests such es those assarieted with ah waather, craft strines rot inc!t.ded.
- 14. Start-sp costs ret inctWed.
- 15. Perseits including enwirerne-tal not tre.1=nea.
- 16. Espicyee training, certifications, security costs ret inctimied
- 17. No Categr y 1 work is incl wed.
- 18. Att of fshore work to be schedstec, other tbsn dsirty winter acnths.
I' j
- j. 1 t
e .
'L' 4i F :
.e d g -- a. >.a 9. :)" 8 3.3 g #3"UW24*NQ -
- W n
W 95$$4g4R
~ gi
.. ~. - 4 0 s :
; 4 :
' o a .
g ev i ?$ S BEEBEBEREB E 6 HR33EEES E' y 8 La n[!
=
g a:
'd i
adaadan i 3 j*iadasaa " a d e,w : w a - ag i I gh hk h kbkbhSbbkh h N hkh$khbb b' _f agi di i ~vaniad i :i e- ad 'a. di
~
4 $7!
$ $ D E$$$$$6 3 3 $8EE3$E$- $'t j d :j o' f a a;; g' f' i g'a di 4 g:
J,
$ i i -- E i
8 g*M: RC SR$C0CCRC8 RCCRcocc n z di sissississ- addassis E Eki $$ $$$$$$$3EM EEEEf$$E Q' d
# - Li t:
di
~~ d**"*KNana 333344WW 5
y w 0 .
- 8
- v": 3 8R88R88 88888888 0
e< f !!: N N NN NN ffNNNNNN n q
^ # u
. u .
$ q- : .
. 5: 55 Cd50a"G055 55555555 .l 5 ti *a 9aaa9*oona- aaaaaaaa g ** *""""*"*-
G w
- l
$$AUS"2 * "[
25 : tu : h5 k
- a v. 23 5
~
5- : 8 88" CE .8 _5 ~
. K. E ll ddo
- R.* Ekn e. ES < as-
.. -25
- 2 35 E "
~ -
J 523 y
- E -
"B u s sa5- tu l 5: gw ug ou 0 a5
$ 2 O*- g52 "I$5" g ew
_ ov. .g a*! -g-,. Dog 8- _geee z-w-"N g a _s: : ea eg e us- .2 ~~ysgnaam a .--g -a "a da ge g-cog N*w i e* g-u _- Ww"a gs$k - g 3. C$ d 44 W n #***;: 9 d s "E * $ ^s t - 4 " g- N. o ee" "d 8 OW" g-r2 ggrem 4 a
< kw no
*Wh!W57.
e Es e e deF -On- l j t "e s < S b.- s ., - .- . . ... 595 * * *
- 144522443- '*!
- w W!: "b $ o $ oc
$$. go $ $ .$:
-Ev8 y;; *: . y a
g n a ko'J e.-en-ew-re g s g s _g
$ _ a a < < < < < .* -
- jit si s 2 2 2 2 ssssssHR- E' Haa f HERESaMM898 !!!!2!!!!-
!4 a 1U [i"di 8
. 9 *. 61 #i #1 *. #! 9 #1 '
#1; a 5 g -. 7 5
g. 8
- . 8.. - 8.1 8 8- 8,.
8 .8 8. 8- 8. 8. -8. 8_ --88 .". 8 8- -- 888888888-- .-r 10
~ ~ ~ .
R R : R R * $$ 3 838%;" N 4 4 P 3 g R$7 13 REB 4RA y, g 3 y 8 g *g :. R ~ ~ - g -- a . w w . Z a : 8 d
- w .s e : R2
-. 4 23 +.
9 5 a 08308C 4..~.~ .- sa--~ 3 c 4
" g
. . S.3
~
1 n 0+ q.8
~-~
g
. c"o~.$.NC
~
a ~~r~ pgy j ::Eg j a : : a S : g .9.. : 9 g .: p o q ~ o o a mg,dkpdB e- g e G o$c b god- e g s $.. $ 0 ,3 hae c G m 2 g.a -g 2 En gs: % o j j agl d i i i didd i ai d i A A i d did i 6-- : 2
- 1 E :
A r :
, #C: E 8 8 g2g 3 g38$ga 'g as:
gy. 9.3.g> e gem
%84 2
g S
- Q.
a e e 2 d: I
$ gt! c c cc cccccc r c c ccc cccccc \
R 1*l d i di. diddad id a dad adidad e2 EU E P* C 3 $. 8E.E. E E. a.
", w 3: 9 . :R $. 8 . $.$.Em E. . . $. @ $.E.
. 3.9 .
g,. N o oo o 4 o o o .- o g C oNG e'N at 4 o o a" tt: 2 sm : y " . 88c388 8 8 8 883 883882 4t: j
${ 5 {' ,
dddddd # N ddj dd$dda 0 L 1 : a u . Wg : 4 5: s: :: :s:: n : s c sc sesses w $ : o o oo ococoo o o o con oooooo h
,p 5
h.! NN NNNNN N N N NN-2e d; :
-4 20 :
la : R. s 5 : g
- r a-d Eg 7 2
, 'k;g g ;
2 o o 'r d an W er . d 3 --45 ig" 15"My $ "$ (8*%S 9 2"
*e 1*:
y 1 5 : s c u f 3'g *$gt.g5ut 5 q 6.s l- Am sen h^ 54,=S = ,u - 9 w ww ::n5s 2: 5 g*t$t: 58 5' g ca $ G dad"86 en Rv1 g::v
- 80*R E RB
-- 4 e "c u e # > E L.,Egd$: #-*!' d5 ~. o
.e dang
-raev WI 52 W25 a: :e*"Em o co -
2MSWJE I W 'Q . ,, w"D *$de"E
;:~E$dICMG N
g Cy*N$o dust ~k'hW 2E2GES " DM 8 3 3 3nt" =*0f.22 "5 5~ W g MS* R 0 p1"EAg8E 5 g M l80E000* . sACsEn4 W 8E . W <4 E 5" G5$84E < u Of": s .
- u u a
$: oo2
'595
~
u.X e g:: i: 14 4 55 g
- - g- gR 5" :x-454541 ggE gg R m 5:m,E 4 4 4 m
411 a 5: 424545 m ococoo 4- a, 4 s -.
< < < 444444 y;; g: 4 4 44 <<444- 4 n j'is' 91 :--
s a ss E sassRG 8 HH s8 o ocooals 8 M8H888 2 2 0
)C 5 55 5 ggggogo 000o3 a
W gg g o O o 8 oog0oooG88
$$8 o
6 s : 3*::55
< 9e * *9
. 9 9999*3.09 00 9 9a 9 o
9 G
- y:43 *993 9 9999*99 9 R 5 Wy 5:88 8- --88 8---8888,888 8 88 8 8 8 8888 8 8888888
-----c-8- ;
g:-- - --- - -- - - - ---- - . o a u .
n ~ ~ . A R : Scb2WW
- RS"R gR S S **c" A *c* N 2 " " g "
0 - ? e"..~.h,*l::: ! e e j a3
#55 6 6 E9ES 3. EfR 0 9 2EGES3 $ & E39B 3 a a c'a' 'i i a'2 glW:g nll a 9 S :
hcn :. 85 t! S"
,0 5 :
S 0$$R*
" p-c "
"jc $.
0
- e. ... *
$.AQ@QG $. $ R
** $.8 @
m m e - - g4-mo y em n sy
- $N::
\ I' L ~E d W :
4 $$i $ $ 3288 $ $ES $ 36 2$ E $$ 4 ; 3 g"{ Jat ;d i 1 g: i 5 gTi c cccc ccc R CSSKcc 8 CRyc 5 3 #i d ddd$ $3d $ $$$$dd $ $$8i 8 - . gEW Eki $ $$$$ $$0 8 $$$0$$ $ 0$EO 44dd 4dd d dadddd d dadd m g,i d
$N O! %* g:E :j88 8 8,8 a 480 g s t,q as 8 5 d S 88"* 3*a "G c" "$ ac e lx g*::
a n aw :
$ g :
act"tt 0 nLDE 4 ,, Bj $ 555% 555 b oooo w -. e ocoo ooo o o I mv g
?j! ' :
""if 'in i n e o c o u'
$$$"$~
d idi"
- W :
20 : 2" ; f
- S : m
- f. 0 5
- 8 5 m M ~5 C 6- 5. ~
." a g9 :
3 " 2'88 G 99S "3
, : $ g ek- : 4 -m 5 o Y e "$ mg g2l u.
8: E
- O g5:
s: 3 ~
"4 ffa n
9- m 5 a; 54 -- WW ti d
$ "f4 f I ~
3T f D9ff $A
$5 Q: 5 m"E E "$5 N gT D099 En
? 5"W"?
su! CMS 3. -2 8ag
. 552"7 gg Wam a: -
.:E"5' c~ W i :n~"BWd m a: : 8 a ~t. RsW ! 8 5 =cae d:. .U.e na<
l"e
- aa EE d a
w;-use dE4E alesa s 5 v 5 A7
=
s < -- 5$$sdggesm a 5 as AVE: W a egsd Eaes@5L[o:$n3 8-a 2W e : "
$: 5544
- 214352 5: GEE 535 W: :4 1444 512 1
.- m
~
$ :$o$oo ooo 5l Q o omeo$$
33GG o 2
.oooo 3333 Wv5 44gg G s y;g gOg:: $,4 a a a ----
44 < - ----44 3 - 3 3 8 sass
- jia-Ia Si a :--
8 HHHH S asa e s ssEsss s
$0:08
- .. .. e 8 $$$
o - - 8 ss sasass a23 939ye S. ***99
$$$80 a - G W":=9 . 9 .9aq 9 9 9 e n q 19 e 9 a
- 9999 7
5 4o 5:88 8
- - 88.888
--- 8
- 8 8 --
8 8,. 8 8 8 888888 8 8 8 8888 2 ; -- 8 u 2
- e. - - eL4- w - a_, k-
-aa v:n n A a u !
ga>
-- . g:- :
m
, et
+. a
- g. . l 3 3 :
~2 W I .! E. E. E. E. I. E. d' . E. l E. E. E. E. E. E. E.
aE W W.E E$:* 2 $ m 9 4 2 4 3 2 % 0 A A A g ; A, - - - - g, . . c. Y'k: I k8
. .. g"i8 8 $
~..
0 0 0 s a. p - :W gi* 2 h
# 2 2 $
- 2. ;
E ! d u 1 4
$$5E O l3 $
a e a k $ $ $ E E
.: ' .I:
E z~g:a ,: 3; - - g g g g g A A A A Eut: .
!, ' l i
~
- 5 jd d
-h IUs E $.
W.,a-g 0 ..
.3 3: :
M w .Z .
'E-8 2 W-4 !8 8 o
8 d y 8 d-g e.g :: ' w 8 e g p
- 5. k n u 2 -
.f .
A"
. n, .
,h.
- - B:$ #j $ $
ulo o o o 5 $" 2
.: J J a .
-:: g'
, e 1 te 0 ;: -
20-A 4As g
* ,, .. g e ': 55
- E3 : mn
-Ew; Ga td a
[ : oo WW e b!x: s u. a M E
~
$5 3
$ ::*1 oo 55 1 22
' '4:
Md -5 '2s:s. --'
~
= -
$ Ug- 3 ma 2
eu U
- a
=
.. W W -
m n y - zy M 3 u g
- B g -
c% :. 8 a - 3 gg 3 o nW^ :@ g
- K- -: - -
8 es-- -- e g y e l n --
. g -
-sgi n ,.
_e j :s n g$ *g n a 8 gg 5 2 3 g- .g. 3
-E:n E.:
a .a::! t x
- s. a a
s W N- x a a s v s w a-E e a a-u- t
- s. a-gvg ,g..g g sl7 7 7 ggE:.
- g. ,
s8 g gg. g
.-u.: .n n E.~8. ,8! ~ ... . a. .. . a.
-5:8 8- 8 20 2 2 3 2 R -R
- (
2 w 2no2. -
- t 13 "
p a u
--3'.. a 8.- . -.8 -- 8 8.- - - E.
o o, <> u T A w 5
* ~
n
-{
/= '1*
- e STWE & WEBSTEQ EkCINEERING CORPl[DTION J.D.17253C*, - VWC SPETO MOTCE FAE ' .5
.... [DE70!LREPtOTL _
REPORT TIME: 09:3h50 REPORT CATE: 11/30/92. CLIENT - RORT W AST UTILITIES SERvlCE CD4PANY WOEK PACK,(,E CETA;L REFORT
~
.<<<o< ' T C SPEED CIRC biA!ER PLWiP MOTOR nnne PROJECT i MILLSTONI LMIT 3 ALTERNATIVE COLtlNG WATER SYSTEMS STLCY ESTIMA ? E DATE: ' 11/30/92 ACCOUkT CODES MATE ^IAL LABOR ARS LAScit MATERIAL LASOR TOTAL - LASGE SVEM SYS ' SEQ SORY ML DESCRIPTIOi4 0.tANTITY UN S/ UNIT PER UNIT $/hR DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLAR 3- MOUES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .
930 ESCALATION 930.9300 ESCALATION 933.9300 9000 ESCALAftoN - PRESENT car t.0 LS _ 930.0300 ~ TCTAL WORE PACKAGE
'F30.9 TOTAL SUSACCOUNT I 730 TCTAL
- ESCALA*!ON I _
. 940 CONTIbT.ENCY 940.W.00 ALLou FOR INDETRMNYS/COMTEGNCY
'940.9400 9000. ALLOW TOR tuCETRMNTS/CONTNGNCY 1.0 LS $42000.00 542,000 542,000 940.9400 TOTAL WORK FACKAE 542,000 542,00G 940.9 TOTAL SUSACCOUN1 542,000 542,C00 940 TOTAL'- CONTINGENCY 542.000 542,000
-T0TAL ESTTMATE 2,EGS,506 438.009 3,243.515 8,212
-w 3 ,-
O 9 { % 4 M '*
- _ ___W %"' w '7 a * O--
e o o .e ~ A W M M Oe Oe g g *= *= e e e d e* e* mJ e W N
& 8 e
- e. e4 e W Le# *
** > e W e O( G e
. x K
U. g ke O e e
*=
e Qwt e e y
# e a w e. > e & D see W > e W ** M e e e o e w e e- e W M e
** er'
- w ** t M N e v en, e e e ee
. .e E4e 4
se e W e 4
" M$ 4
.~. a s <
4 e a w e Q g 6 en
*,. .J M e th et q s ce **
*e e 6 W 4 ger .tJ e o e e s a w e P e- O
> e % M er s W c* e g ,
98 a e e e 5 ; e Du._ e e e a e e e e e e e e e a e e 6 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e * *
- e e sp e e e e e e
> * * *
- e e
.me gK e e e e e e g e e e e e e and o e a e e e bei e * * *
- e p e e e o e e e e e e e e o ty s e e e e e 2 E o e
- e e o w w e.
e e e e o o e e a e e a N M a e *
- e a g e o e o e o e s e e e e o be a e a e e e M tio e e a e e e g e e e o e e g e e o e e e W e o e e e a g e e e
o e e e e e e e e e e ggg e o a 8 e e J e e e e *
- C p
w p e e a e e e e e e o e e
@ M 4/m e o e e
> a . .e e e a w e e
e e o a e e e e e e
,p g e e e e e e-gg in, e o e e a e 43 c.a. e e o e e a s% d e e e e e e O fg j e e e e >
k e e e e e LJ L3 e e e e e M
> 3 e e e e e w 2Me e o e o e eJ et .J e o e e
- a
- n=e a s a e e em o e e e o be M e e e e e e
e e e e fgl LQ 4 e e e 6 y Jo e e e e % W use e a e o e @ een pg > 4 e e *
- Lee Mw( e e e e e >"
rg N e e a e e d W h e o e e 2
@ %# 6 e $ e. e a v=e en e e W e a K W M *e 4 e = w a
- tv
%eJ (h ( e e K e e end I"'
l
- m. (
e e we o e *- eum e e n e a w 4 w e e 4 e
- Q as
.d g &a a e o e I a.e 4 we W e a e e me w y e e e e
- M ee ene e 3 4 .)
p 4e w >= n e e=- e e O B L9 e e O ene m 4e 1 4 e4 e 2 3 W 4 4t U ** 6 D b* *a O W
. w ga > e W w == U (iJ g 3. 45 De e W >=
Da > Sk M.A 4 P. led 4 ' 94 .J n (J D* J 4% == e 6.4 i,4 =2- W WE s es 0.1 4 .J w e == 2 J 4 m a e >= s O W W 4 e >=
> >= 1 m w s u w e o o o O O O t) 2 tas *= n O e'W M 4 taJ 9 M LJ e ** "O %) @~ O N
+= 0 4e d 2 g- +
?-
-_ --_ __.-_ _ _ --_-_-- ___--_-_-___ _ _ _______ - - - _ - ~ _
WESCR1A - tuTRODUCTION "JTONE & WEBSTER EEGINEER!EG CurPORAf trw J.O.1725303 - CONCRETE StLLS PAGE 1A
-CLIEt;T - EDRidEAST UTILITIES SERV:Cf COMoAMf ' REPCRT DATE: 11/10/92-
#s##HHH PRECAST CONCRETE SILLS HRHHHM
- PROJECT - MILLSTONE UNIT 3 ALTE2 NATIVE COGL3NG MATER SYSTEMS STUDY ESTIMATE CATE: 11/3G/92 J
EST!* ATE W0tES 4 Estimate basis as folta.s:
- 1. ~ Present day pricirvj as cf 11/1/92.
2.. subcontsacted labor rates ss of '1/1/92.
, 3. Forty hour work week, singte shift operation.
4 Dredged material to be disposed of locaity; asstamm$ to be not contaminated.
. 5. Regstred construction utilities sotied try owner.
- 6. Land regaired for construction traiters, parking, and tay down provided try owner.
- 7. . Escalatim not inctu:$ed. .-
S. Abandonment costs not included.
- 9 Demoliticn/rr atson costs ret incism$cd.
- 10. 1.ost revenue aring station shut downs for tie-ira not included.
-- tic Sales, u3e, service or other tames act included.
- 12. Buliders all-risk insurance not included.
- 13. Severe centingency costs such as those associated with adverse weather, craf t strikes not included.
- 16. . Start sc costs not inclu$ed.
- 15. Permit s inctsmiing envirereental not included.
- 16. Enfiloyee training, certifications, security costs not included.
- 17. No Category 1 work is included.
- 18. . Ai1 offshore work to be scheduted other than OJring winter acnths.
~
y y $ v - =w- - -a -
.p -p-1 w q ly y.- + +- e
- T'
- ~ ~ . R R : n~ n >R >R q-5 : g*c3 g p8 - g-
. -4
.c. - s g
E5 ! aa
- e SEi EU2B 5 E3SHE B Sa 9 Maa a E Haaas ylW!
a ny! didi i 'i'ii i di i iie g i dedii Wn : EN ! 58 gEi 93sE s RB 3 2
- i -y! g'iis i ii i i 9-ft ~
E : d W : Ehi $30 0 E3EE EE $ ESE E E $$$E$ hg; SCC 2 'i'i $$ i llA f d. Addii 5 gTi CCcc R S 8 5 bal: siis i d i g-gE Ej! R$aa aa R e5 Hg! 5 :
""d" ii w - .
U * "'I 88 888 8 g g -. 8. 8. 8 88.8.8 888.88 0
- 5 53!: G"3 hk! 4" Sh c4 lf*3
- 0l 5 9" i s 4
n .: m W . Wy : 22995 5 R$ $ ESE E9229 4 , Ej ta"5
~~~~o o ~o o ~o~
G
, o oo.
g -, oooo y y 5:
} gyfg b JJJJ: A ;; ; ;fa f JJJJJ d d:
30 : 4" :
- 0 W
Eg 4 H*
#5 : M g . e
- 3 5 Egm 'M 'O 5 j g
{5e y 0d*5 tfgegggd"gg q N Eg"*
- L 5 *5 $""S E
- E S;- p GEWad 555Sa 22.54t$E5 W
Om gg 1 9 s t LW5 9 s
"us5N"$.$.DI J u
E.5:n < u w w w e g g g. -
!S $
-g!is!g $ 5 $
ogg- gg go g gg o~4 o -ggg4 ja g Ease g ::E:E : :: y EEE g E 5:::2
- "Ed "g: 5a 2 R S S w 5 e r ~E e :
. . ESSES E RRQggg R RR R R RRR R g...E.g *$.g a - o
- Bia:: . . . E. S. S. 2. E. 2 E.R. . . . . 2 E. S. S. S. R. E. W. s. E. d. i U
- -5o 5: 8 8 8 88888 8 888888 8 88 8 8 888 8 88 88888 ad K- *:-
t rw gg . g!!_lllR
,--a E i$.
=
E E E- B.'
=
W W - 3 3 : d$i$ b.' 5lW* Rg!i i i di i i i i i i i i i i i C W m t 5 .c,i ; M N E W
=
Sgl" l R $ $
-E i d W N Nk! b $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ k $ $ 5 lil :
i i n i i i i i i i i i i i 5~
- g*E'8 : 8
- s : A.n
. 8 kw I =5! . $. $.
E .-f kE! 5 f
- 5% Mt! 8 8 8
-.- 5W h.
I l N C N E k k. B w
-Wg :
- St5 59 5 5
-g y ~ o o ev o o J
JA J r
}lA w $.:
23' w 5 != 0 M
.j :"
m
-2 !s '00 50 l~ dd gl" -
kd 5 : -. WW- g 8" W
- 2 B
$<g g lg _-
a 5"W g 5 :g S : "O g: ,8 ; 55g 1 o c. 33 N55 ,;w$ a: 445 t Mg 5 55. o gg"E je ;g k gli 'W-h _ .; 3 8 -g sa 1 $5 8 h g !!
$5 I
5-i ' tw dge : 0 -'
-8 W W is
- W g
' -l u
f: W-g
"
- 5 5" 2
- 5 5 s' :. a 5 - La w
.. w : 5 B o 5 . D 8 5" - B . G .5 .8 .
G 8 Og:l8- s- s 8 a s R 's a a 0 .
- g. sa a i s
w ,. a
~2d g";- 5 5 .s W a s s e a W. 2 E- 2 2 S
$ S S S W-w
.S' S 2
--[gg g
s- - Se!2 2 P(( [* 88 8 lE E- *.. s- ._- D-ka: ". "
. J. . . .
2 2 2 2 E
= : - 5 g* -a-5i8 8 8.888 8-8' 8 . .R 2 . . 8 $$ R. R. . $
os u .- , t b}}