ML23111A282

SECY-78-518: Proposed Contract Award for Analysis of the Costs of NEPA Alternatives

ML23111A282
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/25/1978
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
References
Download: ML23111A282 (17)

Text

-*

September 25, 1978 SECY-78-518 For:

The Convnissioners From:

COM

~

dministration t Executive Di rector for Operations (;, "fl)-~cL..,

Proposed Contract Award For Analysis of the Costs of Thru:

Purpose:

Discussion:

Reco1T111endation:

Contacts:

NEPA Alternatives To request Convnission approval to enter into a tech-nical assistance contract with United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., which exceeds $250,000.00.

In paragraph 4b of the Chairman's January 20, 1975 delegation of authority to the Direster, Office of Administration, the Contracting Officer is required to submit any contract (other than Nuclear Regulatory Research) in excess of $250,000.00 to the Co11111ission for approva 1.

The Division of Contracts proposes to make an award to United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (UE&C) at an estimated cost of $298,819.00 over a twelve (12) month period.

This effort was competitively negotiated and six (6) organizations responded with offers. The Source Selection Board's deliberations resulted in a reco111T1enda-tion of award to UE&C, whose proposal presented the 11 Be~t Buy" to the Government.

The staff has determined that no actual conflict of interest would obtain as a result of this contract award, since no incentive to bias the results of the work exists.

Accordi ngly, award is recommended to UE&C for an anal-ysis of the Costs.of NEPA Alternatives.

Attached hereto is the planned Scope of Work for the proposed contract.

Charles R. Nichols, OSD 3-5981 Hagan, DC

2 This contract must be negotiated and fully executed Qrior to fiscal year-end, September 30, 1978.

Attachment:

Scope of Work

-(. kA-,,A_ 

Loaniel J.'0onogh6e, Director

/' lfffice of Administration

ARTICLE I - SCOPE OF WORK A.

Background

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). as interpreted by the Calvert Cliffs* decision. requires that NRC must - to the fullest extent possible under its statutory authority - consider alternatives to

• its actions which would reduce e~yir:onmental da~age.

The analysis aifd evaluation* of alternative sites should to the extent

~ 't!

practicable consider costs associated with the use of these sites. Oif-.

ferent sites normally require different designs in consideration of the differing site characteristics. Thus. corresponding economic costs of the facility vary according to characteristics of the sites considered.

To establish standards for the consideration of alternative sites, the effects of site characteristics on the economic costs of the facflit1 should be understood.

An up-to-date comprehensive documentation of this subject fs not known to exist.

B. Objective The objective of this study is to collect available data and establish cost characteristics for nuclear generating station designs as they are determined by the.roost significant site characteristics. The information will be used in the establishment of standards fo~ the consideration of alternative sites. The results will also be useful

in licensing reviews *. The Office of Standards Development plans to issue the information assembled and analyzed a*s a generic report on the subject. A regulatory guide on the subject may be developed by SO if justified by the quality and quantity of infonnation.

The Contractor shall provide the necessary personn~, facilities and

'4 ~

materials ur.der NRC tech.,ical direction to acco~li.sh the s~ific tasks listed below.

The Contrac:tc?r may pcopose alternative methcds of attaining the above objective pi:ovided tha:: such :netho:1:3-would produce a more thorough analysis, make better use of existing information, or alleviate problems of ir.suffi~

cient data or gaps in current knowledge.

All clSSllffl?ticns, paca.-;:eters, and techniques usad should be clearly described and, where possible, documented.

Sufficient detail ar.d eY.Planation shO'.ild be provided to permit an indepeooent verification.of the conclusions or values o~tained from t:."le study.

Task 1 - Main Condenser Cooling Systa~

a.

Collect available data on the costs of systems (structures, processes, and materials) outlined in Table 1 in relation to performance levels to be achieved, as a function of site characteristics of Table 1, as applied to conventional light-water-cooled nuclear power generating...

stations. Available data includes applicable data for fossil-fueled power generating stations. -~

b.

Establish cast characteristics for each reference system identified in Table 1 as a function of the corresponding important site characteristics shown in the Table. A procedure will be shown by which the data will be analyzed.

c. Establish cost characteristics for each alternative system as a function of important site characteristics.

d. Describe the significance of plant systems and site characteristics other than the ones addressed above in determining cost dif.ferences among alternative*sites in the same geographic region.

Table 1 - Main Condenser Cooling System

[REFERENCE] AND Al TERNATIVE SYSTEMS A.

Intake Structures

1. Conventional

a. Offshore (with velocity cap)

b.

Approach Channel

c. [Shoreline]

2.

Infiltration Bed B.

Discharge Structures

1. [Diffuser]

2.

Other C.

Added Water Storage

1.

Impoundment

2.

Perched

3.

[None]

IMPORTANT SITE CHARACTERISTICS Depth of water~t intake Length of Intake (offshore and onshore) l~ight of plant_grade (or storage water level) above intake water level Subsurface materials (offshore and onshore)

Depth of water at discharge length of discharge (offshore and onshore)

Height of plant grade above discharge water level Subsurface materials (offshore and onshore)

Height of dam Hidth of dam Subsurface materials Height of benn Length of hem Subsur,face materials Change in elevation between storage and plant grade f

I

---

~~--------------*-****-*----------- -----

Tah le 1 - t~ in Condenser Coo 1 i ng System

[REFERENCE] ANO ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS D. Condenser Tube Materials

1. [Stainless Steel]

I

2. Others E.

Heat Disposal System

1. Conventional MDCT

2. Round HOCT

3.

[NDCT]

4. Sprays

5. Basin

6.

Each of the above in [closed-cycle],

variable, and open cooling modes

7. Once-through "river" cooling

8.

Wet dry MOCT

9.

Noise controlled MDCT

10.

Dry cooling IMPORTANT SITE CHARACTERISTICS (Choice of tube material d_etennined b¥ site charactr.ristics)

Salinity Ambient water characteristics Change in elevation between plant grade and heat

. : disposal system Subsurface materials Distance from condenser to heat disp~sal system Meteorological characteristics I

Task 2 - Transmission

a. Collect available data on the casts of systems outlined in Table 2 in relation to performance levels to be achieved, as a function *of site characteristics of Table 2, as applied to conventional light-

. water-coaled nuclear power generati ng stations. Available data includes applicable data for fossil-fueled power generating stations.

b.

Establish cost characteristics for each reference system identified in Table 2 as a function of the corresponding important site characteristics shown in the Table. A procedure wi ll be shown by which the data will be analyzed.

c. Establish cost characteristics for each alternative system as a function of important site.characteristics.

d. Describe the significance of plant systems and site characteristics other than the ones addressed above in detennining cost differences am~ng alternative sites in the same geographic region.

Table 2 - Transm1sston

(~-M~-~[~~~~c ~~T:'.~~~i=:.~~--~-~ r~=-=-~.. ~~~~~!~~0~~:~~~~~~i_._, _..,

1. Four single circuit, 230 kV a*c lines

2.

lTwo single ctrcuJt, 500 ~V ac 11nei)

3.

Two single ctrcu1t,*J45 kV ac lines

4. Lattice type structures

5. Steel pole type structures

6.

Two single circuit, 400 kV de lines

1.

Two single ci rcuit, 765 kV ac lines

8.

Two single ctrcutt, 345 kV ac underground cables length of route Number and type of.angles land Use characteristics

1. Forest

2. Farm

l. Res i den ti a 1 Terrain Charactertst1cs

1. Flat

2.

H111y

3. Deep ravines'

4. Hater Body

~- *-*-*--*--,---------1~00---------~*--------**.Z..--------------------*--

f f

Task 3 - Sfte Access

a. Collect available data on the costs of systems outl ined fn Table 3 fn relation to perfonnance levels to be achieved, as a funct.ion of site characteristics of Tabl e 3, as appl ied to conventional light-water-cooled nuclear power generating stations. Available data includes applicable data for fossil-fueled power generating stations.

b.

Establish cast characteristics for each system identified in Table 3 as a function of the corresponding important site characteristics shown in the Table. A procedure will be shown by which the data will be analyzed. *

c. Describe the significance of plant systems and site characteristics other than the ones addressed above in determining cost differences among alternative sites in the same geographic region.

Table 3 - Site Access SYSTEMS IMPORTANT SITE CHARACTERISTICS A.

Highway

• Length of pennanent access road Length of haul road I

e. Rail length of site access spur Grade Number and type of crossing

c. Barge Extent of channg.\\ dredging Need for a harbor jetty

Task 4 - Flood Protection

a. Collect available data on the casts of systems outlined in Table 4 in relation to perfonnance levels to be achieved, as a functjon of site characteristics of Table 4, as applied to-conventional light-water-cooled nuclear power generatfn~stations. Available data includes applicable data for fossil-fueled power generating stations. *

b.

Establish cost characteristics for each reference system identified in Table 4 as a function of the corresponding important site characteristics shown in the Table. A procedure will be shown by which the data will ba analyzed.

c. Establish cost characteristics far each alternative system as a function of important site characteristics.

d.

Describe the significance of plant systems and site characteristics other than the ones addressed above in detennining cost differences among alternative sites iri the same geographi~ region.

Table 4 -.Flood Protection

[REFERENCE] AND ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS A.

Dry S1.te

1.

(.lf a tura 1)

2. Engineered Fill B.

Exterior Barriers

1. Levee

2.

Seawall or Flood\\'1al1

3.

Bulkhead

4.

Revetment

5. Breakwater C. Incorporated Barriers IHPOjTANT SITE CHARACTERISTICS Jtp Topographical Characteristics Hydr.ometeorologtcal Characteristics

~

• ....... ---------*------*-**----------""-..__,...~

.,.._~-.,....

,.--i.1.~--~----------

I

Task 5 - Plant Site Earthwork

a. Collect available data on the costs of systems outlined in Table 5 fn relati~n ta performance levels to be achieved, as a function of sfte characteristics of Table 5, as applied to conventional light-water-cooled nuclear power generating stations. Available data includes applicable data for fossil-fueled power generating stations.

b.

Establish cast characteristics for each system identified in Table 5 as a function of the corresponding important site characteristics shown in the Table.

A procedure will be shown by which the data will be analyzed.

c. Describe the significance of plant systems and site characte~istics other than the ones addressed above in detennining cost differences among alternative sites in the same geographic region.

Table 5 - Plant Site Earthwork SYSTEMS IMPORTANT SITE CHARACTERISTICS A.

Excavation Subsurface materials

e.

Haul Topographical Charattertsttcs

c.

Slope Stabilization and Slide Pr.evention Haul Distance I

o. Soil Covering. Planting of Spoil Areas.

• and Stream Protection Work

O.

Deliverables The Contractor will:

1.

Furnish fiv~ (5) copies of a monthly letter report by the 15th of each month, showing the following information as it pertains to the preceeding month:

a. The cumulative costs incurred during the month and the cumulative totals to date including projected cost to completion.

b.

The Contractor's estimate of the percentage of work com-

• pleted, described in tenns of important schedule milestones for each major project task. These estimates should clearly indicate the work increments completed during the reporting period.

c. Identification of any projected, significant deviations from the original budget and 4n explanation therefore.

d.

Identification of experienced or expected problems or diff-iculties that could or will result in delay in the achievement of major milestones of the original or a subsequently approved modification of the schedule. Solutions to problems should be discussed.

e. Identification of work performed during the period and planned work for the following *period.

2.

No later than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of this contract, fumish ten (10} copies of a draft of the final report. NRC staff will review this draft for completeness and consis-tency with the contract and will provi de comments to the Contractor within thirty (30} days of the date of receipt by the Contracting Officer.

3.

Fumish by the end of the contract one (1) reproducible and twenty (20) copies of a final report in Contractor* s *format, docu-

~ ~

menting the effort accomplished and incorporating the results of the effort.

4.

One copy of each report called for above will be furnished to the Contracting Officer with all other copies and thfl reproducibles being fumished to the Contracting Officer's Technical iepresentative.

5.

Participate in periodic technical meetings with the NRC staff to assure that the study is proceeding on schedule and is consistent with the defined scope of work.

The NRC will provide guidance on policy considera-tions and program format.

These meetings may be held at NRC and the Contractor's facilities.

6.

By the end of the contract, fumish the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative *one copy each of all available cost data collected.

Note:

The work described above shall be performed in accordance with the Contractor 1s technical proposal entitled, 11Costs of NEPA Alternatives,.,

dated July 27, 1977, as revised by proposal addendum dated September l, 1978, and as further revised by letters Robert W. Moore/U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated September 7, 1973, and September 13, 1978, respectively.