Los Alamos NATIONAL LABORATORY

Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545

APT-117-1997-10 APT TN 1.17.02 - 7.97.3 18 August 1997 Rev 0

Accelerator Production of Tritium Project Technical Note

System Engineering

Cost Analysis for 1.5-kg/yr APT Plant with 3.0-kg/yr Upgrade (2007)

23 July 1997

G. Lawrence, LANL

L. Guillebaud, LANL

•• Bums&Roe lml"1' Enterprises Inc.

,,

J. Rawls, GA

D. Ferguson, BREI

Title:

Cost Analysis for 1.5-kg/yr APT Plant with 3.0-kg/yr Upgrade (2007)

Document Number:

APT TN 1.17.02. 7.97.3 I API'-117-1997-10

Category: N/A

Abstract:

N/A

Requester:

Project Leader

Organization: APT/TPO

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Approvals:

Derivative Classifier //UL)~.d Michael Cappiello

Cost Analysis for 1.5-kg/yr APT Plant with 3.0 kg/yr Upgrade (2007) Aug 18, 1997

Introduction

This note provides a cost analysis for two APT plant construction cases based on the upgrade concept now known as the "trombone" configuration. This configuration and its advantages have been described in a previous APT Technical Note [1]. The first case (2a), which is illustrated in Fig. 1, is a 1.5-kg/yr APT plant coming on line in FY07. The second case (2b), shown in Fig. 2, is a 3-kg/yr plane that would also begin production in FY07, following a decision to build the plant at the higher production level made at the beginning of FY02. The upgradeable architecture employed in the trombone configuration provides the flexibility for APT to deal with changing tritium production requirements, minimizes up-front cost impacts, and permits the decision on ultimate tritium production capacity to be deferred until the status of nuclear arms agreements is clearer.

In order to provide the maximum program flexibility at the minimum cost, as many procurements as possible have been deferred beyond FYO 1, consistent with the constraint of a fixed plant startup date. This resu lts in a compression of the fabrication/installation/commissioning timeline. Such a compression can be accommodated without additional risk if the 1.5-kg/yr option is selected, because the total quantity of hardware is reduced significant ly from the baseline 3-kg/yr case. The full 3-kg/yr plant can also meet the FY07 start date, but so many tasks must be placed on or near the critical path that the schedule risk has to be regarded as significant. Additional contingency multipliers ranging from 10% to 20% have been factored into the cost of Case 2b to reflect the risks inherent in the schedule compression forced by this option.

The funding profi le associated with this strategy has significantly reduced outlays in FY99, FYOO, and FYO I compared to those in the APT Conceptual Design Report. Depending on the international situation, the presumed decision at the beginning of FY02 could be either to complete the plant at l .5-kg/yr capabi lity (Case 2a) or at 3-kg/yr capability (Case 2b). In the former case, annual costs in FY02 and later years would increase to a maximum of about $600M/yr, while in the latter, they would I'ise to a peak of S7 50ivl/yr.

The trombone configuration makes it practical to upgrade to a higher plant capacity at any time without interrupting ongoing tritium production. Of particular importance is that this arrangement enables l.5 kg/yr of tritium to be produced beginning in FY07, while constrnction of larger plant capacity is being pursued.

The APT Plant design and supporting activities would go forward in FY98-0l, encompassing all equipment and faci lities needed to reach 3-kg/yr operation in the configuration of Fig.2. Construction and procurement contracts would then be implemented using option strategies that would provide the flexibi lity to complete the plant either to the 1.5-kg/yr level (Case 2a) or to continue to the full 3-kg/yr capacity (Case 2b), with a decision nominally on Oct 1, 2001.

217 MeV 1010 Me.v

l UU mA

TSF D ~ T/8 Bldg

"•amscopz --------//Um -----------

Fig. 1. 1.5-kg/yr APT plant constructed in upgradeable (trombone) configuration.

217MeV 1015 MeV 1700 MeV

100 mA Beamstop 1 1---.-""--------------·­

Beam transport

TSF D 3-kg T/8 Bldg

-------- 770m ----------- ------ 460m -----

Fig. 2. 3-kg/yr APT plant extended from 1.5-kg/yr system using trombone configuration.

Case 2a. 1.5-kg/yr Facility Operational in 2007

In Case 2a ( 1.5 kg/yr) the plant would be implemented with an accelerator output energy of l 015 Me V. A 180° bend is provided at the end of the linac which connects to a high-energy beam transport and Target/Blanket (T/B) assembly similar to the systems described in the CDR. A practical minimum diameter for this bend is about 55 m, which sets the spacing between the linac and HEBT.

Accelerator support facilities (tunnel, klystron gallery, utilities, etc.) are matched to the requi rements of the 10 15-McV linac, while the T/B building and shielding, cavity vesse l, and supporting utilities are sized for production at 3-kg/yr, as is the Tritium Separation Facility (TSF). Construction of the T/B building is such a long-lead item that commitment to the location and capability of this faci lity is needed long before FY02. TSF facility costs for 1.5 kg/yr and 3 kg/yr are essentially identical, so the full capacity version is baselincd. The T/B assembly, howeYer, is optimized for 1.5 kg/yr production at !0 15 MeV, and would be replaced in a 3.0-kg/yr upgrade with a new T/B assembly optimized for the appropriate beam energy.

Assuming a production start in 2007, the construction costs for the upgradeable 1.5-kg/yr plant are:

TEC (with contingency) TPC (with contingency)

$2211M $3113M

TEC (with contingency & escalation) TPC (with contingency & escalation)

$2528M $3536M

Table I summarizes the cost distribution by system and major subsystem, as derived from the LANL parametric model. The model is nom1alized to the CDR cost estimate for the APT baseline (CDR) 3.0-kg/yr plant design. Several lines have been added in Table l to account for the new items needed to complete the trombone configuration and provide hooks to the upgrade path, including:

• ISO:i bend hardware (dipole & quadrupole magnets, vacuum system, beam diagnostics, etc.) tunnel for l 80° bend and power supply huts ''

• stub extension to 1.5-kg linac tunnel+ shield wall

Table 2 summarizes the APT expenditure profiles (in operating, design, and construction categories, per DOE reporting fo1mat) for a 1.5-kg/yr plant constructed in the upgradeable trombone configuration of Fig. I. The expenditure profiles are reported for both full and incremental funding. TPC with contingency and escalation is displayed in Fig. 3, in then-year dollars. As can be seen, annual costs do not exceed S300M until FY02, and then increase to a peak of $600M in FY04.

2

700

600 ...-.. ~

500 ff')-

....... en 0 400 0 -u <D ·0 300

...... Cl.

cu 200 ....... 0 I-

100

0 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Fiscal Year

Fig. 3. TPC cost profile for 1.5-kg/yr APT plant, coming on line in 2007

Case 2b. 3.0-kg/yr Facility Operational in 2007

If the decision were taken by 101110 I to proceed to 3-kg/yr capability by 2007, then contract options would be exercised to allow continuation of the accelerator tunnel (and klystron gallery) construction, and procu rement of the additional accelerator components. If the decision were deferred beyond that point, then the accelerator tunnel would be constructed with a 30-m extension (stub) beyond the end of the linac, providing space for a low power tuning beam stop, a beam plug, and a stacked shield wall to protect workers from beam operations during construction of the second stage.

In the case of a delayed upgrade, the second-stage linac, which is made up of identical (p = 0.82) cryomodules, would be constructed in line with the I .5-kg/yr accelerator in a new tunnel, with additional RF power systems and auxiliary systems provided in a new klystron gallery. The general layout is depicted in Fig. 2. Both cryomodules and RF systems are completely modular and are essentially exact copies of those in the high-beta section of the 1015-Me V linac. Additional utilities (electric power distribution, water cooling, cryoplant, etc.) would be installed to support the new accelerator sections. The output beam from the second-stage linac is returned to the HEBT and T/B assembly through a second 180° bend and beam transport line located in a tunnel offset from the accelerator by 55 m, matching the HEBT offset of the 1.5-kg/yr plant. The transport and bend tunnels have a small cross section compared with the cross-section of the accelerator tunnel and are much less expensive per unit length. Tritium product ion continues with the 1.5-kg/yr configuration until the second linac is completed. Then the new linac is connected to the first and the system is commissioned and brought into production at the higher beam energy and power.

Again using the LAl 1L parametric model, we have estimated the incremental capital costs for upgrading the l .5-kg/yr plant to 3.0-kg/yr capability. These costs are shown in Table 3. The costs of the additional equipment and facilities needed for completing the trombone scheme are included, and are shown explicitly in the table. Lines have been added for:

3

• 2nd 180° bend (including dipole & quadrnpole magnets, vacuum system, beam diagnostics, etc.) • tunnel for second 180° bend and power-supply huts • beam transport system (including quadrupole magnets, vacuum system, beam diagnostics, etc.) • beam transport tunnel and power-supply huts • matching system between stage-1 and stage-2 linacs

An FY07 schedule for the plant to commence operations at full capacity can be met, although not without some penalty in terms of higher contingencies (than are needed for the baseline case). Compression of the bulk of the hardware fabrication, installation, and commissioning tasks into a shorter time will inevitably increase schedule risk. We have reflected this risk in the cost data presented in Table 3 by multiplying the contingencies assigned to construction phase costs for the linac, balance-of-plant, plant/site/buildings, and construction management by factors of 1.2, 1.2, 1.1, and 1.2, respectively.

Table 4 summarizes the expenditure profiles (in operating, design, and constrnction categories) for the incremental costs of extending a 3.0-kg/yr plant from the 1.5-kg/yr plant, through the trombone arrangement. Total cost profiles for the 3-kg/yr plant are shown in Table 5. TPC with contingency and escalation is displayed in Fig. 4, in then-year dollars. The TPC expenditure profile (with contingency and escalation) for a 3.0-kg/yr plant built in the trombone configuration of Fig. 2 is shown in Fig. 4, in then­year dollars. Annual costs until FY02 are identical to those of Case 2a, and then increase to a peak of S750M in FY04.

Assuming a production start in 2007, and a path decision in early FY02, the construction costs for a 3.0-kg/yr plant are:

TEC (with contingency) TPC (with contingency)

800

700

............ 600 2 f:f7

- 500 en 0 0 - 400 u Q)

·0 ...... 300 Cl..

ct! -0 200 I-

100

0 96 97

$2903M $3849M

98 99 00 01

TEC (with contingency & escalation) TPC (with contingency & escalation)

02 03 04 05 06 07

Fiscal Year

Fig. 4. TPC cost profile for 3.0-kg/yr APT plant, coming on line in 2007

4

$3350M $4413M

The incremental cost of upgrading to 3.0-kg/yr capacity with an FY07 tum-on date is S877M. This is about 12% higher than the $520M per kg/yr capacity increment that would be given by using the linear expression derived in the previous Technical Notes [ 1,2] on the trombone configuration. The reason for the deviation from that relationship is the increased contingency and increased escalation associated with delaying many of the tasks and procurements involved in the 3.0-kg/yr upgrade.

Comments

The annual funding associated with implementing the full 3 kg/yr plant on the FY07 schedule requires a high spending rate in FY03-04. This is an unavoidable consequence of delaying procurements without a corresponding slip in the end date. If this spike is incompatible with budgetary constraints, it could be reduced by stretching out the upgrade schedule.

The trombone configuration has the attractive feature that operation at 1.5-kg/yr capac ity can take place while construction of the incremental capacity is underway. Hence, a slip in the completion date for the ful l 3.0-kg/yr capacity would not lead a proportional decrease in the tritium reserve. In addition, the total project cost will not increase if the schedule is slipped (up to three years), because the increase in escalation is offset by eliminating the additional contingency required for a compressed schedule.

References

1. APT Staging Configuration Comparisons, APT TN 1. 17.02-7.97.l, July 1997.

2. Cost Ana lysis of 1.5-kg/yr Upgradeable APT System (20 10), APT TN l. 17.02-7.97.2, July 1997 .

. ,

5

Table 1.

TEC

Accelerator RF Sys1em SC linac struc:ure Malchmg insartion NC linac (0 · 100 MeV) NC linac (100·21 7 MeV) HEST

Sends·lSO' Transport Line Auxiliary syslems Cryoplant & distribution Seam diagnos1ics Tes1 labs

Tritium Separa t ion Faci lity

Ba lance ot Plant etectrica l heat removal ICS miscellaneous waler traatma nt HVAC s imu lator radwas1 a plant·w1de l&C

Targe t/B lan k et ass~.,.~:y

haat ramovul gas handling HE :.;1m sto;i LE c~Jm stops Sh ie l : r'l )

f&C remota handl1n9

Pinn t/si t e/b uil d ings si:e .f':"'.:>:ovements

T. 3 : -.:t1d1ngs Acce· ~rator Tunnel A: :-?·~ · ,. )! 7;,.cn~I E.(!i;n

Kly ; ·· :" ·gallery TSF c •. i : 1ng S·~n J 7 .,.r :iels ,. PS Huls Transoorl Turln::::I + PS H uls

other structures electr:..::al auxiliaries water tower. etc. other aux. stcuctures

Total Construction Cost

Cost Estimate for 1.5-kg/yr Plant (Trombone Configuration) Operation Start: FY 2007

( 8/15/ 97)

Cost (SM) Subtot (SM) Scaling Conting(C)

541.3 0.262 251. 7 t~ta l RF power 104.9 S(;L length

1.3 fixed 31.2 fix ad 33.7 fixed

9 . 1 fixad at 3· kg level

4.0 :asad on unit oricin~ pre meter 0 .0 basad on unil pricing pre meter

10.0 total linac length 52 .2 2 of 3 cryopfants

6.2 t:::tal l inac length 37.0 S 15M base: balance by (RF power)"0.6

97.6 97 .6 S70M base: balance by (beam power)"0.6 0 .372

260.4 0.243 75.0 So3.2M"(site power)"0.6 + S33M"(tOI. linac length) 32.0 (s1:a power)"0.6 oO.O tctal linac length 24.8 (ratio)'0.6

0.6 fixed 24.4 ;:::; ;>ower

8. ~ f 1xad

15.1 foxed al 3·kg level 19.5 tc:al linac lenglh

101 .6 0 .363 20.2 (!><am energy)"0.6

6.3 (b•am power)"0.6 2.4 f 1xad

22. 1 c:aam energy)"0.6 • .2 h:t ~ d

29.5 bilm energy '.? 2 (Mam power)'0.6 1.1 hx~d

2•8.5 0 .212

32 .0 Ima: total length 77.1 1. 3 !1xed: 2/3 by beam energy 67 . 7 t:::al I mac length

4.8 1::a1 linac length 27.0 ~:.:a' linac length

4.2 h t9d 2.4 tas~d on unit pricing per meter

0.0 basad on unit pricing per meter 13.9 l ·xad

1.6 :1xad 2.6 tixecl

15.2 fixl!d

, 249.4 0.265

Prel iminary & Final Design + Award 348.8 Tc:al P&FO lorl.Skg • incr. lor 3.0kg 0.200 Const rucl ion Mgmt + Award Fee 161. 8 ccr.str. cost 0. 150

Spares 23.0 e<;:i..::p cost 0 .132

Total Estimated Cost (TEC) 1783.0

OPC

EO&O 345.4 0 .1 00

Conceptuat Design 34.9 0 .000 ES&H. S&S 90.7 0.389 SI art -up 232.1 0 . 150

Project Mgmt. DOE Prog Mgmt, Award 88.7 0.070

Total OPC 791.8

Total Project Cost (TPC) 2574 . 8

Cost+C Escal(E) Cost+C+E

683. 1 0 . 167 797.2

133.8 0 . 167 156.2

323.7 0.167 377.7

138.5 0 . 167 16 1.6

301.2 0 .167 35 1. 5

1580.3 0.167 1844 . 2

4 18 .6' 0 .0 47 438.2 186. 1 0. 149 213.7 26.0 0 .234 32. l

22 11.0 2528.3

379.9 0.027 390.2 34.9 0 .000 34 .9

126.0 0 .112 140. l

266.9 0.269 338.6 9• .9 0 .095 103.9

902.6 1007.7

3113.6 3536.0

Table 2. Cost Profiles for 1.5-kg/yr APT Plant, Upgradeable by Trombone Configuration

Operation Start: FY 2007

Full Funding (Then Year Dollars in Millions)

DESCRIPTION APT - Operating

APT - Design

APT - Construction

TEF - Operating TEF - Capital TEF - Option Fee

TOTAL

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 TOTAL 62 123 132 103 70 29 20 20 20 29 200 200 1008

68 135 235 438

2090 2090

62 123 200 2328 305 29 20 20 20 29 200 200 3536

Incremental Funding {Then Year Dollars in Millions)

DESCRIPTION APT - Operating

APT - Design

APT - Construction

TEF - Operating TEF - Capital TE F - Option Fee

TOTAL

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 TOT AL 62 123 132 103 70 29 20 20 20 29 200 200 1008

68 132 135 93 10 438

20 95 178 470 530 580 217 2090

62 123 200 255 300 300 500 550 600 246 200 200 3536

,,

---------- --- ---

Table 3. Cost Estimate for Delta from 1.5-kg/yr to 3.0-kg/yr (Trombone Configuration) Operation Start: FY 2007

TEC (8/15/97)

Cost (SM Subtot (SM) Scalin g Conting(CJ Cost+C Escal(E)

Accel erator RF System 141.7 SC finac structure Ma;ching insertion NC linac (0 -100 MeV) NC l inac (100·2 17 MeVJ HEBT

Bands· 180• Transport Line Auxi l iary syslems Cryoplanl & distribution Bo:?-am diagnostics Test labs

Tr itium Separation Faci li ty

Balance of Plant elecirical heat removal ICS miscellaneous wate r treacmenc HVAC simulator radwaste plan1·w1de t&C

Target/Blanket ass~mbly

heat removal gas handling H: b~ar:i stop LE :;earn stops sn;ela ing l&C remote handling

Planl/site/bui l d i ngs s;! e improvements T/8 buildings Acce1e1a1or Tunnel Ac:~!erator Tunnel Extsn .~ !;- ; : ':' -gallery rs;:: building Send Tunnels + PS Huls Transoon Tunnel + PS Huts other structures e : ~ctrical auxiliaries water tower. etc. other aux. structures

Total Const1uction Cost

Preliminary & Final Design + Award Construction Mgmt + Awa rd Fee Spares

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)

OPC

ED&D Conceptual Design ES&H, S&S Start-up

90.3 2.6 0 .0 0.0 0.0

·4.0 11.5

6.2 26.1 3.7 6.8

3.7

0.0 0.0 0.0

27.2 8.9

22 .0 8.8 0.0 6.9

7.3 0.0 0.0 7.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

15.0 0.0

24.7 0.0

16.0 0.0 1.1

12.7 0.1

Project Mgmt, DOE Prog Mgmt, Award

Total OPC

Total P1oject Cost (TPC)

284.9 delta 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg delta 1. s kg 10 3.0 kg delta 1. 5 kg 10 3.0 kg fixed fixed l ixed al 3-kg level

based on U.P./meter basad on U.P./me1er delta 1.s kg 10 3.0 kg

incl+20%'C 0.314 for schedule compression

$10M base: balance by SCL energy gain delta 1.5 kg to 3.0 kg c:!ella 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg

3. 7 S70M base; balance by (beam power)•0.6 0.372

73.8 incl+20'.l. ·c 0.292 S68.2M' (sile power)"0.6 + S33M"(lot. linac length) (site power)"0.6 total linac lenglh (ratio)•0.6 fixed RF power l i xed beam power total linac length

374.5 0.190

5.1 0 .190

95.3 0 .190

18.8 0 .363 25~-~ O. t90

69.6

450.8

c:!elta 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg delta 1. 5 kg 10 3.0 kg della 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg delta 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg delta 1. 5 kg lo 3.0 kg delta 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg del:a 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg dalla 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg

linac total length

1/3 hxad: 2/3 by beam energy del:a t .5 kg 10 3.0 kg delta 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg 101a1 linac length f ixed

delta 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg della 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg f ixed f ixed

lixed fixe d

6 .1 delta 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg 75.8 dena 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg 8.0 delta 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg

540.7

o.o delta t. 5 kg 10 3.0 kg o.o delta t .5 kg to 3.0 kg 5.0 For Schedule Compres delta case supoort

28.2 del:a 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg 3.6 delta 1.5 kg 10 3.0 kg

36.8

577.5

0 .233

0.30t

0.200 0 .1 80 0.132

0.100

0 .0,00 0.389 O. t50 0.070

/

85.8

586.3

7.3 ,, 89.4

9. t

692. t

0.0 o.o 6 .9

32.4

3 .9

43.2

735.4

0 t90

0.190

0 . 100 O. t69 0 .234

0.027 0.000 0.237 0.304

0.095

Cost+C+E

445.6

6.0

113.4

30.5

102. 1

697. 7

8. 1 104.6

11.2

821 .5

0 .0 o.o 8 .6

42.3 4.2

S5.1

876.6

Table 4. Cost Profiles for Upgrade Increments from 1.5-kg/yr to 3.0-kg/yr Plant (Trombone Configuration:

Operation Start: FY 2007

Full Funding (Then Year Dollars in Millions)

DESCRIPTION FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FYOS FY06 FY07 TOTAL APT - Operating

APT - Design

APT - Construction

TEF - Operating TEF - Capital TEF - Option Fee

TOTAL 0 0 0 0

Incremental Funding (Then Year Dollars in Millions)

0

55 55

8 8

814 814

0 822 0 0 0 0 55 877

DESCRIPTION FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO F\Y01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FYOS FY06 FY07 TOTAL APT - Operating

APT - Design

APT - Construction

TEF - Operating TEF - Capital TEF - Option Fee

TOTAL 0 0 0

\ 1 3 3 1 47 55

8 8

114 147 150 303 100 814

0 0 0 123 150 153 304 100 47 877

Table 5. Cost Profiles for 3.0-kg/yr APT Plant, Upgraded by Trombone Configuration

Operation Start: FY 2007

Full Funding (Then Year Dollars in Millions)

DESCRIPTION FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FYOG FY07 TOTAL APT - Operating

APT - Design

APT - Construction

TEF - Operating TEF - Capital TEF - Option Fee

TOTAL

62 123 132 103 70 29 21 23 23 30 200 247 1063

68 135 235 8 446

2090 814 2904

I 62 123 200 2328 305 29 843 23 23 3i0 200 247 4413

Incremental Funding (Then Year Dollars in Millions)

DESCRIPTION FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FYOG FY07 TOTAL APT - Operating 62 123 132 103 70 29 21 23 23 30 200 247 1063

APT - Design 0 0 68 132 135 93 18 0 0 0 0 0 446

APT - Construction 0 0 0 20 95 178 584 677 730 520 100 0 2904

TEF - Operating TEF - Capital TEF - Option Fee

TOTAL 62 123 200 255 300 300 623 700 753 550 300 247 4413

.. ....

0 "£

0