Plant costs study definition

Collection of the final offers will serve as the basis for contractual negotiations. The preparation of the final offer may cost US 150,000- 200,000 therefore, the inquiries must be detailed and well prepared, and the amount of investment should already be decided by the investor. Otherwise, the aigineerir company may ask for reimbursement of the cost of proposal preparation if the plant is not constructed. Preparation of a full-fledged inquiry requires the preparation of a detailed locational study, definition of the standards for equipment execution, indication of local safety regulations, an estimate of labor efficiency, and definition of the climatic conditions. 

Estimating by percentage of delivered-equipment cost is commonly used for preliminary and study estimates. It yields most accurate results when applied to projects similar in configuration to recently constructed plants. For comparable plants of different capacity, this method has sometimes been reported to yield definitive estimate accuracies. 

In order to have a definite chemical system to study, we have chosen a reactor which is probably not very realistic as a power producer, but one which has the advantage that we know both the design details of the fuel element and the cost and design data for the chemical processing plant in which this fuel element is presently handled. We have adopted an MTR type fuel element which is composed of enriched uranium aluminium alloy, but we have assumed that the is replaced by Since any thermal reactor power economy... 

We shall define a process plant project as the execution of a plan to build or modify a process plant, within stated parameters of workscope, plant performance, cost, and time. This is not a universally accepted definition, but it does focus on the work with which the project engineer is principally engaged. Pre-project work will be described as a study or proposal. 

Pre-project work starts with an idea or concept which the client has decided to develop. The concept and design of the final process plant progresses in cycles of increasing definition. Initially a study is made, in which the concept is technically developed, optimized, and analysed as a business proposition the analysis includes considerations of technical and commercial risk, capital and operational cost, product value, and return on investment. A report is prepared if the conclusions are acceptable to the client, he may authorize the implementation of the project. Alternatively, he may authorize more funds for further conceptual development, or, of course, abandon the concept. Authorization of the implementation of the project invariably implies the expectation of a plant which will perform within specified limits, and be built in accordance with certain standards, within a promised budget and schedule. 

There is clearly an amount of pre-project engineering work necessary to achieve the required degree of technical definition, costing, and schedule analysis required for authorization. Prior to the decision to implement the project, there is a natural reluctance to spend any more funds than are absolutely necessary to complete the feasibility study, as there may be no project. This reluctance is tempered by the need for accuracy — evidently, the further the engineering of the plant is developed, the greater the confidence in the accuracy of the study report. In addition, if the client is confident that the study will lead to a project without much further conceptual design development, he may be willing to commit more funds prior to final authorization, in order to expedite the project. 

A scope or budget authorization, the next level of economic evaluation, requires a more defined process definition, detailed process flow sheets, and prefinal equipment design (discussed in a later section). The information required is usually obtained fiom pilot plant, marketing, and other studies. The scope authorization estimate could cost upwards of 80,000 for a 5 million facility with a probable error exceeding 20%. 

It is to be noted that decisions on whether or not to implement the missing or incomplete provisions need to be made after full consideration of the safety implications and priorities. It is definitely the responsibility of the plant staff to set up a programme for implementation of corrective measures or of the nuclear regulator to require corrective measures. Introduction of new equipment and programmes to implement an additional provision for defence in depth can also introduce (apart from additional costs) additional complexity to the operation of a plant and additional potential failure modes. There is no consideration in this approach of the side effects of increased complexity and operational difficulties caused by the implementation of additional defence in depth measures. The approach is not developed to identify new weaknesses in defence in depth introduced by implementing new modifications or provisions. A PSA study is an appropriate tool for such an evaluation. 

---