In the performance of NEPA obligations to evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, the staff must reach a conclusion as to the comparative costs of generating power among the feasible alternatives. While alternatives other than coal are treated in the staff's analysis, coal represents by far the most feasible alternative and requires detailed cost comparisons equivalent to those performed for nuclear. For several years, the staff has used a computer code known as CONCEPT to obtain forecasts of plant capital costs. This code was developed by ORNL based upon design specifications and cost estimates done by United Engineers and Constructors. This
NUREG-0471[1] task involves maintaining and developing improvements to the CONCEPT code so that it remains up to date for use in projections of power plant capital cost, front-end cost, and generating cost forecasts.
Work completed on this Environmental issue was published in ORNL-5470,[2] ORNL/ TM-6467,[3] and NUREG/ CR-2844.[4] Two computer programs have been developed: (1) CONCEPT, for capital costs, and (2) OMCST, for operation and maintenance costs.[5] Thus, this item has been resolved.
[1] NUREG-0471, "Generic Task Problem Descriptions (Categories B, C, and D)," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1978.
[2] ORNL-5470, "topic-5 User"s Manual," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December 1978.
[3] ORNL/TM-6467, "A Procedure for Estimating Nonfuel Operation and Maintenance Costs for Large Steam-Electric Power Plants," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, January 1979.
[4] NUREG/CR-2844, "Nonfuel Operation and Maintenance Costs for Large Steam-Electric Power Plants1982," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 1982.
[5] Memorandum for T. Speis from J. Funches, "Prioritization of Generic IssuesEnvironmental and Licensing Improvements," February 24, 1983. [8303090540]
Page Last Reviewed/Updated 06/24/2025