ML19289F660

Forwards Info Re Costs Associated W/Selection of Alternate Sites,As Requested in NRC 790521 Ltr.Tabulation & Summary Explanation Sheets Encl

ML19289F660
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	06/12/1979
From:	Mecca J PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
PLN-221, NUDOCS 7906150261
Download: ML19289F660 (4)

Text

V- ,

.a 505? June 12, 1979 pgg;[g PLN-221 5

Mr. W. H. Regan Jr., Chief Environmental Projects Branch 2 Division of Site Safety & Environmental Analysis U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555

Subject:

Puget Sound Power & Light Company Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-522 and 50-523 Costs Associated with Alternative Sites

Dear Mr. Regan:

The enclosed information is being supplied to you in response to the questions contained in your letter dated May 21, 1979 regarding the costs associated with a relocation of the Skagit plants to the Hanford Reservation.

The enclosure is a complete response to your request and in-cludes a tabulation as well as a summary explanation sheet. If there are any questions regarding this transmission, please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours, 8

. E. Mecca, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Safety cc: Correspondence List 2229 156 7

@s\

790c j 50 c?f / .

>.se w c % su m : _ sse % s m m e.sc. ms ,; . m, me

~

June 1, 1979 C_ORRESPONDENCE LIST Valentine B. Deale, Chairman Robert C. Schofield, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Skagit County Planning Department 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 218 County Administration Building Washington, D. C. 20036 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General School of Natural Resources 500 Pacific Building University of Michigan 520 S.W. Yamhill Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Portland, OR 97204 Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Roger M. Leed, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Room 610 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1411 Fourth Avenue Building Washing ton, D. C. 20555 Seattle, WA 98101 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman CFSP and FOB Atomic Safety and Licensing E. Stachon & L. Marbet Appeal Board 19142 So. Bakers Ferry Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boring, OR 97009 Washington, D. C. 20555 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

Dr. John H. Buck, Member Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Atomic Safety and Licensing & Toll Appeal Board 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555 Warren Hastings, Esq.

Michael C. Farrar, Member Associate Corporate Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Portland General Electric Company Appeal Board 121 S. W. Salmon Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland, OR 97204 Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard D. Bach, Esq.

Richard L. Black, Esq. Rives, Bonyhadi, Drummond & Smith Counsel for NRC Staff 1400 Public Service Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 920 S. W. 6th Avenue ,

Office of the Executive Legal Portland, OR 97204 Director Washington, D. C. 20555 Canadian Consulate General Donald Martens, Consul Thomas F. Carr, Esq. 412 Plaza 600 Assistant Attorney General 6th and Stewart Street Temple of Justice Seattle, WA 98101 Olymia, WA 98504 Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, WA 98504 2229 357

SKAGIT PROJECT RELOCATION TO HANFORD S Millions Design Changes 20 Productivity Adjustment 45 Contract /P.O. Cancellation and/or Renegotiation 10 Storage / Warranty Extension 15 Owners Costs 20 Connunity Facilities /

Social Impact Alleviation 20 Bechtel Engineering & H.C. 15 Subtotal 145M Contingency 29M Total 1979 S 174M dscalation on Above 87M Escalation on Base Estinate 675M TOTAL INCREASE TO PROJECT COST S 936M Replacement Power Cost (3 years) 1,100M

• TOTAL ADDITIONAL COST S2,036M

• Excludes impact of project relocation on transmission. It is expected that the conbination of costs associated with additional transmission facilities and the potential increase in line losses will be significant and should not be overlooked.

2229 358

RELOCATION TO HANFORD

SUMMARY

RECONCILIATION

1. Design Changes (20M) - Major components are increases in costs of cooling towers, HVAC and powerblock foundations. Savings anticipated in makeup water system.

2. Productivity (45M) - Historic and current experience indicates that manual labor productivity can be expected to be approximately 8% worse .

than that anticipated at the Skagit Site. -

3. Contract / Purchase Order Cancellation and/or Renegotiation (10M) -

Existing awarded contracts (10) and purchase orders (80) must either be renegotiated to provide for an additional major suspension (3 years) or cancelled and rebid. Cost exposure is predictable in either case.

4. Storage / Warranties (15M) - Equipment already fabricated (primarily NSSS

& T-G) must be stored for the period of delay and warranties must be extended to enconpass later commercial operation dates.

5. Owners Costs (15M) - Significant portions of owners activity must be expanded and/or repeated with relocation. These include, but are not limited to, licensing and legal support, environmental programs, siting studies, land acquisition and project administration.

6. Conmunity Facilities / Social Impact Alleviation (20M) - It has become evident that further expansion and development of energy related industry in the Tri-Cities area will require funding of community and social enhancenents to alleviate the impact of such projects.

7. Eechtel Engineering & H.O. (15M) - Manhour expenditures will be necessary to complete design modifications and provide additional project management services during delay.

8. Contingency (29M) - Due to the uncertainty associated with 1-7 above, a conservative allowance of 20% is included.

9.

Escalation - The additional costs identified in 1-8 above must be escalated to the centroid of expenditure (87M), while the previous base estimate (approx. S3 Billion) must be escalated (moved to the right) 3 years (S675M). A future escalation rate of 7% is assumed.

Note: If a similar move is proposed to Pebble Springs rather than Hanford, cost exposure would essentially be as described above. The only significant dif ference would be due to Oregon not levying a sales tax. Assuming this is not offset in another way, the total cost impact may be reduced by approximately S100M.

2229 359